Ruut Veenhoven
Social Indicators Research, 1998, vol 43, pp 211-225
ABSTRACT
Rejoinder to reaction by Stones et.al. (SIR 36) on Veenhoven's "Is happiness a
trait?" (SIR 32). It is argued that the criticism pertains to another issue, another
concept of happiness and another notion of trait.
The initial question was whether a better society breeds happier
people, and concerned fixedness of the 'absolute' happiness-level. The criticism is about
permanence in 'relative' happiness-rank. These are different things: constancy in
happiness-ranks in a population does not imply that average happiness-level remains the
same.
The question concerned happiness in the sense of life-satisfaction. The
critics conceive happiness as a broader 'personality' syndrome. Personality may be fairly
invariant, but the question was whether life-satisfaction is.
The initial notion of happiness 'trait' was quite specific, and
concerned a disposition to judge life positively or negatively. The critics refer to
'trait' as continuity in all personal characteristics, including health. Again that is an
other matter, with different implications for the question at stake.
The criticism is framed in notions of psychological personality
research. That approach may bear relevance for the question whether differences in
happiness can be reduced. Yet it is not appropriate for answering the question at stake:
that is, whether it is possible to raise the average level of happiness.