Happiness and relational goods: well-being and interpersonal relations in the economic sphere

Gui, Benedetto; Stanca, Luca

doi:10.1007/s12232-010-0099-0

Cited by 66 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The case of hikikomoris will be useful for explaining our assumptions in Section 3. 6 The literature on relational goods distinguishes private consumption that can be enjoyed alone without the inclusion of any significant social interaction, and relational consumption, which can be enjoyed only if shared with others (Gui & Stanca, 2010;Gui & Sugden, 2005;Uhlaner, 1989). withdrawal from participation, then the state where all agents choose NSP becomes a saddle point.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online and Offline Social Participation and Social Poverty Traps: Can Social Networks Save Human Relations?

Antoci

Sabatini

Sodini

2015

The Journal of Mathematical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we develop an evolutionary game model to analyse how human relations evolve in a context characterised by declining face-to-face interactions and growing online social participation. Our results suggest that online networks may constitute a coping response allowing individuals to "defend" their social life from increasing busyness and a reduction in the time available for leisure.Internet-mediated interaction can play a positive role in preventing the disruption of ties and the weakening of community life documented by empirical studies. In this scenario, the digital divide is likely to become an increasingly relevant factor of social exclusion, which may exacerbate inequalities in well-being and capabilities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online and Offline Social Participation and Social Poverty Traps: Can Social Networks Save Human Relations?

Antoci

Sabatini

Sodini

2015

The Journal of Mathematical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…a good that is enjoyed only when it is shared with friends or family members (Uhlaner, 1989)). Since the consumption of relational goods is source of happiness (Bruni and Stanca, 2008;Gui and Stanca, 2010), Internet use can improve well-being by increasing the time dedicated to relational activities.. In the same vein, the Internet is a means of building and maintaining social relations or social capital 3 (Franzen, 2003;Penard and Poussing, 2010;Shklovski, Kiesler and Kraut, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Internet make people happier?

Pénard

Poussing

Suire

2013

The Journal of Socio-Economics

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceGiven the increasingly prominent role the Internet plays in people's daily life, understanding its influence on individual well-being is crucial. Internet use yields direct utility and economic returns that may increase life satisfaction. But the Internet might also have detrimental effects (e.g. addiction, social isolation). This paper aims to examine the impact of Internet use on individual well-being. Using Luxemburgish data extracted from the European Value Survey, we find evidence that non users are less satisfied in their life than Internet users. Moreover, the positive influence of Internet use is stronger for individuals who are young or not satisfied with their income. These findings suggest that public policies aiming to reduce the digital divide by reaching out to non-Internet users are socially desirable

show abstract

“…The concept of a relational good is shared across the social sciences. The nature of relational goods has been discussed by Uhlaner [5], Gui and Sugden [6], Gui and Stanca [7], Becchetti, Pelloni, and Rossetti [8] and Luigino and Stanca [9].…”

Section: What Is a Relational Good?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rationalizing Inconsistent Definitions of Commodification: A Social Exchange Perspective

Oliver¹,

Robison²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commodification is a widely used and inconsistently defined concept. Inconsistent definitions of commodification, this paper observes, exist because alternative outcomes and consequences of converting relational goods into commodities are confused with the definition of commodification-social exchanges that convert relational goods into commodities. Distinguishing between alternative outcomes and consequences of commodification and the definition of commodification allows us to rationalize inconsistent definitions of commodification. In rationalizing inconsistent definitions of commodification, it is important to distinguish between commodities (goods valued for their ability to satisfy physical needs) and relational goods (goods valued at least in part for their connections to people which enables them to satisfy socio-emotional needs). The process of commodification is described as relocating relational goods from the humanistic sphere and relocating them in the commodity sphere.

show abstract

Happiness and relational goods: well-being and interpersonal relations in the economic sphere

Cited by 66 publications

References 57 publications

Online and Offline Social Participation and Social Poverty Traps: Can Social Networks Save Human Relations?

Online and Offline Social Participation and Social Poverty Traps: Can Social Networks Save Human Relations?

Does the Internet make people happier?

Rationalizing Inconsistent Definitions of Commodification: A Social Exchange Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About