A systematic review published in Nature Human Behaviour shows that there is a lack of solid scientific research supporting strategies commonly recommended by the media to increase happiness. The research identifies the five strategies most commonly cited by the press: expressing gratitude, improving sociability, exercising, practising meditation or mindfulness and increasing exposure to nature. According to the study, which analysed the published scientific literature on these practices, their effectiveness in increasing happiness is uncertain, because most of the research lacked sufficient statistical power to detect noticeable benefits or had not been previously recorded - a common practice in psychology today.
Peter Malinowski - felicidad EN
Peter Malinowski
Reader in Health Psychology at Liverpool John Moores University
This paper is not so much about the “strategies for happiness” but more a reflection of how research practices have changed. It has become more and more common to pre-register empirical studies, while there is a growing focus on power analyses.
The conclusion the authors reach that – when assessed against the current standard for empirical rigour – only few studies are up to scratch. On this basis, not a lot can be said about the question, whether the different “happiness strategies” are effective.
We cannot conclude that all the other empirical work, often published before these new standards were established, are useless. Indeed, for many research questions meta-analyses exist that suggest effectiveness of such approaches and that – to some extent at least – can mitigate for the lack of pre-registration or for low power.
It makes sense for the authors to flag up that there may be the misconception (by journal editors or funders) that these research questions have been settled. If we take the current standard, they haven’t. But, if the scientific endeavour continues, this will always be the case: the standards will continue shifting.
It is useful to keep this in mind and avoid becoming extremist by “binning” everything that has been done before. That’s not what the authors are doing, but what could be read into their results.
Peter Malinowski received funding for his meditation research from the BIAL Foundation, the Econt Foundation and the Pain Relief Foundation. He is a trustee and director of a UK-based Buddhist charity, is a lay Buddhist teacher, and co-directs a company that supports the integration of meditation in various secular contexts.
Bruce Hood - felicidad EN
Bruce Hood
Professor of Developmental Psychology in Society at the University of Bristol
This is a much-needed review of the evidence supporting five commonly recommended positive psychology interventions reported in the media. [The analysis] uses rigorous statistical techniques and criteria to evaluate studies that claim to show positive benefits for happiness.
Unfortunately, despite the large number of studies reviewed, almost all were poorly conducted, making them susceptible to publication bias. This is not to say that there is no evidence to support these interventions, but until we have a substantial body of well-designed research, we should treat these recommendations as tentative rather than firmly established.
Prof Hood is the author of a forthcoming book The Science of Happiness to be published by Simon & Schuster in March 2024.
Geoffrey Bird - felicidad EN
Geoffrey Bird
Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Oxford
I’m not really concerned by this paper. Pre-registration doesn’t magically make a bad study good, or its absence make a good study bad. Small samples sizes can be problematic of course, but we have procedures to combine small studies to estimate how effective an intervention is. I think these results are not cause for concern.
- Research article
- Peer reviewed
- Systematic review
Dunigan Folk et al.
- Research article
- Peer reviewed
- Systematic review
