FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
How Happy Are We, Anyway?			Vol. 15 No. 3 Apr/May 2000

Once in a while the profession of psychology does something interesting. An entire recent issue of the American Psychologist, the premier journal of the American Psychological Association (January 2000), was devoted to the topic of happiness. Since happiness is often considered the be all and end all in America (e.g., "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), some recent findings are of note.

Psychologist David Meyers has done a great deal of research on self-avowed happiness over the past few decades. Some of his findings are presented below.¹

How Many People Are Happy?

Many psychological/psychiatric experts regard the vast majority of people as being not terribly happy. When asked, however, a large majority of people claim to be either quite happy (around 20%) or "pretty happy" (about 60%). When the 'common man' is asked to evaluate the happiness of others, he tends to side with the "experts," regarding himself as the exception to the "not too happy rule."

When 1003 adults were asked to nominate the happiest person from a list, Oprah Winfrey got 23% of the votes, the Pope 12%, Bill Gates 7%, and Chelsea Clinton 3%. But the category "yourself" got 49%! At any given time only about 2% of Americans are suffering major depression. And there are no sex differences in happiness men and women are equally apt to be happy. Furthermore, happiness appears to "rub off" on our children; happy people tend to have happy children.

When asked what they thought would make them happier, most people said "more money." College freshmen indicate more frequently these days that the major reason they are going to school is to make more money. The fraction of freshmen saying they wanted education to "green" their life rose from about 45% in 1965 to about 75% in the late 1990s. But more money does not "buy avowed happiness." After having enough money on which to live, there is essentially no difference in avowed happiness between bricklayers and bankers, boxers or Broadway stars.

Yet there are differences between societies. To wit, although the wealthy in Russia report being just about as happy as the poor in Russia, the overall happiness of Russians is decidedly lower than that of Americans. Iceland is #1 in happiness, Bulgaria dead last. America, while high on the totem pole, is below the Scandanavian countries in avowed happiness.

Given the relative lack of difference in happiness between the wealthy and poor of a given country, it is not surprising that a rising standard of living does not raise the general happiness of the populace. Between 1956 and 1998 inflation-adjusted income has doubled in America but happiness has either dipped slightly or stayed almost constant.

There has been an increase in depression among youth, and Meyers suggests that this is the American paradox that the more people strive for material success the less attention they pay to family solidarity and therefore perhaps the less happy they become. On the other hand, the relationship between avowed happiness and mental "illnesses" other than depression is not strong, so the paradox might not be as significant as it appears to Meyers.

Married people are more frequently happy than the unmarried. Likewise, married people are at less risk for depression. The divorced are far and away the least happy. But those in marriages that they characterize as unhappy are less happy as well, while those who report very happy marriages are the most happy of all.

In terms of depression, those divorced at least twice have the highest rate, followed by those who are cohabiting. Currently married persons exhibit the lowest rate of depression. How much of this avowed happiness is caused by marriage is difficult to guage, since an optimist might be optimistic both personally and about his or her marriage (even if they are less happy in truth than they claim).

Religious people more frequently avow happiness than the irreligious. Most studies suggest that the actively religious are also less apt to become delinquent, abuse drugs and alcohol, divorce, or to commit suicide. The religious also tend to live longer and healthier lives. Those who attend religious services twice or more per week report the most happiness, while those who attend once a week report greater happiness than those who attend sporadically.

The Tyranny of Happiness

An article by Barry Schwartz in the same issue of the American Psychologist² offers a depressing warning about where our nation might be headed. He notes that "traditional morality serves as a kind of preventative medicine, protecting people from themselves" (p. 83). Schwartz notes that most theories of "mental health" prescribe that people be "in charge of their own lives." The assumption that it is important for individuals not to be left in a situation in which they feel "helpless" or that life is beyond their control has in fact been a bedrock of contemporary thinking about mental health.

But Schwartz notes that "I think it is only a slight exaggeration to say that for the first time in human history, in the contemporary United States large numbers of people can live exactly the kind of lives they want, unconstrained by material, economic, or cultural limitations. This fact coupled with the helplessness theory of depression might lead one to expect clinical depression in the United States to be going the way of polio. Instead, what we find is an explosive growth in the number of people with depression. Some estimates are that depression is 10 times more likely to afflict someone now than at the turn of the century. Thus, we have a puzzle. The solution to this puzzle lies, I think, in several features of modern life that are the focus of this article."

Schwartz argues that "increases in experienced control over the years have been accompanied, stride-for-stride, by increases in expectations about control... Education is expected to be stimulating and useful. Work is supposed to be exciting, socially valuable, and remunerative. Spouses are supposed to be sexually, emotionally, and intellectually stimulating and also loyal and comforting.... Second, American culture has become more individualistic than it ever was before.... not only do people expect perfection in all things, but they expect to produce this perfection themselves. When they (inevitably) fail, [they blame themselves] (p. 85)."

Though Schwartz correctly observes that as our wealth and opportunities have increased, so has the notion that "you can have it all," instead of linking failure to sin or man's inherent shortcomings and suggesting the need for greater dependence upon God, Schwartz offers a sobering humanistic solution. The psychologists must lead us!

The article calls for organized psychology to tell people what "they want out of life." Psychologists have to shed the notion that people are really happy when they are free; rather, they will be really happy when they want to do those things that psychologists teach them to want!

"Are psychologists prepared to argue that it is future generations of psychologists who should be society's teachers? I think that unless we are prepared to say yes to this question and to develop arguments about the content of a good human life, the potential achievements of a future positive psychology will always be limited. I also believe that the time to be thinking and talking about this very big and difficult issue is now, at the beginning, and not later, in the face of angry critics trying to put psychologists in their place" (pp. 87-8).

After World War II, psychologists and psychiatrists declared themselves "in the know," and the nation bought their expertise. It could be argued that the more psychologically minded the United States has become, the worse it has treated its children. But, no matter. These are the internal musings of a self-appointed priestly class get ready to serve it if recent history is any teacher!

References:

1. The funds, friends, and faith of happy people, American Psychologist, 2000, 55 (1), 56-67
2. Self-determination: the tyranny of freedom, American Psychologist, 2000, 55 (1), 79-88

Why do teens fornicate? Yes, it's fun. But the full answer is much more complex. Included in the fun is the risk of pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Further, once virginity is lost it can never be recovered.

The issue of delaying or preventing fornication is of considerable interest to public health officials as well as to parents. Increasingly, the state sees keeping "kids out of bed" as a good idea. Delaying sex saves on both mental health costs since nonvirgins have more mental problems than virgins and physical health costs, given the costliness of getting an STD or HIV/AIDS.

Perhaps most importantly, there is good evidence that the fornicators will end up being less productive citizens, because they are less apt to go to college and more apt to get involved in drugs and criminality. Also, in FRI's nationwide study in 1983-84, those who had divorced started fornicating two years earlier, on average, than those who stayed married, so divorce may also be a consequence of early fornication.

Two new studies address the issue of what "keeps the lid on" sexuality in teens. Their findings tend to reinforce what traditionalists have said all along. One of the studies, however, includes a novel twist about IQ.

IQ Impacts Fornication

Do "dumb kids" fornicate and smart kids abstain? Obviously, life is more complex than a simple equation. Nevertheless, the peak crime rate occurs in youth and particularly in those youth with IQs between 75 to 90. Given that average IQ ranges from about 95 to 105, the highest crime rates are perpetrated by those in the lower one-third of the IQ distribution (an IQ of below 70 is often associated with some sort of retardation). Perhaps sex follows the same pattern.

Two separate samples of teenagers were included in the first study.¹ 12,000 teenagers were selected from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a stratified random sample of 7th to 12th graders. Another longitudinal sample from the Biosocial Factors project of about 100 white boys, 100 white girls, and 100 black girls was also examined.

Boys tested a bit higher in IQ than girls and whites tested higher than blacks. In part, boys test higher than girls on average because the lowest end of the IQ distribution is disproportionately made up of boys who tend to be institutionalized and thus are unavailable for school-based samples.

On average, non-black females scored an IQ of 102 in the Adolescent Health survey and 107 in the Biosocial Factors project. Black females scored averages of 93 and 92 respectively, while white males had average IQ scores of 104 and 112. Black males in the Adolescent Health survey scored an average of 94.

For both girls and boys, the higher the IQ the less likely they were to have fornicated. This was true even after controlling for age (the older the child, the more apt they were to have fornicated), physical maturity (the more physically mature were more apt to have fornicated), mother's education (the more the mother was educated, the less likely the child was to fornicate), and race (blacks were more apt to have fornicated than whites). The most likely to fornicate were those with average to low-average IQs (i.e., 85-100).

Girls with IQs of 120 were half (0.47) as likely as the girls with low-average IQs to have fornicated, while girls with IQs of 130 were a fifth (0.22) as likely to have fornicated. On the opposite end of the scale, intellectual "dullness" was somewhat protective for boys, and clearly protective for girls. Girls with IQs of 60 were as unlikely to have fornicated as girls with IQs of 130.

"Pre-fornication" activities were also related to IQ. Thus, "heavy petting" and even "necking" were like fornication itself less frequent among the brighter kids. But, as the authors point out, since the brighter kids were as apt to masturbate and express interest in sex, "higher intelligence is not associated with lesser sexual interest, just with a postponement of acting on that interest" (p. 223).

Other Ingredients

Clearly, IQ is far from "the whole ball of wax" when it comes to having or not having sex. Other factors were also statistically significant.

Those associated with increased chances of kids fornicating included:

·had a romantic relationship in last 18 months

·being Black

·mother approves of kid having sex

·pregnancy would not embarrass respondent

·physical maturity

·physically attractive (for girls, not boys)

Factors associated with decreased chances of fornication included:

·lived with both biological parents

·weekly religious attendance

·participated in school clubs

·high grade point average

·being Hispanic

·believing you will live to at least age 35

·being Asian

·likely to attend college

·not impulsive

·pregnancy would not embarrass family

Since this is a study, no matter how well done, some of these relationships are undoubtedly spurious or "statistical flukes." As far as what parents can do, these data suggest that if parents: 1) stay together, 2) attend church, and 3) the mother clearly communicates that she doesn't want her kids to have sex, then the parents have "done what they can." Similarly, exerting subtle pressure on their child not to have a romantic relationship and to participate in after school clubs might do some good.

Minnesota Study

The second study is a reanalysis of a 1988 Minnesota survey of 36,284 students in grades 7 through 12.² First the authors eliminated all those students who claimed to have been sexually abused (8.8% of the total sample; of whom 88% were female) because sexual abuse can "jump start" sexual activity.

The remaining kids were divided into those who reported having had intercourse and those who said they had not. Then the sample was divided into three groups, those aged 13-14, those 15-16, and those aged 17-18. The main question was, "for each age group, what were the differences between the kids who did and did not engage in sexual intercourse?"

The percentage of kids who reported sexual intercourse rose with age: for girls, 16% of the 13-14 year olds, 37% of the 15-16 year olds, and 55% of the 17-18 year olds reported that they were nonvirgins. For boys the corresponding figures were 29%, 47%, and 60%.

What Protected Virginity?

For boys and girls, having married parents, being from a higher social class, living in a rural area, having better school grades, and being more religious predicted (but of course, did not ensure), virginity. For both boys and girls, using some drugs and using some alcohol strongly predicted fornication. For girls, but not boys, smoking was also a fairly strong predictor of fornication.

The bad news is that by age 17 just about all of these factors became very weak in terms of prediction (or protection). This study suggests that married parents who take their kids to church will have a strong effect upon delaying intercourse through the 10th or 11th grades. By the 12th grade "all bets are off."

Conclusion

On balance, these two studies suggest that parents who stay married, go to church, live in a more rural area, are educated, and make it plain they don't approve of fornication have probably done "just about all they can." Children will be doing "their part" if they are bright and/or do well in school, and stay away from drugs and alcohol and smoking (for girls). These factors provide no guarantee, obviously, that kids will keep their virginity, but they seem to be the best overall predictors.

If society is really concerned about the adolescent fornication problem, what should it to do? Encourage marriage, discourage divorce, encourage higher education, and encourage religion. Right now, the government is only hitting on one cylinder education. At the same time, it is discouraging religion and marriage. Real lives of real teenagers are being harmed by many of the current actions of the state.

References:

1. Halpern, CT, Joyner, K, Udry, R, Suchindran, C. Smart teens don't have sex (or kiss much either). Journal of Adolescent Health, 2000;26:213-225
2. Lammers C, Ireland M, Resnick M, Blum R. Influences on adolescents' decision to postpone onset of sexual intercourse: a survival analysis of virginity among youths aged 13 to 18 years. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2000;26:42-48

We have all heard that AIDS is devastating Africa. Education and condoms are being pushed to stop its spread. Just how widespread is HIV infection?

A survey of the police in Tanzania suggests that not much is currently working.¹ 2,733 police officers were studied from 1996 to 1998. Police are among the more educated members of society. Yet 14% of these officers were infected with HIV by the end of 1998, including 18% of the female and 13% of the male officers.

Of married police officers, 36% admitted to at least one extramarital sexual encounter in the previous 3 months, and only 16% claimed to have used condoms during this encounter. Over the 2 year period, 50 of 1524 males and 8 of 200 females had become infected with HIV for an almost identical yearly rate of 20 infections per 1000! 3.3% of the men and 1.5% of the women had syphilis as well.

The prospects in Africa, as exemplified by Tanzania, seem bleak. The World Bank estimates that up to 30% of the members of Tanzania's armed forces are infected with HIV. Tanzania's president stated that "some ministries lose about 20 employees each month to AIDS, and 365 workers of the Tanzania Electric Supply Company died between 1995 and April this year."²

Heterosexual promiscuity in Africa is similar to homosexual promiscuity among gays in the U.S. And, given the other sexually transmitted diseases floating about, there is little hope for a quick turnaround. Just as homosexuality is THE problem driving AIDS in the U.S., heterosexual promiscuity seems to be driving AIDS in Africa.

References:

1. Bakari, M et al. The prevalence and incidence of HIV-1 infection and syphilis in a cohort of police officer in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: a potential population for HIV vaccine trials. AIDS, 2000; 14:313-322.
2. Denver Post, 15A, 5/2/00

Corner

Maine Gay Rights "Hits the Fan"

I traveled recently to Maine to help jump-start the opposition to gay rights. I gave a lecture on the "bomb" FRI planted in the scientific literature in 1996. That bomb the empirical fact that homosexual teachers are many more times to sexually interact with their pupils than heterosexuals are¹ has been ticking but has not yet exploded. I pointed out that we had to 'get the word out' so that when a child in Maine was molested by a homosexual teacher who was hired under or because of gay rights, the parents would be able to apply tort law against the teacher, the school officials, the school district, and the school board.

Paul Volle, head of the Christian Coalition of Maine, then had a great idea. Every principal, every superintendant, and every school board member was sent a registered letter along with a copy of our article. The letter said in part that the "the study demonstrates that homosexual teachers are 8 to 10 times more likely to sexually involve themselves with pupils." "Knowingly employing homosexual teachers after receipt of this study places you in a precarious legal situation...." Districts and their administrators "may face serious civil and perhaps even criminal liability" if a homosexual teacher molests a pupil.

When interviewed on April 11, Volle said that the Christian Coalition would support any parent in a lawsuit under such a situation.

Well, the yogurt has "hit the fan."

The newspapers in Maine are decrying this bold initiative. Gay leaders who have been approached are lying (as usual). And the editorial boards of the papers are coming unhinged. For instance, the Lewiston Sun Journal on April 9 called for "fairness in the face of hate. We saw that hate-filled face recently in the form of Dr. Paul Cameron, a highly-paid Colorado psychologist who tours the country, spreading fear that homosexuality somehow shortens lifespans and endangers all Americans. The real danger is listening to Cameron and others like him who disguise bigotry in questionable science."

"Cameron's trip to Maine was sponsored by the Christian Coalition, a group that has always maintained that a gay lifestyle violates Christian doctrine and must be opposed. There appears to be no room in the Coalition's anti-gay agenda for tolerance and acceptance. It's a decidedly unChristian-stance, and one that Jesus did not follow. Jesus accepted everyone into his flock, loved them and supported them. He didn't turn away those whose lifestyles he abhorred, so we question the Christian foundation for the Coalition's vehemence...."

"The Catholic Church has been more forgiving. In January, the Church expressed its support for the civil rights legislation. It was a major shift in policy for the Diocese, but it still isn't enough. The church has exempted religious entities including itself from the proposed law, negotiating for a pass in exchange for support. Why should religious groups be exempt? These are the groups we look to for moral guidance and the Catholic Church has an opportunity here to be a guiding light in the fight against discrimination. If we embrace the Golden Rule, there is no room for hate and discrimination."

I agree with the editorial on one point under what logic does the Catholic Diocese excuse itself from a law it now supports and presumably regards as moral? The Maine Diocese is in direct conflict with the orders of the Magisterium on this point. The 1992 Vatican statement on gay rights said that "'sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster cases, in employment of teachers or coaches,..."

"Finally, since a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws."

The Diocese finds itself in conflict with Christian tradition as well as the express orders of its own leadership. Is anyone in the Church willing to stand firm against the homosexual onslaught?

Reference:

1. Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to pupils? J Psychology, 1996:130:603-613

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher

Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©1999

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site