Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing

Abstract

Abstract:The epidemiology of flourishing is an important research topic prompting international interest in its psychometric assessment. But the need to measure human feelings and functioning at the population level has resulted in the creation of a multitude of different conceptual frameworks of flourishing: a term now commonly used to describe high levels of subjective wellbeing. Not only do different researchers theorise and conceptualise flourishing in different ways, but also the categorical diagnosis of flourishing is dependent upon the various combinations of components, and researcher-determined thresholds, used in each operationalization. The multiplicity of approaches is potentially limiting the usefulness of the resultant epidemiology. This paper comprises two parts: Part 1 identifies four operationalizations of flourishing in the psychology literature and reviews their psychometric properties and utility; Part 2 investigates the impact of operational definition on the prevalence of flourishing using the Sovereign Wellbeing Index survey, a sample of 10,009 adult New Zealanders, and reports substantial variation in prevalence rates according to the four different operationalizations: Huppert and So (24%), Keyes (39%), Diener et al. (41%) and Seligman et al. (47%). Huppert and So's model was the only one of the four to require endorsement of one particular variable, making it the most stringent criterion for flourishing, while the other three were more flexible in their categorisation. Cross-tabulation analysis indicated strong agreement between our replications of Keyes and Seligman et al.'s models (81%), and between Diener et al. and Seligman et al.'s models (80%). Agreement between Seligman, and Huppert and So's, operationalizations was moderate (74%). Taken together, and in line with recent OECD recommendations, our findings reinforce the need for greater international collaboration and conceptualisation consensus when measuring flourishing. In the absence of any published empirical research investigating perceptions of flourishing among laypersons, a prototype analysis investigating alignment between lay and academic conceptualisations of flourishing is recommended.

Elucidating the constructs happiness and wellbeing: A mixed-methods approach

“…In this study, we suggest that rather than simply measuring happiness or life satisfaction, it is more meaningful to attempt to uncover a more holistic measure of wellbeing, which the participants differentiated from happiness. This confirms the conclusions of other researchers (e.g., Hone et al, 2014;Jayawickreme et al, 2012). The findings of the current study can help inform future research on how to measure these constructs in operationalizations that are meaningful for people's daily lives, and to help promote balance and a focus on all parts of life -social, familial, physical, as well as work-related and educational -as a way to promote happiness and wellbeing.…”

“…A recent article compared the four extant scales of Keyes (2002), Diener and others (2010), Seligman (2011), and Huppert and So (2013) for measuring flourishing both conceptually and empirically. They found that all four tap into both feeling and functioning, and include positive relationships, engagement or interest, and meaning and purpose (Hone et al, 2014). Each model differs in the other components; however, this study lends "real world" support to the notion that wellbeing does include each of these attributes and cannot be simplified to a hedonistic conception of happiness.…”

Helse i hvert smil?

“…Når flourishingbegrepet brukes på denne måten, inkluderer det gjerne wellbeingkomponenter utover dem som vanligvis kategoriseres som eudaimoniske. Framstillingen videre, saerlig presentasjonen av perspek tivene til Keyes (2005Keyes ( , 2013 Hone et al (2014) kommenterer at det så langt bare er Keyes' teoretiske rammeverk som har vaert gjenstand for omfattende empirisk validering, og at bruk av operasjonaliseringer av de tre andre modellene fører til temmelig ulike resultater. Følgelig bør bruk av flourishingmål i indikator sammenheng foretas med varsomhet.…”

Collaboration Vouchers: A Policy to Increase Population Wellbeing

“…There also must initially be zero power Just as there is no accepted model of collaboration, there is also no accepted definition of wellbeing nor an associated survey instrument. Hone, Jarden, Schofield, and Duncan [72] nominated four wellbeing instruments (see Table 2 below) that, when considered in conjunction, demonstrate substantial overlap with PILAR and positive psychology. The overlap is extended by inclusion of the initial condition assumed by PILAR, termed idealised collaboration [32].…”