You are looking at 81 - 90 of 282 items

  • Series: Handbooks of Research Methods and Applications series x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Carol D. Ryff and Jennifer Morozink Boylan

This chapter reviews the philosophical and conceptual foundations of two types of happiness: hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being. Both are increasingly the focus of scientific research, including studies of health. We summarize extant evidence linking both types of well-being to health, broadly defined to include self-reported health, disease states and severity, functional capacities and biological risk factors. For eudaimonic well-being, links to brain-based assessments have also been conducted. The overarching message from this literature is that well-being, whether framed as life contentment or life engagement, appears to be protective of good health, and further that health problems appear to compromise well-being. More research is needed, particularly longitudinal studies that can more clearly delineate the direction of causal influences as well as the biological and brain-based mechanisms that account for connections between well-being and health. We conclude with consideration of how studies of well-being might fruitfully intersect with studies of quality of life. A further priority for future work pertains to interventions designed to promote greater experiences of life contentment and life engagement for greater segments of society, which may also be beneficial for health.

You do not have access to this content

Antonella Delle Fave

During the last three decades, a growing amount of studies have explored indicators of subjective well-being, and their relationship with objective ones in determining the quality of life of individuals and populations across a variety of domains. The conceptualization and empirical operationalization of these indicators, however, represent a major challenge for researchers, due to their psychological nature that implies the use of self-reports to identify and measure them. Despite these difficulties, researchers’ effort led to the identification and rigorous measurement of a well-defined set of subjective indicators of well-being, grouped into hedonic indicators (comprising positive emotions and satisfaction with life) and eudaimonic indicators (including personal growth, meaning construction and resource development). The impact of these indicators on objective dimensions such as health, academic and work performance, and social functioning has been repeatedly highlighted. At the same time, advancements in the study of objective indicators of well-being brought forth the need for integrating these two approaches into a more comprehensive and less discipline-bound view, that can combine the attention to basic human rights and cultural diversity with the emphasis on the human tendency towards inner coherence and balance at the individual level and interconnectedness at the social one.

You do not have access to this content

Borja L—pez Noval

In the present chapter the idea of quality of life is traced back to Aristotle, whose analysis of the good life is remarkably comprehensive and still nowadays constitutes one of the main approaches to the issue. Aristotle’s account of the good life is objective – and actually quite constringent, as many individuals are excluded from the happy life – and multidimensional. Other lasting features are its subtle understanding of the nature and role of individuals’ agency and intrinsic motivation, and its stress on the importance of institutional conditions, particularly education, aiming at perfecting human beings’ nature. Thomas More, in line with previous Christian thought, democratizes the idea of the good life. In addition, he reinforced the importance attributed to the institutional framework as external control at the expense of both individuals’ agency and intrinsic motivation because he does not agree with the thesis of the perfectible nature of human beings. Tommaso Campanella recovered this thesis, although not completely, as he asserts the need for eugenic policies. Other contributions of Campanella to the idea of quality of life are his comprehensive understanding of health; his intuition as regards the importance of erecting a universal community of human beings to avoid war; and the role attributed, anticipating Francis Bacon, to techno-scientific development. Bacon’s New Atlantis supposed a Copernican shift in the idea of the good life because the focus is set on the utility of individuals, instead of on their agency. As a consequence, as regards health, Bacon seems to weight treatment more than life style. In the Enlightenment the new focus on utility would lead economists to consider social relationships instrumentally. Otherwise, moral philosophers of the Enlightenment recovered the Aristotelian idea of the good life completely, now excluding only women. The utilitarian approach was developed systematically by Jeremy Bentham, who took pleasure as the basic element of happiness and does not distinguish among its sources. Besides, material well-being is definitively considered the fundamental component of happiness by him, to the point that he proposed money as its measurement unit. Arthur Pigou develops this thesis further. Thus, although Pigou distinguishes between economic and non-economic well-being and considers possible trade-offs between them, and even is sensitive to non-utilitarian aspects, he finally states that for the time being economic growth is a good proxy of total well-being. Richard Easterlin tested this thesis based on subjective measures of well-being, thus adopting a substantive utilitarian approach, and found that it was not the case. He used psychological measures of well-being that are now widely accepted and have given rise to the happiness approach to quality of life. Otherwise, Amartya Sen has developed the capability approach in line with that of Aristotle and the moral philosophers of the Enlightenment. Finally, current developments in quality of life research as regards possible connections between the happiness and capability approaches are mentioned.

You do not have access to this content

Mario Lucchini, Sara Della Bella and Luca Crivelli

In recent decades a great deal of research about the nature and causes of subjective well-being (SWB) has emerged. Economists, psychologists and sociologists have unravelled the socioeconomic and psychological determinants of SWB, often forgetting or underestimating the role of genetic factors in accounting for the relative stability in SWB over the life span. This chapter offers a contribution to the research in this field by providing a robust estimate of the role of genetic endowment in the explanation of the self-reported level of life satisfaction. The empirical analysis is performed by applying a model of variance decomposition (ACE multilevel model) to a large dataset that entails family data coming from waves 2010, 2011 and 2012 of the ISTAT-Multipurpose Survey on Households. The heritability estimate for satisfaction with life (that’s to say, the proportion of the phenotypic variance ‘explained’ by the additive genetic factors) is equal to 45 per cent, an estimate that appears to be in line with those obtained by studies on twins. The specificity component, which captures a combination of measurement error and unique environmental influences, is around 41 per cent, while the influence exerted by the shared environment is rather small but not marginal (14 per cent), in contrast to other studies that give zero weight to this component. These robust estimates suggest that informative genetic designs derived from behavioural genetics can support social sciences in their attempt to develop a more systematic understanding of SWB.

You do not have access to this content

Filomena Maggino

In order to proceed with exploring the methodological issues related to the measurement (indicators of happiness) and evaluation (quality of happiness), it is important to clarify what we mean by the term ‘happiness’. The debate around the definition of a new approach of measuring well-being of nations has put ‘happiness’ at the centre of concerns by highlighting, among others, two aspects to be considered: the individual observation and the subjective dimension. The necessity to consider the individual perspective, completely ignored by the traditional GDP approach, in measuring countries’ well-being is broadly urged and accepted. Many point out that the most important dimension of the individual perspective is represented by the subjective perception, defined in terms of happiness. However, focusing on the individual perspective, especially if that is done exclusively on a subjective perception, is affected by some risk. This contribution aims at exploring the conceptual issues related to those risks, which refer to some dualisms around well-being (subjective vs. objective, happiness vs. subjective experience, individual vs. community, present vs. future). These issues are important in order to define the indicators able to monitor happiness and to support its quality assessment.

You do not have access to this content

Mariano Rojas

What does it mean to lead a life of quality? This chapter recognizes the importance of discussing measurement issues in the study of people’s quality of life; however, it argues that conceptualization must come first. In other words, thinking about what quality of life is and providing a rationale for its assessment must precede and shape up its measurement. Hence, the chapter does not aim to contribute to the proliferation of quality-of-life indices; its intention is to provide a rationale for the understanding of quality of life. The rationale starts from a basic postulate: human beings have both intrinsic and extrinsic value. These values give rise to two qualities in a person’s life: an inner and an outer quality of life. The chapter states that leading a life of quality requires from people not only to be happy (by leading a life of inner quality), but also to contribute – through their actions – to the happiness of others (by leading a life of outer quality).

You do not have access to this content

M. Joseph Sirgy and Chad Miller

In this chapter we discuss how globalization affects societal quality of life. We first describe the concept of globalization in terms of inflows and outflows of goods, services, capital, technology and workers. We then describe societal quality of life in terms of economic, consumer and social well-being. Lastly, we make arguments about how globalization affects societal well-being by articulating specific relationships among the dimensions of globalization and societal well-being. Public policy and research implications are also discussed.

You do not have access to this content

Helena À. Marujo and Luis M. Neto

In this chapter, a succinct review of the quality of life and of the positive psychology domains, both focused on the study and elevation of the quality of individual and collective humans’ lives, brings about their historical, conceptual and applied divergences, but also their unequivocal relatedness and communalities. Their philosophies, purposes, objects of study, underlying constructs and inquiry characteristics are briefly explored, and their current controversies, strengths and weaknesses analysed. On the basis of the reviewed studies it is concluded that both domains are currently: bridged by the subjective focus; interconnected by the well-being theme; devoted to an emergent eudaimonic and social/relational perspective; and considering that what makes life prosper should be at the heart of a revivified, vigilant and engaged critical science, with a stronger ethos. Subsequently, there is an imperative need to harmonize both contributions, and to acknowledge and potentiate complementarities and continuous convergences to help new and fertile answers to emerge. This should be done in parallel with the integration of new and fundamental perspectives emerging from European considerations, such as the Civil Economy, with the rise of the Public Felicitá model, companions in the quest to discover and promote the foundations of human betterment and society well-being. None of these scientific grounds are sufficient in themselves to capture the complexity of the subject, so the different contributions need to enter tangible dialogues. Hence, some proposals towards realms of scientific collaboration are discussed in order to further understand, encourage and advocate essential qualities and potential practices of a virtuous society and a laudable collective life.