1 / 24

The Definition and Measurement of Well-Being

The Definition and Measurement of Well-Being. Ulrich Schimmack University of Toronto Mississauga. CIFAR, October 1, 2010, Toronto.

babu
Télécharger la présentation

The Definition and Measurement of Well-Being

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Definition andMeasurement of Well-Being Ulrich SchimmackUniversity of Toronto Mississauga CIFAR, October 1, 2010, Toronto

  2. Well-Being, Welfare, Good Life, Happiness, Subjective Well-Being, Psychological Well-Being, Authentic Happiness, True Happiness, Utility, Pleasure-Pain Balance, The Greatest Good, The ultimate motive, Meaning of Life, Optimal Functioning, Health

  3. Well-Being DefinitionAn evaluation of a life.Evaluations require a criterion. - Actual-ideal discrepancy. What is the criterion for life evaluations?

  4. Well-Being Prototype An individual with high well being … % A A. is rich B. is poor 96% A. is healthy B. is ill 98% A. is free B. is unfree 98% A. is safe B. is threatened 96% feels happy B. feels unhappy 99% Responses by UTM psychology students taking PSY324 “Well-Being” course.

  5. Scientific definition should be consistent with prototype. Problems of prototype definition: - unrealistic goal to maximize everything - neglects other aspects that vary across people - does not provide a standard for quantitative measure of well-being - rich & unhealthy vs. poor & healthy

  6. Classical Definitions of Well-Being • Taxonomy of Definitions • Where do the criteria come from? - Objective - Outside - Same for all - “The ideal life” • Subjective - Inside - Vary across individuals - “My ideal life”

  7. Objective Definition I:- Aristotle’s Eudaimonia • Well-being is well-functioning • Functions provide objective evaluation criteria (car, organs) • But, what is the function of a life? [42] • Not a definition of well-being because there is no objective function of lives.

  8. Objective Definition II: Hedonism • "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure" (Bentham) • Objective - assumes the same criterion for everybody • Problem: - Treats all pleasant experiences as equal. - Ignores other aspects of human lives. - Can be influenced by illusions.

  9. Nozick’s Experience Machine What would you choose: Your real life 78% Your brain is hocked up to 22%a compute that simulates your ideal life and you don’t know that it is a simulation.

  10. Subjective Definition I:Desire Fulfillment • Desires are subjective • Desires imply low well-being • Increase well-being - fulfill all desires (market economy) - get rid of desires (Buddhism)

  11. Problem: • Desires are future-directed. • Retrospective evaluations can differ from anticipated evaluations (disappointment, regret, pleasant surprises). • “be careful what you wish for”

  12. Subjective Definition II: - Well-being as a retrospective evaluation. • - Individuals have ideals, preferences, values - do not disappear when matched • Ideals can be used to evaluate actual lives. • Cantril (1965) 0 = worst possible life (self-defined) 10 = best possible life (self-defined)

  13. Problem I: Illusions - Happiness/Self-Evaluation - Mental State - Can be influenced by illusions even if ideals assume accurate beliefs. - Preference Realization - Not a mental state - Illusions increase well-being only if people prefer illusions over reality

  14. Nozick’s Virtual Vacation A. Spend reading week living your real life. 48% B. Spend reading week in an experience 52%machine that simulates your ideal life and makes you forget that it was a simulation.

  15. Problem II: Inauthentic Preferences • Where do individuals’ ideals come from? • Culture may teach some people to want too much or too little - too little: cast system in India - too much: advertising • Preferences should be the result of free choice

  16. Correlations among Self-Report Measures of Well-Being in the SOEP Schimmack (2009)

  17. Are all Domains Equal? • Only modest agreement between direct ratings of importance and indirect evidence (regression) • Some domains are not important (weather) • some domains are important (health, family) • Zou & Schimmack (2010)

  18. Do People Not Care About Housing? Nakazato, Schimmack, & Oishi (2010)

  19. Self-Informant Agreement • Average correlation ~ .4 • Has not increased since first study in 1934 • higher agreement for domain satisfaction than for global judgments • agreement is explained by important life domains (health, family, academics, recreation) • Schneider & Schimmack (2009, 2010)

  20. Self-Informant Agreement • Cultural differences in self-ratings • Mediated by positive illusions • Not replicated with informant ratings • Important to use multiple raters. • Kim, Schimmack, & Oishi (2010)

  21. Final Conclusion • - Well-being is a life that matches individuals’ subjective ideals (preference-realization). • Cognitive and affective measures are partially valid indicators of well-being. • No evidence that one indicator is better than another. • Increasing the validity of measures is essential for progress in well-being science.

  22. The End WB Science Today The Future

More Related