The Five Ways to Wellbeing were developed in 2008 as a set of simple daily practices for individuals to improve their wellbeing. While there is some evidence to support the association between individual practices and wellbeing, it is unknown whether engaging in multiple practicesand in certain combinationsis associated with higher levels of wellbeing. A survey was undertaken with 10,012 adults throughout Aotearoa, New Zealand, to assess individual wellbeing and participation in the Five Ways to Wellbeing (Connect, Give, Take Notice, Keep Learning and Be Active). Wellbeing was assessed with the Flourishing Scale (Md = 46, IQR 39-49). Three objectives explored the cross-sectional association between the Five ways to Wellbeing and wellbeing: (1) multiple wellbeing practices and wellbeing, (2) clustering of multiple wellbeing practices, and (3) wellbeing practices as predictors of wellbeing. Results show that levels of wellbeing increased with each additional practice (rho = .53, p < .001), regardless of the combination. However, the most important predictors of wellbeing were Keep Learning (β = .23, p < .001) and Take Notice (β = .22, p < .001). Studies investigating ways to increase participation in the Five Ways to Wellbeing are warranted to promote wellbeing in Aotearoa.

To what extent are shifts of attention driven by encoding of , associated with useful locations, or by encoding of environmental cues that act as, providing information about where to look next? In Experiment 1 we found that when cues were presented with a long exposure time (300 ms) attention shifts were driven by the symbolic identity of cue stimuli, independently of their visual-spatial (landmark) features; but when cues were exposed very briefly, (66 ms), attention shifts were independent of symbolic information, and were driven instead by visual landmark features. This unexpected finding was interpreted in terms of the transient and sustained response characteristics of the M-cell and P-cell inputs to the dorsal and ventral visual streams, respectively, and informed our theoretical proposal that attentional effects elicited by visual-spatial landmarks may be driven by dorsal stream ("") encoding; while attentional effects driven by the symbolic identity of cues may be driven by ventral stream ("") encoding. Detailed predictions derived from this proposal, and based on distinct physiological properties of the 2 visual streams were tested and confirmed in Experiments 2-6. Our results suggest that a 2-process view of attention shifting can be integrated with dual-stream models of vision. According to this unified theory: (a) Landmarks associated with visually useful locations elicit rapid, nonconscious shifts of attention, via nonsemantic, dorsal visual stream encoding of their features and spatial relationships; (b) Slower, endogenous shifts of attention are elicited by ventral visual stream encoding of symbolic-semantic information. (PsycINFO Database Record