Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To develop effective and personalized interventions, it is
essential to identify the most critical processes or psychological drivers that
impact an individual’s well-being. Some processes may be universally
beneficial to well-being across many contexts and people, while others may only
be beneficial to certain individuals in specific contexts.
Method
We conducted three intensive daily diary studies, each with
more than 50 within-person measurement occasions, across three data sets
(n1 = 44; n2 = 37; n3 = 141). We aimed
to investigate individual differences in the strength of within-person
associations between three distinct process measures and a variety of outcomes.
We utilized a unique idiographic algorithm, known as i-ARIMAX (Autoregressive
Integrated Moving Average), to determine the strength of the relationship (Beta)
between each process and outcome within individuals (“i”). All of
the computed betas were then subjected to meta-analyses, with individuals
treated as the “study”.
Results
The results revealed that the process-outcome links varied
significantly between individuals, surpassing the homogeneity typically seen in
meta-analyses of studies. Although several processes showed group-level effects,
no process was found to be universally beneficial when considered individually.
For instance, processes involving social behavior, like being assertive, did not
demonstrate any group-level links to loneliness but still had significant
individual-level effects that varied from positive to negative.
Discussion
Using i-ARIMAX might help reduce the number of candidate
variables for complex within-person analyses. Additionally, the size and pattern
of i-ARIMAX betas could prove useful in guiding personalized
interventions.
Funder
Australian Catholic University Limited
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献