Objective Health and Subjective Well-being

In psychology, the phrase "subjective well-being" (SWB) refers to one’s overall sense of how well their life is proceeding.  The topic is of intense interest to both the professional and lay communities, since it addresses fundamental features regarding quality of life and, by extension, of society.  And because no one has studied the issues longer and more fruitfully than Ed Diener of the University of Illinois, I begin this blog by abstracting from his work and that of his colleagues.  More specifically, I summarize their literature review of October, 2016 as it pertains to SWB and health.

The reviewers point out that SWB is a multi-faceted concept that, among other things, includes not only life satisfaction in general but the relative frequency and balance of positive versus negative emotional experiences.  They remind us too that SWB is not only the result of how we live but also a cause of what we do.  For instance, all else being equal, persons of normal weight tend to be more satisfied than are obese persons, and being satisfied or unsatisfied with their weight often directly or indirectly prompts them to continue the behaviors that caused their positive or negative weight condition in the first place.  Similar to most important human conditions, SWB is described as varying in some ways across cultures.  Thus, the Diener group notes that although the homeless in India have far less material resources than the American homeless, they tend to have greater SWB.

Not surprisingly, for the average woman or man, higher SWB is associated with better health and longevity; they characteristically enjoy more effective immune systems, better cardiovascular status, less sleep disturbances, and reduced physiological markers of stress (e.g., cortisol).  Moreover, persons with high SWB are quicker to rebound physically from a stressor, such as by having their blood pressure return faster to their baseline after an upsetting experience.  Non-physiological benefits are present as well.  Persons satisfied with their well-being usually evidence increased work productivity, constructive social relationships, and are more responsible citizens.

To their credit, Diener and colleagues acknowledge that high SWB is no guarantee of a perfect existence.  They cite research suggesting that one can have a too high sense of SWB.  Persons so "afflicted" at times have been found to be lower achievers than are those of moderate SWB,  And extremely high SWB can cause an individual to be overly intense and otherwise overly stimulated, actually undermining health.

The Diener et al. review offers useful information, but no review is ever complete or above reproach. Although technically a theory of motivation, Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan's self-determination theory (1985) is relevant to our present discussion.  It proposes that we all should strive toward achieving personal competence, autonomy, and relatedness.  And managing to operate those ways undoubtedly produces SWB within us and all the benefits appertaining.

In order to be healthy then, you do not need to be perfectly satisfied.  You do not need to attain a very high level of SWB.  Rather, I believe, that being content, but not complacent, facilitates physical and mental health.  A relatively straightforward, simple strategy for that outcome can involve deliberate actions toward attaining competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

References:

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Diener, E. et. al., (2016).  Findings All Psychologists Should Know From the New Science on Subjective Well-Being.  Canadian Psychology, October 6.   No Pagination Specified. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000063.

You'll Be Sorry

Negative emotion not only is uncomfortable by definition, but also restricts the range of thought, causing us to become preoccupied with that which is upsetting.  Moreover, the negative emotion exacts a significant stress-inducing toll on our physical and emotional well-being.  No one wants to be anxious or angry.  Nothing good can come from such dysphoric experiences.  Or can it?

The fact is that negative emotions exist because they have provided an evolutionary survival advantage.  For instance, becoming anxious can prompt us to be safety conscious and becoming angry can mobilize us literally to fight for our lives.  When it comes to everyday health too, at least some negative emotion can be salutary.

Let’s consider “regret.”  If we regret having behaved unhealthfully, we might use that experience of negative emotion to deter similar future unhealthful behavior.  Anticipatory regret--imagining regret that would follow an untoward behavior--also can be good for our health.  Noel Brewer, Jessica DeFrank, and Melissa Gilkey (2016) evaluated the available research to more precisely determine the potential benefits.

The investigators found that persons high in anticipatory regret expressed both greater pro-health intentions and pro-health behavior than did those low in the regret.  And anticipatory regret was a more potent predictor than were other negative emotions, such as disappointment.   The nature of the regret also was relevant.  Although both anticipated action regret (imagining regretting doing something unhealthful) and anticipated inaction regret (imagining regretting not doing something healthful) promoted health, when compared with anticipated action regret, anticipated inaction regret was a slightly more powerful promoter of some types of healthful behaviors.  For instance, it might be more effective to imagine regretting that you did not exercise than to imagine regretting that you did watch television all day long.

The last mentioned finding proved a bit surprising to me, since most people intuitively guess that we are more regretful of what we did wrong rather than what we did not do right.  I believe more research should be devoted to the issue.  However, that surprising finding does not minimize the more powerful conclusion.  Anticipated regret—whether of action, inaction, what we did wrong, or what we failed to do right—is a fundamental “negative” human emotion that can have very “positive” effects.

The bottom line is that you should not summarily shrug off your health regrets at the moment you experience them.  Instead, you would do well to pay close attention to and reflect upon those very regrets.  The attention and processing that you do devote to the regrets, however, must be followed by well-conceived corrective strategies that enable you to avoid the unhealthful behaviors that precipitated the instigating regrets in the first place.

Reference

Brewer, N., DeFrank, J., & Gilkey, M. (2016).  Anticipated regret and health behavior: A meta-analysis.  Health Psychology, 35, 11, November, 1264-1275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000294. 

I Feel So Much Better at Walmart

If you are depressed, you might decide to buy yourself “something nice” in an attempt to feel better.  That folk-wisdom-inspired strategy is common in Western countries where materialism often reigns supreme.  And sometimes, at least in the short run, making a purchase does buoy the spirits.  When and why?

Grant E. Donnelly and his co-investigators (2016) considered pre-existing relevant research to be confusing and conflicting, so they set about to answer that question for themselves.  They ultimately decided to test the hypothesis that materialism provides an antidote for discontent by enabling highly materialistic people to turn attention from internal dissatisfaction to something external, concrete, and non-distressing.  To do so, the investigators employed Roy Baumeister’s “escape from the self” model (1991) that posits six personality factors that contribute to using materialism in an attempt to preserve self-concept: 

1.  Falling short of high standards

2.  A self blaming attitude

3.  Especially high self awareness

4.  Negative emotion and distress

5.  Cognitive deconstruction, meaning such tendencies as toward rigidity of thought,

     myopic focus on the immediate present, and preference for emotional numbness

     or apathy rather than recognizing the true emotional distress

6.  Destructed states, meaning states of impulsivity and/or disinhibition

The Donnelly group concluded that of the six factors, the three that  commanded the most empirical support were: falling short of high standards, especially high self-awareness, and negative emotion and distress.  And the other three were regarded as worthy of further study.

As explained at the outset, the aforementioned investigation concerned persons relatively high in materialism, so they may not apply wholesale to you.  However, the information is worth processing to determine the extent to which it can be personally useful.  For one thing, it illustrates the value of thinking about excessive shopping in a more differentiated way than merely as a brief distraction from feeling "a little depressed."  You might wonder, for instance, whether you are struggling with an injury to your self-esteem. Perhaps you have set one or more unattainably high or impatient goals.  Or maybe you are being besieged by any variety of particularly troubling emotional stressors rather than mild depression.  Anxiety, loneliness, physical pain, and a host of others could be the culprit. There are innumerable upsetting internal stimuli that can prompt anyone to desire to “escape from the self.”

One other psychological concept needs to be introduced into my presentation: the hedonic treadmill which is our innate tendency to become satiated with something that previously brought pleasure.  You buy a new car and it is your crown jewel.  The automobile is shiny, sleek, and chock full of the latest and greatest gadgets; it is all you think about for a week, a fortnight, or a month.  But soon the dings accumulate, the glow dims, and the gem decomposes into mere transportation.  Soon you will covet another radiant bauble to set your soul afire.  That is just how the hedonic treadmill keeps us running.

The best way to feel better is not to visit Walmart, Macy's, or Selfridges.  Instead, visit yourself.  Or, more correctly, revisit your lifestyle.  Look carefully into how you are spending your time.  Determine what makes you physically and mentally healthier, and set out to invest your time and energy in making the lasting changes that enrich virtually every aspect of your life and whose values persist over time.

References

Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.

Donnelly, G., et al. (2016).   Buying to blunt negative feelings:  Materialistic escape from the self. Review of General Psychology, 20, 3, 272-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000078.

Feeling Well and Performing Well

In Conversation: Striving, Surviving, and Thriving, I wrote at length about emotional valance which refers to positive (e.g., happy) versus negative (e.g., sad) emotions. Then as now I asserted that people naturally and mostly unconsciously ascribe a positive or a negative label to that which they perceive whether that perception involves a person (e.g., a presidential candidate) or thing (e.g., an abstract painting).  More important, I suggested that the label powerfully colors what we think and do relative to that which was labeled.

Yen-Ping Chang and his co-researchers (2016) investigated a particular feature of valance: how valence influences agency with “agency” meaning one’s intention to act and/or to actually perform the act.  Thus, a person with strong agency feels relatively capable to complete a challenging task whereas one with weak agency feels relatively incapable to do so.

The Chang group performed five experiments in attempting to more precisely understand the valence-agency link.  Their experimental subjects rated their own current behavior, their past recalled experiences, characters in hypothetical morally-relevant situations, positively- acting and negatively-acting fictional characters, and personified emotions (e.g., “If anger were a person, how would he/she handle being late for a meeting?).

The study’s results were clear and convincing.  Persons experiencing a positive emotional state most often regarded themselves as being more capable of achieving an outcome than those experiencing a neutral or negative emotional state.  Feeling good seemed to promote a feeling of competence.  That intrapersonal consequence of valence-agency was confidently anticipated.  On the other hand, not expected was the interpersonal consequence of valence-agency.  The study found that others who observed subjects that they believed to be in a positive emotional state also considered them to be more capable.  And, conversely, others who believed observed subjects to be in a negative emotional state also considered them less capable.

Emotional valence of course is related to well-being.  Persons in a positive emotional state not only feel good but they also are more likely to be in a more relaxed condition.  And, by definition, relaxed persons are less assailed by stress hormones.  Now add the agency effect.  Since feeling positively tends to be accompanied by feeling more capable, such positive times offer the best chance for you to initiate and to sustain healthful lifestyle behavior.  Moreover, your positive state probably will be perceived by observing others who will consciously and/or unconsciously presume that you are more capable of achieving your healthful goals and, therefore, be more deliberately or inadvertently supportive of you in those endeavors. 

Therefore, the more you can cultivate within yourself positive emotional valence, the more agency you will experience, and the more empowered you will be to become healthier in body as well as mind.  

Chang, Y-P., et al., (2016)  Affective Valence Signals Agency Within and Between Individuals.  Emotion, September 19, No Pagination Specified.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000229

Health Minimizers and Maximizers

Since antiquity, philosophers, such as Aristotle, extolled the wisdom of behavior according to the “golden mean” principle (not to be confused with the mathematical “golden ratio,” a totally different notion).  In brief, the golden mean posited that most adaptive behavior and situations tend to be middling rather than extreme.  Psychological experiments have supported the value of the golden mean.  For instance, as early as 1908, Robert M. Yerkes and John D. Dodson showed that mice learned discrimination tasks best when they were moderately aroused.  When under-aroused (given a mild electrical shock) the mice did not adequately exert themselves and when over-aroused (given an intense shock) they failed to focus on the to-be-learned task.  

Common sense and popular culture are on board with the golden mean as well.  Almost everyone realizes that those who never exercise risk serious health problems and that those who exercise excessively risk serious injury.

The value of exercise has been so widely and relentlessly advertised that one would have to be a total denier to discount its value.  However, knowing about healthful behavior and healthful resources is one thing and acting upon that knowledge is quite another.  It is what you do that counts so much more than what you know.  So, persons charged with community health are very interested in determining who does and does not act to promote physical and mental well-being.

Laura D. Scherer and her colleagues (2016) chose to focus on one feature of action toward health by asking whether or not there is a global personality-oriented inclination to use available health care resources versus a disinclination to do so.  The investigation proceeded by having subjects rate their agreement or disagreement with 27 health care utilization statements.  Of the 27, ten proved most relevant.  Those ten mostly concerned the rater's beliefs regarding how medical treatment affects issues regarding survival, the quality of life, the timing and thoroughness of a health-enhancing intervention, and the degree of a subject's heath advocacy for loved ones.

After analyzing the data, the Scherer group tentatively concluded that people can be dichotomized into health care maximizers and health care mimimizers.  That is, some individuals seemed to believe that more health care is better than less and others believed the opposite.  Most critically, the actions of both groups  (i.e., health care utilization) were consistent with their beliefs.

Now, you may feel that the study results are mere common sense, but research repeatedly has demonstrated that common sense often is erroneous.  Moreover, the study in question had as a primary purpose the creation of a questionnaire to guide clinical practice.

My purpose, on the other hand, is to have you consider whether you might be a health care maximizer or minimizer.  Do you seek a pill at the first sniffle, or do you avoid going to a doctor for months after the crusty mole on your neck has turned black?  What are your beliefs regarding how your lifestyle affects your survival, the quality of your life, the timing and thoroughness of your health-enhancing interventions, and the degree of your heath advocacy for loved ones? 

Hopefully, you will subscribe to the golden mean as it applies to your health-relevant actions, being neither too quick nor too slow to act.  But, in order to follow the golden mean, you must educate yourself about what counts health-wise.  If you are confident about your knowledge, you need to act accordingly.  If you are not confident, you need to find a health professional whom you trust.

References:

Yerkes R. M. & Dodson J.D. (1908).  The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology 18, 459–482.

Scherer, L., et al. (2016).  Development of the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale.  Health Psychology, September, No Pagination Specified.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000417.