Psyfield

    简 繁

    Topics

    All terms About

    Happiness pie (50-10-40)

    幸福饼图（50-10-40）

    Model
    Also called
    Happiness pie chart, Sustainable happiness model

    The happiness pie comes from a 2005 paper by psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky and colleagues: differences in happiness between people were attributed about 50% to a genetic set point, about 10% to life circumstances, and up to 40% to intentional activities.[1]

    Problems raised by a 2020 reanalysis

    Select a point on the right to see which part of the pie it targets. The pie follows the 2005 paper; the 40% is hatched because it is a remainder.
    The pie from the 2005 paper, with the problems a 2020 reanalysis raised beside it. The 40% is hatched because it is a remainder, not a measurement. Point at or tap parts of the figure for details
    The pie from the 2005 paper, with the problems a 2020 reanalysis raised beside it. The 40% is hatched because it is a remainder, not a measurement. Save as image (PNG)

    Key points

    • The shares are not results from one study. The authors assembled approximate figures from earlier research, and they describe sources of variation across a population.[1]
    • The 40% is what remains after subtracting the genetic and circumstance shares from 100%; the authors framed it as room for intentional activity to matter.[1]
    • The authors argued circumstances matter little because people adapt to stable conditions, while varied intentional activities resist adaptation; see Hedonic adaptation.[1]
    • Lyubomirsky later said the chart has been “widely misinterpreted,” while still holding that people can intentionally improve their well-being.[3]

    An example

    Lin sees a post claiming “40% of your happiness is in your hands” and fills her week with gratitude journaling and meditation. The chart actually describes where differences between people come from; it cannot be converted into how much one person can change.

    Misreadings and limits

    A 2020 reanalysis found little evidence for the pie. Variance shares describe populations, not individuals; genes, circumstances and behavior intertwine rather than add up; the model ignores measurement error; and with equally plausible inputs the “40%” could be as low as 5%.[2]

    Sources

    1. 1 Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
    2. 2 Brown, N. J. L., & Rohrer, J. M. (2020). Easy as (happiness) pie? A critical evaluation of a popular model of the determinants of well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(4), 1285–1301. doi:10.1007/s10902-019-00128-4
    3. 3 Lyubomirsky, S. (2019). Revisiting the happiness pie chart: The science of interventions aimed at increasing well-being. 6th World Congress on Positive Psychology, International Positive Psychology Association (plenary abstract #384). View source

    Last checked against sources: October 26, 2026