A Virtuous Cycle: The Relationship Between Happiness and Virtue

Pelin Kesebir

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

Ed Diener

University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign

 A Virtuous Cycle: The Relationship Between Happiness and Virtue

What constitutes a good, worthwhile, fulfilling life? How should one live? What kind of a

person should one be? From Lao Tzu to Aristotle, from Dostoyevsky to Bertrand Russell,

philosophers ancient and modern attempted their own answers to these oldest and most enduring

of philosophical questions. Frequently figuring in the discussions on the highest, best possible

life were the concepts of “happiness” and “virtue”. Notwithstanding inevitable differences in

terminology, many great minds posited that the road to a happy, thriving, worth-of-living life is

paved with virtues. Aristotle, for instance, believed that happiness (eudaemonia) is within the

reach of anyone willing to lead a virtuous life (Aristotle 1992). To Roman Stoic Cicero, the

affinity between happiness and virtue was so strong, that a man in possession of virtue could be

happy even while being tortured (McMahon 2006). More recently, Rosalind Hursthouse (1999)

argued that possessing virtue does not necessarily result in happiness, as luck plays an

undeniable role in human affairs, yet it is the only reliable bet for a happy, flourishing life—just

as adopting a healthy lifestyle is the best bet for being healthy, even though it does not guarantee

perfect health or longevity.

Is there any merit to these claims? Does possessing and exercising virtue indeed lead to

happiness? The current chapter endeavors to shed light on these questions, by reviewing the

burgeoning empirical literature on the relationship between virtues and happiness. In line with

the philosophical thinking on the topic, our review reveals virtue and happiness to be closely

associated. It furthermore appears that happiness and virtue are bi-directionally related—with

virtue leading to happiness and happiness leading to virtue, in a “virtuous cycle.” Before delving

into the nuances of this relationship, let us clarify what we understand from happiness and from

virtue.
 Happiness

“How to gain, how to keep, how to recover happiness, is in fact for most men at all times

the secret motive of all they do, and of all they are willing to endure” noted William James more

than a century ago (2003, 68). Happiness certainly seems to be one of the chief concerns of

living—both folk notions and philosophical characterizations of the best possible life

consistently feature happiness as an essential component (Kesebir and Diener 2008; King and

Scollon 1998).

Whereas the history of the idea of happiness spans millennia, its scientific treatment is

much more recent. The science of happiness, starting with the mid-nineteen seventies, flourished

under the umbrella term of subjective well-being (SWB, Diener 1984). SWB refers to people’s

evaluation of their lives, and incorporates both cognitive and affective elements. These elements

include life satisfaction (global judgments of one’s life), satisfaction with important life domains

(satisfaction with one’s work, health, relationships, etc.), positive affect (prevalence of positive

emotions and moods), and low levels of negative affect (prevalence of unpleasant emotions and

moods). SWB emphasizes the subjective nature of happiness and holds human beings to be the

best judges of their own happiness. This differs from the more prescriptive conceptualizations of

happiness such as Ryff and Singer’s (1996) construct of psychological well-being and Ryan and

Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory. These approaches, more in the eudaemonist tradition of

the classical era, specify certain needs (such as relatedness, self-acceptance, and meaning and

purpose in life) as imperative to human well-being.

We should note that most of the studies conducted on happiness, as well as most of the

studies we report in our chapter, conceive of happiness not in the prescriptive, eudaimonic

sense—representing a value judgment about whether someone is leading a commendable life—

but rather in the sense of subjective well-being. High subjective well-being and eudaimonic

happiness are clearly not interchangeable concepts. However, many philosophers and

psychologists agree that the two concepts are sufficiently close and subjective well-being can

reasonably be used as a proxy for well-being (Church et al. 2013; Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, and

King 2008; Haybron 2005; Sumner 1999).

Recent decades have witnessed substantial progress in identifying the concomitants and

causes of happiness. Accordingly, a person’s happiness level is determined by three major

factors: (1) a genetically determined set point for happiness, (2) life circumstances (e.g., age,

gender, education, culture), and (3) factors under one’s voluntary control, such as the activities

and practices one chooses to engage in (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, and Schkade 2005; Seligman

2002). After surveying the literature, Lyubomirsky and colleagues (2005) concluded that among

these components, the genetically determined set point explains about 50% of variation in

happiness, whereas life circumstances account for only 10%, and intentional activities are

responsible for the remaining 40%. This picture suggests significant, even if not unlimited, room

for increasing one’s happiness. Could acting virtuously be one of the ways in which to

accomplish this?

Virtues and Happiness

Virtues are powerful psychological resources that help people to deal with and transcend

the limitations inherent in the human condition. They are our noble attributes that provide

resilience in the face of adversity, and enable us to thrive and achieve the “good life” (Sandage

and Hill 2001). Virtues are essential to optimal functioning in intrapersonal and interpersonal

domains. As a result, people and societies that lack virtues do not fare well. Philosopher Philippa

Foot (2002), for instance, observes that nobody can get on well without courage or without some
measure of temperance, and that communities where justice and charity are lacking, such as

Russia under the Stalinist terror or Sicily under the Mafia, are wretched places to live.

Virtues, almost by definition, are considered to serve their possessors well, particularly

when life is showing its dark face. Yet do they go as far as fostering happiness? Is virtue “the

foundation of happiness” as Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter? Are virtue and happiness

“mother and daughter” as Benjamin Franklin believed (McMahon 2006)? Is there “an

indissoluble union between virtue and happiness” as George Washington ([1789] 2000) proposed

in his first inaugural address?

Setting aside for a moment the question of whether a connection actually exists between

happiness and virtue, let us note that people by and large would like it to. The potency of the

desire to perceive the world as a just place is well established (Hafer and Begue 2005; Lerner

1980). We fervently want to believe that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get,

that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Wishing to see

virtue rewarded with happiness and vice punished with unhappiness is a natural outcome of this

understandable human tendency.

Virtue is considered to lead to happiness not only in folk perceptions, but philosophers

who pondered the topic also arrived at comparable conclusions. Aristotle, for example, saw

happiness (eudemonia) as the result of cultivating one’s virtues and living in accordance with

them (Aristotle, 1985). Even Epicurus, whose name has come to be associated with sensuous

hedonism, believed in the interdependence of virtue and pleasure, and the importance of practical

wisdom (phronesis) as a determinant of happiness (Holowchak 2004). Christian philosophers of

the Middle Ages too associated virtue with happiness, albeit in a slightly different fashion:

Earthly happiness, although fallible, was attainable by the devotedly faithful through the grace of
God. More importantly however, the same devoted faith was the key to the Kingdom of Heaven

with its complete and eternal happiness (Tatarkiewicz 1976). In the modern era, classical and

medieval notions of happiness as closely related to “virtue” have largely waned, and people have

come to think of happiness “more as feeling good than being good” (McMahon 2006, 65). The

history of the virtue-as-a-purveyor-of-happiness idea is clearly more complicated and nuanced

than the story told here. Yet this brief summary bridges the past and the present, and reminds us

that the roots of the psychological research to be presented in this chapter lie deep in history.

Empirical Research Linking Virtue and Happiness

The study of virtues in psychology has undergone an awakening in the last fifteen years,

encouraged by the positive psychology movement. Positive psychology was inaugurated with the

overarching goal of articulating a vision of the good life, using scientific methodology to study

positive subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions (Seligman

1999; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Developing a better understanding of human

strengths and virtues was considered to be of central importance to the mission of positive

psychology from the outset (McCullough and Snyder 2000; Sandage and Hill 2001; Sheldon and

King 2001). Not only did research on several previously underexplored virtues—such as

gratitude, humility, forgiveness, wisdom, and hope—boom during this time, but also a

comprehensive classification of human strengths and virtues has been created (Peterson and

Seligman 2004) that further stimulated the research on the topic. This work, called the Values in

Action (VIA) Classification of Character Strengths, specified six fundamental virtues that were

endorsed virtually by every culture: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and

transcendence (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, and Seligman 2005). Under each virtue, particular

strengths were identified, such as persistence and integrity under courage or humility and self-
control under temperance, culminating in 24 measurable character strengths. As we will see,

research exploring the links between virtue and happiness in recent years has employed and

benefited greatly from this taxonomy.

The existing body of research on virtues and well-being can be roughly grouped into two

categories: In one is research on how virtues prevent unhappiness, and in the other on how

virtues can promote happiness. The former has investigated the role of virtues in preventing

undesirable life outcomes, providing resilience in the face of life challenges, and buffering

psychopathology. The latter, on the other hand, highlighted how virtues are associated with

positive life outcomes and help people to thrive. Next, we review these (inevitably interrelated)

sets of findings, focusing predominantly on how virtues promote happiness and desirable

outcomes.

Virtue Prevents Unhappiness and Undesirable Life Outcomes

Character strengths such as courage, future-mindedness, optimism, interpersonal skills,

work ethic, hope, and perseverance have been shown to have a buffering effect against unwanted

outcomes like substance abuse, violence, mental illness, and suicide (Seligman 2002). Empirical

support for these claims oftentimes comes from character education programs that teach young

people about topics like moral reasoning, social skills, responsibility, spiritual growth, civic

values, and conflict resolution (Berkowitz and Bier 2004; Lapsley and Narvaez 2006). Other

cross-sectional and longitudinal studies yield similar conclusions. For example, a three-year

follow-up study with university students identified at risk for depression showed that, compared

to a control group, those who were trained in optimism reported lower levels of depression and

anxiety symptoms, hopelessness and dysfunctional attitudes (Seligman et al. 1999). Another

longitudinal study revealed that a combination of high gratitude and high grit at baseline
predicted a near absence of suicidal ideation over time in a group of college students (Kleiman et

al. 2013). In a cross-sectional study, Peterson and Park (2006) documented that teenagers high in

the strengths of hope, zest, and leadership displayed significantly fewer internalizing problems

(e.g., social withdrawal, depression), whereas teenagers high in persistence, authenticity,

prudence, and love displayed fewer externalizing problems (e.g., aggressive, destructive

behavior). Taken together, these findings illustrate that virtues can help people to shield from

misery, and attest to the powerful role they play in determining life outcomes. Not being

unhappy is not identical to being happy, however. Can virtue effectively foster happiness too?

Virtue Promotes Happiness and Desirable Life Outcomes

In this section, we present a plethora of research exploring the link between virtue and

happiness. The reader will notice that, as rare as it is, our review tells a very consistent story:

Virtue is good for happiness. The first line of evidence for this assertion comes from studies

showing that “doing good” is associated with “feeling good”: It turns out that people are happier

when they are engaged with activities and goals that carry eudaimonic rather than sheer

hedonistic value (King 2008). For example, Steger, Kashdan, and Oishi (2007) found using the

daily diary method that engaging in eudaimonic behaviors (e.g., expressing gratitude,

volunteering one’s time, persevering at a valued goal even in the face of obstacles) was

associated with significantly higher subjective well-being than engaging in hedonic behaviors

(e.g., getting drunk, having sex with someone one doesn’t love, obtaining material goods). The

more participants reported engaging in eudaimonic behaviors, the higher was their life

satisfaction, positive affect, and meaning in life. No such relationship was observed for hedonic

behaviors. Remarkably, daily eudaimonic (but not daily hedonic) behaviors predicted higher life
satisfaction and higher meaning in life the following day, illustrating their causal role in

promoting well-being.

Further support for the positive impact of doing good on subjective well-being comes

from studies examining how the content of one’s goals relates to happiness. Pursuing goals that

can be described as virtuous, eudaimonic, or self-transcending has consistently been linked to

higher well-being than pursuing hedonic or egoistical goals. For example, Emmons (2003)

reports that, in both community and college student samples, certain types of personal strivings

are associated with higher subjective well-being than others. Specifically, the presence of

intimacy strivings (e.g., “help my friends and let them know I care,” “accept others as they are”),

generativity strivings (e.g., “be a good role model for my siblings,” “feel useful to society”), and

spirituality strivings (e.g., “learn to tune into higher power throughout the day”, “appreciate

God’s creations”) predicted greater subjective well-being, whereas power strivings (e.g., “be the

best when with a group of people,” “get others to see my point of view”) predicted lower well-

being. Headey (2008), relatedly, found that endorsing family-oriented and altruistic life goals,

such as commitment to family and friendships, helping others, and being socially and politically

involved predicted higher life satisfaction cross-sectionally and over time. In contrast,

commitment to competitive goals related to wealth and consumption was associated with lower

life satisfaction. The picture emerging from these studies is that virtuous, self-transcending

priorities in life foster happiness. Apparently, happiness follows more from the engagement of

our better, higher selves than from hedonistic or otherwise self-absorbed pursuits.

Also testifying to the felicific nature of virtue are studies that assess the relationship

between character strengths and happiness. These studies almost unequivocally reveal a positive

relationship between possession of character strengths and subjective well-being, particularly

when it comes to certain strengths. In an early, large-scale study Park, Peterson, and Seligman

(2004) showed that almost all of the 24 character strengths specified by Peterson and Seligman

(2004) correlated with global life satisfaction. The strengths of love, gratitude, hope, curiosity,

zest, and perspective/wisdom emerged as most robustly linked to life satisfaction (correlations in

the .35 to .60 range), followed by strengths such as persistence, self-regulation, spirituality,

forgiveness, social intelligence, humor, leadership, bravery, citizenship, integrity, and kindness

(correlations in the .20 to .30 range). The character strengths that exhibited the lowest, albeit still

significant, associations with life satisfaction were fairness, prudence, love of learning,

judgment, appreciation of beauty, creativity, and modesty/humility (in the .05 to .20 range).

Research with adolescents (Park and Peterson 2006a) and young children as described by

their parents (Park and Peterson 2006b) similarly reveals love, zest, hope, and gratitude as the

character strengths most closely affiliated with happiness. Furthermore, comparable strong

associations between happiness and the virtues of zest, curiosity, gratitude, hope, and love have

been obtained in Japanese (Shimai et al. 2006), German-speaking Swiss (Peterson et al. 2007)

and Croatian (Brdar and Kashdan 2010) samples. Finally, there is evidence that not only self-

reported character strengths, but also strengths as assessed by knowledgeable others yield the

same patterns, suggesting that the data from self-reports are not biased by methodological

problems (Buschor, Proyer, and Ruch 2013).

Findings from experimental studies overlap with the conclusions of correlational studies:

Possessing and using character strengths in general is associated with elevated happiness; at the

same time, some strengths are more conducive to happiness than others. In one intervention

study, for example, participants took an inventory of character strengths and received

individualized feedback about their top five strengths. They were then asked to use one of these
five strengths in a novel way every day for one week (Seligman et al. 2005). At the one-month,

three-month, and six-month follow-ups, these participants were happier and less depressed

compared to both their personal baseline and a placebo control group. Another intervention study

conducted with British adolescents demonstrated that those who participated in school exercises

aimed at promoting character strengths (a so-called “Strengths Gym” program) experienced

increased life satisfaction compared to those who did not participate in these exercises (Proctor et

al. 2011).

A recent study (Proyer, Ruch, and Buschor 2012) used an experimental approach to

tackle the question of whether all strengths are created equal with respect to fostering subjective

well-being. The researchers trained a group of adults with the strengths most correlated with

happiness (curiosity, gratitude, hope, zest, and also humor). This group was compared to a group

that trained with strengths that typically yield low correlations with happiness (appreciation of

beauty and excellence, creativity, kindness, love of learning, and perspective) and a wait-list

control group. When life satisfaction scores before and after the treatments were contrasted, only

the group trained with the strengths most correlated with happiness improved significantly in

comparison to the control group. At the same time, when asked for subjective ratings of

experienced changes due to the program (e.g., perceived cheerfulness, happiness, positive mood)

participants in both intervention groups indicated gains above that of a wait-listed control group.

These experimental findings reinforce our earlier observation that although virtues in general

appear to contribute to happiness, some virtues are more promising in that regard.

One thing seems notable about the virtues most closely associated with happiness such as

curiosity, gratitude, hope, zest, and love: They all have a self-transcendent aspect to them, and

involve positive connections to some “larger beyond”. Among other things, curiosity connects
one to a large, fascinating world; gratitude connects one to a benevolent higher force as well as

to others; hope connects one to a desirable future, zest connects one to life; and love of course

connects one to other people. Transcending the self and connecting to something larger than the

self are considered essential to psychological health and well-being (Haidt 2006; Leary 2004; for

a review, see Wayment and Bauer 2008). It should perhaps be expected, then, that character

strengths that facilitate these abilities are most conducive to happiness.

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a more detailed review of the research

connecting virtues to happiness. However, the interested reader should be aware that the

literature provides evidence linking almost any virtue to happiness, including self-control

(Hofmann et al. 2013), kindness (Buchanan and Bardi 2010), hope and spirituality (Marques,

Lopez, and Mitchell 2013), gratitude (Emmons and McCullough 2003; Watkins et al. 2003),

honesty (James 2011),wisdom (Bergsma and Ardelt 2012), and patience (Schnitker 2012).

Can One Have Too Much of a Virtue?

Surveying the available evidence, it is very hard to escape the conclusion that virtue and

happiness are closely interlinked. That said, a question that naturally comes up is whether one

can have too much of a virtue: Is there perhaps an optimal level of possessing a virtue, beyond

which it starts to hurt rather than help one’s well-being? After all, temperance itself is a virtue

and “too much of a good thing” is commonly regarded with suspicion. Proverbial wisdom warns

us about “curiosity killing the cat” and the self-help genre about “women who love too much”.

Even the psychology literature provides evidence that having too much happiness or too much

optimism, for example, may not yield the most ideal results (e.g., Lovallo and Kahneman 2003;

Oishi, Diener, and Lucas 2007). Can too much of a virtue be detrimental to one’s happiness too?

Relying on data from thousands of respondents, Park, Peterson, and Seligman (2004) conclude
that there does not seem to be any evidence for this notion. They report that no matter how they

split their samples, the relationship between life satisfaction and any character strength was

“relentlessly monotonic” (Peterson 2006, 46). The top of the top were higher in life satisfaction

than those in the mere top. In contrast, people who scored in the bottom 5% or 10% of a strength

exhibited notably low levels of life satisfaction.

Our conviction is that a virtue taken to the extreme can only be dangerous in the absence

of other balancing virtues. For instance, perseverance and self-control, which are both laudable

qualities in themselves, can cause harm to oneself and others if applied to misguided, unwisely

chosen goals. Think of someone who perseveres in staying in an abusive marriage or an

impossible business endeavor, or an anorexic woman who uses self-control to starve herself.

Similarly, one can think of suicide bombers who are high in courage, stalkers high in curiosity,

con-artists high in creativity, and cult members high in spirituality. The absence of balancing

virtues such as kindness, fairness, honesty, judgment and wisdom in these examples is bound to

prove destructive or self-destructive. Thus, what is problematic appears to be not excess virtue,

but deficient virtue. Relatedly, Peterson (2006) observed that the absence of character strengths

characterizes psychological disorder—if one studied those who enter therapy, he suggested, one

would find one or another character strength to be conspicuously depressed or altogether absent.

Why Not Act More Virtuously?

Considering all the happiness benefits that virtues provide, one might wonder why people

do not choose to act more virtuously and reap its rewards. Are they unaware of the joys of virtue,

or is it just too difficult sometimes to act with virtue, even if one might anticipate felicific returns

down the road? Research suggests that the answer may have to do with both.
 For one, nature and nurture predispose people to possess virtue in varying degrees. Even

though it is well within the realm of possibility to inculcate and foster virtue, as in the several

intervention studies we reviewed, it would be wrong to expect no limits whatsoever on a given

person’s capacity to act with virtue. It has been noted that virtue consists of having the intention

to carry out desirable actions as well as having the wherewithal to do so (Baumeister and Exline

1999). A person, for example, might value honesty as a supreme virtue, and intend to speak the

truth as a general rule. There might come a time, however, when that same person cannot afford

honesty and resorts to a lie instead. In situations like this, when acting with virtue entails some

personal discomfort, the wherewithal issue becomes critically important. Baumeister and Exline

(1999) argue that this wherewithal heavily depends on self-control. Particularly when virtue

requires overcoming easier initial responses and stepping out of one’s comfort zone, self-control

becomes a primary determinant of virtue. Accordingly, virtues oftentimes necessitate the

exertion of self-control, whereas sin and vice revolve around poor self-control—as in sloth,

gluttony, or lust. Self-control, then, not only is a virtue itself, but also facilitates the exercise of

other virtues. This led Baumeister and Exline (1999) to desribe self-control as “the master

virtue”. In light of this, it is unfortunate that across fifty American states and fifty-four nations,

self-control consistently came up among the character strengths people said they possess the

least (Park, Peterson, and Seligman 2006).

Self-regulatory failure seems to be a major obstacle keeping people from acting

virtuously. Yet there is no reason to assume that people are sufficiently aware of the happiness-

virtue link either. Even though they may have the general sense that virtue will be rewarded

ultimately, they do not appear to realize the more immediate affective benefits that virtuous acts

carry with them. Sandstrom and Dunn (2011) review evidence showing that virtue often provides
happiness benefits even in the short term, but due to systematic affective forecasting errors,

people do not tend to be aware of these rewards. While they report short-term emotional benefits

after exercising virtues such as generosity, industriousness, integrity, forgiveness, or gratitude,

when asked to predict how they would feel, they do not anticipate these benefits and oftentimes

assert that the alternative to the virtuous behavior would make them feel better.

Sandstrom and Dunn (2011) argue that these affective forecasting errors create a “virtue

blind spot” that drives people away from the exercise of virtue. One potential way to address this

problem is to remind people of how good they felt after past virtuous acts. In one study, for

instance, participants were randomly assigned to recall a time they had spent money on either

themselves or on others. People who recalled spending money on others reported higher

happiness, and this also led them to act more generously when given a chance in the second part

of the study (Aknin, Dunn, and Norton 2012). It seems that frequent reminders are necessary to

circumvent our proclivity to conceive of virtue as painful rather than rewarding.

Virtuous Cycles

Our discussion on the consequences of virtue for one’s happiness has concluded that

virtue is conducive to happiness. Yet might happiness be conducive to virtue too?

Growing evidence in recent years suggests that happiness is not only an epiphenomenon,

but itself the cause of many favorable outcomes in life. Comprehensive reviews of the literature

reveal that happiness and positive affect foster better health, better work performance, better

social relationships, and more altruistic behavior (De Neve et al. 2013; Lyubomirsky, King, and

Diener 2005). Among other things, happy people are more productive; spend less and save more;

donate more time, money, and blood to others; are more likely to resolve conflicts through

cooperation; are less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, and even more likely to wear
seatbelts. These findings do not constitute a direct test of the idea that happiness causes virtue.

Nonetheless, it is difficult to imagine that such outcomes could be achieved without the use of a

wide range of virtues such as love, kindness, fairness, industriousness, or self-control. Hence, our

sense is that happiness and positive affect do play a functional role in guiding people toward

more virtuous ways of acting.

Further support for the notion that happiness leads to virtue comes from the broaden-and-

build model of positive emotions (Fredrickson 1998). According to the model, positive emotions

broaden people’s momentary thought-action repertoires, widening the array of the thoughts and

actions that come to their mind. This broadening serves to build enduring physical, intellectual,

and social resources, allowing people to become more creative, knowledgeable, resilient, socially

integrated, and healthy over time. The body of research on the topic, encompassing both

experimental and longitudinal methods, led to a conception of positive affect as a source of

human strength (Isen 2003). This strength can trigger upward spiral processes, whereby positive

emotions and desirable outcomes feed into each other, leading toward enhanced emotional well-

being over time (Fredrickson and Joiner 2002).

We propose that the relationship between happiness and virtue involves a similar

feedback loop: Happiness fosters virtuous behavior, which leads to higher happiness, which in

turn facilitates further virtuous behavior. The reciprocal influences between happiness and virtue

thus fuel a “virtuous cycle”, potentially leading to enhanced happiness and enhanced virtue over

time. This relationship is probably more apparent for some virtues than others. For example,

Watkins (2004) writes that the answers to the questions “does gratitude cause happiness”, and

“does happiness cause gratitude” are both positive. Gratitude promotes happiness, but happiness

promotes gratitude as well—the two emotions feed off each other in a virtuous cycle. Similarly,
Aknin, Dunn and Norton (2012) argue that a positive feedback loop exists between spending

money on others—an act of generosity—and happiness. In their research, not only did recalling

previous acts of prosocial spending lead to higher levels of happiness, but higher levels of

happiness predicted a greater desire to spend on others again too. In light of all this, a positive

feedback loop between virtue and happiness strikes us as an idea worthy of further exploration.

Lest we create the impression that “the rich gets richer” when it comes to happiness and

virtue too, we wish to note that not only happiness, but unhappiness too, can lead to virtue.

Human strengths are oftentimes born in encounters with life challenges and adversity (Ryff and

Singer 2003). Though extended exposure to degraded and impoverished environments can

clearly have debilitating effects on people’s health and well-being, some exposure to negative

events has been suggested to be beneficial to cultivating strengths such as self-confidence, hope,

sense of coherence, capacity for hard work, and connection to others (e.g., Haidt 2006;

Saakvitne, Tennen, and Affleck 1998; Stokols 2003). The literature on post-traumatic growth

also provides ample support for the claim that adversity can lead to self-improvement (Tedeschi

and Calhoun 2004). In a similar vein, Peterson, Park and Seligman (2006) report associations

between a history of physical illness and the character strengths of appreciation of beauty,

bravery, curiosity, fairness, forgiveness, gratitude, humor, kindness, love of learning, and

spirituality. Thus it seems that, under the right conditions, traumas and crises can propel people

toward virtue too, kick-starting a virtuous cycle.

Conclusion

The nature of the relationship between virtue and happiness has been the subject of

philosophical treatises for long. In this chapter, we relied on current psychological research to

better illuminate this relationship. Our review points to a clear association between happiness
and virtue, which seems particularly strong when it comes to self-transcendent virtues such as

hope, zest, gratitude, love, and curiosity. While experimental and longitudinal studies suggest

that virtue leads to happiness, there is also support for the notion that happiness leads to virtuous

behavior. We have argued that these reciprocal causation dynamics are conducive to virtuous

cycles running from virtue to happiness to virtue.

There is virtually no doubt that virtues make the world a better place for oneself and for

others. Yet a recent analysis found that during the twentieth century words related to virtue (e.g.,

honesty, courage, humility, generosity, perseverance) appeared with diminishing frequency in

American books (Kesebir and Kesebir 2012). This suggests that the salience of virtue has

declined in American minds during this time. If virtues are indispensable to human happiness

and societal welfare as ancient philosophical and current empirical queries indicate, and if they

require favorable cultural conditions to thrive, then these findings are somewhat concerning. We

believe that a virtue-salient culture will provide the most fertile ground for individual and

societal flourishing.
 References

Aknin, Lara B., Elizabeth W. Dunn, and Michael I. Norton (2012), “Happiness Runs in a
Circular Motion: Evidence for a Positive Feedback Loop Between Prosocial Spending and
Happiness,” Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 347-355.

Aristotle (1985), Nicomachean Ethics, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Aristotle (1992), Eudaemian Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.

Baumeister, Roy F., and Julie Juola Exline (1999), “Virtue, Personality, and Social Relations:
Self-Control as the Moral Muscle,” Journal of Personality, 67, 1165-1194.

Bergsma, Ad, and Monika Ardelt (2012), “Self-Reported Wisdom and Happiness: An Empirical
Investigation,” Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 481-499.

Berkowitz, Marvin W., and Melinda C. Bier (2004), “Research-Based Character Education,” The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 72-85.

Biswas-Diener, Robert, Todd B. Kashdan, and Laura A. King (2009), “Two Traditions of
Happiness Research, Not Two Distinct Types of Happiness,” The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 4, 208-211.

Botvin, Gilbert J., Eli Baker, Linda Dusenbury, Elizabeth M. Botvin, and Tracy Diaz (1995),
“Long-Term Follow-Up Results of a Randomized Drug Abuse Prevention Trial in a White
Middle-Class Population,” JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association-US
Edition, 273, 1106-1112.

Brdar, Ingrid, and Todd B. Kashdan (2010), “Character Strengths and Well-Being in Croatia: An
Empirical Investigation of Structure and Correlates,” Journal of Research in
Personality, 44, 151-154.

Buchanan, Kathryn E., and Anat Bardi (2010), “Acts of Kindness and Acts of Novelty Affect
Life Satisfaction,” The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 235-237.

Buschor, Claudia, René T. Proyer, and Willibald Ruch (2013), “Self-and Peer-Rated Character
Strengths: How Do They Relate to Satisfaction with Life and Orientations to
Happiness?,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 116-127.

Church, A. Timothy, Marcia S. Katigbak, Kenneth D. Locke, Hengsheng Zhang, Jiliang Shen,
José de Jesús Vargas-Flores, Joselina Ibáñez-Reyes et al. (2013), “Need Satisfaction and
Well-Being Testing Self-Determination Theory in Eight Cultures,” Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 44, 507-534.
Dahlsgaard, Katherine, Christopher Peterson, and Martin E.P. Seligman (2005), “Shared Virtue:
The Convergence of Valued Human Strengths Across Culture and History,” Review of
General Psychology, 9, 203-213.

De Neve, Jan-Emmanuel, Ed Diener, Louis Tay, and Cody Xuereb, (2013). “The Objective
Benefits of Subjective Well-Being,” in World Happiness Report, ed. John Helliwell,
Richard Layard and Jeffrey Sachs, New York: UN Sustainable Development Solutions
Network.

Diener, Ed (1984), “Subjective Well-Being,” Psychological Bulletin 95, 542-575.

Emmons, Robert A. (2003), “Personal Goals, Life Meaning, and Virtue: Wellsprings of a
Positive Life,” in Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived, ed. Corey L.
M. Keyes and Jonathan Haidt, Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association,
105-128.

Emmons, Robert A., and Michael E. McCullough (2003), “Counting Blessings versus Burdens:
An Experimental Investigation of Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being in Daily
Life,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.

Foot, Philippa (2002), Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, New York:
Oxford University Press.

Fredrickson, Barbara L. (1998), “What Good Are Positive Emotions?,” Review of General
Psychology, 2, 300-319.

Fredrickson, Barbara L., and Thomas Joiner (2002), “Positive Emotions Trigger Upward Spirals
Toward Emotional Well-Being,” Psychological Science, 13, 172-175.

Hafer, Carolyn L., and Laurent Begue (2005), “Experimental Research on Just-World Theory:
Problems, Developments, and Future Challenges,” Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167.

Haidt, Jonathan (2006), The Happiness Hypothesis, New York: Basic Books.

Haybron, Daniel M. (2005), “On Being Happy or Unhappy,” Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research, 71, 287-317.

Headey, Bruce (2008), “Life Goals Matter to Happiness: A Revision of Set-Point Theory,”
Social Indicators Research, 86, 213-231.

Hofmann, Wilhelm, Rachel R. Fisher, Maike Luhmann, Kathleen D. Vohs, and Roy F.
Baumeister (2013), “Yes, But Are They Happy? Effects of Trait Self-Control on Affective
Well-Being and Life Satisfaction,” Journal of Personality.

Holowchak, Mark (2004), Happiness and Greek Ethical Thought, New York: Continuum.
Hursthouse, Rosalind (1999), On Virtue Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Isen, Alice M., “Positive Affect as a Source of Human Strength,” (2003), in A Psychology of
Human Strengths, ed. Lisa G. Aspinwall and Ursula M. Staudinger, Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association, 179-195.

James Jr, Harvey S. (2011), “Is the Just Man a Happy Man? An Empirical Study of the
Relationship between Ethics and Subjective Well‐Being,” Kyklos, 64, 193-212.

James, William (2003), The Varieties of Religious Experience, New York: Signet.

Kashdan, Todd B., Robert Biswas-Diener, and Laura A. King (2008), “Reconsidering
Happiness: The Costs of Distinguishing Between Hedonics and Eudaimonia,” The Journal
of Positive Psychology, 3, 219-233.

Kesebir, Pelin, and Ed Diener (2008), “In Pursuit of Happiness: Empirical Answers to
Philosophical Questions,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 117-125.

King, L.A. (2008), “Interventions for enhancing subjective well-being: Can we make people
happier and should we?,” in The Science of Subjective Well-Being, ed. Michael Eid &
Randy J. Larsen, New York: Guilford Press, 431-448.

Kesebir, Pelin, and Selin Kesebir (2012), “The Cultural Salience of Moral Character and Virtue
Declined in Twentieth Century America,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 471-480.

King, Laura A., and Christie N. Scollon (1998), “What Makes a Life Good?,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 156-165.

Kleiman, Evan M., Leah M. Adams, Todd B. Kashdan, and John H. Riskind (2013), “Gratitude
and Grit Indirectly Reduce Risk of Suicidal Ideations by Enhancing Meaning in Life:
Evidence for a Mediated Moderation Model,” Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 539-
546.

Lapsley, Daniel K., and Darcia Narvaez (2006), “Character Education,” in Handbook of Child
Psychology Volume 4, ed. Ann Renninger and Irving E. Siegel, New York: Wiley, 248-296.

Leary, Mark R. (2004), The Curse of the Self, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lerner, Melvin J. (1980), The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion, New York:
Plenum Press.

Lovallo, Dan, and Daniel Kahneman (2003), “Delusions of Success,” Harvard Business
Review, 81, 56-63.

Lyubomirsky, Sonja, Kennon M. Sheldon, and David Schkade (2005). “Pursuing Happiness: The
Architecture of Sustainable Change,” Review of General Psychology, 9, 111-131.
Lyubomirsky, Sonja, Laura King, and Ed Diener (2005), “The Benefits of Frequent Positive
Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?,” Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.

Marques, Susana C., Shane J. Lopez, and Joanna Mitchell (2013), “The Role of Hope,
Spirituality and Religious Practice in Adolescents’ Life Satisfaction: Longitudinal
Findings,” Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 251-261.

McCullough, Michael E., and Charles R. Snyder (2000), “Classical Sources of Human Strength:
Revisiting an Old Home and Building a New One,” Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology 19, 1-10.

McMahon D.M. (2006), Happiness: A History. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Oishi, Shigehiro, Ed Diener, and Richard E. Lucas (2007), “The Optimum Level of Well-Being:
Can People Be Too Happy?,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 346-360.

Park, Nansook, and Christopher Peterson (2006a), “Moral Competence and Character Strengths
Among Adolescents: The Development and Validation of the Values in Action Inventory
of Strengths for Youth.” Journal of Adolescence, 29, 891-909.

Park, Nansook, and Christopher Peterson (2006b), “Character Strengths and Happiness Among
Young Children: Content Analysis of Parental Descriptions,” Journal of Happiness
Studies, 7, 323-341.

Park, Nansook, Christopher Peterson, and Martin E. P. Seligman (2004), “Strengths of Character
and Well-Being,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603-619.

Park, Nansook, Christopher Peterson, and Martin EP Seligman (2006), “Character Strengths in
Fifty-Four Nations and the Fifty US States,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118-
129.

Peterson, Christopher (2006), “The Values in Action (VIA) Classification of Strengths,” in A

Life Worth Living: Contributions to Positive Psychology, ed. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and
Isabella S. Csikszentmihalyi, New York: Oxford, 29-48.

Peterson, Christopher, Nansook Park, and Martin E.P. Seligman (2006), “Greater Strengths of
Character and Recovery from Illness,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 17-26.

Peterson, Christopher, Willibald Ruch, Ursula Beermann, Nansook Park, and Martin E.P.
Seligman (2007), “Strengths of Character, Orientations to Happiness, and Life
Satisfaction,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 149-156.

Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E.P. Seligman (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A
Handbook and Classification. Oxford University Press.
Proctor, Carmel, Eli Tsukayama, Alex M. Wood, John Maltby, Jennifer Fox Eades, and P. Alex
Linley (2011). “Strengths Gym: The Impact of a Character Strengths-Based Intervention on
the Life Satisfaction and Well-Being of Adolescents,” The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 6, 377-388.

Proyer, René T., Willibald Ruch, and Claudia Buschor (2012), “Testing Strengths-Based
Interventions: A Preliminary Study on the Effectiveness of a Program Targeting Curiosity,
Gratitude, Hope, Humor, and Zest for Enhancing Life Satisfaction,” Journal of Happiness
Studies, 14, 275-292.

Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci (2000), “Self-Determination Theory and The Facilitation
of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,” American Psychologist, 55,
68-78.

Ryff Carol D., and Burton Singer (1996), Psychological Well-Being: Meaning, Measurement,
and Implications for Psychotherapy Research, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65, 14-
23.

Ryff, Carol D., and Burton Singer (2003), “Ironies of the Human Condition: Well-Being and
Health on the Way to Mortality”, in A Psychology of Human Strengths, ed. Lisa G.
Aspinwall and Ursula M. Staudinger, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association, 271-287.

Saakvitne, Karen W., Howard Tennen, and Glenn Affleck (1998), “Exploring Thriving in the
Context of Clinical Trauma Theory: Constructivist Self Development Theory,” Journal of
Social Issues, 54, 279-299.

Sandage, Steven J., and Peter C. Hill (2001), “The Virtues of Positive Psychology: The
Rapprochement and Challenges of an Affirmative Postmodern Perspective,” Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour, 31, 241-260.

Sandstrom, Gillian M., and Elizabeth W. Dunn (2011), “The Virtue Blind Spot: Do Affective
Forecasting Errors Undermine Virtuous Behavior?,” Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 5, 720-733.

Schnitker, Sarah A. (2012), “An Examination of Patience and Well-Being,” The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 7, 263-280.

Seligman, Martin E.P. (1999), “The President’s Address,” American Psychologist, 54, 559-562.

Seligman, Martin E.P. (2002), “Positive Psychology, Positive Prevention, and Positive
Therapy,” in Handbook of Positive Psychology, ed. Charles R. Snyder & Shane J. Lopez,
Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 3-12.

Seligman, Martin E.P. (2002), Authentic Happiness. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, Martin E. P., and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2000), “Positive Psychology: An
Introduction”, American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.

Seligman, Martin E.P., Peter Schulman, Robert J. DeRubeis, and Steven D. Hollon (1999), “The
Prevention of Depression and Anxiety,” Prevention and Treatment 2, Article 8, 1-21.

Seligman, Martin E. P., Tracy A. Steen, Nansook Park, and Christopher Peterson (2005),
“Positive Psychology Progress,” American Psychologist, 60, 410-421.

Sheldon, Kennon M., and Laura King (2001), “Why Positive Psychology is Necessary,”
American Psychologist, 56, 216-217.

Shimai, Satoshi, Keiko Otake, Nansook Park, Christopher Peterson, and Martin E.P. Seligman
(2006), “Convergence of Character Strengths in American and Japanese Young
Adults,” Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 311-322.

Steger, Michael F., Todd B. Kashdan, and Shigehiro Oishi (2008), “Being Good by Doing Good:
Daily Eudaimonic Activity and Well-Being,” Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 22-
42.

Stokols, Daniel (2003), “The Ecology of Human Strengths,” in A Psychology of Human

Strengths, ed. Lisa G. Aspinwall and Ursula M. Staudinger, Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association, 331-343.

Sumner, Leonard W. (1996), Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tatarkiewicz, Wladyslaw (1976), Analysis of Happiness, Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers.

Tedeschi, Richard G., and Lawrence G. Calhoun (2004), “Posttraumatic Growth: Conceptual
Foundations and Empirical Evidence,” Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1-18.

Washington, George [1789] 2000, “First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789,” in The Declaration
of Independence and Other Great Documents of American History, 1775–1865, ed. John
Grafton, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 43-46.

Watkins, Philip C. (2004), “Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being,” in The Psychology of

Gratitude, ed. Robert A. Emmons and Michael E. McCullough, New York: Oxford
University Press, 167-192.

Watkins, Philip C., Kathrane Woodward, Tamara Stone, and Russell L. Kolts (2003), “Gratitude
and Happiness: Development of a Measure of Gratitude, and Relationships with Subjective
Well-Being,” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31, 431-451.

Wayment, Heidi A., and Jack J. Bauer (2008), Transcending Self-Interest: Psychological
Explorations of the Quiet Ego. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.