Social Indicators Research

, Volume 137, Issue 1, pp 1–28 | Cite as

Confirmation of Subjective Wellbeing Set-Points: Foundational for Subjective Social Indicators

Article

Abstract

The usefulness of subjective wellbeing (SWB) as a social indicator rests on understanding what controls its level when measured through self-report data. While the theory of SWB homeostasis provides a cogent explanatory framework for the control processes, this theory relies on set-points, and direct evidence for their existence rests on a single study. Cummins et al. (J Happiness Stud 15:183–206, 2014. doi: 10.1007/s10902-013-9444-9) demonstrated a normal range of set-points between 71 and 90 points on a 0–100 scale, using data on global life satisfaction (GLS). These findings are consistent with homeostasis theory, which proposes that set-points account for the normal positivity of SWB while its stability is accounted for by homeostatic processes. The current paper extends the first report in two ways. First, by replicating the range of set-points using a different data set. Second, by extending the findings to homeostatically protected mood (HPMood), which is proposed to be the basic psychological molecule that homeostasis seeks to protect. Participants completed between 5 and 10 surveys. Data preparation involved the iterative elimination of scores based on significant deviation from their over-time mean score. It is confirmed that GLS and HPMood set-points are both normally distributed between 75 and 90 points. These results offer further support for the usefulness of SWB as a social indicator.

Keywords

Subjective social indicators Subjective wellbeing Set-points Homeostasis Homeostatically protected mood Global life satisfaction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful for the selfless and collegial assistance provided to us by the anonymous reviewers. The final product is a tribute to their true academic spirit and shared intellect. We also gratefully acknowledge our industry partner, Australian Unity, whose staunch support over many years of data collection made this demonstration of set-points possible.

References

  1. Anglim, J., Weinberg, M. K., & Cummins, R. A. (2015). Bayesian hierarchical modeling of the temporal dynamics of subjective well-being: A 10 year longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, before publication. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.08.003.
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). 2001.0 Census of Population and Housing: Basic Community Profile, 2011 Second Release. Canberra: ABS. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2001.0?OpenDocument.
  3. Bauer, R. A. (1966). Social indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blore, J. D., Stokes, M. A., Mellor, D., Firth, L., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). Comparing multiple discrepancies theory to affective models of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9599-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Branden, N. (1966). Emotions and values. The Objectivist, 5(5), 1–9.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(2), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10902-009-9167-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummins, R. A. (2016a). Subjective wellbeing as a social indicator. Social Indicators Research, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1496-x.
  10. Cummins, R. A. (2016b). The theory of subjective wellbeing homeostasis: A contribution to understanding life quality. In F. Maggino (Ed.), A Life Devoted to Quality of Life: Festschrift in Honor of Alex C. Michalos (Vol. 60, pp. 61–79). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins, R. A., Li, L., Wooden, M., & Stokes, M. (2014). A demonstration of set-points for subjective wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 183–206. doi: 10.1007/s10902-013-9444-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davern, M., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective/cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(4), 429–449. doi: 10.1007/s10902-007-9066-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., Kanazawa, S., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2015). Why people are in a generally good mood. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(3), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Easterlin, R. A. (2005). Building a better theory of well-being economics and happiness: Framing the analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Forgas, J. P. (1991). Affect and social judgments: An introductory review. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments (pp. 3–30). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  16. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Halle, T. G. (2003). Emotional development and well-being. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. Keyes, & K. A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 125–138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Hartmann, G. W. (1934). Personality traits associated with variations in happiness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29, 202–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Headey, B. (2010). The set point theory of well-being has serious flaws: On the eve of a scientific revolution. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 7–21. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9559-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index Manual, 5th edition. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/pwi-a-english.pdf.
  21. Lai, L. C. H., & Cummins, R. A. (2013). The contribution of job and partner satisfaction to the homeostatic defense of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 203–217. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9991-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Land, K. C. (1983). Social indicators. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Land, K. C. (2015). The Human Development Index. In W. Glatzer, L. Camfield, V. Møller, & M. Rojas (Eds.), Global handbook of quality of life: Exploration of well-being of nations and continents (pp. 133–157). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Land, K. C., & Michalos, A. C. (2017). Fifty years after the social indicators movement: Has the promise been fulfilled? An assessment and an agenda for the future. Social Indicators Research. doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1571-y.
  25. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McEwen, B. S., & Wingfield, J. C. (2003). The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGue, M., Bacon, S., & Lykken, D. T. (1993). Personality stability and change in early adulthood: A behavioral genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology, 29, 96–109. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66, 195–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Røysamb, E., Harris, J. R., Magnus, P., Vitterso, J., & Tambs, K. (2002). Subjective well-being. Sex-specific effects of genetic and environmental factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stubbe, J. H., Posthuma, D., Boomsma, D. I., & de Geus, E. J. C. (2005). Heritability of life satisfaction in adults: A twin-family study. Psychological Medicine, 35(11), 1581–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tomyn, A. J. (2008). Subjective wellbeing as an affective construct: Theory development and construction with adolescents. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Deakin University, Melbourne. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/theses/index.php.
  33. Tomyn, A. J., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). Subjective wellbeing and homeostatically protected mood: Theory validation with adolescents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(5), 897–914. doi: 10.1007/s10902-010-9235-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watson, G. B. (1930). Happiness among adult students of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Watson, N., & Wooden, M. (2012). The HILDA survey: A case study in the design and development of a successful household panel study. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3(3), 369–381.Google Scholar
  36. Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  37. Williams, D. E., & Thompson, J. K. (1993). Biology and behavior: A set-point hypothesis of psychological functioning. Behavior Modification, 17, 43–57. doi: 10.1177/01454455930171004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  2. 2.Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social ResearchThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations