Buddhist
Beliefs and Subjective Well-Being: A Narrative Review
Phí Thị Hiếu
Associate Professor, Thai Nguyen University
of Education, Viet Nam
Abstract
This narrative review synthesizes theoretical
perspectives and empirical findings on the relationship between Buddhist
beliefs and subjective well-being (SWB). Although mindfulness-based constructs
derived from Buddhism have been widely studied in psychological science, the
broader role of explicitly Buddhist belief systems remains conceptually
fragmented and empirically underintegrated. Drawing on literature retrieved
from major academic databases, the review examines how Buddhist belief has been
operationalized, evaluates evidence linking Buddhist-related orientations to
SWB, and identifies key psychological mechanisms. Overall, the literature
suggests a generally positive—though often indirect—association between
Buddhist-informed constructs and well-being outcomes. Four recurrent mediating
pathways were identified: mindfulness, self-compassion, non-attachment, and
enhanced meaning in life. However, the evidence base is constrained by
measurement inconsistency, heavy reliance on cross-sectional designs, and a
predominance of Western or secularized samples. Notably, many studies conflate
mindfulness practice with doctrinal belief, limiting theoretical precision. The
review highlights the need for clearer construct differentiation, culturally
sensitive measurement, and stronger longitudinal and experimental designs,
particularly in Buddhist-majority contexts such as Vietnam. Advancing research
in this area may contribute to a more culturally inclusive science of
well-being and deepen understanding of contemplative belief systems in
psychological functioning.
Keywords: Buddhist belief, subjective well-being, mindfulness, self-compassion,
non-attachment, narrative review
Introduction
Subjective
well-being (SWB)—typically conceptualized as individuals’ cognitive and
affective evaluations of their lives—has become a central construct in
contemporary psychology, public health, and education research. Since the
seminal work of Diener (1984), a substantial body of literature has examined
psychological, social, and cultural predictors of well-being. Among these,
religion and spirituality have received sustained scholarly attention due to
their potential roles in meaning-making, emotional regulation, and social
integration. However, the majority of empirical work has focused on
Judeo-Christian contexts, leaving non-Western religious traditions, including
Buddhism, comparatively underexamined or theoretically simplified.
Buddhism presents a
distinctive psychological framework that differs in important respects from
many Western religious models. Core doctrinal elements—such as impermanence
(anicca), non-self (anatta), and the cultivation of compassion and
mindfulness—offer a systematic account of human suffering and well-being
grounded in mental processes and experiential practice. Over the past two
decades, selected Buddhist-derived constructs, most notably mindfulness, have
been extensively operationalized and studied within Western psychology (Brown
& Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). This line of research has generated robust
evidence linking mindfulness-based interventions to improved psychological
functioning. Nevertheless, the broader construct of Buddhist belief—including
doctrinal endorsement, devotional faith, and ethical commitment—has received
far less integrative attention in relation to subjective well-being.
Existing studies
suggest that engagement with Buddhist beliefs and practices may be positively
associated with life satisfaction, emotional balance, and reduced psychological
distress. Proposed mechanisms include enhanced emotion regulation, increased self-compassion,
reduced attachment, and strengthened meaning in life (Wallace & Shapiro,
2006; Ekman et al., 2005). Yet the empirical landscape remains fragmented.
First, many studies conflate mindfulness practice with religious belief,
obscuring potentially distinct pathways to well-being. Second, measurement
approaches to “Buddhist belief” vary widely, ranging from single-item
religiosity indicators to multidimensional doctrinal scales, limiting
comparability across studies. Third, much of the empirical evidence derives
from Western or highly specific occupational samples, raising questions about
cultural generalizability, particularly in traditionally Buddhist societies.
Moreover, the rapid
secularization of mindfulness in psychological science has produced an
asymmetry in the literature: while mindfulness as a technique is extensively
validated, the role of explicitly Buddhist cognitive frameworks in shaping
subjective well-being remains theoretically underdeveloped and empirically
diffuse. This gap is especially salient in Southeast and East Asian contexts,
where Buddhism functions not only as a contemplative practice but also as a
lived cultural belief system intertwined with moral norms and everyday coping.
Without a careful synthesis of existing findings, the field risks
overgeneralizing from decontextualized mindfulness research and underestimating
the broader psychological contributions of Buddhist belief systems.
Given these
limitations, a comprehensive narrative synthesis is warranted. The present
review aims to integrate theoretical perspectives and empirical findings
concerning the relationship between Buddhist beliefs and subjective well-being.
Specifically, this review seeks to: (a) clarify how Buddhist belief has been conceptualized
and operationalized in psychological research; (b) synthesize empirical
evidence regarding its association with subjective well-being; (c) identify key
psychological mechanisms proposed to mediate this relationship; and (d)
highlight methodological limitations and future research directions, with
particular attention to Asian and Vietnamese contexts. By providing a critical
and integrative overview, this review intends to refine the conceptual
boundaries of Buddhist belief within well-being research and to inform more
culturally grounded and methodologically rigorous future studies.
Methods and
materials
This
study employed a narrative review design to synthesize theoretical and
empirical research on the relationship between Buddhist beliefs and subjective
well-being. A narrative approach was selected because the literature in this
field is conceptually heterogeneous, with substantial variation in definitions
of Buddhist belief, measurement strategies, and study populations. Unlike a
formal systematic review or meta-analysis, the narrative method allowed for
integrative interpretation of diverse evidence, critical comparison of
conceptual frameworks, and identification of theoretical gaps, which aligns
with the aims outlined in the introduction.
A
structured literature search was conducted using the following electronic
databases: Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. These
databases were chosen to ensure broad coverage of peer-reviewed psychological,
interdisciplinary, and religion-related research.
The search combined
keywords related to Buddhism and subjective well-being using Boolean operators.
The core search string was:
("Buddhist belief" OR Buddhism OR "Buddhist
faith" OR "Buddhist religiosity") AND ("subjective
well-being" OR happiness OR "life satisfaction" OR wellbeing); Additional searches
incorporated mechanism-related terms (e.g., mindfulness, self-compassion,
non-attachment, meaning in life) to capture studies examining mediating
processes. Reference lists of key articles were manually screened to identify
further relevant publications.
Studies
were included if they met the following criteria: (a) published in
peer-reviewed journals, academic books, or graduate theses; (b) written in
English; (c) examined Buddhist beliefs, Buddhist religiosity, or closely
related constructs grounded in Buddhist doctrine or practice; and (d) included
a measure conceptually aligned with subjective well-being, such as life
satisfaction, positive and negative affect, or global happiness. Studies were
excluded if they: (a) were purely philosophical or doctrinal discussions
without psychological measurement; (b) focused exclusively on clinical
mindfulness interventions without reference to Buddhist belief or framework;
(c) lacked sufficient methodological description; or (d) were conference
abstracts, opinion pieces, or non-scholarly reports.
The
selection process proceeded in three stages. First, titles and abstracts were
screened to remove clearly irrelevant records. Second, full texts of
potentially eligible articles were reviewed against the inclusion criteria.
Third, additional relevant sources were identified through backward citation
tracking of seminal works in the field. When ambiguity arose regarding
conceptual relevance to Buddhist belief, the study was retained for full-text
evaluation to minimize premature exclusion.
For
each included study, key information was extracted, including authorship, year
of publication, country or sample context, study design, operationalization of
Buddhist belief, measures of subjective well-being, and principal findings.
Particular attention was paid to proposed psychological mediators and to
distinctions between belief-oriented and practice-oriented variables.
Consistent
with narrative review methodology, findings were synthesized thematically
rather than quantitatively. The synthesis focused on four analytic domains
derived from the review questions: (a) conceptualization of Buddhist belief,
(b) empirical associations with subjective well-being, (c) proposed
psychological mechanisms, and (d) methodological strengths and limitations.
Convergent and divergent findings were explicitly compared to identify patterns
and unresolved issues in the literature.
Although
formal risk-of-bias scoring was not conducted due to the narrative design,
methodological rigor of included studies was critically appraised during
synthesis. Studies were evaluated with respect to sample adequacy, measurement
validity, cultural contextualization, and clarity in distinguishing Buddhist
belief from secular mindfulness practice. Greater interpretive weight was given
to studies employing validated well-being measures and theoretically grounded
operationalizations of Buddhist constructs.
This
review prioritizes conceptual integration and critical interpretation rather
than exhaustive coverage. The restriction to English-language publications and
the exclusion of purely doctrinal literature may have omitted relevant regional
scholarship. Nevertheless, the structured search strategy and cross-database
coverage were intended to capture the most influential and methodologically
relevant studies for evaluating the psychological relationship between Buddhist
belief and subjective well-being.
Results
The
structured search and screening process identified a heterogeneous but
thematically coherent body of literature examining links between
Buddhist-related constructs and subjective well-being (SWB). Consistent with
the broader well-being literature (Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 2003), most
included studies operationalized SWB through life satisfaction, affect balance,
or composite well-being indices. The reviewed evidence base was dominated by
cross-sectional quantitative designs, supplemented by a smaller number of
intervention studies and conceptual integrations bridging Buddhist psychology
and Western well-being science.
Geographically,
the literature showed a pronounced imbalance. A substantial proportion of
empirical work was conducted in Western or international business contexts
using Buddhist-derived constructs in secularized form (e.g., mindfulness and
self-compassion), whereas comparatively fewer studies directly examined
Buddhist belief systems within traditionally Buddhist societies. Nevertheless,
the overall pattern across studies suggested a generally positive—though often
indirect—association between Buddhist-related orientations and subjective
well-being. This conclusion is broadly consistent with integrative perspectives
arguing that contemplative traditions may support emotional balance and
adaptive functioning (Ekman et al., 2005; Wallace & Shapiro, 2006).
Conceptualization
of Buddhist belief
One of the most salient findings of the review
concerns the conceptual heterogeneity surrounding “Buddhist belief.” Across
studies, three dominant operationalization strategies were identified. First, a limited
subset of studies measured doctrinal endorsement, including belief in karma,
impermanence, or adherence to Buddhist ethical precepts. For example, research
with Vietnamese adults examined compliance with the Five Precepts as a
belief-informed behavioral indicator and found that its association with SWB
was moderated by mindfulness practice (Phong, 2022). This line of work reflects
closer alignment with traditional Buddhist psychology but remains relatively
rare. Second, the majority of empirical studies relied on practice-based
proxies, particularly mindfulness meditation engagement. Influential
psychological research has demonstrated robust links between trait mindfulness
and well-being outcomes (Brown & Ryan, 2003). However, many of these
studies did not explicitly assess Buddhist religious commitment, raising
concerns about conceptual slippage between secular attentional training and
religious belief systems. Third, several studies employed broader religiosity or spirituality
measures that included Buddhist identification among multiple traditions. While
these measures captured religious orientation more generally, they often lacked
doctrinal specificity, limiting their explanatory precision regarding uniquely
Buddhist mechanisms.
Taken together, the
literature reveals a persistent construct ambiguity: Buddhist belief is
frequently inferred from mindfulness-related variables without direct
measurement of doctrinal or faith-based components. Studies using
multidimensional measures of Buddhist religiosity tended to report more
differentiated findings, whereas single-indicator or proxy measures produced
more variable results. This measurement inconsistency represents a major
obstacle to cumulative knowledge building in the field.
Em pirical associations with subjective well-being
Across the reviewed
empirical studies, most reported positive associations between Buddhist-related
constructs and subjective well-being indicators. Individuals reporting higher
levels of mindfulness, self-compassion, or engagement with Buddhist ethical principles
generally demonstrated greater life satisfaction and more favorable affective
profiles. These findings align with broader evidence that present-centered
awareness and adaptive self-relating are beneficial for psychological
functioning (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
However, the
strength of these associations was typically small to moderate, and several
studies suggested that the relationship operates primarily through indirect
pathways. For instance, in occupational samples, mindfulness and
self-compassion were strongly associated with well-being, but their effects
were partially mediated by emotion regulation and stress reduction processes
(Lu et al., 2022). Similarly, in culturally Buddhist contexts, mere religious
identification was often a weak predictor of well-being unless accompanied by
active psychological engagement, such as meditation practice or internalized
ethical commitment.
Evidence from
loving-kindness (mettā) research further supports the beneficial role of
compassion-based practices. Studies involving healthcare and professional
populations reported that mettā-oriented training was associated with improved
emotional balance and perceived happiness (Sudprasert & Mahatthanadull,
2021). Nevertheless, many intervention studies employed secular program formats
derived from Buddhist traditions, making it difficult to isolate the specific
contribution of explicitly Buddhist belief structures.
Importantly, a small
number of integrative analyses suggest that the relationship between Buddhism
and happiness may depend on the degree of psychological internalization rather
than formal religious affiliation. Conceptual work and thesis-level syntheses
have proposed that meaning in life, social connectedness, and cognitive
reframing are key pathways through which Buddhist worldviews may influence
well-being (Severin, 2019). These findings converge with broader theoretical
perspectives emphasizing the role of meaning-making systems in sustaining
subjective well-being (Diener et al., 2003).
Psychological
mechanisms linking Buddhist belief and well-being
A central aim of this review was to identify mediating processes that explain
how Buddhist-related orientations may influence subjective well-being. Four
mechanisms emerged consistently across the literature.
Mindfulness was the
most extensively supported pathway. Numerous studies demonstrated that
present-moment awareness and nonjudgmental attention partially mediate the
relationship between contemplative engagement and well-being outcomes (Brown
& Ryan, 2003). Mindfulness-based interventions, as reviewed in clinical and
applied contexts, have repeatedly shown improvements in affect regulation and
psychological functioning (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). However, the literature also
indicates that mindfulness alone does not fully account for the broader
psychological effects associated with Buddhist frameworks.
Self-compassion
emerged as a second robust mechanism. Foundational work on the construct
demonstrates its strong association with emotional resilience and reduced
psychopathology (Neff, 2003; Bluth & Neff, 2018). Empirical studies in
organizational and community samples further indicate that self-compassion
partially mediates the link between mindfulness and subjective well-being (Lu
et al., 2022). Within Buddhist psychology, self-compassion is theoretically
grounded in nonjudgmental awareness and reduced self-clinging, suggesting
conceptual coherence with doctrinal principles.
Non-attachment or
reduced ego-involvement was identified in several conceptual syntheses as
another plausible pathway. Buddhist psychological theory posits that diminished
attachment to fixed self-concepts reduces emotional volatility and suffering.
Although empirical measurement of non-attachment remains less standardized,
theoretical analyses argue that this construct may differentiate
Buddhist-informed well-being pathways from purely hedonic models (Wallace &
Shapiro, 2006).
Finally, enhanced
meaning in life and existential coherence were frequently proposed as cognitive
mediators, particularly in studies examining religious belief rather than
meditation practice alone. Integrative perspectives suggest that Buddhist
worldviews may provide cognitive frameworks that normalize suffering and
support adaptive reinterpretation of adverse experiences (Ekman et al., 2005;
Severin, 2019). These meaning-based pathways appear especially relevant in
culturally embedded Buddhist contexts.
Methodological
patterns and recurring limitations
Despite generally supportive findings, the review identified several
methodological weaknesses that constrain interpretation. The predominance of
cross-sectional designs limits causal inference and leaves open the possibility
of reverse causality, whereby psychologically healthier individuals may be more
inclined to engage in contemplative or religious activities. Longitudinal and
experimental studies remain comparatively scarce.
Measurement
inconsistency was particularly pronounced. Many studies relied on validated
mindfulness or well-being scales but used ad hoc or indirect indicators of
Buddhist belief. This imbalance risks conflating secular attentional training
with religiously grounded cognitive frameworks. Furthermore, relatively few
studies simultaneously measured doctrinal belief, contemplative practice, and
psychological mediators within a single analytic model.
Sampling limitations
were also common. A large proportion of studies used convenience samples,
including university students and organizational employees, which may restrict
ecological validity. In addition, the literature shows a strong Western bias in
measurement development, even when applied to Asian populations. This raises
concerns about cultural equivalence and construct validity in traditionally
Buddhist societies.
Discussion
Theoretical
integration and conceptual implications
One of the most
consequential insights emerging from this synthesis is the need to move beyond
the prevailing reduction of Buddhism to mindfulness alone. While mindfulness
has been highly productive as a construct within psychological science, the
broader Buddhist cognitive–ethical framework appears to operate through a more
complex constellation of processes. From a theoretical standpoint, Buddhist
belief systems can be understood as meaning-regulation frameworks that reshape
how individuals interpret suffering, selfhood, and emotional experience. This
perspective aligns with eudaimonic models of well-being that emphasize
psychological functioning and existential coherence rather than hedonic
pleasure alone (Diener et al., 2003; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
Importantly,
Buddhist psychology introduces a distinctive mechanism not fully captured in
mainstream Western models: the systematic deconstruction of rigid
self-representation. The doctrinal emphasis on impermanence and non-self may
function as a cognitive flexibility framework that reduces maladaptive
rumination and ego-threat sensitivity. Conceptual analyses bridging Buddhist
thought and modern psychology have long suggested that mental balance emerges
not merely from attentional training but from a reorientation toward experience
characterized by reduced clinging and greater equanimity (Wallace &
Shapiro, 2006; Ekman et al., 2005). Future theoretical models of subjective
well-being may benefit from explicitly incorporating this dimension of self-process
transformation.
Differentiating
belief, practice, and cultural Buddhism
A second key implication concerns the need for sharper construct boundaries.
The literature indicates that “Buddhist belief” has often been treated as
interchangeable with meditation engagement, yet these domains may exert
partially independent psychological effects. From a sociocognitive perspective,
doctrinal belief, ethical commitment, and contemplative practice likely form a layered
system rather than a single continuum. Belief structures may primarily
influence cognitive appraisal and meaning-making, whereas meditation practice
may more directly affect attentional regulation and emotional reactivity.
In addition, the
review highlights the importance of distinguishing individual-level
psychological Buddhism from culturally embedded or communal Buddhism. In many
Asian societies, Buddhist identity is intertwined with ritual participation,
ancestor practices, and social norms. These culturally embedded forms may
contribute to well-being through social cohesion, moral regulation, and
existential security in ways that are not captured by individual trait
measures. Conceptual frameworks that fail to account for this sociocultural
layer risk underestimating the full psychological ecology of Buddhist contexts.
Implications
for cross-cultural well-being research
The
findings of this review contribute to a broader reconsideration of cultural
bias in well-being science. Much of the dominant literature on happiness has
been developed within Western individualistic frameworks, where well-being is
often conceptualized in terms of personal satisfaction and positive affect.
Buddhist-informed perspectives, by contrast, place greater emphasis on
equanimity, reduced craving, and compassionate orientation toward others. These
differences suggest that standard subjective well-being measures may not fully
capture culturally valued forms of flourishing in Buddhist populations.
Accordingly,
future cross-cultural research should examine measurement equivalence more
rigorously and consider incorporating constructs such as non-attachment,
equanimity, and compassionate joy. Expanding the conceptual vocabulary of
well-being may help bridge the gap between hedonic-dominant models and
contemplative traditions. Such integration would also respond to growing calls
within positive psychology to diversify cultural foundations and theoretical
assumptions.
Methodological
implications for future research
The review also underscores several priorities for
methodological advancement. First, longitudinal and experimental designs are
needed to clarify directionality and potential causal pathways. Without
temporal data, it remains difficult to determine whether Buddhist engagement
enhances well-being, whether psychologically healthier individuals are more
likely to adopt contemplative practices, or whether bidirectional dynamics are
at work.
Second, future
studies should employ multidimensional measurement strategies that
simultaneously assess doctrinal belief, contemplative practice, and proposed
mediators. Integrative structural models would allow researchers to test
whether belief-based and practice-based pathways contribute uniquely or
interactively to subjective well-being.
Third, greater
attention should be given to culturally sensitive instrument development. Many
existing measures were developed in Western contexts and later translated for
use in Asian samples without full validation. Developing indigenous or
culturally adapted scales—particularly for constructs such as non-attachment
and karmic worldview—would substantially strengthen construct validity in
Buddhist-majority settings.
Implications
for the Vietnamese context
The
Vietnamese context represents a particularly promising but underdeveloped
research setting. Buddhism in Vietnam is characterized by a syncretic blend of
Mahāyāna doctrine, folk religiosity, and communal ritual life. This layered
structure suggests that the psychological functions of Buddhist belief in
Vietnam may differ meaningfully from those observed in highly secularized
Western mindfulness research.
Future Vietnamese
studies could make important contributions by examining how ethical precepts,
merit-making practices, and communal religious participation relate to
different components of subjective well-being. Additionally, educational and
mental health interventions in Vietnam may benefit from culturally grounded
contemplative approaches that integrate compassion training and ethical
reflection alongside attentional practices.
Limitations
of the present review
Several
limitations of this review should be acknowledged. As a narrative synthesis,
the review prioritizes conceptual integration over exhaustive coverage and does
not provide quantitative effect size estimates. The restriction to
English-language sources may have excluded relevant regional scholarship,
particularly in Asian languages. Furthermore, variability in study quality and
measurement approaches limits the strength of cross-study comparisons. These
constraints reinforce the need for more standardized and culturally sensitive
research in the field.
Conclusions and
future directions
Taken together, the
literature suggests that Buddhist belief systems hold meaningful but complex
associations with subjective well-being. The psychological benefits appear to
arise less from nominal religious affiliation and more from internalized cognitive–affective
processes aligned with Buddhist principles. Advancing the field will require
clearer construct differentiation, stronger causal designs, and deeper cultural
grounding—particularly in Buddhist-majority societies. By integrating
contemplative traditions with rigorous psychological methodology, future
research has the potential to enrich both the science of well-being and the
cross-cultural understanding of human flourishing.
REFERENCES
1. Bluth, K., & Neff, K. D. (2018). New
frontiers in understanding the benefits of self-compassion. Self and
Identity, 17(6), 605–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1508494
2. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The
benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4),
822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
3. Chen, Z., & Triamvithaya, C. (2025).
Meditation and happiness management by applying Buddhist principles in the
happiness economics. Dhammathas Academic Journal, 25(1), 181–200.
4. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological
Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
5. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E.
(2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54, 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056
6. Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., Ricard, M., &
Wallace, B. A. (2005). Buddhist and psychological perspectives on emotions and
well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 59–63.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00335.x
7. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based
interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016
8. Lu, J., Huang, X., Xiao, H., & Li, M.
(2022). The relationships among mindfulness, self-compassion, and subjective
well-being: The case of employees in an international business. Sustainability,
14(9), 5266. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095266
9. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade,
D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review
of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
10. Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and
validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3),
223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027
11. Phong, N. V. (2022). Mindfulness meditation
moderates the relationship between five prohibitions of Buddhism and subjective
wellbeing: A survey of Vietnamese adults. Linguistics and Culture Review, 6(S2),
291–305. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v6nS2.2081
12. Severin, M. (2019). How Buddhism impacts
happiness: Psychological mechanisms explaining Buddhism's effect on subjective
well-being (Master’s thesis). Université catholique de Louvain.
13. Sudprasert, S., & Mahatthanadull, S.
(2021). A Buddhist approach to happiness by loving-kindness (mettā) for medical
personnel in new-normal age. Journal of International Buddhist Studies, 12(2),
45–60.
14. Wallace, B. A., & Shapiro, S. L. (2006).
Mental balance and well-being: Building bridges between Buddhism and Western
psychology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 690–701.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.690
