The Neuroscience of Happiness: Difference between revisions
imported>Psych202 No edit summary |
imported>Psych202 No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Neuroscience.jpg|thumb| | [[File:Neuroscience.jpg|thumb|150px]] | ||
Can '''neuroscience''' tell us anything about '''happiness'''? With so many people seemingly interested in how to be happy, great utility would exist in being able to measure the emotion objectively through neuroscientific methods. However, happiness can mean many different things and has thus historically been difficult to connect to an objective underlying neurobiology. While considerable progress has been made measuring these constructs of happiness through self-report, recent developments in neuroimaging and meta-analyses have begun to suggest progress in our ability to objectively measure the emotional experience of happiness. Yet, these recent findings are not without controversy. Much debate still exists around whether happiness can be examined as a discrete emotion or a part of a dimensional continuum. Researchers also contest whether happiness can be mapped onto the brain to a specific region or only examined as a part of a dynamic neural network. Below is an overview of the recent findings and debate. The article concludes by integrating these findings, discussing future directions, and taking the view that, unfortunately, we still have a ways to go before neuroscience can consistently identify states of happiness and meaningfully inform better paths toward its obtainment. | Can '''neuroscience''' tell us anything about '''happiness'''? With so many people seemingly interested in how to be happy, great utility would exist in being able to measure the emotion objectively through neuroscientific methods. However, happiness can mean many different things and has thus historically been difficult to connect to an objective underlying neurobiology. While considerable progress has been made measuring these constructs of happiness through self-report, recent developments in neuroimaging and meta-analyses have begun to suggest progress in our ability to objectively measure the emotional experience of happiness. Yet, these recent findings are not without controversy. Much debate still exists around whether happiness can be examined as a discrete emotion or a part of a dimensional continuum. Researchers also contest whether happiness can be mapped onto the brain to a specific region or only examined as a part of a dynamic neural network. Below is an overview of the recent findings and debate. The article concludes by integrating these findings, discussing future directions, and taking the view that, unfortunately, we still have a ways to go before neuroscience can consistently identify states of happiness and meaningfully inform better paths toward its obtainment. | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 8 June 2013
Can neuroscience tell us anything about happiness? With so many people seemingly interested in how to be happy, great utility would exist in being able to measure the emotion objectively through neuroscientific methods. However, happiness can mean many different things and has thus historically been difficult to connect to an objective underlying neurobiology. While considerable progress has been made measuring these constructs of happiness through self-report, recent developments in neuroimaging and meta-analyses have begun to suggest progress in our ability to objectively measure the emotional experience of happiness. Yet, these recent findings are not without controversy. Much debate still exists around whether happiness can be examined as a discrete emotion or a part of a dimensional continuum. Researchers also contest whether happiness can be mapped onto the brain to a specific region or only examined as a part of a dynamic neural network. Below is an overview of the recent findings and debate. The article concludes by integrating these findings, discussing future directions, and taking the view that, unfortunately, we still have a ways to go before neuroscience can consistently identify states of happiness and meaningfully inform better paths toward its obtainment.
Categorical vs. Dimensional Approach
Scientists have primarily measured happiness up to now through subjective self-report across two aspects: hedonia (pleasure) and eudaimonia (meaning and a life well-lived).[1] Researchers also examine happiness in positive affect, analyzing both the state (including physiology and neural substrates) and the subjective experience of emotion (involving cognition).[2]
Basic Emotions View
Dimensional view
Brain Regions
...
Nucleus Accumbens
...
Orbito Frontal Cortex
...
Right Superior Temporal Gyrus
...
Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex
...
Other candidates
Networks View
Conclusion
...
References
- Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678-691.
- Kringelbach, M. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2010). The neuroscience of happiness and pleasure. Social Research, 77(2), 659-678.