Understanding Happiness in the Pacific Islands: A Qualitative Study with University Staff in Fiji

Abstract

The concept of happiness has been the subject of critical analysis throughout the Western philosophical thought. Current conceptualizations focus on the role of cultural traditions and consumerist societal values. However, there is increasing scientific evidence that happiness is a product of multiple factors, the specific pattern of which differs across cultures. Yet, the cross-cultural literature tends to condense this into a Western–individualist versus non-Western-collectivisthappiness dichotomy. This overlooks the vast diversity in global collectivist societies and more research is needed from under-represented, indigenous populations. This study aims to provide a qualitative exploration of the definitions, experiences, and outcomes of happiness within a professional sample of Indigenous Pacific Fijian and Indian-Fijian ethnic groups. The data revealed eight inter-related themes that, together, suggest the experience of happiness in Fijians is a product of collectivist cultural and religious structures, individual goals and needs, and the practical environment (housing and land systems) of the Pacific Islands. This model of happiness both supports and extends existing literature from other non-Western populations. Importantly, the mix of indigenous, colonial, and environmental influences which seem to underlie the Fijian understanding of happiness support the call for contextualized analyses and socioecological approaches to happiness and well-being research.

1. Introduction

The concept of happiness has been the subject of critical analysis and writing throughout the history of philosophical and scientific interest witnessed across all cultures. Within the major periods of Western thinking and sociocultural development, the question of what constitutes happiness and how it should be pursued has encountered significant shifts [1]. The earliest Western writings on happiness from ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle viewed happiness as an end goal that is and should be desired and pursued. In this conceptualisation, happiness is fundamentally an internal state achieved through processes related to contemplation, self-fulfillment and acceptance leading to a sense of peace (‘psychic harmony’). In many ways this has also been reflected in psychological understanding of happiness. For example, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs indicates that optimal living (i.e. a state of happiness) comes from moving towards self-actualisation.

Greek philosophers termed happiness as ‘eudaimonia’ which suggests not only that it is a product of leading a virtuous life (as opposed to a pleasure-focused one) but therefore that it cannot actually be assessed as such until the end of life. In contrast, later philosophers embedded happiness as achievable during life. For example, Epicurus proposed that happiness can be experienced during life as a product of contentment with simple and meaningful things and overall quality of life (over short-term hedonic pleasures and desires) and by experiencing both positive and negative states. This has also become an important part of modern happiness theories which emphasize the role of negative emotions and events in facilitating emotional and psychological growth.

A second shift in the western conceptualisation of happiness came with the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. Prior to this, happiness had become defined within Christian worldviews as experienced through pursuing ‘truth’ and coming to ‘know’ God. For some such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas this would actually only happen in the after-life. The Renaissance began to re-interpret Christian doctrines such that experience of spiritual ‘truth’ could come from living a positive and moral life. Moreover, this could also be facilitated by positive environments, as in the concept of ‘Utopia’. The Enlightenment philosophers such as Kant extended this idea of happiness interpreting it as the experience of freedom to think without religious or social doctrines, and to be able to use your own rational thinking to create a long-term positive quality of life. In addition, happiness was construed as a right and even an obligation such that one should be actively pursuing one’s own happiness. This forms the basis for William James’ initial psychological conceptualisation of happiness as a positive state that comes from the active participation in life and the attitude that life is worth living.

It is clear that in much of Western philosophical and psychological thinking, happiness was associated with the quality of life, balanced emotional states, and the pursuit of virtue rather than pleasure from external sources. In contrast, in the 20th century this appears to have changed at the societal level with the increasing influence consumerism and media influenced by American culture. That is, if the pursuit of happiness is something to be valued and pursued, then the expression of positive emotion (smiling, looking cheerful) became the indicator that one is indeed experiencing happiness. This has also led to advertising associating consumer products with the expression and end goal of ‘being happy’. As a result, the Western socio-cultural conceputalisation of happiness has become tied to external expressions of happiness and consumerism. This is reflected in the current theoretical distinction between ‘hedonic’ happiness associated with Western populations and ‘eudaimonic’ happiness now associated predominantly with non-Western populations.

Regardless, recent scientific research suggests that there appears to be a growing shift away from Western understandings of happiness. Numerous studies have attempted to understand the nature of happiness, its antecedents, and its consequences in diverse cultural contexts. For example, Fave et al. [2] found that across Australia, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and South Africa, psychological balance and harmony were central to the lay conception of happiness, and family as well as social relations were key life domains in which happiness was experienced. This could be interpreted as an adaptation of the philosophical traditions around happiness as ‘psychic harmony’ and peace of mind, but with a stronger interpersonal focus.

Globally, a study in Taiwan showed sources of happiness included satisfying the need for respect, harmony of interpersonal relationships, fulfillment of material needs, achievement at work, being at ease with life, taking pleasure at others’ expense, sense of self-control and self-actualization, pleasure and positive affect, and health [3]. Likewise, in Bangladesh, relational goals and values were found to play the key role in happiness [4] while, in East Asia, positive daily experiences were more important [5]. Lomas [6] lists several cultural factors that mediate the determinants of well-being, including history, tradition, norms, values, and language. Taken together these findings could suggest that the impact of unemployment on health and well-being seen in the West (e.g. [7, 8, 9]) may actually be offset in collectivist cultures where one’s role in the community and the support offered by the community is more important for one’s sense of happiness. Therefore, when developing national strategies for monitoring and supporting population well-being it would be most effective to build these around a clear understanding of the constituents of well-being within the local context.

The cross-cultural research on well-being and positive psychology has also suggested that while expressions of happiness may be universally recognized [10] the term happiness itself may be defined differently and relate to different experiences [11, 12]. For example, among American participants it may reflect their positive emotion and mood state, while in participant groups from the East it refers to good fortune [11]. Wierzbicka [12], has argued that this semantic and conceptual difference in how the word happiness is understood (even across otherwise ‘Western’ European countries) makes any attempt at universal assessment of happiness less valid. Moreover, in studies of East Asians, Joshanloo [13] found that high arousal positive affective experiences were actively avoided in preference for experiencing happiness as ‘cool’ and ‘calm’. These cultural distinctions are reflected in the two-dimensional model of happiness differentiating hedonic from eudaimonic happiness concepts [14, 15]. Moreover, the cross-cultural research has tended to summarize the differences in happiness only across the broad cultural categories of individualist (Western) and collectivist (largely non-Western). That is, hedonic happiness is seen to be prevalent in western populations, while eudaimonic is better represented in non-western populations [13, 16]. Moreover, ‘collectivist’ in this literature is itself often defined only by samples from East Asian populations [17, 18], which is in itself a gross generalization of both ‘Asian’ and collectivist concepts.

Given these limitations in representation, the evidence base tends to imply a relative homogeneity in conceptions of happiness in non-Western, collectivistic cultures. In contrast, the collectivist cultural category spans a vast range of different economic, political, religious, and historic contexts [19, 20]. For example, the preference for low-arousal emotions found in non-Western Asian participants was not replicated in non-Western Latin American participants [19]. This fundamental diversity within the collectivist or non-Western category may be overlooked in large-scale research findings, reducing the validity of the research conclusions. For example, Gardiner et al. [21] determined that the reliability of emic happiness measures developed specifically for collectivist (Japanese) contexts were less reliable in other collectivist countries in the Middle East and Africa. This highlights the need for nuanced research on happiness to deepen understanding beyond the somewhat superficial individualist/collectivist dichotomy and the need to broaden the cross cultural research on happiness in under-represented countries and cultural groups.

The independent countries of the Pacific Islands, which include Fiji, provide a unique context for exploring such conceptions of happiness. Populations in these small island nations are of interest because of their strong, traditional identity and faith, communal social structures, and environmental contexts. The vast geography of the South Pacific region means that each nation is relatively culturally isolated, far more than may be the case in neighboring countries in other regions. To date, countries within the Pacific Island region (including Fiji) have tended to be only indirectly included within global psychological research with few studies engaging in specific exploration of individual Pacific Island Populations. For example, some studies make reference to a broader ‘Asia Pacific’ region which is variously defined as countries including Japan, China, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia and India [22, 23, 24]. Other studies separate countries in Asia from the region of ‘Oceania’ which tends to be represented predominantly by New Zealand and Australia [25, 26]. However, studying native populations of the Pacific Islands provides important cultural comparisons to the ‘Pacific Islander’ ethnic groups reported in research from Australia, New Zealand, or the USA. That is, although pacific people may maintain a strong cultural identity, there will likely be differences in the impact of their culture and history between where they would be minority communities within otherwise developed nations rather than indigenous populations within markedly different economic and subsistence contexts.

1.1 Happiness in the Pacific Islands region and Fiji

To date, little research has explored happiness and well-being in the Oceania-Pacific region populations beyond the developed East Asian nations such as China, and Western nations such as Australia and New Zealand. In an extensive review of the literature, Kim et al. [27] determined that of the 863 articles examined, there were 61 from the Oceania region, of which six came from New Zealand, and with none from other Pacific island nations. The World Happiness Report [28] that collates data from 156 countries also only includes New Zealand from the Pacific Island nations, with no further stratification of Pacific cultural groups. This continued to be the case in a large global survey of character strengths [29]. Young-Leslie and Moore [30] noted that the cross-cultural positive psychology literature has predominantly focused on populous nations which subsequently leaves large geographic regions of the world under-represented, including the many countries of the Pacific Islands. Yet, as a center of small, ethnically diverse groups, there could be no better place for studying cultural differences and the impact of social and cultural factors on psychology.

There are a few notable exceptions to this omission of the Pacific Islands in the study of happiness and well-being. The Pacific nation of Vanuatu has included a measure of subjective well-being within national household surveys since 2010 [31]. Associations in the survey data suggest happiness in Pacific Island populations may be driven by specific indigenous factors, such as customary land access including marine and forest resources, engagement in cultural practices and traditional knowledge, active engagement in community leadership, and positive family identity [32]. Young-Leslie and Moore [30] studied the Tongan concept of happiness using a standardized well-being questionnaire and found that positive emotions were significantly associated with traditional social functioning and kinship obligations. Further, two linguistic studies indicate indirectly that the basic conceptualization of happiness in Indigenous Pacific populations may be embedded in a collective interdependence with others [33, 34]. Ethnographic analyses of well-being in Pacific Island countries through language and cultural traditions have emphasized that supporting the needs of others is central to individual happiness values and that well-being has indigenous knowledge at its core [33, 34]. Further, words connected with happiness in the native Fijian language such as Bula Taucoko and Sautu (both: Well-being) inculcate the fulfillment of communal obligations and supportiveness as the foundation to individual happiness [34]. The fundamental collectivist understanding of well-being has been built into the Vanuatu happiness monitoring project which includes an assessment of community happiness alongside the personal ratings from individuals within these communities.

Fiji is an economically-developing country categorized as middle- income based in the Melanesian area of the South Pacific and is comprised of 300 islands. The majority of the 900,000 population live on the two main islands of Viti Levu, which hosts the capital city, Suva, and Vanua Levu. Fiji gained independence from the British in 1970, becoming a democratic nation, although since then it has experienced several political coups; the most recent of which was in 2006. There are two primary ethnic groups: the Indigenous Pacific Islanders, predominantly I-Taukei and Rotuman ethnic groups, and the Indo-Fijians, who came to Fiji as indentured laborers and professional migrants during colonization. Fijians are therefore influenced by a history of indigenous Melanesian beliefs and traditions, alongside the impact of Western colonization and South Asian migration. While Fiji does not currently undertake regular national happiness monitoring, it has received ranking in polls such as Gallup, as one of the world’s happiest nations [35]. Further, the strong sense of well-being and sharing of happiness are specifically promoted as part of Fiji’s national tourism industry. One example is a recent social media happiness campaign Bulanaires [36, 37] which uses the Fijian concept of Bula (Life) as seen in the common form of greeting Bula Vinaka (Good health) and the country’s general reputation for happiness, as a basis for the global promotion of well-being initiatives.

1.2 The present study

The above discussion highlights the impact of culture on the concept and drivers of happiness for individuals, and therefore the nature of subjective well-being as it may be measured and facilitated within a country’s population. Models of happiness and well-being now tend to distinguish a collectivist-eudaimonic phenomenon seen in many non-Western countries from an individualist-hedonic phenomenon seen in the west. However, the definition of collectivism in this literature lacks a recognition of the vast diversity in populations and cultures which fall under the ‘non-western, collectivist’ heading. This suggests that an investigation of happiness among indigenous people from the Pacific Island nations will be important in overcoming this limitation and providing insights on happiness within a culturally unique context. In the current paper, we provide an initial exploration of the definition, experiences, and outcomes of happiness within a Fijian sample who are from the two major ethnic groups. As a first study on happiness in Fiji we draw on a sample of university staff who may be able to reflect on their understanding of happiness and how it has been influenced by internal and external factors. This may help to elucidate how the conception of happiness could be impacted by post-colonial elements through Western education and urban living, and elements that are indigenous to Pacific people, including a rural upbringing, and village communal identity and associations.

2. Methods

2.1 Participants

Participants were recruited from a population of staff working at the University of South Pacific (USP) Laucala campus, located in Fiji’s capital city of Suva. Participants were Fijian nationals of any ethnic background who had predominantly resided in-country. The sample included 26 participants, 14 identifying as female and 12 as male; 14 as Indigenous Pacific Fijians (7 female, 7 male), 11 Indo-Fijians (6 female, 5 male) and 1 Chinese-Fijian (female). The participants were either academic or professional service staff and all held higher education degrees (Masters or PhD). Participants were identified using an alpha-numeric coding system with two letters referring to ethnicity (Pacific Islander, Indo Fijian, Chinese Islander) followed by a letter referring to gender (Male, Female) and a number based on order of interview.

2.2 Procedures and measures

Interview protocols and questions were discussed with a departmental cultural representative to ensure they would be understood as relevant and appropriate by Fijian participants. Ethical approval for the study was given by the research office of the University of the South Pacific.

Participants took part in semi-structured interviews lasting up to one hour either face-to-face (24 individuals) or via zoom conferencing (two individuals). The interviews covered a range of positive psychological concepts as part of a broader research project. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by the primary researcher and interviewer, and then coded using online software package Quirkos. The present study primarily analyses a subset of responses from five questions surrounding happiness and life satisfaction. These questions included: “what does happiness mean to you”, “what things make you happy nowadays”, “what are some happy memories from childhood”, “is Fiji a happy place generally”, and “on a scale of 1-10 how satisfied with life are you and what gives you that score”. Respondents also described elements of their happiness or well-being as part of these responses.

2.3 Data analysis

Thematic analysis was used because of its usefulness in analyzing rich and complex data [38]. The responses were coded over three reading cycles leading to 69 descriptive codes which were then analyzed for emergent themes and connections. The aim was to remain open to the conceptual elements emerging from the Fijian responses and consider their relationships to the indigenous culture. Based on Pratt’s recommendations [39], the data were analyzed in an iterative manner, by traveling back and forth between data and theory, with attention to how the data illustrated, expanded, or challenged past theory, illuminated theoretical gaps, or offered theoretical insights. From this analysis, eight general theme mappings were decided surrounding the concept of happiness: having just enough; contentment, peace, and relaxation; adherence to moral norms; individual growth and identity; family and community connection; collective experience; faith and religion; tradition and rural values. Each of these encompassed a network of individual codes and sub-themes. Thematic analysis and interpretation were guided by the primary aims of understanding the conceptualization of happiness experiences and the intrapersonal, social, and historic cultural factors that contribute to happiness in Fijians. In the below section, the themes are explored in the context of the participant responses and discussed within the context of established literature and theory.

2.4 Reflexivity

It is important to understand the context of the interview process and the ways in which the researcher’s own cultural experiences and background may be impacting the responses and interpretations discussed. The interviews were conducted by the first author who is of white British ethnicity. She is a resident of Fiji, working within the same university context as the participants. As an expatriate resident, the interviewer has some understanding of the historic, cultural and religious environment of the participants and the social structures of rural communities. Also the need to be open to the multiple roles of socio-cultural and environmental factors in creating the participants perspectives. However, the different cultural background will necessarily impact the depth to which this openness can result in valid exploration and interpretation of meaning. Given this limitation, the choice was made to use university staff as participants to provide a bridge between the interviewer and participants to facilitate shared understanding of the discussion themes.

3. Findings and discussion of identified themes

The data revealed eight inter-related themes that define happiness across the Fijian participants and which combine both individual and shared/collectivist factors. Together, they suggest the conception of happiness among this sample of (educated) Fijians appears to be a product of collectivist cultural and religious structures, individual goals and needs, and the practical environment, including housing and land systems, of the Pacific Island populations.

3.1 Theme 1: happiness is simple pleasures and having just enough

At the center of this conceptualization is the value placed on reaching a stable state where basic needs have been met but not more (IFF3, CIF1, IFM2, PIF2, IFF4, PIM1, PIF1, PIM7). This stability of essential needs is evident in respondent statements such as: “(in Hindi) there is this phrase where we talk about food, clothing, and housing so if we have all of that in the safest possible way then I think I’m quite happy” (IFF3). Happiness as fulfillment of basic needs was also reflected in a number of responses which identified finding happiness in simple, everyday events (IFM2, PIF1, PIM7, PIM1, IFF1), and acknowledging the experience of happiness simply in everyday existence. This is evident in respondent statements, such as, “if everything is okay in my house, my garden is weeded, clean, I come to work every day without coming across any accidents, … when I go back home, we pray before dinner, have a good night’s sleep, that’s what to me happiness is all about” (PIM7). In a separate response, “if I think what made me happy throughout this day today…was it because I travelled back to Suva and was enjoying the view…the weather can make me happy… things like this” (IFM2). The celebration of being with family members in everyday settings was also indicated by respondents as a driver for happiness, “I sat together with my elder brothers…you know we said stories of old, we had around a bowl of kava, we were sharing… experiences, it really made us all feel happy” (PIM7).

Importantly, the respondents indicated an inherent belief that maintaining lifestyle basics and securing just enough to live by, would bring greater benefit than striving for more or making upward social comparisons. That is, several respondents made specific mention of happiness not being found in material wealth, ambition, or individual achievement (IFM4, IFM2, IFF2, PIM2, PIF3). Supporting this belief were respondent statements that included “the reason why I’m happy (is) because I’m not over-ambitious…. If you are over-ambitious you are never happy with what you have. You just keep wanting more and more, and more…I’m happy (with) what I have” (IFM4). From another respondent, “I’m not against ambition and motivation but after a certain point you should be content with where you are. I’ve seen it with some of my friends and some colleagues because they start comparing themselves with others…they just want more and more to the stage where people have actually got a very good job with salary and benefits, and they still want control political(ly) or within a workforce…” (PIM2). This is in specific contrast to that of Western cultural values (PIF6, PIF3). For example, in the view of a respondent who had experience within both Fijian and Western cultural settings, “in America I was becoming very individualistic. I didn’t understand (how) as a girl I could survive with one pair of shoes here and in America I had a closet full of shoes and I thought how did I get from there to here?” (PIF6). From the responses, there is a sense that while some level of wealth and possessions could bring benefits, this would need to be balanced against the additional stress and a reduction in personal freedom that necessarily occurs from that lifestyle (IFM1, IFM2, IFF5). This seems to contrast the Western assumption that financial wealth should enable personal freedom. For the Fijian respondents, the wealth-freedom contradiction is a reflection of the distinction between urban and rural living. For example, the accumulated wealth from professional work (in urban centers) is used to pay for housing and food not in one’s own control. This contrasts with the subsistence lifestyle of rural villages, living off the land and in self-built housing. This is described by one respondent: “So in the sense that here you are free to generate your own resources without the rules and regulations that come with it. As opposed to being in the city you have every rule that you have to cope with in order to generate your wealth or resources” (IFF5).

The emphasis on security and stability in meeting basic needs mirrors findings of Pflug [40] when comparing happiness beliefs across South African and German respondents. While the respondents generally followed collectivist (South African) or individualist (German) dimensions in their perspectives, the South Africans also “vigorously embraced” (p.560) material need satisfaction as the pathway from unhappiness to happiness and the “unequivocal means” (p.559) to well-being. Pflug [40] suggests this was due to the history of material scarcity particularly among black South Africans. Similarly, in a study by Maulana et al. [41] on Indonesian adults, the researchers found that the concept of happiness was equated to a state of “satisfaction” across 3 domains: basic needs (e.g. food, shelter and financial independence); social needs (e.g. maintaining good relationships with family and others); and positive world view. (e.g. acceptance and gratitude for where you are in life, spirituality). Interestingly, the multi-country study by Fave et al. [42] found the basis of happiness as satisfying physiological, survival needs was specifically emphasized in samples from Croatia and Mexico but not from other individualist or collectivist populations [42]. These findings suggest that the practical need to focus on basic survival in less economically-developed countries underpins both cognitive and emotional experiences such as central facets of worldview and appraisal of one’s life, goals and motivations for maintaining well-being and the circumstances under which happiness is experienced.

From the research findings, there is a subtle but interesting distinction between the Fijian responses and findings from other collectivist, lower-income countries in the existing literature. The Fijian sample placed less emphasis on survival domains than comparative populations, despite somewhat similar economic context. The Fijian sample, while they were working individuals, were living within the context of a developing lower middle-income country with a history of political unrest. The respondents did endorse that living a stress-free life was tied to security in basic needs for their family and community. However, the emphasis for Fijians seemed to be as a celebration in the virtue of living simply, an enjoyment of the basics rather than a sense of needing to survive. In comparison, basic needs in the Indonesian sample [41] referred to material necessities such as owning a vehicle and home. In Fiji, the same references to owning a home or land seemed to be important, not for their material necessity, but because of their link to the state of peace and a sense of belonging. That is, satisfying basic needs, such as food and a home, is a secondary cause of happiness through their symbolic value and connection to family and identity, and that is the primary cause of well-being for Fijians. Potentially, there is, therefore, a complex relationship between socio-economic context, practical needs and endorsement of peace and harmony, as central elements to happiness. That subjective well-being is not directly related to economic well-being was also asserted by Sotgiu et al. [43] in a study that compared happiness determinants in older Italian and Cuban adults. It may be that mediating factors at macro-societal level or cultural aspects of religious doctrine will mediate the impact of socio-economic status (SES) on the conceptualization of happiness.

3.2 Theme 2: happiness is calmness, contentment and contagious joy

By placing the value of just enough at the center of the happiness concept, Fijian respondents experienced positive emotions with low intensity, as is also found in other collectivist populations. The emotion was described as one of stable state contentment and experiencing calm rather than excitement or pleasure. In essence, the respondents sought out and preferred the emotional experience of being stress-free over a state of excitement (PIF1, IFF2, CIF1, PIM5). According to one respondent, “when I have a day off and I don’t have anything on my schedule I find that inner peace, that inner happiness” (CIF1) and in the words of another respondent, “Cool it. Your joy has to be….cool, respectful” (PIM5). The emphasis on low intensity emotions also applied to negative emotions such as anger: “if I raise my voice, then I’m not speaking the Fijian language, you are speaking a foreign language!…(if) you start raising your voice and getting angry then my grandfather will say ‘you are speaking as a foreigner!’” (PIM5).

Happiness was also conceptualized as a cognitive state of contentment and peace, as opposed to just an emotional state (IFM5, PIF3, PIF5, PIM2). As indicated by one response, “It’s like basically being content with where you are, even though we have goals to achieve, but just being content with your current situation” (IFM5). According to another, “I think it’s just a state of contentment…not necessarily an emotion because they come and go” (PIF3). One respondent specifically differentiated the fleeting emotion of happiness with the longer-term state of joy, which they defined as contentment: “…happiness is something that can go up and can go down depending on the situation…..we look at joy as something that should always be there…. It’s like basically being content with where you are, even though we have goals to achieve, but just being content with your current situation” (IFM4). Thus, happiness seems to be conceptualized as both, state-like and momentary as well as trait-like and stable.

The differentiation between a surface-level, happy emotion and a deeper, positive emotion defined by peace and contentment has certainly been reported in many, if not most, non-Western, collectivist cultures. For example, researchers have presented happiness as being “fragile” [44, 45, 46] as well as something to be discouraged in non-Western and Islamic-based cultures. In a review of this research, Joshanloo and Weijers [47] distinguish that in Arab and East Asian populations, extreme affective experiences are to be avoided and may even be overtly feared or handled with care [45, 46]. In alignment with these assertions were several respondent references to experiencing both positive and negative emotions as “cool” and “calm”. Perhaps reflecting the idea that high-arousal happiness is fragile, the Fijian respondents indicated that hedonic pleasure is acceptable to experience but does not represent true happiness. That is, they differentiated the emotion of “happy” which is viewed as superficial or even frivolous from “joy” which is the emotional experience of contentment (IFM4). Joshanloo [13] reports this is also evident within traditional Hindu texts, which is understandable given the Hindu background for Indo-Fijians in the sample. Yet, unlike in Arab or East Asian cultures [45], Fijians did not claim that intense happiness should be avoided because they feared it leads to something negative, but rather, intense excitement and happiness are not the path to well-being and satisfaction with life.

Although the Fijian respondents indicated a preference for low-arousal emotions they did also suggest that higher-arousal, contagious positive emotions are an important part of communal values (IFM2, IFF4, PIM3, PIM5). For example, the “Bula Smile” mentioned by some respondents is the genuine smile of warmth and hospitality shown by Fijians to each other, and to strangers. According to a respondent, “generally you walk down the street, people will smile at you, people will talk to you, this doesn’t happen overseas” (IFF4). It seems that in Fiji, positive emotions produce visible facial expressions which carry positive emotional contagion and are therefore important for the sense of community (utilized within the tourism industry). This differs from happiness as a sense of contentment, which is essentially, an individual experience. Similarly, one respondent discussed the pleasure he felt when dancing (“lose myself in dancing, just feel joy…”, PIM2), which is akin to the hedonic dimension of happiness that is less described in non-Western cultures. However, traditional dancing in Pacific-Fijian culture, known as the Meke, is another important collective activity that ties people together through shared hedonic pleasure. This interpretation is also reflected in Ruby et al. [19] where the role of high-arousal, positive emotions for building social harmony within non-Western Latin American cultures is discussed.

3.3 Theme 3: happiness requires active, conscious adherence to social and moral norms

There appears to be a sense that happiness is a cognitive state of contentment as opposed to an emotional response, and achieving it necessitates active pursuit and maintenance through cognitive processes of acceptance, self-regulation, and conscious positive attitudes (CIF1, IFF2, IFM2, IFM5, PIM5). One such response declared, “when I catch myself comparing with other people I try and stop and think well I’ve got this already… I do feel at times that I am comparing but I try and think to cut it out.” (CIF1). Another respondent shares, “I was complaining about everything and once I was in a very bad situation and I realised the life I’m having right now is what most of the people are dreaming for…and I realised I have to be happy in this moment. …at that moment I was devastated but the next day when I wake up I’m like okay why was I crying? I have a good job I’m really satisfied” (IFF2).

In some ways respondent views were similar to the positive worldview domain of happiness descriptions from Indonesian respondents in Maulana et al. [41] which encompassed the active cultivation of gratitude and self-acceptance. In this domain, the Indonesian descriptions regarding active gratitude included, “By grateful means that I do not worry about things [of] something that I still don’t have, no…but by being grateful we can be more relaxed in living the life” ([41], p. 314). This is similar to the active cognitive creation of relaxation and peace in Fijian respondents. This cognitive evaluation of contentment was also a product of leading a moral and principled life. Indeed, from the majority of responses, living according to rules is not only a moral imperative but is itself a source of pleasure and happiness (PIM3, PIM4, PIM6, IFF3). For example, one respondent shares: “we were always big on protocols…our sense of who we are, our identities, are established within those structures. When those are taken away a lot of Fijians found themselves kind of cut off from the moorings that they (had)” (PIM6). This emphasis on discipline and social norms results both in the preference for lower intensity emotions, and a belief in accepting and maintaining a status quo rather than striving for change and disruption. According to another respondent, “(during COVID) whatever was happening, I have noticed….that (the) majority (of) people were adhering to rules and regulations set, and they were quite content with whatever decisions were made and I think that is this part of happiness as well. They are happy with whatever they have instead of getting aggressive and breaking down too many rules and going out of their limits.” (IFF3).

The understanding of happiness as a cognitive state driven by living according to religious or social structures is aligned with the dimension of eudaimonic well-being [14] often tied to collectivist cultures [48]. Within the current study, however, there are elements of both non-western and western approaches to happiness. For example, Joshanloo [13] has argued that eudaimonic well-being is valued in all populations but is just differently defined in the East as it is in the West. In this case, a Western eudaimonic well-being includes individualistic elements, such as self-esteem, meaning in life, mastery and control. In alignment with this, the Fijian respondents mentioned both happiness in terms of living according to traditions or religious teachings as well as a motivation for self-growth and fulfillment of personal goals. This could be a result of the present sample being drawn from a professional population within the university staff, which perhaps suggests the role of higher education as a pathway to ‘westernizing’ or indeed, continuing to colonize, indigenous populations.

Huta and Ryan [49] have argued that the two dimensions of well-being are related, rather than mutually exclusive, concepts; that eudaimonic and hedonic describe different aspects of (the same) well-being. That is, eudaimonic well-being is a process which for some may lead to positive affect, such as happiness or life satisfaction, while hedonic is the state and outcome of feeling good, more often than not [49]. In this way, eudaimonic should lead to hedonic, but may not, and hedonic can, but does not have to, come from a eudaimonic lifestyle. This combined model fits well with the descriptions of happiness from the Fijian sample where happiness was defined in terms of lifestyle, such as enjoying simple things, engaging in family, community and living according to faith and traditions, but through this the emotion of happiness would be experienced as contentment or freedom from stress.

3.4 Theme 4: happiness through personal growth that also serves others

Several respondents linked their sense of inner peace to an emphasis on pursuing self-growth and personal fulfillment (IFF5, IFM1, PIF2, PIF6). This is evident in statements from respondents, such as: “it’s about achieving but not telling yourself that you are done with achieving… A human being is never complete, life is a process; my understanding of accomplishment is that it is never complete” (IFM1). In addition, “It’s important…to be able to be positive and move forward and grow; we all want to - it’s about growing in(to) whatever you want to grow in(to).” (IFF5).

The mention of self-growth, and individual achievement and goals could be interpreted as a reflection of the western-educated, professional participants engaged in this study. However, autonomy and personal accomplishment are core elements of both the PERMA [50] and Self-Determination Theory [51] of well-being which have been applied across cultures [52]. In particular, Lambert and Pasha-Zaidi [53] determined that both internal motivations, including personal accomplishment, and external motivations, such as accomplishment to please the family, existed in the collectivist United Arab Emirates. It is interesting that the pursuit of mastery and achievement mentioned by the Fijian sample exists alongside an otherwise strong value placed on acceptance and contentment with their life situation. There is therefore a sense in the Fijian sample that one should be both content and accepting of where one is in their life, while at the same time, strive to achieve personal goals and growth. When one respondent was asked about this (IFM4), the explanation was that one should be accepting of their individual place in the community but should still aim for achievement as a way to push the community as a whole forward. As such, the pursuit of individual achievement here is understood to serve a communal role, and happiness is derived from that shared growth.

The researchers Huta and Ryan [49], and Kasser and Ryan [54] tie well-being to intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Eudaimonic happiness is living according to what is intrinsically worthwhile to individual well-being, while hedonic happiness is pursuing socially-oriented goals, such as fame, wealth and social image. Intrinsically worthwhile pursuits identified by Fijian participants in this study were personal growth, affiliation and intimacy, contribution to the community, and physical health. These intrinsic pursuits were reflected by the Fijian respondents’ descriptions of happiness and some even made direct contrasts with Western extrinsic ideals of wealth and materialism. However, again, the Fijian drivers of happiness were less exclusive as they also placed a value on social recognition. For example, when asked how one would know someone had lived an optimal life, several respondents mentioned the sentiment “how many people are at the funeral” (IFM4, PIM5) and, “if people don’t visit your house then… you are not rich” (PIF4). This suggests that social recognition, by way of respect or recognition of one’s giving within the community, is part of an intrinsic, eudaimonic conception of happiness in communal societies with hierarchical social structures such as in Fiji.

3.5 Theme 5: happiness as fundamentally oriented to family and community

The internal beliefs and attitudes of respondents shown here are a product of social and cultural structures which act to maintain the cognitive and emotional state of calm and contentment. Chief among these was the cultural focus on family and social connection which was described as an experience of happiness from just being with family members, and the act of maintaining social connections, in and of itself (PIF7, PIF1, IFF3, IFM5, IFF6, IFM1). In the view of one respondent, “‘I believe that most Fijians are happy when they have that connection. When they are in their group, that larger relative group, whether it’s an extended family, whether it’s their clan, their village, or whether it’s their province.” (PIF7). In addition, the collectivist nature of Fijian culture also helps to bring personal inner peace through a sense of being valued and supported by family, and a sense of belonging. According to a participant, “being close to home, where you belong, being appreciated and being comfortable; being close to where I am … respected … as well, being close to my family and loved ones” (IFF3). In the view of another respondent, “my husband is always (saying) like every time you go to your family you’re so excited, you are totally another person and I say yes, because over there I can be myself. I can joke, I can interact and it’s people that I want to be with” (PIF7).

Social needs are widely regarded as the universal cornerstone of well-being, happiness, and flourishing [42, 55]. However, there can be subtle differences in how interpersonal happiness itself is defined across cultures. Lu and Gilmour [17] in a study of China and the USA, and Kwan et al. [56] in their study of participants from Hong Kong and the USA, found that both US and Asian respondents emphasized the need for positive social relationships in their experience of happiness. However, the Asian definitions, but not those of the US, were reflective of a sense of interdependence and social harmony rather than social engagement to fulfill individual needs. As an exception were the Indonesian respondents in the study by Maulana et al. [41] where participants described the role of family in what could be interpreted as individual needs with descriptors including “nice communication with family” or “moral support from family” or “family as a source of personal life lessons and values.” In the present study, the Fijian respondents showed indications of both these interpretations: the mention of family as a support mechanism, bringing a sense of stability and peace, and as valuing social harmony, and also, as a source of a more direct affective experience of bonding, belonging and attachment.

3.6 Theme 6: happiness as a collective experience

Respondents appeared to suggest that happiness is a product of the collective well-being; that one simply could not experience personal happiness without also seeing the happiness, at least with respect to basic needs met, of others (PIM5, PIF1, PIF4, PIM6, PIF6, IFF1, IFF6, IFM3). On this belief, respondent statements included: “happiness for an individual, you put that individual within the cultural or traditional context it has to do with this communal togetherness, it’s not really something like when you exercise individuality in the Western world, it has to do with being together and (behaving) in line with expected norms of a given sub-clan, within a clan, within a tribe, within a district, within a province. It goes to all those levels.” (PIM5). Additionally, “Happiness to me is the feeling of satisfaction, like, I’m satisfied that my family is ok, I’m ok…I feel content if my family is happy and I’m happy, that’s my definition of happiness” (PIF4). The collectivist dimension of culture puts an emphasis on helping, sharing, and caring for each other. For the respondents in this study, this meant that even when personal sacrifice was necessary, individuals still described themselves as happy from seeing the net happiness of the family or community. One respondent identified, “you start contributing towards your family, parents, so we also have to take that aspect, okay now I’ve graduated we need to help the parents because they have done everything for us” (IFM3). According to another study participant, “I’ll get a lot of happiness if I have a lot of impact upon those above, the elders, and those my age, and those who are much younger…. I feel happy whenever I go to my village and I’m able to carry out community awareness programs” (PIM5).

The sense of happiness as a collective experience, or one that is fundamentally a response to communal outcomes, supports the Pacific Island region assessment of happiness, as proposed by the Vanuatu national happiness projects [32]. Importantly, this would move beyond the role of relationships within current models of happiness. While it is already established that an individual’s happiness is a product of their experience of connection to others in the community, in the Pacific region, an individual’s happiness is a product of the community’s happiness itself. This also reflects the Pacific region’s cultural collectivism in which one’s connection to the community is fundamental to one’s identity and experience of self [57]. Another aspect of collective well-being is the role of obligation or duty either to be an active participant in collective support or to be happy as a duty to the overall well-being. Chen and Davey ([58], also [13]) discuss how well-being concepts of East Asians involve one’s ability to fulfill a social role or obligation, and that striving for contentment is seen as a religious duty. The Fijian participants also described the importance of fulfilling obligations to family, or Vanua, meaning home or community. This was not, however, seen as burdensome but rather, a personal choice to achieve contentment. For the former, one respondent recognized hedonic pleasure, “if you…see family as an obligation…I would just pity you because you don’t know what you are missing out on!” (PIF7). In the view of another respondent, “some people who don’t have a lot of other obligations you wonder what is driving them?” (PIM2).

3.7 Theme 7: the role of faith and religious involvement

Overall, the responses suggest that structural elements of Fijian society, particularly those elements that exist within rural areas, are an important basis for individual well-being and happiness. One example is the strong foundation and involvement in organized religion and religious teachings, beyond individual spirituality (PIM5, IFF6, IFM5). This facet was evident in responses such as: “I’m actually fortunate to be in that (church) group because it made me the person with moral values. I was able to judge what is right and what is wrong…And I made good decisions.” (IFF6). Further, some respondents asserted that religious faith leads to a sense that ‘God is in control’ of one’s overall circumstances and future. This type of response brings a sense of security and stability to the believer, which may then allow the individual to find acceptance and contentment in their own circumstances or challenges. This may also be used as a coping mechanism to restore a sense of well-being when faced with trauma or difficulties. One respondent observes, “knowing that god is in control and I don’t have to really worry about things. That’s why I’m joyful most of the days …no matter what happens it will happen for the good” (IFM5). Additionally, “if you are grounded in your spirituality and relationship with God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, he will see that you get through and as long as you have Him you will be okay.” (IFM5).

Religious involvement and community set-up are both tied to an inherent value placed by respondents on living according to discipline, rules, and social norms. Joshanloo [13, 48] gives a general discussion of happiness in non-western cohorts as less agentic or something that can or should be actively pursued. This is somewhat in contrast to the global quantitative data analyzed by Haller and Hadler [59] which indicates that globally, happiness is associated with greater personal freedoms and agency. The Fijian sample again showed a mixture of both of these views. Particularly among the I-Taukei men, finding happiness was tied to living in accordance with religious teachings, as well as traditional social structures and rules. Further, this cohort believed that happiness came from putting faith in God as being in control. However, Fijian respondents also declared that happiness needed to be actively created by the self, as analyzed in Themes three and four.

3.8 Theme 8: happiness tied to traditional living, environment and identity

Another macro-level element that underlies the Fijian concept of happiness is the community setup of housing, particularly in rural village communities. Many respondents had experience living in a rural setting, despite their current dwelling being in an urban setting. Several respondents made reference to their perceptions of greater happiness experienced by rural village-dwelling Fijians compared to those in the modern urban areas (IFM4, PIF4, PIF5). According to one respondent, “I think it’s the sharing and caring nature that is part of the upbringing because … the land belongs to everybody, if you are passing by it’s just natural to say ‘hey come and have a cup of tea’, it doesn’t mean that you have to go there, it doesn’t mean that that person will come over…That’s the way they’re brought up…only recently you see fences (around homes) coming up, but always (before) there would be no fences, everyone is allowed everywhere so it’s not like this is mine.” (IFM4). In another response, “a communal way of living and communal ownership I will say is a lot of happiness. Just to share and to know … that if something happened you could pull your resources together to help each other.” (PIF5).

The historic practical necessity to share resources and depend on each other when living in remote, subsistence-based villages has effectively evolved into a perceived prosocial trait of sharing and connection that underlies the experience of happiness. Aknin et al. [60] asserted that all humans derive emotional benefit from prosocial spending and giving financially to others. In the context of rural Fiji, the idea of sharing resources, purchasing food for others, and giving back financially to the village is embedded in the social fabric, and is even made necessary by the remote geographies of some of the villages. This is an example of how the positive well-being and happiness of Fijians is embedded within the practical and traditional aspects of Fijian rural living.

There is a societal construct in Fiji known as Vanua. This is the concept of home which encompasses both extended family and the land itself and is a fundamental element of how Fijians self-identify. While Vanua is an I-Taukei word and stems from the indigenous Fijian history, the sense of identification with the land was evident among responses from both the I-Taukei and the Indo-Fijian study participants (IFF3, IFF5, PIM5, PIM4). This may be due to both ethnic groups having a history within Fiji of residing in rural, farming or fishing villages. In this way, happiness is derived from a connection with the land both as a resource and therefore, provider of security, and also as an entity that has shaped the ability to accept and be content with what one has. This is described by one respondent, “we have realised that we are living in this smaller part of the world and this is what is going to facilitate and provide us with our needs. And to some extent with our wants as well… Of course, people at times get aggressive about land issues, but then the extent of conflict doesn’t go to wars and blood and all that so people still … know this is what we have and let’s make the best of it.” (IFF3). The notion within the Fijian understanding that happiness is, in part, tied to the land is also reflected in Theme 1 with regards to happiness as coming from meeting basic needs and simple, everyday occurrences. Within Theme 1, a number of respondents made reference to enjoyment as associated with the land. In those responses were mention of gardening and growing food (PIM7), the weather (IFM2), walking and exploring the land around the community (IFM4), and owning land in a location that would bring happiness (e.g. by the beach: PIM1).

4. Overview and contributions of the findings

The present study provides an initial exploration of the conceptualization and determinants of happiness among Fijians from the college-educated, professional population. Respondent descriptions suggest a conceptualization of happiness which reflects and begins to extend global models of happiness and well-being, and how these are distinct across different collectivist contexts. The Fijian respondents described a psychological state of contentment and peace as well as the need for harmony and balance as central to the idea of happiness. In addition, there was a clear emphasis on activities which promoted contextual or social domains of community, such as extended family engagements, active involvement in church activities, and the description of happiness stemming from ‘simply being with family’. These broadly align to findings from similar qualitative studies in Germany and South Africa [40], Taiwan and the USA [3], the USA, Canada and El Salvador [61], and the USA and China [17] in that more collectivist populations tend to define happiness in interpersonal and social harmony terms. Similarly, the large scale quantitative cross-cultural comparisons of Fave et al. [2, 42] on lay definitions of happiness determined that the concept descriptions fell into two domains: contextual or social, encompassing family, friends and relationships, and psychological, including inner harmony and peace, with the latter being prominent in non-Western, collectivist cultures.

However, there were also elements of the responses specific to Fijian history and traditions which are clearly shaping happiness and the experience of well-being. Despite being a middle-income country in terms of economics, Fijian community structures seem to provide a natural protective factor that enables a maintenance of well-being and satisfaction with life despite the challenging environment. For example, among the indigenous Fijians, the concepts of Vanua, describing one’s native land community, and Matagali, a structured community group with shared land ownership, are important components of well-being. Although the present paper does not review these concepts in detail, for the purposes of the present discussion, it is clear that the connection to a Matagali creates a vertical collectivism and conformity that would promote the ideals of low-intensity emotions, maintaining harmony above all else, and working to support the needs of the community. In addition, the concept of Vanua, as a physical, relational, and spiritual home allows for happiness to come from simple entities including land, relationships, and contentment. Similar values were also reflected by the Indo-Fijian respondents, whose history in the Pacific is tied to labor migration, both indentured and free, and who do not have overt Matagali traditions. This may be due to a need to find community identity and political strength, with similar social systems developed to emphasize extended family and to thrive in rural village life. This also indicates the fundamental role of the practical environment of remote island nations in driving social structures and lifestyles which, in turn, become components of identity and well-being. Finally, the role of religion, both Hinduism and Christianity, is clear from almost all respondents. It is of interest that particularly among native Pacific Fijians, the strong involvement in Christian denominations is not indigenous but a product of the political history of colonialism. This again indicates that the unique political history of a collectivist country may also have influenced current lifestyle and cultural beliefs, and subsequently, components of happiness and well-being.

4.1 Limitations and conclusions

The aim of this study was to investigate potentially unique components of happiness in Fiji which has been indicated in the findings and therefore provides a valuable starting point for further systematic investigations. However, these findings should be considered in light of some limitations. The respondents were university staff currently living in the capital city which may impact the generalizability of their responses. Although they represent a range of childhood settings including remote and rural communities, it is likely that their views are now representative of the ‘westernized’ urban-based Fijians than those residing in village settings. Furthermore, the themes identified and discussed here were broadly seen across all respondents and the study did not aim to specifically explore gender or ethnic group differences. Indeed, the impact of traditional gender roles, which are prominent in traditional Fijian society, may have been minimized in this sample due to the professional working status of the female participants. Therefore, future research will need to consider how different socio-environmental factors moderate the happiness themes identified (as seen in [62]).

In summary, the concepts of happiness and well-being described by the Fijian respondents both support and extend the developing understanding of happiness and pathways to well-being as it manifests differently across the world, and in particular, among non-Western populations. The mix of indigenous, colonial, and environmental influences has uniquely impacted the Fijian understanding of happiness which supports the call for a more socioecological as opposed to a simply cross-cultural approach to psychological understanding [20]. The study also supports the importance of research on understudied populations and, in particular, the need to differentiate non-Western cultures beyond simple individualist or collectivist categories [19]. It also supports the call for a more ‘contextualised analysis of well-being’ [41] through qualitative, in-depth studies of different cultures.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this chapter.