Page 310 - Cultures and Organizations

Light or Dark? 279

Disbelief is not an uncommon reaction to such findings. Not only some
laypersons but also a few scholars consider the practice of measuring hap-
piness dubious. It seems to them that this is simply something too elusive,
vague, and changeable to be measured. Such views, however, are a minor-
ity in mainstream social science. Leading experts on the matter, including
U.S. psychologist Ed Diener and Dutch sociologist Ruut Veenhoven, have
demonstrated beyond any doubt that measuring happiness is meaningful. 4
Also, Misho has pointed out that nations with higher percentages of people
who state that they are very happy have a lower incidence of deaths from
5
cardiovascular diseases. A strong correlation between the two remains
even after taking into account a major factor: national differences in wealth
(and hence in the quality of health care that people receive). People’s reports
of their personal happiness are not empty words removed from reality.
There is no shortage of theories that explain the observed national dif-
6
ferences in happiness. Many of them are based on relatively small country
samples and are consequently unreliable as a general explanation. No one
denies the evident fact that the determinants of happiness are numerous
and that some of them may be more prominent in one society than in
another. Nevertheless, that does not mean that universal trends are impos-
sible to fi nd.

Subjective Well-Being and the World Values Survey

In Chapters 4 and 5 we cited the dimension well-being versus survival in
Inglehart’s overall analysis of the WVS. It was associated with the combi-
nation of high individualism (IDV) and low masculinity (MAS). Although
a search of the cultural determinants of happiness was not in the focus of
Inglehart’s interests, his dimension includes at the survival side a measure

of unhappiness. Other items that defi ned this dimension had to do with
7
giving priority to economic and physical security over quality of life, being
politically passive, rejecting homosexuality, and being very careful about
trusting people. Further, the dimension was strongly correlated with a
belief that men make better political leaders and that women need children
to be fulfi lled, an emphasis on technology, a rejection of out-group mem-
bers (such as foreigners), a perception of low life control, and many more
characteristics.
Inglehart’s well-being versus survival dimension is statistically cor-

rect. Also, despite the mind-boggling diversity of items that define it, it is