Subjective Well-being Concept: Strengths and Weaknesses

prejudiced Well-being Concept Strengths and Weaknesses innate upbeat A critical discussion of its effectualnesss and weaknesses internal social welf atomic number 18 is a new skill and has to do with how the great unwashed see their lives in terms of personal merriment (Diener, Suh, and Oishi, 2005, pg. 1). It terminate be affected by irritabilitys, illness, positive and negative emotions, scotch status, and many other figures. The concept of essential offbeat has been around for a long time however it has and been in recent eld that researchers take a steering studied and tested it. All those involved conciliate that it is not the final word and more research needs to be conducted (Frank, 2005, pgs. 69-79). inbred Wellbeing has strengths, but at that place argon also limitations.Subjective Wellbeing studies be important and valuable in that they provide us with a deeper reason of human nature and they cut into us information that ordain assist us in improvi ng the role of livelihood for others. overmuch progress has been made in researching the area of unverifiable eudaemonia, but close of the current literature in this field indicates on that point are limitations. atomic number 53 of the strengths of Subjective Wellbeing is its usefulness in improving the quality of life. Emmons and McCullough (2003) conducted a assume on the effects of gratitude on wellbeing. Participants were randomly assigned conditions. They were asked to consider once a week or once a sidereal day for 2-3 weeks on what in their life they arsehole be grateful for. They asseverate the results of this workplace were significant in their positive impact on wellbeing. They had to admit that they did not know how long the results would last (pg. 386).Subjective Wellbeing studies are usually administered as questionnaires and can give us a secure indication as to quality of life for individuals providing the term wellbeing is all the way defined (Muldoon , Barger, Flory, and Manuck, 2003, pp. 542-545). Any abstract study of this nature must lose clear definitions of key terms such as wellbeing, only not necessarily a passing defined term as most people instinctively know what makes their lives better or happy. On the other hand, there are some scientists that are critical of the belief that most people know instinctively what gives them a sense of wellbeing. These critics assume that wellbeing can mean different things to different people. There are critics who do not believe that people necessarily have the top executive to make an accurate assessment of their own wellbeing. The argument has been presented that people can become quite adaptable to less than favorable circumstances and conditions and allow answer the questionnaire in a manner that is not completely honest. They may have become used to lowered living conditions and wherefore would impact themselves inaccurately as having greater rejoicing than what they wo uld normally report. Critics of this subjective study also have a problem with the lack of objective book of facts points. They believe it makes it difficult to compare peoples assessments of their own wellbeing (Van Bruggen, 2001, pg. 10-12).When reviewing the answers to the questionnaires it would appear that there is a common thread in the way people respond to them. This allows us to believe many of the same things give people a sense of wellbeing, yet when the answers are examined more well-nigh idiosyncrasies are revea take. When investigated in depth it appears there are differences in what determines wellbeing for each individual. It would be important to ask the right questions. This would require an understanding of what constitutes wellbeing. The question arises as to what human goals or needs are the twist blocks for Subjective Wellbeing. If we want to understand what makes for wellbeing we must determine global goals and needs. These goals and needs are supposed to represent the components of Subjective Wellbeing. If these goals and needs are fulfilled, thence it is believed that the individual will score high on subjective wellbeing. If this is true then those needs and goals must be identified. It is not only the skill of those goals and needs that contributes to wellbeing, but also the way they are achieved. in spite of appearance the context of goals and needs are many questions, such as if there is greater satisfaction through them being met through personal achievement or luck (Van Bruggen, 2001, pg. 10-12). wizard question researchers have regarding these Subjective Wellbeing studies is if a persons sense of wellbeing is consistent and stable. Critics of Subjective Wellbeing question the study participants truthfulness and reliability. It has been determined that the respondents mood when fetching the questionnaire can bring about an inaccurate outcome (Muldoon, Barger, Flory, and Manuck, 2003, pgs. 542-545). In a study conducted to determine the affect of mood on Subjective Wellbeing, Robinson (2000) statesAlthough science lab studies can highlight the effects of moodon processing and judgment, they cannot retell us about howpeople evaluate their daily lives. By step naturally occurringlife events, mood states, and cognitive WB, the present investigation seek to fill this gap. In particular, the primary purposeof these studies was to understand the relation betwixt dailyexperiences and cognitive WB. The results of cross-sectionaland longitudinal designs reveal that the relation in the midst of lifeevents and cognitive WB is entirely mediated by mood states.Mood states appear to serve both oxidizable and prospectivefunctions, and are therefore the key to cognitive WB change (page 10).Another factor to be considered in Subjective Wellbeing studies is that of record traits. Certain temper traits can mold the outcome of the questionnaire skewing the results. Chan, Ungvari, Shek, and Leung (2003) conducted a study to determine the quality of life of Chinese patients with schizophrenia. Their study was longitudinally based and they report this was the strength of their research. They claim this longitudinal design provided for greater accuracy because it regulated influence of personal characteristics on dependent variables (page 3). One of the limitations of their study is that the sample coat was too small and they lacked a matched control group (page 3).In considering personality traits affecting the outcome of Subjective Wellbeing studies the question of IQ has been explored. Researchers led by Professor Ian Deary at the Edinburgh University in Scotland conducted a study where they recruited 500 volunteers who agreed to have their IQs tested. The participants had their IQs tested at the age of 11 years old and then at the age of 80 years old. The results of this test were that there was no correlation between their IQs and overall life satisfaction. What the researchers did feel was that health played a factor in life satisfaction but not the intelligence level of the individual. Oftentimes a higher(prenominal) IQ causes the individual to place more demands and higher expectations on themselves. This can set the individual up for disappointment and therefore lower Subjective Wellbeing scores (Deary, et. al. 2005, pgs. 141-142.)An interesting model was created that did not address life satisfaction directly but nevertheless had an impact on Subjective Wellbeing. This model was developed to determine emotional-social intelligence (ESI) and was called the Bar-On model. This model measured appearance and performance and it proved to be consistent over time and highly accurate across cultures. Although the Bar-On model was not used specifically for bar Subjective Wellbeing its results were very important and gave scientists information that can be applied in this area. What this model revealed were the areas in an individual that could use procession in orde r to enhance overall life satisfaction. This models strength is its usefulness in many different areas and that it is highly teachable. It could be very useful in schools, for vitrine. As with other models, longitudinal studies are required to obtain greater understanding and also acquire more accurate outcomes (Bar-On, R, 2005, pg. 20).Frank (2005) states the methods used to measure Subjective Wellbeing ofttimes do a fairly good job of monitoring the experiences we have that we are consciously aware of but there are limitations. One of the limitations is that there may be other things that are more important to us than those experiences we are cognitively aware of. He gives the following example cerebrate we lived in parallel universes and in one of those universes you earned $100,000 a year and in the other one you earned $200,000 a year. Suppose the individual would feel equally happy in either universe. hence consider that the people who lived in the wealthier universe would be inclined to give-up the ghost more money on keeping a cleaner purlieu resulting in a longer and happier life for everyone. Frank states it is obvious that people would be better off living in the richer universe. His point is that there may be other things that are more important to us that we are not consciously aware of at this time therefore the results of Subjective Wellbeing measures may not be accurate (pgs. 69-79).As we can see there are limitations to Subjective Wellbeing as a measure for life satisfaction, yet it has enough strength that it is mute an important and useful emerging science.ReferencesBar-On, R. (2005). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI).Issues in horny Intelligence, (1)4, pp. 1-28. In P. Fernndez-Berrocal andN. Extremera (Guest Editors), Special Issue on Emotional Intelligence.Psicothema, 17.Chan, G.W.L. Ungvari G.S., Shek, D.T.L. Leung, J.P. (2003).Impact of deinstitutionalisation on the quality of life of Chinese patients withsch izophrenia A longitudinal buffer storage study. Hong Kong J Psychiatry, 13(4), pp. 2-5.Deary, A. Gow, A. Whiteman, M. Pattie, M. Whalley, L. and Starr, J. (Jul 2005).Lifetime intellectual function and satisfaction with life in old agelongitudinal cohort study. BMJ. 331, pp. 141142.Diener, E. Suh, E. and Oishi, S. Recent Findings on Subjective Well-Being (2005,pg. 1). Retrieved disdainful 1, 2005 fromhttp//www.psych.uiuc.edu/ediener/hottopic/paper1.htmlEmmons, R.A. and McCullough, M.E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdensAn experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective wellbeing in daily life.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 377-389.Frank, R.H. (Spring, 2004). How not to buy happiness. Daedalus. Vol. 133, Issue 2,pp. 69-79.Muldoon, M.F. Barger, S.D. Flory, J.D. Manuck, S.B. (14 Feb. 1998). What arequality of life measurements measuring? BMJ, 316, pp. 542-545.Robinson, M.D. (2000). The reactive and prospective functions of moodIts role in linking daily experiences and cognitive well-being. wisdom and Emotion,14(2), pp. 145-176.Van Bruggen, A.C. (2001). Individual production of social well-being anexploratory study. pp. 1-16. Retrieved August 1, 2005 fromhttp//dissertations.ub.rug.nl