Understanding Individual Differences in Happiness Sources and Implications for Health Technology Design: Exploratory Analysis of an Open Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychologists have developed frameworks to understand many constructs, which have subsequently informed the design of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) aimed at improving mental health outcomes. The science of happiness is one such domain that holds significant applied importance due to its links to well-being and evidence that happiness can be cultivated through interventions. However, as with many constructs, the unique ways in which individuals experience happiness present major challenges for designing personalized DMHIs. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to (1) present an analysis of how sex may interact with age, marital status, and parental status to predict individual differences in sources of happiness, and (2) to present a preliminary discussion of how open datasets may contribute to the process of designing health-related technology innovations. METHODS: The HappyDB is an open database of 100,535 statements of what people consider to have made them happy, with some people asking to consider the past 24 hours (49,831 statements) and some considering the last 3 months (50,704 statements). Demographic information is also provided. Binary logistic regression analyses are used to determine whether various groups differed in their likelihood of selecting or not selecting a category as a source of their happiness. RESULTS: Sex and age interacted to influence what was selected as sources of happiness, with patterns being less consistent among female individuals in comparison with male individuals. For marital status, differences in sources of happiness were predominantly between married individuals and those who are divorced or separated, but these were the same for both sexes. Married, single, and widowed individuals were all largely similar in their likelihood of selecting each of the categories as a source of their happiness. However, there were some anomalies, and sex appeared to be important in these anomalies. Sex and parental status also interacted to influence what was selected as sources of happiness. CONCLUSIONS: Sex interacts with age, marital status, and parental status in the likelihood of reporting affection, bonding, leisure, achievement, or enjoying the moment as sources of happiness. The contribution of an open dataset to understanding individual differences in sources of happiness is discussed in terms of its potential role in addressing the challenges of designing DMHIs that are ethical, responsible, evidence based, acceptable, engaging, inclusive, and effective for users. The discussion considers how the content design of DMHIs in general may benefit from exploring new methods informed by diverse data sources. It is proposed that examining the extent to which insights from nondigital settings can inform requirements gathering for DMHIs is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".