S7E8 Happiness Part 2 Dr. Lara Aknin: How did COVID affected our happiness and mental health? (It's not what you think...)

Do you want to know how COVID affected the happiness and mental health of the world?

It may not be what you think...

Dr. Lara Aknin a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Simon Fraser University,  co-editor of the World Happiness Report and Chair of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Task Force of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission.

In this episode, we discuss how COVID affected the happiness and mental health of countries around the world, and the link between generosity and its affect on our happiness.

 Her work has been published in various academic journals, including Science, Nature, Human Behaviour, the Lancet Public Health, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and has been covered in international media outlets such as CBC, CNN, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

This is the second in our 3 Part series on happiness featuring the co-editors of the World Happiness Report.

Episode Transcript

Lara Aknin (00:00):
We often go through the world in this little bubble

(00:02):
with these blinders on where wego from one task to another and
assuming that just getting ourto-do list done is really where
the main purpose of our days andour lives are.
other people are one of ourbiggest sources of joy in this
world.
I think success is meaningful.
Helpful relationships with otherpeople.

Michael Bauman (00:23):
How do we truly feel like a success in every
area of our lives?
How do we feel enough and knowthat we are not alone?
Join me as I interview some ofthe top leaders and experts in
the world, from Broadwaydirectors to multimillionaire,
CEOs, neuroscientists, and moreto look behind the curtain of
success and examine not only theachievements, but also the

(00:46):
fears.
The.
doubts The loneliness and how wecan navigate through that to
create the incredible life weactually want to live.
Welcome to Success Engineering.
So welcome back to SuccessEngineering.
I'm your host, Michael Bauman Ihave the privilege of having Dr.
Lara Aknin on.

(01:06):
She's a distinguished professorof psychology at Simon Fraser
University, former fellow withthe Canadian Institute for her
Advanced Research.
Go on and on.
The co-editor of the WorldHappiness.
She has a PhD in socialpsychology from the University
of British Columbia, and thenshe chaired the Mental Health
and Wellbeing Task Force of theLancet Covid 19 Commission,
which we'll get into as well.

(01:28):
So tons of research around humanhappiness, generosity.
It's been featured in a bunch ofacademic journals of science,
nature, human behavior, Lancet,public health lot of
international media outlets aswell.
New York Times Wall.
You know, C B C C N N, thingslike that.
So, tremendous amount ofresearch.
It's a pleasure to have you onthe show here, Lara.

(01:49):
Thank

Lara Aknin (01:49):
you for having me.

Michael Bauman (01:50):
Absolutely.
So I wanna start talking aboutyou want to go into psychology
and, and coming in and going, ohman, I am, I'm unique and
authentic.
And then once you start divinginto it, you're like, oh, maybe
I'm just like everybody else.

Lara Aknin (02:05):
I originally thought I wanted to be an international
lawyer.
And, and so I.
I took a Latin class, I tookPolySci, I took econ.
I think sociology andpsychology, and psychology was
my favorite class in first year.
I had a very entertaining firstyear professor.
And he, he had a lot ofattitude, a lot of persona, a
lot of charisma, and he kept mecoming.

(02:25):
Tuesday, Thursday mornings at8:00 AM like the crack of dawn
when it's still pitch.
In Vancouver driving out tocampus.
And I remember really enjoyingmy first year and thinking,
well, you know, may, maybe Ican't zero in exactly, but I can
weed out a couple classes Idon't like and, and figure out
what I wanna do.
So in second year I took socialpsych and I remember I had this
tension at first in my first fewclasses thinking like, all of

(02:47):
this is interesting, but I don'tthink I do that.
I mean, this might be what, youknow, a lot of people do, but
maybe.
Special maybe I have this uniqueperspective on things.
And there was kind of, it feltlike it rubbed me the wrong way.
It was, it was hard for me toimagine that I would, might
respond characteristically inthese textbook predictable ways
across a lot of different socialsituations.

(03:08):
But week by week I started tokind of pay attention to my own
behavior and pay attention towhat was happening in class.
And lo and behold, I think bythe midterm I was starting to
realize that maybe.
Maybe this textbook could havebeen just watching over my
shoulder the whole time.
I've responded in verypredictable ways.
And so, you know, in some ways Istarted to realize that maybe my
behavior was in many ways nicelycaptured by a lot of theories

(03:31):
of, of social science, inparticular social psychology.
It seemed very personallyrelevant for me at the time
because it kind of helped.
Explain what seemed like veryidiosyncratic and unique
behavior.
But at the same time I was alsoreally captivated and excited by
this opportunity or this, thisreally unique perspective that
science could be used to testvery personal relevant

(03:51):
questions.
And so for me, I was kind ofhooked by my second year I
started taking a whole bunch ofpsych classes and applied to get
into the honors class and kindof the rest is history and
everybody who was around.
Listen to me talk aboutpsychology a lot of the time.
I still, you still

Michael Bauman (04:06):
are to this day.

Lara Aknin (04:08):
To this day.
Yeah.
That's awesome.
That's awesome.

Michael Bauman (04:12):
So, fast forwarding a little bit in your
educational process.
Talk to me about giving outpeople envelopes with$5 and$20
in

Lara Aknin (04:19):
a.
Yeah.
So from one happy accident toanother, I I stuck around in
psychology.
I was trying to figure out whatI wanted to do for grad school
and kind of right at the time Iwas making this decision, I
realized I was very interestedin emotions and in particularly
positive emotions, which led meto work with the wonderful Dr.
Elizabeth Dunn who happened to,had just come to ubc.

(04:41):
So I, I was her lab manager andapplied to stay on with her in
grad school, and she and I.
Not only really personallyjived, but really had some un,
some, some nicely meshedresearch interests.
So Liz was a new faculty memberwho was you know, coming out of,
you know, living, just gettingby, just scraping by as a
graduate student.
And was now had thispredictable, sustainable income

(05:01):
and was curious about what youcould do with it to make
yourself happy, give it away.
And I was and I had always beenreally interested in
Prosociality.
It had been something that kindof always intrigued me and
always seemed related towellbeing.
But, you know, there, therewasn't that much work on the
topic yet.
And so, I remember early on in.
School, Liz said, well, youknow, I'm really interested in
what, you know, how people canspend their money in ways that

(05:22):
make them happy.
And I was really interested inProsociality and we did this
large lit review just trying tounderstand, you know, what the
field kind of knew at the timeand one of the most predictable
and reliable sources ofhappiness were other people.
And so we started to thinkabout, well, maybe.
Spending money on other peoplemight be this reliable and
meaningful way to, to increaseone's happiness.

(05:45):
And so for my master's thesis,we started to explore this
question and kind of developedor tagged this thing, this idea
called pro-social spending,which is just a fancy name given
to the idea that you can spendmoney on others as opposed to
yourself.
So you, it's a, it's a roughcategory of things, but
generally speaking, you caneasily imagine times in which
you spend money on other peopleor you could turn around and

(06:07):
spend the equivalent to mount onyourself.
And we thought that maybespending money on others in some
circumstances, in somesituations might lead people to
be happier than spending on the.
And the central cornerstonestudy of my master's thesis,
which I conducted with Liz andour collaborator and my
secondary supervisor, MikeNorton at Harvard Business
School, involved me going aroundand giving people envelopes with

(06:30):
money.
So I had the.
Fun fortune of walking aroundthe university campus in the
morning, recruiting people thatparticipate in this short study
that took, well, I guess it tookpart over the day on everyday
spending choices.
And if people were said they'dparticipate, they were randomly
assigned to receive an envelopethat had either five or$20 on,
on inside.

(06:50):
And on the outside we pastedthese kind of broad spending
directions that said, you know,please spend this money by 5:00
PM today.
And they got one of two generaldirections in what we called the
personal spending condition.
We asked them to spend it onthemselves.
So that was a bill expense orgift for themselves.
And in the pro-social spendingcondition, we told them to spend
the money also by 5:00 PM.

(07:11):
And we told them to spend themoney on someone else, so that
could be a gift for someone elseor a charitable donation.
And people said, yep.
And they took the envelope andwent on their merry way.
And then as promised, we calledthem in the evening and asked
them a series of questions.
And these phone calls werealways made by a research
assistant who didn't know howmuch money they got or what they
were told to do with it, broadlyspeaking.

(07:33):
And the key questions ofinterest were, were their daily
happiness.
And so what we found wasconsistent with other research
we had seen in kind of our maincentral hypothesis was that
people who spent money onothers, regardless of whether it
was five or$20, were happier atthe end of the day than people
who got money to spend onthemselves.

Michael Bauman (07:52):
Yeah, I mean that kind of spurred off a lot
of, a lot of what you've donesince that point.
Mm-hmm.
and I'm actually really curiousto get into specifics.
You know, cuz it's in, it's inmy, in my neck of the world.
So the listeners know that Igrew up in, in Papua New Guinea.
And you actually did, you know,cuz you're looking at this study
and you're doing it in.
You know, western countries andyou go, does this actually apply

(08:14):
in other places and in otherdemographics, in other
populations?
So can you talk about going toVanuatu?
So for people that don't know,it's a tiny little island right
off of Papua New Guinea,actually.
And I'd love to hear about that.
I'm really, really curious tohear about this.
You know, the experiments thatyou did or the studies and stuff
that you did there, how thatwent.
And we'll just dive into it fromthat point

Lara Aknin (08:35):
Sure.
Well, yeah, so that, that isanother really happy accident
because I had the pleasure ofbeing hired at Simon Fraser
University where I am now withone of my good friends and
collaborators, Dr.
Tanya Brush, who isCross-cultural developmental
psychologist and she studies howchildren develop in similar and
different ways around the world.
Like what are consistentpatterns and what are different

(08:57):
patterns you can observe aroundthe world and parenting and
child development and so on.
And her lab, she has one inVancouver, Canada where we're
based, but also another one in asmall village.
In, in Vanuatu called Lukk.
And she and I had gotten intomany conversations about the
consistency and difference in,in human prosociality and the

(09:17):
emotional benefits that might,might emerge from it.
And so, as you point out, ouroriginal work was conducted in
North America and.
You know that, I think that wasa very reasonable place to
begin.
We were based in North America,But my collaborators and I kept
seeing some evidence emerge thatpeople time and time again were
happy when they did things forothers, specifically when they
used their money to help otherpeople.

(09:39):
But we know as we werepublishing these findings, as we
were presenting them atconferences, as we were writing
about them for public press andtalking about them on the radio,
you know, one of the most commonquestions we got, and I think is
a very valid and important oneis, you're raising these
questions in a relatively richcountry, but also with
relatively wealthy participants.
You know, your averageundergraduate student might have

(10:01):
more disposable income than manypeople around the world.
And so maybe people areexperiencing these benefits, but
from a place of luxury and maybeit's not a human universal, and
maybe it's, you know, maybe it'sthis valid finding, but in a
very small niche of the world.
And so how far reaching is thiseffect?
And so, through my dissertationand and beyond, I became very
interested in this question andwe tried to triangulate it.

(10:23):
On it in many ways.
One of, I think the mostexciting ways was to partner
with John Halliwell and hisstudent at the time, Chris
Barrington Lee, who had accessto the Gallop Poll and allowed
us to look at responses fromover 230,000 people across the
world.
And we found some consistentevidence that people who had
donated money and.
To charity in the past monthwere happier than people who had

(10:44):
not, and this was in mostcountries around the globe.
And that was very exciting, butit didn't allow for us to make
these kind of conclusions ofcausality because although
giving to charity might makepeople happier, happier people
might donate to charity.
And we couldn't disentangle thatquestion using the gallop pool.
And so through collaborationsand with Tanya and others, I, I

(11:07):
tried to collect data or travelto places where I could collect
data to try to test thisquestion in very drastically
different cultural contexts fromVancouver, I guess would be a a,
a.
Of an appropriate way to kind ofcapture

Michael Bauman (11:19):
the, it starts with a V, so you got that going
for you.
Yes.
Vancouver, Vanuatu,

Lara Aknin (11:23):
Vancouver, Vanuatu, so, so with Tanya, who happened
to be, I think like five monthspregnant at the time we traveled
to Vanuatu, she kind of.
Set me up.
It, it was probably one of themost challenging and most
rewarding research experiencesI've had over the years because
it was, I knew the question inand out.
I knew exactly what I wanted toask, but I had never done

(11:44):
anything this complicated.
Before.
And so to, you know, we traveledaround the world.
She said we, we found localpeople at a local university in
Port Villa, which is one of themain cities who helped us
translate our materials fromVancouver to a local dialect.
We were traveling to a villagethat had no electricity, so we
had to get solar panels set upand everything charged.

(12:04):
We had to translate and back,translate all our materials to
make sure everything makessense.
We hired a local researchassistant to help us, and then
we took this plane to a smallisland and then, You know,
trusted some strangers to dropus off in, off, in a village in
the middle of somewhere.
You know, I, I wasn't sureexactly, but it was this, a
small town of Luk in the middleof one of the islands of

(12:27):
Vanuatu, and the community wasso warm and welcoming.
We met the chief who, and therewere maybe three people in the
village who spoke English.
Two women who worked with us aslocal research assistants, and
the chief who kind of warmlywelcomed us the day we arrived
and, and helped coordinatethings.
And basically Tanya introducedme and helped me get set up, but
she couldn't stay because shewas pregnant and was worried

(12:48):
about.
Malaria cuz she couldn't takemalaria medication at the time.
So I stayed there with a studentand we collected data for about
three weeks.
And we lived in the village.
We lived in a, a small, one ofthe only cement buildings in the
area that I think was built by aun visiting troop like a decade
earlier.
And it was, it was incredible.
We ran one experiment withadults and one with children.

(13:09):
But long story short was, youknow, I, I.
Run the studies because I couldnot speak at the local dialect.
And so I worked with these with,with Le, who was my, Le and
Rachel were the two women whohelped us run the studies.
They spoke in mother tonguebecause we couldn't even, we
couldn't hand out paperquestionnaires, many of the
adults in the community there.
Mm-hmm.
Did not read or write beyond acertain literacy level.

(13:32):
And so we ran these experimentslike through word of mouth in
what we rented was someone's mudhut for the day or two while we
were there.
And we collected data and peoplecame in individually and we ran
basically parallel versions ofour local experiments that we
had done before to try to, youknow, it wasn't nearly as
controlled as, as we could runit in North America because in

(13:52):
North America we did all thesebells and.
To make sure that everything wason paper and linked so that
nobody knew you were doing agenerous act other than
yourself.
We couldn't do that therebecause we needed to have one
person articulate the questionsand the intervention.
Long story short, we managed torun what I think was a, a very
close conceptual replication ofwhat we had done in Vancouver,

(14:13):
and so we had traveled halfwayaround the world and trained
local research.
The news, solar panels to like,capture everything on film.
And what I thought was amazingwas that, you know, we got all
these responses and finally whenwe got back to Port Villa, I was
entering the data and I, I ranthe analyses right away.
And the findings were almostparallel to what we had seen
before, which was to my mind,strong support for our argument.

(14:36):
But I, I also think just likevery beautiful a reminder of how
central this feature is.
So what we found in Vanuatu withboth adults and children running
parallel versions of ourprevious experiments were that
people were happier givingthings away, whether it be
treats from young kids or giftsfrom adults than they were when
receiving these same itemsthemselves, which I think just

(14:57):
underscores or supports mycolleagues and I have been
arguing, which is that humansmay have evolved to feel good
when we help other people.
Yeah.
So that was a long story.

Michael Bauman (15:07):
No, I mean it's, it's so fascinating.
So fascinating and I love you.
You did mention this, but in myresearch, like you're having a
point at like a 10th rung ladderfor the happiness.

Lara Aknin (15:18):
Yes.
Well, thing, I mean, and we gotsome really great questions and
feedback on the.
Methods.
But you know, we couldn't justgive people a numerical scale
and say, circle where you feelright now, which we normally do
with, you know, universitystudents in Canada or the United
States.
You know, people would've lookedat us like, this is nonsensical.
So we had to kind of show themand say like, here's the bottom
and here's the top.

(15:39):
Where do you think you fall onthis spectrum?
And it was, you know, a veryvisual representation.
And we had to back translate andtranslate all these materials to
kind of ensure that we weren'tinterpreting too much or too
little from our understanding ofthe data.
And so it was, it was a reallychallenging, but an extremely
rewarding experience.
Mm-hmm.

Michael Bauman (15:58):
And what I, what I wanna dive into a little bit
more, cuz it's something, I meanobviously like I said, it's very
close to, close to home,literally for me.
Mm-hmm.
And it's something that Inoticed as well.
Like you'd have these people inPapua New Guinea very similar.
Island that have like, you know,they're subsistence farmers, so
maybe they're just likegardening and they eat the food.
Mm-hmm.
they get fruit, you know, fruitoff the trees.
They have very little money, butthey're so happy.

(16:21):
As a, you know,overgeneralization.
And you found that in, in yourresearch with your little 10
rung ladder as well, so, Whathave you found as some of the
things that actually contributeto that?
Because so often in the westernworld, we're like, and I'll get
this promotion and this raiseand you know, whatever it's
gonna contribute to this.
Where really we have thesepeople that have very little, um

(16:41):
mm-hmm.
that are, that are happier.
What are the things that you'veseen that contribute to that?

Lara Aknin (16:46):
Yeah, so you're right.
I mean our, we, we did detectthe condition differences or the
group differences that we hadpredicted and expected.
Such the people who did kindthings reported feeling happier
in the moment, the people whowould just purchase things for
themselves.
But generally, just even lookingacross both conditions, you're
right, everybody was reportingthemselves as very high on this
10 rung ladder higher than.

(17:08):
Expect, or we typically observein many North American countries
at, at least in most of thetypical samples we're working
with.
And at first, you know, I, Ithink our first blush might be
that's a little bit puzzling Orperhaps at least from a very
North American western centricapproach, we think, like, you
know, these folks don't haveaccess to running water.
They don't have all the luxuriesthat, you know, many people.
Where men, where many of uslistening or your listeners

(17:30):
might be, might be situated andthinking.
But you know, it didn't take metoo long to realize while
visiting in, in, in this villagethat while they may not have
some of the same amenities thatI, you know, thought, you know,
that I enjoy at home they weresurrounded by many of the things
that matter.
And so it, it wasn't all thatpuzzling for all that long.
So, specifically you noticedthat a lot of these families
although they're.

(17:51):
You know, there isn't anabundance of food.
There is a security of food, atleast in many of the places I
visited.
Mind you, many of thesecommunities are now at some of
the highest risk for climatechange concerns and so mm-hmm.
that might not always be asecurity, but in many of these
places, because they farm theirlocal environment, they know
there's a reliable sustenance.
And so there's a security thereon in many ways, meeting those

(18:11):
basic needs.
They're also surrounded byfriends and family in many of,
in a way that is something thatI think many of us don't, don't
have the pleasure of enjoying.
I mean, it was just incredibleto watch.
You know, there's the saying, ittakes a village to raise a
child.
It was just incredible watching.
All these kids run around.
I'm watching a seven year oldtake care of a three-year-old

(18:31):
with absolutely no concern.
And the three-year-old isextremely trusting of this
seven-year-old who is, is nottheir sibling.
This is just another child inthe village who, you know, feels
like a sibling.
And so there was such a sense ofcommunity and a lot of people,
they had lived their lives thisway.
I mean, people marry acrossdifferent villages, but there
was a closeness that I hadn'treally seen before.

(18:52):
Like I something I did notexperience in my day-to-day in
Vancouver.
And they were perhaps notsurprisingly, but through the
subsistence farming, they wereimmersed within a local
environment that was just, In,in ways that, you know, we, many
of us escaped the city to goenjoy this was their natural
habitat and beauty.
And so, you know, aside fromlike major environmental risk

(19:12):
and concern, I feel like many ofthese folks live very
predictable, calm.
Comfortable safe lives, but invery close proximity, in very
tight networks with friends andfamily.
And for the most part livedquite healthy, happy lives.
And so, you know, in retrospectthat aligns with many of the
predictors that we see in theWorld Happiness Report and
elsewhere.
And in the larger literature onhappiness about what are the

(19:34):
strongest predictors ofwellbeing?
Well, you know, money issomething that does predict
often correl.
With people's happiness.
But up to a point.
And a lot of it also has to dowith comparisons, right?
A lot of us kind of keepthinking and striving.
We compare ourselves to ourneighbors.
There's this whole keeping upwith the Jones' Effect.
But there's also this hedonictreadmill where we seem to think
if we just make another 10 K,another 50 k, another million,

(19:57):
that's when we will finally behappy.
But these strivings actuallykeep us from reaching our
current levels of happiness.
And I think.
Th that wasn't so much, thismaterialistic mindset wasn't
nearly as present there as, Ithink many of us kind of have to
deal with these troubles here.
So I think a lot of the, thesecurity, I think is something
that maybe I had overlooked whenI first arrived, but the social

(20:20):
connection and the immersion innature was I think two, two
really big sources of, ofhappiness for.
In Vanuatu, I'm

Michael Bauman (20:27):
curious whether you saw a difference between the
people in Vanuatu and in Africa.
Like if you've done boots on theground research in Africa,
because I know a lot of thosecountries rank lowest on the
World Happiness Report, and alot of them have a lot more
challenges in terms of likeclean water, sanitation, even
food.

(20:47):
In contrast with mm-hmm.
you know, similar levels ofpoverty, quote unquote yeah.
As potentially popping in.
But I've always been curiousabout that e even growing up,
and I don't even know if youhave the answer, but I was, I
wanted to ask you the question.

Lara Aknin (20:58):
I, I'm afraid I don't because our collaboration,
so we have.
But my collaborators and I havecollected data from Africa, but
I was not the one doing it.
We worked with localcollaborators there, so I have
not had my boots on the groundin Africa.
That being said, I think one ofthe largest, there's often a
stronger relationship between acountry's wealth and the
happiness of citizens thanindividual wealth an an

(21:20):
individual happiness.
And part of the explanation isthat certain wealthier countries
have the opportunity to providethese basic necessities for
folks.
So clean water is like, and, andinfrastructure, I think is a
really big deal for helpingpeople live like safe,
predictable, healthy lives.
And so I think that aligns withwhat you're saying, but I
couldn't speak.

Michael Bauman (21:41):
Personal anecdote.
No, I'm just, I was, I'm justreally curious cause I've always
kind of wondered about that evenas a, as a kid going growing up.
And the, the other question thatI had for you, and it's along
those, along those lines.
So, you know, we have thisaspect of your research where
you, you have these effect ofhappiness when you're, you're
giving to other people and it'sgreater than when you're

(22:02):
spending on yourself.
Mm-hmm.
have you done any research orany study on whether there's
like a tipping point in terms ofscarcity?
and then be benevolence like ata certain point, does it all of
a sudden turn and go, I need tospend this on myself because of
a safety or a security kind ofthreshold?
I'm, I'm curious about that aswell.

Lara Aknin (22:21):
Yeah, that's a really interesting question.
So short answer is no.
Because we, we only, so in thecontext of experimental studies,
we only have so much money togive people to give away and.
We can, but it sounds to me likewhat you're describing is an
experiment where some people areendowed with a lot of money and
some people are endowed withquite a bit less, and, and you

(22:43):
would see whether the emotionalrewards of giving kind of tip,
if you will, like you weresaying,

Michael Bauman (22:49):
I'm meaning more, more so like.
You know, I'm, I'm fine.
And this, again, this isdifficult to study, right?
Mm-hmm.
so like you were kind of seeingin, in the, the Western
countries, you're like, oh,these people, you know, can give
money and you're, you're givingit to them.
Mm-hmm.
So, I don't know if you've donethe research on this.
It's just something that I wascurious about is, let's say
like, I'm totally fine givingthis money because it doesn't
cost me as much.

(23:10):
Mm-hmm.
but then the minute.
is there a tipping point whereit's like all of a sudden this
is actually costing mesomething, maybe even
potentially in terms of mysafety and my security, like
that threshold of like mm-hmm.
physical needs.
Do you still have benefits ofbenevolence?
I, and I don't know, like I, Iliterally don't know whether
you've.
Studied it, but it's somethingI'm curious about.

Lara Aknin (23:31):
So the, that's a really interesting question and
I think that here's the closestexperiment we have.
So two kind of converging pointsof evidence is we find that the
emotional rewards of giving aredetectable regardless of
people's income.
So it's not just that people,they seem to emerge for both
people who have relatively highand relatively low levels of
income.

(23:52):
That's not a perfect proxy forpeople who are on the verge of
scarcity.
But it suggests that like withinthe realm that we're normally
sampling, which is not all thattight to be honest.
So like when we run nationallyrepresentative samples of the
United States, we do get quite aspectrum of, of folks.
And so some people are livingaround the poverty line and even
still when we, when, at leastwhen we control for income,
we're seeing the general.

(24:13):
Same pattern so people who givemore regardless of their income,
tend to report higher levels ofhappiness.
But perhaps the better test ofthis question, and, and this was
run with kids and with treatsbecause little kids don't seem
to care so much about a fewdollars here and there.
But so, but may, maybe it willhelp inform the question.
So we've run this one study acouple times with toddlers and

(24:33):
it was actually something thatwe repeated in Vanuatu where we
run this experiment where kidsjust under the age of two, cuz
we were interested in.
Early in on, or how early in thelife spectrum we might see these
emotional rewards of giving.
They come into the lab they're,they sit on their parents' lap,
but their, or their caregiver isblindfolded and has their ear co
ears covered, so they don't knowwhat's going on.
And the kid plays with a, apuppet over the span of several

(24:57):
minutes.
And so the kid is, they'reintroduced to a puppet.
The child is given eight edibletreats, so things that kids like
kind of to act like a proxy ofmoney.
And then over the course of thenext few minutes, the kid is
asked to kind of watch orparticipate in three key phases.
So in one phase, the child isasked to watch is the
experimenter, gives a treat awayin one phase, the child.

(25:19):
Is asked to give one of theirown treats to the puppet.
And in one phase, the child isasked to give one of the
experimenters treats to thepuppet.
And every time the puppet gets atreat, he eats it and is excited
about it.
And the reason I bring this upis because the last two key
phases I talked about bothinvolve giving, but one time
it's costly because you'regiving your own stuff and one
time it's not costly becauseyou're giving the exact same

(25:41):
thing, but it doesn't belong toyou.
Mm-hmm.
And so what we find, The one keyfinding is that kids smile more
when they give than when theyreceive, which parallels nicely
what we see in adults.
But the cool finding relevant tothis question that you're asking
is that kids smile more whenthey're giving away their own
treat than when they're givingaway one that doesn't belong to

(26:01):
them.
Mm-hmm.
And the reason why I thinkthat's cool is because it
suggests that giving might beespecially rewarding when it's
costly.
Excuse me.
No, that's not perfect becauseit's not like these kids are on
the cusp of, you know, notpaying their next rent check,
but it, it is, you know, they'regiving the exact same item to
the exact same recipient who isresponding in the exact same
way, yet they seem to behappier.

(26:23):
when they give with personalcost.
Mm-hmm.
And that's really, I thinkthat's fascinating because I
think that actually gets to theheart of why my colleagues and I
think that humans have evolvedto give, and it's because, and
why we find it rewarding, whichis like, we get this emotional
kickback.
It, it's our reward when we dothe kind thing that really helps
when it's needed.
And so, you know, if, if we onlyfelt good when giving was non

(26:45):
costly, then you know that thatwould be an easy way to get by.
But when you feel.
Giving when it's costly.
That's, that's like the clearestsignal and the clearest reward
that like, you actually do careabout who you're helping and,
and the emotional rewards arethere kind of to, to encourage
this kind of costly action.

Michael Bauman (27:04):
Hmm.
Yeah, that's, that's exactlywhat I was curious about.
Cause that's kind of my next,well, my next question was along
those lines, like mm-hmm.
and I don't know know if you've,you've seen this and this, you
kind of answered this question,but I'm curious to ask it
anyway.
Sure.
The, have you found whetherthere's a link between the, the
cost of the, or the sacrifice ofthe gift and the, the effect of

(27:25):
the happiness, which is kind oflike what you're saying.
The more it costs.
Have you seen it be more happyand the less it costs, there's
less of effect?
Or have you not done enoughbesides the one that you, you
mentioned there?
Yeah,

Lara Aknin (27:38):
so, I can give an answer, although it may not be
all that.
So within the realm of what westudied, usually the more
costly, the more rewarding.
Mm-hmm.
We're studying within a veryrestricted range here.
So for instance, we've run lotsof experiments, or we did when I
was in grad school looking atwhat we like the dictator game.
So people are endowed with like$10 and they can give away as

(27:59):
much as they like, and therecipient just has to.
Get what they get.
They can't really fight back.
They can't, they can't reject itand so on.
And generally speaking, inalmost every study we ran, the
more money people gave, thehappier they reported feeling.
But this is in the span of$10.
It's not breaking the bank.
It wasn't even their money tobegin with, right?
Because ethically, we can't makepeople give away their own

(28:20):
money.
No, it's nice to know that itconverges with what we see
generally in big picture datawith people's own money.
So people who tend to give moremoney tend to report more
happiness.
But you know, there may be atipping point.
And in fact, I think one of the.
The clearest signs of this isactually not from financial
giving, but from volunteeringand, and caregiving.

(28:43):
So there does seem to be thisreally interesting relationship.
So by and large, when you'resupporting someone who, who is
in need.
So if you have a partner or aparent or a child or in someone,
Who, you know, who's dealingwith medical challenges, for
instance.
You know, it can be veryrewarding and meaningful to
help, but there is also aburnout, a caregiving burnout
that comes when you know, youcan't escape this, it's not

(29:04):
volitional.
And sometimes might take so muchof you that you know, it's.
There is a tipping point.
There might be a differenttipping point for everybody
else, but there does become apoint where giving too much can,
can in fact be painful.
It's not just this straightupward shot.
And so I think what you'retapping into is an important
question.
Whether we've articulated theboundaries of where that might

(29:25):
be, I, I don't think we're thereyet.

Michael Bauman (29:28):
Yeah, I'm just, yeah, really.
I mean, obviously research isreally, really fascinating, you
know?
And so I was just alwayscurious, like, you can have this
outward focus and you're giving,giving, giving until there's a
certain point where you're now Ican't put food on the table for
my family.
Right.
You know, like, what, what isthat point where like, then it's
all of a sudden like, oh no, I'mgonna turn inward and use this,
you know, money on myself orwhatever those things are.

(29:50):
Those things are interesting tome.
Mm-hmm.
But one of the things that youtalked about in this, this is
kind of a good segue into theaspects of emotions.
So you talk about, you know, sooften we look at those, those
negative emotions and, and howthey, how they affect us.
But can you talk about, youknow, kind of emotions, our me
memory and then even the theoryof broaden and build around

(30:11):
positive emotions and what that,what that kind of, you know,
reinforces some of the researchthat you found in giving.

Lara Aknin (30:19):
Yeah, certainly.
So the theory of broaden andbuild or the broaden and build
theory of positive emotions isnot mine, but it's certainly one
of my favorites.
So I'm happy to talk about itand I hope I do it.
I hope I do it justice.
But it's the work of Barb Fred,Barb Frederickson at the
University of North CarolinaChapel Hill.
And she has been studyingemotions for decades and it's
very interesting.
Psychology is not new to thestudy of emotions.

(30:40):
In fact, I think it was one ofthe earliest kind of topics that
piqued the interest of Darwinand many others.
But there was a clear focus onnegative emotions at the
beginning.
So fear and anger and disgustand sadness, all these kind of
very visceral human emotions,really captured the imagination
of a lot of early psychologiststrying to understand what are,
what, what is the key purposeand function of a lot of these

(31:01):
emotions.
And that is really where a.
Attention went for a long time.
And a lot of researchers kind oftriangulated on what I think is
a very cool perspective, whichis that emotions serve an
evolved function.
They're basically a way forhuman individuals to coordinate
their actions in response tooutside events.
And so, fear is an example wherelike our bodily reaction is like

(31:23):
our heart rate increases.
Our vision becomes.
Focused.
And our body is basicallymobilized to deal with a threat
that is in front of us to eithertake off or to fight whatever is
right in front of us.
Another very interesting exampleis disgusted.
So when we encounter somethingthat is disgusting, either
physically or morally, We havethis repulsion and it's designed

(31:44):
to basically expel or distanceour body from this like aversive
stimulus.
So if you think you're justwalking down the imagine walking
down the street and you realizethat right beside you, there's a
pile of human feces what willlikely happen is that your, your
body will go, ugh, and your, youknow, like your nose, your
nostrils close, your tongueexpels.
And basically what it's tryingto do is to like keep your body

(32:06):
closed.
Not take this in Well, so for avery long time for, so for
relatively speaking, a long timepsychologists have realized
there are these very clearfunctions, very quick and
coordinated functions fornegative emotions.
But that left a lot of peoplewondering.
So one of the positive emotionstoo, and Barb Frederickson's,
really interesting take throughthe broaden and build theory,

(32:26):
which is now kind of sup grownin support and research over the
years is really interesting.
I think she argues.
Positive emotions too, serve tocoordinate and organize human
functions in response to events,but it's not nearly as fast and
discreet.
So she argues that in contrastto negative emotions that need
to capture our.

(32:48):
Capture our focus for the righthere, right now, because missing
something dangerous could meanyou don't survive.
Her argument is that forpositive emotions, it's not,
it's not as gripping for thehere and now, but basically what
it does is it broadens yourmindset and might even literally
broaden your field of vision.
It broadens your creativity andthese positive emotions also.

(33:08):
help people kind of, buildpsychological and social
resources for their future andforthcoming opportunities.
Mm-hmm.
And so, over the years, herresearch and other people's have
actually shown that when peopleare in more positive moods, they
actually think more creatively,their vision is more ex.
Banded.
There are many kind of bothphysical and psychological

(33:28):
manifestations of like thisbroadening perspective that
positive emotions bring.
But also when people are inpositive moods, they're more
likely to, if you will, engagewith other people and do things
that build these socialrelationship.
And that's where I think some ofthe research that you're
thinking about may come and playin.
So my colleagues and I havefound that when people are in a
good mood, they're more likelyto kind of invest in pro-social

(33:51):
activities.
And which helps strengthensocial resources, but also
people who are Positivepro-social things are more
likely to experience positiveemotions.
And so we have this one paper ona positive feedback loop between
generosity and happiness thatreally kind of captures this
positive upward spiral, if youwill.
Mm-hmm.
So when people are in a goodmood, they're more likely to

(34:11):
help other people and helpingother people facilitates and
encourages this positive mood.
And I think that kind of nicelyreinforces this broaden and
build theory and kind ofdemonstrates one exemplar of it.

Michael Bauman (34:24):
Yeah.
Can you talk a little bit moreabout that?
Because, you know, typically wehave this view of like, like you
talked about, right?
If I make more money, I'm, onthe hedonic you know, treadmill
you know mm-hmm.
I'm gonna achieve greatersuccess in that.
Greater success will lead togreater happiness as opposed to
what you're talking about, whichis actually like, Cultivating
happiness and leading to moresuccess in, in different areas

(34:47):
of, of life.
Can you talk about that a littlebit more if you have more
research around that concept?

Lara Aknin (34:53):
Yeah.
So some of the research is mineor that, that we've talked about
already.
We've found in this particularstudy and several others, that
when people are in this good orin good moods, whether it be
through just straight uphappiness or other positive
emotions, like higher feelingsof pride and alertness and
whatnot, engagement they're morelikely to help others.
And that in turn predicts thesepositive feelings.

(35:14):
But there's also some reallyfascinating work by other people
that document this in, in.
I think what is very importanthigh stakes research.
So for instance, there's beensome really fascinating research
by Abigail Marsh and Sean Rhodesat Georgetown University showing
kind of the opposite.
So most of my research looks atwhether doing kind things makes
people happy, they study withsome really Fantastic and

(35:37):
incredible data, whetherhappiness of of a nation or
happiness of a geographical areacan predict the levels of
pro-social engagement in somereally fascinating tasks.
Oh, wow.
So for instance, they've studiedaltruistic kidney donation where
people will give, they'll giveorgans to complete strangers.
And it's just fascinating to seethat in the US, in, in multiple

(35:59):
geographic locations, they cantake data from across the United
States and see whether Ibelieve.
State or city level happiness.
I think it's state levelhappiness can predict the number
of altruistic kidney donationswithin a a nation.
And here it's kind ofinteresting because people may
not necessarily be havingrelationships with the people
that they're giving kidneys to,but they're investing in their
communities.

(36:19):
They're investing in theirneighbors, they're, they're
helping someone in need.
And so, They've done some reallyfascinating research, kind of
studying the other arc of thisfeedback loop to demonstrate
that it's, you know, positiveemotions can propel people on
this upward trajectory towardshelping other people.
And then my research kind ofstudies the other arc, if you
will, which is whether doingkind things does in fact make

(36:40):
people happy.
So I, I think they're kind of anice complimentary approach.
And I think one of the reasonsthat we tend to see this kind of
robust association betweengenerosity and happiness is
because, The relationship isbouncing back and forth.
Happier people do kind thingsand kind things make people
happy.
And so, you know, we can, we canpull levers and experiments to

(37:00):
see if it functions in onedirection or the other, but I
think out and about in themessiness of the real world,
it's probably going both waysand that's a positive thing.

Michael Bauman (37:11):
Yeah, that's something that's, that's been
very fascinating to me as well,is kind of looking at, you know,
and then that's what you have inthe World Happiness Report,
right?
Mm-hmm.
you have a very macro, a lifeevaluation scale of one to 10,
you know how your life is doingand looking at that across the
countries, but then you have.
The aspects of like, how dopositive emotions affect that
evaluation?
How do the negative emotionsaffect that evaluation?

(37:33):
How does that individual, likeday-to-day life, how I'm feeling
affect my, my life evaluation?
So I love that aspect of like,and even the, you know, I love
just thinking about like, if Idefine success or happiness,
whatever, you know, whatever youwanna put in there.
If I had to find it as formyself, how does that look?
But what if I just change thedefinition and I go, what if

(37:54):
it's success as my family?
Like how would I then lookdifferently?
Or what if it's a, you know, nowI'm going like, what if I define
success as a part of acommunity?
Mm-hmm.
Or how does my environment, andthat's what you're talking
about.
You have these systems thatcontribute to individual
happiness.
Mm-hmm.
and again, the world happinesssupport, the trust, the
corruption, the things likethat.
Mm-hmm.
But then, you know, on theindividual level, what.

(38:16):
What does it look like?
Cause that's why I asked thosequestions.
Right.
So in Papua New Guinea, I seethese, you know, people that are
very happy, that have verylittle, and I thought it was,
you know, incrediblyfascinating.
In the US we have tons ofamazing things, like we're
really driven and stuff, but sooften the, the friends, the
family can get pushed out.
We might be less happy.
And then, you know, here inChina we have a very collective
culture.

(38:37):
And what are the benefits of meviewing, like subsuming assuming
my needs as an individual forthose of the collect.
And how does that change?
But then also what are thedetriments of that?
So that's a more, you know, nota rant on my end, but it's just
things that just bounce aroundin my head that I'm really,

Lara Aknin (38:52):
well, you're right.
I think it's really fascinatingbecause oftentimes the pursuit
of our very personalindividualistic goals and often
materialistic goals come at thesacrifice of these social and
prosocial sides of ourself.
And, and I think a lot of theresearch suggests that like,
yeah, money can, you know, theI, I think it would be foolish
to.
Disregard this kind of stablecorrelation that we see in the

(39:15):
literature that, you know, moneyis associated with happiness,
but it does on many measures ofwellbeing start to flatten after
a certain point.
But also social relationshipsare an extremely important
predictor of people's happiness.
And so when these two kind ofpursuits come in tension, it's
worth it to think about, youknow, am I really, am I missing
all my time with friends andfamily?
Am I missing ways to kind ofgive back to things that I think

(39:37):
are important and bigger thanmyself?
Mm.
So,

Michael Bauman (39:41):
yeah.
Yeah.
Can you talk about, I mean, cuzagain, you were like the, the
chair of the mental health andwellbeing task force for covid.
So we have a, you know, massiveglobal challenge, struggle
epidemic, um mm-hmm.
and how that actually affected.
Mental health kind of acrossthe, across the world, both.
And I'm curious both on an acutelevel and now with like the

(40:02):
continued stressors of, youknow, Russia, Ukraine, wars and
recessions and yeah.
What does that look acutely?
And obviously you don't have asmuch data on the chronic side,
but I'm, yeah.
Answer the

Lara Aknin (40:11):
difference.
Well, certainly I'll do my bestto answer the question.
So, yes.
With the Lancet Task force.
I was, yeah, fortunate to, notfortunate to work with a
collection of amazing thinkersfrom around the world, from
various disciplines who werekind of very intrigued by this
question on how the pandemicmaybe influencing people's
mental health.
And we wrote two reports on thematter and both of them might

(40:33):
say we're focused primarily onthe first year and a half.
So that's where my biggestinsights are.
I can speak to that and kind ofspeculate on what has come since
Long story short is notsurprisingly, perhaps mental
health did suffer during theearly months of the pandemic.
But I think there are somereally important caveats there.
And some important unpredictableoutcomes.
So, maybe it helps to kind ofpreface them with our approach,

(40:56):
because what we did as a taskforce was, so first and
foremost, it's helpful to maybeset the scene.
These were the early days ofCovid where there were papers
coming up.
I, I can't even tell you, itwas.
It, it was like, I can't imagineevery time, you know, I would
set these Google Scholar reportsto get updates on papers that
were coming out and there weredozens a day and there was just,

(41:16):
there was a huge influx.
And so I actually think one of,one of several bright spots of
the pandemic was just the sharedthe, the investment in science
and open science and sharinginformation as quickly as
possible.
The flip side of that was aninundation of it, and so we were
really trying to sort through.
Massive amount of information totry to make some sense from all

(41:37):
this noise about what were theclear patterns.
And so with this group ofexperts, basically what we did
was we tried to survey.
All the evidence to date as wellas we could, and really there
was no way to synthesizeeverything that was out there.
So we decided to focus ourefforts and our interest on the
number of papers on a, a couplehundred papers that really did

(41:58):
zero in on this question usingkind of the.
The best methods we could findwith the highest quality data
sources and highest qualitymethods.
And so what that allowed us todo, we kind of focused in on
several key kind of outcomes ormeasurements.
So we looked at wellbeing, usingkind of em emotions and life
satisfaction.

(42:18):
We looked at levels of socialconnection and loneliness, which
was kind of the flip side ofthat.
We looked at depression andanxiety as kind of the, the
perhaps what many people thinkas like the psychological stress
side of things.
And then we also looked at what,unfortunately may, might be an
offshoot of, of high levels ofanxiety and depression, which is
self-harm, which could include,you know, everything from

(42:41):
inflicting personal pain to, tosuicide.
And so we looked at those fourmain outcomes using a variety of
kind of different sources ofdata.
All of which we thought werekind of high quality evidence.
And we tried to look forconsistencies, like I said, kind
of in this noise.
And what we found, I think was apretty clear pattern of a spike
in, of anxiety and depressionkind of in those first few

(43:01):
months of covid.
So in March, April, may Inalmost every data set, almost
everywhere.
No matter where we looked, wesaw there was this big increase
in mental health, a decrease inpositive affect and emotions.
And you know, I don't I thinkanecdotally a lot of us felt
that too, But what wassurprising, I think for many of
us on, on this commission was weexpected to really just be

(43:24):
cataloging the pain and really,you know, just trying to.
Argue for, for more rigorousmeasurement, which I think we
still did anyway.
But what we were surprised tosee was almost by the summer, or
at least by North Americansummer, by June, July and
August, in some places, noteverywhere, but in some places,
mean levels of thesepsychological distress
variables.
They were returning to almostbaseline.

(43:46):
So pre pandemic, which wasreally striking.
We also saw Increase, but not awild dramatic increase in
loneliness and, and isolation.
Not nearly.
So it's not to say that this wasnot significant there, there
wasn't a significant increase oflike two to 3% of the population
reporting higher levels ofloneliness and isolation than
they were before.
But this was nowhere near thiskind of avalanche that I think

(44:06):
everybody expected that this,you know, everybody thought we'd
be dealing with covid and then awave of loneliness, a second
epidemic of loneliness.
And to, to our.
That wasn't nearly as extreme aswe would've imagined.
And then there were data showingthat at least in the early days,
and I think this is still thecase, mind you, I have not been
keeping up with it as much as I.
Could have suicide rates did notincrease.

(44:29):
And in fact, in many places,they held steady or even
decreased.
And life evaluations were steadyin many places around the globe,
which was, you know, made usscratch our heads and double
check things.
And so we were really surprised.
Now, these are mean levels andthat's worth acknowledging
because there was.
A lot of nuance hidden in thesemean levels.
And so while some groups weremanaging quite well and I think

(44:51):
the majority of the populationwas actually handling things,
Way better than expected.
There were certainly someprofile groups that were hit
extremely hard, and so what ourtask force was trying to do was
not to say like, Hey, hey, we'reall doing fine.
Don't worry about it.
It was to say no.
Like by and large, some, somepeople are doing really well,

(45:11):
but there are some people thatare really, really hurting.
Mm-hmm.
here's where we need to focus,what might be our limited
detention and.
and resources to really help.
Those are struggling and in manyplaces those tended to be young
females and parents with kids athome.
But so, especially like youngmothers in particular were

(45:31):
really struggling in many of thedata sets.
Mm-hmm.
There were other markers of, ofrisk, but there were some groups
that were struggling before andthat remained, but young females
with young kids at home, werenot an at-risk group before
their pandemic and all of.
We're in, in a number of datasets.

Michael Bauman (45:50):
I mean, it makes sense cuz I have young, young
kids at home and you know,normally you can have an escape
right?
They're lovely.
But

Lara Aknin (45:57):
when it's 24 7, literally all the

Michael Bauman (46:00):
time and you're stuck in your house and you're
like, I am gonna go crazy

Lara Aknin (46:04):
Yeah, yeah.
It's not an easy time.
And, and you know, and I think alot part of it was being stuck
at home and this, I mean, thoseearly months were.
oftentimes for many places wereschools closed and parents had
to negotiate and figure out newarrangements.
But also a lot of people whofell into some of the highest
risk profiles were those who hadvery precarious employment.

(46:26):
And so there was a lot about theuncertainty of the future.
There's a lot of researchshowing or predating the
pandemic.
There was a lot of evidenceshowing that life satisfaction
tends to follow a U curve where.
Like in our teens where we starttracking a lot of life
satisfaction or lifeevaluations, people are quite
happy.
It starts to dip as people movethrough their thirties and

(46:47):
forties, hits a low point in lowforties and fifties oftentimes
because people are dealing withthe stresses of, you know,
children getting older and, andthey, you know, they're trying
to support their kidsemotionally.
In many ways, but also parentsare getting older.
There's a lot of stressors kindof on both ends, if you will.
And then as people age throughtheir fifties and sixties and

(47:07):
seventies and app lifesatisfaction increases.
Hmm.
One thing the data changed or,or the one major and significant
way the data changed throughCovid was that this u the, the
bottom tail of the, you justcollapsed.
Where all of a sudden youth wereno longer reporting these higher
levels of happiness.
There was a high level ofuncertainty.
Older individuals remained.

(47:28):
At higher levels of lifesatisfaction and which is
intriguing because physicallythey were some of the most at
risk, if you will, for covidrelated things.
But in many ways their liveswere perhaps more stable more
predictable, whereas youth whoare te often working in these
more precarious.
Short term employments and, andhad no idea like the rest of us,
when this was gonna end, kind ofsaw their future crumbling.

(47:51):
And, and yeah, I think therewere many reasons, but also this
is a point where in people'slives where they wanna go out
and meet new people and dosocial things, perhaps even more
so than we feel this urgethroughout the rest of our.
And they're asked to stay homeYeah.
And stay away.
So I, I think there were manychallenges, but one intriguing,
repeatable finding was thatyounger adults were really

(48:14):
struggling.

Michael Bauman (48:16):
Fascinating.
And, and do you know like, kindof extrapolating, like you said,
you haven't kept up with it asmuch.
Mm-hmm.
because I'm curious.
It's a similar thing thathappens physi physiologically,
like you mentioned, right?
You have a fear response, youknow?
Mm-hmm.
cortisol spikes, your adrenalinespikes, all that kind of stuff.
Heart rate goes up, you, youmeet the response and then it
goes back down.
But we have, you know, thesechronic stressors in our life

(48:39):
mm-hmm.
that cause them the low levelsof systemic inflammation and
contribute to all these kind ofthings.
I'm curious is.
it was a similar thing on thatlevel and mm-hmm.
again, you might not even beable to answer this cuz you have
that response anxiety, you know,an like, things like that go up
during that time to meet the, tomeet the stressor and then it
goes back down.
But when there's a continual,you know, sort of thing with the

(49:01):
Russian of Ukraine or with, youknow, recession and inflation
and things like that, I'mcurious whether that changes
that on a chronic kind ofresponse level and the data's
probably not in, I'm justcurious, your.

Lara Aknin (49:13):
Yeah, I mean, I, I think you're right.
I, I, I think generallyspeaking, the pattern that
you're referencing, you know, iswhat we've seen time and time
again, at least from short termstressors, kind of induced in
the lab and, and kind of studiedin real life.
But I don't think.
you know, for, for many of us,for many of us, of us alive

(49:33):
these days, this is one of themost global and sustained
stressors that we've everexperienced.
And so I don't know if we have aperfect analog.
But yeah, short, my, my shortanswer is I don't think we have
the data to really answer thosequestions.
We, our, our task force didwrite a paper on the the
psychological.
And physiological consequencesof contracting covid.

(49:55):
But it's, it, it didn't have todo with the extended stressors
of not nearly the same timeframeas I think what you're asking.
So I, I think it remains to beseen whether people are walking
around or experiencing someextended physical or mental
anguish from having this loomingsense of uncertainty for a very

(50:15):
long period of.

Michael Bauman (50:17):
Yeah.
And that'll be, that'll beinteresting to see in, in the
World Happiness Report.
And I'll put put links to thatin the show notes.
Mm-hmm.
And you know, as we mentioned,we had another guest on the, on
the show, John Helliwell andhe'll goes into phenomenal depth
on that, so.
Mm-hmm.
check out that episode if, ifyou missed it, but it'll be
interesting to see, cuz youknow, he talked about that
pandemic of benevolence and youhave more donations to charity

(50:38):
and that's kind of your, youravenue.
Mm-hmm.
of, of things.
But I'm curious to see whether.
That maintains or what themental health, you know, data as
we start to see these onescoming in 20 23, 20 24.
Mm-hmm.
I don't know.
It's just gonna be fascinating.
Fascinating

Lara Aknin (50:52):
to see.
Yeah.
I'm sure it'll be a major focusof this year's coming report.
I know John will be working longand hard on it, but we, we, we
won't know until March.
So stay tuned.

Michael Bauman (51:02):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It'll be, yeah, it'll beinteresting.
So, Cool.
Well, I, I wanna wrap up with aquestion I usually ask the, the
guests.
I'm curious for, for you, howwould you, I mean, with all the
research and everything that,you know, how would you define
success?

Lara Aknin (51:16):
I think for me, and I think perhaps more broadly for
many people, is I, I thinksuccess is meaningful.
Helpful relationships with otherpeople.
I think my kids, my students, myfamily, you know, I, I feel like
that's where I get to give, butI get so much from it.
And so for me, kind of successesin the meaningful, helpful
exchange of, you know, supportand information and, and just

(51:39):
care and concern.

Michael Bauman (51:41):
Mm-hmm.
That's, that's awesome.
And as, as we, as we wrap uphere, is there anything else
that you want to kind of leavewith the audience?

Lara Aknin (51:49):
Maybe two, two things that have struck me of
late one.
One is like an early finding weobserved in the data, but I,
and, and I think it's a helpfulreminder because I think broadly
when we speak about.
Helping other people making ushappy.
I think many of us are like,yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that,
you know, like I've felt itbefore.
And I, and I, I recognize it andI think often we, we appreciate

(52:11):
it in this distance sense and wefelt it ourselves.
But I also think that when pushcomes to shove, many of us in
the moment don't often make ourdecisions informed by that.
And so I think even though itmight sound corny and it might
sound familiar already, I, I,you know, we've asked hundreds
of students what they think willmake them happier.
And although in a broad sense,they kind of appreciate, you

(52:31):
know, giving is good.
When push comes to shove, themajority of them lead to the,
the personal preference wherethey'll take money for
themselves instead.
And so I think kind of sometimesit requires maybe a more active
rewiring of our choices to kindof enjoy these things more
often.
And the other, I think.
Is aligned with that, that I'vebeen reading a lot lately about
this really new and excitingkind of area of work where it,

(52:53):
it, it's not all thatsurprising, but I think it's a
very refreshing reminder that Ithink other people are one of
our biggest sources of joy inthis world.
I think, and we often go throughthe world in this little bubble
with our, with these blinders onwhere we go from one task to
another and assuming that justgetting our to-do list done is,
is really where the main purposeof our days and our lives are.

(53:14):
But often, you know, there'sthis fantastic work coming out
of a bunch of different labsfrom from Jillian Sandstrom and
Nick Epley and JulianaSchroeder, and a whole bunch of
people just showing that weoften underestimate just how
much influence we have on otherpeople and how connecting with
other people, even completestrangers and quick
conversations we have withothers can, can make us feel
great and is enjoyable for themtoo.

(53:35):
And so I I, I think kind of areminder of how social and
pro-social we are is a really

Michael Bauman (53:41):
powerful.
Yeah, I think you bring up agood point, right?
You know, so you have that, theresearch level, and you have the
theory like, like you said, butthe question to ask is like, how
can you develop a habit of, ofgenerosity or a habit of
connection?
Like you talked about the, youknow, talking to strangers, it's
just like, Okay.
How can I develop a habit ofdoing that if I know that's good

(54:02):
for me?
Mm-hmm.
how can I develop a habit of it,or how can I develop a habit?
It was like the tiny, smallways, like whatever it is.
Mm-hmm.
of giving to other people.
And that pro-social behavior is,is kind of the question, I
guess.
Mm-hmm.
so I appreciate you, you havingthat insight to, to leave to the
audience.
So thank you so much.
It was a lovely conversation.
I, I, I thoroughly enjoyed

Lara Aknin (54:19):
it, my pleasure.
Me too.
Thanks for the invitation.
Absolutely.

Michael Bauman (54:24):
Before you go, I would love it if you actually
just shared this episode with afriend.
I'm sure while you werelistening, someone just popped
in your head and you're like,oh, they would probably like
this as well.
So it's really easy.
You just click the share buttonon either the website or
whatever podcast platform you'reon and send it over to'em, and
chances are they'll probablylike it too.
Until next time, keepengineering your success.