Well-being and ill-being: Different dimensions?

Headey, Bruce; Holmström, Elsie; Wearing, Alexander J.

doi:10.1007/bf00293406

Cited by 115 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with those who rate their standard of life as low and average, those who rate their living standard as high increase their odds to have enjoyment by 30% and their odds to experience a sense of accomplishment by 21%, and score .15 points higher on overall subjective well-being. This is consistent with the findings from other similar studies on life satisfaction and happiness that show the subjective evaluation of income from a relative perspective has a strong effect on happiness and life satisfaction (see Headey et al 1984;Fuentes and Rojas 2001;Haller and Hadler 2004).…”

Section: Influences On Subjective Well-beingsupporting

confidence: 92%

The Quality of Life in China

Shu

Zhu

2008

Soc Indic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Influences On Subjective Well-beingsupporting

confidence: 92%

The Quality of Life in China

Shu

Zhu

2008

Soc Indic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They believed that: subjective well-being consists of three interrelated components: life satisfaction, pleasant affect, and unpleasant affect. Affect refers to pleasant and unpleasant moods and emotions, whereas life satisfaction refers to a cognitive sense of satisfaction with life (Diener & Suh, 1997, p. 200) Headey and colleagues (Headey, Holmstrom, & Wearing, 1984a;1984b;Headey, 2006) picked up on the need for positive and negative affects to be seen as distinct dimensions, rather than opposite ends of the same continuum (Bradburn, 1969) as they are ‚only moderately negatively correlated‛ (Headey, 2006, p. 2). This was more recently supported by Lee and Ogozoglu (2007) and Singh and Duggal Jha (2008).…”

Section: What Constitutes Wellbeing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The challenge of defining wellbeing

Dodge¹,

Daly²,

Huyton³

et al. 2012

Intnl. J. Wellbeing

1,613

1,167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Wellbeing is a growing area of research, yet the question of how it should be defined remains unanswered. This multi-disciplinary review explores past attempts to define wellbeing and provides an overview of the main theoretical perspectives, from the work of Aristotle to the present day. The article argues that many attempts at expressing its nature have focused purely on dimensions of wellbeing, rather than on definition. Among these theoretical perspectives, we highlight the pertinence of dynamic equilibrium theory of wellbeing (Headey & Wearing, 1989), the effect of life challenges on homeostasis (Cummins, 2010) and the lifespan model of development (Hendry & Kloep, 2002). Consequently, we conclude that it would be appropriate for a new definition of wellbeing to centre on a state of equilibrium or balance that can be affected by life events or challenges. The article closes by proposing this new definition, which we believe to be simple, universal in application, optimistic and a basis for measurement. This definition conveys the multi-faceted nature of wellbeing and can help individuals and policy makers move forward in their understanding of this popular term.

show abstract

“…Research has demonstrated that high NA subjects are more introspective and honest with themselves, dwelling particularly on theh faUures and shortcomings. They also tend to focus on the negative side of others and the world m general and report a decreased desire for affiliation (Teichman, 1974 (Watson and Clark, 1994;Headey et al, 1984;Headey et al, 1985) Research has suggested that NA is related to self-reported stress and less adaptive coping strategies (Gunthert et al, 1999), health complaints (DenoUet, 2000;Beiser, 1974;Bradbum, 1969;Tessler and Mechanic, 1978;Watson and Pennebaker, 1989) and reportmg of stressful Ufe events (Brett et al, 1990). In contrast, PA (but not NA) is related to social activity and satisfaction and to the frequency of pleasant events (Beiser, 1974;Bradbum, 1969;Clark and Watson, 1988;.…”

Section: Positive and Negative Affectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Caregiver strain in spouses of stroke patients

Blake¹,

Lincoln²,

Clarke

2003

Clin Rehabil

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To test the ability of a previously generated logistic regression model to predict caregiver strain from carer mood, negative affectivity and perceived patient functional ability. Design: Postal prospective survey. Setting: Spouses of community-residing patients identified from hospital stroke registers. Method: Spouses were assessed at three and six months after stroke. A previously derived equation was used to make predictions at three months of their level of strain at six months, which were compared with observed outcomes. Measures: Spouses were asked to complete the Caregiver Strain Index (CSI), the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), the Positive and Negative Affectivity Schedule (PANAS) and to assess patients' independence in activities of daily living on the Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale (EADL). Results: Of 409 stroke patients, 276 had an identifiable co-resident spouse and 116 (42%) completed the measures. At three months after stroke, 39 carers (34%) were under significant strain with 40 (35%) under strain at six months. The predictive model using the GHQ-12, PANAS and EADL at three months was 78% accurate in predicting levels of caregiver strain at six months. Conclusion: Carers at risk of later strain could be identified for further followup. Services to provide emotional support to carers might be effective in the reduction of carer strain.

show abstract

Well-being and ill-being: Different dimensions?

Cited by 115 publications

References 21 publications

The Quality of Life in China

The Quality of Life in China

The challenge of defining wellbeing

Caregiver strain in spouses of stroke patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About