Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36232083›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

An Adaptive Motivation Approach to Understanding the 'How' and 'Why' of Wellbeing.

Reuben D Rusk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Reuben D RuskCentre for Wellbeing Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A new model provides insight into the 'how' and 'why' of wellbeing to better understand the 'what'. Informed by evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, it proposes that systems for adaptive motivation underpin experiential and reflective wellbeing. The model proposes that the brain learns to predict situations, and errors arise between the predictions and experience. These prediction errors drive emotional experience, learning, motivation, decision-making, and the formation of wellbeing-relevant memories. The model differentiates four layers of wellbeing: objective, experiential, reflective, and narrative, which relate to the model in different ways. Constituents of wellbeing, human motives, and specific emotions integrate into the model. A simple computational implementation of the model reproduced several established wellbeing phenomena, including: the greater frequency of pleasant to unpleasant emotions, the stronger emotional salience of unpleasant emotions, hedonic adaptation to changes in circumstances, heritable influences on wellbeing, and affective forecasting errors. It highlights the importance of individual differences, and implies that high wellbeing will correlate with the experience of infrequent, routine, and predictable avoidance cues and frequent, varied, and novel approach cues. The model suggests that wellbeing arises directly from a system for adaptive motivation. This system functions like a mental dashboard that calls attention to situational changes and motivates the kinds of behaviours that gave humans a relative advantage in their ancestral environment. The model offers a set of fundamental principles and processes that may underlie diverse conceptualisations of wellbeing.

Indexed as

EmotionsMotivationBrainHumansLearningadaptationcomputational neuroscienceemotionevolutionary psychologyhappinessmotivesnegativity biastheoryvariety

Identifiers

PMID36232083
PMCPMC9566260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.