IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v9y2025i5d10.1038_s41562-025-02187-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multidimensional versus unidimensional approaches to well-being

Author

Listed:
  • Tyler J. VanderWeele

    (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
    Harvard University)

  • Byron R. Johnson

    (Baylor University)

Abstract

Interest in the scientific study of well-being has grown substantially, spanning various disciplines and sectors of society, while also gaining greater relevance in policymaking. In this Perspective, we compare and contrast unidimensional versus multidimensional understandings of well-being, and corresponding measures of life satisfaction or life evaluation versus flourishing. We consider conceptual, empirical, pragmatic and policy arguments that have been put forward for each of these understandings and measurement approaches. While we argue that well-being needs to be conceptually and scientifically understood, and empirically studied, as a multidimensional construct, we acknowledge the pragmatic and policy challenges of doing so and how in some circumstances relying on a unidimensional assessment may sometimes be practically necessary. We put forward some proposals as to how researchers and policymakers might navigate these various challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Tyler J. VanderWeele & Byron R. Johnson, 2025. "Multidimensional versus unidimensional approaches to well-being," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(5), pages 857-863, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1038_s41562-025-02187-5
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-025-02187-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02187-5
    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/s41562-025-02187-5?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:9:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1038_s41562-025-02187-5. 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.