This paper describes the conceptual development of a multi-domain, psychosocial model of ‘Inner Wellbeing’ (IWB) and assesses the construct validity of the scale designed to measure it. IWB expresses what people think and feel they are able to be and do. Drawing together scholarship in wellbeing and international development it is grounded in field research in marginalised, rural communities in the global South. Results from research in India at two points in time (2011 and 2013) are reported. At Time 1 (n = 287), we were unable to confirm an eight-factor, correlated model as distinct yet interrelated domains. However, at Time 2 (n = 335), we were able to confirm a revised, seven-factor correlated model with economic confidence, agency and participation, social connections, close relationships, physical and mental health, competence and self-worth, and values and meaning (five items per domain) as distinct yet interrelated domains. In particular, at Time 2, a seven-factor, correlated model provided a significantly better fit to the data than did a one-factor model.

This paper welcomes the Stiglitz Report's placing of wellbeing at the centre of policy discussions of measuring economic performance and social progress. However, the paper critiques the identification of subjective perspectives on quality of life solely with subjective well‐being. The paper locates subjective well‐being within psychological wellbeing, happiness and quality of life studies more broadly. It argues for attention to concepts, not just techniques, and more engagement with social and political perspectives. It draws on empirical research in Zambia and India to show that context matters and qualitative research is needed to complement quantitative measures of wellbeing. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

What are the prospects for a cross-cultural, interdisciplinary and methodologically plural approach to wellbeing? This question is addressed using Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a psychological theory based on quantitative empirical methods, to structure qualitative analysis of wellbeing in life history interviews in Chiawa, rural Zambia. Enquiry goes beyond simply reading across methods, disciplines and contexts, to consider fundamental differences in constructions of the human subject, and how these relate to understandings of wellbeing. Field research took place in two periods, August-November, 2010 and 2012. Analysis draws primarily on 46 individual case studies, conducted through open-ended interviews. These were identified through a survey with an average of 390 male and female household heads in each round, including 25% female headed households. As SDT predicts, the interviews confirm its key elements of autonomy, competence and relatedness as vital to wellbeing. However, these are expressed in ways that highlight material and relational, rather than psychological, factors. Key findings are: the mutual constitution of autonomy, competence and relatedness; the appreciation of autonomy as independence in action; the importance of social competence; and the centrality of relatedness. People appear as social and above all moral subjects. The paper concludes by endorsing SDT's utility in interdisciplinary approaches to wellbeing, but only if it admits its own cultural grounding in the construction of a psychological subject. This would go beyond recognising that autonomy, competence and relatedness may take socially and culturally distinctive forms, to questioning their universal status as basic psychological needs. Implications for organisations working on wellbeing are discussed.

No abstract