Childhood Socioeconomic Status Shapes Beliefs About Hedonic Versus Eudaimonic Happiness: A Life History Approach

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00760-9

Jinseok P. Kim, Eunkook M. Suh

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many have pondered whether happiness is chiefly made of positive feelings and joy (hedonism) or by acquiring meaning via self-actualization (eudaimonism). Drawing on life history theory, we examined if individuals’ early-life experience (i.e., childhood socioeconomic status; SES) colors their notions of well-being. A consistent pattern was found in two studies (Study 1, N = 183; Study 2, N = 168) using MTurk samples; wealthier childhood upbringing predicted stronger endorsement of eudaimonic happiness. This pattern, supporting claims of life history theory, emerged only when perceptions of (economic) instability was salient (chronic, Study 1; experimentally primed, Study 2). Also, only childhood SES, but not current SES, mattered. This research finds novel evidence that childhood experience and current threat perception may interact to shape people’s ideals of happiness.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

童年时期的社会经济地位决定了人们对享乐型幸福和幸福型幸福的看法：生活史方法

许多人都在思考，幸福是主要由积极的感受和快乐（享乐主义）构成，还是通过自我实现获得意义（幸福主义）。根据生活史理论，我们研究了个人的早期生活经历（即童年社会经济地位）是否会影响他们的幸福观。在使用 MTurk 样本进行的两项研究（研究 1，样本数 = 183；研究 2，样本数 = 168）中，我们发现了一种一致的模式：较富裕的童年成长经历预示着较强的优裕幸福感。只有当（经济）不稳定性感知突出时（研究 1 为慢性；研究 2 为实验引物），才会出现这种支持生活史理论主张的模式。此外，只有童年时期的社会经济地位（SES），而不是当前的社会经济地位（SES）与幸福感有关。这项研究发现了新的证据，表明童年经历和当前的威胁感可能会相互作用，塑造人们的幸福理想。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Happiness Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

6.50%

发文量

110

期刊介绍： The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?