Content uploaded by Meghana J.
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Meghana J. on Nov 07, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDIES
Peer-Reviewed, Bi-annual Interdisciplinary Journal
2019 Volume: 8 Number:1
CONTENTS
S.
N.
Title Page
1.
Analysis of trade integration of SAARC Nations
Dr. Neetu Jain & Dr. Navneet Gera
1 - 11
2.
Effect of gender, status of living and occupation on website quality: An Indian online
shopper’s perspective
Dr. Vijender Pal Saini & Anuradha Yadav
12 - 23
3.
A study on psychological stress of female professionals in airlines industry in India
Sa nd eep Bh attacharj ee
24 - 36
4.
Happiness and decision making: An experimental study
Meghana J & Dr. Rinju George
37 - 49
5.
Understanding the determinants of acceptance of 4G technology and its impact on customer
satisfaction
Vippa Dhingra, Dr. Monica Sainy & Dr. P.N. Mishra
50 - 59
6.
Grocery consumers’ motivation and shopping-trip types: A study of organized retail stores
Parmod, Dr. Usha Arora & Vasundhra
60 - 69
7.
Attachment, aggression orientation and emotion regulation in patients with borderline
personality disorder- An interpersonal perspective
Urbi Mukherjee, Jayanti Basu & Ushri Banerjee
70 - 81
8.
Peoples’ perception about quality of life in hill region: A case study of Baijnath block of
Himachal Pradesh
Dr. Seema Choudhary
82 - 91
9.
An assessment of occupational hazards and health impairments of child rag pickers (CRPs)
in Aligarh city
Burhan Khan, Dr. Mohammad Tahir & A. P. William Wordsworth
92 - 101
10.
An empirical study of determining factors of tribal household income: A case study of
Tharu tribe in India
Milind Kumar Yadav & Dr. Ajeet Kumar Sahoo
102 - 112
11.
Framing corruption using right to information: Perspective on attribution and inter-media
agenda-setting
Dr. Amaresh Jha
113 - 125
12.
Role of organizational justice perception in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
A.K. Dubey
126 - 135
13.
Impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on organizational citizenship behavior:
Mediating role of organizational identification
Dr. Neelika Arora & Mehraj ud din wani
136 - 145
14.
Sustainable economic development assessment of Next-11 countries: A comparative study
Dr. Monika Kulshreshtha & Dr. Renu Sharma
146 - 156
15.
Pandemic rise of the Social Media: Echoing fears of social isolation and displacement in the
urban Indian context
Dipjyoti Das & Ratnakirti Roy
157 - 167
16.
Psychometrics in India: An historical overview of challenges and potentiality
Shachi Barot 168 - 176
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
37
Happiness and decision making: An experimental study
Meghana J
Dr. Rinju George
M.Sc. Psychology (HRDM)
Assistant Professor
Centre for Advanced Research and Training
CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
Decision making, the process of selection of an option or course of action from possible alternatives, is one
of the cognitive functions of human beings. Happiness is an emotion associated with feelings of pleasure,
well-being, and sometimes meaning. Emotions, such as happiness, are said to drive behavior, and influence
decision making. The present study aims to examine the effect of happiness on decision making (time taken
for decision making and risk-taking behavior) through an experiment, with 60 management students from
Bangalore as participants. Results show that there is a significant positive relation between pre and post
happiness. The results of the study indicate that happier people tend to take less time in making decisions
and that happiness does not impact risk-taking behavior. The study also implies that we need to re-evaluate
the discourse of happiness at work because happiness does not necessarily lead to risky or non- risky
decisions. The findings of the present study will be significant in the fields of positive psychology, cognitive
psychology, industrial psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior.
Keywords: Happiness, Decision Making, Risk-taking, Management
INTRODUCTION
Decision making is the process of selection of an option or course of action from possible alternatives.
Decision making is one of the cognitive functions of human beings, which we use on a daily basis. Brain
studies suggest that decision making is essentially a risk-taking process(Ernst, et al., 2002).
In light of the various approaches of decision making theory, including the Rational model, drawing
from the works of Simon (1977); Bounded Rationality model, from the works of Russo, Carlson, and Meloy
(2006), Kahneman (2003), and Augier (2001); and Intuitive decision making, from the works of Gigerenzer
(2008), rationality and intuition can be said to be complementary to each other in decision making.
Happiness is a positive emotion/affect that is associated with feelings of joy, pleasure, well-being,
and sometimes meaning. Happiness is culturally influenced. Positive psychologists have tried to define and
theorize happiness is taking views of ‘Subjective well-being’, ‘Life satisfaction’ and, ‘Positive (and
Negative) affect’. There are two major theoretical frameworks of happiness derived from philosophy,
namely, Hedonism and Eudaimonism (Delle Fave, Massimini, & Bassi, 2010). The hedonistic perspective
sees happiness as pleasure, comfort, and enjoyment, which is mostly momentary and usually associated with
materialism. On the other hand, the eudaimonistic perspective includes a continuous process of optimal
functioning and achievement of complex meaningfulness goals. These two traditions, though philosophically
contrary to each other, can be seen as lying on a continuum in our understanding of happiness.
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
38
Emotions, like happiness, fear, sadness, anger, love, and so on, are said to drive behavior
(Baumeister, DeWall, Vohs, & Alquist, 2009). Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, & Kassam (2014) reviewed research
conducted in the area and identified significant themes that indicate the impact of emotions on judgment and
decision making. Both integral and incidental emotions influence decision making. Specific emotions,
regardless of valence, exert different influences on choice. Emotions affect decision making in the content as
well as the depth of thought and goal activation. The impact of emotions can on decision making can be both
helpful and harmful.
Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, and Kassam (2014) put forward the “Affect integrated model of decision-
making”, synthesizing the above themes to give a comprehensive understanding of the way emotions
influence decision making. The present investigation is done in this framework to understand the influence
of happiness on decision making.
Figure 1. “Affect Integrated Model of Decision-making” (Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, & Kassam, 2014)
Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979 as cited in McDermott, 1998), states that people make
decisions on the perceived value of losses and gains, that is, considering the risks and uncertainty involved,
rather than the outcome. Decisions are made vis-à-visa reference point, which is prone to cognitive and
perceptual biases. Gains and losses are valued different from one another, and most often, decisions are
made on the basis of perceived gains rather than perceived losses; how the prospect if framed matters. The
impact of framing is confirmed by Druckman and McDermott (2001), who found that negative framing
leads to significantly higher risk-seekingbehavior. This psychophysical approach discusses how problems
(or stimuli) are cognitively processed (how information is understood) and decisions are made based on
perceptions.
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
39
However, human beings donot always make decisions based on prospects alone; emotions play a
role. Positive as well as negative affect influences perception of gains and losses and impacts decision
making. A series of experimental studies on managers found that affective reactions influence risk-taking
propensities in capital budgeting decisions (Moreno, Kida & Smith, 2002). In the presence of emotion
(positive or negative), managers rejected an alternative that was perceived as inducing negative emotions
and accepting those that induced positive affect, reversing risk-taking decisions as shown by the prospect
theory. Positive affect can make managers take more risks to gain contexts and vice-versa.
Fredrickson’s (2001) Broaden and build theory posits that positive emotions expand and mobilize
cognitive and behavior al resources, and increase the number of possible thoughts, behavioral options,
increasing creative problem-solving. Positive emotions are shown to have a positive impact on more positive
relationships that are argued to be evolutionarily adaptive. This implies that positive emotions, such as
happiness, influence decision making. On the same lines, Isen (2001) argued that cognitive processes tend to
be more flexible, innovative, creative, thorough, and efficient when experiencing positive affect, enhancing
problem-solving and decision making of consumers.
Happier people tend to take a longer time to make decisions and have more self-control and seemed
to take more risk-aversive decisions, especially in financial matters, choosing safe investments (Guven &
Hoxha, 2014).Chuang and Lin (2007) found that positive emotions were related to risk-aversion decision
making, while those experiencing negative emotions tended to engage in high risk-taking behavior.
Emotional effects on consumer decision making were seen to be moderated by Openness-to-Feeling.
Meaning and engagement orientations of happiness were found to be directly related to future focus in
decision making and inversely related to present focus in decision making, whereas pleasure-oriented
happiness was associated with a present focus in decision making (Bubic & Erceg, 2016).
However, this influence of happiness and other emotions on decision making need not be positive
always. Spicer and Cederstrom (2015) collated research findings of happiness and discuss the effects and
implications of happiness at work; not all of them sound as good. While happy employees are more likely to
stay within the organization, are safer, more likely to have satisfied customers, and more likely to engage in
citizenship behavior, they are also found to be more selfish (Tan & Forgas, 2010), experience loneliness, not
necessarily increase productivity, and so on.
Forgas and East (2008) found that while in a positive mood, people are more likely to be trusting
and gullible while making judgments, diminishing their accuracy in detecting deceptive communications,
unlike those in a negative mood where the skepticism towards targets improved their judgment of deception.
Druckman and McDermott (2001) confirm the influence of emotions on risk-taking, but this influence is
different for different positive and negative emotions, confirming the Lerner and Keltner’s (2000) Appraisal-
tendency framework (which systematically links different judgment and choices to the appraisal processing
of specific emotions).Another experimental study by Tan and Forgas (2010) showed that happiness might
make people more selfish, displaying more assimilative, and internally focused processing. Happy people
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
40
tended to keep lottery tickets to themselves when asked to allow them, reflecting the stronger influence of
moods on selfishness when external norms of fairness seem to be relaxed. This double-sided evidence brings
to question whether positive emotions, especially happiness, lead individuals to make better decisions.
Significance of the Study
With growing discourses about happiness, especially in the workplace, it becomes crucial for us to
understand the relevance of ‘happiness’ programs and job roles such as ‘chief happiness officers’ in
organizations and their apparent impact on employees in terms of well-being as well as performance. This
study seeks to throw light on the effect of happiness on decision making in the managerial setting,
evaluating the value of happiness discourses in the realworld. The results of the study are significant in the
fields of positive psychology, especially in terms of positive interventions, cognitive psychology, in
understanding the process of decision making further, as well as in the field of industrial psychology, human
resource management, and organizational behavior, especially in the area of employee engagement and
employee experience.
Aim
To examine the effect of happiness on decision making (time taken for decision making and risk-taking
behavior) through an experiment among students of management studies.
Objectives
To study the relationship between happiness and decision making (time taken for decision making
and risk-taking behavior) among management students.
To study whether the control group and the experimental group are significantly different in
happiness and decision making (time taken for decision making and risk-taking behavior).
To study whether the experimental group differs significantly in the pre-intervention and post-
intervention situations in happiness and decision making (time taken for decision making and risk-
taking behavior).
Hypothesis
● There is a significant relationship between happiness and decision making (time taken for decision
making and risk-taking behavior).
● There is a significant difference between the control group and the experimental group in happiness
and decision making (time taken for decision making and risk-taking behavior).
● There is a significant difference between the pre-intervention and post-intervention situations in the
experimental group in happiness and decision making (time taken for decision making and risk-
taking behavior).
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
An experimental design is used to study the effect of happiness on decision making (time taken for decision
making and risk-taking behavior), with a control group and an experimental group, who were given pre- and
post-test measures on happiness and decision making.
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
41
Participants
Participants of the study were selected using a random sampling technique. The participants consist of 60
students of management studies, both undergraduate and postgraduate (30 in the control group, 30 in the
experimental group) from a Deemed to be University in Bengaluru.
Measures
Fordyce Emotions Questionnaire (Fordyce, 1978): The Fordyce Emotions Questionnaire (1978), also
called the Happiness Measure (HM), measures both the intensity and frequency of the affect of
happiness (Jarden, 2011). However, for this study, only the item measuring the intensity of happiness is
taken. The scoring is on an 11-point scale, ranging from 0 (extremely unhappy) to 10 (extremely happy)
(Moldovan, 2017). The reported test-retest reliability is 0.86 over a two weeks period. There is also high
consistency of means, variances, and internal score correlations across samples in the test, indicating
strong reliability (Fordyce, 1983). Convergent validity with ‘Affectometer’ (1983) was.69, and
divergent validity with ‘Bradburn’s Negative affect score’ (1985) is -0.33 (Fordyce, 1983). Fordyce
Emotions Questionnaire is still used by researchers and features on the Authentic Happiness research
website (as of August 2018), hosted by the University of Pennsylvania, indicating its relevance.
Happiness was measured using a self-report questionnaire due to logistical concerns; neuro-biological
approaches (such as using EEG and other neuro-feedback machines) were not viable.
The Balloon Analogue Risk task (Lejuez, et al. 2002): The Balloon Analogue Risk task is a popularly
used computerized measure of real-world risk behavior, with the conceptual framework of a reward-loss
balance. The test has ten trials, where participants are asked to pump a balloon on the screen, gaining
‘money’ for each pump until the balloon explodes. Balloons may explode at any time based on random
chance. Participants can choose to cash out at the time, reflecting their risk-taking behavior. Scoring is
done by adding the number of pumps of unexploded balloons. Test-retest reliability is 0.77; Split-half
reliability is also strong. Criterion validity shows that BART scores are related to self-reported risk
behavior s in the real world in adolescent studies.
Procedure
Participants were approached and briefed about the study and rapport was established with those who
consent to participate. An informed consent form was given to participants, which explains the nature of the
study, the rights of the participants and the contact information of the researcher. Both the control and
experimental group were first given a happiness questionnaire that tests the current level of happiness of the
participant, after which the participants would take the BART test. The experimental group was then shown
a video that induces happiness. The same tests were given to the experimental group as the post-test. The
control group was not shown the video but given the tests again after a gap of 7 minutes (equivalent to the
length of the video). The participants were debriefed after the experiment. The video was selected based on a
pilot study on five management students and one expert in the field of Positive Psychology who rated three
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
42
videos on the level of happiness induced and the culture fit. Time taken to complete the task and risk-taking
were measured by the Inquisit 5 software used by the experimenter.
Care was taken to not harm the participants in anyway. The video was reviewed by experts to ensure the
emotions induced in the participants. Participation was strictly voluntary and participants had the right to
withdraw from the study any time in the period the study. Participants were debriefed after the experiment.
Data is kept confidential and used for research purposes only.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, and median were computed. Parametric tests
(Pearson’s correlation coefficient for correlation test, Independent sample t-test for the test of the difference
between independent samples and Paired sample t-test for the test of the difference between pre and post
conditions) were done using SPSS 21. Details are given in the below sections.
To prove hypothesis 1, which stated that “There is a significant relationship between happiness and
decision making(time taken for decision making and risk-taking behavior)”, Pearson’s correlation
coefficient was done. Data from both the control and experimental group were used for analysis. Two
aspects of decision making were also measured and tested namely, timetaken for decision making and risk-
taking behavior. The results are given in table 2.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of the variables studied
Pre-test
happiness
Pre-test total
pumps
(Risk-
taking)
Pre-test time
taken (in
seconds)
Post-test
happiness
Post-test total
pumps (Risk-
taking)
Post-test
time taken
(in seconds)
Mean
7.08 211.56 209127.3 7.58 230.36 121298
SD 2.25 112.88 80058.31 2.04 111.61 54332.18
Median
8 209 191641.5 8 215.5 113826
Relationship among variables of happiness and decision making
In table 2,we see that there is a significant positive relationship between pre-test happiness and post-test
happiness (r=.816**).Similarly, a significant positive relationship was found between happiness and one
aspect of decision making, that is time taken for decision making in the pre-test condition for both pre-
testhappiness (r= 0.272*) and post-test happiness scores (r= 0.299*).Results also show a significant positive
relationship between two aspects of decision making that is between risk-taking behavior, which is
calculated using the total pumps and the time taken to make decisions. However, study results did not find
any significant relationship between pre-test happiness and post-test happiness and time taken for decision-
makingpost-intervention program (after inducing happiness).
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
43
Table 2 Pearson’s correlation coefficient among variables in pre- and post-test conditions
Variables
Post-test
Happiness
Pre-test Total
Pumps
(Risk-taking
)
Pre-test Total Time
(time taken for
Decision making)
Post-test Total
Pumps(Risk-
taking )
Post-test Total
Time (Decision
making)
Pre-test Happiness
.816** -.037 .272* .049 .193
Post-test
Happiness
-.016 .299* -.013 .209
Pre-test total
Pumps (Risk-
taking )
.399** .659** .392**
Pre-test Total
Time (Decision
making)
.325* .276*
Post-test Total
Pumps(Risk-
taking )
.578**
* p< 0.05 ** p< 0.01
Thus, the hypothesis which stated that “There is a significant relationship between happiness and decision
making(time taken for decision making and risk-taking behavior)” is partially accepted, as one aspect of
decision making, namely, time-taken for decision making in pre-tests, is found to be significantly related to
happiness.
Test of difference between control and experimental group on happiness and decision making
To prove hypothesis 2 that “There is a significant difference between the control group and the experimental
group in happiness and decision making (time taken for decision making and risk-takingbehavior)”,
Independent sample t-test was performed.
From the results obtained from table 3,it is found that none of the t- values are significant, which
means that there is no significant difference between control group and experimental group on happiness and
decision-making variables tested during pre-intervention and post-intervention situations. Thus, the
hypothesis, which stated that there is a significant difference between the control group and the experimental
group in happiness and decision making, is rejected.
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
44
Table 3 Independent sample t-test for the control group (N=30) and experimental group (N=30) on
happiness and decision making
* p< 0.05 ** p< 0.01
Test of difference between pre-test and post-test conditions for happiness and decision making
To prove hypothesis 3, that “There is a significant difference between the pre-intervention and post-
intervention situations in the experimental group in happiness and decision making (time taken for decision
making and risk-takingbehavior)”, a paired sample t-test was computed. Results are shown in table 4.
Table 4 Paired sample t-test for the test of the difference between pre and post-intervention situations
in the experimental group for happiness and decision making (N=30)
Group
Variable
Period
t-value
Pre-Intervention Period (N = 30)
Post Intervention Period (N = 30)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Happiness
Total Pumps (Risk-taking )
Time taken for decision
making
6.93
202.63
216702.33
2.02
112.27
69742.24
7.77
220.90
120763.23
1.65
111.44
58609.28
2.84**
.948
6.20**
* P< 0.05 ** p< 0.01
In the above table, we see that for happiness (t value=2.84**) and one aspect of decision making, namely
time taken for decision- making (t-value=6.20**), pre and post-intervention groups differ significantly.
Results also revealed that there is no significant difference in the experimental group in the second aspect of
decision making that is risk-taking behavior during the pre and post-intervention period. Results also
indicated that the mean score obtained on happiness for post intervention period (7.77) is significantly
greater than mean scores obtained on happiness for the pre-intervention period (6.93). Similarly, results also
indicated that mean score obtained on time taken for decision making on the pre-intervention period
Group
Variable
Group
t-value
Control Group (N = 30) Experimental Group (N = 30)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Pre-test Happiness
Pre-test Total Pumps (Risk-
taking )
Pre-test Total Time
(Time taken for decision
making)
Post-test Happiness
Post-test Total Pumps
(Risk-taking )
Post-test Total Time
(Time taken for decision
making)
7.23
220.50
201552.20
7.40
220.50
121832.70
2.50
114.71
89760.67
2.387
112.88
50696.41
6.93
202.63
216702.33
7.77
220.90
120763.23
2.02
112.27
69742.24
1.65
111.44
58609.28
.512
.610
.730
.692
.654
.076
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
45
(216702.33) is greater than mean scores obtained on time taken for decision making in the post-intervention
period (120763.23).
Thus, the hypothesis which stated that there is a significant difference between the pre-intervention
and post-intervention situations in the experimental group in happiness and decision making (time taken for
decision making and risk-takingbehavior), is partially accepted.
Discussion
The experimental study was carried out with management students. This sample was targeted to achieve a
considerable level of internal and external validity. As all the participants were management students, some
homogeneity could be established within the sample, and several extraneous variables could be controlled,
thus establishing internal validity. These management students are likely to start working in organizations
and managing human resources in the near future, making them the future employees, leaders, and managers
in different industries, thus establishing external validity.
Results of correlation analysis computed between variables also found that there exists a significant
positive relationship between happiness (pre and post-test happiness)and one aspect of decision making that
is time taken for decision making in the pre-test condition. This implies that happier participants took more
time to make decisions. This finding is strongly supported by Guven and Hoxha (2014), who found that
happier people tend to take more time to make decisions. As suggested by the work of Lerner, Li, Valdesolo,
& Kassam (2014), emotions affect decision making in depth of thought, which may be indicated by the
increased time taken for decision making by participants experiencing increased happiness. Support from the
findings for Fredrickson’s (2001) Broaden and Build Theory can also be inferred. Positive emotions, such as
happiness, expand and mobilize cognitive and behavior al resources, allowing the individual to take more
time to make decisions.
According to a study by Guven & Hoxha, (2014) happier people are more likely to take longer to
make decisions, the implication of which is subject to contingencies of the situation. While the depth of
thought may be vital in managerial decisions, the urgency for decision making in several managerial
situations may take the toll of increased happiness. Managers, thus, need to balance the depth of thought
with time taken while decision making, given the significant relationship of happiness with decision making
found in this study.
Correlation results also indicate that the second aspect of decision making (risk-taking indicated by
the number of pumps on the BART test) is not significantly linked to happiness. A study by Moreno, Kida
and Smith (2002) claims that positive affect can make managers take more risks in gain contexts. The
present study has not found a significant impact of positive emotion of happiness of risk-taking, indicating
that positive emotions, such as happiness, alone do not explain the risk-taking behavior among management
students.
Results of independent sample t-test found that there is no significant difference between the control
group and the experimental group on any happiness and decision-making variables. This implies that both
the control and the experimental group have similar levels of happiness and decision making before and
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
46
after the exposure to the intervention situation. This means that intervention program (watching the
‘happy’video) did not bring significant change in the experimental group when compared with the control
group. One reason for this result could be that the situational factors may have impacted the self-report
happiness scores, especially of the participants in the control group. This highlights the nature of ‘happiness’
as a variable as susceptible to multiple extraneous factors, and its changing impact on other variables like
decision making.
From the results of Paired sample-t test, it was found that happiness levels and one aspect of
decision making (time taken for decision making) changed significantly in the experimental group during
pre and post intervention situation. Happiness scores were found to increase in the post-intervention
situation, and this means that the level of happiness increased among the participants after watching the
‘happy’ videos. However, the time taken for decision making was found to decrease in the post-intervention
situation. This means that time taken to make decisions before the exposure of ‘happy’ video was higher
when compared to the time taken to make a decision after watching the ‘happy’ video. One possible
explanation for the above finding would be that practice effect could have played a role, as participants were
asked to perform the same task after the intervention. However, the results obtained for second aspect of
decision making (risk-taking behavior) indicated that exposure to the ‘happy’ video did not create an impact
on the participants. Irrespective of being happy, participants of the study seem to involve in risk-taking
behavior. Overall, from the results, it could be inferred that being happy helps people to make decisions in a
shorter period, but without engaging in risk-taking behavior.
Supporting Lerner, Li, Valdesolo and Kassam’s (2014) work on ‘Affect Integrated Model of
Decision-making’, it is found that both Integral and Incidental emotions, which were manipulated in the
experiment and examined in the study, impact decision making. Change in happiness coincides with changes
in decision making.
Conclusion
Happiness and decision making in both pre and post-intervention conditions are significantly and positively
related. Positive emotions, such as happiness, expand and mobilize cognitive and behavior al resources,
allows the individual to take more time to make decisions, probably facilitating depth of thought. Changes in
happiness coincide with changes in decision making.
Happier employees are more likely to take lesser time to make decisions, the implication of which is
subject to contingencies of the situation. While the depth of thought may be vital, the urgency for decision
making in several managerial situations may take the toll of increased happiness.
Managerial Implications
The discourse of ‘Happiness at Work’ needs to be re-evaluated, because happiness does not necessarily lead
to risky or non-risky decisions or even perhaps better decisions. The managerial, as well as academic focus,
is gradually shifting to work engagement, which is a holistic concept, rather than merely relying on the
hedonic efforts at increasing happiness at work. The implications of this shift in approach could be unfolded
by further research.
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
47
Acknowledgment
We would like to extent our gratitude to the Centre for Advanced Research and Training (CART) at Christ
(Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, for their support in carrying out this research project. We would also
like to acknowledge Dr. Cathlyn Niranjana Bennett for reviewing the paper and giving her valuable
feedback. We also like to thank all the participants of the study for their cooperation.
REFERENCES
Augier, M. (2001, September). Simon Says: Bounded Rationality Matters. Journal of Management Inquiry,
268–275.
Baumeister, R., DeWall, C., Vohs, K., & Alquist, J. (2009). Does Emotion Cause Behavior(Apart from
Making People Do Stupid, Destructive Things)? Then A Miracle OccursFocusing on Behaviorin
Social Psychological Theory and Research.Oxford University Press.
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377798.003.0007
Bubic, A., & Erceg, N. (2016). The Role of Decision-Making Styles in Explaining Happiness. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 19(1). DOI:10.1007/s10902-016-9816-z
Chuang, S.-C., & Lin, H.-M. (2007, September). The Effect of Induced Positive and Negative Emotion and
Openness-to-Feeling in Student'sConsumer Decision Making. Journal of Business and Psychology,
22(1), 65-78. DOI:10.1007/sl0869-007-9049-6
Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F, & Bassi, M. (2010). Hedonism and Eudaimonism in Positive Psychology.
Psychological Selection and Optimal Experience Across Cultures, 3-18. DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-
9876-4_1
Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice. Political Behavior,
297-321. DOI:10. 1007/sl 1 109-008-9056-y
Ernst, M., Bolla, K., Mouratidis, M., Contoreggi, C., Matochik, J. A., Kurian, V.,... London, E. D. (2002,
May). Decision-making in a Risk-taking Task: A PET Study. Neuropsychopharmacology, 682-691.
DOI:10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00414-6
Fordyce, M. (1983). The Happiness Measure: A Sixty Second Index of Emotional Well-Being and Mental
Health. Retrieved from
https://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_bib/freetexts/fordyce_mw_1983.pdf
Forgas, J. P., & East, R. (2008). On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection
of deception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1362–1367.
DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.010
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
DOI:http://dx.DOI.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why Heuristics Work. Psychological Science, 3(1), 20-29.
Guven, C., & Hoxha, I. (2014). Rain or shine: Happiness and risk-taking. The Quarterly Review of
Economics and Finance. DOI:http://dx.DOI.org/10.1016/j.qref.2014.10.004
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
48
Isen, A. M. (2001). An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex Situations: Theoretical
Issues with Practical Implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 75-85. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1480557
Jarden, A. (2011). Positive Psychological Assessment: A practical introduction to empirically validated
research tools for measuring wellbeing. Retrieved 2018, from www.aaronjarden.com
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavior al Economics. The American
Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L.,... Brown, R. A.
(2002). Evaluation of a Behavior al Measure of Risk-taking : The Balloon Analogue Risk Task
(BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75–84. DOI: 10.1037//1076-
898X.8.2.75
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on
judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473-493. Retrieved 2018, from
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/dacherkeltner/docs/lerner.keltner.2000.pdf
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. (2014, June 16). Emotion and Decision Making.
Manuscript submitted for publication in the Annual Review of Psychology. Retrieved from
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenniferlerner/files/annual_review_manuscript_june_16_final.final_.
pdf
McDermott, R. (1998). Risk-takingin International Politics. In R. McDermott, Risk-Taking in International
Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy (pp. 15-44). The University of Michigan
Press. Retrieved 2018, from https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472108670-02.pdf
Moldovan, C. P. (2017). AM Happy Scale: Reliability and Validity of a Single-Item Measure of Happiness.
Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects. 438. Retrieved 2018, from
https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1430&context=etd
Moreno, K., Kida, T., & Smith, J. F. (2002). The Impact of Affective Reactions on Risky Decision Making
in Accounting Contexts. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(5), 1331-1349. Retrieved 2018, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3542254
Pêcher, C., Lemercier, C., & Cellier, J.-M. (2011). The Influence of Emotions on Driving Behavior. In C.
Pêcher, C. Lemercier, J.-M. Cellier, & D. Hennessy (Ed.), Traffic Psychology: An International
Perspective. Nova Science Publishers. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263124950_The_Influence_of_Emotions_on_Driving_Be
havior
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational Behavior(15 ed.). Pearson.
Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A., & Meloy, M. G. (2006). Choosing an Inferior Alternative. Psychological
Science, 17(10), 899–904.
Simon, H. (1977). The New Science of Management Decision.
ISSN 2319-
829X
Humanities and Social Science Studies, Vol. 8(1)
49
Spicer, A., & Cederström, C. (2015, July 21). The Research We’ve Ignored About Happiness at Work.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 2018, from https://hbr.org/2015/07/the-research-weve-ignored-
about-happiness-at-work
Tan, H. B., & Forgas, J. P. (2010). When happiness makes us selfish, but sadness makes us fair: Affective
influences on interpersonal strategies in the dictator game. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46, 571–576. DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.007
University of Pennsylvania. (n.d.). Questionnaire Centre. Retrieved 2018, from Authentic Happiness:
https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/testcenter
