Skip to main content

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

Social Indicators Research volume 137, pages 1–28 (2018)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Bauer, R. A. (1966). Social indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branden, N. (1966). Emotions and values. The Objectivist, 5(5), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(2), 133–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (2016a). Subjective wellbeing as a social indicator. Social Indicators Research, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1496-x.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (2005). Building a better theory of well-being economics and happiness: Framing the analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hartmann, G. W. (1934). Personality traits associated with variations in happiness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29, 202–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index Manual, 5th edition. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/pwi-a-english.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. C. (1983). Social indicators. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, B. S., & Wingfield, J. C. (2003). The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 2–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66, 195–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G. B. (1930). Happiness among adult students of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 79–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia

    Tanja Capic & Robert A. Cummins

  2. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Level 5, Faculty of Business and Economics Building, 111 Barry Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Ning Li

Authors
  1. Tanja Capic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ning Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert A. Cummins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanja Capic.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Table 7 Number and proportion of people in each GLS2 and HPMood category before and after data-stripping
Full size table
Table 8 GLS2 scores excluded over 5 iterations
Full size table
Table 9 HPMood scores excluded over 6 iterations
Full size table
Table 10 Changes in GLS2 categories before and after each iteration
Full size table
Table 11 Changes in HPMood categories before and after each iteration
Full size table
Table 12 Number and proportion of people in compressed GLS2 and HPMood categories before and after data-stripping
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Capic, T., Li, N. & Cummins, R.A. Confirmation of Subjective Wellbeing Set-Points: Foundational for Subjective Social Indicators. Soc Indic Res 137, 1–28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1585-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1585-5

Keywords

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