Title: Ups and downs: A dynamical systems model of human affective fluctuations
1Ups and downs A dynamical systems model of human
affective fluctuations
- Keith Warren, Ph.D.
- The Ohio State University
- Julien C. Sprott, Ph.D.
- University of Wisconsin-Madison
2A definition of subjective well being
- Subjective well-being can be simply defined as
the individuals current evaluation of her
happiness. Such an evaluation is often expressed
in affective terms when asked about subjective
well-being, participants will often say, I feel
good (Schwartz Strack, 1999). Subjective
well-being is thus, at least in part, a proxy for
a global affective evaluation.
3Some odd things about subjective well being
- Increase in income does not lead to increase in
subjective well being (Keely, 2000) - Most people define themselves as being happy,
regardless of their material wealth (Diener
Diener, 1996). - Extremely minor incidents, influence estimates of
SWB (Schwartz Strack, 1999).
4- Most people assume that the external
circumstances of others are powerful determinants
of subjective well being, in spite of the fact
that such circumstances would have little effect
on their own SWB (Schkade Kahneman, 1999).
5The beginnings of an explanation
- Several authors have suggested that human affect
is largely determined by the rate of progress
toward a goal (Carver Scheier, 1998 Hsee
Abelson, 1991). - Carver Scheier, 1998, have suggested that an
increase or decrease in the rate of progress will
be experienced as a surprise.
6This suggests an equation
- In mathematics, the rate of change of a function
over time is given by the first derivative, dx/dt
(i.e., velocity). - The change in the rate of change is given by the
second derivative, d2x/dt2 (i.e., acceleration).
7- We focus on the rate at which we move toward our
goals. - We focus on the position of others vis-à-vis
their (presumed) goals.
8A general linear expression including all such
effects isd2x/dt2 pdx/dt qx f(t)
- d2x/dt2 gives the acceleration toward goal.
- dx/dt gives the velocity of movement toward the
goal--leads to SWB aka happiness (H). - x gives our current state vis-à-vis the goal.
- f(t) is an external disturbance term that will
push us toward or away from the goal.
9Winning the Lottery
10Intermittent Reinforcement
11Random Events
12Real Life
13This is a simple, linear, ordinary differential
equation
- If the individuals focus is on dx/dt, this
explains why successive increases in income do
not lead to increasing subjective well-being
each increase, being similar, would lead to the
same level of SWB. - Similarly, focus on dx/dt would tend to obscure
differences in SWB that arise from x.
14- Since even weak influences can lead to a change
in dx/dt, a focus on this will lead to a
comparatively large effect of those influences on
SWB. - Finally, when others focus on x, they will
overestimate the importance of external factors
to your subjective well-being.
15A disadvantage and two advantages
- Obviously, this model is too simple to solely
explain subjective well being. - It does, however, explain some surprising facts
about SWB. - And it suggests some further hypotheses,
developed from the fact that the derivative of a
function is generally rougher than the function
itself.
16Hypothesis 1
- Clinicians will tend to underestimate the
volatility of clients perceived subjective well
being, aka happiness.
17Hypothesis 2
- Clinicians will tend to underestimate the life
satisfaction or dissatisfaction of their clients.
This, incidentally, has significant implications
for motivating people to change. Like the first
hypothesis, this falls straight out of the idea
that outsiders see our integral, while we see our
derivative.
18Hypothesis 3
- Clients are likely to overestimate an improvement
in their well being in the short run, while
underestimating it in the long run. This occurs
because they will see the increasing derivative
first, then see the decreasing side of the
derivative. One might actually argue that they
are likely to see themselves as losing ground
after any initial increase.
19A Plausible Empirical Test
- Newhill, Mulvey Pilkonis (2001) have proposed a
measure of emotional dysregulation. - Includes measures of sensitivity/ vulnerability
to emotional stimuli and return to baseline.
This theory would imply that clinicians will
underestimate sensitivity and overestimate time
to return to baseline.
20Bibliography
- Carver, C. S. Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the
self-regulation of behavior. New York Cambridge
University Press. - Diener, E. Diener, C. (1996). Most people are
happy. Psychological Science, 7(3) 181-185. - Hsee, C. K. Abelson, R. P. (1991). Velocity
relation Satisfaction as a function of the first
derivative of outcome over time. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3) 341-346. - Keely, L. (2000). Why Isn't Growth Making Us
Happier? Working paper posted at
http//www.ssc.wisc.edu/7Elkeely/
21Schkade, D. A. Kahneman, D. (1999). Does
living in California make people happy? A
focusing illusion in judgments of life
satisfaction. Psychological Science, 9(5)
340-346.Schwartz, N. Strack, F. (1999).
Reports of subjective well-being Judgmental
processes and their methodological implications.
In Kahneman, D., Diener, E. Schwarz, N. (eds.)
Well-being The foundations of hedonic
psychology. New York Russell Sage.