IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i2p719-d481069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wellbeing Literacy: A Capability Model for Wellbeing Science and Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Lindsay G. Oades

    (Centre for Positive Psychology, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Aaron Jarden

    (Centre for Positive Psychology, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Hanchao Hou

    (Centre for Positive Psychology, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Corina Ozturk

    (Centre for Positive Psychology, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Paige Williams

    (Centre for Positive Psychology, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Gavin R. Slemp

    (Centre for Positive Psychology, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Lanxi Huang

    (Centre for Positive Psychology, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia)

Abstract

Wellbeing science is the scientific investigation of wellbeing, its’ antecedents and consequences. Alongside growth of wellbeing science is significant interest in wellbeing interventions at individual, organizational and population levels, including measurement of national accounts of wellbeing. In this concept paper, we propose the capability model of wellbeing literacy as a new model for wellbeing science and practice. Wellbeing literacy is defined as a capability to comprehend and compose wellbeing language, across contexts, with the intention of using such language to maintain or improve the wellbeing of oneself, others or the world. Wellbeing literacy is underpinned by a capability model (i.e., what someone is able to be and do), and is based on constructivist (i.e., language shapes reality) and contextualist (i.e., words have different meanings in different contexts) epistemologies. The proposed capability model of wellbeing literacy adds to wellbeing science by providing a tangible way to assess mechanisms learned from wellbeing interventions. Moreover, it provides a framework for practitioners to understand and plan wellbeing communications. Workplaces and families as examples are discussed as relevant contexts for application of wellbeing literacy, and future directions for wellbeing literacy research are outlined.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindsay G. Oades & Aaron Jarden & Hanchao Hou & Corina Ozturk & Paige Williams & Gavin R. Slemp & Lanxi Huang, 2021. "Wellbeing Literacy: A Capability Model for Wellbeing Science and Practice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:719-:d:481069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/719/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/719/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander Bick & Adam Blandin & Karel Mertens, 2023. "Work from Home before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 1-39, October.
    2. Leda Sivak & Seth Westhead & Emmalene Richards & Stephen Atkinson & Jenna Richards & Harold Dare & Ghil’ad Zuckermann & Graham Gee & Michael Wright & Alan Rosen & Michael Walsh & Ngiare Brown & Alex B, 2019. "“Language Breathes Life”—Barngarla Community Perspectives on the Wellbeing Impacts of Reclaiming a Dormant Australian Aboriginal Language," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Erik Brynjolfsson & John J. Horton & Adam Ozimek & Daniel Rock & Garima Sharma & Hong-Yi TuYe, 2020. "COVID-19 and Remote Work: An Early Look at US Data," NBER Working Papers 27344, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Sen, Amartya, 1999. "Commodities and Capabilities," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195650389.
    5. Jacqueline Francis & Tan-Chyuan Chin & Dianne Vella-Brodrick, 2020. "Examining Emotional Literacy Development Using a Brief On-Line Positive Psychology Intervention with Primary School Children," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Lanxi Huang & Margaret L. Kern & Lindsay G. Oades, 2020. "Strengthening University Student Wellbeing: Language and Perceptions of Chinese International Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Don Nutbeam, 2009. "Defining and measuring health literacy: what can we learn from literacy studies?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 54(5), pages 303-305, October.
    8. Martha Nussbaum, 2003. "Capabilities As Fundamental Entitlements: Sen And Social Justice," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2-3), pages 33-59.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hanchao Hou & Tan-Chyuan Chin & Gavin R. Slemp & Lindsay G. Oades, 2021. "Wellbeing Literacy: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Preliminary Empirical Findings from Students, Parents and School Staff," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kinghorn, Philip, 2019. "Using deliberative methods to establish a sufficient state of capability well-being for use in decision-making in the contexts of public health and social care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    2. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    3. Barrero, Jose Maria & Bloom, Nick & Davis, Steven J., 2020. "Why Working From Home Will Stick," SocArXiv wfdbe, Center for Open Science.
    4. Masayuki Morikawa, 2023. "Productivity dynamics of remote work during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 317-331, July.
    5. Julia Darby & Stuart McIntyre & Graeme Roy, 2022. "What can analysis of 47 million job advertisements tell us about how opportunities for homeworking are evolving in the United Kingdom?," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 281-302, July.
    6. Christian Kagerl & Julia Starzetz, 2023. "Working from home for good? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and what this means for the future of work," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 229-265, January.
    7. Jose Maria Barrero & Nicholas Bloom & Steven J. Davis & Brent H. Meyer, 2021. "COVID-19 Is a Persistent Reallocation Shock," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 287-291, May.
    8. Bloom, Nicholas & Davis, Steven J. & Hansen, Stephen & Lambert, Peter John & Sadun, Raffaella & Taska, Bledi, 2023. "Remote work across jobs, companies and space," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121302, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. James J. Heckman & Chase O. Corbin, 2016. "Capabilities and Skills," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 342-359, July.
    10. Charlene Marie Kalenkoski & Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia, 2022. "Impacts of COVID-19 on the self-employed," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 741-768, February.
    11. Adams-Prassl, Abi & Boneva, Teodora & Golin, Marta & Rauh, Christopher, 2022. "Work that can be done from home: evidence on variation within and across occupations and industries," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Alexander Bick & Adam Blandin & Aidan Caplan & Tristan Caplan, 2024. "Measuring Trends in Work From Home: Evidence from Six U.S. Datasets," Working Papers 2024-023, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, revised 12 Dec 2024.
    13. Nicholas Bloom & Steven J. Davis & Yulia Zhestkova, 2021. "COVID-19 Shifted Patent Applications toward Technologies That Support Working from Home," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 263-266, May.
    14. Christopher T. Stanton & Pratyush Tiwari, 2021. "Housing Consumption and the Cost of Remote Work," NBER Working Papers 28483, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Adams-Prassl, A. & Boneva, T. & Golin, M. & Rauh, C., 2020. "Work Tasks That Can Be Done From Home: Evidence on Variation Within and Across Occupations and Industries," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2040, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    16. Delbosc, Alexa & Currie, Graham & Jain, Taru & Aston, Laura, 2022. "The ‘re-norming’ of working from home during COVID-19: A transtheoretical behaviour change model of a major unplanned disruption," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 15-21.
    17. Maria Barrero, Jose & Bloom, Nicholas & Davis, Steven J., 2021. "Internet access and its implications for productivity, inequality and resilience," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113869, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Michael Gibbs & Friederike Mengel & Christoph Siemroth, 2023. "Work from Home and Productivity: Evidence from Personnel and Analytics Data on Information Technology Professionals," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 7-41.
    19. Morikawa, Masayuki, 2021. "Work-from-Home Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Surveys of Employees and Employers," SSPJ Discussion Paper Series DP20-007, Service Sector Productivity in Japan: Determinants and Policies, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    20. Ralph Hippe & Damien Demailly & Claude Diebolt, 2022. "The Digital Transition for a Sustainable Mobility Regime? A Long-Run Perspective," Working Papers of BETA 2022-19, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:719-:d:481069. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.