Could happiness be a purchasable commodity like any other?

It has long been a cliché that we cannot simply buy happiness, but is this really true? In fact, several recent studies have begun to find striking correlations between wealth and happiness, but it isn’t that simple. For example, your purchased happiness seems to depend on what exactly you are spending money on.

A growing body of research is growing to support the idea that money does lead to happiness. For instance, a 2013 study by economists Dr. Betsey Stevenson and Dr. Justin Wolfers found that happiness is heavily correlated with per capita GDP, meaning that the wealthier a nation is, the happier people in it tend to be.

Similarly, Stevenson and Wolfers found that, within a given country, happiness rises alongside income. This study flies in the face of some conventional wisdom by denying any so-called “satiation point,” where happiness ceases to grow despite rising wealth.

The concept of a “satiation point” is evident in an earlier study from 2010. This study did find that happiness rise together, but only up to an annual salary of $75,000. After surpassing this point, authors Dr. Daniel Kahneman and Dr. Angus Deaton found that happiness levels no longer correlated with wealth.

While this picture remains muddled, new research suggests that looking at gross income does not give us a full story. Instead, it is important to examine specifically how wealth is used to foster happiness. A groundbreaking 2017 study sought to analyze the effect of differing spending habits on happiness.

The study authors recruited participants and asked them to spend money on material purchases, like clothing or wine, but the following weekend, urged them to purchase services that would give them more leisure time. This latter category included paying for a cleaning service or meal delivery, both of which would save the purchaser the time and effort need to clean or cook.

After each of these weekends, the researchers asked for participants to report their levels of happiness and found decidedly more positive emotions amongst those that purchased leisure time.

Similarly, the same authors surveyed approximately 6,000 people with incomes ranging from $30,000/year to some in the millions. They asked each respondent to report their level of happiness and to describe their purchasing habits. Reinforcing their previous results, they found that those who “purchased leisure time” were happier than those who spend money on material objects.

In emphasizing the conclusion’s significance, one study author, Dr. Elizabeth Dunn, said “if altering slightly how people are spending their money could [boost life satisfaction], it’s something we really want to understand and perhaps encourage people to do.”

These results confirm some previous research. In a previous blog, we reported how spending money on experiences, like vacations, boosted happiness more than material purchases. Similarly, other research has found that charitable giving provides more happiness that just spending that money on ourselves.

Clearly, how we spend money matters, and hopefully further research will continue to shed light on such an important question.

For more information on the psychology of money and happiness, check out or previous blogs here and here!

We already know that faces are incredibly central to human interaction, but facial recognition may also be fundamental to our brain’s development.

Science has long demonstrated that even newborn infants have a strong preference for human faces over other stimuli. Now, a new study from the University of California, Los Angeles, may have found that our preference for faces begins even before birth itself!

These researchers exposed fetuses to triangles of red dots which sought to mimic facial structures, by representing the triangle that two eyes and a mouth create in a real face. In fact, past research has shown that such triangles serve as similar stimuli to faces for newborn children.

After projecting these dots into the fetus’ peripheral vision, researchers slowly moved them away from the fetus’ line of sight. Amazingly, ultrasound pictures show that a significant number of fetus’ moved their heads to follow the dots. While this was still a minority of total exposures, when contrasted with nonfacelike triangles, the fetuses reacted almost three times as often.

While some critics have said that it is too early to conclude any level of actual facial recognition, the very method of projecting images into the womb has yielded praise. Scott Johnson, a developmental psychologist uninvolved in the study, said the method “opens up all kinds of new doors to understand human development,” adding that it was “very, very exciting.”

While it may be premature to conclude a preference for faces at this stage in development, such a conclusion would be consistent with previous research that has found a consistent preference for human faces amongst newborn babies, within minutes of birth.

For example, a 1974 study showed newborns images of faces after only nine minutes. They found that the newborns would follow these faces as they moved for longer than they would for similar images of unintelligible images.

Subsequent research found that, within hours, babies would be able to differentiate their mother’s face from strangers, showing a preference for their mother. What is most striking about this is the speed at which young humans learn how to recognize and differentiate faces.

Similar research has even found that newborns, after only a day, show increased preference towards “beautiful faces.” These researchers contended that such faces better represent the stereotypical or “prototypical” human face, helping to explain these surprising results.

If facial recognition is really this deeply ingrained in our brain’s development, it would help explain the notion of universal emotions that span cultures. Followers of this blog will be familiar with the notion of universal basic emotions, and of the idea that these have an evolutionary origin.

For more information on this, check out our relevant blogs here and here!

Why does that person look so angry?

You don’t have to have any sort of chronic anxiety to understand how easy it is to misunderstand other people’s facial expressions. We often interact with strangers, or even friends, and find ourselves unable to read their emotions, fearing that they are unhappy or angry.

In fact, newly published research suggests that feelings of anxiety do actually make us misread ambiguous facial expressions. Not only are we left unable to accurately determine their emotions, but we are more likely to mistakenly conclude that they are angry.

A group of researchers at the University of Bristol sought to investigate the role that anxiety has on impairing emotion recognition. They brought together a group of volunteers and exposed them to a series of images showing the same face, but with fifteen different emotional expressions. These ranged from surprise and happiness to disgust and anger, and the volunteers were asked to identify each emotion. A follow-up study expanded this analysis to 45 images.

Sounds pretty straightforward, but here is where the experiment gets really interesting. Each participant was given a facemask that pumped air into their lungs. Now, some of these facemasks simply delivered normal oxygen-dominated air, but half of them contained large amounts of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide spiked participants’ heart rates and blood pressure, causing anxiety attacks.

When compared to the control group, who was given normal air, the participants who inhaled carbon dioxide were about eight percent worse at correctly identifying emotions. Moreover, they tended to perceive anger much more often than happiness.

This is certainly not the first evidence that anxiety emphasizes negative emotional recognition. As this 2016 study outlines, a great deal of research demonstrates how those with social anxiety have trouble recognizing emotion and often attribute anger or sadness to neutral expressions.

Similarly, other disorders, such as depression and eating disorders, thwart one’s understanding of facial expressions.

All of this is perhaps not surprising, however, given the role of the amygdala in the recognition of ambiguous expressions. The amygdala, which is deeply connected with anxiety and fear, is activated when we see people with uncertain expressions, firing according to the level of perceived ambiguity. Similarly, it is also activated when attempting to read fear into other people’s faces.

Given that the amygdala is connected with both anxiety and ambiguous expressions, it would certainly make sense that increased levels of anxiety would thwart effective emotional recognition.

So perhaps, in your next uncertain social interaction, don’t conclude that the other person is angry with you. Perhaps, they are just distracted or not particularly emotive, leading to ambiguous expressions.

For more information on the neurological underpinnings of emotional recognition, check out our past blogs here and here.