Not Flourishing

IF 3.7 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2026-10-17 DOI:10.1007/s10902-026-01121-4

Alexander Bryson, David G. Blanchflower

{"title":"Not Flourishing","authors":"Alexander Bryson, David G. Blanchflower","doi":"10.1007/s10902-026-01121-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examine the age profile of subjective wellbeing and illbeing in the 22 countries appearing in the Global Flourishing Study (GFS) 2022–2024. We propose an alternative to the Flourishing Index at the heart of so much of the GFS literature which has better statistical properties. We call it the Revised Flourishing Index (RFI). The age profile of the original Flourishing Index and some of its sub-components are U-shaped in age. However, the RFI rises linearly in age. We also introduce a new Not Flourishing Index (NFI) capturing illbeing. The NFI and each of its four sub-components fall markedly with age. These results are broadly replicated among those surveyed via a computer-assisted web-based interview (CAWI), except in the case of the original Flourishing Index which, like the RFI, now rises in age. However, the RFI, NFI and the original Flourishing Index age profiles have the opposite signs to the CAWI profiles when conducted via computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). We argue these differences by survey mode arise due to social desirability bias and non-random selection into CATI. Analyses of the European Social Survey (ESS) 2023–2024 and the CAWI-based Global Minds (GM) surveys 2020–2026 for the subset of countries appearing in the GFS support these CAWI findings in the GFS, albeit with alternative metrics, providing some external validity for our GFS findings.","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-026-01121-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

We examine the age profile of subjective wellbeing and illbeing in the 22 countries appearing in the Global Flourishing Study (GFS) 2022–2024. We propose an alternative to the Flourishing Index at the heart of so much of the GFS literature which has better statistical properties. We call it the Revised Flourishing Index (RFI). The age profile of the original Flourishing Index and some of its sub-components are U-shaped in age. However, the RFI rises linearly in age. We also introduce a new Not Flourishing Index (NFI) capturing illbeing. The NFI and each of its four sub-components fall markedly with age. These results are broadly replicated among those surveyed via a computer-assisted web-based interview (CAWI), except in the case of the original Flourishing Index which, like the RFI, now rises in age. However, the RFI, NFI and the original Flourishing Index age profiles have the opposite signs to the CAWI profiles when conducted via computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). We argue these differences by survey mode arise due to social desirability bias and non-random selection into CATI. Analyses of the European Social Survey (ESS) 2023–2024 and the CAWI-based Global Minds (GM) surveys 2020–2026 for the subset of countries appearing in the GFS support these CAWI findings in the GFS, albeit with alternative metrics, providing some external validity for our GFS findings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不繁荣

我们研究了出现在全球繁荣研究（GFS） 2022-2024中的22个国家的主观幸福感和疾病的年龄特征。我们提出了一种替代繁荣指数的方法，它是许多GFS文献的核心，具有更好的统计特性。我们称之为修订繁荣指数（RFI）。原始繁荣指数及其部分子成分的年龄分布在年龄上呈u型。然而，RFI随着年龄的增长呈线性增长。我们还引入了一个新的不繁荣指数（NFI）来捕捉疾病。随着年龄的增长，NFI及其四个分项指数均显著下降。这些结果在通过计算机辅助网络访谈（CAWI）进行的调查中得到了广泛的重复，除了最初的繁荣指数，它和RFI一样，现在随着年龄的增长而上升。然而，当通过计算机辅助电话访谈（CATI）进行时，RFI， NFI和原始繁荣指数年龄概况与CAWI概况有相反的迹象。我们认为这些调查模式的差异是由于社会期望偏差和非随机选择到CATI。对欧洲社会调查（ESS） 2023-2024和基于CAWI的全球思维（GM）调查（2020-2026）中出现在GFS中的国家子集的分析支持GFS中的这些CAWI发现，尽管使用了替代指标，但为我们的GFS发现提供了一些外部有效性。

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?