4.4 Article

Self-assessed importance of domains of flourishing: Demographics and correlations with well-being

期刊

JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 137-144

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2020.1716050

关键词

Flourishing; well-being; demographics; spirituality; gender; survey research

资金

  1. John Templeton Foundation
  2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  3. Aetna, a CVS Health business
  4. Sustainability and Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has found that emotional health, physical health, purpose, character strengths, social connectedness, and financial security are nearly universally valued. Men and women rank these domains in the same order, but women rate each domain more highly. Having a daily spiritual practice is the strongest predictor of importance for all domains, while character strengths have the highest correlations with the experience of all domains.
Research on flourishing has advanced despite limited knowledge about the extent to which flourishing domains are actually valued. This paper examines support for six flourishing domains - emotional health, physical health, purpose, character strengths, social connectedness, and financial security. A survey of 2,370 randomly sampled employees of a large, national, self-insured employer, demonstrated that these domains are nearly universally valued. A two-factor model, which fit the data best, suggested the presence of two distinct dimensions of material and psychosocial well-being importance. Women and men ranked the six domains in the same order, though women ranked each more highly than men. Having a daily spiritual practice was the strongest predictor of importance for all domains but financial security. The importance of the domains of well-being was associated with the self-reported experience of the domains of well-being. The importance of character strengths had the highest correlations with the experience of all domains.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据