Exam 1 Flashcards
How is positive psychology defined and what are its dimensions? Briefly describe the history of positive psychology. How is it similar to and different from the typical self-help industry?
Positive psych is defined as the study of optimal human functioning. It’s dimensions are positive subjective states (emotions; person), positive individual traits (characteristics and individual differences associated with well being; behavior), and positive institutions (a place that could foster positive psychological outcomes for individuals; environment). Positive psychology is fairly new, developing in the 1980s, although the question about how we achieve happiness has been around for a longer period of time. It has developed from humanistic psychology and was originally used to help with PTSD of WWII veterans. There are some similarities between positive psychology and the self-help industry, as they both promote wellness/personal development and growth. However, positive psych is based off of scientific research, while self-help is based off of what has worked personally for the specific author.
Describe and compare the various perspectives, models, or definitions of well-being in psychology (e.g., subjective well-being, psychological well-being, PERMA, hedonic/eudaimonic well-being, etc.). Identify the core components of each of these perspectives.
Subjective well-being has emotional (positive & negative affect schedules) components and cognitive (satisfaction with life scale) components. Psychological well-being has different aspects that play into it (I.g. Self-acceptance, relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth; how they think they are doing in the different situations). Self-determination theory components include basic needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness). PERMA includes positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, accomplishment. Components of hedonic well-being is the life of pleasure, eudaimonic has life of meaning and life of engagement
Do self-reports questionnaires measure well-being with sufficient accuracy? Describe some common concerns about using self-reports to measure well-being as well as solutions to address these concerns.
They do with some accuracy. Asking multiple questions along the same line helps with accuracy as the participants are thinking about the same thing just in different ways. Some concerns with self-reports are if people are actually telling the truth or if they are just playing to the environment around them. Another concern is if the participants actually know themselves enough to answer the question honestly. Another solution could be peer reports, as some people notice different aspects about those close to you (picking up on habits that someone does subconsciously, etc.) that could influence how accurate the reports are.
What are some limitations to the self-report method and how do alternatives to self-report address these limitations? What are some limitations of these alternative methods?
I feel as though a major limitation to self-reports are that people are not always honest, whether that be just for the test or in general (they haven’t figured it out for themselves yet). Alternatives to these situations are peer reports, as it brings in that outside perspective of us into account that we might be unaware of. Another alternative also bringing in the outside perspective would be using facial electromyograpy software. The problems with that is that what someone shows on the outside may not exactly be accurate for what is going on inside.
Summarize the method that Diener and Seligman (2002) used to categorize the three groups of college students. What are the strengths and limitations of their method? Also, based on our discussion of measuring happiness/well-being, evaluate Diener and Seligman’s method of categorizing their participants.
The participants were administered 4 questionnaires, rating a variety of questions. Based on the question ratings, the 10% who rated the questions highest were put into the “very happy” group, the 10% who rated the lowest were put into the “very unhappy” group, and the rest were divided into the three groups (the third group being “average”) equally. The strengths of this method were that they were able to find those who were more happy than others and those that were more generally unhappier than others, but I feel as though the mixing of the outside 10% with the happier/unhappier 10% could have messed up/with some of the outcome numbers.
Summarize Diener and Seligman’s (2002) findings regarding the characteristics of the three groups. On which variables did the groups differ and how did they differ on these variables? On which variables were they statistically similar? Did the authors find any key factors that predict happiness?
The “very unhappy” group was generally different in all aspects of the scales. The only time it came close to being similar with another groups was with time spent alone/with others. The “average” group was split — some had more time spent alone (like the “unhappy”) and some had more time spent with friends, family, and/or romantic partner (like the “very happy” group). The “very happy” group and the “average” groups shared quite a few categories where they were similar. They compared highly when it came to strong family relationships and time spent with other rather than themselves. All three groups differed from each other in the self-rating of relationships (close friends and romantic relationships), peer-rating of target’s relationships, and average time spent with others. There was not really a pattern that could predict the happiness, as some of the “very happy” participants had unhappy days, and vice-versa for the unhappy group. Extroversion/being around family/others did seem to play a small role in the happy v. unhappy debate.
Describe three different personal or individual factors that are positively related to well-being. In your description, incorporate findings from at least a couple of different studies.
Positive social relationships (perception of social support, relationship quality, relatedness need satisfaction; operationalizations), cognitive characteristics (tendencies to think positively, high sense of control and self-efficacy), personality traits (extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness).
Explain social cognitive theory and give an original example of how it would apply to a positive outcome, such as improving in physical health or adjusting to college life (as a new college student).
Social cognitive theory is how the person, behavior, and environment all act on each other. For the example of improving physical health, I would need start going to a gym (person —> environment) which in turn leads me to find people who also go to the gym and can help me stay active (environment —> person). Because I am going to the gym, I am doing more physical exercises (environment —> behavior). Since I am doing more physical exercises, I have maybe lost some weight and can be physically active without as much strain so I go to the gym more often (Behavior —> environment). Since I have become to be more physically active, I have started to feel better about myself (behavior —> person) and since I feel better about myself, I am more apt to keep making those healthy decisions (person —> behavior).
How does a person high in extraversion differ from a person low in extraversion (a person who is introverted, in other words)? Why/how is extraversion related to well-being?
A person high in extroversion are considered to be more outgoing. For instance, more talkative, more social, maybe more energetic than someone considered introverted. They seem to generate a lot of enthusiasm while being assertive with a greater sensitivity to rewards. They are more sensitive to positive events and are more optimistic, so they generally look at most events on the “brighter side” and would rate their life satisfaction higher overall.
We discussed the World Happiness Report in class and its ranking of nations by average life satisfaction reported by its residents. What was the observed trend in terms of geographic location of the nations highest in life satisfaction vs. nations lowest in life satisfaction? Describe the factors that account for differences in life satisfaction across these nations.
While GDP per capital is the highest playing field, it did not totally determine if a nation was happy. There were nations that had a really high GDP per capita, but not good social support or healthy life expectancy. A balance between GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, generosity, freedom, and governmental corruption can boost a nations happiness rating since the country is not focused on one of the six items.
How do individuals’ identity, behaviors, and thoughts differ based on cultural orientations, including individualism/collectivism (interdependent/independent selves), horizontal/vertical orientations, and tendency to engage in dialectical thinking?
Some cultures are derived of “worrying about yourself” and doing everything you can do make you happy, while other cultures are derived in trying to make those around them happy, working in a group for the goodness of the whole. When it comes to horizontal v. Vertical, that is just basically saying what kind of status does the majority have (higher — vertical; low/average — horizontal). Dialectical thinking is the thinking that good and bad can coexist at the same time, that everything is constantly changing. Collectivist cultures are more into dialectical thinking.
Why is it important to consider culture when studying well-being (and other psychological concepts and theories)? Explain two examples (concepts, theories, research findings) that illustrate how cross-cultural differences relate to aspects of well-being, such as defining well-being and the experience of well-being. (Note that this isn’t asking to simply explain different cultural orientations, such as individualism and collectivism without tying them into well-being.)
It’s important to consider cultures because each culture goes about happiness in different ways. That is the exact premise of the Affect Valuation Theory. ??
Research suggests that Asians and Caucasians differ in their experience of positive and negative emotions. Describe these differences and the possible reasons for these differences.
Caucasians tend to focus on one or the other, but never really both at the same time. If we do, then it generally goes unnoticed as we fixate on the greater emotion at that time. Asians, on the other hand, can experience both positive and negative emotions at the same time, as they accept that good and bad things occur and are ever changing. Nothing is really permanent.
Imagine that you have a friend who wishes to be happier. This friend knows that you’re taking a class on positive psychology and asks whether people can generally become happier. What would you tell this friend, based on the readings and class discussion? (Explain both sides of the argument in your answer.)
I would say yes they can, but it all happens over time. At this moment, they may experience happiness but eventually find themselves back at that set-point. Over time (and depending on what kind of events occur), they would start to notice that the set point has maybe increased a little. If they have experienced some major happy life events one after the other, they might notice that increase a little sooner than if they were more spread out. With that, personality changes play a big part. As we experience life and finally figure ourselves out, we see an increase in happiness because we are finally finding the habits that make us happy and doing them more often (at least in Western culture).
What is hedonic adaptation and how does it differ from the concept of genetic set-point? What does Lucas (2008)’s research suggest regarding hedonic adaptation after major life events and their impact on individuals’ life satisfaction?
Hedonic adaptation is the process of how we adapt to the changes of our lives. As we finally get through that change, we sort of drop back down to our baseline level (set-point). It is not totally different from set-point, as the ending to hedon adaptation is coming back to that baseline. I would say the difference would that hedonic adaptation is not based on your genetics because depending on the event and changes going on in your life, it could potentially raise that baseline level. The research from Lucas’s study showed that there was a spike/dip at the time of the initial event, but then it started to go opposite. What I mean by that is if it were marriage, there would be a spike in happiness on the day of the wedding, but then happiness just slowly started to decrease over time. And vice versa for the divorce study, there was a dip at the time the divorce took place, but over time the person got happier.
