Its strange that many scholars and editors treat two constructs as same for all purposes. While happiness was considered a primary emotion in psychology SWB emerged and gained prominence essentially only after positive psychology movement. Is it logical to think that when we talk about happiness (say at work) we have to restrict ourself to how one feels (positive mood) at work and to what extent he is satisfied (high level of satisfaction) with work?
I am working on a paper and the reviewer says that some factors that I have identified for happiness at work (like supportive work environment, work repulsiveness, experience of flow, etc. ) are causes of happiness and not happiness at work itself which consists of positive emotions and satisfaction. Is it right to assume that two factors of subjective well-being will pervade all walks of happiness like happiness in general life, happiness at work, etc. ? If we buy this logic then satisfaction can also be a cause of happiness rather than a component happiness itself. I dont buy this restrictive logic though but I need to defend my manuscript logically so I will be thankful if you can offer some relevant literature or your idea that I can offer as support.
Note: I developed items based on feedback of working people about what happiness at work is, and people typically respond like loving what you do, high salary, promotion, good colleagues. Almost no one said having positive emotion or good mood and only some mentioned satisfaction. As contrary to this when I asked what is happiness in life for them they said spending time with family, anniversary party, lovely spouse, vacation etc. This clearly shows contents of happiness at work and life are clearly different. Then whats logic of imposing duality of positive emotions and satisfaction everywhere as if happiness is just SWB as understood by some positive psychologists.
Please share your thoughts.
Thank you
Sanjay SIngh
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Emotional Psychology