Happiness at two degrees146; remove

8220;There8217;s kind of an emotional quiet riot that occurs and takes on a life of its own, that people themselves may be unaware of. Emotions have a collective existence 8212; they are not just an individual phenomenon.8221;

In fact, said his co-author, James H Fowler, associate professor of political science at University of California, their research found that 8220;if your friend8217;s friend8217;s friend becomes happy, it has a bigger impact on you being happy than putting money in your pocket.8221;

The team previously published studies concluding that obesity and quitting smoking are socially contagious. But the happiness study, financed by the National Institute on Aging, is unusual in several ways.

Happiness would seem to be 8220;the epitome of an individualistic state,8221; said John T Cacioppo, director of the University of Chicago8217;s Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience, who was not involved in the study. And what about schadenfreude 8212; pleasure in someone8217;s misery 8212; or good old-fashioned envy when a friend lands a promotion or wins the marathon? 8220;There may be some who become unhappy when their friends are happy, but we found that more people become happy over all,8221; Christakis said.

This, Cacioppo said, suggested that unconscious signals of well-being packed more zing than conscious feelings of resentment. 8220;I might be jealous of the fact that they won the lottery, but they8217;re in such a good mood that I walk away feeling happier,8221; he said.

The effect on happiness was much greater from friends, siblings or neighbors who lived nearby. A next-door neighbour8217;s joy increased one8217;s chance of being happy by 34 per cent, but a neighbour down the block had no effect.

8220;You have to see them and be in physical and temporal proximity,8221; Christakis said. Body language and emotional signals matters, said Fowler. 8220;Everybody thought that with videoconferencing, people would stop flying across the country to have meetings, but that didn8217;t happen. Part of developing trust with another person is being able to take his hand in yours.8221;

Still, they said, it is not clear if increased communication online may eventually lessen the distance effect. In a separate study of 1,700 Facebook profiles, they found that people smiling in photographs had more Facebook friends and they were smiling too. When people changed from unhappy to happy in self-reported responses, others in their social network are happy too.

Sadness was transmitted the same way, but not as reliably as happiness. Cacioppo believes that reflects an evolutionary tendency to 8220;select into circumstances that allow us to stay in a good mood.8221;

Still, happiness has a shelf life, the researchers found. 8220;Your happiness affects my happiness only if you8217;ve become happy in the last year 8212; it8217;s almost like what have you done for me lately,8221; Christakis said. Another surprise was that a joyful coworker did not lift the spirits of colleagues, unless they were friends. Professor Fowler believes inherent competition at work might cancel out a happy colleague8217;s positive vibes.

And people in the center of social networks were happier than those on the fringes. Being popular was good, especially if friends were popular too. So should you dump melancholy friends? The authors say no. Better to spread happiness by improving life for people you know.

The method

The researchers analysed information on the happiness of 4,739 people and their connections with several thousand other 8212; spouses, relatives, close friends, neighbors and co-workers 8212; from 1983 to 2003. The study used data from the federal Framingham Heart Study, which began following people in Framingham, Massachussets, after World War II and ultimately followed their children and grandchildren.

Beginning in 1983, participants periodically completed questionnaires on their emotional well-being.

They also listed family members, close friends and workplaces. Many of those associates were Framingham participants who also completed questionnaires, giving Christakis and Fowler about 50,000 social ties to analyse.

The criticism

An accompanying BMJ editorial about the two studies called the Christakis-Fowler study 8220;groundbreaking,8221; but said 8220;future work is needed to verify the presence and strength of these associations.8221;

8220;It8217;s extremely important and interesting work,8221; said Daniel Kahneman, emeritus psychologist and Nobel laureate at Princeton, who was not involved in the study.

Several social scientists and economists praised the data and analysis, but raised possible limitations.

Steven Durlauf, economist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, questioned whether the study proved that people became happy because of their social contacts or some unrelated reason.

Kahneman said unless the findings were replicated, he could not accept that a spouse8217;s happiness had less impact than a next-door neighbour.