Research has suggested a fundamental connection between fairness and well-being at the individual, relational, and societal levels. Mattering is a multidimensional construct consisting of feeling valued by, and adding value to, self and others. Prior studies have attempted to connect mattering to both fairness and a variety of well-being outcomes. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that mattering acts as a mediator between fairness and well-being. This hypothesis was tested through Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) using multidimensional measures of fairness, mattering, and well-being. Results from a Latent Path Analysis conducted on a representative sample of 1,051U.S. adults provide support to our hypothesis by revealing a strong direct predictive effect of mattering onto well-being and a strong indirect effect of fairness onto well-being through mattering. Results also show that mattering is likely to fully mediate the relationship between fairness and multiple domains of well-being, except in one case, namely, economic well-being. These findings illustrate the value of a focus on mattering to understand the relationship between fairness and well-being and to provide future directions for theory, research, and practice. Theoretical implications for the experience of citizenship and participation, along with cross-cultural considerations, are also discussed.

Theoretical arguments and empirical evidence have been provided in the literature for the role of fairness in wellness. In this paper, we explore the role of two potential mediating variables: autonomous human choice and social capital. Using aggregated panel data across countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD), we compared the OECD Social Justice Index (SJI) with data on life satisfaction to test whether fairness has direct and indirect effects on wellness. Results from a series of Manifest Path Analyses with time as fixed effect, support the hypothesis that the OECD SJI is directly linked to country‐level life satisfaction, additionally revealing that its indirect effect operates primarily through people's autonomous choices in life and their country's level of social capital. Our results contribute to two distinct bodies of knowledge. With respect to community psychology, the findings offer empirical evidence for the synergistic effect of personal, relational, and collective factors in well‐being. With respect to the impact of economic inequality on wellness, we extend the literature by using social justice as a more comprehensive measure. Limitations and recommendations for future studies are discussed.

Mattering is defined as experiences of feeling valued and adding value in different domains of life: self, relationships, work, and community. Mattering is a construct with great relevance across psychological and social issues. Research has suggested there may be value in understanding group differences in mattering. Following the recent validation of a scale which measures mattering across multiple domains of life (MIDLS), the present study analyzed a representative US sample to identify demographic group differences in domain-specific mattering. Despite the presence of few differences in Overall Mattering, significant differences were found among all domains and between groups for each demographic variable. Overall, high incomes, advanced degrees, and employment were most consistently associated with higher mattering across domains. In addition, individuals across demographic groups and domains were more likely to report adding value than feeling valued.Age, gender, ethnicity, and marital status correlations were found in certain domains. These results demonstrate the value of a multidimensional conception of mattering and provide initial insight into demographic differences in mattering in a United States, English-speaking sample.

Mattering, defined as feeling valued and adding value, is a basic psychological need with significant explanatory power. Although several specific measures have been introduced to assess the construct, no integrated, multidimensional measure exists. This limits the ability of researchers to investigate mattering in ecological contexts. This paper seeks to address this gap by introducing the Mattering in Domains of Life Scale (MIDLS) and evaluating its internal structure and convergent validity. Using data from a single, large US representative sample, the analysis validated the overall hypothesized factor structure, consisting of feeling valued and adding value across the personal, interpersonal, occupational, and community domains, as well as overall mattering. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing the various MIDLS subscales to eight established scales. Overall results provide evidence that the MIDLS is a valid scale measuring an essentially unidimensional construct composed of eight subdomains.

Whereas the behavioral and health sciences have been mainly concerned with the private good, there is an urgent need to understand and foster the collective good. Without a coherent framework for the common good, it will be extremely difficult to prevent and manage crises such as pandemics, illness, climate change, poverty, discrimination, injustice, and inequality, all of which affects marginalized populations disproportionally. While frameworks for personal well-being abound in psychology, psychiatry, counseling, and social work, conceptualizations of collective well-being are scarce. Our search for foundations of the common good resulted in the identification of three psychosocial goods: mattering, wellness, and fairness. There are several reasons for choosing them, including the fact that they concurrently advance personal, relational, and collective value. In addition, they represent basic human motivations, have considerable explanatory power, exist at multiple ecological levels, and have significant transformative potential. The complementary nature of the three goods is illustrated in an interactional model. Based on empirical evidence, we suggest that conditions of justice lead to experiences of mattering, which, in turn, enhance wellness. Challenges and opportunities afforded by the model at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, occupational, communal, national, and global levels are presented. The proposed psychosocial goods are used to formulate a culture for the common good in which we balance the right with the responsibility to feel valued and add value, to self and others, in order to promote not just wellness but also fairness.

Over time, varied ecological perspectives have evolved in the social and behavioral sciences to provide explanatory models for behavior in social, cultural, and historical context. The purpose of the present paper is to compare and contrast two such perspectives and their implications for translational science. The perspectives are the ecology of human development from developmental psychology (Bronfenbrenner) and the ecological metaphor from community psychology (Kelly and colleagues). Comparison of the two ecological perspectives highlight both similarities, such as an emphasis on systems theory, and differences in such fundamental areas as goals and philosophy of sciences. Implications for translational science include questions raised by ecological perspectives about potential factors affecting the generalizability of findings and the importance of creating feedback loops in translational research designs.What is the significance of this article for the general public?Ecological thinking is important to translational science because of the complexity and intractability of many real-world, social issues. This paper contrasts and clarifies two ecological perspectives employed heavily by psychology and public health researchers, chosen for the ubiquity of their use and the value in the contrast between them. Our analysis brings forward important nuances in these perspectives and provides researchers with guidance on applying ecological thinking to translational science.

Online well-being interventions demonstrate great promise in terms of both engagement and outcomes. Fun For Wellness (FFW) is a novel online intervention grounded in self-efficacy theory and intended to improve multidimensional well-being and physical activity through multi-modal methods. These strategies include capability-enhancing opportunities, learning experiences such as games, video vignettes, and self-assessments. RCT studies have suggested that FFW is efficacious in improving subjective and domain-specific well-being, and effective in improving mental health, physical health, physical activity, and self-efficacy in United States. adults who are overweight and in the general population. The present study uses qualitative and quantitative user experience data collected during two RCT trials to understand and evaluate engagement with FFW, its drivers, and its outcomes. Results suggest that FFW is enjoyable, moderately engaging, and easy to use; and contributes to positive outcomes including skill development and enhanced confidence, for both overweight individuals and the general adult population. Drivers of engagement appear to include rewards, gamification, scenario-based learning, visual tracking for self-monitoring, ease of use and simple communications, and the entertaining, interactive nature of program activities. Findings indicate that there are opportunities to streamline and simplify the experience. These results can help improve FFW and contribute to the science of engagement with online interventions designed to improve well-being.

Fun For Wellness (FFW) is an online behavioral intervention developed to promote well-being by enhancing the self-efficacy of participants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of FFW to promote health in adults with obesity in the United States in a relatively uncontrolled setting. The study design was a large-scale, prospective, double-blind, parallel group randomized controlled trial. Data collection occurred at three time points: baseline, 30 days, and 60 days after baseline. There was evidence for a positive direct effect of FFW on physical health status ([Formula: see text] = 1.33, p = .005, d = 0.24) at 60 days after baseline. In addition, there was evidence of a positive indirect effect of FFW on mental health status at 60 days after baseline through psychological well-being self-efficacy ([Formula: see text] = 0.44, [0.05, 0.94]).