Subjective Well-Being as a Reference Variable in the Feedback Process: Model Considerations on Oscillatory Capacity and Self-Regulation

---

---

Introduction: Findings from biofeedback research suggest that autonomic bodily processes can be indirectly influenced once their occurrence or absence is linked to an emotional state—such as joy or the absence of joy (Lehrer & Gevirtz, 2014). A classic example is the regulation of heart rate: a participant sees a column on a screen without knowing that it represents their heart rate. Their task is to keep the column between two thresholds. As the column moves toward the target corridor, the person experiences a positive feeling; as it moves away, the feeling disappears.

The body begins to establish correlations between the experienced feeling and the underlying physiological states—not only with regard to heart rate but also to other processes. After a short time, the organism develops a “working hypothesis”: when the heart rate lies within a certain range, emotional experience is most favorable. This assumption becomes the target, and the body begins to actively maintain the heart rate in this range. In this way, an otherwise autonomic process becomes indirectly, yet voluntarily, controllable.

In practice, this mechanism can be designed even more elegantly. For example, any video can be played whose image quality changes depending on physiological target values: when the body reaches the desired values, the image becomes sharp, colorful, and fluid; when the values deviate, it appears pixelated, desaturated, and jerky.

First interim conclusion: The body seems to take into account, in the fine-tuning of its numerous processes, a control or feedback variable closely linked to subjective well-being—a feeling state that serves as feedback.

Well-Being as a Central Feedback Variable

Subjective well-being is therefore not merely a pleasant or unpleasant state but a central parameter in the body’s regulatory system. It continuously informs the organism whether what it is doing for itself is functional or dysfunctional. Whether this is the only relevant feedback variable remains open—but its significance is evident (Thayer et al., 2012).

Following this assumption, correlations are formed almost continuously between the current state of well-being and the autonomic physiological processes occurring simultaneously. If the theory holds, it should in principle be possible to deliberately influence these processes—which is already achieved in biofeedback practice (Lehrer & Gevirtz, 2014). Likewise, at least in animal experiments, an unhealthy physiological state could be induced more frequently if it is systematically paired with a positive stimulus (Schwartz & Andrasik, 2017).

What is crucial here is the “oscillatory capacity” of this well-being variable: if it is sufficiently pronounced, the body can evaluate precise feedback and thus enable fine regulation of its processes. If it is restricted, however, this regulatory loop falters—with potentially far-reaching consequences for physical health.

Depression as a Limitation of Oscillatory Capacity

An example of such a limitation is the depressive state. In depression, well-being remains confined to a limited section of the spectrum on the negative side. It loses its mobility and stays within a narrow, predominantly negative range. As a result, the body essentially receives only one-sided feedback on the multitude of its autonomic process changes.

Epidemiological studies, for example based on representative health data from the Robert Koch Institute (Hapke et al., 2019; Jacobi et al., 2014), show that depressive states are associated with an increased likelihood of numerous physical illnesses. Psychiatric epidemiology at Charité (Baumeister & Hutter, 2012) also reports a close, reciprocal relationship between depression and metabolic diseases, which can reinforce each other. Within the theoretical framework developed here, this could be interpreted as follows: when feedback, which normally contains both positive and negative components, is reduced to a purely negative pole, it loses its function as a control variable.

Analogy: Navigation Device

This state can be compared to a navigation device that has lost contact with satellites. High-quality devices can still navigate for a while using inertia sensors and wheel rotation sensors. But the crucial control variable—the GPS signal—is missing. Without this precise feedback, navigation becomes increasingly inaccurate until serious errors occur. Transferred to the organism, this means: if the oscillatory well-being variable is missing, the body loses an essential reference point for fine-tuning its processes.

Further Examples: Psychoactive Substances and Stress

An opposite scenario is found in the use of intoxicating substances. Here, feedback remains excessively long at the upper end of the spectrum. Whereas in depression the signal is constantly “no,” here it is permanently “yes.” This state is also unsuitable for precise regulation, as it no longer provides differentiated signals (Koob & Volkow, 2016).

Another example is stress. Under strain, endorphins are released that have analgesic and mood-enhancing effects (Boecker et al., 2008). This can lead to physiological feedback remaining in the positive range despite subjective strain. In some cases, people deliberately seek stressful activities to distract themselves from even more distressing thoughts—this too can distort feedback in a one-sided way.

Possible Health Consequences and Points of Intervention

The examples of depression, psychoactive substances, and stress illustrate that disturbances in oscillatory capacity are problematic in both directions. In all cases, the body loses the ability to precisely distinguish between functional and dysfunctional states. Feedback becomes one-sided, the regulatory loop incomplete—with potentially far-reaching consequences for health.

If the oscillatory well-being variable as a feedback signal fails or becomes one-sided, the precision of internal regulation decreases. Over longer periods, this may contribute to increased susceptibility to physical illness. Should this mechanism be empirically confirmed, it could open new avenues for prevention and therapy.

Procedures specifically aimed at restoring oscillatory capacity would be of particular interest. Here, the concept of self-efficacy could play a key role: those who experience that they can actively influence their inner states not only strengthen their psychological balance but possibly also the precision of bodily self-regulation (Bandura, 1997).

Conclusion

Subjective well-being is more than an accompanying phenomenon of experience—it is a central, oscillatory feedback variable in the body’s regulatory system. When it is restricted, the organism loses a crucial control parameter. The model developed here provides a theoretical foundation for understanding and deliberately influencing these relationships.

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
• Baumeister, H., & Hutter, N. (2012). Collaborative care for depression in medically ill patients. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 25(5), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e328356b4a5
• Boecker, H., Sprenger, T., Spilker, M. E., Henriksen, G., Koppenhoefer, M., Wagner, K. J., & Tolle, T. R. (2008). The runner’s high: Opioidergic mechanisms in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2523–2531. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn013
• Hapke, U., Cohrdes, C., Nübel, J., & Jacobi, F. (2019). Psychische Gesundheit in Deutschland: Ergebnisse der Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland (DEGS1-MH). Journal of Health Monitoring, 4(3), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.25646/5862
• Jacobi, F., Höfler, M., Strehle, J., Mack, S., Gerschler, A., Scholl, L., & Wittchen, H.-U. (2014). Psychische Störungen in der Allgemeinbevölkerung: Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland und ihr Zusatzmodul Psychische Gesundheit (DEGS1-MH). Der Nervenarzt, 85(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-013-3961-y
• Koob, G. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2016). Neurobiology of addiction: A neurocircuitry analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(8), 760–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00104-8
• Lehrer, P. M., & Gevirtz, R. (2014). Heart rate variability biofeedback: How and why does it work? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00756
• Schwartz, M. S., & Andrasik, F. (2017). Biofeedback: A practitioner’s guide (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
• Thayer, J. F., Åhs, F., Fredrikson, M., Sollers, J. J., & Wager, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: Implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(2), 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.009

Copy link Share by email

---