FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Republican Bliss

Republicans are happier than Democrats, according to the report “Are We Happy Yet?” recently released by the Pew Research Center. Based on a nationally representative, random sample in the United States, 45% of Republicans report being “very happy,” compared with just 30% of Democrats and 19% of Independents.

What is particularly striking about this finding is that it is not simply a reflection of the current political environment. Rather, as the Pew report notes, Republicans have been consistently happier than Democrats throughout the entire period since 1972, when the General Social Survey (GSS) began measuring happiness in the US.

What’s more, Republicans are happier than Democrats even after controlling for other factors. For instance, among individuals making less than $30,000 per year, 28% of Republicans report being “very happy,” versus 23% of Democrats. Among individuals making over $75,000 per year, 52% of Republicans report being very happy versus 41% of Democrats.

So how can these consistent differences in happiness be explained? Three types of causal relationships that may be invoked to explain this association between party affiliation and happiness. Being a Republican may cause greater happiness. Or it may be that happier people are more likely to become Republican. Or, perhaps both happiness and party affiliation are related because both are determined by some other causal factor.

To better understand how these causal relationships might operate let’s look at some potential sources of happiness, or subjective well being, at a more general level.

Part of individual happiness is likely determined by complex psychological dispositions, from more stable elements such as personality traits and attitudes to more transitory elements like emotional states or moods. However, there is no apparent reason to assume that these psychological characteristics vary systematically with political affiliation. That is, it’s hard to imagine any reason why, if there are individuals that are genetically or psychologically predisposed to be happier, they are also are more likely to become Republicans.

What seems more probable is that, if some individuals are more genetically or psychologically predisposed to be happy than others, then such characteristics are randomly distributed in the population. Turning from purely psychological sources of happiness, then, let’s look at some more social psychological and sociological sources. The scholarly literature on subjective well-being, particularly research on job satisfaction, suggests another place to look: how individuals interpret and evaluate objective situations and how successful they are in achieving their goals and aspirations.

One potential source of happiness, then, is individual interpretations and evaluations of objective conditions. Is a given individual satisfied with a particular state of affairs in which they find themselves, with their job or their community? What about the economic and social situations of their country and/or the world?

It may be that for most individuals, happiness is based on evaluations of such objective circumstances. But people tend to selectively perceive and emphasize aspects their “objective situation” ­ any two individuals in the same circumstances may perceive, and hence understand the same situation differently. A further complication is that happiness likely depends not only on how the objective situation is perceived and defined, but also on what are an individual’s goals and aspirations, and how successful one is in achieving these.

Even if most people define subjective well-being in broadly comparable terms, such as “economic concerns,” individuals may vary in the specific criteria by which such broad concerns are evaluated and how they prioritize goals and aspirations. Thus, individual happiness may primarily be determined by what an individual defines as important in terms of her objective situation, what her goals are and how successful she is in achieving them.

These social psychological sources of happiness, particularly in terms of what goals are prioritized and how one identifies with others, may vary systematically with party affiliation. That is, it may be that Republicans are happier than non-Republicans because they actually interpret the world differently, prioritizing different goals and identifying with different groups of people.

This explanation is similar to a theory of job satisfaction offered by sociologist Randy Hodson, who makes a distinction between different types of workers: “smooth operators” and “good soldiers.” Smooth operators advance their own goals in the workplace as a first priority and thus are likely to be satisfied, but they may or may not advance organizational goals. In contrast, good soldiers are likely to identify with their employer and thus be committed to the organization, but may be unsatisfied, for example, if they observe less effort on the part of smooth operators.

A similar difference in goal prioritization and identification may be related to party affiliation. I hypothesize that Republicans, as a group, may be happier because, on average, they prioritize personal goals and largely identify with people similar to them. Compared with Democrats and Independents, their main goals are narrower and more selfish, and thus more easily obtained. Despite having had to endure some political defeats, including the Carter and Clinton administrations, over the last 30 years, the economic situations of Republicans and the people they care about most have remained relatively good.

This is not to say that all Republicans are selfish and unconcerned with the welfare of others. But, as a group, the data on happiness are consistent with the argument that they are more self-centered and less concerned with social problems than Democrats or Independents. Republicans certainly have opinions on social problems such as growing inequality and war, but these problems may not enter into their definitions of subjective well-being, or at least not as much as non-Republicans.

In contrast, Democrats and Independents may be less happy because, on average, they define their personal goals more broadly and they identify with less fortunate groups of people. Thus, they are less happy, as a group, because they are more concerned with growing problems in their communities, in the US and the world.

If the foregoing interpretation is correct, then it is neither happiness that leads to political affiliation nor a particular political affiliation that determines happiness. Rather, it is how one interprets the world, the goals one prioritizes and the groups that one identifies with that determine both party affiliation and happiness. This makes sense intuitively. In short, it appears that Republicans are happier, on average, than non-Republicans because they are more likely to be individuals that selectively perceive their objective circumstances so that they do not get overly concerned with the misery and poverty of the world, and they more selfishly define their own role in the world.

MATT VIDAL is pursuing his doctorate at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He can be reached at: mvidal@ssc.wisc.edu

 

 

More articles by:

Matt Vidal is Senior Lecturer in Work and Organizations at King’s College London, Department of Management. He is editor-in-chief of Work in Progress, a public sociology blog of American Sociological Association, where this article first ran. You can follow Matt on Twitter @ChukkerV.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

Weekend Edition
April 19, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
What Will It Take For Trump to Get His Due?
Roy Eidelson
Is the American Psychological Association Addicted to Militarism and War?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Time is Blind, Man is Stupid
Joshua Frank
Top 20 Mueller Report “Findings”
Rob Urie
Why Russiagate Will Never Go Away
Paul Street
Stephen Moore Gets Something Right: It’s Capitalism vs. Democracy
Russell Mokhiber
Why Boeing and Its Executives Should be Prosecuted for Manslaughter
T.J. Coles
The Battle for Latin America: How the U.S. Helped Destroy the “Pink Tide”
Ron Jacobs
Ho Chi Minh City: Nguyen Thai Binh Street
Dean Baker
Fun Fictions in Economics
David Rosen
Trump’s One-Dimensional Gender Identity
Kenn Orphan
Notre Dame: We Have Always Belonged to Her
Robert Hunziker
The Blue Ocean Event and Collapsing Ecosystems
Theodore C. Van Alst, Jr.
Paddy Wagon
Brett Wilkins
Jimmy Carter: US ‘Most Warlike Nation in History of the World’
John W. Whitehead
From Jesus Christ to Julian Assange: When Dissidents Become Enemies of the State
Nick Pemberton
To Never Forget or Never Remember
Stephen Cooper
My Unforgettable College Stabbings
Louis Proyect
A Leftist Rejoinder to the “Capitalist Miracle”
Louisa Willcox
Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic and the Need for a New Approach to Managing Wildlife
Brian Cloughley
Britain Shakes a Futile Fist and Germany Behaves Sensibly
Jessicah Pierre
A Revolutionary Idea to Close the Racial Wealth Divide
George Burchett
Revolutionary Journalism
Dan Bacher
U.S. Senate Confirms Oil Lobbyist David Bernhardt as Interior Secretary
Nicky Reid
The Strange Success of Russiagate
Chris Gilbert
Defending Venezuela: Two Approaches
Todd Larsen
The Planetary Cost of Amazon’s Convenience
Kelly Martin
How the White House is Spinning Earth Day
Nino Pagliccia
Cuba and Venezuela: Killing Two Birds With a Stone
Matthew Stevenson
Pacific Odyssey: Guadalcanal and Bloody Ridge, Solomon Islands
David Kattenburg
Trudeau’s Long Winter
Gary Olson
A Few Comments on the recent PBS Series: Reconstruction: America After the Civil War
Ellen Lindeen
What Does it Mean to Teach Peace?
Adewale Maye and Eileen Appelbaum
Paid Family and Medical Leave: a Bargain Even Low-Wage Workers Can Afford
Ramzy Baroud
War Versus Peace: Israel Has Decided and So Should We
Ann Garrison
Vets for Peace to Barbara Lee: Support Manning and Assange
Thomas Knapp
The Mueller Report Changed my Mind on Term Limits
Jill Richardson
Why is Going Green So Hard? Because the System Isn’t
Mallika Khanna
The Greenwashing of Earth Day
Arshad Khan
Do the Harmless Pangolins Have to Become Extinct?
Paul Armentano
Pushing Marijuana Legalization Across the Finish Line
B. R. Gowani
Surreal Realities: Pelosi, Maneka Gandhi, Pompeo, Trump
Paul Buhle
Using the Law to Build a Socialist Society
David Yearsley
Call Saul
Elliot Sperber
Ecology Over Economy 
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail