Abstract
People often expect a future brighter than the present. However, expectations of steep improvement have been linked to worse psychological functioning, perhaps because rosy predictions often do not come to pass. Should we conclude that expecting a highly satisfying future is maladaptive? We wondered instead whether the adaptiveness of these trajectories may depend on other belief systems which accompany them. Across three studies we found that although individuals high and low in depressive symptoms both expected a better future, they differed in their beliefs about whether satisfaction comes from primarily controllable or uncontrollable sources. People lower in depressive symptoms believed that satisfaction is impacted by controllable behaviors which predicted motivation to engage in well-being supportive behaviors. In contrast, those higher in depressive symptoms believed satisfaction came from uncontrollable factors, accounting for less inclination to engage in well-being facilitating behaviors. These insights may help clarify how people’s expectations for a better tomorrow may only sometimes be accompanied by adaptive beliefs about how to get there.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Curran (2016) suggests attention check questions to identify careless and inattentive responders.
After completing the main measures participants completed measures unrelated to the present study, additional measures available upon request.
To provide evidence for the psychometric validity of the measures used in the present work, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the CES-D and LOC scales. Results of the factor analyses are presented in the supplemental materials. The results of the factor analyses also informed our mediation analyses as the measurement models were specified as a part of the SEM model to adjust for measurement error.
The related construct self-efficacy was also measured. Overall, results for self-efficacy parallel those found for internal LOC. See supplemental materials.
The general commitment item was also included, however for sake of brevity and because we consider behavioral intentions to be a more precise measure of our outcome of interest, we only report results for behavioral intentions. Results using the general commitment item directly parallel those found for behavioral intentions and replicate Study 1. See supplemental materials.
Most correlations from Study 1 were within this range or higher, however we used specific effect sizes from Study 1 with caution given the identified limitations of single-item measures and the fact that we increased the number of items and increased the precision of the wording in the sources of satisfaction scale in Study 2.
After the main measures, participants completed questions unrelated to the current study, additional materials are available upon request.
To provide evidence for the psychometric validity of the measures used in the present work, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the CES-D, LOC scale, and behavioral intentions measure. As the sources of satisfaction scale was new to the current research an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on this measure. Results of these factor analyses are presented in the supplemental materials. The results of the factor analyses also informed our mediation analyses as the measurement models were specified as a part of the SEM model to adjust for measurement error.
As in Study 1, self-efficacy was also measured. Results for self-efficacy parallel those found for internal locus of control. See supplemental materials.
Participants also completed an open-ended question assessing their sources of satisfaction for exploratory purposes. Coding scheme and descriptive information can be found in the supplemental materials.
After the main measures participants completed questions unrelated to the current study. See appendix for all study materials.
To provide evidence for the psychometric validity of the measures used in the present work, factor analyses were conducted on all scales with two or more items. Results of all factor analyses are presented in the supplemental materials. The results of the factor analyses also informed our mediation analyses as the measurement models were specified as a part of the SEM model to adjust for measurement error.
Participants also rated the extent to which they believed LS is influenced by positive and negative daily uncontrollable experiences, mood boosts and hassles respectively. Results for these items can be found in the supplemental materials.
as in Study 2 the General Commitment item was also Included. Results Using the General Commitment item Directly Parallel those Found for Behavioral Intentions and Replicate Studies 1 & 2. See Supplemental Materials
As in Study 2 participants rated their intentions to engage in religious/spiritual practices, which was highly correlated with participants’ strength of religious beliefs (r = .65, p < .001). A substantial portion of participants identified as non-religious; 20.5% selected none and 57.4% were at or below the midpoint. Results remain the same when this item is included in the composite.
References
Babyak, M. A., Snyder, C. R., & Yoshinobu, L. (1993). Psychometric properties of the hope scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 27(2), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1993.1011.
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917.
Busseri, M. A., & Peck, E. (2015). Do (even) depressed individual believe that life gets better and better? The link between depression and subjective trajectories for life satisfaction. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(5), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026145437265.
Busseri, M. A., Choma, B. L., & Sadava, S. W. (2009). Functional or fantasy? Examining the implications of subjective temporal perspective trajectories for life satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 295–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327215.
Curran, P. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305.
Ekers, D., Webster, L., Van Straten, A., Cuijpers, Richards, D., & Gilbody, S. (2014). Behavioural activation for depression; an update of meta-analysis of effectiveness and sub group analysis. Plos One, 9(6), e100100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100100.
Fiedler, K., Schott, M., & Meiser, T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007.
Ganellen, R. J., & Blaney, P. H. (1984). Stress, externality, and depression. Journal of Personality, 52(4), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00355.x.
Grob, A., Little, T. D., Wanner, B., Wearing, A. J., & Euronet (1996). Adolescents’ well-being and Perceived Control Across 14 Sociocultural Contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 785–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.785.
Howell, A. J., Passmore, H. A., & Holder, M. D. (2016). Implicit theories of well-being predict well-being and the endorsement of therapeutic lifestyle changes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2347–2363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9697-6.
Hui, C. C. H. (1982). Locus of control: A review of cross-cultural research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 6(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(82)90036-0.
Kalechstein, A. D., & Nowicki, S. Jr. (1997). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between control expectancies and academic achievement: An 11-year follow-up to Findley and Cooper. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 123(1), 27–57.
Karaman, M. A., & Watson, J. C. (2017). Examining associations among achievement motivation, locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction: A comparison of U.S. and international undergraduate students. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.006.
Kilpatrick, F. P., & Cantril, H. (1960). Self-anchoring scaling: A measure of individuals’ unique reality worlds. Journal of Individual Psychology, 16(2), 158–173.
Korn, C. W., Sharot, T., Walter, H., Heekeren, H. R., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Depression is related to an absence of optimistically biased belief updating about future life events. Psychological Medicine, 44(3), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291713001074.
Lachman, M. E., Röcke, C., Rosnick, C., & Ryff, C. D. (2008). Realism and illusion in americans’ temporal views of their life satisfaction: Age difference in reconstructing the past and anticipating the future. Psychological Science, 19(9), 889–897. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-17226.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In Research with the locus of control construct (vol. 1): Assessment methods (pp. 15–63). Academic Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111. https://doi-org.libproxy.wlu.ca/.
Muir, A. M., Carbine, K. A., Goodwin, J., Hedges-Mucy, A., Endrass, T., & Larson, M. J. (2019). Differential electrophysiological indices of internal and external performance monitoring: Relationship with perfectionism and locus of control. PLoS One, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219883.
Naditch, M. P., Gargan, M. A., & Micahel, L. B. (1975). Denial, anxiety, locus of control, and the discrepancy between aspirations and achievements as components of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076254.
Oettingen, G. (2015). Rethinking positive thinking: Inside the new science of motivation. Penguin Random House LLC.
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306.
Romer, P. (2016, July 21). Conditional optimism about progress and climate Retrieved from https://paulromer.net/conditional-optimism-about-progress-and-climate/.
Rosopa, P. J., Datu, J. A. D., Robertson, S. A., & Atkinson, T. P. (2016). Core self-evaluations and subjective well‐being in the U.S. and the Philippines: The moderating role of self‐construal. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12265.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976.
Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation ofinterventions. The American psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410.
Shanahan, E., & Busseri, M. A. (2016). Life gets better and better: Cultural life script theory and subjective trajectories for life satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 564–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2077.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.21.
Teasdale, J. D. (1983). Negative thinking in depression: Cause, effect, or reciprocal relationship? Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(83)90013-9.
Thomas, K. A., & Clifford, S. (2017). Validity and mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038.
Walsh, R. (2011). Lifestyle and mental health. American Psychologist, 66(7), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021769.
Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Attitudes and Social Cognition, 78(5), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.821.
Woody, E. (2011). An SEM perspective on evaluating mediation: What every clinical researcher needs to know. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 2(2), 210–251. https://doi.org/10.5126/jep.010410.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by a fellowship from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to the first author and a grant from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to the last author. We thank Roger Buehler and Christian Jordan for detailed feedback on earlier drafts and Pamela Sadler for feedback on some statistical issues.
Funding
Research was partially supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant 435-2013-1930 to the corresponding author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ES: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JPL: Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing. PKC: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. AEW: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
All studies were approved by Wilfrid Laurier University’s Institutional Research Ethics Board (REB# 5215: All three studies were approved under the same protocol with the later studies approved as modifications of the original study). Participants all provided informed consent prior to participation.
Competing Interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Open Data
Because these studies were conducted before our institution began to include language in the Consent forms allowing anonymized data to be shared on the web, participants did not consent to open data sharing. Therefore we do not have clearance to share data sets publicly. However all data can be made available upon request to Anne Wilson awilson@wlu.ca.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Shanahan, E., Lefebvre, J.P., Chauhan, P.K. et al. In My Grasp or out of My Hands? Belief About Where Life Satisfaction Comes from Predicts Motivation to Seek it. J Happiness Stud 25, 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00711-4
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00711-4