Subjective well-being: a general overview
Ed Diener
沉思往事立残阳Psychology Department, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, U S A
ediener@cyrus.psych.uiuc.edu
Katherine Ryan
Psychology Department, University of Illinois
We provide a comprehensive review of the field of subjective well-being in terms of its societal and individual benefits, demographic correlates, theories of origin, and relationship to culture. Inter-ventions to increa well-being are also prented as well as the argument that national accounts of well-being for public policy should be instituted and utilized, alongside economic and social indicators, to both reveal and improve the quality of life within nations.
Keywords: happiness; life satisfaction; social indicators; subjective well-being INTRODUCTION
删除数据库命令
作风建设交流发言材料
如何撩妹子Becau “happiness” is a popular term that can refer to pleasant moods and emotions experienced at any given moment (positive affect), to general evaluations of life such as life satisfaction, or to subjective well-being, it is ud generally by psychologists but is not uful for more preci com-munication. In contrast, subjective well-being is an umbrella term ud to describe the level of well-being people experience according to their subjective evaluations of their lives. The evaluations, which can be both positive and negative, include judgments and feelings about life satisfaction, interest and engagement, affective reactions such as joy and sadness to life events, and satisfaction with work, relationships, health, recreation, meaning and purpo, and other important domains. However, it is important to note that although well-being is subjective in that it occurs within a person’s experience, manifestations of subjective well-being can be measured objectively in verbal and non-verbal behavior, actions, biology, attention, and memory.
Self-report measures are commonly ud to asss subjective well-being. They require respon-dents to indicate either a global evaluation such as life satisfaction or how much they experience certain feelings. The measures may differ on the respon scale, on the time frame, and on whether they are on-line versus retrospective reports, but they are all rooted in their measure of well-being from the subjective standpoint of the respondent. Although there are many measures, some of
the most cited are Cantril’s (1965) Self-Anchoring Striving Scale, Fordyce’s (1977) sixty-cond happiness measure, Watson, Clark, and Tellegen’s (1988) PANAS, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larn, & Griffin, 1985; e Pavot & Diener, 1993b; Pavot & Diener, 2008 for review).
Although lf-report measures are the most common measures in the field of subjective well-being rearch and generally show high convergence with one another, it is important to realize the danger of measurement bias. When everything measured with lf-report correlates, the results could indicate a method-variance problem. Therefore, scientists also utilize non-lf-report methods, such as obrver reports, facial measures, physiological measures, and emotion-nsitive tasks, in order to achieve an objective measure of well-being. Sandvik, Diener, and Seidlitz (1993) found that lf-report measures showed reasonable convergent validity with non-lf-report measures, and also showed high stability over time. However, rearch has demonstrated that a number of factors, such as current mood or the surrounding environment, can in some cas influence respons to items measuring global subjective well-being of life satisfaction (Pavot & Diener, 1993a). Therefore, while subjective measures do show high reliability with non-subjective measures, the non-lf-report © Psychological Society of South Africa. All rights rerved.South African Journal of Psychology, 39(4), pp. 391-406 ISSN 0081-2463
392
Ed Diener and Katherine Ryan
measures are uful in providing a more comprehensive account of well-being and life satisfaction. Asssing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener (2009) provides an in-depth discussion of the construction, validity, and reliability of many of the well-being measures.
The main applied goal of rearchers who study subjective well-being is the improvement of people’s lives beyond the elimination of miry. Becau subjective well-being is a key component of quality of life, its measurement is crucial to understanding how to improve people’s lives. In addition, a growing body of rearch shows that high levels of subjective well-being are beneficial to the effective functioning of societies beyond the advantages they bestow on individuals.
BENEFITS OF WELL-BEING
Early rearch focud on the caus of well-being, but recently rearchers have begun to focus on its conquences, and particularly on whether high levels of subjective well-being are beneficial to effective functioning, or alternately, whether they hamper success. A growing body of evidence su
ggests that high well-being and life satisfaction significantly improve life within the four areas of health and longevity, work and income, social relations, and societal benefits (e Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005 for a full review).
Social relationships
While high subjective well-being has been consistently correlated with high levels of sociality, evidence suggests that the causal arrow between the two variables moves in both directions. In-dividuals who have a greater number of friends and family members tend to have higher levels of subjective well-being; however, individuals who have higher well-being to begin with tend to have clor and more supportive social relationships than individuals with low baline life satisfaction (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008).
By examining people’s daily interactions and the effects of social bonds, it is clear that sup-portive relationships are a causal factor in high subjective well-being. Numerous studies show that the best part in people’s days are when they are involved in social interaction — in general, people are simply happier when they are around other people (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006). Moreover, social bonds such as marriage can also increa subjective well-being as evidenced by the fact that married peop
le experience, on average, higher levels of subjective well-being than non-married people (Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2003).
However, evidence showing that people with high subjective well-being tend to have higher levels of lf-confidence, warmth, leadership ability, sociability, and more friends to begin with suggests the other side of the causal arrow — people with high subjective well-being actually gene-rate their own social support systems (Cunningham, 1988; In, 1987). One example of this pheno-menon is the baline difference between people who get married and divorced. While people with high life satisfaction prior to marriage are more likely than others to get married, stay married, and be happy in their marriages, people with low life satisfaction prior to marriage are far more likely to get divorced (Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2003; Lucas, 2005).
Work and income
Another benefit of high subjective well-being lies in the fact that people who attain it are likely to earn more money than others, regardless of occupation (Diener, Nickerson, Lucas, & Sandvik, 2002), and are more likely to enjoy their work (e Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005 for review). Importantly, this result indicating that well-being caus economic and career success has been replicated in stu
dies conducted in other parts of the world (Graham & Pettinato, 2002; Marks & Fleming, 1999). Continuing rearch also suggests that individuals who enjoy their work tend to have higher supervisor ratings (Wright & Staw, 1999; Cropanzo & Wright, 1999) and are judged as having more productivity, dependability, creativity, and overall higher work quality while on the job (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). Moreover, happy workers also tend to have higher levels of organi-
Subjective well-being393 zational citizenship, which means they are more likely to do tasks not required by their job, such as helping co-workers (Donovan, 2000; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008).
Health and longevity
There are a number of studies that provide evidence that subjective well-being improves both health and longevity. In general, people who report high subjective well-being also report better health and fewer unpleasant physical symptoms (Roysamb et al., 2003). In a recent study where rearchers infected participants with the common cold, tho who reported higher levels of well-being were more resistant to the virus (Cohen et al., 2003). Danner, Snowdon, and Frien (2001) also found that baline subjective well-being predicted longevity for nuns living under identical environmental conditions, and Pressman & Cohen (2007) achieved a similar result in a study of autobiographies of
psychologists. Furthermore, individuals with higher subjective well-being tend to have stronger immune systems and better cardiovascular health (i.e. fewer heart attacks and less artery blockage), to engage in healthier behaviours, such as wearing atbelts and sunscreen, and to have fewer life-style dias, such as addictions to alcohol or drugs (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008).
Societal benefits of happiness
Finally, high subjective well-being not only benefits individuals, but also benefits society as a whole. It is sometimes thought that people who ek happiness are lfish and irresponsible, engaging in activities for their own gain rather than for the betterment of their community. In actuality, tho who ek high subjective well-being engage more frequently than people with low subjective well-being in altruistic, pro-social activities such as volunteering for community and charity groups (Tov & Diener, 2008, Thoits & Hewitt, 2001; Krueger, Hicks, & McGue, 2001). Furthermore, of the people who do volunteer, people who report high subjective well-being tend to invest the most hours (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001). Moreover, people who experience high levels of well-being on average tend to have more trusting, co-operative, and pro-peace attitudes, more confidence in the government, stronger support for democracy, and lower levels of intolerance for immigrants and racial groups (Tov & Diener, 2008; Diener & Tov, 2007). Therefore, while well-being of citizenry may result from a structur
ally sound society, high levels of subjective well-being can contribute towards a more stable, productive, and effectively functioning society as well.
Can people be too happy?
One important caveat to the evidence which suggests that high well-being caus better functioning at the individual and societal levels is that it is not necessary for people to be euphorically happy all of the time in order to achieve a better life. In fact, reporting high subjective well-being too often may have negative effects on certain life domains. For example, people who experience the very highest levels of well-being are the most successful in terms of clo relationships and volunteer work; however, tho who experience slightly lower levels of well-being are the most successful in terms of income, education, and political participation (Oishi, Diener, & Lucas, 2007). In addition, constantly striving for higher levels of well-being could lead an individual to more risk-eking and potentially dangerous behaviours such as illicit drug u and an abundance of xual partners. There-fore, while it is important to recognize the benefits of high subjective well-being for individuals and societies, it is a mistake to think that constant euphoria is a desired outcome.
THEORIES OF WELL-BEING
拍身份证可以涂口红吗There are a variety of theoretical frameworks within which well-being is examined, ranging from biological theories concerned with the genetic predispositions for happiness to relative standards theories, which examine how comparing onelf to others influences perceived subjective well-being. Several of the more prominent theories are described below (e Diener, 1984; Kebir & Diener, 2008 for reviews); however, a clor connection between theory and rearch is still needed in order to advance the field.
394
Ed Diener and Katherine Ryan
Telic theories
党支部年终总结Telic theories of subjective well-being state that individuals achieve happiness when a certain end-point, such as a goal or need, is reached. The point of contention within the theories is what that certain endpoint compris. For example, philosophers in the past have questioned whether fulfill-ment of desires leads to well-being, or whether some desires are deleterious to well-being. Is it better to satisfy a short-term desire at the expen of long-term conquences, and what happens if an indi-vidual’s desires are in conflict with each other? Others have asked whether moving towards a
desire is actually more fulfilling than achieving the desired object itlf. Need theories, such as Ryff and Singer’s (1996) concept of psychological well-being and Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory, suggest that there are certain inborn needs a person eks to fulfill in order to achieve well-being. Related to the, goal theories suggest that people are consciously eking certain goals, which, when fulfilled, result in high well-being (Emmons, 1986; Michalos, 1980). However, in goal theories, goals may ari from additional sources beyond inborn needs.
Top-down versus bottom-up theories
The debate between “top-down” and “bottom-up” theories of well-being has been important to the field. “Bottom-up” theories claim that the positive and negative moments which compri a person’s life are summed in order to produce that person’s perceived subjective well-being. In this view, a positive or “happy” moment will cau a person to experience well-being, and the more positive mo-ments a person experiences, the more their levels of well-being ri. In contrast, top-down theories claim that a person’s inherent propensity to experience the world in a certain way will affect that person’s interactions with the world. Therefore, according to top-down theories, a person with a more positive state of mind may experience or interpret a certain event as “happier” than a person with a more negative perspective might, making the positive attitude rather than the objective events the ca
usal factor in well-being.
There are two general debates in the field of subjective well-being concerning the two op-posing theories. The first concerns whether well-being is defined as a trait or a state. Tho who maintain well-being is a trait suggest that high well-being is a propensity to react positively rather than necessarily feeling happy. Others maintain that well-being is a state caud by a collection of happy moments. The cond debate concerns the role of pleasant events in creating well-being. For example, does a lack of pleasant events lead to depression, or does depression lead to a failure to feel pleasure when engaged in normally pleasant events?
Cognitive theories
Related to “top-down” approaches, cognitive theories of well-being focus on the power of cognitive process in determining individual well-being. The AIM — Attention, Interpretation, and Memory — model of well-being is one such cognitive theory, and suggests that individuals with high sub-jective well-being tend to focus their attention on positive stimuli, interpret events positively, and recall past events with a positive memory bias (e Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008 for a review). In terms of attention, participants who are able to focus relatively more on positive stimuli compared to negative
stimuli tend to fare better in overall levels of well-being. Perhaps more importantly, the ability to direct attention outward away from onelf is a significant predictor of well-being. Studies show that although people who ruminate tend to worry more and experience lower subjective well-being in general, directing attention inward can cau people who normally experience high well-being to experience significantly lower well-being. Furthermore, people with high subjective well-being have been shown to naturally interpret neutral and ambiguous events in a positive way. In this way, positive interpretation acts as a protective buffer. Finally, while dispositionally “happy” people have been shown to be no different in the amount of positive and negative events they experience, they tend to remember events as better than they actually were, engaging in a positive and protective memory bias.
Subjective well-being395 Evolutionary theories
Recently emerging theories for the origins of well-being are evolutionary models, which suggest that feelings of pleasure and well-being are produced by that which aids humans in survival. The evolu-tionary value of negative emotions (e.g. fear, anger, and anxiety) that aided our ancestors in reacting to environmental threats has long been recognized. However, the adaptive advantages provided by well-being, and specifically the role of positive emotions as motivators that drive adaptive behaviour,
are just now beginning to be understood. Fredrickson’s (1998) “broaden and build theory” is a rela-tively new evolutionary model, which propos that positive feelings allow individuals to broaden their thought-action repertoires and conquentially build intellectual, psychological, social, and physical resources over time. Therefore, Fredrickson suggests that high subjective well-being and positive affect yield a state from which individuals can confidently explore their environment, ap-proach new goals, and thereby gain important personal resources. In this way, well-being is not an epiphenomenon, as previously thought. Rather, like negative emotions, positive emotions have their own adaptive advantages that contributed to the evolutionary success of the species and continue to aid humankind in survival.
Temperament and personality
A number of studies have confirmed the importance of temperament and personality in determining an individual’s capacity for well-being. Rearch demonstrating that identical, or monozygotic, twins are considerably more similar to each other in well-being levels than fraternal, or dizygotic, twins has shown the importance of genetic inheritance (Lykken & Tellegen, 1996; Tellegen et al., 1988), as have studies demonstrating the stability of subjective well-being levels longitudinally (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Magnus & Diener, 1991). Among different personality traits, extroversion and neuro-ti
爆破工程技术人员cism have been shown to be the most consistently and strongly related to well-being (Diener & Lucas, 1999; Rusting & Larn, 1997). Extraversion has been shown to predict positive affect (Lucas & Fujita, 2000), while negative affect is strongly predicted by neuroticism (Fujita, 1991). Moreover, studies across nations show that extroverts everywhere tend to experience a higher number of posi-tive feelings and experience them more intenly than introverts (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008). Therefore, while the environment plays a role in the expression of genetics, it is clear that heritable traits have a substantial effect on the well-being levels of individuals.
Relative standards
Relative standards theories maintain that well-being results from a comparison between some stan-dard, such as one’s past, others, goals, or ideals, and the actual conditions. According to social comparison theory, one us other people as the standard, which means that a person will experience higher well-being if they are better off than others (Carp & Carp, 1982; Michalos, 1980). For ex-ample, Easterlin (1974) suggested that the amount of income that will satisfy people depends on the income of others in their society. In addition, Emmons, Larson, Levine, and Diener (1983) found that social comparison was the strongest predictor of satisfaction in many domains.qq邮箱官网登录入口
In other theories, such as Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman’s (1978) adaptation theory, an individual’s past is the standard for comparison. For example, if an individual’s current life exceeds their past standard, they will be content. However, adaptation theory also propos that the power of events to evoke emotions decreas over time. For example, if a person experiences a positive event such as a promotion, adaptation theory suggests that this person will experience a spike in well-being due to the promotion being above their previous standard. However, as time proceeds, adaptation theory postulates that the promotion becomes a new standard, thereby losing its power to evoke feelings of well-being in the individual (Brickman & Campbell, 1971). In this way, indi-viduals are constrained by what is called the “hedonic treadmill”, which describes the process by which recent changes in life circumstances increa an individual’s subjective well-being temporarily before the individual’s standard eventually acclimates to the new conditions. Thus, according to
