Personality predispositions can determine levels of extraversion, which determine the levels to which one seeks social support, thus determining positive affect. Similarly, personality predispositions can determine levels of neuroticism that may influence one’s style of coping in the face of both positive and negative external factors which can determine negative affect (Diener, 1996). Happiness, a core aspect of positive subjective wellbeing, involves maintaining a superior level of positive affect in comparison to negative effect, based on specific positive or negative emotions linked to the recent experiences in one’s life (Emmons & Diener, 1985). Positive emotions such as joy and pride must trump negative emotions such as frustration and sadness in the recent past or present in order for an individual to feel happy. Life satisfaction builds on this and is a cognitive valuation of the quality of an individual’s experiences as a sum throughout their entire life (Emmons & Diener, 1985). Individual personality traits have been found to influence the different patterns and levels of life satisfaction, positive and negative affects and simply general, overall happiness (McCrae, 1983). It is commonly believed that heredity and heritability is responsible for roughly 50% of subjective wellbeing. External factors account for the remaining subjective wellbeing variance – things such as life events, …show more content…
relationships and positive or negative experiences (Diener & Fujita, 1995). Although subjective wellbeing is related to personality and genetics, it is too minimalistic to attribute all subjective wellbeing to biology. Personality and genetics (internal factors) are key for long term happiness and subjective wellbeing. Social and material resources (external factors) are key for short-term happiness and subjective wellbeing. Together the internal and external factors combine to determine an overall sense of wellbeing and happiness in an individual. Environmental factors have been found to have very big significance in subjective wellbeing. Though personality is predominantly shaped by our genetics and biological build, it can be influenced heavily by our surroundings and other external factors. Personality traits, such as extroversion and positive affectivity, are genetic and can influence the levels and quality of social activities. Personality traits such as these determine the amount of social contact one engages in, the length of each social encounter, and recreational and enjoyment levels these social encounters hold for the individual (Berry & Hansen, 1996). These internal factors (genetics) influence the external factors (social relationships) and in turn correlate with individual levels of subjective wellbeing. Suh, Diener and Fujita (1996) observed that external factors such as demographics, coping styles and social activities only affect subjective wellbeing in the short term, based on life events at the time. It is argued that the impact, positive or negative, of most life events nearly dissolves within three months after the life event. Many of these life events that do impact temporary positive or negative subjective wellbeing are shaped by one’s personality (Diener, 1996). Personality and genetics are the backbone of human perception. Personality determines how an individual interprets life events and the world around though as well as determines and returns individuals to their base level of subjective wellbeing time and time again. Personality traits have been found to prompt individuals to experience life in an either positive or negative way. Adaptation theory states that even the most monumental and dramatic life events, whether positive or negative, only bring happiness or sadness for a short period of time. The dynamic equilibrium model argues personality appoints the standard to which these dramatic life events are perceived as positive or negative and to which extent (Headey & Wearing, 1989). When an event occurs in one’s life, the perception of its severity is determined by a comparison to past events and their interpretations of them. However, no matter the severity, one’s personality will always revert their subjective wellbeing back to its previous levels. Personality causes different individuals to perceive and experience the same life events in different manners and attitudes. While one individual, for example, may perceive may perceive having to move to a new city as awful and inconceivable, whereas another may see it as extremely exciting. DeNeve and Cooper (1998) found that subjective wellbeing may not necessarily depend on the predisposition to experience negative or positive emotion, but rather relies on the nature of the attributions one ascribes to their behaviors, life events and emotions. These attributions influence how one deals with the circumstances with in their life. These attributions have been found to be critical to an individual’s levels of happiness (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Much research of personality and subjective wellbeing differences focuses on determining heritability levels of positive and negative emotions through twin studies and comparing monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Emde et al. (1992) compared monozygotic and dizygotic twins between the ages of 14 to 20 months and found that genetics traits influenced the expressions of negative emotion while shared environment influenced the expressions of positive emotions. Building on this, through comparison of monozygotic and dizygotic twins between the ages of 20 and 30 indicated that between 44% and 52% of general wellbeing is influenced by genetics (Lykken & Telegen, 1996). The findings suggested that happiness is an emergenic trait, shared between identical twins, that is influenced differently over time by genetics, shared environment and personal experiences specific to each individual. Studies on subjective wellbeing have found that an individual’s status of positive or negative subjective wellbeing leads to a greater satisfaction or dissatisfaction with aspects of life such as work, leisure and their general standard of living (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). It has also been linked with physical health, world assumptions and reactions and levels of constructive thinking (Headey, Veenhoven, & Wearing, 1991). Haring et al. (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of 24 studies examining motivations behind subjective wellbeing. Findings stated personal health and income as key determinants in one’s subjective wellbeing. It was determined that good health and sufficient income and ability to provide for a comfortable life are necessary but yet not sufficient to account for one’s overall subjective wellbeing (Okun, Stock, Haring, & Witter, 1984). Building on this idea, it was determined that 6% of one’s subjective wellbeing is shaped by demographic factors - things such as sex, education, occupation, health, employment and marital status (George, 1978). Another study examining Cattell’s 16 personality factors found that personality factors account for approximately 18% percent of one’s subjective wellbeing (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970). Different countries also have different ratings and levels of happiness – the poorest countries in the world reported significantly lower levels of happiness than the richest countries (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995). While personality influences subjective wellbeing and predict within-group differences, environmental factors have a larger influence when comparing groups, cultures and nations. What one nation may perceive as happiness and success may differ from what another culture or nation perceives. There are many mixed statistics when it comes to determining what causes subjective wellbeing.
Levels and definitions of subjective wellbeing differ from person to person, country to country and from culture to culture. It is extremely hard to pinpoint how many and what demographic factors influence subjective wellbeing across the general population as a whole. Though we cannot, given these differences, confirm how much and to what extent our subjective wellbeing is determined by biological factors, we can deduce that a portion is built due to external, non-genetic
influence.
In the field of Psychology, more specifically health-behavioral research, there has been resounding interest in the structure and measurement of, what the psychological community refers to as, affect. Affect refers to how we, as humans, “experience emotion” and can be broken down into two dominant affective state dimensions, positive and negative affect (Hogg, Abrams, & Martin, 2010)(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). According to Watson, Clark, & Tellegen (1988), positive affect (PA) refers to how enthusiastic and active a person is and negative affect (NA) refers to a general dimension of distress and displeasure. Tellegen (1985) claims that not only do these terms refer to affective state, but also affective trait dimensions, indicating that, “Trait PA and NA roughly correspond to the personality factors of extraversion and neuroticism,” respectively. While many PA and NA scales have been developed, however, these scales were unable to develop items for PA and NA that were statistically independent of each other. In an attempt to operationalize the orthogonal dimensions of positive and negative affect, Watson, Clark & and Tellegen (1988) developed The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (i.e. PANAS). In the following review, I will evaluate and critique the PANAS, as a measure of trait affect, focusing on the reliability and validity of scores, test content, and the manner in which it is used.
Cultural view A macro-level variant is this view is that the view on life is embodied in the national character. In this line cross-national differences in happiness reflect cognitive cultural norms, rather than individual grief and joy (Inglehart, 1990). Earlier view is the Folklore theory of happiness (Veenhoven 1995: 35). Homeostatic maintenance While the above set-point theories aim at explaining differences in happiness, there are also theories of this kind that focus at the general level of happiness. These are motivational theories that assume that we tend to maintain a comfortable level of happiness, even in adverse conditions. We unconsciously keep happiness between 7 and 8 on a 10-step scale, just as we maintain a 9 body temperature of 32 degrees Celsius (Cummins, 2002).
Wellbeing was first discussed as authentic happiness by Seligman. In the concept of authentic happiness he discussed the components of positive emotions, meaning in life and engagement. He had described these components to be very much essential in bringing in authentic happiness which he called as wellbeing. It takes the shape of subjective wellbeing, when it becomes subjective to a person’s experience alone. The concrete aspects of health and wealth may stay away from this, when a person’s subjectivity is concerned (Kammann, 1983). Over the years as we see in other studies, this concept has changed to subjective wellbeing being defined on the basis of all the areas of life, wherein the objective factors of wealth and health, and
MLA: Wallis, Claudia, et al. “The New Science of Happiness.” Time. 17 Jan. 2005. Academic Search Premier. Yale University Library. 11 Jan. 2006.
In the book, The How of Happiness, author and researcher Sonja Lyubomirsky sets her book apart from other self-awareness books by being the first to utilize empirical studies. She uses data gained through scientific method to provide support for her hypothesis. This hypothesis consists mainly of the idea that we have the ability to overcome genetic predisposition and circumstantial barriers to happiness by how we think and what we do. She emphasizes that being happier benefits ourselves, our family and our community. “The How of Happiness is science, and the happiness-increasing strategies that [she] and other social psychologists have developed are its key supporting players” (3).
What defines happiness? In the words of positive psychologists Stephen Schueller and Acacia Parks, “happiness is characterized by positive subjective appraisals and feelings.” Martin Seligman, father of positive psychology, kickstarted an initiative that aimed to “increase global well-being.” Positive psychology alludes to the evolution of human flourishing, by using methods that enable individuals to thrive. It also concerns “self help” as a way to aide scientists and therapists in the study of psychology and happiness. People of all cultures have been continuously striving to reach such a state of contentment by utilizing techniques termed by positive psychology. Research has been done by numerous psychologists in order to unravel the truth; does it really make us happier, or is happiness biological and dependent on our environment - and thus mostly out of our control? These two antonymous viewpoints have led to multiple discoveries concerning whether or not positive psychology truly makes us happier.
... middle of paper ... ... Subjective well-being is apparently a product of psychological reactions to external stimulants, and those reactions are a product of learning social paradigms through cultural influences. As such, it is not possible to strictly relate it to any given external circumstance, person, or object for all communities and individuals.
In the Oxford English dictionary the definition of wellbeing is “a state of being healthy, happy or prosperous; physical, psychological and moral welfare.” In correlation with KE 206 module, wellbeing is indeed all these things but also how they shape and influence the lives of children and young people. The wellbeing of children and young people can be understood objectively and subjectively. Objectively, the wellbeing of children and young people can be understood by looking at and measuring basic needs in life food shelter and safety. The wellbeing of children and young people can be understood subjectively by asking how one perceives themselves, their own wellbeing and emotions. In general, wellbeing is also affected by external factors
There are many types of diverse people classified under various categories. Some people have different types of personalities. They could be classified as extremely manipulative, others as impulsive, and some may not show anything on the outside and have wonderful social skills. These categories help in the understanding of humans. This study is called Psychology and there are many different subfields in this diverse study of the people around us. One subfield that is particularly interesting is personality psychology. Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and its variation between individuals.
Subjective well-being is a broad term that encapsulates how a person appraises his or her life and emotional experiences. It has different aspects which includes life satisfaction, positive and negative affect (Diener et al., 2016). Positive affect refers to pleasant feelings such as joy, ecstasy, pride. While negative affect is defined as emotions that are troublesome or that can cause disturbance like anger and guilt. Life satisfaction is the cognitive domain of subjective well-being as it refers to the judgments made by the person about his life as a whole (Suldo and Huebner, 2005). For example, a person evaluates his subjective well-being by looking at his health satisfaction, job satisfaction, and other facets of his life including feelings regarding his life experiences (Diener et al., 2016). People with high subjective well-being are
Haller, Max and Hadler, Markus. "How Social Relations and Structures Can Produce Happiness and Unhappiness: An International Comparative Analysis" Social Indicators Research, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Jan., 2006), pp. 169-216. J Store.Web.06 Nov 2013.
Personality takes many shapes and forms and is affected by many factors. My understanding of personality is simply a genetic and environmentally determined set of psychological traits that influence our reactions in the world around us. Genetic because our parents possess a certain set of psychological personality traits that we tend to have in common with them so therefore in my opinion there are heritable personality traits. Personality is environmental because we each have our own separate experiences in the world and these experiences help form our unique personality. Neo-Freudians such as Jung have given us a wide array of ideas of how they believe personality is developed and formatted. Jung in particular has a very interesting
what personality type that I have is very important to be successful in life, whether it be for
Where do you think your personality came from? The nature vs. nurture has been going on for many, many years and will probably keep going on for many more years. The purpose of this debate is to determine which one has a bigger influence on personality. It is a proven fact that both nurture and nature have a huge role in contributing to your personality development. Identical twins have many similarities, but also many differences. Your personality can change while you are growing up. Studies have shown that your personality is based off your surroundings and how you grow up. In most cases nurture has a more stronger influence on your personality than nature does.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review Of Psychology, 54403-425. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056