In plain language
Psychology has traditionally relied on group averages: if acting on your values improves well-being on average, therapists are advised to encourage valued action in everyone. But averages can hide enormous individual differences. This study put a new family of “idionomic” statistical methods — which start with each individual’s own data and only generalise where warranted — head-to-head against traditional multilevel modelling. The authors analysed ecological momentary assessment data from 425 people who reported their valued action and moods 3–4 times a day, yielding 6,456 measurements.
The person-specific models (i-ARIMAX, combined with meta-analysis, mixture modelling, and multilevel network analysis) outperformed the traditional approach at capturing how much people genuinely differ. On average, “doing what matters” was linked to more joy and less sadness, but this effect varied widely from person to person. The analyses uncovered a small subgroup the authors called the ‘Stoics’ (n = 17): people who kept engaging in valued action even when it brought no boost in joy or reduction in sadness. For Stoics, stressful situations were linked to valued action but not to their moods; for everyone else, valued action was less likely under stress but felt good when it happened.
The findings matter for clinical practice: a standard, average-based recommendation to “do what matters to feel better” could be unhelpful or even counterproductive for some clients. Idionomic methods offer a practical way to personalise psychological interventions by identifying which processes actually drive outcomes for a given individual.
Key findings
- Person-specific i-ARIMAX models outperformed traditional multilevel modelling in capturing within-person heterogeneity in the links between valued action and affect (425 participants, 6,456 momentary assessments).
- On average, values-based living was positively related to hedonic well-being (more joy, less sadness), but the strength and even direction of this link varied substantially across individuals.
- For nearly 20% of the sample, ‘doing what matters’ was unrelated to sadness; about 41% showed large negative associations with sadness while roughly 4% showed large positive ones.
- A distinct subgroup of ‘Stoics’ (n = 17) continued engaging in valued action despite gaining no hedonic benefit — for them, valued action was linked to stressful situations but not to well-being.
- For Non-Stoics, valued action was less likely in stressful situations, but when it occurred it was associated with more joy and less sadness.
- The study provides initial evidence that idionomic methods may be superior to purely nomothetic ones, and may be necessary for personalising psychological interventions; the R code is provided in supplementary materials.
How to cite
APA
Sahdra, B. K., Ciarrochi, J., Klimczak, K. S., Krafft, J., Hayes, S. C., & Levin, M. (2024). Testing the applicability of idionomic statistics in longitudinal studies: The example of ‘doing what matters’. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 32, 100728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100728
BibTeX
@article{sahdra2024testing,
author = {Sahdra, Baljinder K. and Ciarrochi, Joseph and Klimczak, Korena S. and Krafft, Jennifer and Hayes, Steven C. and Levin, Michael},
title = {Testing the applicability of idionomic statistics in longitudinal studies: The example of `doing what matters'},
journal = {Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science},
year = {2024},
volume = {32},
pages = {100728},
doi = {10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100728}
}
Related work
- All publications by Joseph Ciarrochi (searchable, with free PDFs)
- Process-Based Therapy & Idionomic Analysis
Author: Joseph Ciarrochi (ORCID 0000-0003-0471-8100). Free copy hosted with permission for scholarly use. Please cite the published version via the DOI above.