Get documents about "session7a
Shared by: hedongchenchen
-
Stats
- views:
- 8
- posted:
- 8/10/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 67
Document Sample
Uncertainy 5: Our own well-being
(Do we really know what's best for us?)
Overview
1) Approaches to Well-Being
2) Evidence that we choose the wrong goals
3) Why do we have the wrong goals?
4) The policy debate (+ group & general discussion)
1) Approaches to well-being
Types of well-being
Hedonics Eudamonia "Flow" Functionings
Types of well-being
Hedonics Eudamonia "Flow" Functionings
Pleasure
(SWB)
Bentham
Kahneman
Diener
Hedonics: Subjective well-being (SWB)
- PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule)
(Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988)
Moods: 10 + (e.g. Enthusiastic, alert, determined) 10 -
(upset, nervous)
- Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
(Pavot & Diener, 1993)
"All things considered, how satisfied are you with life...."
a) Correlates of SWB (also Capabilities)
Wilson (1967) - The happy person is "young, healthy, well-
educated, well-paid, extrvoverted, optimistic, worry-free
religious, married, with high self-esteem, job morale, modest
aspirations, of either sex and of a wide range of intelligence"
a) Correlates of SWB (also Capabilities)
Wilson (1967) - The happy person is "young, healthy, well-
educated, well-paid, extroverted, optimistic, worry-free
religious, married, with high self-esteem, job morale, modest
aspirations, of either sex and of a wide range of intelligence"
Changes:
1) Age = U shaped curve
2) Social contacts (Marriage /religion vs friends)
3) Resources used for intrinsic rather than extrinsic goals.
Types of well-being
Hedonics Eudamonia "Flow" Functionings
Pleasure Meaning
(SWB) (PWB)
Bentham Aristotle
Kahneman Maslow
Diener Deci & Ryan
Eudamonics: Psychological well-being (PWB)
Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs
Eudamonics: Psychological well-being (PWB)
Actualisation
achieving one’s potential
Self-esteem
mastery / reputation
Belongingness
social relations
Safety
from environment / crime etc.
Physiological
food, shelter, sleep etc.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs
Maslow (1954 p.37/38)
“For our chronically, and extremely hungry man, Utopia can
be defined simply as a place where there is plenty of food.
He thinks if only he is guaranteed food for the rest of his life,
he will be perfectly happy and will never want anything more
Maslow (1954 p.37/38)
“For our chronically, and extremely hungry man, Utopia can
be defined simply as a place where there is plenty of food.
He thinks if only he is guaranteed food for the rest of his life,
he will be perfectly happy and will never want anything more
…. But what happens to man’s desire when there is plenty
of bread? At once other (and higher) needs emerge and
these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the
organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new
(and still higher) needs emerge, and so on….
Maslow (1954 p.37/38)
“For our chronically, and extremely hungry man, Utopia can
be defined simply as a place where there is plenty of food.
He thinks if only he is guaranteed food for the rest of his life,
he will be perfectly happy and will never want anything more
…. But what happens to man’s desire when there is plenty
of bread? At once other (and higher) needs emerge and
these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the
organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new
(and still higher) needs emerge, and so on….
A want that is satisfied is no longer a want. The organism is
dominated and its behaviour organised only by unsatisfied
needs.”
b) PWB & relation to SWB (Capabilities)
(Oishi, Diener, Lucas & Smith, 1999)
Study 1: World values survey: 39 nation study: N = 54,446
"All things considered, how satisfied are you with: a) your life as a whole
these days ; b) the financial situation of your household".
Study 2: Student sample (N = 6,782)
General life satisfaction plus five life domains:
Basics: 1) Food, 2) Housing, 3) Finances, Highers: 4) Self, 5) Freedoms.
b) PWB & relation to SWB (Capabilities)
(Oishi, Diener, Lucas & Smith, 1999)
Study 1: World values survey: 39 nation study: N = 54,446
"All things considered, how satisfied are you with: a) your life as a whole
these days ; b) the financial situation of your household".
Study 2: Student sample (N = 6,782)
General life satisfaction plus five life domains:
Basics: 1) Food, 2) Housing, 3) Finances, Highers: 4) Self, 5) Freedoms.
In poor countries (<GDP), Basics were better predictors of
life satisfcation, reversed in rich countries.
Ryan & Deci (2000)
Ryan & Deci (2000)
Self-determination theory, 3 main needs:
Ryan & Deci (2000)
Self-determination theory, 3 main needs:
1) Autonomy, 2) competence, 3) relatedness
Ryan & Deci (2000)
Self-determination theory, 3 main needs:
1) Autonomy, 2) competence, 3) relatedness
- Fully functioning (Rogers, 1963) rather than simply
attaining desires. Growth, integrity, vitality & SWB!!
Types of well-being
Hedonics Eudamonia "Flow" Functionings
Pleasure Meaning Engagement
(SWB) (PWB)
Bentham Aristotle Csikszentmihalyi
Kahneman Maslow
Diener Deci & Ryan
Types of well-being
Hedonics Eudamonia "Flow" Functionings
Pleasure Meaning Engagement
(SWB) (PWB)
Bentham Aristotle Csikszentmihalyi
Kahneman Maslow
Diener Deci & Ryan
Seligman
(The Full Life)
c) Flow
Seligman (2000; Peterson, Park & Seligman, 2005)
(N = 845)
c) Flow
Seligman (2000; Peterson, Park & Seligman, 2005)
(N = 845)
Meaning Engagement Life satisfaction
Pleasure .18* .31* .17*
Meaning / .46* .26*
Engagement / / .30*
In regression, all had sig. independent effects.
Types of well-being
Hedonics Eudamonia "Flow" Functionings
Pleasure Meaning Engagement & Capabilities
(SWB) (PWB)
Bentham Aristotle Csikszentmihalyi Sen
Kahneman Maslow
Diener Deci & Ryan
Seligman
(The Full Life)
2) Evidence that we choose
the wrong goals
(Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003)
b) Aspirations (Goals) & Psychological WB
(Kasser & Ryan, 1993; 1996 - Study 2)
Aspirations Self-act Vitality Depress Physical
Intrinsic
(Autonomy,
relatedness, growth)
Extrinsic
(Money, Looks, fame)
b) Aspirations (Goals) & Psychological WB
(Kasser & Ryan, 1993; 1996 - Study 2)
Aspirations Self-act Vitality Depress Physical
Intrinsic .59* .31* -.27* -.35*
(Autonomy,
relatedness, growth)
Extrinsic
(Money, Looks, fame)
b) Aspirations (Goals) & Psychological WB
(Kasser & Ryan, 1993; 1996 - Study 2)
Aspirations Self-act Vitality Depress Physical
Intrinsic .59* .31* -.27* -.35*
(Autonomy,
relatedness, growth)
Extrinsic -.67* -.34* .30* .43*
(Money, Looks, fame)
3) Why do we have the wrong goals?
Why wrong goals?
a) Emotions now & in the Near Future (NF)
b) Focalism
c) Adaptation neglect
d) Faulty implicit theories
a) Emotions and the NF
- Often nicer to NF than DF selves (Loewenstein)
a) Emotions and the NF
- Often nicer to NF than DF selves (Loewenstein)
- Mood and well-being:
Football study: (Schwarz et al, 1987)
Weather study: (Schwarz & Clore, 1983)
b) Focalism
e.g. "Would more money change your well-being?"
- "Focus" on money & forgetting, health, friends,etc.
b) Focalism
e.g. "Would more money change your well-being?"
- "Focus" on money & forgetting, health, friends,etc.
- Dunn, Wilson & Gilbert (2003). Students assigned
to (attractive/unattractive housing). DV = happiness
Predicted Experienced
Attractive -
Unattractive -
b) Focalism
e.g. "Would more money change your well-being?"
- "Focus" on money & forgetting, health, friends,etc.
- Dunn, Wilson & Gilbert (2003). Students assigned
to (attractive/unattractive housing). DV = happiness
Predicted Experienced
Attractive - 5.96 5.45 **
Unattractive -
b) Focalism
e.g. "Would more money change your well-being?"
- "Focus" on money & forgetting, health, friends,etc.
- Dunn, Wilson & Gilbert (2003). Students assigned
to (attractive/unattractive housing). DV = happiness
Predicted Experienced
Attractive - 5.96 5.45 **
Unattractive - 3.43 5.38***
c) Adaptation neglect
c) Adaptation neglect
- Brickman, Coates & Bulman (1978) - lottery winners and
paraplegia
- Headey & Wearing (1989)
- Diener & Larsen (1994)
- Lykken & Tellegen (1996)
- Gilbert & Wilson (2003)
c) Adaptation neglect
- Brickman, Coates & Bulman (1978) - lottery winners and
paraplegia
- Headey & Wearing (1989) - dynamic equilibrium over time
- Diener & Larsen (1994)
- Lykken & Tellegen (1996)
- Gilbert & Wilson (2003)
c) Adaptation neglect
- Brickman, Coates & Bulman (1978) - lottery winners and
paraplegia
- Headey & Wearing (1989) - dynamic equilibrium over time
- Diener & Larsen (1994) - across context work/social etc.
- Lykken & Tellegen (1996)
- Gilbert & Wilson (2003)
c) Adaptation neglect
- Brickman, Coates & Bulman (1978) - lottery winners and
paraplegia
- Headey & Wearing (1989) - dynamic equilibrium over time
- Diener & Larsen (1994) - across context work/social etc.
- Lykken & Tellegen (1996) -Twin studies genes accounted
for 40 - 50% of emotionality
- Gilbert & Wilson (2003)
c) Adaptation neglect
- Brickman, Coates & Bulman (1978) - lottery winners and
paraplegia
- Headey & Wearing (1989) - dynamic equilibrium over time
- Diener & Larsen (1994) - across context work/social etc.
- Lykken & Tellegen (1996) -Twin studies genes accounted
for 40 - 50% of emotionality
- Gilbert & Wilson (2003) - Psychological Immune system
Peak-start-rule (Dolan & White, 2005)
Event
Lottery winners
+
Time
Paraplegia
-
Peak-start-rule Kahneman on states
vs changes
d) Faulty implicit theories
d) Faulty implicit theories
- Kasser & Ryan (1993, 1996) socialized to believe
in the American Dream
d) Faulty implicit theories
- Kasser & Ryan (1993, 1996) socialized to believe
in the American Dream
- Loewenstein & Schkade (1999) - Socialized to
believe that men happier when single and women
happier when married - wrong!
In sum
- Short-term emotions influence predicted WB
- Domain considerations influence predicted WB
- We fail to (fully) take into account our PIS
- We have incorrect ideas about happiness
4) Well-being and Policy
Who should we ask?
Which well-being should we use - e.g. For health
policy?
Who should we ask?
Which well-being should we use - e.g. For health
policy?
a) Predicted well being (the Public?)
b) Subjective well-being (the patients?)
c) Functionings & capabiliites (Medical profession?)
a) The public
Disadvantages: See earlier!
a) The public
Disadvantages: See earlier!
Advantages:
1) Provide money
2) Insurance principle
3) Reduction of fear as efficient policy objective
4) Pareto efficent
b) The patients
Advantages:
1) What people "mean" by well-being.
2) Self-advocacy / patient rights.
3) Mis-prediction both by public and professionals.
b) The patients
Advantages:
1) What people "mean" by well-being.
2) Self-advocacy / patient rights.
3) Mis-prediction both by public and professionals.
Disadvantages:
1) Adaptation
2) Pride
The problem of Adaptation
(Menzel et al., 2003)
“It would certainly be ironic, or even perverse or
unjust, if disabled persons lost competitive
advantage in the race for scarce resources because
their adaptation diminished the estimated value of
curative and rehabilitative services for them.”
c) Professionals
Advantages:
1) Able to assess functioning & capabilities
2) Avoids adaptation issue (in part)
3) Impartial "objective" observer?
c) Professionals
Advantages:
1) Able to assess functioning & capabilities
2) Avoids adaptation issue (in part)
3) Impartial "objective" observer?
Disadvantages:
1) Mis-prediction (Sackett & Torance; Pearlman & Uhlmann)
2) Arrogance & paternalism
All three?
Of course the easy way out is to say we need all
three opinions.
However whose should we weight most when they
are in conflict?
All three?
Of course the easy way out is to say we need all
three opinions.
However whose should we weight most when they
are in conflict?
Blind vs Deaf debate
Public more worried: Blind
Functionings better: Deaf
SWB better: Blind
Group discussion
Based on what you've just heard about the pros and cons of different
perspectives (public, professional, patient) please assess how much
weight you would give to each perspective in deciding which health
issues to allocate most resources to.
Public _______% Professional_______% Patient_______%
Make some notes on why you came to this decision which you will use in
the class discussion:
__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Summary: Well-being
1) To be or to have? - to be!
Summary: Well-being
1) To be or to have? - to be!
2) Well-being - Subjective, Psychological, Flow, Capabilities
Summary: Well-being
1) To be or to have? - to be!
2) Well-being - Subjective, Psychological, Flow, Capabilities
3) Wrong goals - to have (not to be!)
Summary: Well-being
1) To be or to have? - to be!
2) Well-being - Subjective, Psychological, Flow, Capabilities
3) Wrong goals - to have (not to be!)
4) Why: - Mood; Adaptation neglect, Focalism, Poor theories
Summary: Well-being
1) To be or to have? - to be!
2) Well-being - Subjective, Psychological, Flow, Capabilities
3) Wrong goals - to have (not to be!)
4) Why: - Mood; Adaptation neglect, Focalism, Poor theories
5) Who's perspective for policy?
Summary: Well-being
1) To be or to have? - to be!
2) Well-being - Subjective, Psychological, Flow, Capabilities
3) Wrong goals - to have (not to be!)
4) Why: - Mood; Adaptation neglect, Focalism, Poor theories
5) Who's perspective for policy?
6) Next week - last presentation on the interplay of emotion
and cognition in judgement and choice
