Questioning Contemporary Universalist Approaches to Human Flourishing

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
B. Fowers, Lukas Novak, Nona C. Kiknadze, Alexander J. Calder
{"title":"Questioning Contemporary Universalist Approaches to Human Flourishing","authors":"B. Fowers, Lukas Novak, Nona C. Kiknadze, Alexander J. Calder","doi":"10.1177/10892680221138230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article takes stock of the growing interest in flourishing measurement. The focus is on three challenges in this domain: the degree of coherent theorizing, the overreliance on psychometric validation, and the questionable universality of the measures. A rigorous process identified the eight most widely documented flourishing measures. All eight measures struggled with the three challenges. First, all measures were constructed on intuitive grounds, whether those bases were existing literatures, personal conceptualizations, or the intuition of an opposition of mental illness and flourishing. Second, all measures were assessed almost exclusively with psychometric studies, with little evidence of theoretical or cultural validity. Finally, all eight measures implicitly or explicitly assume cultural universality without providing theoretical argument or empirical evidence for that assumption. This stock-taking resulted in two main conclusions. First, there are areas of both consensus (e.g., that flourishing is a measurable, multidimensional construct) and dissensus (e.g., the components of flourishing) that can provide bases for future theory and research. Second, systematic theoretical argument is necessary to better understand what flourishing is, how it can be validly measured, and the degree to which it can be considered a universal human experience. It is time to address these theoretical and cultural questions.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680221138230","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: 5

Abstract

This article takes stock of the growing interest in flourishing measurement. The focus is on three challenges in this domain: the degree of coherent theorizing, the overreliance on psychometric validation, and the questionable universality of the measures. A rigorous process identified the eight most widely documented flourishing measures. All eight measures struggled with the three challenges. First, all measures were constructed on intuitive grounds, whether those bases were existing literatures, personal conceptualizations, or the intuition of an opposition of mental illness and flourishing. Second, all measures were assessed almost exclusively with psychometric studies, with little evidence of theoretical or cultural validity. Finally, all eight measures implicitly or explicitly assume cultural universality without providing theoretical argument or empirical evidence for that assumption. This stock-taking resulted in two main conclusions. First, there are areas of both consensus (e.g., that flourishing is a measurable, multidimensional construct) and dissensus (e.g., the components of flourishing) that can provide bases for future theory and research. Second, systematic theoretical argument is necessary to better understand what flourishing is, how it can be validly measured, and the degree to which it can be considered a universal human experience. It is time to address these theoretical and cultural questions.
质疑当代人类繁荣的普遍主义方法
本文对日益增长的对繁荣度量的兴趣进行了盘点。重点是在这一领域的三个挑战:连贯的理论化程度,对心理测量验证的过度依赖,以及有问题的普遍性措施。一个严格的过程确定了八种最广泛记录的繁荣措施。所有八项措施都在努力应对这三大挑战。首先,所有的测量都是建立在直觉的基础上的,无论这些基础是现有的文献,个人的概念,还是对精神疾病和繁荣的反对的直觉。其次,所有措施几乎都是通过心理测量学研究来评估的,几乎没有理论或文化有效性的证据。最后,所有八项措施都隐含或明确地假设了文化普遍性,而没有为该假设提供理论论据或经验证据。这次盘点得出了两个主要结论。首先,既有共识(例如,繁荣是一个可测量的、多维的结构),也有不同意见(例如,繁荣的组成部分),可以为未来的理论和研究提供基础。其次,系统的理论论证是必要的,以更好地理解繁荣是什么,如何有效地衡量它,以及它在多大程度上可以被认为是一种普遍的人类经验。是时候解决这些理论和文化问题了。
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
Review of General Psychology
Review of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Review of General Psychology seeks to publish innovative theoretical, conceptual, or methodological articles that cross-cut the traditional subdisciplines of psychology. The journal contains articles that advance theory, evaluate and integrate research literatures, provide a new historical analysis, or discuss new methodological developments in psychology as a whole. Review of General Psychology is especially interested in articles that bridge gaps between subdisciplines in psychology as well as related fields or that focus on topics that transcend traditional subdisciplinary boundaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信