Happiness and Well-Being in Chinese Societies

Sociocultural Analyses

Chau-kiu Cheung, Xiaodong Yue

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000365139
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Sustainable Development
• Index: Economics

This book addresses the sustainability of happiness and well-being in Chinese societies. It starts by introducing the various conceptions of well-being, particularly in the Chinese sociocultural context.

The book then proceeds with the examination of the sustainability of well-being by scrutinizing the effects of sociocultural, contextual, and personal factors on well-being. The contextual factors are the aggregates or averages of personal factors at the contextual levels of the regions and colleges in Mainland China, its special administrative region, and Taiwan. These factors cover personality traits, strengths, orientations, beliefs, values, and idolizing.

By bringing together empirical studies and theoretical perspectives applied to Chinese societies, this book offers researchers in social science and humanities a valuable reference work on happiness and well-being in Chinese societies.

1 Introduction

Happiness is a form of well-being, both vital in their promotion worthy at individual and societal levels in cultural context, including the Chinese one. The promotion necessarily relies on solid knowledge derived from research engaging in the analysis of ample empirical data. For the promotion, the analysis needs to clarify the predictors of happiness and well-being for early promotion. That is, the key to promoting happiness and well-being lies in promoting their predictors.

Moreover, the analysis needs to clarify the consequences or impacts of happiness and well-being, and thus the rationale for their promotion. That is, the promotion is reasonable when it leads to desirable outcomes. Combined analysis of the predictors and consequences of happiness and well-being importantly addresses the issue of sustainability of happiness and well-being (Phillip 2006; Thin 2012).

Accordingly, sustainability means that happiness and well-being can reinforce or perpetuate themselves with a vicious circle such that they benefit from their results. That is, sustainability or the vicious circle entails benefits from and to happiness and well-being as well. This vicious circle collapses when happiness and well-being do not reinforce themselves. The collapse can happen because of adaptation or satiation, whereby happiness and well-being reach a ceiling and thus discourage their advancement (Frey and Stutzer 2014; Lane 2000; Oishi 2012).

Worse than this is the possible reversal effect of happiness and well-being such that they trigger undesirable impacts, such as raising carelessness, immorality, antisocial behavior, and jealousy in the person and others (Diener 2008; Veenhoven 2008, 2010). As the sustainability issue involves one and others, it deals with the bigger issue of social functionalism. Accordingly, the critical issue to be addressed is whether personal happiness and well-being are socially functional such that they benefit society, which in turn sustains them (Carson 2000; Ramadier 2017). This functionalist concern needs to transcend personal happiness and well-being to examine the impacts of collective or contextual happiness and well-being. Accordingly, personal happiness and well-being accrue in the social context to become collective or contextual happiness and well-being to demonstrate their social functions or impacts. Social function happens when collective or contextual happiness and well-being contribute to desirable results. Specifically, social sustainability occurs when collective or contextual happiness and well-being safeguard personal happiness and well-being.

In all, analysis about the causes, consequences, functions, and sustainability of happiness and well-being is the required work. Data for analysis spring from Chinese youths or college students or emergent adults in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and Mainland China.

Happiness and perceptual well-being

Happiness and other perceptual well-being factors are centers of the analysis. Specifically, happiness is a member of hedonic well-being, which together with existential well-being identifies perceptual well-being. Hedonic well-being includes self-esteem, life satisfaction, and non-depression, as well as happiness. Meanwhile, existential well-being includes meaningfulness and freedom. All these indicate well-being perceived by the person to indicate something good in the person. Essentially, well-being means a good state, which is temporary, rather than a long-term, stable trait (Peterson, Park, and Sweeney 2008). Perceptual well-being means well-being based on perception, which relies on personal functioning, notably interpretation, and reporting (Sirgy 2012).

Happiness

Happiness broadly means feeling good in life by a person (Baumeister et al. 2013; Bavetta, Navarra, and Maimone 2014). The good can refer to balance or harmony (Delle Fave et al. 2011). It has an authentic form involving feeling autonomous, informed, phasic, tonic, using signature strengths, and virtuous (MacLeod 2015; Seligman 2002). Notably, feeling phasic means feeling persevere, fair, and valorous and feeling tonic means feeling kind, curious, loyal, and spontaneous. Meanwhile, feeling virtuous means feeling wise, knowledgeable, courageous, loved or loving, human, just, temperate, and transcendent.

Happiness is a component of hedonia, flourishing, subjective well-being, and global or general well-being (Huta 2017; Keyes 2009; Lloyd and Auld 2002; Sirgy 2012). In the youth, it is also particularly a crucial component of flourishing (Fredrickson and Losada 2005). Moreover, happiness means a present-focused good feeling (Ef klides, Kalaitzidou, and Chankin 2003). Crucially, it is a basis for personal utility in utilitarianism (Sirgy 2001). As such, happiness is a criterion for utilitarianism to maximize utility in the person, society, and even bigger collectivity. Utilitarianism states that good means the maximization of utility, which holds happiness as a crucial criterion (Haybron 2008; Shin and Inoguchi 2009). To illustrate, happiness involves such feelings as of enjoyment and getting the most out of everything (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999)—essentially, happiness, non-depression, self-esteem, and life satisfaction

Hedonic well-being

Hedonic well-being means feelings of pleasure, euphoria, comfort, and laxation, just like taking opium (Marks and Fleming 1999; Huta 2017). It is purely self-oriented to gratify oneself with positive, pleasant feelings (Battersby and Phillips 2016; Hassenzahl et al. 2015).

Moreover, hedonic well-being is mainly affective, essentially arising from events (Sirgy 2001; Veenhoven 2010). Its indicators, apart from health, non-depression, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, include health and interest (Keyes 2009; Ryff 1989; Veenhoven 1984). More specifically, hedonic well-being encompasses carefreeness, comfort, consumption, easiness, enjoyment, possession, replenishment, safety, satisfaction, self-enhancement, and self-preservation (Huta 2017; Phillip 2006; Shin and Inoguchi 2009). Similarly, it also implies the absence of pain (Huta 2017; Meadows 2014). It means being egoistic, or upholding the self, based on personal judgment, a hot or aroused mind, and momentariness (Huta 2017; Phillip 2006; Sirgy 2012).

Hedonic well-being is one of the dimensions of flourishing (Keyes 2009). An important feature of hedonic well-being is its adaptation and non-satisfaction, leading to addiction and its increasing desire, known as the hedonic treadmill (Oishi 2012; Rogge 2011). That is, hedonic well-being is momentary and declines rapidly, hence urging higher levels of it afterward. What is more, it has the properties of addictiveness, backward-looking, greed, impulsivity, pessimism, and selfishness (Huta 2017; Sirgy 2012). As such, hedonic well-being is a marker of consumerism or consumptionism and escapism, which accentuate egoistic pleasure (Armon 1984; Huta 2017). That is, it does not involve social or moral concern (Carson 2000).

Instead, hedonic well-being stands on hedonism and egoism (Armon 1984). Hedonism is justifiable by materialism, which means the importance of material for subsistence (Wilska 2002). Materialism emphasizes safety, order, wealth, and their defense (Davis and Dooley 1999). It rests on premises about external control, including that of God (Lane 2000). Thus, Protestantism is a basis of personal defense upheld in materialism (Flouri 2003). As another basis of hedonic well-being, egoism means self-interest and even selfishness (Beggan, Messick, and Allison 1988; Tyler et al. 1997). It highlights self-evaluation (Beggan et al. 1988). Egoism is popular under liberalism and individualism, which stress personal happiness and achievement (Rocha and Ghoshal 2006). Accordingly, egoism and thus ignoring others are efficient means to achieve the goals of liberalism and individualism. Moreover, egoism stands on the tenet of unitary self, such that the self is unambiguous and stable, thus not involving the need for caring for others (Rocha and Ghoshal 2006). Egoism is straightforward and prevalent; it does not have any concern for duty and altruism (Rocha and Ghoshal 2006). In the youth particularly, hedonism is associated with anomia, anomie, or normlessness (Adnanes 2007). This means helplessness and nostalgia (about pleasurable memory), as opposed to commitment and potency (Adnanes 2007; Goldner, Lev-Weisel, and Schanan 2019). As such, the youth’s hedonism is rife with ambiguity, conflict, and uncertainty (Thorlindsson and Bernburg 2009). These properties urge the youth to procure hedonic well-being.

Depression and non-depression

Depression and non-depression are affective indicators of ill-feeling and hedonic well-being, respectively. Herein, non-depression is the reverse of depression.

The former is synonymous with dejection, dysphoria, and dysthymia (Higgins 1998; Horwitz et al. 2001; Olson et al. 2005). Subsumed in depression are feelings of anomia (i.e., normlessness), disappointment, loss, and somatic problems (Hiscjla and Mau 2005; Kleinman and Kleinman 1985; O’Neill and Evans 1999). Loss is vital because of the value of conservation (O’Neill and Evans 1999). Particularly, somatization is a Chinese characteristic of depression to feel powerless, given the importance of maintaining solidarity (Kleinman and Kleinman 1985). In the youth particularly, depression encompasses feelings of sadness and self-depreciation, as opposed to easygoing (Draper and Holman 2005; Van Beek et al. 2012). Thus, depression in turn characterizes negative affect and the internalizing problem or faulting oneself (Anusic et al. 2014; Feinstein and Bynner 2006).

Depression is a crucial part of distress and emotional problems or difficulty, even stress, suffering, and mental ill-health (Nordenmark 2004; Sam and Virta 2003; Smith et al. 2006; Wills 1997). It is an important concern because it attenuates personal capability (Lelli 2008). In the youth, depression is problematic as a marker of vulnerability and immaturity (Qouta et al. 2007). It is also prevalent in the youth and in need of prevention (Blom et al. 2012; Cytryr and McKnew 1996). It also hurts personal coping and societal functioning (Compton et al. 2003). Thus, depression is a focus for therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy (Ritschel and Sheppard 2018).

Self-esteem

Self-esteem is synonymous with self-regard, self-worth, and the positive self-concept (Bond and Kwan 2000). Similarly, in the youth, self-esteem is synonymous with ego strength, fidelity, positive self-concept or image, resiliency, self-evaluation, and self-worth (Adams and Ryan 2000; Dupree, Spencer and Fegley 2007; Nelson, Padilla-Walker, and Nielson 2015; Robins et al. 2010; Tsai 2010). It means positive affect toward oneself (Wojciszke and Struzynska-Kujolowicz 2007). Thus, it is another indicator of hedonic well-being (Mruk 2019).

Self-esteem covers the dimensions of acceptance, agency, competence, confidence, defense, efficacy, enhancement, independence, legitimacy, mattering, security, superiority, and worth (Bond and Kwan 2000; Burke and Stets 2009; Caplan and Schooler 2006; Gountas et al. 2012; Klein and Milardo 2000; Locke 2003; Magee and Upenieks 2019; Mruk 2006, 2019; Schieman and Taylor 2001; Watkins et al. 2000). Conversely, it is opposite to self-derogation, self-handicapping, and traumatization, which encompasses betrayal, powerlessness, and stigmatization (Magee and Upenieks 2019; Mruk 2006). To be simple, an authentic or balanced form of self-esteem just emphasizes the conjunction of competence and worthiness in oneself (Mruk 2019).

In the youth particularly, achievement, enhancement, and identity are vital in characterizing self-esteem (Marsh and Hau 2003). As such, the youth’s self-esteem espouses the dimensions of ability, acceptance, activity, appearance, authenticity, career, competence, confidence, employment, family, fidelity, goals, independence, interdependence, learning, problem-solving, relationship, resiliency, romance, and study (Adams, Blieszner and de Vries 2000; Aricak et al. 2015; Deemer et al. 2014; Furman and Winkles 2010; Han and Grogan-Kaylor 2012; Harter 2012; Herrmann et al. 2016; Kanagawa et al. 2001; Morrison et al. 2004; Myers et al. 2011; Siu and Shek 2005; Watkins et al. 2000). For youth, self-esteem is vital as an educational goal (Marsh and Hau 2003).

Self-esteem is crucial according to humanistic, psychodynamic, and social learning discourses. Humanistic discourse states that self-esteem meets a personal need (Mruk 2006). This discourse particularly treasures self-actualization as integral to or a more desirable outcome of self-esteem. In addition, it emphasizes the rational and responsible aspects of self-esteem, such that it is objectively rather than subjectively based. According to psychodynamic discourse, self-esteem is necessary to tackle inferiority (Mruk 2006). That is, self-esteem fulfills the desire for superiority. Alternatively, social learning discourse maintains that social learning and emulation serve as a strong foundation for self-esteem (Mruk 2006). These discourses maintain that self-esteem is integral to good life and conducive to initiative-taking and social participation (Baumeister et al. 2003; Lane 1991; Mruk 2006).

In the youth particularly, modernist and romanticist discourses provide justifications for self-esteem. On the one hand, modernist discourse states that the self is real, evident, observable, united, coherent, integrated, and necessary for reasoning and rationality and scientific advancement (Harter 2012). That is, the self is not arbitrary and ambiguous. On the other hand, romanticist discourse holds that the unobservable, interior self is crucial and worth development (Harter 2012). These discourses lead to the goal of education to develop self-esteem in the youth (Marsh and Hau 2003).

Life satisfaction

Life satisfaction is another indicator of hedonic well-being, particularly its utility aspect or basis (Ambrey and Fleming 2014; Stavrova 2014). It is particularly hedonic in the youth, whose life is mostly hedonically oriented, rather than altruistic and concerned about existential, humanistic, perfectionist, and sociotropic causes (Lightsey et al. 2011).

Life satisfaction covers 11 facets: friendship, health, education, transportation, religion, partnership, employment, housing, finance, family, and recreation (Mallard et al. 1997). In the youth, pertinent life domains to satisfaction are simpler, covering the family, friendship, school, living environment, and self (Gilligan and Huebner 2007; Seligson, Huebner, and Valois 2002). That is, self-satisfaction, as a component of self-esteem, is also a component of life satisfaction. To be particularly relevant to the hedonic emphasis, satisfaction essentially taps safety and affiliation (Nielsen and Smyth 2008).

Satisfaction is a cognitive and past-oriented component of subjective well-being (Ef klides et al. 2003; London, Schwartz, and Scott 2006; Sirgy 2012). It is a key indicator of subjective well-being, particularly in the youth (Gilman 2000). In the youth, life satisfaction combines cognitive and affect processes (Gilligan and Huebner 2007). The youth is particularly concerned about the quality aspect of life in achieving life satisfaction (Qouta et al. 2007).

Existential well-being

Existential well-being is another form of perceptive well-being and an alternative to hedonic ...