Issue 2 of the open access positive psychology journal, the International Journal of Well-Being has just been published. It focuses on ‘felicitators’ or producers of happiness, that is the people, places,  ideas and institutions that have made and can make the world a happier place.  People familiar with pos psych research may find the subjects a little atypical, e.g. Dr Seuss (of ‘ The Cat in the Hat’ fame), Maria Montessori and Moses.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Most people with an interest in psychology have heard of Maslow’s theory of motivation and hierarchy of needs, which suggest that we’re driven to satisfy basic physiological needs (such as for food and shelter) first, then to satisfy our needs for safety, love and belonging, self-esteem and lastly self-actualization.

For those interested in positive psychology, there are many unanswered questions about the link between such needs and subjective well-being (SWB) which is why this new research by Louis Tay and Ed Diener* caught my eye today.  Some of the questions tackled in the study include whether needs really are universal and if so whether they are related to subjective well-being (SWB) in all cultures, and whether needs are individually required or influence well-being synergistically.

As this is a pretty complex piece of research, containing multiple studies, there isn’t space here to present the findings in detail, so the focus is on the things that stand out most.

Tay and Diener investigated  six types of needs (i.e. basic, safety, social support, respect, mastery and autonomy). When combined, the fulfillment of  these six needs explained between 10% and 23% of the total variance in SWB, depending on which aspect of SWB we’re referring to.  In terms of life evaluation, having needs met explained 13% of the variance; in terms of positive emotions, 23% of the variance; in terms of negative emotions, 10%. Tay and Diener refer to these percentages as substantial. I’m not sure I agree.

In order to understand which of the six needs is most important, these percentages have been broken down even further;  we’re told that

* basic needs were the strongest predictor of life evaluations (8%)

* respect and social needs were the important predictors of positive emotions  (8% and 5.5% respectively), and

* respect, basic and autonomy  needs were the important predictors of negative emotions (2.5%,  2.3% and 2.2%  respectively).

I don’t know about you, but I thought these percentages were surprisingly small.

To read the full article in Positive Psychology News, click here.

* Tay, L. & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Image:

Maslow hierarchy from creative chaos, Conversations with Dina

Here’s a great animated video supporting Daniel Pink’s presentation on intrinsic motivation and why profit-related pay (PRP) doesn’t actually motivate people to work harder.

According to Pink, psychology research shows that economists have got it all wrong. If you want to motivate and engage people, and get them work harder, they need to experience the following 3 things at work:

1) AUTONOMY (i.e. being able to choose what you do and how you do it)
2) MASTERY (i.e. being able to get better at whatever you do – so there needs to be some challenge in the job), and
3) PURPOSE (i.e. being able to make a meaningful contribution. A profit motive is OK as long as it’s linked to a ‘purpose motive’).

Organisations which fit the bill include Skype (now owned by private investment company Silver Lake, and Ebay) and Apple.

Pink’s theory is that if we treat people like people, we can make organisations better off and make the world a better place.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dow Jones Sinks

In this month’s posting for Positive Psychology News Daily, I reviewed some brand new research from Professor Carol Graham, Soumya Chattopadhyay, and Mario Picon (all from the University of Maryland). Their objective was to better understand the effects of the US economic crisis on well-being and to determine if individuals adapt both to the bad news of the crisis and then to the good news of potential recovery.

Looking across time during the crisis, not surprisingly happiness levels decreased markedly at the start of the crisis, reaching their lowest levels early in 2009. They then followed an equally marked upward trend after April 2009. During the downward trend, happiness levels lag the stock market spikes, which makes intuitive sense.

But the most striking result is that happiness levels lead the stock market on the upward trend. What’s more, by July 2009 happiness levels were above those at the start of the crisis, even though the Dow Jones was only just starting to recover, having hit rock bottom.

For the full posting and to read all the comments, see Positive Psychology News Daily.

Image  courtesy of Scorpions and Centaurs

Rainbow of Books

Anyone who takes their positive psychology research seriously will know how difficult it is to get hold of quality academic papers if you don’t have access to a university library or piles of cash to pay for a journal subscription. Sometimes you can find stuff on the web (often the researcher’s website is a good place to start), but more often than not you can only read the abstract.

I’ve just come across this great new resource from Warren Davies, also from the UEL MAPP programme – it’s got some fabulous articles on positive psychology, as well as many other branches of psychology including cognitive, developmental and social psychology. Well worth exploring. Thanks Warren!

Image courtesy of Mind on Fire