Huppert Felicia A, So Timothy T C
Well-Being Institute & Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Box 189, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ UK.
Soc Indic Res. 2013 Feb;110(3):837-861. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7. Epub 2011 Dec 15.
Governments around the world are recognising the importance of measuring subjective well-being as an indicator of progress. But how should well-being be measured? A conceptual framework is offered which equates high well-being with positive mental health. Well-being is seen as lying at the opposite end of a spectrum to the common mental disorders (depression, anxiety). By examining internationally agreed criteria for depression and anxiety (DSM and ICD classifications), and defining the opposite of each symptom, we identify ten features of positive well-being. These combine feeling and functioning, i.e. hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being: competence, emotional stability, engagement, meaning, optimism, positive emotion, positive relationships, resilience, self esteem, and vitality. An operational definition of flourishing is developed, based on psychometric analysis of indicators of these ten features, using data from a representative sample of 43,000 Europeans. Application of this definition to respondents from the 23 countries which participated in the European Social Survey (Round 3) reveals a four-fold difference in flourishing rate, from 41% in Denmark to less than 10% in Slovakia, Russia and Portugal. There are also striking differences in country profiles across the 10 features. These profiles offer fresh insight into cultural differences in well-being, and indicate which features may provide the most promising targets for policies to improve well-being. Comparison with a life satisfaction measure shows that valuable information would be lost if well-being was measured by life satisfaction. Taken together, our findings reinforce the need to measure subjective well-being as a multi-dimensional construct in future surveys.
世界各国政府都认识到衡量主观幸福感作为进步指标的重要性。但幸福感应如何衡量呢?本文提供了一个概念框架,将高幸福感等同于积极的心理健康。幸福感被视为与常见精神障碍(抑郁症、焦虑症)处于连续谱的相反一端。通过研究国际公认的抑郁症和焦虑症标准(DSM和ICD分类),并定义每种症状的相反面,我们确定了积极幸福感的十个特征。这些特征结合了感受和功能,即幸福感的享乐主义和自我实现方面:能力、情绪稳定性、投入度、意义、乐观主义、积极情绪、积极人际关系、恢复力、自尊和活力。基于对这十个特征指标的心理测量分析,利用来自43000名欧洲人的代表性样本数据,制定了繁荣的操作性定义。将这个定义应用于参与欧洲社会调查(第三轮)的23个国家的受访者,结果显示繁荣率存在四倍的差异,从丹麦的41%到斯洛伐克、俄罗斯和葡萄牙的不到10%。在这十个特征方面,各国的情况也存在显著差异。这些情况为幸福感的文化差异提供了新的见解,并指出哪些特征可能为改善幸福感的政策提供最有希望的目标。与生活满意度测量的比较表明,如果用生活满意度来衡量幸福感,将会丢失有价值的信息。综上所述,我们的研究结果强化了在未来调查中需要将主观幸福感作为一个多维结构来衡量的必要性。