No description available.

[pt] Na cultura ocidental moderna a monogamia é vista como a melhor, senão a única, forma de relacionamento amoroso. A monogamia refere-se à exclusividade emocional e sexual entre dois parceiros amorosos. Por outro lado, relacionamentos não-monogâmicos consensuais (RNMC) são aqueles em que há um acordo de não-exclusividade emocional e/ou sexual entre os envolvidos. Estudos mostram que algumas características individuais se relacionam com a escolha por relacionamentos monogâmicos ou RNMC, tais como níveis de apego, sociossexualidade e personalidade. RNMC fogem a cultura mononormativa e as pessoas que se envolvem nesse tipo de relacionamento são estigmatizadas. O objetivo da presente dissertação foi investigar o papel do tipo de relacionamento na relação entre a Exclusividade em Relacionamentos e o bem-estar subjetivo. Para isso foram desenvolvidos dois estudos. No primeiro, buscou-se construir uma escala para medir Exclusividade em Relacionamentos com itens contextualizados. A escala construída apresentou 11 itens, divididos em dois fatores (Monogamia e Fidelidade), bons indicadores de fidedignidade e evidências de validade satisfatórias. No segundo estudo, utilizou-se escala desenvolvida no estudo anterior para verificar o efeito da Exclusividade em Relacionamentos no bem-estar subjetivos de indivíduos em relacionamentos monogâmicos e RNMC. Os resultados indicaram que só há interação entre o fator monogamia da Exclusividade em Relacionamento com os afetos positivos e a satisfação de vida (fatores do bem-estar subjetivo) no grupo de pessoas em relacionamentos monogâmicos. A conclusão discute a relação entre a cultura mononormativa e a escolha por relacionamentos monogâmicos ou RNMC, assim como o impacto dessa escolha no bem-estar subjetivo. / [en] In modern Western culture monogamy is seen as the best, if not the only, form of loving relationship. Monogamy refers to emotional and sexual exclusivity between two loving partners. On the other hand, consensual non-monogamous relationships (CNMR) are those in which there is an emotional and/or sexual non-exclusivity agreement between those involved. Studies show that there are some individual characteristics that relate to choosing monogamous relationships or CNMR, such as attachment, sociosexuality and personality. CNMR escapes the mononormative culture and people who get involved in these types of relationships are stigmatized. The aim of this dissertation was to investigate the role of the type of relationship in the relationship between Relationship Exclusivity and subjective well-being. Two studies were developed. In the first, we sought to build a scale to measure Relationship Exclusivity with contextualized items. The constructed scale had 11 items, divided into two factors (Monogamy and Fidelity), good indicators of reliability and satisfactory evidences of validity. In the second study, the scale developed in the previous study was used to verify the effect of Relationship Exclusivity on the subjective well-being of individuals in monogamous relationships and CNMR. The results indicated that there is only interaction between the Monogamy factor of Exclusiveness in Relationship with positive affects and life satisfaction (factors of subjective well-being), in the group of people in monogamous relationships. The conclusion discusses the relationship between mononormative culture and the choice for monogamous relationships or CNMR, as well as the impact of this choice on subjective well-being.

This thesis within Industrial Economics and Applied Mathematics investigates the relationship between economic development and subjective well-being. The Easterlin Paradox, originally stated by Richard Easterlin in 1974, is reassessed by utilizing cross-sectional and time series data. A simple regression model is applied, using average happiness within a country as dependent variable, and gross national product per capita as regressor. In addition, an extensive study of previous research is conducted, focusing on reliability of data and earlier methodologies. The Easterlin Paradox is confirmed to still be valid when analyzing the United States over the time period 1972{2016, and 140 of the countries across the world 2012. / Det här kandidatexamensarbetet inom Industriell Ekonomi och Tillämpad Matematik undersöker relationen mellan ekonomisk utveckling och subjektivt välmående. Easterlinparadoxen, ursprungligen fastställd av Richard Easterlin 1974, omprövas med hjälp av tvärsnitts- och tidsseriedata. En enkel linjär regressionsmodell appliceras med genomsnittlig lycka i ett land som beroende variabel och bruttonationalprodukt per capita som oberoende variabel. Dessutom utförs en omfattande studie av tidigare forskning med fokus på tillförlitlighet av data samt tidigare metodologier. Easterlinparadoxen bekräftas fortfarande gälla vid analys av USA over tidsperioden 1972-2016, och 140 av världens länder år 2012.

Several researchers in happiness studies have called for an increased sociopolitical interest in indicators of societal happiness. However, recent evidence for the proposed paradoxical effects of valuing happiness suggest that an increase in society’s perceived value of happiness may exert a detrimental, inverse influence on well-being. This notion is based on previous research demonstrating that manipulating participants to value happiness causes them to experience less positive emotions, compared to controls, when viewing positive film clips. Following the humanistic notion that the maximization of societal happiness is an advantageous sociopolitical endeavor, the proposed paradoxical effects of valuing happiness present a psychological barrier that researchers must strive to understand and, ideally, overcome. Previous experimental research on the paradoxical effects of valuing happiness has focused on participants’ emotionality as an operational definition of happiness. However, drawing from the Subjective Well-Being construct, emotionality is only one of several components of happiness. Building from this Subjective-Well Being framework, this study expands upon previous research by investigating whether a valuing happiness manipulation influences participants’ emotionality while they contemplate their own happiness. To examine this, nineteen participants were divided into two groups, one which received a valuing happiness manipulation (n=9) and the others served as a control group (n=10), and instructed to contemplate their personal happiness for 45 seconds. To measure participants’ emotions during this task, facial electromyography data were collected from the corrugator supercilii and the zygomaticus major facial muscles, a measure that previous research suggests is sensitive to the emotional value of thought. Results indicated that participants manipulated to value happiness did not experience significant differences in facial electromyography activation compared to controls. However, although non-significant, the correlation between facial electromyography activation and participants’ rating of happiness differed substantially for participants manipulated to value happiness (average r=.41 for corrugator, average r=-.09 for zygomaticus) and controls (average r=.-.29 for corrugator, average r=.14 for zygomaticus). The counterintuitive correlations for participants led to value happiness, despite not experiencing significant difference in the emotional value of the happiness contemplation task, provide preliminary evidence that these participants utilize the information retrieved from the contemplative stage in a qualitatively different way than controls when judging their own happiness. More specifically, the correlations for participants led to value happiness trend in the opposite direction of controls, demonstrating that increases in positive emotion during happiness contemplation actually are associated with lower scores on a self-report of happiness. This study suggests that the paradoxical effects of valuing happiness does not influence the retrieval of information when contemplating ones’ happiness, but may influence (in an apparently detrimental fashion) how this information is utilized when judging one’s happiness. Although the between-condition differences in correlations failed to reach statistical significance (more specifically, p=.09 for corrugator), this study provides preliminary evidence for the existence of a new dynamic of the proposed paradoxical effects of valuing happiness that is novel to the happiness studies discourse. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.

The present study among Dutch primary school teachers investigated the difference in teachers' subjective well-being (SWB) between teachers that used outdoor education (OE) and their peers. The influence of the duration and frequency of outdoor lessons has also been explored. A similar study showed that outdoor educators had a higher SWB. In contrast, other studies mentioned that outdoor educators experienced a high workload or curriculum pressure, which indicated a lower SWB. In this study, SWB consisted of life evaluation, affect, and eudaimonia, and was measured with a questionnaire. A total of 86 respondents have been included in this study, of whom twenty were considered outdoor educators. The respondents were selected through cluster and volunteer sampling. The results showed that using OE was positively correlated with teachers’ overall SWB. This relation remained after controlling for the influence of nature relatedness, and personal characteristics. There was also a positive correlation with all subscales of life evaluation, and most subscales of affect. Anxiety, teacher efficacy, and overall eudaimonia were not correlated with the use of OE. Teachers’ SWB did not vary based on the duration of outdoor lessons and the total amount of time spent annually on OE. However, the frequency of OE was positively correlated with teachers’ SWB. More research is needed to explore the direction of these relations. This would show whether OE leads to a higher SWB or vice versa. Additionally, future research could examine if there is a difference in SWB between the various roles of place in OE.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.