IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v2y2018i4d10.1038_s41562-018-0307-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advances in subjective well-being research

Author

Listed:
  • Ed Diener

    (University of Virginia
    University of Utah
    The Gallup Organization)

  • Shigehiro Oishi

    (University of Virginia)

  • Louis Tay

    (Purdue University)

Abstract

The empirical science of subjective well-being, popularly referred to as happiness or satisfaction, has grown enormously in the past decade. In this Review, we selectively highlight and summarize key researched areas that continue to develop. We describe the validity of measures and their potential biases, as well as the scientific methods used in this field. We describe some of the predictors of subjective well-being such as temperament, income and supportive social relationships. Higher subjective well-being has been associated with good health and longevity, better social relationships, work performance and creativity. At the community and societal levels, cultures differ not only in their levels of well-being but also to some extent in the types of subjective well-being they most value. Furthermore, there are both universal and unique predictors of subjective well-being in various societies. National accounts of subjective well-being to help inform policy decisions at the community and societal levels are now being considered and adopted. Finally we discuss the unknowns in the science and needed future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Ed Diener & Shigehiro Oishi & Louis Tay, 2018. "Advances in subjective well-being research," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 253-260, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:2:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0307-6
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0307-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:2:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0307-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.