Abstract
AbstractWell-being has gained interest as object of study in the social sciences and as an outcome measure for policy evaluation. However, little agreement exists with respect to the substantive meaning of well-being, the dimensions of well-being that should be considered in a multi-dimensional approach, and the variety of well-being conceptions people have for their own lives. This study explored conceptions of “a good life for you” among 1,477 adult people from the Netherlands by means of Q-methodology, based on a theoretical framework synthesizing the main theories of well-being. We find five distinct views on what people consider to be a good life for themselves: “Health and feeling well”, “Hearth and home”, “Freedom and autonomy”, “Social relations and purpose” and “Individualism and independence”. While there is strong agreement with respect to the importance of feeling both physically and mentally well, the views diverge considerably regarding aspects such as social relations, autonomy, spirituality, and material welfare. Associations between viewpoints and respondent characteristics had face validity. The findings of this study have significant implications for the development of measures of well-being and policies aimed to improve population well-being. Further research is required into the prevalence of these views on well-being in the population, their relation to respondent characteristics and into differences in views over time and between countries with different socio-economic, political and cultural environments.
Funder
Erasmus Happiness Economics Research Organisation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Life-span and Life-course Studies
Reference86 articles.
1. Afentou, N., & Kinghorn, P. (2020). A systematic review of the feasibility and Psychometric Properties of the ICEpop CAPability measure for adults and its Use so far in economic evaluation. Value in Health, 23(4), 515–526.
2. Aitken, A. (2019). Measuring Welfare Beyond GDP. National Institute Economic Review, 249, R3–R16.
3. Akhtar-Danesh, N. (2017). An overview of the statistical techniques in Q-methodology: Is there a better way of doing Q-analysis? Operant Subjectivity, 38(3/4), 29–36.
4. Al-Ajlani, H., Van Ootegem, L., & Verhofstadt, E. (2020). Does well-being vary with an individual-specific weighting Scheme? Applied Research Quality Life, 15, 1285–1302.
5. Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. Oxford University Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献