For this investigation we have comprised a questionnaire with questions taken from Eysnck’s (*7) Personality questionnaire, which has been accepted in terms of reliability and validity.
Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976 (*5) compiled the following table taken from an American national sample survey of 2164 people in 1971 showing what people
thought were the main sources of satisfaction in everyday life:
From this table we can see that two of the things that people regard as being among the most important sources of satisfaction are friendship and leisure activities which are both associated to sociability, showing that being sociable can cause happiness. We can also see that a persons financial situation gives them the most satisfaction in everyday life. If a person is financially secure then they can afford to participant in leisure activities, and meet new people.
Aims: The aim of this investigation is to see if there is a positive correlation between how happy a person is and how sociable they are.
Experimental hypothesis: There will be a significant positive correlation between happiness and sociability, as measured by questionnaire.
This hypothesis has been decided upon because past research, such as that done by Horowitz et al. (1982), Reich and Zautra (1981), and Wessman and Ricks (1966) indicates that this hypothesis should be true.
Null hypothesis: There will be no significant correlation between happiness and sociability, as measured by questionnaire.
*1 The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology
*2 A Student’s Dictionary of Psychology – Second Edition
*3 Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary
*4 Collins mini Gem English Dictioary
*5 Flow – the Psychology of Happiness
*6 The Psychology of Happiness
*7 Know your own Personality
Method:
A correlation was used so that it could be discovered if there is a relationship between happiness and sociability.
The two variables being investigated were happiness and sociability.
Participants were given a pre-prepared questionnaire (see Appendix item 1) that contained a mixture of both questions related to sociability and questions related to happiness selected from Eysenck’s personality questionnaire. There were 18 questions related to each of the variables, plus 14 unrelated questions randomly mixed together to try to stop the participant from guessing the nature of the questionnaire.
To analyse the data the Spearman’s RHO test was used, at the 0.05 significance level (see Appendix item 6).
In total we used 20 participants, 10 female and 10 male. Participants were taken from the local 6th form college, BHASVIC, and were selected using a casual sample. Participants were approached and asked if they wouldn’t mind filling in a questionnaire for a Psychology project.. Once they had agreed each participant was given an A4 questionnaire (see Appendix item 1) with 50 YES, MAYBE, or NO answers to be circled with instructions at the top and debriefing at the bottom. They were also given a pen. Once all the results had been collected back the results were scored using Eysenck’s scoring system (see Appendix item 2) and they were then analysed using the Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation Coefficient (see Appendix item 6).
Results: (For table of results see Appendix Item 3)
(For workings of results see Appendix Item 4)
Mean for Happiness = 11.3
Mean for Sociability = 7.7
Median for Happiness = 12
Median for Sociability = 7.5
Mode for Happiness = 14
Mode for Sociability = 5
Range for Happiness = 14
Range for Sociability = 12
Statistical Analysis:
The Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation Coefficient calculated value of –0.0004 at the 0.05 significance level is less than the critical value of 0.377, therefore the results are not significant and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. This means our correlation did not show a relationship between how happy a person is and how sociable they are. This is reflected in the results of the mean, median and mode, with there being fairly significant gaps between the results of happiness and sociability. This means that the ‘middle points’ for the sociability scores, and the happiness scores were far apart in each of the descriptive statistics done for ‘averages’.
Both the ranges for happiness and for sociability were very far apart, with the range for happiness being 14, and the range for sociability being 12. The range shows that the spread of each of the results for sociability and happiness were far apart, with their being 14 points between the highest score for sociability and the lowest score, and there being 12 points between the highest score for happiness and the lowest score.
As can be seen from the scattergraph there is not a clear relationship between the scores for happiness and those for sociability. It can be seen that some results do support our hypothesis of a positive correlation between happiness and sociability, but most of the results do not. Trying to draw a line of best fit through this graph would be nearly impossible.
Discussion:
The evidence that is shown in the introduction all supports our experimental hypothesis. This includes the research conducted by Horowitz et al. (1982) and Weeks et al. (1980) that lonely people become depressed, by Reich and Zautra (1981) that increases in social contact lead to increases in happiness, and also the research done by Wessman and Ricks (1966) that students who had the better relationships with other students were the happier . Our results do not support our experimental hypothesis, or the evidence shown in the introduction, therefore it is hard to draw a conclusion. The null hypothesis could not be rejected because the result for the Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation Coefficient showed that our results were not significant. The mean, median and mode reflected this, as there were large gaps between the mean, median and mode for happiness and sociability. The range shows that there were big gaps between the scores in the happiness section, and in the sociability section. This clearly shows that there was skewed data.
As can be seen from the scattergraph there is no clear relationship between happiness and sociability, although some of the results do show this, but there may be factors that affected our results.
This data all shows that just because a person is sociable, it doesn’t mean that they are happy as well.
Summary:
Our results did not support our experimental hypothesis, therefore the null hypothesis has not been rejected, meaning that there might well not be a correlation between happiness and sociability.
To get a better idea as to whether our experimental hypothesis is correct a far more representative sample would have to be used.
Limitations of the design and Modifications:
One reason as to why our results may not have been significant may be due to the questionnaire. However much care is taken over the wording of the questions, even if they are seen to be reliable and valid (as Eysenck’s questions are), different respondents may interpret the questions differently, meaning we may not have got answers to the questions we intended to get. The questions we used were only a sample from Eysenck’s questions, and therefore this may have affected the results. When using a questionnaire there is little opportunity for the researcher to quantify what the question actually means. It may also be the case the respondents may interpret the terms in the questions differently. For example people may have different ideas as to what happy or sociable actually means (as the definitions in the introduction were merely a guide).
Respondents to the questionnaire may not have given full and accurate answers. They may answer the questions in a way that makes themselves look good, or in a way in which they think the researcher wishes them to answer.
The layout of the questions and the answers on the questionnaire did not line up due to limited space, therefore the respondents may have possibly got confused as to which question went with which answer. This may have affected our results.
It is hard to measure the degree of happiness from person to person from a simple questionnaire, such as the one we conducted. More detailed questions would have to be asked in which the respondent could give their own answers. Problems would also arise from this as it is hard to define happiness.
This study was conducted using only a small amount of participants, therefore not being very valid. This could be a reason as to why the results for our study did not support our experimental hypothesis, despite all of the evidence in the introduction supporting the experimental hypothesis. The age of the participants in our sample may have differed from those that were used in the background research that I conducted and this may have affected the results.
The environment in which the participant filled in the questionnaire may have affected the results. If the room was too warm, too cold, too noisy, or to crowded it may have meant that the participant rushed their answers, or misread the questions. If the participant didn’t have much time they may have rushed because they needed to get somewhere else.
Further Study:
In this study an equal amount of males and females were used, but a comparison of the two was not conducted. This could be done to see if there is a difference in the happiness and sociability of males and females.
The sample size could be increased to see if the result found in this study would be the same, this could also then include many different ages to see if age affected the results. Samples could be taken from different areas from the country, and also from other countries to test if this would affect the results.
Instead of using questionnaires, interviews could be conducted to collect the data, this way the questions could be clarified.
People in solitude could be studied to see if they consider themselves to be happy.
Different sources of happiness could be explored, for example the financial situation a person is in or their health.
Implications:
Implications of this study, from the results that we obtained from our questionnaire, could be that those who are in solitude, such as people in prison should not suffer from unhappiness. These results could well mean that happiness is just a state of mind, and not affect by your sociability, as some people enjoy being on their own. This is reflected in the quote “happiness, happiness, the greatest gift that I possess” taken from a well-known song.
Our study did not show a correlation between happiness and sociability, but if we were to assume that the evidence shown in the introduction was correct, then those who suffer from unhappiness could be placed into more social situations to try and improve their happiness.
References:
Michael Argyle – The Psychology of Happiness (1987) Methuen and Co. Ltd
Collins mini Gem English Dictionary (1986)
H.J Eysenck – Know Your own Personality – (1975) Maurice Temple Smith
Richard Gross et. al – Psychology-A New Introduction-Study Guide (1999) Hodder
and Stoughton
Arthur S. Reber – The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (1985) Penguin Group
Vivian Shackleton and Clive Fletcher – Individual differences – Theories and
Applications (1984) Methuen and Co. Ltd
Peter Stratton and Nicky Hayes – A Student’s Dictionary of Psychology-second
edition (1993) Edward Arnold
Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary (1987)
Appendix:
Item 1: Sample Questionnaire
Item 2: Score sheet for questionnaire
Item 3: Explanation of score sheet
Item 4: Table of results
Item 5: Workings for mean, median and mode
Item 6: Workings for Spearman’s Rank Order
Correlation Coefficient
Appendix Item 4 – Table of Results
Appendix item 5: workings for mean, median and mode
MEAN:
Happiness:
= 3+6+6+7+8+9+9+10+11+12+12+12+14+14+14+14+15+16+17+17
20
= 11.3
Sociability:
= 2+2+3+4+5+5+5+5+6+7+8+8+9+10+11+11+12+13+14+14
20
= 7.7
MEDIAN:
Happiness:
= 3, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 12, 14, 14, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17
= 12
Sociability:
= 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14
= 7.5
MODE:
Happiness:
= 3, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 12, 14, 14, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17
= 14
Sociability:
= 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14
= 5
Range:
Happiness:
= 17 – 3
= 14
Sociability:
=14 – 2
= 12
Contents
Abstract……..1
Introduction…1
Method……...4
Results………5
Discussion…..7
References….9
Appendices…10
Is there a
Correlation
between Happiness
and Sociability?
Appendix item 3: Explanation of score sheet for questionnaire.
The questions highlighted in pink are questions relating to happiness.
The questions highlighted in yellow are questions relating to sociability.
The questions crossed out are unrelated questions.
On the answers the YES , MAYBE , or NO answers that are circled are the desired answers, meaning a person is happy/sociable. If a participant circles one of these answers on their copy of the questionnaire they are awarded one point, to either happiness or sociability depending on what the question was (whether highlighted in pink or yellow) related to. For example, if a participant was to answer NO to Question 1 (Do you think that people really don’t care what happens to you?) the participant would be awarded one point on their happiness tally.
The scoring system has been done in accordance with Eysenck’s scoring system to ensure the results were as valid and reliable as possible.