The Definition and Measurement of Well-Being
description
Transcript of The Definition and Measurement of Well-Being
The Definition andMeasurement of Well-Being
Ulrich SchimmackUniversity of Toronto
Mississauga
CIFAR, October 1, 2010, Toronto
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
Well-Being Definition
An evaluation of a life.
Evaluations require a criterion. - Actual-ideal discrepancy.
What is the criterion for life evaluations?
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%
A. feels happy B. feels unhappy 99%
Responses by UTM psychology students taking PSY324 “Well-Being” course.
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
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”
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.
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.
Nozick’s Experience Machine
What would you choose:
A. Your real life 78%
B. Your brain is hocked up to 22%a compute that simulates your ideal life and you don’t know that it is a simulation.
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)
Problem:
- Desires are future-directed.
- Retrospective evaluations can differ from anticipated evaluations (disappointment, regret, pleasant surprises).
- “be careful what you wish for”
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)
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
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.
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
Correlations among Self-Report Measures of Well-Being in the SOEP
Schimmack (2009)
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)
Do People Not Care About Housing?
Nakazato, Schimmack, & Oishi (2010)
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)
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)
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.
The End
WB Science Today The Future