When diener and seligman (2002) did research to determine what distinguishes the happiest 10 percent from the unhappiest 10 percent of undergraduate students, what did they find to be the key factor?

They found that the 10 percent of students with the highest level of happiness and the lowest sign of depression had strong ties to friends and family which were committed to spending much quality time with them.

Explanation:

In keeping with his emphasis on the genetic basis of happiness, Diener has found that external conditions do little to change one’s level of happiness. After a certain threshold there seems to be no correlation between income and happiness, and in fact in a recent study it was found that teenagers from blue-collar families were happier than teenagers from rich families.

While income is not highly correlated with happiness, Diener has found that social relationships are. This is very good news, for many people who are low on the happiness scale (perhaps due to genetically acquired gloominess) can raise their level significantly by closely interacting with a good friend on a daily basis.

1.a)britain

2.b)spain

3.c)french

4.d)portugal

explanation:

when studying cause and effect, historians usually group the causes into different categories. for example, cultural causes reflect how a society’s literature and art convey the way the society saw itself in relation to the rest of the world. another resource that historians use to understand society is pop culture, which tells them the trends and ideas that are preferred by the common people. when studying cause and effect, it’s important to remember multiple causation, or the idea that an effect could have several causes and vice versa.  

the correct option is “cultural causes” since art and literature are related to the culture of a place. culture is determined by literature, art, music.

the correct option is “pop culture” since it reflects the likes and ideas of common people whereas the rest of the options do not focus on common people.  

the correct option is “multiple causation” since it refers to the idea that events are caused by multiple reasons, not just a single one.