Components and Predictors of the “Good Life” (experience of international comparative research)
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2020-10-2-77-86
Abstract
In search of an answer to one of the oldest philosophical questions “What is ‘good life?’” and because of its hidden complexity, researchers tend to turn to different theories. The concept of a good life is multifaceted. The moral aspect implies that a person lives well or has lived a decent living in terms of the norms accepted in society, i.e. they are courageous, honest, trustworthy, kind, selfless, generous, loyal. He does not spend time pursuing his pleasure but devotes it to activities that benefit others. Exploratory analysis suggests that it is possible to measure the seven factors of “good life”, based on 59 items of the questionnaire. The survey was conducted in seven educational institutions in different countries: Russia, the Philippines, Bulgaria, the United States, Taiwan and China. The article offers a theoretical model of the “good life” based on the concept of prerequisites and consequences.
About the Authors
T. A. Goroshnikova
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Tech.), Associate Professor, Department of World Economy and World Finance
Moscow
E. S. Smakhtin
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Language Training
Moscow
References
1. Ackrill J. Aristotle’s Ethics. London: Faber and Faber; 1973.
2. Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics. Transl. by Thomson J.A.K., Rev. by Tredennick H., Introd. and bibl. by Barnes J. London: Penguin Books; 1976.
3. Tuan Yi‑Fu. The Good Life. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press; 1986.
4. Wong P. Positive Psychology 2.0: Towards a Balanced Interactive Model of the Good Life. Canadian Psychology. 2011;52(2):69–81. DOI: 10.1037/a0022511
5. Ryan Richard M., Deci Edward L. On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well‑Being. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001;52:141–66.
6. Diener Ed. Subjective Well‑Being. Psychological Bulletin. 1984;3(95):34.
7. Young Ho Yun, Ye Eun Rhee, Eunkyo Kang, Jin‑ah Sim. The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Subjective Well‑Being Inventory in the General Korean Population: Psychometric Properties and Normative Data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16:153.
8. Maltby Joseph S., Wood J., Stockton A.M., Hunt N., Regel S. The Psychological Well‑Being — Post‑Traumatic Changes Questionnaire (PWB‑PTCQ): Reliability and validity. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2012;4(4):420–428.
9. Gladwell Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York; 2008.
10. Mikulincer M., Shaver P.R. Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press; 2007.
11. Glaeser E., Laibson D., Scheinkman J. Measuring Trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2000;3(115):811–846.
12. Jøsang A., Presti S. Analysing the Relationship between Risk and Trust. In: Jensen C., Poslad S., Dimitrakos T., eds. Trust Management. iTrust.. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; 2004, vol. 2995. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–540–24747–0_11
13. Frankl V. Man’ Search for Meaning. Beacon Press; 2006.
14. Snyder C.R., Michael S., Cheavens J. Hope as a psychotherapeutic foundation for nonspecific factors, placebos, and expectancies. In: M.A. Huble, B. Duncan, S. Miller, eds. Heart and soul of change (pp. 179–200). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999.
15. Subjective well‑being in China’s changing society. William A.V. Clark, Daichun Yi, Youqin Huang. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. August 2019;116(34):16799–16804. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1902926116
16. Yang D., Zhou H. The Comparison between Chinese and Western Well‑Being. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 2017;5:181–188. DOI: 10.4236/jss.2017.511013
Review
For citations:
Goroshnikova T.A., Smakhtin E.S. Components and Predictors of the “Good Life” (experience of international comparative research). Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2020;10(2):77-86. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2020-10-2-77-86
Views:
403
Email this article 