1

Although happiness is the goal of many individuals, the idea itself is as unique as the
individual experiencing it. Both the circumstances under which happiness occurs and the actual
experiencing of the feeling are relative, differing from person to person. Despite the vast array of
definitions of happiness, Professor Sonja Lyubomirsky and psychologists Peter Hills and
Michael Argyle have each attempted to create a standardized way to measure the happiness of
individuals. The Subjective Happiness Scale was developed by Professor Lyubomirsky while
Hills and Argyle developed The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire.
Though very different in style and functionality, both the Subjective Happiness Scale and
The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire attempt to measure happiness to make the state of wellbeing between different individuals comparable. Lyubomirskys research suggests that everyone
possesses a different capacity of experiencing happiness based on genetic predisposition. This
capacity is known as the set point. The professors Subjective Happiness Scale attempts to
measure the set point by having the individual answer a few self-reflective questions regarding
their opinion of their state of well-being on a scale of 1 to 7, with each end of the spectrum
representing contrasting responses. However, Hills and Argyles approach is based on the
measurement of how content an individual is with their life as well as their mental state and
outlook on life. The individual is given a set of positive and negative statements about how they
might view themselves and their life and are asked to answer on a scale of 1 to 6, 1 being
strongly disagree and 6 being strongly agree. Because these tests measure happiness in differing
ways, their definition of it varies as well. Lyubomirskys test tends to define happiness as an
individuals set point, or their genetic capacity to experience happiness whereas Hills and Argyle
tend to define happiness as the level of agreement with general statements about thoughts and
outlooks that are both positive and cynical.

2
By offering numerical values for concrete answers, these tests are able to partially
eliminate the wide range of answers that answering questions about feelings brings about. This
method used by both tests is also effective at still allowing a variety of answers an individual can
choose from in order to pinpoint their responses as accurately as possible. Thoughts and
responses are specific to each individual and the numbers offer both structure and flexibility to
best accommodate the wide range of human emotion. However, it is this same uniqueness that
makes it impossible to accurately fit the entire human population into the structure of one test.
There are always differing backgrounds and experiences that influence an individuals way of
thinking that are unaddressed and unaccounted for in standardized tests.
Both the Subjective Happiness Scale and The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire define
happiness in differing ways, but their objective is similar: to measure the happiness and wellbeing of an individual. Professor Lyubomirskys test rests on the principle of genetics while Hills
and Argyles places more emphasis on self-reflective answers to well-being questions. Despite
their differences, these tests have similar advantages and disadvantages. They allow a certain
fluidity in responses while still maintaining a set range, but this still cannot accurately include
the wide array of states of happiness and well-being that each unique individual embodies.

In reading both Lyubomirskys and Hill and Argyles works, I wrote my thoughts and
comments in the margins of the text. In Lyubomirskys longer work, I summarized each
paragraph off to the side for further clarification and for quick reference so I wouldnt have to
reread the entire paragraph if I needed to go back in the text. I attempted to clarify the authors
perspectives by noting key words and phrases that suggested and supported their main theme and

3
ideas. At the end of each section, I would make notes on the structure of the section, taking into
account literary and rhetoric devices as well as stylistic choices the author chose to make.

Works Cited
Lyubomirsky, Sonja. "How Happy Are You and Why?" Pursuing Happiness: A Bedford Spotlight
Reader. By Matthew Parfitt and Dawn Skorczewski. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
Argyle, Michael, and Peter Hills. "The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire." Pursuing Happiness:
A Bedford Spotlight Reader. By Matthew Parfitt and Dawn Skorczewski. N.p.: n.p., n.d.

4
N. pag. Print.