Recent research has pointed to cross-cultural differences with regard to preferences for the directions that societies should take in their development. From an individual’s perspective, these directions might be understood as ‘goals’, i.e., internal representations of desired end states. To date, research on individual differences that determine preferences for such directions is scarce. However, people’s motivational concerns, i.e., what they fundamentally value, may shape their views about the desired paths for their country’s future. The role of such motivational concerns has been described by regulatory focus theory, which distinguishes between promotion concerns related to advancement needs and prevention concerns linked with security needs. The overall aim of this project is to map the different pathways of societal development with regulatory focus concerns. This will be achieved in two studies. In Study 1, a group concept mapping method will be employed, and leading psychologists will assess the extent to which various societal development goals represent promotion and prevention goals. Based on these ratings, a two-dimensional map of the goals will be created and presented to the same experts, who will be asked to create goal clusters based on their proximity with regard to promotion and prevention ratings. This study will reveal which societal development directions have promotion concerns that outweigh prevention concerns (and vice versa) and which are both high (or low) on these dimensions. This initial mapping will be corroborated in correlational Study 2 with representative samples from two countries differing in dominating regulatory orientations (Poland vs. USA). Here, the roles of individual promotion and prevention orientations in preferences for specific societal development directions will be evaluated. This project will provide new insights into the roles of individual motivational systems in preferences for goals that might be pursued in country development.

This article proposes an evolutionary model for well-being informed by multilevel selection. We posit that people’s subjective assessment of their own quality of life is the sum their happiness, which is related to individual selection, and their sense of having a meaningful life, which is related to group selection. Conceptualizing life quality as “Happiness + Meaning = Well-being” offers insights into how the human well-being system helps people navigate between individual and group needs. We define happiness as the cluster of affects that reward individuals for solving adaptively relevant problems. We approach meaning as a reward individuals experience when contributing to their community. While people derive happiness from cooperation and competition, meaning originates from prosocial (cooperative/altruistic) behavior. Since increased within-group competition often reduces societal well-being, public policy should aim at cooperative means for good living. Our model brings attention to these dynamics. The Nordic countries, which score highest on quality of life, facilitate multilevel well-being, that is, individual prosperity and altruistic opportunity. Our preliminary quantitative study confirmed the correlation between some markers of prosociality and well-being at a national level. To investigate the psychological mechanisms behind this correlation, we conducted in-depth interviews of Nordic and Slavonic helpers of Ukrainian refugees in Norway (n = 32). A primary ambition was to illuminate how the human quest for meaning contributes both to individual flourishing and group selection. In line with Nesse’s view on happiness not as an affect meant to be maximized, but an evolutionary signal, we use a qualitative approach that allows for a deeper understanding of how individuals adapt to these signals. Our findings suggest that happiness is transient so that the well-being system’s signal sensitivity can be preserved. Meaning is enduring since it assesses and reinforces social belonging. These insights are relevant for our era’s turn toward more holistic development policies. Compared to often materialistic, competition-driven happiness pursuits, meaning-driven well-being is a more sustainable alternative for individuals, communities, and the planet. 

Abstract

The realization that most behavioral science research focuses on cultures labelled as WEIRD—Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (Arnett, 2008; Henrich et al., 2010; Thalmayer et al., 2021)—has given an impetus to extend research to more diverse populations. Confucian East Asian societies have relatively strong social and technological infrastructure to advance science, and thus have gained much prominence in cross-cultural studies. This has inadvertently fostered another bias: the dominance of WEIRD-Confucian comparisons, and a tendency to draw conclusions about “non-WEIRD” cultures in general based on data from Confucian societies. Here, analysing 1,466,019 scientific abstracts and, separately, coverage of 60 large-scale cross-cultural psychological projects (Nsamples = 2668 from Ncountries = 153 covering nparticipants = 3 722 940) we quantify the dominance of Confucian over other non-WEIRD cultures in psychological research. Our analysis also reveals the underrepresentation of non-European Union Post-Communist societies and the almost total invisibility of Pacific Island, Caribbean, Middle African, and Central Asian societies within the research database of psychology. We call for a shift in cross-cultural studies towards mid-size (7+ countries), and ideally large-scale (50+ countries) cross-cultural studies, and we propose mitigations that we believe could aid the inclusion of diverse researchers as well as participants from underrepresented cultures in our field. People in all world regions and cultures deserve psychological knowledge that applies to them. 

Psychological science tends to treat subjective wellbeing and happiness synonymously. We start from the assumption that subjective wellbeing is more than being happy to ask the fundamental question: what is the ideal level of happiness? From a cross-cultural perspective, we propose that the idealization of attaining maximum levels of happiness may be especially characteristic of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic) societies, but less so for others. Searching for an explanation for why “happiness maximization” might have emerged in these societies, we turn to studies linking cultures to their eco-environmental habitat. We discuss the premise that WEIRD cultures emerged in an exceptionally benign ecological habitat, i.e., compared to other regions, they faced relatively light existential pressures. We review the influence of the Gulfstream on the North-Western European climate as a source of these comparatively benign geographical conditions. We propose that the ecological conditions in which WEIRD societies emerged afforded them a basis to endorse happiness as a value and to idealise attaining its maximum level. To provide a nomological network for “happiness maximization”, we also studied its several potential side-effects: alcohol and drug consumption and abuse, and the prevalence of mania. To evaluate our hypothesis, we re-analyse data from two large-scale studies on ideal levels of personal life satisfaction—the most common operationalization of happiness in psychology—involving respondents from 61 countries. We conclude that societies whose members seek to maximize happiness tend to be characterized as a WEIRD, and generalizing this across societies can prove problematic if adopted at the ideological and policy level.

Nordic high-trust societies are underpinned by prosociality, a term denoting cooperation and working for the good of others. State-funded voluntarism provides opportunities for altruism that appears to contribute to the Nordics’ exceptional level of well-being. Altruists are rewarded by a warm, lasting affect that enhances personal well-being, thus motivating further prosociality. Humanity’s evolutionary past coded into us a desire to strengthen our community by helping those in need—a biocultural drive that is corrupted when authoritarian regimes enforce unselfish behavior on disempowered populations. Such coercive altruism has a line of adverse long-term consequences for communal functionality and individual flourishing. Our study examines how sociocultural context influences people’s prosocial strategies, and how sharing insights and practices from democratic and authoritarian traditions can lead to new, revitalized forms of altruism. Our in-depth interviews (n = 32) of Nordic and Slavonic helpers of Ukrainian refugees in Norway (1) illuminate the impact of culture and memory on altruistic practices, (2) define points of tension between systemic and anti-systemic modes of prosociality, and (3) identify cross-cultural interactions that generate trust, well-being, and social innovation. The post-communist experience of the Slavonic informants motivated anti-systemic altruism, which highlights spontaneity, improvisation, and occasional rule breaking. Norwegian systemic altruism is based on trust, efficacy, and rule-following. Our evolutionary approach to cultural psychology substantiates how important it is for development and immigration policies to align our knowledge of human nature with insights into the workings of cultural legacies. A better understanding of the biocultural mainsprings of altruism could be of crucial importance in our era of reemerging authoritarianism and increasing migration. 

How can one conclude that well-being is higher in country A than country B, when well-being is being measured according to the way people in country A think about well-being? We address this issue by proposing a new culturally sensitive method to comparing societal levels of well-being. We support our reasoning with data on life satisfaction and interdependent happiness focusing on individual and family, collected mostly from students, across forty-nine countries. We demonstrate that the relative idealization of the two types of well-being varies across cultural contexts and are associated with culturally different models of selfhood. Furthermore, we show that rankings of societal well-being based on life satisfaction tend to underestimate the contribution from interdependent happiness. We introduce a new culturally sensitive method for calculating societal well-being, and examine its construct validity by testing for associations with the experience of emotions and with individualism-collectivism. This new culturally sensitive approach represents a slight, yet important improvement in measuring well-being.

This article describes the adaptation and validation of a Polish version of the regulatory focus (RF) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) dictionary. RF theory proposes that there are two types of self-regulation: promotion (focus on gains, growth, and ideals) and prevention (focus on losses, security, and oughts). Apart from self-report questionnaires, one method to measure RF includes a linguistic analysis. LIWC counts the frequency of words from relevant categories and presents the output as a percentage of all words used in a writing sample. RF LIWC contains two categories: promotion (e.g., achieve, ideal) and prevention (e.g., afraid, fail). To test the psychometric properties of our Polish adaptation of the RF LIWC instrument, we performed three studies. In Study 1 (N = 10), experts in RF theory rated the extent to which each dictionary entry was related to promotion and prevention foci. Results showed that words from the promotion category were rated as more promotion than prevention-related, and the pattern was reversed for words from the prevention category. In Study 2 (N = 130) we examined the divergent validity of the instrument by experimentally manipulating RF and testing the writing patterns. When a promotion focus was activated, individuals wrote more words from the promotion than prevention category, and the pattern was reversed in the prevention group. Study 3 (N = 414) investigated whether the promotion and prevention scores obtained through RF LIWC are linked with results obtained using a self-report questionnaire that measures chronic RF. Promotion scores from RF LIWC correlated positively with chronic promotion RF and prevention scores from RF LIWC correlated positively with chronic prevention RF. These preliminary findings provide initial support for the validity of the Polish adaptation of the RF LIWC. 

Abstract to be made available when the material is accepted for publication.