How happy are we? There are lots of ways to measure that, although it’s not always a simple question to answer. The idea of happiness and what makes us happy can also vary a lot from person to person.
The World Happiness Index aims to get a sense of it, using metrics including healthy life expectancy, generosity and positive and negative emotions. The most recent report, which takes in data averaged between 2022 and 2024, finds Finland as the happiest country on Earth, followed by Denmark, Iceland and Sweden. The U.S. is ranked 24th, just behind the UK and just ahead of Belize; that’s the lowest we’ve ever ranked in the report’s more than decade-long history.
We started this series by talking about a first-of-its kind legislative committee to study happiness as a public policy issue. It identified some conditions policymakers could try to create that would lead to their constituents’ happiness.
While Sarah J. Tracy, director and professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at ASU, says our own happiness is largely in our own hands, she also believes government can play a role.
Tracy joined The Show to discuss how she defines happiness or well-being.
Full conversation
SARAH J. TRACY: Yeah, so happiness, we typically think of it in a scientific way as three different levels, and one of them is what lay people think of as happiness, you know, the ebullience, the big smile, whipped cream, a massage, all those things that feel good. So that's one aspect.
But there's also this aspect of flow activity where we are in a space where we forget about time and if we look at the research of [Mihaly] Csikszentmihalyi, he studied people who are really expert at things, whether it was chess or soccer or cooking, and when they were doing this highly expert activity. And they would lose themselves.
MARK BRODIE: Sort of in the zone kind of thing.
TRACY: Exactly, yes, and you forget about eating lunch, you forget about taking a nap, and that is a space of bliss even if your face doesn't look like you have a big smile on your face, such as like if you're in the middle of a chess game, you might look like you're really in consternation.
BRODIE: Yeah.
TRACY: So those are two of them. And then a third part of it is a sense of meaningfulness or a sense of purpose. Feeling like when you get home at night, you have done something meaningful at work or you know, and this meaningfulness could come through community activities, through child rearing, through, you know, taking care of community members that need it.
BRODIE: It seems like some of those might be more outwardly obvious than others. I mean, you mentioned, you know, you might not have a smile on your face if you're really concentrating on something that you're doing, even though it might make you happy to do it. And some of them might be like, you feel happy but it's not like a happy happy joy joy kind of thing. You're like not jumping around, you know, for joy, but like you feel a sense, you know, as you reference that sort of sense of a job well done or a meaningful job well done, where it's not like I'm ecstatic right now, but you just, you just sort of feel good about it.
TRACY: Yeah, and the way that we actually speak about happiness in social science is subjective well-being, and that I think encompasses the idea that it's, you know, not what we think of it's just a happy look on your face all of the time.
BRODIE: So what in your mind is the role of government in producing or increasing happiness.
TRACY: Well, first of all, if we think about like Maslow's hierarchy, we're not even going to be thinking about our citizens are not going to be thinking about subjective well-being unless they are physically taken care of and that they are safe, you know, these are things that, you know, can't even be a concern until those are accomplished.
But connection with other people, the people who are happiest in the world have strong social networks and thinking about ways that government could create strong social networks are public spaces, the creation of third spaces outside of home and work where people can connect in meaningful ways, you know, that we might think about green spaces, parks, etc.
And a big happiness detractor is the small but persistent bothers in life. So if you think about the left turn light that never is long enough, that is something it builds up over time. And if you can think about ways that the government might be able to help get rid of some of those really bothersome, they seem small, but they add up.
BRODIE: So on that first point, it seems like maybe a government setting aside money to build a park or a library or something like that might increase residents' happiness, even though they're not going to be like, woohoo, like this is great. It will sort of make them happier and then perhaps if they set aside money to widen a road or maybe build a sidewalk or widen a sidewalk, things like that to sort of deal with the sort of persistent sort of annoyances.
TRACY: Correct. Yeah, exactly.
BRODIE: How does it work though, because like, let's say you're somebody who doesn't like to go to parks or go to libraries or you don't drive or you don't care if it takes you a little bit longer to turn left, you know, when you're trying to trying to get somewhere. It seems like, well that would make some people happy, it might not have any kind of impact for others.
TRACY: Exactly, you know, the kind of things that create happiness and upset in people can be very particular and so thinking about different audiences and what is going to provide them that is important. I think also I would say, you know, one of the big things that people think about when they think government and happiness or well-being is money and taxes and support.
And most of the research suggests that after, as you know, someone is making in America, you know, $80,000 to $90,000 a year, their happiness actually goes, you know, it stays constant or actually can go down because of the stress. But the big wide gaps in wealth that causes problems, and we know that one of the biggest happiness killers is social comparison.
And so anything that can create space where people are less likely to be comparing themselves to 11 another or really have reason to negatively compare themselves with other people in terms of wealth disparity may make a difference.
BRODIE: I want to ask you about the concept of policies that make some people extremely happy, but at the same time make other people extremely unhappy and you can pick any number from the federal government, from the state government, probably from city or county governments as well.
I'm wondering where you see those falling as well, where, you know, somebody, if they run on a platform or even if they don't, they say, OK, we're going to do this, and some people just love it and other people really hate it.
TRACY: I think you're pointing to a difference between subjective well-being and what creates happiness in the world, and something that creates almost a sense of tribalism and identity politics, where it's like, it's, I am right, I am the good, I am the moral.
And although we could talk for ages on that, I think there is a bit of a difference between really thinking about how we can legislate happiness versus examining how certain politicians' actions or laws create division in the world.
BRODIE: Was there a difference, I wonder, between policies that maybe make you happy because you just think it's a good idea and it doesn't have any appreciable impact on your life versus policies like the kind we were talking about earlier where, you know, they're going to build a park. Great, I love going to parks. That's going to make me happy to be able to sit outside and meet with friends and, you know, and play ball, you know, with friends or something like that.
TRACY: Well, the science would suggest that a burst of self-righteousness gives us a little spark of power, but it doesn't last all that long. So let's say I get on social media and I see something that makes me feel like I'm on the right team, or that, of course, yeah, I'm smarter than everyone else. That might help me feel good for a moment, but it does not last.
And so that is different than legislating for real things like creating togetherness, discouraging so much disparity in income, and so on that are going to create well-being on a larger scale.
BRODIE: So that sounds like it's kind of the difference between maybe like fleeting happiness and actual like well-being that leads to happiness.
TRACY: Yeah, yeah, self-righteousness is not happiness.
