2 STATE-TRAIT DISCUSSIONS ON HAPPINESS - A REPLY TO STONES ET-AL

Rejoinder to reaction by Stones et al. (SIR 36) on Veenhoven's ''Is ha ppiness a trait?'' (SIR 32). There are two discussions about the trait -likeness of happiness. One is concerned with the possibility of creat ing greater happiness for a greater number. In this discussion the foc us is on variability of happiness level. The other discussion is about chances for reducing inequalities in happiness. That discussion focus ses on permanence of differences in happiness. My thesis concerned the first discussion. The criticism pertains to the second. The criticism is framed in notions of psychological personality research. In line w ith that tradition its conceptualizations are rather loose. The terms 'happiness' and 'trait' are used in broader meaning than in my article . In this respect the critics conduct a different discussion as well. Stones et al. present studies that would show that happiness is more t rait-like than state-like. Yet their evidence is not convincing. The d ata do not pertain to happiness in the sense of life-satisfaction, and the interpretation of their data is deficient. For the time being it seems that happiness is not a fixed matter. In that respect it is a fe asible goal for social policy.