Psychological Flourishing: Definition, Measurement, and Factors

Running head: PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

PSYCHOLOGY1
Introduction
Flourishing is also called well-being can be defined and measured both subjectively or
objectively and it means that sufficient amount of resources that meets the basic needs like lack
of environmental pollutants, opportunities for education, and sufficient amount of resources to
meet the fundamental needs. Therefore, the flourishing and well- being can interchangeably be
used (Butler & Kern, 2016). Psychological flourishing scale can be described as a measure of
well- being and it includes negative feelings and positive feelings and the difference that exists
between the two. The flourishing as a whole includes the other aspects like the optimism,
purpose, self- esteem and relationship (Choi et al., 2009). Mental wellbeing is considered to be a
multifaceted structure that has a long standing history and extensive history in the scientific
literature. It is important to note that mental well-being captures both the eudaimonic and
hedonic perspectives of well-being. The hedonic wellbeing refers to the feeling good or affective
dimension of wellbeing (positive effect, life-satisfaction and happiness). While the eudaimonic
wellbeing refers to living well or psychological functioning of wellbeing (personal growth,
relationship with others, and social contribution). The Flourishing Scale (FS) is used widely for
clinical practice and well- being intervention because it is comprehensive, simple and brief
(Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). In a study examining relationships between flourishing
(measured using the Flourishing Scale; Diener et al., 2010) and personality traits, Schotanus-
Dijkstra et al. (2016; Table 3) found that scores on the Flourishing Scale had a significant
negative correlation with scores on a measure of Neuroticism (r = -.24, p < .001), and a
significant positive correlation with scores on Extraversion (r = .23, p < .001) and
Conscientiousness (r = .32, p < .001). Goldberg (1992), has also suggested a general approach
for the selection of variables and in the delivery of the factor markers. It has been found that