Van de Vliert argues that demands placed on humans, if not met by sufficient resources to cope with these demands, will lead to malfunctioning and stress of the individual. Impressive evidence is provided at the population level. Van de Vliert's model appeals to demand–resource processes at the individual level. Despite individual-level theorizing, Van de Vliert has not evaluated individual level effects. Do climatic demands and wealth influence individuals directly? I used multi-level modelling and representative World Values Survey (WVS) (2005) data from 80,952 individuals in 55 countries, with climatic demands and log-transformed wealth in 2005 as population level predictors. Dependent variables were self-reported happiness (V10, How happy are you, on a scale from 1 “Very happy” to 4 “Not at all happy”) and postmaterialism values (emphasising quality of life, protection of the environment and lifestyle issues, ranging from 0 “Materialist” to 5 “Postmaterialist”). I controlled for age, education (both group-mean centred), and gender (1 “male”) at the individual level. The interaction effect was significant for both happiness (γ = −0.066, SE = 0.025, p < 0.05) and postmaterialism (γ = 0.158, SE = 0.044, p < 0.01) and in the predicted direction: Happiness and postmaterialism scores of individuals increased when they were living in a richer country with more demanding climate. This shows that the macro-level effects influence individuals in representative samples (see Van de Vliert et al. Reference Van de Vliert, Yang, Wang and Ren2013b for regional evidence).
Van de Vliert to date has not demonstrated or discussed whether monetary resources at the individual level operate as buffers of climate effects when predicting individual level responses. I used country-specific scales of incomes (V253; measured on a 10 step ladder, 1 “Lowest decile in country” to 10 “Highest decile in country”) from the WVS. The cross-level interaction between climate at country level and individual-level income on happiness was significant: γ = −.008, robust SE = .003, p < .05, even after controlling for the country-wealth by climate interaction (γ = −.076, SE = .029, p < .05) on happiness first. Greater income was associated with more happiness, and this association was strongest in demanding climates. In other words, income has a stronger association with happiness if there are climatic challenges. The effect was independent of the interaction between country-level wealth and climate. No interaction effect with income for postmaterialism was found: γ = −.005, SE = .005, p = .36, requiring more research to identify individual level resources that counter climatic demands on values. This shows that individual-level wealth may act as a buffer of climate effects on well-being related variables, but independently of the macro-level effects.
I suggest two avenues for further refinement. First, we need to pay greater attention to the specific buffering mechanisms of wealth in specific ecological niches. Do wealth effects increase the capabilities and agency of individuals (leading to mutually reinforcing collective empowerment effects, independent of effects on individuals)? Such contextual enhancement effects have been used to explain path dependencies in models of societal value change and political participation (Welzel Reference Welzel2012). Is it possible to identify wealth effects in specific domains that mediate the overall buffering mechanism of national wealth? Such domain-specific wealth effects may depend on the criterion variable of interest. For example, freedom from want may depend more on monetary investment in health and child care (increasing access to care and improving health of individuals), whereas freedom of expression may depend more on educational resources available to individuals (access to education, libraries, Internet, and other educational resources). Furthermore, I found an effect of income of individuals expressed as income deciles within the national income distribution. This raises the question whether relative income or absolute income are psychologically more important: Do we need to focus on the absolute levels that are necessary to counter specific climatic threats or does the relative position within the income hierarchy exert additional benefits (over and above satisfying basic needs)?
Second, it is worth exploring biological (including physiological and neurocognitive) functioning of individuals who are living in different ecological and economic niches to identify implicit psychological processes that underlie and contribute to the emergence of these macro-level effects. At a basic level, demands placed on the organism and the subjectively available resources for the organism to respond to these need to be examined more carefully. The amygdala is actively involved in emotional appraisal of potentially threatening information (Adolphs Reference Adolphs2009); however, a constant activation in more stressful environments is maladaptive for the organism. Other brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex are important in the down regulation of “fear” representations (Thayer et al. Reference Thayer, Ahs, Fredrikson, Sollers and Wager2012). This activation and regulation of the amygdala-prefrontal cortex complex is conceptually linked to the types of appraisals identified by Van de Vliert.
An effective interplay of various brain regions in the appraisal and regulation of stress-related information is essential for optimal human functioning. One promising marker of an effective regulatory system that is relatively understudied is heart rate variability (Thayer et al. Reference Thayer, Ahs, Fredrikson, Sollers and Wager2012). Other options include more experimental examinations of stress responses (e.g., startle reflex). One promising avenue for research is to examine how environmental demands impact on these basic physiological and neurocognitive mechanisms as they are important for the appraisal and regulation of stressors and resources. The effects demonstrated by Van de Vliert at the population level may be based in basic neurocognitive and physiological responses of the organism in specific environments, without directly being related to conscious responses to the environment. Implicit psychological mechanisms are not necessarily linked to explicit conscious awareness, but nevertheless can have significant effects on behaviours (Gawronski et al. Reference Gawronski, Hofmann and Wilbur2006).
The two avenues discussed can be studied in combination. Specific wealth-based mediators such as access to education or availability of effective care may influence the physiological reactivity of the organism and co-determine behavioural reactions to ecological demands. The reported effects at the population level are persuasive and have contributed to a much better understanding of the origins of cultural and social differences. The next challenge ahead is to improve the precision of the theory at the individual level to understand how the demand–resource interactions play out in the brains and bodies of individuals.
Van de Vliert argues that demands placed on humans, if not met by sufficient resources to cope with these demands, will lead to malfunctioning and stress of the individual. Impressive evidence is provided at the population level. Van de Vliert's model appeals to demand–resource processes at the individual level. Despite individual-level theorizing, Van de Vliert has not evaluated individual level effects. Do climatic demands and wealth influence individuals directly? I used multi-level modelling and representative World Values Survey (WVS) (2005) data from 80,952 individuals in 55 countries, with climatic demands and log-transformed wealth in 2005 as population level predictors. Dependent variables were self-reported happiness (V10, How happy are you, on a scale from 1 “Very happy” to 4 “Not at all happy”) and postmaterialism values (emphasising quality of life, protection of the environment and lifestyle issues, ranging from 0 “Materialist” to 5 “Postmaterialist”). I controlled for age, education (both group-mean centred), and gender (1 “male”) at the individual level. The interaction effect was significant for both happiness (γ = −0.066, SE = 0.025, p < 0.05) and postmaterialism (γ = 0.158, SE = 0.044, p < 0.01) and in the predicted direction: Happiness and postmaterialism scores of individuals increased when they were living in a richer country with more demanding climate. This shows that the macro-level effects influence individuals in representative samples (see Van de Vliert et al. Reference Van de Vliert, Yang, Wang and Ren2013b for regional evidence).
Van de Vliert to date has not demonstrated or discussed whether monetary resources at the individual level operate as buffers of climate effects when predicting individual level responses. I used country-specific scales of incomes (V253; measured on a 10 step ladder, 1 “Lowest decile in country” to 10 “Highest decile in country”) from the WVS. The cross-level interaction between climate at country level and individual-level income on happiness was significant: γ = −.008, robust SE = .003, p < .05, even after controlling for the country-wealth by climate interaction (γ = −.076, SE = .029, p < .05) on happiness first. Greater income was associated with more happiness, and this association was strongest in demanding climates. In other words, income has a stronger association with happiness if there are climatic challenges. The effect was independent of the interaction between country-level wealth and climate. No interaction effect with income for postmaterialism was found: γ = −.005, SE = .005, p = .36, requiring more research to identify individual level resources that counter climatic demands on values. This shows that individual-level wealth may act as a buffer of climate effects on well-being related variables, but independently of the macro-level effects.
I suggest two avenues for further refinement. First, we need to pay greater attention to the specific buffering mechanisms of wealth in specific ecological niches. Do wealth effects increase the capabilities and agency of individuals (leading to mutually reinforcing collective empowerment effects, independent of effects on individuals)? Such contextual enhancement effects have been used to explain path dependencies in models of societal value change and political participation (Welzel Reference Welzel2012). Is it possible to identify wealth effects in specific domains that mediate the overall buffering mechanism of national wealth? Such domain-specific wealth effects may depend on the criterion variable of interest. For example, freedom from want may depend more on monetary investment in health and child care (increasing access to care and improving health of individuals), whereas freedom of expression may depend more on educational resources available to individuals (access to education, libraries, Internet, and other educational resources). Furthermore, I found an effect of income of individuals expressed as income deciles within the national income distribution. This raises the question whether relative income or absolute income are psychologically more important: Do we need to focus on the absolute levels that are necessary to counter specific climatic threats or does the relative position within the income hierarchy exert additional benefits (over and above satisfying basic needs)?
Second, it is worth exploring biological (including physiological and neurocognitive) functioning of individuals who are living in different ecological and economic niches to identify implicit psychological processes that underlie and contribute to the emergence of these macro-level effects. At a basic level, demands placed on the organism and the subjectively available resources for the organism to respond to these need to be examined more carefully. The amygdala is actively involved in emotional appraisal of potentially threatening information (Adolphs Reference Adolphs2009); however, a constant activation in more stressful environments is maladaptive for the organism. Other brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex are important in the down regulation of “fear” representations (Thayer et al. Reference Thayer, Ahs, Fredrikson, Sollers and Wager2012). This activation and regulation of the amygdala-prefrontal cortex complex is conceptually linked to the types of appraisals identified by Van de Vliert.
An effective interplay of various brain regions in the appraisal and regulation of stress-related information is essential for optimal human functioning. One promising marker of an effective regulatory system that is relatively understudied is heart rate variability (Thayer et al. Reference Thayer, Ahs, Fredrikson, Sollers and Wager2012). Other options include more experimental examinations of stress responses (e.g., startle reflex). One promising avenue for research is to examine how environmental demands impact on these basic physiological and neurocognitive mechanisms as they are important for the appraisal and regulation of stressors and resources. The effects demonstrated by Van de Vliert at the population level may be based in basic neurocognitive and physiological responses of the organism in specific environments, without directly being related to conscious responses to the environment. Implicit psychological mechanisms are not necessarily linked to explicit conscious awareness, but nevertheless can have significant effects on behaviours (Gawronski et al. Reference Gawronski, Hofmann and Wilbur2006).
The two avenues discussed can be studied in combination. Specific wealth-based mediators such as access to education or availability of effective care may influence the physiological reactivity of the organism and co-determine behavioural reactions to ecological demands. The reported effects at the population level are persuasive and have contributed to a much better understanding of the origins of cultural and social differences. The next challenge ahead is to improve the precision of the theory at the individual level to understand how the demand–resource interactions play out in the brains and bodies of individuals.