added 4 research items
Objective The current exploratory study sought to examine dispositional optimism, or the general expectation for positive outcomes, around the world. Method Dispositional optimism and possible correlates were assessed across 61 countries (N = 15,185; mean age = 21.92; 77% female). Mean‐level differences in optimism were computed along with their relationships with individual and country‐level variables. Results Worldwide, mean optimism levels were above the midpoint of the scale. Perhaps surprisingly, country‐level optimism was negatively related to GDP per capita, population density, and democratic norms and positively related to income inequality and perceived corruption. However, country‐level optimism was positively related to projected economic improvement. Individual‐level optimism was positively related to individual well‐being within every country, although this relationship was less strong in countries with challenging economic and social circumstances. Conclusions While individuals around the world are generally optimistic, societal characteristics appear to affect the degree to which their optimism is associated with psychological well‐being, sometimes in seemingly anomalous ways.
Abstract What does it mean to be happy? The vast majority of cross-cultural studies on happiness have employed a Western-origin, or “WEIRD” measure of happiness that conceptualizes it as a self-centered (or “independent”), high-arousal emotion. However, research from East�ern cultures, particularly Japan, conceptualizes happiness as including an interpersonal aspect emphasizing harmony and connectedness to others. Following a combined emic�etic approach (Cheung, van de Vijver & Leong, 2011), we assessed the cross-cultural appli�cability of a measure of independent happiness developed in the US (Subjective Happiness Scale; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) and a measure of interdependent happiness devel�oped in Japan (Interdependent Happiness Scale; Hitokoto & Uchida, 2015), with data from 63 countries representing 7 sociocultural regions. Results indicate that the schema of inde�pendent happiness was more coherent in more WEIRD countries. In contrast, the coher�ence of interdependent happiness was unrelated to a country’s “WEIRD-ness.” Reliabilities of both happiness measures were lowest in African and Middle Eastern countries, suggest�ing these two conceptualizations of happiness may not be globally comprehensive. Overall, while the two measures had many similar correlates and properties, the self-focused con�cept of independent happiness is “WEIRD-er” than interdependent happiness, suggesting cross-cultural researchers should attend to both conceptualizations.
Recent research conducted largely in the United States suggests that most people would like to change one or more of their personality traits. Yet almost no research has investigated the degree to which and in what ways volitional personality change (VPC), or individuals’ active efforts toward personality change, might be common around the world. Through a custom-built website, 13,278 college student participants from 55 countries and one of a larger country (Hong Kong, S.A.R.) using 42 different languages reported whether they were currently trying to change their personality and, if so, what they were trying to change. Around the world, 60.40% of participants reported that they are currently trying to change their personalities, with the highest percentage in Thailand (81.91%) and the lowest in Kenya (21.41%). Among those who provide open-ended responses to the aspect of personality they are trying to change, the most common goals were to increase emotional stability (29.73%), conscientiousness (19.71%), extraversion (15.94%), and agreeableness (13.53%). In line with previous research, students who are trying to change any personality trait tend to have relatively low levels of emotional stability and happiness. Moreover, those with relatively low levels of socially desirable traits reported attempting to increase what they lacked. These principal findings were generalizable around the world.
The results of the research project are important for both theoretical and practical reasons. The research of the relationships between personality, cognition and well-being represents one of the most propulsive trends of recent psychological science. The present project encompassed the scientific modeling of the relationships between the crucial aspects and dimensions of personality, cognition and the factors of mental well-being. Further, the results clearlyestablished and confirmed the associations between basic dimensions of personality and cognition on one side and the dimensions of the well-being on the other side. Our starting hypothetical model that predicted this associations was thus confirmed even beyond theexpectations. More than anytime before, we can trust into the intimate connection between personality, cognition and well-being, the connection that can be reasonably explained only on the biological, genetic and evolutionary basis. The results of the research project will definitely contribute to the better theoretical explanation or model of the realm of psychological wellness and health. Finally, the research project could have also practical effects by stimulation of applied research and othere activities promoting psychical wellness and health being soimportant for the progress of humanity. The scientific weight of the research done during the project could be differentiated in the following results: 1. The empirical elaboration of the general model of relationships between personality, cognition and well-being. 2. Further clarification of the role of personality and cognitive dimensions as predictors of well-being in different areas of human life-perspective. 3. New findings concerning the structure of personality in the new light (the pyramidal model of personality structure with the General Factor of Personality at the apex).4. New findings of the cognitive functioning (cognitive strategies, cognitive development).5. New findings in the field of the structure of well-being.6. New findings in the research of cross-cultural similarities and differences in personality structure and in the structure of well-being. The majority of empirical research has been thus dedicated to the elaboration of structural hierarchies of independents (personality, cognition and their mutual interactions) and dependents (well-being), as well as to the establishment of essential correlative and causal relations between both areas of dimensional structure. In addition, the existence of general factors in all mentioned structural hierarchies have beenconvincingly demonstrated. One of the main results of this line of research was the elaboration of the new structural paradigm of personality, which was further considered in the connection to a wide spectrum of psychological, bioevolutionary and cross-cultural variables. The investigations of the members of program team contribute also to the confirmation of the universality and stability of core personality structure. 9.2. Pomen za razvoj Slovenije11As expected, the established dimensions of personality and cognition (including theirinteraction, represented by values) explained substantial amounts of the variance in the well-being domain. Further progress has been made in other fields, including developmental psychology, social psychology, educational psychology, organizational psychology, health psychology and traffic psychology. The results of the project will have both theoretical and practical meaning. They should contribute to further theoretical understanding of relationships between personality, cognition and well-being and to the further and more improved understanding of the relationshipsbetween these variables and major domains of human life-perspective, including the aspects of: 1. Family life, love and partnership;2. Education, schooling and academic life or career; 3. Work and job career; 4. Free time and leisure behavior; 5. Psychological health and coping.
Our well-being and happiness seem to be more the matter of our personality than the consequence of events happening to us. Although true, this claim is contrary to expectations, it is contra-intuitive somehow. When asked for, what makes us to be more or less happy, the majority of us would mention the positive and negative situational factors or events, pretty moments with our partners, family members or friends, our successes, illnesses, injuries, losses and similar. Nobody would say "I am unhappy because I am a neurotic person". Yet, the psychological research clearly demonstrated how strong our well-being is influenced by our personality dimensions (Diener, 1998; Diener & Lucas, 1999; Musek, 2015). In the one of our own investigations, one single personality dimension, Neuroticism is found to be as powerful predictor of well-being as the stressing events (see Figure 1). Neuroticism, stressors and well-being have been measured on the sample of 285 Slovenian high school students. Figure 1 displays the effects of neuroticism, stressors (stressing events) and interaction between neuroticism and stressors on well-being. Both neuroticism and stressors have strong and approximately equal effects. The effect of the interaction is smaller yet also significant. The interaction effect is due to the fact that the persons with higher neuroticism are more strongly affected by the same stressing events than the less neurotic (more stable) persons.
The project addresses the question, which personality dimensions mostly contribute to the positive human functioning, especially well-being and prosocial values. Multivariate analyses were performed on 495 participants yielding the relationships between personality dimensions, dimensions of well-being and dimensions of values.
In this text, the connections of the General Factor of Personality (GFP) to happiness, well-being, and quality of life were examined. The empirical studies being reported strongly confirmed the substantial relationships with the GFP and other personality dimensions for the components of well-being and quality of life.
The dimensions of personality are widely connected to the large number of important psychological variables including human values and well-being. In this preprint of the textbook, different published and unpublished texts are collected. The chapters cover three vast fields, personality, values and well-being. All are focused on crucial theoretical and empirical research comprising the structural analyses of the above-mentioned fields and most important correlations or connections between them. All this research clearly confirmed very substantial connections of personality to values and well-being as well as between values and well-being. Thus, we must consider the personality and value-aligned behaviour as the grounds of our well-being.
The text describes the results of the study testing the hypothesis that the realisation of the values in the behaviour significantly and substantially contributes to the well-being, happiness and satisfaction in life. The results of our study undoubtedly confirmed the hypothesis. To live in concordance with the values, ethical standards and moral norms means to live more happy and satisfying life.
POVZETEK Raziskava proučuje odnos med stopnjo vernosti ter dimenzijami vrednotne in duhovne usmerjenosti. 509 oseb obeh spolov in različne starosti smo razdelili v štiri skupine glede na robustno samoocenjeno stopnjo vernosti. Pri vseh skupinah smo z ustreznimi psihološkimi merskimi instrumenti izmerili vrednotno in duhovno usmerjenost. Analiza dobljenih podatkov je pokazala, da se stopnja vernosti pomembno povezuje z razlikami v vrednotni in duhovni usmerjenosti. Čim višja je stopnja vernosti, tem nižja je dionizična vrednotna usmerjnost (zlasti usmerjenost k hedonskim in čutnim vrednotam) in tem višja je stopnja usmerjenosti k verskim vrednotam. Čim višja je stopnja vernosti, tem višja je tudi izmerjena stopnja splošne duhovne usmerjenosti in tem višja je stopnja posameznih dimenzij duhovne usmerjenosti, zlasti dimenzije vernost-numinoznost-predanost. Verske vrednote in duhovna dimenzija vernosti med vsem spremenljivkami najbolj predicirajo stopnjo vernosti. 1 UVOD Vera, vrednote in duhovnost so vsekakor povezane, čeprav ne istovetne pojmovne kategorije. Čeprav so se od Williama Jamesa (1982/1902) dalje ukvarjali z vprašanji religije in duhovnosti mnogi prominentni psihologi, pa je bilo do nedavnega sorazmerno malo empiričnega raziskovanja na tem področju. V sodobnem času se je odprlo tudi vprašanje ti. duhovne inteligentnosti (Zohar in Marshall, 2000) in morda si lahko obetamo, da bodo raziskave tukaj kmalu prispevale pomembne prispevke k boljšemu razumevanju človekovega verskega doživljanja in duhovnosti. Drugo pomembno področje psihološkega raziskovanja, ki se je že v preteklosti dotaknilo tematike duhovnosti, je področje vrednot. Verski in duhovni odnos do sveta je povezan z vrednotami in vrednotnimi usmeritvami. Tako so vsaj nekatere verske in duhovne vrednote zastopane v večjih lestvicah vrednot (Musek, 1993a,b 2000; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz in Bilsky, 1987, 1991). Več raziskav je pokazalo, da imajo vrednote pomembno in včasih tudi visoko prediktivno vrednost v odnosu do številnih področij človekovega delovanja (Musek, 2000). Med drugim je trdno ugotovljena signifikantna povezava vrednot, zlasti verskih, z verskimi, svetovno nazorskimi in političnimi prepričanji (Musek, 1998, 2000). Versko doživljanje in stopnja vernosti sta torej po vsej verjetnosti močno povezana tako z vrednotami (vrednotnimi usmeritvami), kot tudi z dimenzijami duhovnosti. Pričakovati je, da se pri osebah z različno stopnjo vernosti pojavljajo razlike v vrednotni in duhovni usmerjenosti in da lahko na podlagi vrednotnih in duhovnih usmeritev posameznika učinkovito napovedujemo stopnjo njegove vernosti. Na podlagi omenjenih premis lahko izpeljemo domnevo, da prihaja do razlik v vrednotnih in duhovnih usmeritvah v odvisnosti od stopnje vernosti posameznih oseb. To je hkrati temeljna hipoteza pričujočega empiričnega raziskovanja, ki je potemtakem zasnovano kot študija, ki naj osvetli, ali je stopnja vernosti dejavnik vrednotne in duhovne usmerjenosti in tudi obratno, ali in v kolikšni meri se dimenzije vrednotne in duhovne usmerjenosti pojavljajo kot dejavniki in prediktorji stopnje vernosti. 2 METODA Udeleženci V raziskavo je bilo vključenih 509 oseb obeh spolov in vseh starostnih razredov. V vzorcu je bilo 185 moških in 324 žensk. Gre za osebe v razponu od 13 do 73 let, z aritmetično sredino 33 let in s standardno deviacijo 11,44. Glede na samoocenjeno stopnjo vernosti so bili udeleženci razdeljeni tako, kot kaže spodaj: popolnoma nič verni 80 15,7 odstotka rahlo verni 128 25,1 odstotka zmerno verni 211 41,5 odstotka zelo verni 90 17,7 odstotka Aparat Kot je razvidno iz prejšnjega razdelka, smo stopnjo vernosti ugotavljali s pomočjo štiristopenjske samoocenjevalne lestvice. Za merjenje vrednotne usmerjenosti smo uporabili Muskovo lestvico vrednot (MLV, natančnejši opis v Musek, 2000, str. 30-40). Lestvica je prirejena tako, da je mogoče poleg vrednosti posameznih vrednot oceniti tudi generalnejše kategorije vrednot. In sicer gre za 11 vrednotnih kategorij 1
V zadnjem času so se v psihologiji pojavila nova pojmovanja duhovnosti, tako zlasti pojem duhovne inteligentnosti. Čeprav je bil sprejet v nekatere znane teorije in modele temeljnih človekovih sposobnosti, je bilo na tem področju le malo empiričnih raziskav. Eden od osnovnih problemov, ki terja empirično razrešitev, je vprašanje, katere so osnovne komponente duhovne inteligentnosti oziroma duhovnosti. V tej raziskavi sem opravil več multivariatnih analiz fonda izbranih vprašalniških postavk, ki merijo stopnjo duhovnosti. Analize so pokazale, da lahko celotno strukturo duhovnosti razčlenimo na več ravni, znotraj katerih se pojavljajo glavne dimenzije duhovnosti. Na najvišji, najbolj generalni ravni lahko govorimo o splošni dimenziji duhovnosti. Na naslednjih ravneh se ta dimenzija razdeli na več subdimenzij, med katerimi so najpomembnejše dimenzija smisla, dimenzija povezanosti, harmonije, notranjega miru in hvaležnosti, dimenzija vernosti in predanosti numinoznemu, dimenzija rasti in dimenzija odpuščanja.
The structure of personality is a leading theme of personality research since the times of Hippocrates. Several theoretical models were developed in the scientific analysis of personality structure in the last six decades including the models of Cattell (Cattell, 1946, 1950, 1957) and Eysenck (Eysenck, 1952, 1970, 1986, 1991), yet the Five Factor Model (FFM) attained dominant position among them in the past thirty years or more (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1981, 1990; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987, 1998). According to FFM, the structure of personality can be described by five dimensions, labeled the Big Five: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness. However, the Big Five are correlated in a stable and typical manner (Musek, 2007, 2010). Thus, the question can be raised, whether the correlations between the Big Five are indicating the higher-order dimensions of personality structure. Musek (2007) hypothesized and confirmed the existence of the general factor of personality (GFP) and proposed a new structural model with the GFP at the apex of the hierarchical structure of personality. The existence of GFP was further replicated in several studies using different samples of participants and different measures (Hirschi, 2008; Musek, 2007; Rushton, Bons & Hur, 2008, Rushton et al., 2009; Rushton & Irwing, 2008, 2009a,b; Veselka et al., 2009). Until now, a more than hundred scientific articles throughout the world addressed the issues concerning the GFP (for the review, see Just, 2011). Several important problems have been discussed in the literature focusing on GFP, including the nature and psychological interpretation of GFP, the heritability and bioevolutionary aspects of GFP, the generality of GFP and possible extensions beyond the realm of FFM, the connections of GFP to other prominent psychological and demographic variables, the cross-cultural consistency of GFP, not to mention others. The question how GFP is related to the mental well-being and health is one of the most important issues in the research of GFP. Our own research has been focused on three major topics. In the first line, we examined how GFP is related to or involved in the already mentioned fields, namely well-being (both hedonic as well as eudaimonic or psychological well-being) and mental health. The second part of our research has been devoted to the determination of the predictive power of GFP in regard of several important criteria related to the mental and physical health including the self- and other-assessed status of physical health, generativity, wisdom, coping, stress management, burnout, symptoms of mental disorder, and other. The third part of our research was addressed to the connections of GFP to the all important aspects of the quality of life, including physical, mental, social and spiritual aspect. In our studies, a rather strong relationship between GFP and the measures of well-being and mental health was found. GFP very substantially correlated with all dimensions of well-being, including the hedonic or subjective emotional well being (satisfaction with life, positive affect and negative affect) and also with all basic dimensions of so-called eudaimonic or psychological well-being (autonomy, feeling of mastery, positive relations to others, personal growth, purpose in life, self-acceptance). Moreover, the correlations between both general factors, GFP and the General Factor of Wellbeing (GFWb) were very high, about .8 to .7 in most cases. It is notorious that mental well-being and mental health are closely associated. Indeed, exactly this was confirmed in the results of our studies. GFP is strongly correlated with anxiety, depression and loneliness as the major components of our mental health. In other studies, we discovered that GFP is considerably connected to the general dimensions of psychological health and psychopathology. According to the results of our studies, GFP is among the best predictors of general mental health and well-being. It is also a major predictor of global self-concept, self-esteem, generativity and wisdom, personal hardiness, stress management and coping, burnout and many other variables important in our life. Finally, GFP is essentially associated with all general dimensions of the quality of life, including mental, spiritual, social, economic and somatic wellness. In the whole, our studies as well as those of other authors, confirmed the important role of GFP in relation to mental well-being and mental health. GFP is very substantially associated with all important general dimensions of mental well-being, health and quality of life. Therefore, it could be with all reason interpreted as a measure of general personal adjustment with a strong predictive power in the relation to almost all most important variables concerning the quality and successfulness of our life.
Background The recent research of the higher-order factors of personality, including the general factor of personality (GFP), raised new questions and problems in the understanding of the relations between personality and well-being. The current investigations indicate a strong connection between the GFP and the general factor of well-being (GFWB). Therefore, a hypothesis could be formulated suggesting a comprehensive structural hierarchy that integrates the basic dimensions of the personality and well-being. Aims of study A multivariate study was designed in order to establish the structural relations of the basic dimensions of personality and well-being. Methods Different multivariate analyses were performed including factor analyses, cluster analyses and analyses based on the structural equation modelling (SEM). Results and conclusions The multivariate analyses of personality and well-being revealed a clear structural hierarchy of the shared dimensional space. A powerful general factor at the apex of the pyramidally shaped structural hierarchy loaded all most important dimensions of personality and well-being. This factor subsumes both GFP and GFWB and probably represents a very general personality dimension underlying the entire non-cognitive part of the personality. Very probably, this dimension is cross-culturally stable and has also deep biological roots manifested in the evolutionary, genetic, and neurophysiologic aspects.
In past decades, rich empirical evidence has been accumulated demonstrating substantial correlations between dimensions of personality and well-being. New structural hierarchical models have been proposed both in personality and well-being domain (Musek, 2007; 2008). The studies reporting very substantial correlations between personality and well-being dimensions suggest the existence of strong common denominators of both domains. It might be hypothesized that dimensional hierarchies in both domains share a vast amount of the variance. The results of the study revealed a clear structure of personality and well-being with very strong common general dimension at the top.
nterest in phenomena that transcend everyday experience is characteristic of all civilizations, cultures, and historical eras. The study of these phenomena has been the subject of religion, philosophy, art, and the occult rather than serious scientific endeavors. They were not systematically researched until the 20th century, and parapsychology is now an officially recognized scientific discipline, despite the fact that many are sooner or later critical, if not negative, of it, and some call it also otherwise (psionics, psychotronics, metapsychology, etc.). But in connection with all these phenomena, a number of questions arise that are of particular interest to psychology. How do we imagine these phenomena, how much do we believe in them? How do we connect, classify, categorize them? How do we experience them, what is the psychological structure of testimonies about these phenomena? What are the interpersonal, group and cultural differences in perceptions and experiences of such phenomena? We can certainly add many new ones to these basic questions. It would be absurd if psychologists did not research these issues, especially since parapsychology itself is an established and recognized science in the world today. In Slovenia, many people who are interested in paranormal, borderline and transcendent phenomena are also dealing with them, so the gap in the field of psychological research of these phenomena is even more unjustified. I wanted to fill it at least a little with this book. In it, I tried to present psychological (and, of course, some other) views on the fields of occult, paranormal and transcendent phenomena in a short, transparent and understandable way to everyone. Thus, before us is the publication of the first domestic book, which from a psychological point of view deals with borderline, special, paranormal and transcendent phenomena. The book deals with all the important areas of human activity and experience that science has failed to solve satisfactorily in the past and today, and which may go beyond ordinary experiences and explanations. It intervenes in the history of human engagement with special and mysterious phenomena and shows the answers offered by modern psychology and other sciences. It is the result of the author's many years of research, including extensive research, which the author in collaboration with dr. Susmanom conducted in 1993 and 1994. This is the first systematic research in relation to parapsychological and other borderline and special phenomena, which was conducted in our country to such an extent. The results of this research are presented and discussed in the book in a very separate way. The book consists of five chapters. The first chapter is introductory and in the first part clearly presents the categories of the great unknowns of the human spirit. In the second part, he talks about the results of our own research (Musek and Susman, 1993/94) and compares them with the results of research elsewhere in the world. The following chapters deal with occult areas in more detail. First there is the field of magic, occultism and Hermeticism (Chapter 2), and then the field of symbolism, mantics and prophecy (Chapter 3). The fourth chapter deals with paranormal and parapsychological phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis and others. The last, fifth chapter deals with special conscious and spiritual states, and among them are unconscious processes and mystical, transpersonal and transcendent experiences. Zanimanje za pojave, ki presegajo vsakdanje izkustvo, je značilno za vse civilizacije, kulture in zgodovinske dobe. Raziskovanje teh pojavov je bilo bolj predmet religije, filozofije, umetnosti in okultnih ved, kakor pa resnih znanstvenih prizadevanj. Sistematično so jih začeli znanstveno raziskovati šele v 20. stoletju in parapsihologija je danes uradno priznana znanstvena disciplina, ne glede na to, da so mnogi slej ko prej kritično, če ne celo odklonilno nastrojeni do nje in ne glede na to, da jo nekateri imenujejo tudi drugače (psionika, psihotronika, metapsihologija itd.). A v zvezi z vsemi temi pojavi se poraja vrsta vprašanj, ki so za psihologijo še posebno zanimiva. Kako si te pojave predstavljamo, koliko verjamemo vanje? Kako jih povezujemo med seboj, razvrščamo, kategoriziramo? Kako jih doživljamo, kakšna je psihološka struktura pričevanj o teh pojavih? Kakšne so medosebne, skupinske in kulturne razlike v pojmovanjih in doživljanjih tovrstnih pojavov? Gotovo lahko tem osnovnim vprašanjem dodamo še veliko novih. Nesmiselno bi bilo, če psihologi ne bi raziskovali teh vprašanj, posebno ker je že sama parapsihologija danes v svetu uveljavljena in priznana znanost. V Sloveniji je veliko ljudi, ki se zanimajo za paranormalne, mejne in transcendentne pojave, se tudi ukvarjajo z njimi, zato je vrzel na področju psihološkega raziskovanja teh pojavov še toliko bolj neupravičena. S to knjigo sem jo želel vsaj malo zapolniti. V njej sem skušal kratko, pregledno in vsakomur dovolj razumljivo prikazati psihološke (in seveda tudi nekatere druge) poglede na področja okultnih, paranormalnih in transcendentnih pojavov. Tako je pred nami izid prve domače knjige, ki s psihološkega vidika obravnava mejne, posebne, paranormalne in transcendentne pojave. Knjiga obravnava vsa pomembnejša področja človekovega delovanja in doživljanja, ki jih znanost v preteklosti in danes ni uspela zadovoljivo razrešiti in ki morda presegajo običajna izkustva in razlage. Posega v zgodovino človekovega ukvarjanja s posebnimi in skrivnostnimi pojavi in prikazuje odgovore, ki jih ob njih ponujata sodobna psihologija in druge znanosti. Je rezultat avtorjevih večletnih raziskovanj, med drugim tudi obsežne raziskave, ki jo je avtor v sodelovanju z dr. Susmanom izvedel v letih 1993 in 1994. Gre za prvo sistematično raziskavo v zvezi s parapsihološkimi in drugimi mejnimi ter posebnimi pojavi, ki je bila opravljena pri nas v tolikšnem obsegu. Rezultati te raziskave so v knjigi navedeni in obravnavani čisto posebej. Knjiga obsega pet poglavij. Prvo poglavje je uvodno in v prvem delu pregledno prikazuje kategorije velikih neznank človekovega duha. V drugem delu pa govori o rezultatih naših lastnih raziskovanj (Musek in Susman, 1993/94) in jih primerja z rezultati raziskav drugod po svetu. Sledita poglavji, ki podrobneje obravnavata okultna področja. Najprej je tu področje magije, okultizma in hermetizma (2. poglavje), nato pa področje simbolike, mantik ter prerokovanj (3. poglavje). Četrto poglavje obravnava paranormalne in parapsihološke pojave, kot so telepatija, jasnovidnost, prekognicija, psihokineza in druge. Zadnje, peto poglavje pa se loteva posebnih zavestnih in duhovnih stanj, med njimi pa so zajeti nezavedni procesi ter mistična, transpersonalna in transcendentna doživetja.
Psychological health and subjective emotional well-being are central concepts in the frame of positive psychology. Both concepts are multidimensional and both seem to be connected with a variety of personality traits and aspects of self-concept including self-esteem. The aim of this study was the investigation between dimensions of personality and self-concept and the dimensions of psychological well-being and health. A number of correlational and multivariate analyses have been carried out in order to elucidate the relationships between these variables. In general, the results show striong connection between the dimensions of personality and self-concept on the one side and the dimensions of psychologicl health on the other. The variance of all variables can be reduced in extent of more than 43 percent to only two major common factors. The first factor is represented by emotional stability (neuroticism) and its scomponents (anxiety, depression) and negative affect, while the second factor loaded primarily positive aspects of self-concept, self-esteem, positive affect, and energy or extraversion. In similar manner, the canonical varietes drawn from the set of personality and self-concept dimensions explained to a great extent the variance in the set of psycgological health and well-being dimensions. Confirmatory factor analysis also validated the unifactor solution of the psychological health measures, and, moreover, the personality and sel-concept dimensions accounted for more than 81 percent of the variance in resulting dimension of low versus high psychological health. Casual relations between personality factors, self-concept, and psychological health measures have been also confirmed in our analyses. According to the results of the study, we may conclude taht the personality, self-concept, and psychological health have much in common. All three concepts are theoretically and empirically interpretated and the most important common dimensions of them should be reasonable attributed to personal-emotional superdimensions (closelc resembling dimensions of posotive and negative affect) forming the top of the multidimensional hierarchically organized psychological structure.
Factor, component and cluster analyses were performed on the data from large representative sample MIDUS II (4963 participants from both sexes (2316 males and 2647 females) in the age range from 28 to 84 years (M = 55.43 years, SD = 12.45)). Two models of the well-being structure (classical hierarchical and bifactor) were tested.