Happy but Dead From Paradox to Paradigm in the Quest for Well-Being

2007 ©

Isaac Prilleltensky Dean, School of Education University of Miami [email protected]

http://www.education.miami.edu/isaac

Colombia

 Highest rate of murders per capita in the world  Highest number of kidnappings in the world  Colombia 5181 in 7 years  Mexico 1269  Brazil 515  Venezuela 109  Severe under reporting  Colombians report highest level of satisfaction 8.31 (out of 10) in the world in the 90s

Life Satisfaction: World Value Survey

from Haller and Hadler, 2004, Happiness as an expression of freedom and self-determination In Glatzer, von Below and Stoffregen, 2004, Challenges for quality of life the contemporary world. Kluwer.

Is happiness really a stochastic phenomenon? Lykken and Tellegen (1996, Psychological Science).

 In the Minnesota twins study, authors report,  “Neither socioeconomic status, educational attainment, family income, marital status, not an indicant of religious commitment could account for more than about 3% of the variance in WB” (in monozygotic twins)  “We estimate that the heritability of the stable component of subjective well-being approaches 80%”

Change in life satisfaction over the years

(Inglehart and Klingemann, 2000, Genes, culture, democracy and happiness; in Diener and Suh, Culture and subjective well-being. MIT Press.

Russia’s happiness and satisfaction plunges

(Inglehart and Klingemann, 2000, Genes, culture, democracy and happiness; in Diener and Suh, Culture and subjective well-being. MIT Press.

Seligman’s Authentic Happiness (2002, pp. 61)

 “If you want to lastingly raise your level of happiness by changing the external circumstances of your life,

you should do

following: the  Live in wealthy democracy, not in an impoverished dictatorship  Get married  Avoid negative events and negative emotion   Acquire a rich social network Get religion”

Seligman’s Authentic Happiness (2002, pp. 61)

 “As far as happiness and life satisfaction are concerned, however,

you needn’t bother to do

the following  Make more money  Stay healthy  Get as much education as possible (no effect)  Change your race or move to a sunnier climate (no effect)”

Seligman concludes….

 “Even if you could alter all of these external circumstances, it would not do much for you, since together they probably account for no more than between 8 and 15 percent of the variance in happiness” (Authentic Happiness, 2002, p. 61).  Really?

Place Matters

(Ostlin, George, Sen, 2003, Gender, health and equity. In R. Hocfrichter, Health and social justice, Jossey Bass)

Place and class in infant mortality

(Collison, Dey, Hannah, and Stevenson, 2007, Income inequality and child mortality in wealthy nations, Journal of Public Health, 29(2) 114-117.

Income Matters for Well-Being

(J. House and D. Williams, 2003, understanding and reducing socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparieis in health, in R. Hofrichster, R. Health and social justice, Jossey Bass, p. 101).

Education Matters

(J. House and D. Williams, 2003, understanding and reducing socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparieis in health, in R. Hofrichster, R. Health and social justice, Jossey Bass, p. 100).

Income is not everything though

(Inglehart and Klingemann, 2000, Genes, culture, democracy and happiness; in Diener and Suh, Culture and subjective well-being. MIT Press.

Wealth matters for life expectancy

(Lynch, Smith, Kaplan, and House, 2003, Income inequality and mortality. In R. Hofrichster, R. Health and social justice, Jossey Bass, p. 220).

Relative deprivation matters in Sweden

M. Marmot, 2004, The Status Syndrome. London: Times

Relative deprivation matters in UK

M. Marmot, 2004, The Status Syndrome. London: Times

Inequality and male mortality

78

Sweden and Japan Canada and France

77 76

UK

75 74

USA

73 72 GINI 24.5

GINI 31.5

GINI 35.5

GINI 40

Chinese happiness and democracy

(Inglehart and Klingemann, 2000, Genes, culture, democracy and happiness; in Diener and Suh, Culture and subjective well-being. MIT Press.

Happiness and Misery USA

 Consistent high happiness levels from 1946 to 1989 at 7.3 approximately (1-10 scale) (Diener)  Highest rates of incarceration in the world (about 0.7 % of the population)  Highest level of economic power  Growing numbers of economically endowed but disengaged and dispirited people (Adams; Cushman, Ryan, Sloan)

Preliminary Summary

 Subjective reports of happiness incongruous with physical evidence of illness, mortality, and crime  Within countries  Poor report high levels of happiness but have low levels of physical and mental well-being  Across countries  Some poor countries report low levels of happiness and others fairly high  All poor countries show low levels of physical and mental well-being

Preliminary Summary

 Within a country, genes seem to matter more than across countries  Within a country  Genetic loading reported to account for 80% or more of variance in subjective reports of well-being  Across countries  Subjective well-being goes up and down depending on social circumstances (Russia, Belgium, Switzerland)

Preliminary Summary

 Absolute poverty predicts low levels of physical and mental well-being, within and across countries (Kleinman, Eisenberg, etc.)  Relative deprivation predicts social gradient in physical and mental well-being within countries (Marmot, Wilkinson)  Freedom is important in subjective well-being, but there are exceptions like China  Wealth does not necessarily lead to a happy or meaningful life (Adams, Cushman, Sloan, Ryan)

Mapping out these relationships: The view from psychology and public health + + objective objective Conditions Well-being + + subjective subjective -

The Case of Colombia

+ + objective crime objective Conditions + + Well-being hope subjective subjective -

The Case of Relative Deprivation in Sweden and UK: How the worst off fare

+ + objective objective Conditions Well-being + + subjective subjective -

Preliminary Conclusion: Kaleidoscope views

 Microscopic look at person gives one picture  Macroscopic look at collective gives another  Within-country research gives one picture  Across country research gives another  Intra-disciplinary research gives partial view  Science gives descriptive picture  Moral philosophy gives prescriptive view 

Current model insufficient

Now what? From paradox to paradigm

 In pursuit of a paradigm of well-being that integrates  Ecological levels of analysis  Objective/material with subjective/psychological expressions of well-being  Empirical evidence with values  Values with action

Stokols: Interaction minus values

 “The healthfulness of a situation and the well-being of its participants are assumed to be influenced by multiple facets of both the physical environment (e.g., geography, architecture, and technology) and the social environment (e.g., culture, economics, and politics). Moreover, the health status of individuals and groups is influenced not only by environmental factors but also by a variety of personal attributes, including genetic heritage, psychological dispositions, and behavioral patterns.”

Stokols continues…..

 “Thus, efforts to promote human well-being should be based on an understanding of the dynamic interplay among diverse environmental and personal factors rather than on analyses that focus exclusively on environmental, biological, or behavioral factors.

(Stokols, 2000, p. 27)”

Shift in paradigm

 Conditions or determinants may themselves be signs of well-being, determined by another source, if we redefine well-being in ecological terms  Extra individual levels are not just determinants, but they are sites of well-being on their own right  Each ecological level of well-being contains material/objective and psychological/subjective signs  Values are part of the definition of well-being

New definition of well-being

 Well-being is a positive state of affairs in individuals, relationships, organizations, communities, and the natural environment, brought about by the simultaneous and balanced satisfaction of material and psychological needs; and by the behavioral manifestation of material and psychological justice in these five ecological domains.

Ecological, Material, Psychological, Moral Model of Well-Being

Individual Relational Sites of Well-Being Organizational Communal Environmental Material/ physical signs Psycholo gical signs Values as source and strategy health autonomy networks efficacy voice caring Justice as source and strategy

My due Your due

resources support participation

Its due

social capital belonging low emissions safety diversity protection of resources

Their due Nature’s due

Potential Sources of Well-Being: Examples

Sources Sites Individual Relational Organizational Communal Environmental Individual Relational empathy social support Organizati onal Communal Environme ntal pollution justice recycling

Ecological, Material, Psychological, Moral Model of Well-Being

Individual Relational Sites of Well-Being Organizational Communal Environmental Material/ physical signs Psycholo gical signs Values as source and strategy health autonomy networks efficacy voice caring Justice as source and strategy

My due Your due

resources support participation

Its due

social capital belonging low emissions safety diversity protection of resources

Their due Nature’s due

Cake of Well-being

Easy temperament Physical health Adequate birth weight Child care Adequate housing Cohesion Access to health care

Values, Resources Programs, Policies Values, Resources Programs, Policies Values, Resources Programs, Policies Values, Resources Programs, Policies

Good parenting Mutual Support Good mental health Employment Justice Safety nets Quality education

Mountain of Risk

Poor temperament Poor health Birth weight No child care Poor housing Lack of cohesion Crime

Values, Resources Programs, Policies Values, Resources Programs, Policies Values, Resources Programs, Policies Values, Resources Programs, Policies

Teen parenting Family size Stressors Poor parenting Addictions Poor mental health Poverty Injustice Violence Discrimination

What Is Justice?

To Each According to His or Her Due

Sedgwick’s definition in 1922

 are Cardinal question of justice is whether there 

“any clear principles from which we may work out an ideally just distribution of rights and privileges, burdens and pains, among human beings as such”

(p. 274).

Miller’s 1999 condensed version



To each his or her due

 Isaac’s four questions 

First Question: Who Or What Is Each?



Second Question: How Do We Decide What Is Due A Person, Family, Or Group?



Third Question: Who or What is Responsible for Distributing Resources and Obligations?



Fourth Question: How Do We Decide what is Due From a Person, Family, Group, or Institution?

First Question: Who Or What Is Each?

 Dominant ideology  The person  Alternative ideology  Individual  Family  Community  Government

Second Question: How Do We Decide What Is Due A Person, Family, Or Group?

 Dominant ideology  Ability  Effort  Alternative ideology  Ability  Effort  Needs  Rights  Opportunities  Power

Third Question: Who or What is Responsible for Distributing Resources and Obligations?

 Dominant ideology  Individual employer, little or no government intervention to redistribute taxes or wealth  Alternative ideology  Individual  Family  Community  Government

Fourth Question: How Do We Decide what is Due From a Person, Family, Group, or Institution?

 Dominant ideology 

Needs



Ability



Charity??

 Alternative ideology 

needs,



ability,



obligation,



duties,



opportunity and



privilege.

Revised Definition

 

To each (individual, family, community, or government) according to their needs, ability, effort, opportunities, rights and power,

and

From each (individual, family, community, or government) according to their needs, ability, obligation, duties, opportunity and privilege .

The role of context

 context should determine what criterion or criteria must be preferred in each case  In social conditions of inequality , we must accord preference to needs over ability

Context of Relative Equality

 Under conditions of relative equality , where the gap between classes is not very pronounced, it is possible to favor effort over needs.

Context of Plenty of Opportunities

 In a context of plenty of opportunities for everyone, it is possible that ability and effort will be the preferred choice.

Justice Out of Context

 Societies aspiring to justice must seek equilibrium among all criteria  When context of inequality calls for need and equality, but culture favors effort, it’s because privileged groups benefit.

 As a result, group interests that influence the choice of allocation pattern often disregard the context-specific situation.

Synergy of Justice and Well-being

How Justice Influences Well-Being

Well-Being



Justice

Well-Being

is enhanced by

Justice

is enhanced, and contributes to well-being, by the power, capacity, and opportunity to Self-determination Experience voice and choice, participate in decision making Caring and compassion Equality and freedom Experience nurturing relationships free of abuse Benefit from fair and equitable distribution of resources and burdens

Experiences of the Poor: Injustice Leads to Suffering

 Material deprivation  Exclusion  Insecurity  Humiliation  Sickness  Helplessness  Powerlessness

Justice leads to Well-being in Kerala

Processes

Personal Empowerment Social Movements Government Action Personal Well-being Relational Well-being Collective Well-being

Outcomes

Infant mortality Literacy Nutrition Life expectancy Social support Sense of cohesion Tenancy laws Nutrition in school Distribution Of resources Land reform

Stokols says….

It’s the environment stupid!

 In those instances where an individual’s cumulative exposure to environmental risks and deficits is so overwhelming that resilience is impossible to achieve and dispositional helplessness ensues, it may be possible to develop new psychological and community interventions aimed at transforming these negative circumstances into more positive ones…At the same time, it is crucial that disadvantaged persons not be stigmatized or derogated for their inability to cultivate resilience and optimism in the face of overwhelming odds… (Stokols, 2003).

In contrast, Seligman says……It’s the person stupid!!

 “even if you could alter all of the external circumstances above, it would not do much for you, since together they probably account for no more than between 8 and 15 percent of the variance in happiness” (2002, p. 61).

Seligman continues…..

 The very good news is that there are quite a number of internal circumstances that will likely work for you…which are more under your voluntary control. If you decide to change them…your level of happiness is likely to increase lastingly. (Seligman, 2002, Authentic Happiness: The New Science of Positive Psychology, p. 61)

Seligman Engages in Context Minimization Error

 “Tendency to ignore the impact of enduring neighborhood and community contexts on human behavior. The error has adverse consequences for understanding psychological processes and efforts at social change” (Shinn and Toohey, 2003, p. 428).

Context Minimization Error

 “Practitioners “should pay more attention to the community contexts of human behavior. Conditions in neighborhoods and community settings are associated with residents' mental and physical health, opportunities, satisfactions, and commitments.” (Shinn and Toohey, 2003, Annual Review of Psychology).

Conclusion

 Context is essential in  Well-being  Justice  Undermining the role of context can lead to  Misconceptions of well-being  Injustice

It’s like Venice…..

Venice’s Lesson

 “The psychotherapist, social worker or social reformer, concerned only with his own clients and their grievance against society, perhaps takes a view comparable to the private citizen of Venice who concerns himself only with the safety of his own dwelling and his own ability to get about the city. But if the entire republic is slowly being submerged, individual citizens cannot afford to ignore their collective fate, because, in the end, they all drown together if nothing is done” (Badcock, 1982)