1 / 28

Exploring the homeostatic theory of SWB in a group of adolescents

Exploring the homeostatic theory of SWB in a group of adolescents. Carrie Hayward & Mark Stokes Deakin University 2007. Background to research. Theory of SWB Homeostasis SWB held within a narrow positive range 70-80% Scale Maximum

adonica
Download Presentation

Exploring the homeostatic theory of SWB in a group of adolescents

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Exploring the homeostatic theory of SWB in a group of adolescents Carrie Hayward & Mark Stokes Deakin University 2007

  2. Background to research Theory of SWB Homeostasis • SWB held within a narrow positive range 70-80% Scale Maximum • Cummins has found SWB to be held at around 75% SM in normal adults populations internationally • The system is under the control of cognitive buffers.

  3. Normal Distribution of SWB

  4. Cognitive Buffers • Work to maintain SWB in the positive 70-80% range • Past research has explored the role of personality and control constructs Personality • Cummins, Gullone & Lau (2002) argue that personality mediates the relationship between external experiences and SWB. • Extroversion associated with positive affect, Neuroticism associated with negative affect • However, correlations vary significantly between studies, and the role of personality factors in the maintenance of SWB is questionable.

  5. Cognitive Buffers Mastery • The perceived ability to bring about desired outcomes or responses • A global construct • Refers to control over internal self as well as actual control over environmental conditions. • Viewed to be a critical mediator between life stressors and health outcomes (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978).

  6. Background research • The homeostatic system can be defeated by extreme negative experiential input • Commonly observed in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Q. Why do some individuals experience lower SWB following TBI?

  7. Research Project • Research into the homeostatic theory of SWB in a TBI population was conducted, to compare with normative data. • However, existing research into the SWB of adolescents was limited and normative data was not available. • The aim of this study was therefore to obtain normative SWB data for adolescents.

  8. Methodology Participants • 603 students (years 7 to 10) from two Melbourne schools. • Age range from 11-18 yrs (M = 14.3) • 480 Males & 123 Females Procedure • All senior level students were invited to participate. • Students who provided informed individual and parental consent were included in the sample. • Paper and pencil questionnaire was completed on allocated morning during home room.

  9. Measures • PWI-SC – Personal Wellbeing Index – School Children 2nd Edition(Aust. Centre on QOL, Deakin University) How happy are you with your…. • Standard of living • Health • What you achieve in life • Personal relationships • Community connectedness (“doing things away from home”) • Safety • Future security * Participants rated each item on a 11-point Likert response scale ranging from (0) very sad to (10) very happy

  10. Measures 2. Mastery Scale (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) • Seven-item scale • Assesses the degree to which individuals perceive personal mastery over life outcomes e.g., "I can do just about anything I really set my mind to do". * Responses were given on a 11-point Likert response scale ranging from: (0) strongly disagree to (10) strongly agree.

  11. Measures 3. The Big-Five Abridged Scale(BFAS; Langford, 2003) • Five-item scale of the Big Five framework of personality. Each item measuring: Openness: uncreative (0) vs. creative (10) Agreeableness: headstrong (0) vs. gentle (10) Conscientiousness: lazy (0) vs. hardworking (10) Extraversion: shy (0) vs. outgoing (10) Neuroticism: nervous (0) vs. at ease (10)

  12. Measures Participants were also asked: • Have you ever experienced a knock to the head that resulted in a loss of conscious? • If yes: - Were you hospitalized? - How long were you hospitalised for? (no. of days/mths.) • 547 participants answered ‘no’ to both questions = the normative group. • 140 participants reported experiencing a knock to the head with no admission = the ambiguous group. • 56 participants experienced a knock to the head and were admitted to hospital = the head injured group. Length of stay ranged from ½ day to 30 days.

  13. Aims and Hypotheses of Study 1 Aims • Determine the population mean of SWB in a group of normal adolescents. • Investigate the affect of personality and mastery on SWB in adolescents • Preliminary investigation into the association between previous head injury and SWB.

  14. Hypotheses of Study 1 Hypotheses • Adolescent data would replicate adult data, with SWB population mean falling within 70-80% SM range. • Personality and Mastery would be associated with SWB. • Personality and Mastery would mediate the association between previous head injury and SWB.

  15. Results – Hypothesis 1 Adolescent Population Means

  16. Results – Hypothesis 1 Adolescent Population Means

  17. Results – Hypothesis 1 T-Tests for Non-HI and HI mean SWB and Mastery responses

  18. Results – Hypothesis 1 T-Tests for Non-HI and HI mean Personality responses *p = 0.01

  19. Results – Hypothesis 2 Standard regression analysis testing the role of Mastery, Head Injury and Personality *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

  20. Results – Hypothesis 2 Sequential regression analysis testing the role of Mastery and sig. Personality constructs *p<.05, **p<.01 ***p<.001

  21. SWB SWB HI HI Mastery Personality Results – Hypothesis 3 Do Personality and Mastery mediate the effect of Head Injury on SWB? • Head Injury did not have a significant direct effect on SWB • However, mediation tests were carried out to determine if Head Injury had a significant indirect effect on SWB through the Personality and Mastery. Mediation Model 1 Mediation Model 2 c c b (Sb) a (Sa) b (Sb) a (Sa)

  22. Results – Hypothesis 3 Mediation Model 1: Personality as mediator • One personality factor was extracted through the principal components method. • Personality factor explained 35.6% of variance: ²(10, N=603)=258.741, p<.001 • Sobel’s Test = To test whether a mediator carries the influence of an IV to a DV. Eqn. (1) * Sobel Test formula was drawn from MacKinnon & Dwyer (1994).

  23. SWB HI Personality Results – Hypothesis 3 Mediation Model 1: Personality as mediator • Sobel’s Z was obtained to assess whether the indirect effect of Head Injury through Personality was significant. c b (Sb) a (Sa) ( ‘x’ ) = simple regression B weight Sobel’s Z = 1.206 (p=.228)

  24. SWB HI Mastery Results – Hypothesis 3 Mediation Model 2: Mastery as mediator • Sobel’s Z was obtained to asses whether the indirect effect of Head Injury through Mastery was significant. c b (Sb) a (Sa) ( x ) = simple regression B weight Sobel’s Z = -1.512 (p=0.130)

  25. Conclusion • Hypothesis 1 supported: SWB population mean for adolescents similar to adults, falling within positive range, 70-80% SM • Hypothesis 2 supported: • Mastery was a significant predictor of SWB. • Openness, conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism were significant predictors of SWB.

  26. Conclusion • Hypothesis 3 not supported: • No significant direct effect of Head Injury on SWB. • Mastery and Personality did not mediate the effect of Head Injury on SWB.

  27. Conclusion • The SWB of normative adolescents is similar to the SWB of normative adults (within the 70-80% normative range). • Results have provided support for the significant effect of Mastery and Personality on SWB. • Preliminary findings suggest that individuals who have sustained previous head-injury tend to be extraverted.

  28. References • Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179-200. • Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. L. D. (2004). The Motivation to Maintain Subjective Well-Being: A Homeostatic Model. In H. N. Switzky (Ed.), Personality and motivational systems in mental retardation: Vol. 28 (pp. 255-301). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. • Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Okerstrom, E., Hunter. B., & Davern, M. (2003). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Cumulative Psychometric Record Vol. 9. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. • Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37-69. • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. • Gosling, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains.Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528. • Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731-739. • Langford, P. H. (2003). A one-minute measure of the Big Five? Evaluating and abridging Shafer's (1999a) Big Five markers.Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1127-1140. • MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144-158. • Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (1985c). The validity of formal and informal personality assessments. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 331-342. • Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., & Lieberman, M. A. (1981). The stress process.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356. • Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping.Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 19, 2-21. • Pearlin, L. I., & Skaff, M. M. (1996). Stress and the life course: A paradigmatic alliance.Gerontologist, 36, 239-247. • Turner, R. J., & Noh, S. (1988). Physical disability and depression: A longitudinal analysis.Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 29, 23-37.

More Related