Subjective well-being

Psychology
Basic science
Applied science
Lists
Portal

Subjective well-being (SWB) refers to how people experience the quality of their lives and includes both emotional reactions and cognitive judgments.[1] According to SWB, happiness is defined as a combination of life satisfaction and the relative frequency of positive and negative affect. [2] SWB therefore encompasses moods and emotions as well as evaluations of one's satisfaction with general and specific areas of one's life.[3] Concepts encompassed by SWB include positive and negative affect, happiness, and life satisfaction. Positive psychology is particularly concerned with the study of SWB.[4] SWB tends to be stable over time[3] and is strongly related to personality traits.[5] There is evidence that health and SWB may mutually influence each other, as good health tends to be associated with greater happiness,[6] and a number of studies have found that positive emotions and optimism can have a beneficial influence on health.[7]

Components

Diener et al. argued that the various components of SWB represent distinct constructs that need to be understood separately, even though they are closely related. Hence, SWB may be considered "a general area of scientific interest rather than a single specific construct".[3] Due to the specific focus on the subjective aspects of well-being, definitions of SWB typically exclude objective conditions such as material conditions or health, although these can influence ratings of SWB.[1] Definitions of SWB therefore focus on how a person evaluates their own life, including emotional experiences of pleasure versus pain in response to specific events and cognitive evaluations of what a person considers a good life.[4] Components of SWB relating to affect include positive affect (experiencing pleasant emotions and moods) and low negative affect (experiencing unpleasant, distressing emotions and moods), as well as "overall affect" or "hedonic balance", defined as the overall equilibrium between positive and negative affect, and usually measured as the difference between the two.[5]. High positive affect and low negative affect are often highly correlated, but not always.[4]

Life satisfaction

Life satisfaction (global judgments of one's life) and satisfaction with specific life domains (e.g. work satisfaction) are considered cognitive components of SWB.[4] The term "happiness" is also commonly used in regards to SWB and has been defined variously as "satisfaction of desires and goals" (therefore related to life satisfaction), as a "preponderance of positive over negative affect" (therefore related to emotional components of SWB),[1] and as a "consistent, optimistic mood state"[5] and may imply an affective evaluation of one's life as a whole.[8] Life satisfaction can also be known as the "stable" component in one's life. [1] Affective concepts of SWB can be considered in terms of momentary emotional states as well as in terms of longer-term moods and tendencies (i.e. how much positive and/or negative affect a person generally experiences over any given period of time).[3] Life satisfaction and in some research happiness are typically considered over long durations, up to one's lifetime.[5] "Quality of life" has also been studied as a conceptualization of SWB. Although its exact definition varies, it is usually measured as an aggregation of well-being across several life domains and may include both subjective and objective components.[5]

Theories

Theories of the causes of SWB tend to emphasise either top-down or bottom-up influences.[1]

Top-down perspective

In the top-down view, global features of personality influence the way a person perceives events. Individuals may therefore have a global tendency to perceive life in a consistently positive or negative manner, depending on their stable personality traits.[9] Top-down theories of SWB suggest that people have a genetic predisposition to be happy or unhappy and this predisposition determines their SWB "setpoint". Set Point theory implies that a person's baseline or equilibrium level of SWB is a consequence of hereditary characteristics and therefore, almost entirely predetermined at birth. [10] Evidence for this genetic predisposition derives from behavior-genetic studies that have found that positive and negative affectivity each have high heritability (40% and 55% respectively in one study).[3] Numerous twin studies confirm the notion of set point theory, however, they do not rule out the possibility that is it possible for individuals to experience long term changes in SWB. [10][11]

Diener et al. note that heritability studies are limited in that they describe long-term SWB in a sample of people in a modern western society but may not be applicable to more extreme environments that might influence SWB and do not provide absolute indicators of genetic effects. Additionally, heritability estimates are inconsistent across studies.

Further evidence for a genetically influenced predisposition to SWB comes from findings that personality as a large influence on long-term SWB. This has led to the dynamic equilibrium model of SWB. This model proposes that personality provides a baseline for emotional responses. External events may move people away from the baseline, sometimes dramatically, but these movements tend to be of limited duration, with most people returning to their baseline eventually.[3]

Bottom-up perspective

From a bottom-up perspective, happiness represents an accumulation of happy experiences. Bottom-up influences include external events, and broad situational and demographic factors, including health and marital status. Bottom-up approaches are based on the idea that there are universal basic human needs and that happiness results from their fulfilment. In support of this view, there is evidence that daily pleasurable events are associated with increased positive affect, and daily unpleasant events or hassles are associated with increased negative affect.

However, research suggests that external events account for a much smaller proportion of the variance in self-reports of SWB than top-down factors, such as personality.[3] A theory proposed to explain the limited impact of external events on SWB is hedonic adaptation.[4] Based originally on the concept of a "hedonic treadmill", this theory proposes that positive or negative external events temporarily increase or decrease feelings of SWB, but as time passes people tend to become habituated to their circumstances and have a tendency to return to a personal SWB "setpoint" or baseline level.

The hedonic treadmill theory originally proposed that most people return to a neutral level of SWB (i.e. neither happy nor unhappy) as they habituate to events. However, subsequent research has shown that for most people, the baseline level of SWB is at least mildly positive, as most people tend to report being at least somewhat happy in general and tend to experience positive mood when no adverse events are occurring. Additional refinements to this theory have shown that people do not adapt to all life events equally, as people tend to adapt rapidly to some events (e.g. imprisonment), slowly to others (e.g. the death of a loved one), and not at all to others (e.g. noise and sex).[4]

Personality and genetics

A number of studies have found that SWB constructs are strongly associated with a range of personality traits, including those in the five factor model.[5] Findings from numerous personality studies show that genetics account for 50% of the variance in Five-Factor Model and the variance in subjective well-being is also heritable. [12] Specifically, neuroticism predicts poorer subjective well-being whilst extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience tend to predict higher subjective well-being. A meta-analysis found that neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were significantly related to all facets of SWB examined (positive, negative, and overall affect; happiness; life satisfaction; and quality of life). Neuroticism was the strongest predictor of overall SWB and is the strongest predictor of negative affect.[5]

A large number of personality traits are related to SWB constructs, although intelligence has negligible relationships.[8] Positive affect is most strongly predicted by extraversion, to a lesser extent agreeableness, and more weakly by openness to experience. Happiness was most strongly predicted by extraversion, and also strongly predicted by neuroticism, and to a lesser extent by the other three factors. Life satisfaction was significantly predicted by neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Quality of life was very strongly predicted by neuroticism, and also strongly predicted by extraversion and conscientiousness, and to a modest extent by agreeableness and openness to experience.[5] One study found that subjective well-being was genetically indistinct from personality traits, especially those that reflected emotional stability (low Neuroticism), and social and physical activity (high Extraversion), and constraint (high Conscientiousness). [13]

DeNeve (1999) argued that there are three trends in the relationship between personality and SWB. Firstly, SWB is closely tied to traits associated with emotional tendencies (emotional stability, positive affectivity, and tension). Secondly, relationship enhancing traits (e.g. trust, affiliation) are important for subjective well-being. Happy people tend to have strong relationships and be good at fostering them. Thirdly, the way people think about and explain events is important for subjective well-being. Appraising events in an optimistic fashion, having a sense of control, and making active coping efforts facilitates subjective well-being. Trust, a trait substantially related to SWB, as opposed to cynicism involves making positive rather than negative attributions about others. Making positive, optimistic attributions rather than negative pessimistic ones facilitates subjective well-being.[9]

The related trait of eudaimonia or psychological well-being, is also heritable. Evidence from one study supports 5 independent genetic mechanisms underlying the Ryff facets of psychological well-being, leading to a genetic construct of eudaimonia in terms of general self-control, and four subsidiary biological mechanisms enabling the psychological capabilities of purpose, agency, growth, and positive social relations [14]

Positive psychology

The study of SWB is a central concern of positive psychology.[15] Positive psychology was founded by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) who identified that psychology is not just the study of pathology, weakness, and damage; but it is also the study of strength and virtue. [16] Researchers in positive psychology have pointed out that in almost every culture studied the pursuit of happiness is regarded as one of the most valued goals in life. Understanding individual differences in SWB is of key interest in positive psychology, particularly the issue of why some people are happier than others. Some people continue to be happy in the face of adversity whereas others are chronically unhappy at the best of times. Additionally, positive psychology has investigated how people might improve their level of SWB and maintain these improvements over the longer term, rather than returning to baseline.[15]Lyubomirsky (2001) argued that SWB is influenced by a combination of personality/genetics (studies have found that genetic influences usually account for 35-50% of the variance in happiness measures), external circumstances, and activities that affect SWB. [17] She argued that changing one's external circumstances tends to have only a temporary effect on SWB, whereas engaging in activities (mental and/or physical) that enhance SWB can lead to more lasting improvements in SWB.[15]

SWB and wealth

Research indicates that wealth is related to many positive outcomes in life. [18] Such outcomes include: improved health and mental health, [19] greater longevity, [20], lower rates of infant mortality, [21], experience fewer stressful life events [22], and less frequently the victims of violent crimes [23] However, research suggests that wealth has a smaller impact on SWB than people generally think, even though higher incomes do correlate substantially with life satisfaction reports. [24]

In a study done by Aknin, Dorton, & Dunn (2009), researchers asked participants from across the income spectrum to report their own happiness and to predict the happiness of others and themselves at different income levels. In study 1, predicted happiness ranged between 2.4-7.9 and actual happiness ranged between 5.2-7.7. In study 2, predicted happiness ranged between 15-80 and actual happiness ranged between 50-80. These findings show that people believe that money does more for happiness than it really does. [25]

The Easterlin Paradox also suggests that there is no connection between a society's economic development and its average level of happiness. Through time, the Easterlin has looked at the relationship between happiness and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) across countries and within countries. There are three different phenomena to look at when examining the connection between money and Subjective well-being; rising GDP within a country, relative income within a country, and differences in GDP between countries.[26]

More specifically, when making comparisons between countries, a principle called the Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income (DMUI) stands strong. Veenhoven (1991) said, "[W]e not only see a clear positive relationship [between happiness and GNP per capita], but also a curvilinear pattern; which suggest that wealth is subject to a law of diminishing happiness returns." [27] Meaning a $1,000 increase in real income, becomes progressively smaller the higher the initial level of income, having less of an impact on subjective well-being. The Easterlin (1995) proved that the DMUI is true when comparing countries, but not when looking at rising gross domestic product within countries. [28]

SWB and health

There are substantial positive associations between health and SWB so that people who rate their general health as "good" or "excellent" tend to experience better SWB compared to those who rate their health as "fair" or "poor". A meta-analysis found that self-ratings of general health were more strongly related to SWB than physician ratings of health.[6] The relationship between health and SWB may be bidirectional. There is evidence that good subjective well-being contributes to better health.[7] A review of longitudinal studies found that measures of baseline subjective well-being constructs such as optimism and positive affect predicted longer-term health status and mortality. Conversely, a number of studies found that baseline depression predicted poorer longer-term health status and mortality. Baseline health may well have a causal influence on subjective well-being so causality is difficult to establish. A number of studies found that positive emotions and optimism had a beneficial impact on cardiovascular health and on immune functioning. Changes in mood are also known to be associated with changes in immune and cardiovascular response. There is evidence that interventions that are successful in improving subjective well-being can have beneficial effects on aspects of health. For example, meditation and relaxation training have been found to increase positive affect and to reduce blood pressure. The effect of specific types of subjective well-being is not entirely clear. For example, how durable the effects of mood and emotions on health are remains unclear. Whether some types of subjective well-being predict health independently of others is also unclear.[7]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Diener, Ed (1984). "Subjective well-being". Psychological Bulletin 95 (3): 542–575. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/95/3/542/. 
  2. ^ Diener; et al. (1991). 
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Diener, Ed; Suh, E.M.; Lucas, R.E. & Smith, H.L (1999). "Subjective well-being: Three Decades of Progress". Psychological Bulletin 125: 276–302. http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~broberts/Diener%202000.pdf. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f Diener, Ed (2000). "Subjective well-being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index". American Psychologist 55: 34–43. http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~broberts/Diener%202000.pdf. 
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Steel, Piers; Schmidt, Joseph & Shultz, Jonas (2008). "Refining the relationship between personality and Subjective well-being". Psychological Bulletin 134: 138–161. http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y4person/3_happiness/Steel2008_5FM_and_happiness_psych_bull.pdf. 
  6. ^ a b Okun, M. A.; Stock, W. A.; Haring, M. J.; & Witter, R. A. (1984). "Health and subjective well-being: a meta-analysis". The International journal of aging & human development 19: 111–132. http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,6;journal,219,292;linkingpublicationresults,1:300312,1. 
  7. ^ a b c Diener, E.; Chan, M.Y. (1984). "Happy People Live Longer: Subjective Well-Being Contributes to Health and Longevity". Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 3: 1–43. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x/abstract. 
  8. ^ a b DeNeve, Kristina M.; Cooper, Harris (1998). "The Happy Personality: A Meta-Analysis of 137 Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being". Psychological Bulletin 124: 197–229. http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y5_ID/personality/wellbeing/1998_Deneve_cooper_psych_bull.pdf. 
  9. ^ a b DeNeve, Kristina M. (1999). "Happy as an Extraverted Clam? The Role of Personality for Subjective Well-Being". Current Directions in Psychological Science 8 (5): 141–144. http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/8/5/141.abstract. 
  10. ^ a b Lykken; Tellegen (1996). "Happiness Is a Stochastic Phenomenon". Psychological Science 7 (3). doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00355.x. http://education.ucsb.edu/janeconoley/ed197/documents/lykkenHappinessisastochasticphenomenon.pdf. 
  11. ^ McGue, Matt; Bacon, Steve & Lykken, David (1993). "Personality stability and change in early adulthood: A behavioral genetic analysis". Developmental Psychology 29 (1): 96-109. http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/Personality_McGue01.pdf. 
  12. ^ Bouchard, Thomas J., Jr.; Loehlin, J.C. (2001). "Genes, evolution, and personality.". Behavior Genetics 31: 243-273. doi:10.1023/A:1012294324713. http://www.springerlink.com/content/qt0138g23w8720j1/. 
  13. ^ Weiss, A.; Bates, T. C., Luciano, M. (2008). "Happiness is a personal(ity) thing: The genetics of personality and well-being in a representative sample.". Psychological Science 19: 205-210. 
  14. ^ D. Archontaki, G. J. Lewis and T. C. Bates. (2012). Genetic influences on psychological well-being: A nationally representative twin study. Journal of Personality10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00787.x
  15. ^ a b c Lyubomirsky, Sonja (2001). "Why are some happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being". American Psychologist 56: 239–324. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~sonja/papers/L2001.pdf. 
  16. ^ Seligman; Csikszentmihalyi (2000). "Positive psychology: An introduction". American Psychologist 55 (1): 5-14. 
  17. ^ Røysamb, E., Harris, J., Magnus, P., Vittersø, J., & Tambs, K. (2002) Subjective well-being. Sex-specific effects of genetic and environmental factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 211–223.
  18. ^ Furnham & Argyle (1998). The psychology of money. Psychology Press. 
  19. ^ Langner & Michael (1963). Life stress and mental health: The Midtown Manhattan study. Free Press of Glencoe (New York). 
  20. ^ Wilkinson (1996). Unhealthy societies: the afflictions of inequality. 
  21. ^ Smith; Eikeseth, Klevstrand & Lovaas (1997). "Intensive behavioral treatment for preschoolers with severe mental retardation and pervasive developmental disorder". American Journal on Mental Retardation 102 (3): 238-249. 
  22. ^ Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust. 1995;163:458–471
  23. ^ Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds). Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
  24. ^ Aknin; Norton, Dunn (2009). "From wealth to well-being? Money matters, but less than people think". The Journal of positive psychology 4 (6): 523-527. 
  25. ^ Norton, M.I., Dunn, E.W., & *Aknin, L.B. (2009). From wealth to well-being: Spending money on others promotes happiness. Invited talk at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Tampa, FL
  26. ^ Easterlin, Richard A., 1973, Does Money Buy Happiness? The Public Interest, 30 (Winter), 3-10
  27. ^ Veenhoven, Ruut, 1991. “Is Happiness Relative?” Social Indicators Research, 24, 1-34.
  28. ^ Easterlin, Richard A.: 1995. ‘Will Raising the Incomes of All Increase the Happiness of All?’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27(1), (June), pp.35-48

See also

External links