Self-centeredness and selflessness: happiness correlates and mediating psychological processes

The self-centered psychological functioning and the mediating role of afflictive affects

The perception of the self as a real entity with sharp boundaries underlies a self-centered psychological functioning. Laborit (1979) proposes that each entity (or organized structure in the form of an entity), which aims at its preservation, is led to favor gratifications that positively reinforce it, and to avoid disagreeable things that threaten its homeostasis. A self-centered functioning, which is intimately related to egoism, egocentrism, an exaggerated importance given to the self and ego-inflation (through material possessions for example), favors and strengthen the “hedonic principle” (e.g., Higgins, 1997). According to this principle, individuals are motivated to obtain pleasure (i.e., approach) and to avoid displeasure (i.e., avoidance). Attaining these objectives (i.e., obtaining gratification and avoiding disagreeable stimuli) creates a feeling of transitory pleasure, joy and satisfaction. However, these stimulus-driven pleasures are contingent upon the appearance or disappearance of certain stimuli (Wallace & Shapiro, 2006). The experience of pleasure is, by nature, fleeting and dependent upon circumstances. It is unstable and the sensations it evokes soon become neutral (i.e., hedonic adaptation, e.g., Brickman, Coates & Janoff-Bulman, 1978; Lyubomirsky, 2011). In addition, the impossibility of attaining valued objectives gives rise to afflictive affects such as frustration, anger, hostility or jealousy, which damage well-being (e.g., Miller et al., 1996). Thus, by trying to maximize pleasures and avoiding displeasures, self-centeredness induces a fluctuating happiness in which phases of pleasure and displeasure alternate repeatedly (Dambrun et al., 2012). Momentary-level scores show that reported happiness varies significantly both with the time of day and day of week. While particular activities significantly increase happiness, others are associated with a decrease in happiness, with the result being that there areimportant fluctuations in happiness over the course of a day or week (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003). Under this perspective, Dambrun et al. (2012) developed a subjective fluctuating happiness scale (i.e., the SFHS), assessing perceived degrees of variation in happiness. According to the SSHM, self-centeredness would be positively and significantly related to this scale (hypothesis 2). Moreover, the relationship between self-centeredness and subjective fluctuating happiness would be mediated, at least partially, by afflictive affects (hypothesis 3).

Some results provide preliminary support for these predictions. First, Dambrun et al. (2012) found that self-centered values such as Schwartz’s self-enhancement values (i.e., achievement and power, e.g., Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 2003) were related to subjective fluctuating happiness. In a second study, Dambrun & Ricard (2012) revealed that a scale assessing afflictive affects and composed of fifteen afflictive emotions (e.g., hostility toward other, jealousy, personal frustration) was positively and significantly related to the subjective fluctuating happiness scale. Thus, it is possible that afflictive affects mediate the relationship between self-centeredness and subjective fluctuating happiness.

The selfless psychological functioning and the mediating role of both emotional stability and harmony feeling

The SSHM (Dambrun & Ricard, 2011) postulates the existence of a second self-based psychological functioning namely “selflessness”. Unlike the self-centered functioning, “selflessness” is based on a weak distinction between self and others, and between self and the environment as a whole, which takes the form of a sense of connectedness (e.g., Leary, Tipsord & Tate, 2008). Selflessness is closely related to self-transcendence (e.g., Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993; Levenson et al., 2005; Piedmont, 1999). Selflessness would be primarily guided by the principle of “harmony”, in the sense that the individual is facing a harmonious adjustment¹ with the different elements of the environment, including others and the different forms of life (Leary, Tipsord & Tate, 2008), as well as their deep personal aspirations. This principle would guide all psychological activities (i.e., conation, motivation, attention, emotion, cognition, behavior). For example, on an emotional level, the principle of harmony is linked to emotions of benevolence, as empathy, compassion or deep respect. Several studies show that pro-social behaviors, which are influenced by benevolent affects (e.g., Dovidio & Penner, 2001), are not only beneficial to others but also for the individual themselves. They are associated with better well-being (e.g., Dambrun & Ricard, 2012; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010), positive emotions (Fredrickson et al., 2008) and a reduction in psychological distress (Carson et al., 2005). Similarly, nature-connectedness is positively associated with well-being (e.g., Howell et al., 2011).

According to the SSHM, selflessness would be positively and significantly related to authentic–durable happiness. Authentic happiness is understood, here, as an optimal way of being; a state of durable contentment and plenitude or inner peace (based on a quality of consciousness, which underlies and imbues each experience, emotion and behavior, and allows us to embrace all the joys and the pain with which we are confronted). Under this perspective, Dambrun and his colleagues (2012) developed the Subjective Authentic–Durable Happiness Scale (SA-DHS) for assessing subjective authentic–durable happiness. As expected, they found that this scale was positively and significantly related to selfless values, such as benevolence and universalism (i.e., self-transcendence values, e.g., Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 2003). Interestingly for our purpose, using the Self-Transcendence Inventory (STI; Levenson et al., 2005) as a marker of selflessness, Dambrun and Ricard (Dambrun & Ricard, 2012) found that self-transcendence was positively and significantly related to subjective authentic–durable happiness. Thus, selflessness would be positively and significantly related to authentic–durable happiness. Because subjective authentic-durable happiness is theorized as a specific consequence of a selfless functioning, it is predicted they will be positively and significantly related even when self-centeredness will be statistically controlled for (hypothesis 4). Similarly, because subjective fluctuating happiness is theorized as a specific marker of a self-centered functioning, it is predicted that self-centeredness will be positively and significantly related to subjective fluctuating happiness even when selflessness will be statistically controlled for (hypothesis 2).

According to the SSHM, at least two processes would mediate the relationship between selflessness and authentic-durable happiness: (1) emotional stability and (2) the feeling of being in harmony.

First, benevolent affects, induced by the harmony principle, are not very sensitive to changes in the environment. As noted by Sprecher & Fehr (2006): “compassionate love may be experienced for someone to whom love is not reciprocated” (p. 228). This type of affect would be relatively stable and would contribute to emotional stability and lasting happiness. Similarly, connectedness to others has been found to correlate modestly, but positively, with emotional stability (Leary, Tipsord & Tate, 2008). Several works have examined the relationship between emotional stability and well-being. In these studies, emotional stability is mostly assessed by scoring the neuroticism factor of the big five inventory in the opposite direction. For example, Hills & Argyle (2001) reported that emotional stability was the greater correlate of happiness among the big five factors. Similarly, in a meta-analysis, DeNeve & Cooper (1998) found that emotional stability was the strongest predictor of life satisfaction and happiness. On the basis of the SSHM, it is predicted that the relationship between selflessness and subjective authentic-durable happiness would be mediated, at least partially, by emotional stability (hypothesis 5).

In addition, Dambrun & Ricard (2011) propose that selflessness promotes the feeling of being in harmony with the environment (including others) and with oneself. This process also would mediate the relationship between selflessness and authentic-durable happiness. The perception of harmony, feelings of harmony and their relationships with happiness are present in various cultural traditions. Harmony has been approached as equilibrium, a state of homeostasis (Headey & Wearing, 1989). In the Yin-Yang theory, homeostasis is the ideal state for the entire universe, a state of harmony with the great natural principles (Lu, 2001). In psychological terms, it seems possible to distinguish three different levels of harmony: (1) being in harmony with oneself, (2) interpersonal or social harmony and (3) being in harmony with the world, including both the natural environment and the universe. These three levels are fundamental in numerous Asian philosophies (e.g., Koller & Koller, 2007). Harmony with oneself (e.g., Body–mind harmony or knowledge–feeling–idea harmony) has been proposed to be the essential characteristic of healthy and happy people (see Yan, 2006), as well as of harmonious society (Yaqin, 2008). It is proposed that each level of perceived harmony (cognitive component; see Kjell et al., 2015) contributes to the feeling of being in harmony (affective component). Being in resonance with its profound aspirations can favor the feeling of being in harmony with oneself. Being connected to others and feeling empathy or compassion can promote the feeling of being in harmony with others. Being connected to the natural world and to the universe can lead to the feeling of being in harmony with the nature and the cosmos. These types of feeling are intimately linked with the characteristics of sustainable and authentic happiness as serenity or inner peace, a dimension of happiness that remains relatively unexplored (see Dambrun et al., 2012). Thus, on the basis of the SSHM, it is predicted that the feeling of being in harmony (affective component) would mediate, at least partially, the relationship between selflessness and subjective authentic–durable happiness (hypothesiss 6).

Participants and procedure

Two hundred and forty-three voluntary participants were recruited for the study on a voluntary basis through personal contact. The study took place in France. The sample was composed exclusively of adults from a regional community. They were adequately heterogeneous in age, gender, education, religiosity and socio-economic status (see Table 1). The questionnaire was delivered personally to each voluntary participant. All participants had 24 h to respond to the questionnaire and return it. This study consisted in an anonymous survey of consenting adults. Thus, the data were analyzed anonymously. This study has been approved by the Sud-EST VI statutory Ethics Committee (2014-CE36; IRB00008526), according to French legal requirements L. 1121-1-2 and R 1121-3.

Materials

The questionnaire mainly comprised six scales: two scales assessing happiness (fluctuating happiness and authentic–durable happiness), two scales assessing selflessness (self-transcendence and connectedness to other and to nature), and two scales assessing self-centeredness (egocentrism and materialism). At the end of the questionnaire, all the participants were asked to provide socio-demographic information (i.e., age, gender, education level, religiosity, and SES).

Fluctuating happiness

The 10-item Subjective Fluctuating Happiness Scale (SFHS; see Dambrun et al., 2012) was used to assess fluctuating happiness. Participants had to indicate how much they agreed (7) or disagreed (1) with each of the 10 statements. A single composite score of subjective fluctuating happiness was computed by averaging responses to the 10 items (e.g., “My level of happiness is rather unstable, sometimes high, sometimes low”, “I have times when I swing from moments of total bliss to much less satisfying moments”). The possible range of score is from 1.0 to 7.0, with higher scores indicating greater fluctuating happiness. The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .92).

Authentic-durable happiness

The 16-item Subjective Authentic-Durable Happiness Scale (SA-DHS), developed by Dambrun and colleagues (2012), was used. Participants had to indicate their regular level of happiness in their life on a 7-point scale, ranged from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high). The scale comprised 16 items with 13 positively valenced items (e.g., happiness, bliss, overall well-being, serenity and plenitude), assessing authentic–durable happiness, and 3 negatively valenced items, only used to control for the compliance bias. A single composite score for subjective authentic–durable happiness was computed by averaging responses to the 13 positively valenced items. The possible range of scores was from 1.0 to 7.0, with higher scores reflecting greater authentic–durable happiness. The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .94).

Self-transcendence

The Adult Self-Transcendence Inventory (ASTI; Levenson et al., 2005; Le & Levenson, 2005) was used to assess self-transcendence. This instrument was adapted from English to French.² This scale comprised 10 items (“My peace of mind is not so easily upset as it used to be”, “I feel that my individual life is a part of a greater whole”). Participants were asked the extent to which they agree with each statement compared to five years ago, on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .76).

Connectedness

To measure the level of participants’ connectedness, the Allo-Inclusive Identity scale developed by Leary, Tipsord & Tate (2008) was used. This instrument was adapted from English to French.² This scale comprised 16 items assessing how people perceived “connection” or “relatedness” to other people (first dimension) and to the nonhuman natural world (second dimension). These two dimensions reflect two distinct subscales, each comprising 8 statements: connectedness to other (e.g., “the connection between you and your best friend of the other sex”) and connectedness to natural world (e.g., “the connection between you and the earth”). For each statement describing the connection between the respondent and some other entity, participants selected from a set of seven pairs of circles, one circle representing the respondent and the second circle representing the other entity (1 = widest separation between the two; 7 = closest overlap between the two). The reliability of each subscale was satisfactory (connectedness to other, α = .70; connectedness to natural world, α = .85).

Egocentrism

To assess egocentrism, the scale developed by Dambrun (2011) was used. This scale comprised 10 statements (e.g., “The motto “me first, then the others” corresponds quite well to the way in which I behave”, “I’m not someone who tries systematically to make the best personal profit of a situation (reverse coded)”). Participants were asked the extent to which they agree with each statement on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .80).

Materialism

To assess materialism, nine items from the material value scale (MVS) proposed by Richins (2004) (see also Richins & Dawson, 1992) were used. This scale assesses three dimensions: possession-defined success (e.g., “Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions”), acquisition centrality (e.g., “I usually buy only the things I need”) and acquisition as the pursuit of happiness (e.g., “My life would be better if I owned certain things I don’t have”). This scale was adapted from English to French². Participants were asked the extent to which they agree with each statement on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .76).

All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Relationships between various measures

First, the means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among all the measured variables were examined (see Table 2). First, while egocentrism and materialism correlated positively and significantly with fluctuating happiness (respectively r = .40 and r = .21), self-transcendence and connectedness to others were positively and significantly related to authentic–durable happiness (respectively r = .34 and r = .23) but not to fluctuating happiness. Materialism was not related to authentic–durable happiness. However, egocentrism and authentic–durable happiness were negatively correlated. In this study, connectedness to nature was not significantly related to happiness. Replicating previous studies, subjective fluctuating happiness and subjective authentic–durable happiness were significantly and negatively correlated (r =  − .50). Finally and as predicted, while the main psychological constructs related to selflessness were positively and significantly related to each other (i.e., self-transcendence and connectedness to other), those assessing self-centeredness were also positively and significantly related to each other (i.e., egocentrism and materialism). Unexpectedly, connectedness to nature was not related to self-transcendence. For this reason, this measure was not included in further analyses.

Are self-centeredness and selflessness distinct constructs?

In order to test the predicted model, a factor analysis was performed. This analysis hypothesized that self-transcendence and connectedness to other formed one component assessing selflessness, and that this was distinct from a second factor assessing self-centeredness and composed of egocentrism and materialism. The principal component factor analysis with direct Oblimin rotation of the four scales disclosed two factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor accounted for 42.5% of the explained variance and regrouped the measures of materialism and egocentrism (Eigenvalue = 1.7; factor loadings respectively .88 and .76). The second factor accounted for 25.9% of the explained variance and regrouped the measures of connectedness to others and the self-transcendence inventory (Eigenvalue = 1.04; factor loadings respectively .87 and .72).

Are self-centeredness and selflessness related respectively to subjective fluctuating happiness and subjective authentic–durable happiness?

In order to examine the hypotheses regarding the relationships between self-centeredness, selflessness, subjective fluctuating happiness and subjective authentic–durable happiness, first the mean of self-centeredness was computed by averaging the measures of materialism and egocentrism. The mean of selflessness was computed by averaging the measures of connectedness to other and self-transcendence.³ Then, standardized coefficients and partial regression coefficients were calculated using multiple regression analyses (see Table 3).

It was predicted that self-centeredness would be positively and significantly related to fluctuating happiness even when selflessness will be statistically controlled for. On the other hand, it was hypothesized that selflessness would be positively and significantly related to authentic–durable happiness even when self-centeredness will be statistically controlled for. Selflessness was positively and significantly related to authentic–durable happiness (β = .36, p < .001), but not to fluctuating happiness (β =  − .07, p > .28). When self-centeredness was statistically controlled for, the relationship between selflessness and authentic-durable happiness still remained significant (β = .37, p < .001). Self-centeredness was significantly related to both fluctuating happiness (β = .36, p < .001) and authentic–durable happiness (β =  − .17, p < .01). When selflessness was statistically controlled for, the relationship between self-centeredness and authentic–durable happiness vanished (β =  − .08, p > .18), and the relationship between self-centeredness and fluctuating happiness still remained significant (β = .33, p < .001). Self-centeredness and selflessness were significantly and negatively correlated (β =  − .25, p < .001).

Participants and procedure

Three hundred and four voluntary participants were recruited for the study on a voluntary basis through personal contact. The study took place in France. The sample was composed exclusively of adults from a national community. They were adequately heterogeneous in age, gender, education, religiosity and socio-economic status (see Table 1). The questionnaire was delivered personally to each voluntary participant via a paper booklet (n = 153) or an online survey platform (n = 151). All participants had 24 h to respond to the questionnaire and return it. This study consisted in an anonymous survey of consenting adults. Thus, the data were analyzed anonymously. This study has been approved by the Sud-EST VI statutory Ethics Committee (2014-CE36; IRB00008526), according to French legal requirement L. 1121-1-2 and R 1121-3.

Materials

In addition to the measures used in study 1 (i.e., fluctuating happiness, authentic-durable happiness, self-transcendence, connectedness to other and to nature, egocentrism and materialism), three new scales were added. These new instruments assess the predicted mediating variables (i.e., afflictive affects, feeling of being in harmony, and emotional stability). At the end of the questionnaire, all the participants were asked to provide socio-demographic information (i.e., age, gender, education level, religiosity, and SES).

Happiness

The 10-item Subjective Fluctuating Happiness Scale (SFHS; see Dambrun et al., 2012) was also used in this study. The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .92). The 16-item Subjective Authentic-Durable Happiness Scale (SA-DHS), developed by Dambrun and colleagues (2012), was also used. The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .95).

Self-Centeredness

As in study 1, both the material value scale (MVS), proposed by Richins (2004), and the 10-item egocentrism scale, developed by Dambrun (2011), were used. Their reliability was adequate (respectively α = .74 and α = .78).

Selflessness

Again, the 10-item Adult Self-Transcendence Inventory (ASTI, Levenson et al., 2005; Le & Levenson, 2005) and the Allo-Inclusive Identity scale, developed by Leary, Tipsord & Tate (2008), were incorporated in the questionnaire. The reliability of the ASTI was satisfactory (α = .79). The reliability of each subscale of the Allo-Inclusive Identity scale also was adequate (connectedness to others, α = .79; connectedness to natural world, α = .90).

Mediating variables

Three scales assessing the predicted mediating processes were added to the questionnaire: afflictive affects, feeling of being in harmony and emotional stability. Each scale was presented separately.

Afflictive affects

To assess afflictive affects, the scale developed by Dambrun & Ricard (2012) was used. This scale comprised 15 statements (e.g., “hostility toward other” jealousy”, “personal frustration”, “angry”, “fear”, “threat”). Participants had to indicate their regular level for each type of affect on a 7-point scale ranged from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high). The reliability of each subscale was satisfactory (α = .86).

Feeling of being in harmony

To assess the feeling of being in harmony, a recent scale developed by Dambrun (2016, unpublished data) was used. This scale consists in 25 statements assessing harmony feeling in various domains (e.g., “I feel a perfect harmony between my ideals and my current life”, “when I observe the sky during the night, I often feel a feeling of harmony”, “I feel that my personal relationships with the person that share my life are almost harmonious”, “I feel that my interpersonal relationships are rarely harmonious (reverse coded)”). Participants were asked the extent to which they agree with each statement on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .86). Since, in this study, assessing the feeling of being in harmony was the main interest, the Harmony in Life Scale of Kjell and colleagues (2015), which is more focused on the cognitive component of harmony (e.g., “I am in harmony”), was not used.

Emotional stability

To assess emotional stability, the neuroticism factor of the big five inventory was measured and scored in the opposite direction, such that higher scores indicate greater emotional stability (for a similar methodology see, for example, Hills & Argyle, 2001). Specifically, the French version of the big five inventory, developed and validated by Plaisant et al. (2010), was used. Participants had to indicate the extent to which they approve each statement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly approve) to 5 (strongly disapprove). The reliability of this scale was adequate (α = .84).

All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Are self-centeredness and selflessness distinct constructs?

In order to further test the predicted model, again, a factor analysis was performed. This analysis hypothesized that self-transcendence and connectedness to others formed one component assessing selflessness, and that this was distinct from a second factor assessing self-centeredness and composed of egocentrism and materialism. The principal component factor analysis with direct Oblimin rotation of the four scales disclosed two factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor accounted for 35.5% of the explained variance and regrouped the measures of connectedness to other and the self-transcendence inventory (Eigenvalue = 1.4; factor loadings respectively .84 and .82). The second factor accounted for 30.3% of the explained variance and regrouped the measures of materialism and egocentrism (Eigenvalue = 1.2; factor loadings respectively .80 and .77).

Are self-centeredness and selflessness related respectively to subjective fluctuating happiness and subjective authentic-durable happiness?

Using the same procedure than in study 1, the relationships between self-centeredness (i.e., average of materialism and egocentrism), selflessness (i.e., average of connectedness to other and self-transcendence), subjective fluctuating happiness and subjective authentic–durable happiness were examined (see Table 5)³. As expected, selflessness was positively and significantly related to authentic–durable happiness (β = .48, p < .001), even when self-centeredness was statistically controlled for (β = .48, p < .001). Selflessness and fluctuating happiness were not significantly related (β =  − .02, p > .77). Self-centeredness was positively and significantly related to fluctuating happiness (β = .22, p < .001), even when selflessness was statistically controlled for (β = .22, p < .001). Self-centeredness was not related to authentic–durable happiness (β =  − .07, p > .22). Self-centeredness and selflessness were not significantly correlated (β =  − .07, p > .21).