Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jessica A. Stern, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Pomona College

Relationships can feel like both a blessing and the bane of your existence, a source of joy and a source of frustration or resentment. At some point, each of us is faced with a clingy child, a dramatic friend, a partner who recoils at the first hint of intimacy, a volatile parent or a controlling boss — in short, a difficult relationship.

As a psychology professor and relationship scientist, I’ve spent countless hours observing human interactions, in the lab and in the real world, trying to understand what makes relationships work – and what makes them feel utterly intractable.

Recently, I teamed up with psychologist Rachel Samson, who helps individuals, couples and families untangle difficult dynamics in the therapy room. In our new book, “Beyond Difficult: An attachment-based guide for dealing with challenging people,” we explore the roots of difficult behavior and evidence-based strategies for making difficult relationships more bearable.

So what’s really going on beneath the surface of “difficult” behavior? And more to the point, what can you do about it?

Difficult interactions can have deep roots

When a conversation with a co-worker goes sideways or a phone call with a friend goes off the rails, it’s easy to assume the issue stems from the situation at hand. But sometimes, big emotions and reactions have deeper roots. Difficult interactions often result from differences in temperament: your biologically based style of emotional and behavioral responses to the world around you.

People with a sensitive temperament react more strongly to stress and sensory experiences. When overwhelmed, they may seem volatile, moody or rigid — but these reactions are often more about sensory or emotional overload than malice. Importantly, when sensitive children and adults are in a supportive environment that “fits” their temperament, they can thrive socially and emotionally.

Beyond neurobiology, one of the most common threads underlying difficult relationships is what psychologists call insecure attachment. Early experiences with caregivers shape the way people connect with others later in life. Experiences of inconsistent or insensitive care can lead you to expect the worst of other people, a core feature of insecure attachment.

People with insecure attachment may cling, withdraw, lash out or try to control others — not because they want to make others miserable, but because they feel unsafe in close relationships. By addressing the underlying need for emotional safety, you can work toward more secure relationships.

Managing difficult emotions

In challenging interactions, emotions can run high — and how you deal with those emotions can make or break a relationship.

Research has shown that people with sensitive temperament, insecure attachment or a history of trauma often struggle with emotion regulation. In fact, difficulty managing emotions is one of the strongest predictors of mental illness, relationship breakups and even aggression and violence.

It’s easy to label someone as “too emotional,” but in reality, emotion is a social event. Our nervous systems constantly respond to one another — which means our ability to stay regulated affects not only how we feel, but how others react to us. The good news is that there are evidence-based strategies to calm yourself when tensions rise:

1. Take a breath. Slow, deep breathing helps signal safety to the nervous system.
2. Take a break. Relationship researchers John and Julie Gottman found that taking a 20-minute break during conflict helps reduce physiological stress and prevent escalation.
3. Move your body. Exercise – particularly walking, dancing or yoga – has been shown to reduce depression and anxiety, sometimes even more effectively than medication. Movement before or after a difficult interaction can help “work out” the tension.
4. Reframe the situation. This strategy, called cognitive reappraisal, involves changing the way you interpret a situation or your goals within it. Instead of trying to “fix” a difficult family member, for example, you might focus on appreciating the time you have with them. Reappraisal helps the brain regulate emotion before it escalates, lowering activity in stress-related areas like the amygdala.

Giving better feedback

Difficult people are usually unaware of how their behavior affects you — unless you tell them. One of the most powerful things you can do in a difficult relationship is give feedback. But not all feedback is created equal.

Feedback, at its core, is a tool for learning. Without it, you would never have learned to write, drive or function socially. But when feedback is poorly delivered, it can backfire: People become defensive, shut down or dig in their heels. Feedback is most effective when it stays focused on the task rather than the individual; in other words, don’t make it personal.

Research points to four keys to effective feedback, based in learning theory:

1. Mutuality: Approach the conversation as a two-way exchange. Be open to the needs and ideas of both parties.
2. Specificity: Be clear about what behaviors you’re referring to. Citing particular interactions is often better than “You always ….”
3. Goal-directedness: Connect the feedback to a shared goal. Work together to find a constructive solution to the problem.
4. Timing: Give feedback close to the event, when it’s still fresh but emotions have settled.

Also, skip the so-called “compliment sandwich” of a critique between two pieces of positive feedback. It doesn’t actually improve outcomes or change behavior.

Interestingly, the most effective sequence is actually to start with a corrective, followed by positive affirmation of what’s going well. Leading with honesty shows respect. Plus, the corrective is more likely to be remembered. Following up with warmth builds connection and shows that you value the person.

The bottom line

Difficult relationships are part of being human; they don’t mean someone is broken or toxic. Often, they reflect deeper patterns of attachment, temperament and differences in how our brains work.

When you understand what’s underneath the behavior – and take steps to regulate yourself, communicate clearly and give compassionate feedback – you can shift even the most stuck relationship into something more bearable, perhaps even meaningful.

Strengthening relationships isn’t always easy. But the science shows that it is possible – and can be rewarding.

Jessica A. Stern does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Dealing with a difficult relationship? Here’s how psychology says you can shift the dynamic – https://theconversation.com/dealing-with-a-difficult-relationship-heres-how-psychology-says-you-can-shift-the-dynamic-264669

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By David L. Weimer, Professor of Political Economy Emeritus, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Many Americans struggle to pay for health care for themselves and other members of their families, even if they have insurance coverage.

Some very big bills arise when the furriest members of their households get sick or just need an annual checkup: their dogs. Americans spend an average of about US$1,700 annually on their dogs’ food and care, including $580 for veterinary bills.

All told, Americans spent more than $41 billion on their pets’ veterinary care in 2025, primarily on dogs and cats. Veterinary costs have soared in recent years, rising much faster than inflation in the past decade.

The average cost of any visit to a veterinarian for a dog is about $214 today. Appointment costs for a routine examination for a dog range from $70 to $174, depending in part on the vet’s location and your dog’s conditions.

Estimating future costs

Aidan Vining, a Canadian public policy scholar, and I, a public policy researcher based in the U.S., considered the extent to which economics can explain our canine relationships in our 2024 book “Dog Economics.”

Our own love of dogs helps us understand how people bring dogs into their lives without fully taking account of future costs. One of these often unanticipated costs is for veterinary bills that may break the family budget.

Indeed, a Gallup survey of dog and cat owners conducted for PetSmart Charities in 2024 and 2025 found that 42% of respondents had declined veterinary care for their pets because they could not afford it. In the same study, an additional 38% declined care because they did not believe it was worth the cost.

I think that people should consider the risk of bearing these costs before bringing a dog into the family.

Part of the family

Between 60 million and 68 million U.S. households include at least one dog. That means that as many as half of all occupied U.S. homes include a dog.

Most families with dogs revere them. A survey I conducted with colleagues in 2018 found that 73% of people with pet dogs strongly agreed with the statement “I consider my pets to be part of the family.”

A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 51% of pet owners viewed their animals as being as much a member of their family as their human relatives.

Because many of us will spend whatever we can to save the life of our family members, being unable to afford lifesaving care for dogs can be very upsetting.

Steep veterinarian bills

But sometimes dogs require very expensive care. And veterinarians in cities where the costs of living are high tend to charge more than elsewhere.

Treating some fairly common dog ailments can cost a bundle: as much as $3,000 for gastroenteritis, $7,000 for intestinal obstruction surgery, $5,000 for severe pancreatitis and $8,000 for stomach bloat.

The tab for canine cancer treatments involving chemotherapy or radiation can set you back more than $10,000.

The initial phase of treatment for immune-mediated hemolytic anemia for my family’s poodle, for example, cost more than $10,000 in veterinary costs. She is doing well but needs continuing medical care.

Sometimes pooches require overnight veterinary supervision. That can cost you as much as $1,500 per night they spend in an animal hospital on top of those other expenses.

Many Americans cannot afford to pay for such expensive care – only 41% could cover a $1,000 unanticipated expense of any kind from their savings.

Although only a stopgap,there are charities that provide free or lower-cost veterinary care for the pets of low-income people?

Insurance coverage is rare and often falls short

Pet insurance can help make these expenses more manageable, but it covers only about 4.9 million dogs – about 8% of all American dogs.

Most of those policies have deductibles you have to meet before they’ll reimburse you for at least part of the cost of your animal’s care. Some policies cover treatment only for accidents. Many exclude routine checkups and impose caps on total claims, typically at $5,000.

Ironically, people who can most easily afford pet insurance are also the most likely to have enough money to pay for veterinary expenses.

Insurance premiums for dogs, which depend on breed, where you live, their age and coverage terms, average about $62 per month. Premiums that cover well visits and either have high caps – annual limits on what you can be reimbursed through pet insurance policies – or no caps at all cost more than that.

And pet insurers may exclude preexisting conditions. That is, unlike human patients protected by the Affordable Care Act, insurers can decline to cover dogs with prior illnesses.

To be sure, some claims of over $60,000 have been paid by insurers through policies without any claim caps.

But in most cases, it’s clear that having a dog can mean you’ll bear substantial financial risks when your dog gets injured or ill. And that’s true whether or not you’re paying pet insurance premiums throughout its lifetime – which on average lasts about a dozen years.

Going into debt to pay the vet

Americans who do pay big veterinary bills often have to borrow to do so – 39% of pet owners say they have gone into debt to pay for veterinary care, according to a survey conducted by MetLife’s pet insurance division.

Even when they can afford those bills, many families often find providing care demanding and difficult to accommodate, given their work schedules and the caregiving that other relatives require.

People who cannot afford the cost or lack the time to provide their dogs with the veterinary care required may choose to euthanize, give their dogs to someone else – known as rehoming – or surrender them to shelters. There’s no reliable data about this but I’m certain that veterinary issues contribute to the 6% of the pet surrenders that happen for financial reasons.

And these surrenders contribute to the over 330,000 dogs that U.S. shelters euthanize each year.

3 considerations before acquiring dogs

Although dogs can enrich your life with their devotion and companionship, I urge anyone considering bringing a dog into your home to think through these financial issues first.

1. The potential cost of veterinary care for dogs is high and likely to increase.

Veterinary science will continue to develop new treatments, and some inevitably will be very expensive. As a result, dog owners will more often face heartbreaking choices between extending the life of an animal they consider to be a family member and destabilizing their own finances.

2. Like your human relatives, dogs tend to have more medical problems as they age.

Most people with dogs will outlive their pets and will eventually have to confront canine medical problems. In other words, veterinary costs will at some point challenge almost all pet parents.

3. Whether or not our relatives want to get expensive medical care, we usually err on the side of providing whatever we can afford unless they demand a switch to palliative care only.

Despite our emotional bonds with our dogs, they cannot tell us how they feel about the trade-off between quality of life and longevity. We should not ignore their suffering even when we can afford extensive veterinary care. Sometimes, euthanasia is the most loving decision.

Those facing these difficult end-of-life decisions may benefit from seeking out veterinary palliative and hospice care, which is increasingly available.

David L. Weimer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Dogs can need more than kibble, walks and love − consider the escalating expenses of their medical care before you adopt – https://theconversation.com/dogs-can-need-more-than-kibble-walks-and-love-consider-the-escalating-expenses-of-their-medical-care-before-you-adopt-272953

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Patrick Barry, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law and Director of Digital Academic Initiatives, University of Michigan

Journalist Ira Glass, who hosts the NPR show “This American Life,” is not a computer scientist. He doesn’t work at Google, Apple or Nvidia. But he does have a great ear for useful phrases, and in 2024 he organized an entire episode around one that might resonate with anyone who feels blindsided by the pace of AI development: “Unprepared for what has already happened.”

Coined by science journalist Alex Steffen, the phrase captures the unsettling feeling that “the experience and expertise you’ve built up” may now be obsolete – or, at least, a lot less valuable than it once was.

Whenever I lead workshops in law firms, government agencies or nonprofit organizations, I hear that same concern. Highly educated, accomplished professionals worry whether there will be a place for them in an economy where generative AI can quickly – and relativity cheaply – complete a growing list of tasks that an extremely large number of people currently get paid to do.

Seeing a future that doesn’t include you

In technology reporter Cade Metz’s 2022 book, “Genius Makers: The Mavericks Who Brought AI to Google, Facebook, and the World,” he describes the panic that washed over a veteran researcher at Microsoft named Chris Brockett when Brockett first encountered an artificial intelligence program that could essentially perform everything he’d spent decades learning how to master.

Overcome by the thought that a piece of software had now made his entire skill set and knowledge base irrelevant, Brockett was actually rushed to the hospital because he thought he was having a heart attack.

“My 52-year-old body had one of those moments when I saw a future where I wasn’t involved,” he later told Metz.

In his 2018 book, “Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” MIT physicist Max Tegmark expresses a similar anxiety.

“As technology keeps improving, will the rise of AI eventually eclipse those abilities that provide my current sense of self-worth and value on the job market?”

The answer to that question, unnervingly, can often feel outside of our individual control.

“We’re seeing more AI-related products and advancements in a single day than we saw in a single year a decade ago,” a Silicon Valley product manager told a reporter for Vanity Fair back in 2023. Things have only accelerated since then.

Even Dario Amodei – the co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, the company that created the popular chatbot Claude – has been shaken by the increasing power of AI tools. “I think of all the times when I wrote code,” he said in an interview on the tech podcast “Hard Fork.” “It’s like a part of my identity that I’m good at this. And then I’m like, oh, my god, there’s going to be these (AI) systems that [can perform a lot better than I can].”

The irony that these fears live inside the brain of someone who leads one of the most important AI companies in the world is not lost on Amodei.

“Even as the one who’s building these systems,” he added, “even as one of the ones who benefits most from (them), there’s still something a bit threatening about (them).”

Autor and agency

Yet as the labor economist David Autor has argued, we all have more agency over the future than we might think.

In 2024, Autor was interviewed by Bloomberg News soon after publishing a research paper titled Applying AI to Rebuild Middle-Class Jobs. The paper explores the idea that AI, if managed well, might be able to help a larger set of people perform the kind of higher-value – and higher-paying – “decision-making tasks currently arrogated to elite experts like doctors, lawyers, coders and educators.”

This shift, Autor suggests, “would improve the quality of jobs for workers without college degrees, moderate earnings inequality, and – akin to what the Industrial Revolution did for consumer goods – lower the cost of key services such as healthcare, education and legal expertise.”

It’s an interesting, hopeful argument, and Autor, who has spent decades studying the effects of automation and computerization on the workforce, has the intellectual heft to explain it without coming across as Pollyannish.

But what I found most heartening about the interview was Autor’s response to a question about a type of “AI doomerism” that believes that widespread economic displacement is inevitable and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

“The future should not be treated as a forecasting or prediction exercise,” he said. “It should be treated as a design problem – because the future is not (something) where we just wait and see what happens. … We have enormous control over the future in which we live, and [the quality of that future] depends on the investments and structures that we create today.”

At the starting line

I try to emphasize Autor’s point about the future being more of a “design problem” than a “prediction exercise” in all the AI courses and workshops I teach to law students and lawyers, many of whom fret over their own job prospects.

The nice thing about the current AI moment, I tell them, is that there is still time for deliberate action. Although the first scientific paper on neural networks was published all the way back in 1943, we’re still very much in the early stages of so-called “generative AI.”

No student or employee is hopelessly behind. Nor is anyone commandingly ahead.

Instead, each of us is in an enviable spot: right at the starting line.

Patrick Barry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Feeling unprepared for the AI boom? You’re not alone – https://theconversation.com/feeling-unprepared-for-the-ai-boom-youre-not-alone-273192

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Peter McGraw, Professor of Marketing and Psychology, University of Colorado Boulder

Every February, Valentine’s Day amplifies what single people already know – that public life is built for two. Restaurants roll out prix fixe menus for couples. Hotels promote “romantic getaway” packages designed for double occupancy. A table for one still invites the question, “Just you?”

Yet there’s irony that’s hard to miss. While Valentine’s Day doubles down on togetherness, more adults are living – and moving through the world – alone.

As a behavioral economist, I study what I call the “solo economy.” A growing share of economic life today is organized around people who live, spend and make decisions on their own.

1-person households aren’t outliers

Half of U.S. adults are unmarried, and one-person households are now the nation’s most common living arrangement. This isn’t a temporary phase confined to young adults waiting to settle down. It includes never-married professionals, divorced empty nesters, widows and widowers, and people who simply prefer to live independently.

Lifelong singlehood is also rising: 25% of millennials and 33% of Gen Z are projected to never marry.

It’s a slow-moving demographic shift away from long-term partnership as the dominant adult life path, but a consequential one – reshaping everything from housing and travel to social policy and commerce. One of its clearest expressions is the number of people doing things alone in public.

The rise of public solo life

It would be one thing if the economy were built for two and solos stayed home. But they are going to museums, traveling and, of course, dining alone in restaurants. To assess this behavior, I surveyed single and married Americans about their participation in 25 activities that occur in public – from shopping and dining to attending movies and concerts.

The pattern was striking. Overall, singles were much more likely to do things alone in public than their married counterparts – 56% versus 39%. The difference held across every activity I measured.

The biggest gaps weren’t for practical tasks like grocery shopping. They were for leisure experiences like going to the movies, dining out and attending concerts. In fact, seven of the 10 largest differences involved retail or entertainment settings – the very places most designed and marketed with couples in mind.

Bias that keeps people from having fun alone

Why hasn’t the business world paid more attention to the singles market?

The answer lies in psychology. Some reluctance stems from the belief that other customers will perceive solo diners or moviegoers as sad or lonely. These fears are amplified by what psychologists call the spotlight effect – our tendency to overestimate how much other people notice and judge us.

Findings by consumer researchers Rebecca Hamilton and Rebecca Ratner can help explain why this bias is so persistent. Across studies conducted in the U.S., China and India, people consistently predicted they would enjoy activities less if they did them alone – even though they’d be seeing the same movie or visiting the same museum.

But when people actually went alone, they enjoyed the experience just as much as those who went with others. The fear, it turns out, is largely imagined.

Another problem is that solo consumers don’t always feel welcome.

While behavior is changing, markets have been slower to adapt. Most businesses still design experiences around pairs, families or groups. Consider restaurants that seat solo diners at the bar or near the kitchen or bathrooms, or ticketing systems that require purchasing in pairs. The result is friction for solo consumers – and missed opportunities for companies.

Valentine’s Day promotions make that mismatch especially visible. In 2024, IKEA Canada offered a Valentine’s Day dining experience in its showroom priced and designed for two – and only two – people.

After backlash, the company revised the promotion the following year to be more inclusive: “Bring a loved one, a good friend, or the whole family.” It was a small change, but a revealing one.

Why solo shoppers have outsized influence

Solo consumers represent a large, growing and profitable market segment, yet they’re navigating a marketplace that still treats them as edge cases.

Another study that Ratner conducted with business school professor Yuechen Wu adds an important twist.

Analyses of more than 14,000 Tripadvisor reviews of restaurants and museums show that reviews written by solo diners and solo museumgoers are rated as more helpful – and receive more positive feedback – than reviews written by people who went with others.

Follow-up experiments showed that when otherwise identical recommendations differed only in whether the reviewer experienced the activity alone or with others, respondents were more likely to rely on the solo reviewer when deciding what to do.

Why? Observers infer that people who go alone are more genuinely interested in the experience and more focused on its quality, rather than simply going along with someone else’s preferences.

Being alone, it turns out, functions as a credibility cue. For businesses, that means solo customers aren’t just customers − they can be very influential customers.

Designing for 1 in Asia

Asian businesses are far ahead of the West in recognizing the buying power of people doing things alone.

In South Korea, for example, “honjok,” which translates as “alone tribe,” culture has fueled products and services designed explicitly for solo living. Think single-serve meals at convenience stores, one-person karaoke booths, and restaurants that promise judgment-free service.

Similarly, in Japan, the ramen chain Ichiran built its brand around the idea of “flavor concentration,” which encourages diners to eat alone in private booths.

Officially, the design is meant to eliminate distractions and heighten the dining experience. In practice, it does something more important: It legitimizes solo dining.

Progress in the US

In the U.S., Disney theme parks and some of the company’s competitors have long used single-rider lines that reward solo visitors with shorter waits, turning independence into operational efficiency – a logic ski resorts adopted decades ago to fill empty seats on chairlifts.

And solo tourism has become a major trend. Demand is growing, and tour operators are adapting offerings to meet it, including specialized tours for singles and adjustments to historically prohibitive pricing practices.

Industry analysis also shows the global solo travel market expanding rapidly, with tailored products and experiences emerging worldwide. Some companies now offer dedicated solo travel collections with no single supplement − the extra fee traditionally charged to travelers who occupy a room alone − and tours designed specifically for independent travelers.

Doing things alone is an opportunity

Valentine’s Day offers a chance to see how outdated many widespread assumptions still are.

It treats solitude as a problem to be solved, even as people’s behavior tells a different story. Yet businesses, policymakers and U.S. culture more broadly have not designed a world that fully acknowledges that about 42% of American adults are single.

In the meantime, singles aren’t waiting at home. They’re out there – at the movies, on planes, in museums and restaurants – moving through public life on their own terms.

Valentine’s Day may always be built for two. But the economy won’t be.

Peter McGraw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Doing things alone is on the rise, and businesses should pay more attention to that – even on Valentine’s Day – https://theconversation.com/doing-things-alone-is-on-the-rise-and-businesses-should-pay-more-attention-to-that-even-on-valentines-day-273227

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Michael Prinzing, Research and Assessment Scholar, Wake Forest University

Virtues such as compassion, patience and self-control may be beneficial not only for others but also for oneself, according to new research my team and I published in the Journal of Personality in December 2025.

Philosophers from Aristotle to al-Fārābī, a 10th-century scholar in what is now Iraq, have argued that virtue is vital for well-being. Yet others, such as Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche, have argued the opposite: Virtue offers no benefit to oneself and is good only for others. This second theory has inspired lots of research in contemporary psychology, which often sees morality and self-interest as fundamentally opposed.

Many studies have found that generosity is associated with happiness, and that encouraging people to practice kindness increases their well-being. But other virtues seem less enjoyable.

For example, a compassionate person wants to alleviate suffering or misfortune, but that requires there be suffering or misfortune. Patience is possible only when something irritating or difficult is happening. And self-control involves forgoing one’s desires or persisting with something difficult.

Could these kinds of virtues really be good for you?

My colleagues and I investigated this question in two studies, using two different methods to zoom in on specific moments in people’s daily lives. Our goal was to assess the degree to which, in those moments, they were compassionate, patient and self-controlled. We also assessed their level of well-being: how pleasant or unpleasant they felt, and whether they found their activities meaningful.

One study, with adolescents, used the experience sampling method, in which people answer questions at random intervals throughout the day. The other, studying adults, used the day reconstruction method, in which people answer questions about the previous day. All told, we examined 43,164 moments from 1,218 people.

During situations that offer opportunities to act with compassion, patience and self-control – encountering someone in need, for example, or dealing with a difficult person – people tend to experience more unpleasant feelings and less pleasant ones than in other situations. However, we found that exercising these three virtues seems to help people cope. People who are habitually more compassionate, patient and self-controlled tend to experience better well-being. And when people display more compassion, patience and self-control than usual, they tend to feel better than they usually do.

In short, our results contradicted the theory that virtue is good for others and bad for the self. They were consistent with the theory that virtue promotes well-being.

Why it matters

These studies tested the predictions of two venerable, highly influential theories about the relationship between morality and well-being. In doing so, they offered new insights into one of the most fundamental questions debated in philosophy, psychology and everyday life.

Moreover, in the scientific study of morality, lots of research has examined how people form moral judgments and how outside forces shape a person’s moral behavior. Yet some researchers have argued that this should be complemented by research on moral traits and how these are integrated into the whole person. By focusing on traits such as patience, compassion and self-control, and their roles in people’s daily lives, our studies contribute to the emerging science of virtue.

What still isn’t known

One open question for future research is whether virtues such as compassion, patience and self-control are associated with better well-being only under certain conditions. For example, perhaps things look different depending on one’s stage of life or in different parts of the world.

Our studies were not randomized experiments. It is possible that the associations we observed are explained by another factor – something that increases well-being while simultaneously increasing compassion, patience and self-control. Or maybe well-being affects virtue, instead of the other way around. Future research could help clarify the causal relationships.

One particularly interesting possibility is that there might be a “virtuous cycle”: Perhaps virtue tends to promote well-being – and well-being, in turn, tends to promote virtue. If so, it would be extremely valuable to learn how to help people kick-start that cycle.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

This research was made possible through the support of grants from the John Templeton Foundation (#61221, #62208). The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

– ref. Is being virtuous good for you – or just people around you? A study suggests traits like compassion may support your own well-being – https://theconversation.com/is-being-virtuous-good-for-you-or-just-people-around-you-a-study-suggests-traits-like-compassion-may-support-your-own-well-being-273641