领域-生活满意度关系的跨国差异:欧洲晴雨表的二次分析

Jonathan Fonberg, A. P. Smith
{"title":"领域-生活满意度关系的跨国差异:欧洲晴雨表的二次分析","authors":"Jonathan Fonberg, A. P. Smith","doi":"10.47752/SJSS.312.177.191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wellbeing research is implicitly guided by two theoretical approaches: subjectivism and objectivism. Objectivists argue that the predictors of wellbeing are universal, whereas subjectivists emphasise the role of values. The aim of the present research was to assess these two views in the context of wellbeing research by conducting a secondary analysis of the Eurobarometer. This database includes satisfaction ratings of both life and specific domains (e.g. health, family, social life, personal safety, financial situation, home life, job and neighbourhood). Regression analyses revealed significant cross-national variation in domain-life satisfaction relationships, to the extent that none were universal. Direct cross-national comparison of these relationships revealed significant differences and further validated these findings. Variation in these relationships refutes the core premise of objectivism and indicates that subjectivism is a more appropriate framework for psychological research into wellbeing. In order to consolidate these findings, future research should incorporate other predictors of wellbeing, such as personality.","PeriodicalId":149636,"journal":{"name":"Sumerianz Journal of Social Science","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-National Variation in Domain-Life Satisfaction Relationships: Secondary Analyses of the Eurobarometer\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Fonberg, A. P. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.47752/SJSS.312.177.191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Wellbeing research is implicitly guided by two theoretical approaches: subjectivism and objectivism. Objectivists argue that the predictors of wellbeing are universal, whereas subjectivists emphasise the role of values. The aim of the present research was to assess these two views in the context of wellbeing research by conducting a secondary analysis of the Eurobarometer. This database includes satisfaction ratings of both life and specific domains (e.g. health, family, social life, personal safety, financial situation, home life, job and neighbourhood). Regression analyses revealed significant cross-national variation in domain-life satisfaction relationships, to the extent that none were universal. Direct cross-national comparison of these relationships revealed significant differences and further validated these findings. Variation in these relationships refutes the core premise of objectivism and indicates that subjectivism is a more appropriate framework for psychological research into wellbeing. In order to consolidate these findings, future research should incorporate other predictors of wellbeing, such as personality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":149636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sumerianz Journal of Social Science\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sumerianz Journal of Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47752/SJSS.312.177.191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sumerianz Journal of Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47752/SJSS.312.177.191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

幸福感研究隐含着两种理论方法的指导:主观主义和客观主义。客观主义者认为,幸福的预测因素是普遍的,而主观主义者则强调价值观的作用。本研究的目的是通过对欧洲晴雨表进行二次分析,在福祉研究的背景下评估这两种观点。该数据库包括对生活和特定领域(如健康、家庭、社会生活、人身安全、财务状况、家庭生活、工作和邻里)的满意度评分。回归分析揭示了领域生活满意度关系的显著跨国差异,在某种程度上没有一个是普遍的。这些关系的直接跨国比较揭示了显著的差异,并进一步证实了这些发现。这些关系的变化驳斥了客观主义的核心前提,并表明主观主义是心理学研究幸福的更合适的框架。为了巩固这些发现,未来的研究应该纳入其他健康的预测因素,比如性格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cross-National Variation in Domain-Life Satisfaction Relationships: Secondary Analyses of the Eurobarometer
Wellbeing research is implicitly guided by two theoretical approaches: subjectivism and objectivism. Objectivists argue that the predictors of wellbeing are universal, whereas subjectivists emphasise the role of values. The aim of the present research was to assess these two views in the context of wellbeing research by conducting a secondary analysis of the Eurobarometer. This database includes satisfaction ratings of both life and specific domains (e.g. health, family, social life, personal safety, financial situation, home life, job and neighbourhood). Regression analyses revealed significant cross-national variation in domain-life satisfaction relationships, to the extent that none were universal. Direct cross-national comparison of these relationships revealed significant differences and further validated these findings. Variation in these relationships refutes the core premise of objectivism and indicates that subjectivism is a more appropriate framework for psychological research into wellbeing. In order to consolidate these findings, future research should incorporate other predictors of wellbeing, such as personality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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