Affect Yesterday: - Unpleasant Emotions - Anger - Sad and Depressed - Worried and - Pleasant Emotions

You might also like

Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 30

Affect Yesterday

Unpleasant Emotions Anger Sad and depressed Worried and stressed Pleasant Emotions
Enjoyment Smiling and laughing

Pleasant EmotionsEnjoyment etc.


High New Zealand Honduras Panama Costa Rica Puerto Rico Low Armenia Pakistan Bangladesh Palestine Tajikistan

Unpleasant Emotions Sad, Angry, Depressed, etc.


Highest Armenia Palestine Bolivia Sierra Leone Lowest Denmark Sweden Austria Japan

Percent feelings lots yesterday ~ 40 % ~ 13 %

Satisfaction with domains


(Health, standard of living, city, job)

High
Denmark Switzerland Singapore

Low
Zimbabwe Haiti Tanzania

Dissatisfied with Standard of Living


Ukraine Georgia Romania Russia Zimbabwe

Most satisfied: Ireland

Planetary SWB Scorecard


Evaluating life
40 percent dissatisfied 40 percent doing fine 20 percent doing very well

Affect Balance (PA NA)


20 % negative 30 % positive 50 % very positive

What Predicts the Good Society?

Ladder of Life evaluation correlates with: GDP per person (wealth) r = .83

Meeting basic needs (food etc.) r = .77

Low hunger, low corruption, and longevity


8

3 3 4 5 6 7 8

Predicted Values

R = .86

Does Anything Cause Quality of Life Other than Money?

Beyond Money: Predicting National Levels of Ladder of Life


Regression Betas

GDP/Capita Optimism Can count on others

.43 .37 .25

Beyond Money: Predicting National Positive Emotions (Betas all but GDP significant)
GDP/capita Count on someone for help Freedom to choose Learned something yesterday -.03 .18 .26 .68

Beyond Money: Nation-level Unpleasant Emotions


Betas
Income Control of corruption Assaulted .15 -.36 .27

Happiness and Money?

Is it basic needs like food and water? Or modern conveniences like electricity, telephones, and the internet?

Ladder of Life
Basic needs (food and shelter) Modern conveniences (telly etc.)

Beta
.27 .58

Positive Affect
Basic needs (food and shelter) Modern conveniences (telly etc.) .37 -.19

Strongest Correlates:
Ladder of life
Modern conveniences (electricity etc.)

Pleasant Emotions
People I can count on

Unpleasant Emotions
Assaulted past year

Cannot Afford Medical Care


Japan Canada Jordan Iran USA Turkey Romania 4% 8% 15 % 19 % 20 % 45 % 50 %

Well-Being Accounts for Policy Use

These could enormously benefit positive psychology

Examples of Policies
Economic
Satisfying work, unemployment

Health
Mental health

Social
School checkups, sex work, discrimination

Environmental
Airport noise, air pollution, commuting

Existing Societal Measures of Well-Being


Organization of Econ. Cooperation & Development Statistics Canada GSOEP (Germany) BHPS (U.K.) Center for Disease Control (U.S.) United Nations?

But what about:


Adaptation? Personal, not societal?

94 % of Danes are Above 97 % of Togolese


50

40

30

20

10

DENMARK TOGO 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ladder of Life Scores

Affect Adaptation?
Enjoyment, laughing, smiling Pakistan 47% v. New Zealand 88%

Anger, sadness, worry, and depression Denmark 12% v. Iran 43%

Conclusions
National accounts of well-being can help policy makers create better societies, and Help positive psychologists prove their value

Two Extremely Important Psychological Points


1. Circumstances and conditions matter a LOT; it is not just individual setpoint. We need stronger positive societal science!
2. Life evaluation and affect have different predictors
-- Wanting versus liking

Take-Home for Positive Psychology


PP has placed an emphasis on internal determinants But society, neighborhoods, organizations are also important. More development of organizational PP needed. Social psychology emphasizes the power of the situation Happiness is within people, but also in their circumstances too

More Take-Home Messages


1. Life evaluation seems like Wanting, whereas affect is Liking 2. Money should not be dismissed as unimportant. But it does not completely predict the Ladder, and certainly not PA and NA, where social factors are more important. 3. We need accounts of well-being!

Diener, Lucas, Schimmack, & Helliwell


Well-being for Public Policy Oxford University Press, 2009

The most authoritative and informative book about happiness ever written

Handout overheads in front


Thank you, and:

Questions? Comments? Discussion?

You might also like