Huodegan: A Novel Index Reflecting Both Individual Wellbeing and Social Development 9811949484, 9789811949487

Citation preview

Wenjie Duan Yumei Li

Huodegan A Novel Index Reflecting Both Individual Wellbeing and Social Development

Huodegan

Wenjie Duan · Yumei Li

Huodegan A Novel Index Reflecting Both Individual Wellbeing and Social Development

Wenjie Duan Social and Public Administration School East China University of Science and Technology Shanghai, China

Yumei Li Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR, China

Funded by a National Social Science Fund of China ISBN 978-981-19-4948-7 ISBN 978-981-19-4949-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

Humanity is in an eternal pursuit of a fulfilling life, a flourishing society, and a harmonious human civilization. In 2015, all United Nations Member States have set the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which covers 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These SDGs recognize that ending poverty and improving the health and wellbeing of people in developed and developing countries require the adoption of hand-in-hand strategies. According to the International Poverty Line, which is defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty, China has achieved its goal of poverty reduction in the new era as scheduled by the end of 2020. At the next stage, China needs to determine how to sustainably promote social and individual development in terms of health and wellbeing. The definition, measurement, and promotion of wellbeing and development have received scholarly attention for many centuries. Regardless of the debate between the “hedonic” and “eudaimonic” philosophical perspectives toward wellbeing, the discussion between unidimensional and multidimensional methodologies, or the moot point between “internationalization” and “localization” in the cross-cultural perspective of social indicators, we need to construct comprehensive and balanced set of social and individual indicators using the combined etic-emic approach to measure wellbeing and development. The core of this book is the concept of huodegan (获得感), which refers to a sense of gain that includes perceived individual wellbeing and social development. Given that measuring sense of gain has become critical in the new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics and along with the social indicators movement in the last decade, building an index for evaluating sense of gain becomes critical. Apart from reviewing the existing index systems for social development and policy and the previous studies exploring the sense of gain, this book highlights the importance of combining Chinese socio-cultural features, established theories, and index systems. This book is organized as follows. Chapter 1 introduces the framework that guides this book, the main content of this work, the research method, and the anticipated targets. The key challenges and points involved in measuring and clarifying the concept of sense of gain are also discussed.

v

vi

Preface

Chapter 2 draws upon extant psychological theories to build the psychological theoretical foundation of this research. The inherent continuity between sense of gain and the traditional western theories of wellbeing produces strong implications for exploring sense of gain by sorting out and analyzing theories related to wellbeing and by summarizing its evolutionary process. From the psychological perspective, research on wellbeing has evolved from “wellbeing theory 1.0” (i.e., positive/negative affect, life satisfaction, and psychological wellbeing) to “wellbeing theory 2.0” (i.e., PERMA model), which has also become a psychological theoretical basis for studying sense of gain. However, psychology focuses too much on the internal psychology of individuals, while the concept of sense of gain should not only pertain to the subjective feelings and life satisfaction of individuals but should also be influenced by their social environments. This study attempts to address this shortcoming by using the sociological perspective to be introduced in the next chapter. Chapter 3 presents the sociological foundation used in this work to precisely and objectively inform the proposed theoretical model and sense of gain index system. By interpreting three theories that provide a complementary understanding of the aspects of quality of life, relative deprivation, and social representations, this book enriches the literature on the external social environment factors that influence the conceptualization of sense of gain. According to the theoretical conceptions of quality of life and relative deprivation, sense of gain should be conceptualized across multiple facets and dimensions. Social representation drives the collective understanding and perception of a social group through cognition, communication, and knowledge sharing among members and can also be interpreted as symbolic core knowledge. Many studies have proven that social representation theory is an excellent approach for depicting social phenomena. Therefore, in this book, social representation theory is used to sublimate the notion of sense of gain rooted in the Chinese social context. Chapter 4 presents an overview and discussion of the adopted methodology for constructing the proposed sense of gain index system. After exploring the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies that have emerged in related studies at home and abroad, this chapter concludes and analyzes the main elements that should be covered by these methodologies, discusses their problems, and summarizes the considerations in the construction of the index system. The adopted methodology mainly involves theory- and data-driven, objective and subjective, and unidimensional and multidimensional indicators. The construction of a scientific sense of gain index system should take these indicators into account, combine theoretical and quantitative analysis methods, focus on both the objectivity and subjectivity, guarantee the singularity of subjects in a specific dimension, and ensure that multi-dimensionality is reflected in the overall framework. The findings in this chapter will be used to guide the construction of a highly scientific sense of gain index system. Chapter 5 discusses the process of constructing the “2-facet, 10-dimensional” theoretical framework and 159-item pool of sense of gain as well as introduces the theory and structure of the index system. This chapter also highlights the significance of considering Chinese socio-cultural characteristics in exploring this index system. The notion of sense of gain is also clarified based on the findings of recent empirical studies. Furthermore, guided by sociological and psychological theories, a 2-facet

Preface

vii

(i.e., perceived individual and social development) and 10-dimension (i.e., economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, ecological protection, target, ability, satisfaction, amity, and unity) theoretical model of sense of gain can be constructed. Under this theoretical conception, this book selects 36 measurement indices from different fields to build an item pool. The initial item pool consists of 159 items. The subsequent chapters further discuss the construction and implications of this item pool based on the results of extensive measurements and surveys. Chapter 6 examines the psychometric properties of the Huodegan Index based on data collected from a convenience sample of Chinese residents. The reliability, validity, and classification functions of this index are also validated. This chapter then develops and validates 70-, 30-, and 10-item measurement instruments based on the proposed theoretical framework of sense of gain. This chapter also provides fourprofile features (i.e., “affluent and satisfied,” “well-off but lost,” “poor but contented,” and “deprived and disappointed”) that are predicted for the general population. Results of the factor analysis highlight the good construction validity of the index, whereas the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicate its excellent reliability. Meanwhile, results of the latent profile analysis (LPA) point toward a four-profile solution associated with different levels of perceived social development and individual wellbeing, thereby confirming the four-quadrant classification structure assumption. By clarifying the conceptions and building the measurements, this study expands extant theories and evaluation tools in this research area. The four-profile features indicate possible pathways for social work interventions to enhance sense of gain. Chapter 7 responds to the limitations of the results obtained from the convenience sample by introducing data from the Chinese General Social Survey 2015 (CGSS2015), which employs a stratified random sample of Chinese residents. This chapter also presents the sense of gain status and classification results of residents across the different regions of China. The sample employed in the previous chapter was determined via convenience sampling and therefore lack representativeness and generalizability. This chapter attempts to remedy this problem and further enhance the validity of the theoretical structure of the derived 10-dimensional sense of gain model by processing the CGSS2015 data as follows. First, the items consistent with the theoretical framework of sense of gain were discriminated to construct the index. Second, the sample of Chinese residents was classified via cluster analysis. Third, the index situation and type distribution of each province were determined via descriptive analysis. Analysis results show that the mean scores of the 10 main dimensions of the constructed indices reach a good level. Meanwhile, on the basis of the match between the perceived degrees of social development and individual wellbeing, the residents of China can be classified into four categories, namely, “affluent and satisfied,” “well-off but lost,” “poor but contented,” and “deprived and disappointed.” The proportion of residents in these four categories varies across each province. The analysis results not only confirm the fit between the theoretical framework of sense of gain and social facts but also reflect the operation conditions and overall effectiveness of the reform and opening-up policies of China. Chapter 8 clarifies the role of demographic factors, household registration system, and socioeconomic status in influencing the sense of gain of residents. Using data

viii

Preface

from CGSS2015, this chapter highlights the differences in the sense of gain of groups with different characteristics and uncovers those factors that influence such concept. Data analysis methods, such as analysis of variance, post hoc tests, correlation analysis, and regression analysis, are employed to evaluate the demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, marital status, self-rated health status, and political affiliation), household registration system (i.e., hukou, population mobility, and years of mobility), and socioeconomic status (i.e., total annual personal income, total annual household income, number of household properties, educational attainment, and selfrated social class) and to identify those factors that influence sense of gain. Results show that sense of gain varies across groups with different characteristics to a certain extent. These findings deepen our understanding of group differences in sense of gain, provide novel insights into the characteristics and influencing factors of sense of gain, and present an empirical basis and scientific reference for future research and policy development. Chapter 9 presents the results, proposes directions for future research, and summarizes the significance of the book. By addressing four interrelated and progressive questions, this book clarifies the conceptualization of sense of gain, develops three psychometric-sound instruments for various research purposes, demonstrates the diagnosis function of the proposed index system, and explores the social influencing factors. Sense of gain can be conceptualized as a 2-facet and 10-dimension theoretical construct, based on which the general population can be divided into 4 categories. The level of sense of gain can be measured by using 70-, 30-, and 10-item instruments. A series of influencing factors, including demographics, household type, population mobility, and socioeconomic status, are preliminarily identified. Future studies should focus on the development of a longitudinal nationwide database and systematically investigate the promoting factors and barriers of sense of gain to further understand this comprehensive individual and social wellbeing index. Through the publication of this book, we hope to offer a comprehensive statement and a general paradigm on the concept of huodegan. As the General Secretary Xi said, the Chinese study of philosophy and social sciences should focus on China and the contemporary era while using foreign studies and history as a reference and while keeping the future of humankind in mind. On the one hand, the systems, characteristics, and advantages of China’s philosophy and social sciences should be established using original theories that are based on China’s practical conditions. On the other hand, we should refine the identified concepts and create new ideas and expressions that can be easily understood and accepted by the international community. From this perspective, this book may be an exploratory attempt. Shanghai, China

Wenjie Duan, Ph.D.

Acknowledgments

I thank my graduate students from Wuhan University and East China University of Science and Technology for being part of my research team over the past seven years. Without their support, I would not have been able to share this new idea to the international academe. Their energy and leadership in managing the research project, their thoughtful suggestions and valuable assistance in data collection, cleaning, and analysis, the unique and profound insights they shared during the literature review and writing of the Chinese manuscript, their carefulness and persistence in the translation, and their patience in proofreading and formatting the English manuscript are all admirable. They are Ms. Qiujie Guan (2017, Master of Social Work (MSW)), Ms. Chen He (2018, Master of Sociology), Ms. Ke Huang (2021, MSW), Mr. Yingpeng Jie (2017, MSW), Ms. Yansi Kong (2020, MSW), Mr. Shuming Lin (2021, Master of Sociology), Ms. Qianqian Ma (2021, MSW), Ms. Xixi Sun (2021, Ph.D. student), Ms. Ye Tao (2020, MSW), Ms. Jiewen Zhang (2017, MSW), Ms. Jingying Wang (2021, Ph.D. student), Mr. Zichuan Wang (2021, MSW), Ms. Tong Wu (2020, MSW), Ms. Xinhang Yu (2021, MSW), and Ms. Xiaojing Zhang (2020, MSW). They have all made crucial contributions to this book and are listed above in alphabetical order by their last name. Some of them have graduated from my department and are pursuing their Ph.D. degrees at other well-known universities, such as Fudan University and the University of Padova. I wish them a bright future, and I hope that they will continue contributing knowledge to society. I give special thanks to the second author of this book, Ms. Yumei Li, who joined the huodegan research program in 2017. She specializes in social psychology and is currently investigating social indicators and psychometrics from a “person-incontext” perspective. For example, she has validated the psychometric properties of the person-environment fit scale for creativity and applied this scale in the field of organizational psychology (published in the Journal of Creative Behavior). In our free-flowing discussions over the past five years, she advanced our huodegan research by responding to my driving questions and asking her own queries. Her research experience and analytical techniques for social indicator construction have been useful in constructing the Huodegan Index and in applying the proposed sense of gain framework to the Chinese community. Due to her diligence and prudence, we have ix

x

Acknowledgments

managed to write the Chinese manuscript smoothly. I also appreciate her patience and conscientiousness in reviewing and proofreading our English manuscript. She is currently pursuing her Ph.D. degree at the City University of Hong Kong, and I hope that she would go further on the road of research, realize her vision, and contribute to both the academia and society. I also wish to thank the dean, Prof. Xuesong He, and the department chair, Prof. Meihua Zhu, at the School of Social and Public Administration of the East China University of Science and Technology for providing me a relatively relaxed and free research environment and for allowing me to explore a research topic that interests me. I am incredibly grateful to William Achauer and Anil Chandy, whose meticulous editing has strengthened the structure and content of this book. I also sincerely apologize to all others who contributed to or supported this work whose names I have not included in this acknowledgment due to space constraints. The writing of this book was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (17CSH073), who had no role in the study design, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit this book for publication. April 2022, Shanghai

Wenjie Duan, Ph.D.

Contents

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter? . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Formulation of the Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Research Background, Highlights and Difficulties, and Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Research Highlights and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Research Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Research Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Potential Research Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Theoretical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Practical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 9 9 12 13 14 14 15 16 18 18 19 19

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Positive/Negative Affect Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Life Satisfaction Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Psychological Wellbeing Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 PERMA Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 25 27 29 37 42 43

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Quality of Life Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Relative Deprivation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Social Representation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51 52 56 62 67 70

xi

xii

Contents

4 Methodology for the Construction of the Sense of Gain Index System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Theory and Data Driven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Construction of the Theory-Driven Index System . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Construction of the Data-Driven Index System . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Objective and Subjective Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Objective Indices in the Index System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Subjective Indices in the Index System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Unidimensional Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Multidimensional Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75 75 75 76 79 79 81 82 82 83 87 90

5 Structure of Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Theoretical Structure of Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Perceived Social Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Perceived Individual Wellbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Source of the Item Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Indices and Item Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93 94 101 103 103 115 116 126

6 Development of the Huodegan Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Latent Profile Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Development of the Short Version Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

133 133 134 136 137 138 151 154 158 165

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Participants and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Statistical Analysis Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Index Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Item Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Scoring Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Empirical Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Descriptive Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Cluster Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

169 169 170 170 171 172 172 174 176 176 176

Contents

xiii

7.4.3 Provinces Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 8 Influencing Factors of Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Influence of Demographic Factors on Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Main Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Between-Group Differences in Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.4 Regression Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Influence of Household Registration Types on Sense of Gain . . . . . . 8.4.1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2 Main Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.3 Influence of Household Types (Hukou) on Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.4 Impact of Population Mobility on Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 Main Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.3 Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Sense of Gain . . . . . . . . 8.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

203 203 204 204 204 205 206 212 216 216 221 222 226 229 229 230 231 233 236

9 Application of the Huodegan Index: Measuring Both Individual Wellbeing and Social Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Appendix A Huodegan Index-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Appendix B The Chinese Version of Huodegan Index-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Appendix C Huodegan Index-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Appendix D The Chinese Version of Huodegan Index-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Appendix E Huodegan Index-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Appendix F The Chinese Version of Huodegan Index-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

About the Authors

Wenjie Duan Ph.D., is a professor of social work at the East China University of Science and Technology. He obtained his Ph.D. degree at the City University of Hong Kong in 2013. Prof. Duan is mainly engaged in One Health and specializes in social and mental indicators and randomized control trial interventions. He has been appointed as an editor of international journals, such as Child & Family Social Work (2022–2024), Research on Social Work Practice (2018–2022), and Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work (2020–2022). He has published more than 70 papers in Social Science & Medicine, Journal of Happiness Studies, Children and Youth Services Review, and Social Indicator Research, among others. Yumei Li is currently pursuing her Ph.D. degree in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the City University of Hong Kong. Ms. Li is engaged in assessment-based behavioral and psychological research, including psychological measurement and assessment, positive youth development, and mental health and wellbeing promotion. Her research findings were published in Children and Youth Services Review, Journal of Creative Behavior, Research on Social Work Practice, and Current Psychology, among others.

xv

Chapter 1

Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

1.1 Formulation of the Research Question The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; UN General Assembly, 2015) specify eradicating poverty, reducing inequalities, fostering equitable social development and inclusion, protecting the environment, rebalancing the relationship between people and nature, ensuring healthy lives, and promoting well-being at all ages as the goals in building an inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future for mankind and the planet. China has made tireless efforts in pursuing these goals. For instance, during the 19th National Congress on October 18, 2017, General Secretary Xi Jinping mentioned that as socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era, the principal contradiction facing the Chinese society has created a dichotomy between people’s growing need for a better life and an unbalanced and insufficient development (He, 2018). The evolution of this contradiction requires the Communist Party of China and the government to solve the problems resulting from unbalanced social development. Improving the quality and efficiency of reform and development that vigorously meet the needs of people in various aspects, such as economy, politics, culture, and ecology, is also necessary to promote the overall development of society (Fang, 2017). A new blueprint, a new vision, and a new goal of the comprehensive deepening reform have been specified in the “Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Important Issues Surrounding the Comprehensive Deepening Reform.” Whatever specific livelihood issues have been solved by the reform and opening up, the visible effects of such initiative should be genuinely felt by the people. Given the problems and forefronts faced by China across the different stages of its development, the evaluation criteria for such development are also naturally diverse. We must keep in pace with the times and constantly provide novel connotations to the new era. According to the United Nations (UN General Assembly, 2015), in addition to a set of global-level monitoring indicators, countries should develop their own national indicators to help monitor their progress in pursuing their goals and targets. Therefore, as socialism with Chinese characteristics enters a new era, one major theoretical and practical problem that needs to be solved is which criteria are being used to judge © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Duan and Y. Li, Huodegan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4_1

1

2

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

the specific measures and achievements of the comprehensive deepening reform in China. General Secretary Xi Jinping advocated during the 10th meeting of the Central Leading Team for Comprehensive Deepening Reform (the “Deepen Reform Group”) on February 27, 2015 that the objectives of the reform should be scientifically coordinated to increase the sense of gain of people from this reform. In October of the same year, Xi Jinping held a forum with non-Party people and emphasized that “Sharing the achievement of the reform and development with the broad masses is an essential requirement of socialism and a critical reflection of our Party’s adherence to the fundamental tenet of serving the people wholeheartedly. The development we pursue is the development for the benefit of the people, and the affluence we seek is shared prosperity for everyone. The ultimate criterion for judging the success of the reform and development is whether the people have enjoyed the benefit of social reform and development together” (Xi, 2016). At the 21st meeting of the Deep Reform Group on February 23, 2016, General Secretary Xi Jinping further pointed out that “whether to promote economic and social development and whether to bring the people a real huodegan (获得感) should be considered the evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of the reform” (Xi, 2016). The evaluation criteria of these two “whether” represent a new assertion of the Party to adapt to a unique case of economic development and the new normal and a new understanding of China’s reform practice (Zheng & Chen, 2017). The former is objective evaluation based on national, local, and industry statistics, whereas the latter is subjective assessment from one’s personal feelings. These criteria constitute a complementary and two-fold evaluation system. Therefore, people’s huodegan can be viewed as the most appropriate annotation that “the original aspiration and mission of Chinese Communists is to seek wellbeing for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation.” Huodegan is also the most accurate scale of “securing a decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, striving for the great success of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, and working tirelessly to realize the Chinese dream of national rejuvenation and the people’s aspiration for a better life.” With the development and transformation of the economy and its values, the evaluation criteria for social development are bound to change accordingly. Following the economic setbacks resulting from World War II, economic growth became the primary development strategy of many countries, and economic indicators became essential social development indicators. However, the one-sided pursuit of economic development has also introduced new problems, such as the gap between the rich and the poor, class confrontation, ecological deterioration, and resource shortage. A series of additional adverse effects has forced people to face the negative effects of the one-sided economic strategy and to consider the shortcomings of solely relying on economic indicators. As a result, people have gradually realized the need to put themselves first and the overall interests of mankind at the center. We should pursue equality among people, focus on the interdependence between humans and nature, and implement a sustainable development strategy. A change in development strategy requires a shift in development tactics and goals. Economic indicators need

1.1 Formulation of the Research Question

3

to be replaced with new social development indicators to better measure social development (Xu, 2006). In the 1960s, Bauer stated in the book Social Indicators that these indicators should be based on “quantitative data” that reflect social conditions with general social significance (Bauer, 1966). As a result, the subsequent “social indicators movement” advocated the establishment of a scientific and rational system of social indicators that comprehensively detect social changes in medical care, health, economy, living environment, social welfare, and other dimensions in quantitative terms, which measure social development based on statistical models of the social system. After the 1970s, research on social indicators witnessed further development by integrating new theoretical results in statistics, economics, sociology, and psychology, shifting its focus of value from quantity to quality, and introducing new social development goals. Scientific and systematic social indicators need to reflect the objective material world of humans and the perceived subjective spiritual world (Land, 1975). Accordingly, the quality of life of residents and national wellbeing became the dominant research focus in the decades following the social indicators movement (Ma, 2017). Scientific and systematic social indicators should be able to combine the functions of describing, explaining, evaluating, monitoring, and predicting society (Zhu, 2001). They should serve as tools for describing the operations of society and the achievement of social goals, formulating public policies, enhancing social management services, and evaluating social development (Myers, 1992; Yuan, 1995). Research on economic and social development indicators has been well established (Shi, 2019; Xie, 1994). For example, the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development proposed the creation of a social policy index in 2006 to measure national development policy inputs. This index includes four dimensions, namely, tax policy (direct taxes and tax revenues as a percentage of GDP), social security (including social security coverage scores and social security as a percentage of GDP), social governance system quality (including discourse right and accountability system, political stability, government efficiency, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption), and social spending (social spending on education, housing, health, and social security as a percentage of GDP). Several scholars have analyzed the social policy index in Chile and Spain at different periods and found that the economic and social development of these countries are consistent with this index and the fluctuations of its dimensions (Garcés Ferrer et al., 2014; Ródenas et al., 2013). Hence, the results indicated that this index could be used as a tool to reflect the social policy situation of a country. Garcés Ferrer et al. (2014) extended the dimensions of the social policy index and argued that GDP per capita can be used to estimate the economic wealth of a country and is closely related to the quality of life of its population; therefore, this indicator should be included in the index system. Garcés Ferrer et al. (2016) retrospectively compared social policies in three countries with different welfare systems (Spain, Finland, and Mexico) from 2005 to 2010 by using five-dimensional social policy indicators. The results showed that the social policy index score is consistent with the socio-economic and political context of each country and with the classification of their welfare systems; therefore, the social policy index can be used to measure and compare social policies across countries.

4

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

The human development index created by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1990 has been widely used to reflect the quality of life and wellbeing of people. This index includes the three dimensions of life expectancy, education, and standard of living, which are measured based on improved calculated weights. In addition, after the United Nations General Assembly confirmed in 2011 that development was at the core, the gross national happiness index (GNHI) was introduced to help its member states measure the wellbeing of their people and guide their public policies. This index includes the nine domains of wellbeing (i.e., psychological wellbeing, health, time use, education, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards) and the four pillars of gross national product (GNP; i.e., sustainable and equitable socio-economic development, environmental protection, preservation and promotion of culture, and good government administration) (Pennock & Ura, 2011). In the context of globalization, the construction of a comprehensive economic and social index system in each country should be based on its reality, should actively draw upon the international framework, and should take the similarities and differences between countries into account. For example, Africa has established a system of social indicators called Good African Society Index (GASI) based on its regional social development goals and priorities (Botha, 2016). This index includes nine dimensions, namely, economic sustainability, democracy and freedom, child wellbeing, environment and infrastructure, safety and security, health and health systems, integrity and justice, education, and social sustainability and cohesion, with each dimension having four indicators. For example, under the dimension of economic development, sustainability of economic development includes four indicators, namely, the proportion of the population earning less than $2 a day, growth in real GDP per capita, export diversification, and national income disparity as indicated by the Gini coefficient. A total of 36 indicators across 9 dimensions are then used to comprehensively assess the wellbeing and quality of life of African citizens. Similar to other countries, China’s development of its own economic and social index system also went through a process based on the country’s reality, drew upon international frameworks, and shifted from a single economic indicator to a comprehensive social development indicator to assess the overall development of its society. Chinese socio-economic development was measured in the early days by single economic indicators, such as GNP, national income, and gross industrial and agricultural output. At a later stage, after drawing upon the theories and methods of the international social index system, a new social index system containing 5 dimensions (i.e., social structure, population quality, economic efficiency, quality of life, and social order) with 41 indicators was introduced by combining Chinese national conditions and statistical bases (Group of Social Development & Social Indicators, 1989). In recent years, some scholars have advocated the construction of an index system that is highly relevant to the unique characteristics of the time and the actual situation of China. For example, Song (2002) evaluated Chinese social transformation in 4 dimensions, namely, from planned society to market society, from rural society to urban society, from industrial society to information society, and from poor society

1.1 Formulation of the Research Question

5

to rich society, with each dimension having 6 indicators, thereby amounting to 24 indicators. He believed that this trend of social transformation leads the direction of Chinese social change and reflects the effect of China’s social transformation. Therefore, the measurement of these four dimensions can indicate social development during social transformation to a certain extent. Other scholars have explored a comprehensive evaluation index system that integrates and objectively reflects the social development level of each region in China. For example, by using factor analysis, Wang et al. (2006) proposed a “humanoriented” comprehensive evaluation index system of social development in China with 6 dimensions (i.e., population development, people’s quality of life, economic development, social equity and coordination, security and political progress, and ecological environment) and 30 indicators. They found that the level of social development in China follows a stepwise distribution, the social development of the eastern region is better than that of the western region, and urban development is better than rural development. In addition, economically developed areas often suffer from severe social problems. These results are consistent with the results of other studies adopting different perspectives or methods, such as C. Li (2004a, 2004b, 2004c), Li (2005), and Li and Wang (2014). Therefore, social indicators are effective measures for evaluating economic and social development. Wang et al. (2016) examined the changes in the indicators of economic and social development in China’s previous five-year plans, starting from the “10th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China (Tenth Five-Year Plan)” to the “13th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China (Thirteenth Five-Year Plan).” They analyzed and summarized the changes in the philosophy and thinking that guide China’s development. In terms of indicator structure, the framework of the four primary indicators (which reflect economic development, science and technology and education, people’s livelihood, and resources and environment) did not change between these two plans. However, the number of secondary indicators and the division of categories had changed dramatically. Specifically, the nature of indicators changed from a single indicator system to the coexistence of a comprehensive index system combined with anticipated (i.e., development targets expected by the state, which are mainly anticipatory according to the autonomous behavior of market players) and restrictive indicators (i.e., indicators that further clarify and strengthen the responsibilities of the government based on expectations). At the same time, the positive interaction between anticipatory and restrictive indicators (i.e., market and policy) was constantly sought. The emphasis of these indicators also shifted from economic growth to sustainable development, scientific development, and the new concepts of “innovation, coordination, green, openness, and sharing.” The 13th Five-Year Plan suggested that “to make all people have more huodegan in the development strategy of joint contribution and shared benefit” (Wang, 2016) should be a litmus test for the reform and opening up. In other words, the effect of deepening reforms should be demonstrated and analyzed based on the actual sense of gain of people. Such sense of gain should not be superficial; instead, its level should be assessed by scientific and rational indicators, that is, the quantitative results

6

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

should represent the level of gain. In other words, sense of gain should be a social development indicator that is grounded and relevant to people’s living conditions after socialism with Chinese characteristics enters a new era. Therefore, we use sense of gain as a social development indicator to evaluate the effectiveness of reform policies and social development outcomes. In this case, the definition of sense of gain and its index system should be fully interpreted. In addition, as one of the most basic premises in indicator research, we should avoid confusion and ambiguity between the concept of sense of gain and other concepts. As a new social indicator, recent studies on sense of gain have faced problems in simplifying their theoretical frameworks and defining their measurement standards, thereby leading to one-sided results. The first problem in indicator research is the oversimplified theoretical framework. In previous studies, the theoretical framework of sense of gain was directly equated to the traditional theoretical frameworks of psychological wellbeing and life satisfaction. As an indicator for evaluating social development and people’s living conditions, the connotation of sense of gain inevitably overlaps with the concepts of “wellbeing,” “subjective quality of life,” and “life satisfaction,” which are also used to assess individuals’ feelings about social development in Western countries (Cao & Li, 2017). For example, Dai (2017) investigated the sense of gain from tourism and found that three dimensions, namely, tourist satisfaction, business benefits, and social recognition, constitute the goals of people’s sense of gain that tourism needs to achieve. Zhang and Hao (2017) used a 12-item sense of public service gain and satisfaction scale to measure college students’ sense of gain from environmental governance. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale. A sample item was “How active are the functional departments in mobilizing you to participate in environmental co-governance under the action of environmental governance?” Shi and Fu (2017) defined the sense of gain as “the evaluations and feelings in various aspects such as employment problem solving, democratic participation, education equity, social security, and food security.” They asked college students to assess their satisfaction in these aspects on a five-point scale. To a certain extent, the above studies simplified sense of gain into other concepts, such as satisfaction and recognition, which do not fully reflect the specificity of sense of gain. The concept of “sense of gain” builds a more natural communication bridge between China’s reform and development and people’s wellbeing (Kang, 2016). Therefore, in the contexts of China’s comprehensive deepening of reform, the transformation of its economic and social development model, and the realization of shared development, sense of gain is more specific, comprehensive, and relevant than other concepts, such as “wellbeing” and “satisfaction.” Therefore, sense of gain is a very local “Chinese concept.” Accordingly, our exploration of the Chinese concept of sense of gain should follow five points: 1) in line with the context of the critical period of the comprehensive deepening social reform when “sense of gain” was introduced; 2) combining the progressive relationship between “gain” and “sense of gain;” 3) considering the multiple dimensions of “present” and “future sense of gain;” 4) emphasizing the importance of “sense of gain” and highlighting its main contents and concrete manifestations; and 5) encompassing the contemporary characteristics and localized connotations of “sense of gain.” This concept must be understood in

1.1 Formulation of the Research Question

7

the context of the comprehensive deepening of reforms, the transformation of the economy, the social development model, and the realization of shared development (Cao & Li, 2017). Even though sense of gain is a concept with Chinese characteristics, its universality cannot be ignored. Although no concept in Western culture can directly correspond to sense of gain, a series of development strategies and reform practices have been implemented in many countries and by international organizations to eliminate poverty, reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, alleviate polarization, improve the quality of life of citizens, and promote social equity and justice, all of which are consistent with the challenges faced by China during its development stage and the strategies that have been implemented by the country in response to such challenges (Cao & Li, 2017). Therefore, the concept of sense of gain that is proposed in a similar context is not just a purely localized Chinese concept but also a combination of Chinese characteristics and international features. Therefore, to a certain extent, proposing an academic definition and conceptual measurement of sense of gain that are both understandable and acceptable for the international community and then renewing and giving meaning to this concept have attracted much discourse among Chinese academic circles (Zheng, 2011). Secondly, the measurement of sense of gain has inevitably suffered from confusing criteria or a shortage of operationalized criteria due to the inconsistency of theoretical frameworks and conceptual connotations (Lv & Huang, 2018). For example, some scholars have used interview data to refine the characteristic words of sense of gain and then extracted a three-level, nine-factor model of seafarers’ sense of gain (Li et al., 2018). This model includes three levels of sense of gain (i.e., individual, interpersonal, and environmental), with each level having three indicators (individual sense of gain: healthcare, education and promotion, and children’s education; interpersonal sense of gain: professional prestige, interpersonal relationship, and income gap; and environmental sense of gain: safety and security, environmental conditions, and network coverage). Other scholars have used a five-point scale to measure foresters’ satisfaction with the whole forest reform process from seven aspects, including the method of forest division, the difficulty of applying for logging quotas, and the resolution of forest rights disputes (Li et al., 2017). Some scholars have operationalized sense of gain as a subjective feeling that includes the three dimensions of reform benefit, life improvement, and self-induced success (Cai, 2018). One of their sample questions is, “Considering all aspects, do you think you are a beneficiary of reforms over the next 30 years,” which is rated on a five-point scale (i.e., benefited a lot, benefited some, hard to say, lost some, and lost a lot). However, the extant sense of gain measures only focus on a specific field, serve a particular group, or are operationalized as a single subjective level. Moreover, their operationalization criteria are partial and cannot reflect the specificity and universality of sense of gain. The above two problems have also triggered a chain reaction leading to the onesidedness of extant research findings. Given their uneven construction of sense of gain indicators, previous studies are mostly qualitative or descriptive in nature and lack empirical support. In addition, the few empirical studies on this topic have constructed relatively simplistic indicators without a rigorous scientific verification

8

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

of their psychometric properties. For example, Lv and Huang (2018) operationalized sense of gain in the whole society into the dimensions of “personal development, social security, social justice, and government satisfaction.” However, they did not validate this four-dimensional structure. They also discussed the scores of each dimension separately without giving a structured and holistic outline of the overall social sense of gain. Meanwhile, although Zhao (2018) defined sense of gain in five aspects (i.e., subject, object, path, rule, and feeling) and classified this concept into two categories (i.e., absolute and relative sense of gain), the proposed measurement of sense of gain was operationalized as an evaluation of one’s living standards and socioeconomic status, and his conclusions were limited to the market and social levels. The subjectivity of individual sense of gain was also ignored. Such subjectivity was also not considered by Wen and Liu (2018), who divided sense of gain into economic, political, and livelihood sense of gain. Among these three levels, sense of economic gain comprises three dimensions, namely, macroeconomic level, personal economic level, and subjective perception of fair distribution, which are operationalized as “How do you think the current overall economic situation is in our country,” “What is the current economic situation of your family,” and “What do you think about the current situation of the wealth gap in our country?” Meanwhile, sense of political gain comprises two levels, namely, sense of gain in fighting against political corruption and sense of gain in political participation, which are operationalized as “What do you think of the current situation of official corruption in China?” Sense of livelihood gain focuses on the security of survival and development for people and is assessed using the question, “In general, are you satisfied with the government’s performance in the following matters: education, pension, and healthcare?” Each item is rated on a four-point scale (i.e., very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or very dissatisfied). Results show that the national and social levels focus on improving the economic, political, and livelihood aspects yet ignore the individuals’ emotional and cognitive responses, such as their sense of achievement, satisfaction, wellbeing, meaning, and mission. Pursuing wellbeing is a human instinct and the goal of social development. When people’s growing need for a better life is contradicted by unbalanced and insufficient development, exploring the concept of sense of gain in combination with the research findings of the international community and based on the reality of building a harmonious society and the comprehensive deepening of reforms in China becomes theoretically and practically significant. When the available measures lack rigorous scientific validation or has an inadequate or one-sided understanding of sense of gain, the validity of their results will be compromised. The cultural nature of the theoretical connotation and the scientific nature of measuring sense of gain remain debatable and require further exploration. In other words, the interpretation of the new concept, category, and expression of sense of gain and the study of the sense of gain index system need to be strengthened. Researchers should therefore break away from traditional theories and adopt innovative evaluation indicators to study sense of gain.

1.2 Research Background, Highlights and Difficulties, and Innovations

9

1.2 Research Background, Highlights and Difficulties, and Innovations 1.2.1 Research Background The term huodegan or sense of gain originally refers to satisfaction arising from gaining specific benefits. It is mainly used in previous research to refer to the efforts exerted by authorities to adapt reforms to the development requirements of the Party and the country and to meet the people’s wishes and expectations in order for them to feel the effectiveness of the reforms in absolute terms and derive a sense of wellbeing from the reform achievements. A search of domestic and abroad academic databases using the keyword huodegan returned a large number of descriptive studies yet only few empirical ones. In his survey of “social construction and social development,” Sun (2015) used “the degree of life improvement” as the only indicator of sense of gain. Shi and Fu (2017) operationalized sense of gain as “college students’ evaluation and feeling in terms of employment solution, democratic participation, and educational fairness” and found that this concept has an essential contribution to political party identity. Lv and Huang (2018) used data from the Chinese Social Survey as an example to integrate their measurement of overall Chinese sense of gain from both longitudinal and cross-sectional comparisons and then operationalized the general sense of gain into four dimensions, namely, personal development, social security, social justice, and government job satisfaction. Xiang (2019) divided residents’ sense of gain into subjective and objective sense of gain. Subjective sense of gain was operationalized as subjective status access, intergenerational upward mobility access, and intragenerational upward mobility access, whereas objective sense of gain was measured by measuring the interviewees’ a) education level, occupational status, and income; b) intergenerational mobility of education and occupation; and c) changes in occupational status and income from 2014 to 2016. However, the indicators of sense of gain designed by these studies lack related psychological measuring properties. On the one hand, sense of gain is similar to but different from wellbeing and emphasizes a tangible “gain,” which is an individual’s subjective evaluation of the degree of their gain (Wang & Zhang, 2015). Therefore, while drawing upon canonical wellbeing research, researchers should consider expanding and breaking away from the framework of wellbeing studies to enrich and deepen the present understanding of sense of gain. On the other hand, between sense of gain and relative deprivation, the former emphasizes the positive experiences of satisfaction and wellbeing (i.e., gaining), whereas the latter is closely related to the negative experiences of sense of deprivation and sense of loss. Therefore, analyzing the relative sense of deprivation can provide a compelling entry point for in-depth discussions on sense of gain. From a comprehensive perspective, a novel investigation into the theory and index system of sense of gain should be conducted based on the research dynamics of wellbeing theory and relative sense of deprivation.

10

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

While 30 years of systematic research on wellbeing at home and abroad have produced remarkable results, several problems have also emerged. One of them is the controversy between “hedonia” and “eudaimonia” from a philosophical perspective. Hedonia refers to the positive emotions felt in the present that emphasize physical and mental pleasure (Kubovy, 1999) and are represented by subjective wellbeing (Diener, 1984; Wu, 2000; Yan et al., 2004). Meanwhile, eudaimonia refers to an individual’s gain in his/her process of self-actualization, self-improvement, and pursuit of meaning in life (RyffC & Singer, 2000) as represented by the psychological wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Zhang & Zuo, 2007). These two concepts oppose each other due to their different philosophical orientations. However, a cross-cultural study based on a large sample of 109 countries proved that these two concepts are common and compatible (Disabato et al., 2016). The second problem lies in the debate between “unidimensional” and “multidimensional” from a methodological perspective. The “unidimensional” view regards wellbeing as a comprehensive evaluation of an individual’s own and various aspects of life, which can be assessed using various scales, including the unidimensional life satisfaction scale (Diener et al., 1985), flourishing scale (Diener et al., 2010), and brief inventory of thriving (Su et al., 2014). Meanwhile, the “multidimensional” view assumes that wellbeing integrates all aspects of people’s wellbeing experience and requires a set of dimensions. One example of a multidimensional scale is the 10dimensional Subjective Happiness Scale for Chinese Urban Residents constructed by Xing (2003), which is both indicative and diagnostic. However, unidimensional and multidimensional studies have focused on spiritual “satisfaction” than actual “gain.” The third problem centers on the debate between “internationalization” and “localization” from the cross-cultural perspective. Western theories of well-being are subject to cultural differences when compared across cultures (Qiu & Zhen, 2005; Qiu et al., 2002; Yan et al., 2003). For instance, Easterlin et al. (2012) found that the life satisfaction of the Chinese declined while China’s economy increased unprecedentedly from 1990 to 2010. This conclusion may be a reflection of social reality, but more likely a reflection of cultural differences in indicators. Both the theoretical constructions based on “individualism” and “collectivism” are essentially applications of the cultural subject approach (i.e., from the perspective of the local culture). These research ignore the basic philosophy and elements of the cultural object approach (i.e., elements with cultural commonality) (Cheung et al., 1992; Fan et al., 2011; Liu & Peng, 2012), thereby creating a bottleneck in the academic dialogue between the East and West. Relative deprivation has been defined as an individual’s feeling of being disadvantaged compared with a reference group (Walker & Smith, 2002). Specifically, this concept refers to the sense of being deprived of one’s interests and being disadvantaged in comparison with others. The academe has generally accepted the view that the core of relative deprivation consists of both cognitive and emotional components (Smith et al., 2012; Walker & Pettigrew, 1984). Moreover, previous research has

1.2 Research Background, Highlights and Difficulties, and Innovations

11

focused on three orientations depending on different reference groups, namely, horizontal relative deprivation theory, vertical relative deprivation theory, and a comprehensive analytical model of relative deprivation perception (Xia et al., 2015). In horizontal relative deprivation theory proposed by Merton (2008), the reference group is categorized into related people, people of the same status, and people of different status. Meanwhile, vertical relative deprivation theory considers sense of relative deprivation as a result of comparing an individual with the longitudinal reference group. Sense of relative deprivation emerges from before-and-after comparisons when the value ability (i.e., the actual situation) is lower than the expected value (i.e., the predicted effect) (Gurr, 2011; J. Li, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). The comprehensive analytical model of relative deprivation (Smith et al., 2012) suggests that when an individual compares himself/herself with a reference group (both horizontal and vertical), s/he suffers from a disadvantageous position and experiences negative emotions (e.g., anger) due to his/her sense of relative deprivation. Meanwhile, studies on sense of relative deprivation reveal that apart from horizontal and vertical distinctions, there is also the distinction between absolute and relative deprivation and individual and group deprivation. Absolute deprivation, wherein the specific needs of an individual in an objective situation are left unsatisfied, does not necessarily cause the sense of deprivation (Q. Li, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c); only when s/he perceives his/her disadvantages compared with the reference group can an individual feel negative emotions. The sense of relative deprivation from comparing an individual with a reference group has a higher impact on individuals than the relative deprivation from comparing a group with a reference group (Xiong & Ye, 2016). By contrast, research on sense of gain can draw upon the analytical path and research framework of relative deprivation and construct a comprehensive analytical model according to the corresponding orientation and dimensions. As an indicator of social development and feedback of personal feelings, the sense of gain from objective reality to subjective perception is influenced by comparing the levels of individual gain before and after the deepening of the reform and comparing one’s level of gain with that of the reference group. The vertical comparison can show and evaluate the effectiveness of the deepening reform and development, whereas the horizontal comparison is based on the perception and expression of an “unbalanced and insufficient development.” The above review of previous studies yields several enlightenments. First, research on sense of gain should be comprehensive. The scope of indicators should include self-awareness, self-realization, and the expectations of individuals in the processes of social progress and national reform and development. These indicators should reflect genuine “satisfaction” and “gain” to achieve an integration of “facts,” “cognition,” and “emotion.” Second, research on sense of gain should be balanced. The indicator system should not only seek the optimum balance between “unidimensional” and “multidimensional” but should also cover both “social development (material)” and “individual wellbeing (spiritual)” and reflect both “multiple gaining in material” and “multidimensional satisfaction in spiritual.” The proposed index system should also be compatible with “horizontal comparison” and “vertical comparison” to construct a comprehensive and balanced framework. Third, research on sense of gain should have the right to discourse. The theoretical construction of new concepts,

12

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

categories, and expressions should not only reflect “subjectivity, originality, and topicality” but should also focus on building international discourse and influence. The research should make the concept of sense of gain a “Chinese voice” in the international academic arena.

1.2.2 Research Highlights and Challenges The critical points and difficulties of this research mainly lie in the definition of sense of gain. First, sense of gain is a new concept, category, and expression based on China’s national conditions and actual needs and is both related to and different from wellbeing. Therefore, we must draw upon existing research on this topic while highlighting the originality and subjectivity of this work and reflect Chinese characteristics while focusing on international understanding and acceptance in order to reflect China’s national characteristics, respond to its actual needs, and contribute to relevant discourse. Second, the social development level of gain is excluded from the traditional index system and is often replaced by “life satisfaction.” Therefore, this study aims to establish a two-facet and multidimensional structure (where two-facet refers to the social development and individual wellbeing facets, whereas multidimensional refers to the many aspects of people’s interests and feelings) that reflects the characteristics of real gain and evaluates the measures and achievements of the comprehensive deepening reform in a highly focused manner to avoid generating vague results. Specifically, sense of gain needs to cover various dimensions of traditional hedonistic and eudaimonic wellbeing at the individual level (e.g., life satisfaction, positive/negative emotions, personal growth, good relationships, environmental control, and life vitality). At the same time, the social development level should cover the 15 important areas of the comprehensive deepening reform that are closely tied to people’s immediate interests (e.g., government credibility and execution, equal participation of farmers in the modernization process, fairness and justice in judicial cases, healthcare and education, and ecological environment). These indicators should be integrated into specific contents that can be understood and directly felt or experienced by residents. The challenges faced in this study are mainly related to the aspect of measurement. First, the measurement needs to be effective and include both stable and sensitive characteristics. A team familiar with eastern and western cultures and languages must make repeated arguments based on the interview and survey data to identify the indicators and build an item pool. The scientific design of the indicators and items should be determined by consulting experts and by accepting that the identification of groups covering various economic and social backgrounds is both stable (i.e., bias-free measurement) and sensitive (i.e., diagnostic measurement). Second, the measurement needs to be useful and user friendly. In other words, the measurement items should be easy to understand, the measurement results are easy to interpret, and the measurement process is easy to operate. Therefore, a coordination mechanism should be built between theoretical innovation and solving practical problems in

1.2 Research Background, Highlights and Difficulties, and Innovations

13

order to find the best entry point, a matching and inserting mechanism should be gradually formed between knowledge and application, the academic results should be transformed and applied, and both the professionalism of academic results and the operability of application tools should be considered.

1.2.3 Research Innovations This study is an academic response to the two “whether” proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping in his statement, “Taking whether or not it promotes economic and social development and brings a tangible huodegan to the people as the evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of reform” (Xi, 2018). The core of this research lies in defining the elements of the new concept, new category, and new expression of sense of gain and the construction of an index system that can promote an exchange between domestic and foreign scholars. This system must be presented in a form that can be easily understood and accepted by the international community to guide them in interpreting Chinese practices and building Chinese theories. As a new concept, category, and expression rooted in Chinese society and culture, sense of gain is both related to and different from the concepts of wellbeing and relative deprivation. This concept, which has Chinese characteristics, not only includes one’s cognition, emotional experience, and self-realization but also reflects his/her expectation and satisfaction of results related to the process of social progress and national reform and development. These results are reflective of a real sense of satisfaction and gain and can facilitate the integration of “facts,” “cognition,” and “emotion.” Therefore, the index system of sense of gain should not only seek the optimum balance between “unidimensional” and “multidimensional” but should also cover both “social development” and “individual wellbeing,” reflect “multiple gains of social development” and “multidimensional satisfaction of individual wellbeing,” and realize the two-way compatibility of “horizontal comparison” and “vertical comparison.” In this case, sense of gain is conceptualized in this study as a four-quadrant structure (Fig. 1.1), where the level of people’s sense of gain is expected to fall in different quadrants. For the groups in each quadrant, the implementation of target and effective policies can lead them to the quadrant with “high perceived social development and individual wellbeing” within a certain period. With this in mind, the concept of sense of gain and its index system should consider both cultural commonality and specificity and reflect “subjectivity, originality, and topicality” and “international discourse and influence.”

14

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

Fig. 1.1 Four-quadrant structure of sense of gain

1.3 Research Design 1.3.1 Research Logic This research should be based on the reality of China’s social transformation and comprehensive deepening reform and clarify the internal logic and external practical needs of the people’s sense of gain and the effectiveness of the reform. Research on sense of gain should learn from the previous literature (i.e., wellbeing, quality of life, and social policy indicators) and inject the core of the Chinese national spirit and traditional culture to reflect the oriental way of thinking and behavioral paradigm. This study integrates the social reality of China’s comprehensive deepening reform to reach both original and contemporary academic achievements. The construction of the sense of gain index system should be based on responses to the major theoretical and practical question of “What criteria should be used to judge the specific measures and achievements of China’s comprehensive deepening reform?” Only in this way can this research present a “Chinese voice” on the international stage because China’s voice and international influence can only be strengthened by enriching and developing relevant theories of sense of gain with Chinese style and characteristics. The findings of this work can provide theoretical support, decision-making basis, and policy recommendations for a scientific testing of the evaluation criteria of the two

1.3 Research Design

15

“whether” and for assessing the effectiveness of China’s comprehensive deepening reform.

1.3.2 Procedures This research began by reviewing the research background. First, the economic and social development indicators of the two “whether” criteria were reviewed, the current situation and tasks were summarized, and the entry point and breakthrough direction for research on the theoretical basis and index system of sense of gain were established. Second, the evaluation index systems commonly used in international research, such as the social policy index, human development index, and national happiness index, were reviewed, the results of foreign studies were absorbed, and the reasonable findings were critically drawn upon. After the background review, this study explored the theoretical and methodology foundations of sense of gain and developed a research framework. First, this work systematically analyzed the concepts and theories similar to sense of gain (e.g., wellbeing theory, quality of life theory, and life satisfaction theory) and enriched the theoretical basis of sense of gain that is consistent with Chinese characteristics and the actual situation of the Chinese society. Second, sociological theories were adopted to understand socio-psychological phenomena and processes in historical, cultural, and macro-social contexts. These socio-psychological phenomena were then explained by utilizing clearly constructed theories of action and interaction, and an accurate, concise, realistic, and action-based resolution to various social-psychological phenomena and processes was sought. In this way, this research explained the correlation between individual attitudes (i.e., residents’ sense of gain) and social factors (i.e., effectiveness of the comprehensive deepening reform) in depth and comprehensively discussed the logical basis upon which sense of gain can be used as the evaluation standard of reform effectiveness. Third, this work discussed the methodology for the construction of sense of gain indicators to guide the subsequent selection of indicators. This work then investigated the index system, measurement method, and practical application of sense of gain. First, this study comprehensively compiled the dimensions proposed by traditional wellbeing theories in China and abroad, such as life satisfaction, personal growth, positive emotions, negative emotions, good relationships, environmental control, and vitality. The 15 core areas of the comprehensive social reform, including government credibility and execution, equal participation of farmers in the modernization process, fairness and justice in judicial cases, access to medical education, and ecological environment, were also integrated. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a representative sample to obtain their basic perceptions toward the level of gain in the social and individual wellbeing dimensions. The Chinese residents’ perceptions toward the importance of sense of gain were also explored. The insights from the interviews provided first-hand material for the construction of the proposed indicator system. Second, a sense of gain index system

16

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

Fig. 1.2 Framework for sense of gain research

and its corresponding item pool were built based on the cognitive material obtained from the expert and group interviews. After performing a pre-survey in some urban and rural areas, the expressions, words, and sentences in the designed questionnaire were corrected to improve their readability and comprehensibility. Third, a preliminary sense of gain scale with high factor loadings, internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and stability across groups and time was constructed by collecting large samples of high-quality data. Fourth, a large database was built to describe sense of gain. Cluster analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and regression analysis were then performed to explore the characteristics of the sense of gain of different groups of Chinese nationals and their influencing factors (Fig. 1.2).

1.3.3 Methods This study mainly adopted qualitative (e.g., interviews, expert opinions, and group discussions) and quantitative (e.g., confirmatory factor analysis [CFA], LPA, correlation and regression, cluster analysis, and ANOVA) methods, which are described in turn as follows: Unstructured interviews. Social research mainly adopts two types of interviews, namely, structured and unstructured interviews. Structured interviews are conducted

1.3 Research Design

17

with a high degree of standardized control over the interview questions, question orders, and examination styles. By contrast, unstructured interviews are conducted with little to no control over the interview process. Given that this study attempts to grasp the internal logic behind “sense of gain” and “effectiveness of the comprehensive deepening reform” from the cognitive level by interviewing residents, unstructured interviews were performed without setting specific and uniform interview questions. Instead, the interviewers and interviewees talked freely about sense of gain, and the residents were encouraged to actively discuss their own “sense of gain” experience and the results of the reform. Concrete and accurate responses about “sense of gain” and “the effectiveness of the comprehensive deepening reform” were collected from the interviewed residents to the greatest extent possible. Expert opinion and selection panel discussion. Two expert panels were formed, the first of which included 10 members and the other included 6 members. The opinions of experts in the first group were solicited using the Delphi method. First, a questionnaire on the theories and indicators of sense of gain was developed and mailed to the expert group members. Second, the expert group members mailed back their responses anonymously. Third, the feedback collected from this round was analyzed, and a questionnaire on sense of gain was drafted and sent to the experts. After several rounds of consultation and feedback, the expert group members’ opinions on the connotation and indicators of sense of gain gradually converged. Fourth, the framework of the core connotation and indicator system of sense of gain was built. The second group of experts shared their opinions about the initial composition of the theory and index system of sense of gain through group discussions on selected topics, identified the problems and directions of the connotation of sense of gain and the proposed index system, solved the identified issues, discussed the research directions, and then refined and submitted the results of their discussions. A consensus on the items in the index system was eventually reached. The core connotation and extension of sense of gain were clarified, the operational definition and index system of sense of gain were proposed, professionalism was balanced with operability, and a framework for subsequent quantitative research was designed. Factor analysis and LPA were then conducted, and the index system and specific items were constructed based on the above framework. First, after collecting highquality data from a large representative sample, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to identify those items with high factor loadings and to construct a scale with high internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Second, CFA was performed to test the stability of the constructed scales’ factor structure. Third, EFA was repeatedly performed to extract the highest three and one items from each dimension of the huodegan index and to construct 30- and 10-question versions of the huodegan index. Fourth, LPA was conducted to explain the association of the external behavioral indicators with the potential feature classification according to the fit of the latent profile model. The population was then classified according to the social and individual wellbeing dimensions of sense of gain. The sense of gain characteristics of different populations were then determined. Cluster analysis. Cluster analysis was performed to measure the similarity among different data sources and to classify them according to their characteristics. The

18

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

cluster analysis also simplified the data via data modeling. However, the classification process was not guided by specific criteria. Instead, the researcher conducted exploratory sorting from the data itself, and the data analysis results provided multiple possible solutions. By contrast, selecting the final solution required the researcher’s subjective judgment and subsequent analysis as the basis. ANOVA, correlation, and regression analysis. ANOVA was divided into two stages, namely, independent sample t-test and ANOVA. The correlated variables, including demographic characteristics, household types (hukou), political affiliation, types of mobility, and socioeconomic status, were used to explore the correlation between sense of gain and the related factors. ANOVA was then conducted to investigate the differences among the sense of gain of various groups and to reveal those factors that may affect such sense of gain. Regression analyses were eventually conducted to explore and verify whether the correlated factors can in some way highlight the differences in sense of gain. These analyses provided solid psychometric evidence for the sense of gain indicator system and reflected the association between sense of gain and related variables.

1.4 Potential Research Implications 1.4.1 Theoretical Implications (1) Sense of gain carries the beliefs of “以人为本 (person oriented)” and “大道之 行也, 天下为公 (when the Grand course was pursued, a public and common spirit ruled all under the sky)” and serves as a benchmark for good governance and for the excellent management of a country. An original and contemporary contribution of this work to the literature lies in its assumption that sense of gain is rooted in Chinese culture and reality. (2) As a local “Chinese concept,” sense of gain can be perceived as an expansion of the traditional Western wellbeing theory. To establish a complete index system, sense of gain was explored in this work while taking China’s reality into account. A Sinicized, localized, and specialized investigation of sense of gain can further deepen the Chinese contributions to theory of wellbeing. (3) In addition to its Chinese characteristics, sense of gain also demonstrates universality by reflecting the common feelings of mankind. Therefore, elaborating on a sense of gain that reflects Chinese characteristics and focuses on international understanding and acceptance can help further innovate the methodological system of building cross-cultural coherence theory.

References

19

1.4.2 Practical Implications (1) By combining objective life and subjective feelings, sense of gain can serve as a practical and concrete indicator for scientifically assessing the results of social reform and development and people’s sharing of the fruits of the reform as well as a scientific tool for investigating the extent to which the interests of people are realized through the reform. Therefore, this study built a reasonable, feasible, and easy-to-operate sense of gain index system and then classified and measured the results of the social reform and people’s feelings. All these attempts can scientifically, accurately, and effectively diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of extant reform measures and then provide a reference for local and grassroots governments to improve their reform programs. (2) The differences in economy, politics, culture, and ecology can determine the specificity of the concept of sense of gain across different cultures. By contrast, the consistency in fundamental human needs determines the commonality of this concept. Therefore, studying sense of gain with cultural commonality and specificity in mind can strengthen the exchanges between domestic and foreign scholars. This exploration can promote overseas Chinese social science research and play an essential role in interpreting Chinese development practices, constructing Chinese development theories, and enhancing the international influence of Chinese academics on the global discourse of social science disciplines.

References Bauer, R. A. (1966). Social indicators. Massachusetts Institue of Technology Press. Botha, F. (2016). The good African society index. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 57–77. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0891-z Cai, S. (2018). Social economic status, subjective sense of gain and stratum identification. Journal of Fujian Provincial Committee Party School of CPC (Fujian Academy of Governance), (3), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.15993/j.cnki.cn35-1198/c.2018.03.008 Cao, X., & Li, S. (2017). The connotation of “gain” and the foreign experiences. Frontiers, (02), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.16619/j.cnki.rmltxsqy.2017.02.002 Cheung, P. C., Conger, A. J., Hau, K. T., Lew, W. J., & Lau, S. (1992). Development of the MultiTrait Personality Inventory (MTPI): Comparison among four Chinese populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59(3), 528–551. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752ipa59038 Dai, B. (2017). On contemporary tourism development and people’s sense of gain. Social Scientist Magazine, 8, 24–27. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542 575. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901 13 Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

20

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? An aross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000209 Easterlin, R. A., Morgan, R., Switek, M., & Wang, F. (2012). China’s life satisfaction, 1990–2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(25), 9775–9780. https://doi.rg/10.1073/ pnas1205672109 Fan, W., Zhang, M., Zhang, J., & Zhang, S. (2011). A combined emic-etic approach to personality: CPAI and cross-cultural applications. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(12), 1418–1429. Fang, Y. (2017). On the main contradiction of China’s society in the new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Archives and Periodicals, 18, 187. Garcés Ferrer, J., Rodenas Rigla, F., Castillo Rozas, G., & Vidal Figueroa, C. (2014). Comparison of social spending and tax policy before and after the crisis: The cases of spain and chile. Global Studies Journal, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-4432/CGP/v06i02/40890 Garcés Ferrer, J., Ródenas Rigla, F. & Vidal Figueroa, C. (2016). Application of Social Policy Index (SPI) amended in three OECD countries: Finland, Spain and Mexico. Social Indicators Research, 127(2), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0988-4 Group of Social Development and Social Indicators. (1989). Evaluation of social development indicators in the 40 years since the foundation of PRC. Sociological Study, 6, 27–34. Gurr, T. R. (2011). Why men rebel (Fortieth Anniversary Edition). Paredigm Publishers. He, L. (2018). The philosophical implication of the transformation of major contradictions in Chinese society in the new era. Journal of Baoshan University, 37(1), 1–5. Kang, L. (2016). Sense of gain: The core coordinates of people’s happiness. Tribune of Study, 2(12), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.16133/j.cnki.xxlt.2016.12.015 Kubovy, M. (1999). On the pleasures of the mind. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 134–154). Russell Sage Foundation. Land, K. C. (1975). Theories, models and indicators of social change. International Social Science Journal, 27, 7–14. https://ciniiac.ip/naid/10011269600/en/ Li, C. (2004a). New trends in China’s social stratification and lifestyles. Scientific Socialism, 1, 12–15. Li, J. (2004b). Relative deprivation theory and psychological dredgeing mechanism for the disadvantaged groups. Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 74–78. Li, Q. (2004c). Migrant workers and social stratification in China. Social Sciences Academic Press (CHINA). Li, Q. (2005). New trends in the changes in social stratification in today’s China. Social Sciences in China, 4, 123–136. Li, Q., & Wang, H. (2014). The four worlds of Chinese social stratification structure. Social Sciences Front, 9, 174–187. Li, T., Dong, Z., & Tian, X. (2018). A study on the formation mechanism of seafarers’ sense of gain—A grounded analysis based on the in-depth interview data. Maritime Education Research, 35(3), 21–25+29. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-8724.2018.03.006 Li, T., Lan, L., & Su, S. (2017). Comparative analysis of gain sense of farmers under policy of two typical modes of forest right reform in Fujian. Resource Development & Market, 33(5), 524–528. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-8141.2017.05.003 Liu, B., & Peng, K. (2012). Challenge and contribution of cultural psychology to empirical legal studies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(3), 413–426. Lv, X., & Huang, Y. (2018). Measuring “sense of gain”: Based on the analysis of the survey data of Chinese society. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 55(05), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.16783/j.cnki.nwnus.2018.05.006 Ma, N. (2017). From studies based on social indicators to social indicator movement: A sociological contemplation on social indicator movement in the 20th century. Academics, 1, 215–223. Merton, R. K. (2008). Social theory and social structure (S. Tang & X. Qi, Trans.). Yilin Press. Myers, I. (1992). Human Development and Social Indicators. Publishing House of Chongqing University.

References

21

Pennock, M., & Ura, K. (2011). Gross national happiness as a framework for health impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar. 2010.04.003 Qiu, L., & Zhen, X. (2005). A cross-cultural study on the relationship between individual cultural orientations and subjective well-being. China Journal of Health Psychology, 14(3), 290–294. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2006.03.001 Qiu, L., Zheng, X., & Yan, B. (2002). Cultural normative and goal-adjustment models: Two cultural perspectives on well-being. Advances in Psychological Science, 10(3), 27–34. Ródenas, F., Garcés, J., Vidal, C., & Castillo, G. (2013). Social spending and taxes in Spain: The effects of the current crisis in a country with a Southern Welfare. In Eighth international conference on interdisciplinary social sciences (pp. 1–11). Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi. org/0.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing: A positive health agenda for the new millennium. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/101207/S15 327957PSPR04014 Shi, Q., & Fu, A. (2017). A study on the relationship between sense of gain, political trust and political party identity: Based on the survey data of college students in six ministry-affiliated universities in Hubei Province. Journal of South-Central University for Nationalities (humanities and Social Sciences), 37(1), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-433X.2017.01.019 Shi, Z. (2019). Research on social development indicator system: Historical changes and realistic reflections. Foreign Economies & Management, 9, 3–7. Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality Social Psychology review, 16(3), 203–232. https://doi.org/101177/1088868311430825 Song, L. (2002). The trend, sacrifice and measurement of the social transformation in China. Jiangsu Social Sciences, 6, 30–36. Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health WellBeing, 6(3), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw12027 Sun, Y. (2015). Analysis of the influence of urban residents’ social status on their sense of gain: A survey based on six provinces and cities. The World of Survey and Research, (9), 18–21. https:// doi.org/10.13778/j.cnki.11-3705/c.2015.09.005 UN General Assembly (2015). Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 11 September 2015. A/RES/69/315 15 September 2015. United Nations, New York City, USA. Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.20448309.1984tb00645.x Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration. Cambridge University Press. Wang, J., Bai, J., & Luo, C. (2016). The changes of main indicators of economic and social development and review of major index of the Thirteenth Five-Year Plan in China. Reform, 6, 6–21. Wang, S. (2016). Understanding the sharing development and the promoting role of social work: An example of poverty-alleviation strategies in China. Journal of Chongqing Technology and Business University (social Science Edition), 33(5), 1–6. Wang, S., & Zhang, J. (2015, March 14). Let the people have more “sense of gain”. Guangming Daily. https://epaper.gmw.cn/gmrb/html/2015-03/14/nw.D110000gmrb_20150314_1-05.htm Wang, W., Dou, C., & Zhang, X. (2006). Research on comprehensive evaluation of social development level of China. Statistics & Information Forum, 21(1), 26–30+41.

22

1 Why Does Research on Huodegan (Sense of Gain) Matter?

Wen, H., & Liu, Z. (2018). Timing comparison of the sense of gain to China: Trends and disparities empirical analysis based on Chinese urban and rural social governance data. Journal of Social Sciences, (3), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.13644/j.cnki.cn31-1112.2018.03.001 Wu, M. (2000). Western theoretical developments on subjective well-being over the past 30 years. Psychological Dynamics, 8(4), 24–29. Xi, J. (2016, February 29). Xi Jinping proposes new criteria for reform evaluation: Whether to promote economic and social development. China News. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/m/gn/ 2016/02-29/7776424.html Xi, J. (2018). Let the reform bring a real sense of gain to the people. http://theory.people.com.cn/ n1/2018/1219/c40531-30475688.html Xia, A., Yang, C., & Du, W. (2015). A review of relative deprivation research. Learning Weekly, (4), 230–231. https://doi.org/10.16657/j.cnki.issn1673-9132.2015.04.039 Xiang, J. (2019). Objective attainment and subjective attainment: From the perspective of status attainment and social mobility. Journal of Social Development, 6(2), 135–153+245. Xie, L. (1994). Re-examination of comprehensive evaluation indicators for social development in China. Journal of Nanchang University (humanities and Social Sciences), 25(1), 3–79. Xing, Z. (2003). A study on the development of subjective wellbeing scale for Chinese citizens. [Doctoral dissertation, East China Normal University]. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/ detail.do?_type=degree&id=Y521217 Xiong, M., & Ye, Y. (2016). The concept, measurement, influencing factors and effects of relative deprivation. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(03), 438–453. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN: XLXD.0.2016-03-013 Xu, Y. (2006). Analysis of the origins and limitations of social indicators in public policy. Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 49–55. Yan, B., Zheng, X., & Qiu, L. (2003). A cross-culture study of SWB of college students: A report from 48 nations and regions. Journal of Psychological Science, 26(5), 851–855. https://doi.org/ 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2003.05.019 Yan, B., Zheng, X., & Qiu, L. (2004). SWB & PWB: The distinction and integration of two wellbeing research orientation. Journal of Psychological Science, 27(4), 836–838. https://doi.org/10.16719/ j.cnki.1671-6981.2004.04.017 Yuan, F. (1995). Social indicators and social development evaluation. China Labor and Social Security Publishing House. Zhang, H., & Hao, W. (2017). Research on the influential factors of college students’ sense of gain in environmental governance. Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 2, 1–5. https://doi. org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-2614.2017.02.001 Zhang, L., & Zuo, B. (2007). Eudaimonic well-being: A review on psychological well-being. Advances in Psychological Science, 01, 134–139. Zhao, W. (2018). Research on the people’s sense of gain from the perspective of consumption. Journal of Beijing University of Technology (social Sciences Edition), 18(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/ 10.3969/j.issn.1671-0398.2018.04.002 Zheng, F., & Chen, S. (2017). “Sense of gain” is the best measure of social development: Also on its differences and connections with happiness and inclusive development. Frontiers, 2, 6–17. https://doi.org/10.16619/j.cnki.rmltxsqy.2017.02.001 Zheng, H. (2011). Academic discourse right/power and the development of Chinese sociology. Social Sciences in China, 4, 92–105. Zhu, Q., & Wu, H. (2001). Social indicator system. China Social Sciences Presser.

Chapter 2

Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

In The Book of Changes (I Ching), “Metaphysics is called dao (道, the way), concrete is called qi (器, the tool), and transformation is called bian (变, the change).” In other words, abstract metaphysical theories should converge, and concrete operationalization tools should be abundant and sufficient. These tools should also be guided by theories, and these theories should be expanded by tools; however, the tools should never be replaced by theories, and the theories should not be excluded in favor of tools (Zhao, 2018). As tools, social indicators must indicate the causal relationships or links between the observable and unobservable aspects of social phenomena, and such problem can only be addressed by using the variables within the framework of causal models or theories of social behavior. Descriptive social statistics cannot be simply used as social indices in scientific research, which means that the inability to specify the underlying theory or model can hinder the construction and development of social indices (Carley, 1979). Therefore, to ensure construct validity, the structure of the sense of gain index system must be based on sense of gain theory. Although many scholars have explored the theoretical connotation of sense of gain, a consensus on this new concept has not yet been reached in and outside the academic community. Moreover, a logical or systematic summary of sense of gain into a pattern, structure, or rule has not yet been established through deductive reasoning. Therefore, sense of gain theory in the scientific sense has not yet been developed. However, sense of gain is rich and related to many concepts. Therefore, despite the absence of theory of sense of gain, the theoretical dialogues and borrowings from concepts related to sense of gain can be used to explore its successive and developmental relation and to establish its theoretical context and index system. These attempts can be used to expand the current theories and frameworks of sense of gain and fill the gaps in the literature on sense of gain to a certain extent. In terms of the specific definition and theoretical connotation of sense of gain, even though many scholars have agreed that sense of gain can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of reform and social development, a uniform definition of this concept remains lacking. Verbalism Magazine defined sense of gain as the people’s wellbeing derived from their sharing of the fruits of the reform (Zhao, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Duan and Y. Li, Huodegan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4_2

23

24

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

2018). Zhang (2016) used the dictionary to interpret the semantic meaning of sense of gain while taking contextual changes into account and found that this concept is a combination of two dimensions, namely, “gain,” which focuses on objective gains, and “sense,” which focuses on subjective feelings. Therefore, sense of gain can refer to the long-lasting satisfaction resulting from both material and spiritual gains. Huang and Wu (2017) proposed a mechanism of “expectation-engagementsatisfaction-identification” between “gain” and “sense” that can be used to establish a progressive causal relationship between these two factors. Specifically, when the premise is “gain” instead of “loss,” the sense of gain, as a subjective feeling, should be positive. Zeng (2017) added that sense of gain is not only reflected in material aspects, such as clothing, food, housing, and transportation, but also in spiritual aspects, such as fairness, justice, and self-fulfillment, in the sense that this concept also refers to the perception of the realization of individuals’ interests in economic and social development. Moreover, people’s state of gain may change along with their level of needs and living conditions. Xing and Niu (2017) explored the subject and object of sense of gain by combining the subjective perspective of socioeconomic development with the degree of its actual benefits to the people. They eventually defined sense of gain as the people’s recognition of the degree of social development, improvement and coordination of their wellbeing, and satisfaction of their individual needs. Meanwhile, Li and Hu (2018) defined sense of gain as a person-centered, multi-level, and all-around sense of wellbeing derived from sharing the fruits of the reform and a sense of comfort and satisfaction of people with their current lives. They believed that sense of gain is consistent with the political position of Marx’s concept of justice, which measures the justice of social order based on its righteousness. This definition is also consistent with the subjective role of the people, which attaches importance to the development of productive forces and the demand for an equitable distribution. Using Maslow’s need hierarchy theory, Wang (2018) explored the priority of satisfying the sense of gain of the poor and vulnerable groups. Consistent with Xing and Niu (2017), Wang (2018) explored the subjects and valuable objects of gain and argued that a sense of gain is a subjective positive evaluation of the valuable things of the gaining. On the basis of the above statements, sense of gain is a concept with a rich meaning that is connected to material gain, spiritual enhancement, wellbeing, fulfillment, identity, and satisfaction, among others. These keywords indicate that the concepts of sense of gain and wellbeing are both derived from the same origin. Origins of the concept of wellbeing can be traced back to ancient Greece. This concept has two philosophical origins, namely, hedonic as represented by Epicurus (Kubovy, 1999) and eudaimonic as represented by Aristotle (Ryff & Singer, 2000). However, these two origins explore wellbeing under the philosophical speculation that individual subjective feelings cannot be directly observed or measured and do not consider certain factors, such as personal growth, social environment, or institutional rules. In the middle of the last century, studies on wellbeing shifted from philosophical speculations to scientific evidence, and this concept was expanded from theoretical to empirical research. Accordingly, the understanding of wellbeing evolved from

2.1 Positive/Negative Affect Theory

25

“subjective wellbeing” to “psychological wellbeing.” Although the cultural backgrounds and linguistic context of an era can generate external heterogeneities, an inherent continuity is retained between the theories of sense of gain and wellbeing. The development of theories of wellbeing and the results of the expansion of these theories have implications for sense of gain research. Sorting out and discriminating the related theories of wellbeing and summarizing their evolution should therefore be among the steps in fundamental research on sense of gain theory. This chapter will then review affect theory, life satisfaction theory, flourishing theory, and the PERMA model from the psychological perspective. The theoretical psychological foundation of this research is sorted out afterward based on the development orientation, concept connotation, measurement methods, and empirical studies of each of the above theories.

2.1 Positive/Negative Affect Theory Psychologists initially linked wellbeing to affects and proposed an affect model of wellbeing based on research on the subjective affective evaluations of quality of life. Wellbeing is the result of a balance between positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) (Bradburn, 1969). Early wellbeing researchers believed that PA plays a positive role in enhancing one’s wellbeing, whereas NA harms such wellbeing. In other words, wellbeing is the result of a relative balance between PA and NA (Bradburn, 1969). However, certain issues, such as how to find the competition, transformation, and balance between PA and NA to achieve wellbeing, have emerged. In the 1960s, emotion was treated as a unidimensional construct in which PA and NA have a significantly negative correlation (Miao, 2003). By contrast, the bipolar model, which was mainly supported by early affect researchers, highlights a negative correlation between these affects, which cannot be expressed simultaneously (Liu et al., 2008; Russell & Carroll, 1999). Russell and Carroll (1999) investigated whether PA and NA are negatively related to each other or are two independent variables. Results of their meta-analysis demonstrated that these affects tend to have negative relationships. Larsen et al. (2001) investigated whether people can feel happy and sad simultaneously. By replicating and extending the findings of previous studies, they found that most participants experience the two opposing emotions of happiness and sadness simultaneously in some typical situations. For example, many of these participants felt both happy and sad after watching the movie “Life Is Beautiful,” moving out of their dormitories, or graduating from college. The results of their three contextual experiments and data analysis refuted the proposal of the bipolar model yet were consistent with that of the bivariate model, which regards PA and NA as two independent variables with high flexibility. Specifically, the bivariate model suggests that the process of experiencing emotions can be divided into approach-withdrawal tendencies, which means that PA and NA may be two independent variables in some

26

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

cases. Meanwhile, under certain circumstances, PA and NA have an uncoupled activation and are activated separately. In some cases, positive and negative emotions may also generate non-reciprocal movement factors (e.g., combination of positivity and negativity) (Cacioppo et al., 1997). The formulation of this theory and the validation of its explanations further confirm the two-dimensional structure of PA and NA, thereby compensating for the previous explanations of the unidirectional relationship between these affects (Miao, 2003). Since the proposal of the bivariate model, other researchers put forward appraisal theory as a more delicate framework for exploring the multiple emotional states between positive and negative emotions and argued that this theory is strongly correlated with the acquisition of wellbeing. Accordingly, Ruth et al. (2002) investigated the relationship between cognitive appraisal and consumption emotions by using a mixed model and then identified 10 emotions related to cognitive appraisal, namely, love, happiness, pride, gratitude, fear, anger, sadness, guilt, uneasiness, and embarrassment. They also mentioned that individuals’ cognitive interpretations of situations correspond to their emotional experiences in these situations. Another issue relates to the question of which is more important in enhancing wellbeing: the intensity or the frequency of emotional experience? Early researchers on emotional experiences argued that the frequency of emotional experiences is more important in improving wellbeing given that high-intensity emotional experiences do not often occur in real life. Even for people with high ratings of wellbeing, the intensity of their emotional experiences is only moderately balanced. Those individuals who experience high-intensity positive emotions are also more likely to experience high-intensity negative emotions, which are not conducive to their overall wellbeing (Diener & Lucas, 1998). In addition, happiness only improves significantly when positive emotions are consistently experienced, and a decrease in the frequency of negative emotional experiences does not increase wellbeing. Therefore, treating psychological disorders does not necessarily make people happy (Li, 2007). Studies on emotion and brain response mechanisms also pinpointed some differences in the functional areas of brain activity between positive and negative emotional experiences (Yang et al., 2007). In their early research on emotions, Watson et al. (1988) found that PA and NA are viewed as two dominant and relatively independent dimensions in some affect scales, including the affect balance scale. However, these scales show poor reliability, convergent validity, or discriminant validity. To obtain a more reliable and valid emotion assessment tool, researchers redeveloped the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). From this scale, this study selected 20 items with factor loadings of 0.4 and above from a pool of 60 items related to affective wellbeing via principal component analysis (PCA). The first 10 items targeted positive affect with the keywords attentive, interested, alert, excited, enthusiastic, inspired, proud, determined, strong, and active, whereas the other 10 items targeted negative affect with the keywords distressed, upset, hostile, irritable, scared, afraid, ashamed, guilty, jittery, and nervous. The participants were divided into a student group and a nonstudent group. College student participants were recruited by way of exchange for extra course credit, whereas the non-student group included university employees

2.2 Life Satisfaction Theory

27

and adults from the community. All participants were asked to rate their past emotions on a five-point scale using PANAS, with responses ranging from “not at all” to “very much.” The internal consistency coefficients, retest reliability, factorial correlations, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of PANAS all showed good psychometric properties. To further promote the applicability of PANAS in identifying anxiety, affective state, and wellbeing issues among younger generations, researchers proposed a short version of PANAS for children and adolescents. Results of the data collected from 799 child samples and 553 parent samples confirmed the good psychometric properties of the 10-item PANAS scale. Five of these items targeted PA with the keywords joyful, cheerful, happy, lively, and proud, whereas the other five items targeted NA with the keywords miserable, mad, afraid, scared, and sad. This short version of PANAS can be used to clinically identify people with emotional disorders who require mental health support (Ebesutani et al., 2012). PANAS has also been validated among samples of UK adults (N = 1003), Italians (N = 600), Turks (N = 199), and Chinese (N = 218) (Crawford & Henry, 2011; Gencoz, 2000; Qiu et al., 2008; Terraciano et al., 2003). This scale has also been combined with the interpersonal self-support scale for adolescent students to explore the relationship among the interpersonal self-reliance, positive emotional states, and negative emotional states of 180 college students. Results of the correlation and stepwise regression analyses revealed that interpersonal self-reliance can maintain one’s psychological health and increase his/her wellbeing by promoting positive emotions and reducing negative emotions (Gao & Xia, 2014).

2.2 Life Satisfaction Theory Although life satisfaction theory evaluates wellbeing from a subjective perspective, this framework differs from the PA/NA model, which defines wellbeing in terms of emotional balance states. In their cognitive model, Andrews and Withey (1976) defined wellbeing as a subjective perception of life satisfaction. Subjective wellbeing comprises people’s evaluative responses to their lives, which can be either cognitive or emotional (Diener, 1996). Cognitive responses include not only one’s evaluation of his/her overall life satisfaction but also his/her satisfaction in specific life domains (e.g., work and marriage satisfaction). At the emotional level, people react to the activities in which they are involved and to life events with pleasant (e.g., joy and affection) and unpleasant affects (e.g., anxiety and grief). These life events are classified into seven areas, namely, material wellbeing, health, productivity, intimacy, safety, community, and emotional wellbeing (Gamble & Gärling, 2012; Yao et al., 2011). The unidimensional model is an explanatory model of life satisfaction. The subjective evaluation of overall life satisfaction can be used to understand individuals’ subjective wellbeing (Wang & Wang, 1999; Yao et al., 2011). The most widely used instrument for measuring life satisfaction based on the unidimensional model is the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS), which measures people’s overall evaluation of

28

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

their lives. The development of the SWLS was initially based on a pool of 48 items related to subjective wellbeing. These items were divided into three facets, in which items attributed to PA and NA were eliminated along with those items attributed to life satisfaction with factor loadings of less than 0.6. A total of 5 items were also removed from the 10 items due to their high semantic similarity, thereby yielding a 5-item life satisfaction scale where each item is scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (Diener et al., 1985). The SWLS was developed by using two samples of college students. Sample 1 comprised 176 students, whereas sample 2 comprised 163 undergraduates in introductory psychology classes. The participants were given a series of subjective health status tests in addition to the SWLS. In Study 1, principal axis factor analysis was performed, and the eigenvalues were examined in a scree plot to determine the number of factors to be extracted. Study 2 mainly examined the correlation between the SWLS and other similar measurement instruments, including the Eysenck personality questionnaire and affect intensity measure, to evaluate their criterion validity. Results of the data analysis revealed the good correlations of the SWLS with both personality traits and affect. Study 3 assessed the psychometric properties of the SWLS among the elderly. A total of 53 elderly were recruited to participate in a one-hour interview centering on their lives, how they remained active, and their tendency to learn independently. At the end of the interview, the participants were required to complete the SWLS and the revision of the life satisfaction index. The results also showed good reliability and validity of SWLS among the elderly. Some studies have mostly focused on satisfaction in specific life domains. The multidimensional model explains life satisfaction by including the dimensions of satisfaction in domains of life and overall life satisfaction (Chen & Le, 2001; Yao et al., 2011). The weighted life satisfaction model is a multidimensional model that assumes that life satisfaction is multifaceted and has an importance ranking. Different domains of satisfaction have varying effects on quality of life. To measure overall satisfaction, the satisfaction scores for each area are multiplied by their weights and then summed (Liu, 2007). The multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale (MSLSS) is a 40-item scale based on the multidimensional model that assesses the life satisfaction of students in 5 dimensions, namely, family, friends, school, living environment, and self (Huebner, 1994). The psychometric properties of MSLSS were validated among 821 secondary school students in China by using the general life satisfaction scale as a criterion instrument. The reliability coefficients of MSLSS were all greater than 0.7, whereas its criterion correlation coefficients ranged between 0.72 and 0.81. The five-dimensional structure of MSLSS is also consistent with the original scale and therefore has good psychometric properties in a population of Chinese adolescents (Tian & Liu, 2005). Other researchers further developed and validated the brief multidimensional student’s life satisfaction scale (BMSLSS) in the Chinese context by recruiting 1,904 Chinese primary school students from grades 4 to 6 who were divided into 3 groups. The data collected from 800 primary school students in sample 1 were used to conduct item analysis and EFA, the data from 799 primary school students in sample 2 were

2.3 Psychological Wellbeing Theory

29

used to conduct CFA and to check for internal consistency reliability and convergent validity, and the data from 305 primary school students in sample 3 were used to measure retest reliability and predictive validity. The measurement instruments included the brief BMSLSS, students’ life satisfaction scale, Rosenberg self-esteem scale, and the elementary school students’ subjective wellbeing in school scale, all of which can provide a preliminary basis for evaluating the reliability and validity of the life satisfaction of Chinese primary school students (Tian et al., 2015). Sample items included, “How satisfied would I be with my family, school, friends, self, and living environment” and “How satisfied would I be with my overall life,” all of which were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (bad) to 7 (happy) (Tian et al., 2015). Another empirical study found that the BMSLSS can also be used to examine the relationship between the life satisfaction and subjective wellbeing of migrant children, and results of the correlation analysis revealed that the wellbeing of migrant children is significantly and positively correlated with all types of life satisfaction (Zhu & Meng, 2017).

2.3 Psychological Wellbeing Theory Two orientations based on two different philosophical perspective systems can be derived from wellbeing research. The first orientation is the exploration of subjective wellbeing based on hedonism, which holds that wellbeing contains cognitive and affective components. A happy person considers the difference between his/her perceived reality and his/her desire to be acceptable. Therefore, this individual has a satisfactory self-perception, perceives life and joyful emotional experiences as generally satisfactory, and has balanced positive and negative emotions that change along with cognition (Kahneman et al., 1999). Combined with the aforementioned theoretical foundations, researchers adopting a hedonic philosophical perspective define wellbeing as high-level life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999), that is, individuals are relatively satisfied with their quality of life. However, another orientation posits that subjective wellbeing is not genuine wellbeing; wellbeing should include not only pleasure but also the expression and development of human potential, which can be defined as psychological wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 1993). Psychological wellbeing is based on eudaimonism, which posits that wellbeing is development oriented and related to self-realization and perfection (Feng, 1992). Aristotle, the representative of eudaimonism, argued that happiness is an external condition and a good complement to wellbeing. Nevertheless, happiness is just one way to achieve wellbeing. Happiness must be controlled and guided by rationality and constitutes wellbeing together with human virtue and the corresponding behavior. Aristotle also emphasized “virtue” and believed that psychological and spiritual wellbeing is the type of wellbeing that people generally pursue. Psychological wellbeing can be divided into “intellectual virtue” (i.e., wisdom and intelligence) and “ethical virtue” (i.e., temperance and courage) (Zhang & Liu, 2010).

30

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

In his earlier theoretical reflections, Waterman (1984) identified four theories involving positive mental functioning, namely, (a) sense of personal identity from Erikson’s ego identity theory, (b) self-actualization from Maslow’s humanistic theory, (c) an internal locus of control from Rotter’s social learning theory, and (d) principled moral reasoning from Gilligan’s cognitive developmental theory. Their philosophical and theoretical underpinnings are all eudaimonic. Therefore, in conjunction with its functionality, wellbeing can be based on eudaimonistic philosophy (Waterman, 1993), whose focus is not on the life satisfaction of an individual but on the realization that they have already achieved what they desire in life (Telfer, 1980). Personal expressiveness refers to the state in which individuals realize their potential based on their self-effort (Waterman, 1990a). Waterman (1990a) identified two types of wellbeing, namely, hedonic wellbeing, which is achieved in the context of pleasurable emotions and the need for satisfaction, and personal wellbeing, which is manifested as a form of self-actualization and individual experience when one attempts to fulfill his/her purpose in life by developing a unique potential. Wellbeing can be divided into four forms, namely, hedonic wellbeing, personal expressiveness, a coexistence of both, and the absence of both (Waterman, 1990a, 1990b). Despite the potential strong positive correlation between personal expressiveness experiences and activity-related hedonic, hedonic and expressiveness-related activities lack a consistent frequency. Therefore, the relative frequency of activities assessed as being high on personal expressiveness while low on hedonic enjoyment will be significantly lower than the frequency of activities assessed as being high on hedonic enjoyment while low on personal expressiveness. Moreover, the essential difference between hedonic and personal expressiveness also leads to differences in their contributions to cognitiveaffective states. Reports of hedonic wellbeing are highly relevant to reports of desire satisfaction; reports of personal expressiveness are associated with measures of individual potential development, the importance of life activities, and level of challenges and skills (Waterman, 1993). Waterman (1993) developed the personally expressive activities questionnaire (PEAQ) based on two theoretical foundations of wellbeing. The respondents were asked, “If you wanted other people to know about who you are and what you are like as a person, what five activities of importance to you would you describe?” In Study 1, 140 undergraduate students (107 females and 33 males) and 69 postgraduate students (55 females and 14 males) answered a couple of questions (“This activity gives me my greatest feeling of being alive” and “This activity gives me the strongest feeling that this is who I really am”) on a 7-point scale to elicit feedback on their personal expressiveness and another couple of questions (“This activity gives me my strongest sense of enjoyment” and “This activity gave me the most pleasure”) to measure their hedonic enjoyment. In Study 2, 193 undergraduate students (149 females and 44 males) and 56 graduate students (44 females and 12 males) responded to four questions in addition to the questions asked in Study 1 to measure their personal expressiveness (“I feel more intensely involved in this activity than I do in most other activities,” “When I engage in this activity, I feel that this is what I was meant to do,” “I feel more complete or fulfilled when engaging in this activity that I do when engaged in most other activities,” and “I feel a special fit or meshing

2.3 Psychological Wellbeing Theory

31

when engaging in this activity”). Four additional questions for hedonic enjoyment were also asked (“I feel more satisfied when engaged in this activity than I do when engaged in most other activities,” “When I engage in this activity, I feel good,” “When I engage in this activity, I feel a warm glow,” and “When I engage in this activity, I feel happier than I do when engaged in most other activities”). The empirical results confirmed the inferred assumptions described previously. Although Waterman underscored the existence and importance of eudaimonic wellbeing, he neither operationalized the definition of psychological wellbeing nor constructed a systematic structural model of this type of wellbeing. Ryff remedied this issue by defining wellbeing from a eudaimonic perspective as the idea of striving toward excellence based on one’s unique potential, which is part of his/her mental health (Ryff, 2018). However, the theoretical field included not only the positive psychological functioning emphasized by Waterman but also the personal growth model, life-cycle development perspective, and positive mental health (Ryff, 2018). The personal growth model considers Jung’s notion of individuation, Alpert’s conception of maturity, Rogers’ fully functioning individual, and Maslow’s notion of self-actualization. The life-cycle development perspective includes Bühler’s basic life tendencies theory, Erikson’s psychosocial stages model, and Newgarden’s personality changes. By contrast, the positive mental health model provides a detailed description of mental health and characterizes this concept as a positive view of the self, capability for growth and development, autonomy and independence, accurate perception of reality, positive friendships and relationships, and environmental mastery (Jahoda, 1958). The above theories are diverse and extensive, and the psychological wellbeing model was eventually derived by aggregating these theories. The six dimensions in the psychological wellbeing model include self-acceptance, positive relationships with others, autonomy, environment mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth (Ryff, 1989a, 1989b). The specific connotations of these six dimensions are as follows (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 2008; Ryff, 1989a, 1989b). Self-acceptance refers to an individual’s sense of self-acceptance. Those individuals who score high on this dimension tend to have positive attitudes about themselves, including their good and bad qualities, and face their past with a positive mindset. Meanwhile, those individuals who score low on this dimension feel dissatisfied with themselves, disappointed with their past, and uneasy with certain personal qualities. Positive relationships refer to the building of warm and trusting interpersonal relationships with others. Those individuals who score high on this dimension tend to show strong empathy and emotions for others, are generally willing to give love, profound friendship, and complete approval, and understand the importance of giving and receiving in relationships. By contrast, those individuals who score low on this dimension generally face difficulties in establishing close and trusting relationships with others and in showing warm, open, and caring attitudes. These individuals tend to be isolated and frustrated in their relationships and are unwilling to compromise to maintain their important ties with others.

32

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

Autonomy refers to the qualities of valuing self-determination, independence, and internal regulation of behavior. Those individuals who score high on this dimension are able to make autonomous decisions, become independent, and resist social pressures when thinking and acting. They regulate their behavior from their inner selves and evaluate themselves by their own personal standards. Meanwhile, those individuals who score low on this dimension tend to be concerned with the expectations and evaluations of others and rely on the judgments of others when making important decisions. In addition, the thinking and behavior of these individuals depend on social pressure. Environment mastery refers to the ability of individuals to choose or create an environment that suits their psychological conditions. Those individuals who score high on this dimension have good environmental management sense and ability and are able to control complex external activities. They are also able to effectively use the opportunities around them to create an environment that meets their personal needs. Meanwhile, those individuals who score low on this dimension generally face difficulties in managing their daily affairs and lack a sense of control over their external world. Purpose in life refers to individuals’ feelings about their lives having meaningful goals, intentions, and a sense of direction. Those individuals who score high on this dimension have a purpose, a sense of direction and belief and generally feel that their lives are meaningful. By contrast, those individuals who score low on this dimension lack a sense of direction, feel that their lives are meaningless, and are unable to find any perspective or beliefs that would give their lives some meaning. Personal growth refers to a state of sustained personal growth and selfactualization. Those individuals who score high on this dimension have a sense of ongoing development and see themselves as growing and expanding. They are open to new experiences, have a sense of realizing their potential, see themselves and their behaviors improve over time, and change in ways that reflect improved self-awareness and validity. Meanwhile, those individuals who score low on this dimension are stagnant, lack progress or a sense of expansion, feel bored and uninterested in their lives, and unable to develop new attitudes or behaviors. These six dimensions are operationalized as six subscales of Ryff’s scale of psychological well-being (SPWB), the original version of which contained 84 items, with each subscale having 14 items. SPWB was eventually reduced to 18 items rated on a 6-point scale to enhance its application value and facilitate its measurement (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff, 1989b). This scale has been widely used in the US (Springer & Hauser, 2006), Canada (Kafka & Kozma, 2002), Portugal (Fernandes et al., 2010), Spain (Triadó et al., 2007), Japan (Kitamura et al., 2004), and China (Li, 2014). Among the above dimensions, purpose in life received further research attention. One of the primary motivations for people to live is to harvest and maintain a sense of meaning (Van Tongeren & Green, 2010). Zhao et al. (2017) systematically combed through the literature to summarize the concepts, theoretical models, and influencing factors of sense of meaning in life. They initially defined each concept of sense of meaning in life as follows. Life meaning refers to the way of connecting oneself to the

2.3 Psychological Wellbeing Theory

33

external world. Those individuals who sense meaning in their lives also have a sense of value. Life meaning includes cognitive and motivational dimensions. Zhao et al. (2017) explored the core of sense of meaning in life based on the above definitions and pointed out that this concept has three core elements, namely, purpose, significance, and coherence. Guided by action theory, scholars proposed the hierarchic model of meaning, which identified five levels of sense of meaning in life. At the core of this model lies purpose, which is identified as the source of sense of meaning in life. This model also defines sense of meaning in life as an evaluation of one’s entire life (Schnell & Becker, 2006). Specifically, the occurrence of a specific event can lead to individual perceptual stimuli, which in turn can trigger individual activities through goal orientation and activity level and eventually realize the construction of conscious meaning in life. These five levels of components interact and influence one another, with the higher-level sense of meaning encompassing the lower-level sense of meaning. The meaning-making model posits that people are stimulated in a specific situation, and the sense of meaning they acquire under a stimulus (situational meaning) is compared and measured against their own beliefs (general meaning) to reconstruct their sense of meaning in life (Park, 2010). Meanwhile, the meaning maintenance model suggests that people are born with the instinct to actively seek meaning from persistent input information. Moreover, individuals tend to associate their thoughts, behaviors, desires, attributes, abilities, and roles with other people, events, and places in their environments. When people lack meaning in their lives, they compensate for such absence by deriving a sense of meaning from other sources (Heine et al., 2006). The 10-item meaning in life questionnaire (MLQ) (Steger et al., 2006) was used to measure the sense of meaning in life. As an essential index for measuring wellbeing related to quality of life and mental health, meaning of life has received much empirical research attention. For example, Jiang et al. (2015) verified how daily annoyances affect an individual’s psychological adjustment and their roles in sense of meaning in life. They administered a questionnaire survey among 153 first-year college students by using the inventory of college students’ recent life experiences, the perceived stress scale, and MLQ. Results of their mediating and moderating analyses revealed that having a sense of meaning moderates the relationship between perceived daily distractions and psychological adjustment, thereby suggesting that those individuals with a high sense of meaning in life are less likely to be affected by daily annoyances and are more able to adapt to their lives. Meanwhile, Li and Lu (2010) administered a questionnaire survey among 194 first-year college students to investigate the current situation of sense of meaning in life in college. They found that over half of first-year college students were confused about their goals. In addition, the scores for sense of meaning in life were positively correlated with mental health status. Therefore, both the education sector and the entire society should pay attention to the sense of meaning in life of first-year college students. Li et al. (2014) found that college students’ meaning in life is positively correlated with positive coping, wellbeing, and parental emotional warmth. Shen and Jiang (2013) explored the characteristics and relationships between the sense of meaning in life and wellbeing of adolescents by investigating the attitudes toward life, psychological wellbeing, and life satisfaction

34

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

of 1,141 adolescents. They found that adolescents with higher levels of sense of meaning in life also have higher levels of life attitudes, life satisfaction, and positive emotions and lower levels of negative emotions compared with their counterparts. Therefore, sense of meaning in life may contribute to the wellbeing of adolescents to some extent. Dulaney et al. (2018) investigated the role of sense of meaning in life in the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms among adolescents. They administered a questionnaire survey to examine the sense of meaning in life, perceived stress, and depressive symptoms of 177 adolescents and found that a higher sense of meaning in life is related to lower depressive symptoms. Moreover, sense of meaning in life alleviates the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms, thereby suggesting that sense of meaning in life can protect the mental health status of adolescents in a negative environment. Given that theories of subjective wellbeing are widely accepted, previous empirical studies have focused on PA, NA, life satisfaction, and quality of life. As researchers have started to gain a deeper understanding of psychological wellbeing, empirical studies related to psychological wellbeing were gradually enriched. Using psychological wellbeing theory, many scholars empirically explored the relationship of physical activity (Duan & Li, 2007), religious beliefs (Xu et al., 2015), attributional styles (Yuan & Zhang, 2007), achievement motivation (Song et al., 2015), weight stigma (Greenleaf et al., 2014), social role quality (Plach et al., 2003), parental behavior (Huppert et al., 2010), sleep (Hamilton et al., 2007), and other internal or external factors with psychological wellbeing. By exploring the relationship between demographic characteristics and psychological wellbeing, early empirical research found that the dynamics of wellbeing, including psychological wellbeing and its dimensions, are influenced by age, gender, and education level (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff, 1989b). Meanwhile, results from the midlife in the US national survey (MIDUS) showed that psychological wellbeing is related to gender, age, and education level (Ryff & Singer, 2008). First, young, middle-aged, and older adults differ in various dimensions of their psychological wellbeing. For instance, the dimensions of purpose in life, personal growth, and environmental mastery decrease among men from their youth to middle age, whereas the dimensions of purpose in life, self-acceptance, and personal growth decrease and the dimensions of autonomy, positive relations, and environmental mastery increase from their middle to senior age. Meanwhile, personal growth, purpose in life, and positive relationships decrease, autonomy increases, and environmental mastery and self-acceptance show no significant changes among women from their youth to middle age. However, the personal growth and purpose in life of women sharply decrease from their middle to senior ages, whereas their autonomy, positive relationships, environmental mastery, and self-acceptance show significant upward trends. Second, education level significantly affects the psychological wellbeing of males and females, and this effect is particularly salient for the dimensions of personal growth and purpose in life. Xu et al. (2003) used Ryff’s scale of psychological wellbeing to measure 777 individuals aged 20 to 94 years and found that among 6 dimensions, personal growth, positive relations, and purpose in life are higher among the younger participants

2.3 Psychological Wellbeing Theory

35

compared with the middle-aged and elderly ones. Moreover, environmental mastery is higher among the middle-aged and elderly participants than among their younger counterparts. However, self-acceptance is significantly higher among the middleaged and elderly participants than among the younger ones. In terms of gender differences, males have significantly higher autonomy, personal growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance compared with women, whereas women have slightly higher positive relations compared with men. The factors that influence psychological wellbeing also differ across the young, middle-aged, and elderly groups (Xu et al., 2003). Another stream of research focused on the interrelationship between biological factors and psychological wellbeing. If well-being is indeed the right lifestyle, then theoretically, wellbeing should benefit the health behaviors and neurobiological processes of individuals. Ryff et al. (2004) proposed that the first step in examining the protective properties of psychological wellbeing is to examine its correlation with neurobiology. They analyzed data from 135 elderly women (aged 61 to 91 years), correlated 6 dimensions of psychological wellbeing with different biomarkers (i.e., cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, immune, and sleep), and found that elderly women with higher levels of personal growth and purpose in life have better neuroendocrine regulation and maintain lower salivary cortisol levels throughout the day compared with their counterparts. Elderly women with higher purpose in life also have lower inflammation markers and less inflammation. Meanwhile, those with higher environmental mastery, more positive relationships, and higher self-acceptance have lower glycosylated hemoglobin, which is a marker for diabetes. Personal growth and purpose in life also show significant and positive relationships with HDL cholesterol. Elderly women with a higher level of environmental mastery and positive relationships have longer periods of rapid eye movement sleep (a critical stage in sleep wherein one’s eyes move involuntarily and rapidly) and enter the rapid eye movement sleep phase faster than women in other age groups. Moreover, elderly women with higher levels of purpose in life make less body movements during sleep, hence indicating a better sleep quality. A longitudinal study further confirmed the correlation between psychological wellbeing and biological factors. Radler et al. (2018) used MIDUS data from the past 9 to 10 years to understand whether the longitudinal distribution of mental health can predict blood lipid levels. Their sample comprised 1,054 participants aged between 34 and 84 years, of which 55% were female. After controlling for the effects of demographic factors, health behaviors, medication, and insulin resistance, they found that adults with higher environmental control and self-acceptance also have significantly higher high-density lipid cholesterol. Although they did not find any association between wellbeing and low density lipid cholesterol, they obtain longitudinal evidence confirming that psychological wellbeing may positively influence health and longevity. Internal trait factors are another category of factors related to psychological wellbeing. Before the introduction of the six-dimensional model of psychological wellbeing, scholars used the four dimensions of individual self-esteem, life satisfaction, depression, and hopelessness to measure personal psychological wellbeing.

36

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

An analysis of 91 black, 96 white, and 35 Asian college students revealed that both collective and individual self-esteem are associated with multiple dimensions of individual psychological wellbeing. Improving both types of self-esteem also facilitates the development of individual psychological wellbeing and contributes to reduced feelings of depression and hopelessness (Crocker et al., 1994). Meanwhile, after the introduction of the six-dimensional model, related studies have become more abundant and standardized. For example, Anglim and Grant (2016) calculated the coefficients reflecting the relationship between personality factors and psychological wellbeing among 337 participants (24% male an 76% female) by using the international personality item pool scale, which contains 30 dimensions, and Ryff’s scale of psychological wellbeing. They found that personality factors with neuroticism have the strongest association with wellbeing, followed by extraversion and conscientiousness. Although agreeableness and openness are significantly correlated with wellbeing, such correlation is less consistent and generally weak. Meanwhile, personal growth has a strong relationship with openness and a weak relationship with neuroticism. These findings may be explained by the fact that the items for personal growth include the individuals’ perception of their own growth, their belief that change is possible, and the value of change. Therefore, in addition to wellbeing, the measure of personal growth captures the tendency for growth and change to be positive. Autonomy emerges as the dimension of wellbeing with the weakest relationship with personality factors. However, autonomy has high correlation with openness and low correlation with agreeableness, which may be ascribed to the openness in personality measurement that can capture some characteristics of independent thought and to the fact that the autonomy dimension of psychological wellbeing involves some degree of independent thought. However, the autonomy dimension of psychological wellbeing focuses on the relative social conception of autonomy, and the correlation between these concepts may be reduced under the influence of the social environment. Positive relationships have the highest correlation with agreeableness and extraversion. Agreeableness and extraversion in personality indicate whether social relationships are valued, friendly, and gregarious. At the same time, psychological wellbeing includes judgments about the importance and formational skills of friendship. Purpose in life and conscientiousness are closely related concepts that reveal one’s ability to derive pleasure and satisfaction from long-term goal achievement. Self-acceptance and environmental mastery tend to show the same patterns as life satisfaction and are associated with neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness (Anglim & Grant, 2016). Gao and Sun (2009) administered Ryff’s scale of psychological wellbeing and the big five inventory among 178 college students and found that conscientiousness is significantly and negatively related to self-acceptance, purpose in life, and environmental mastery. This finding contradicts the results of a western study, which can be ascribed to the difference between the east and the west in their pursuit of personality. Moreover, Gao and Sun (2009) used students majoring in education as their respondents, who are known to be highly self-disciplined, restrained, and cautious. Therefore, the aforementioned inconsistency is deemed reasonable.

2.4 PERMA Model

37

Although subjective wellbeing (i.e., positive/negative affect theory and life satisfaction theory) has been explored before psychological wellbeing, the emotional immediacy, single totality, and empiricism of subjective wellbeing lead to defects in its measurement of wellbeing. Meanwhile, even though psychological wellbeing theory is compatible with emotional experience and individual growth and development, its theoretical construction and multidimensionality compensate for the conceptual and measurement limitations of subjective wellbeing (Zhang & Zuo, 2007), thereby providing a more comprehensive perspective and research direction for individual wellbeing research.

2.4 PERMA Model Traditional psychological research has been devoted to enhancing wellbeing to improve the mental health of individuals. Moreover, psychologists’ understanding of wellbeing has evolved along with the development of positive psychology. From the mental health perspective, wellbeing is considered a limited concept as it fails to disclose the multifaceted nature of human attentiveness and prosperity (Seligman, 2011). Wellbeing should have both subjective and objective components, and the gold standard for measuring wellbeing should be the degree of flourishing and prosperity in life rather than stopping at mental health. These arguments have resulted in the proposal of authentic happiness theory or wellbeing theory (Seligman, 2011). In wellbeing theory 1.0, Seligman (2002) explored the sources of happiness and claimed that happiness comprises three elements, namely, positive emotion, engagement, and meaning, which are more easily defined and measured than the concept itself. Positive emotion refers to the positive feelings of an individual and includes joy, gratitude, serenity, hope, pride, amusement, and awe (Fredrickson, 2009). A life based on positive emotion is called a “pleasant life.” Engagement refers to the complete immersion in activities that attract one to oneself, which lead to “flow,” a unique mental state where an individual devotes all his/her attention to the achievement of his/her goals. The ego falls away, and time flies (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Flow can also be described as a state of total immersion in what a person is doing and is characterized by total concentration and a unity of knowledge and action (Peng, 2016). A life based on engagement is called an “engaged life.” Meaning refers to the meaning and purpose of life, both of which are yearned for by an individual. A life based on this element is called a “meaningful life” (Seligman, 2011). Seligman (2011) argued that by pursuing these three elements, individuals can experience happiness. Moreover, people who perform poorly in any of these three elements can still feel happy if they develop traits in other areas. For example, people with low levels of positive emotion can achieve happiness by actively participating in various activities or by pursuing a sense of meaning in their lives. Individuals can also achieve a sense of happiness by cultivating and developing the 6 virtues of wisdom, courage, humanity, temperance, transcendence, and justice and the 24 strengths of creativity, curiosity, judgment, love of learning, perspective, bravery, honesty, zest,

38

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

prudence, love, kindness, social intelligence, forgiveness, humility, self-regulation, appreciation of beauty, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality, teamwork, fairness, leadership, and perseverance (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman, 2002). Wellbeing theory 1.0 can be summarized as a dimension of “feeling good,” with all its three elements ultimately aimed toward making oneself feel at his/her best. However, Seligman (2011) also identified three major shortcomings in wellbeing theory 1.0. First, this theory links happiness with pleasure, but its concept and definition focus on life satisfaction, which does not go beyond traditional psychological research. Second, its measurement focuses on life satisfaction and takes positive emotion as the criterion, but happiness is not the only emotion. Third, positive emotion, engagement, and meaning are the only elements of wellbeing theory 1.0, hence preventing this theory from summarizing all ultimate pursuits of individuals. After a literature review and theoretical reflection, Seligman (2011) argued that happiness should not only pertain to “happiness” but also to “wellbeing,” whose ultimate goal is to achieve a “full and flourishing life”. Flourishing is a critical concept in positive psychology that can be described as a state that positive psychology hopes to help individuals achieve. Specifically, flourishing refers to the ability of individuals to live in a positive and happy environment through their initiative adaptation and to grow positively amid difficulties (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Seligman (2011) also defined flourishing as an important index of wellbeing. Therefore, flourishing can be regarded as the core of positive psychology. However, flourishing is not only the core, target state, and measure of positive psychology but is also an important component in the development of positive psychology and wellbeing theory. The flourishing scale developed by Diener et al. (2010) has been widely used in the academic community as a practical measurement of flourishing. Each item in this scale evaluates different human functioning characteristics in various countries and regions across the world (Diener et al., 2010; Esch et al., 2013; Hone et al., 2014; Silva & Caetano, 2013; Sumi, 2014; Tang et al., 2014). Tang et al. (2014) developed an 8-item Chinese version of the flourishing scale to measure mental health from the psychological wellbeing perspective and to assess the degree of realization of human potential. Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scale was administered among 433 participants from 17 communities in southwest China, and results showed good internal consistency, robust one-factor structure, and strong convergent, discriminant, and incremental validities, thereby confirming that the short version of the flourishing scale is suitable for assessing the mental health status of Chinese populations. Gokcen et al. (2012) administered an open-ended questionnaire survey among 222 undergraduates at two UK universities to measure their understanding of flourishing at university and to compare the characteristics of flourishing and non-flourishing students. By applying an inductive approach in their data analysis, they found that flourishing is primarily constructed as self-actualization (including personal growth and potential realization), success, and positive affect. At the same time, flourishing at university is characterized by academic and social engagements. Flourishing students engage in academic and social activities, are committed to their learning, and are personal growth oriented in their learning and living. By contrast, non-flourishing

2.4 PERMA Model

39

students demonstrate a general sense of absence, indifference to academic work, lazy or isolated attitudes, and lack of effort. Prizmi´c-Larsen et al. (2020) examined the relationship between the frequency and importance of positive and negative life events and emotional wellbeing in a sample of 5,031 participants and the moderating role of flourishing in the above processes. They found that flourishing has a moderating influence on the importance of positive and negative events and on their negative effects. In other words, people with higher flourishing are less likely to be disturbed by external events that reduce their wellbeing. In a study of 259 Turkish university students, Uysal (2015) explored whether flourishing mediates the relationship between social competence and psychological vulnerability and revealed a positive relationship between social competence and flourishing. Flourishing also significantly moderates the relationship between social competence and psychological vulnerability, thereby suggesting that flourishing plays a protective role against psychological vulnerability. Seligman (2011) then expanded wellbeing theory 1.0 into wellbeing theory 2.0. Wellbeing theory 2.0 unfolds under the perspectives of abundance and prosperity and defines and measures the exclusive ultimate pursuit of the majority, which can be defined as an element of wellbeing. The ultimate human pursuit or wellbeing contains five elements, namely, positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment, which are collectively known as PERMA. Positive emotion serves as the basis of wellbeing theory 1.0 and the cornerstone of wellbeing theory 2.0. However, unlike PA in wellbeing theory 1.0, the positive emotion in wellbeing theory 2.0 includes both life satisfaction and positive feelings. Life satisfaction is reduced to a factor included in positive emotion. Positive emotion in wellbeing theory 2.0 includes all common elements of subjective wellbeing. Engagement remains an element of wellbeing theory 2.0 whose measurement relies on individual subjective reports in the form of self-rated questions, such as “Are you fully immersed in your work?” However, engagement is sometimes at odds with positive emotion because when people reach a state of flow, they are usually dedicated. Therefore, positive emotion can be immediate, whereas engagement can be retrospective. Meaning is retained as the third element of wellbeing and contains the connotations of self-realization and self-transcendence. In the self-reported form, meaning is theoretically subjective, but the meaning obtained by objective judgment from a historical and logical perspective may not be consistent with the meaning obtained by subjective judgment. Accomplishment is a new element of wellbeing that indicates the highest possible level of accomplishment, success, or proficiency in a given domain (Ericsson, 2002). Accomplishment is an element worthy of speculation because according to the inclusion criteria, the accomplishment of a theory is not a mean and derivative of the pursuit of pleasure or meaning but is an accomplishment or achievement in itself. Even if this accomplishment does not lead to positive emotions, engagement, meaning, and relationships, it is also the pursuit of an individual in a state of freedom without compulsion. However, most accomplishments are accompanied by positive emotion and meaning. Therefore, Seligman (2011) argued that there is hardly a life in which only the accomplishment element exists. Positive interpersonal relationships lead to a sense of social support and the

40

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

perception of being cared for, loved, respected, and valued; therefore, these relationships are considered among the determinants of wellbeing (Reis & Gable, 2003). However, interpersonal distress can reduce wellbeing (Zhang et al., 2007). In this case, relationships become an indispensable contributor to the pursuit of wellbeing. Some social surveys have supported the wellbeing elements of the PERMA framework. For instance, the 2006 European social survey’s personal and social wellbeing module examined the individual and social wellbeing of approximately 43,000 adults aged 16 and older in 23 European Union countries and found that wellbeing can be divided into several components, including positive emotion, engagement, resilience, optimism, competence, emotional stability, positive relationships, meaning, self-esteem, and vitality (Huppert & So, 2013). Huppert and So (2013) then defined flourishing based on the three elements of wellbeing theory 1.0 (i.e., positive emotion, engagement, and meaning) and any of the four other aspects (any combination of self-esteem, resilience, positive relationships, and optimism) that are highly supported by the British to measure various levels of flourishing in Europe. They found that individuals in Denmark and Northern Europe have the highest levels of flourishing (33%), while individuals in Russia and Eastern Europe have the lowest levels of flourishing (6%). Higher levels of flourishing are associated with marriage and higher levels of education, income, and health. Therefore, scholars propose that a single life satisfaction measure is insufficient to assess multidimensional wellbeing (Forgeard et al., 2011). One of the longest-running studies on social and emotional development in Australia (Australian Temperament Project, est. 1983, N = 2,443), which began in 1983, followed a large representative community sample from infancy to 27–28 years of age. While analyzing the positive mental health of 999 adolescents aged 15–16 years in the total sample, the study revealed that the underlying factors of positive mental health comprise six observed variables, namely, emotional wellbeing, engagement, social skills for healthy relationships, purpose, accomplishment, and behaviors promoting physical health, and that the model fit indicators show excellent consistency with the PERMA model for the self-reported dimensions of positive mental health except for the objective dimension of behaviors that promote physical health (O’Connor et al., 2017). Results of qualitative interviews and empirical studies also support the PERMA framework of wellbeing. For example, in an interview conducted at two educational institutions in the UAE that highlights the UAE residents’ strategies and conceptualizations of happiness, 54 respondents were asked, “What does happiness mean to you?” and “What makes you happy?” The responses to these two questions were implemented inductively and deductively and showed that the respondents’ description of happiness is consistent with the PERMA model path (D’raven & Pasha-Zaidi, 2016). Kern et al. (2015) surveyed 516 male students in grades 8 to 11 (aged 13 to 18 years) at St. Peter’s College in Adelaide, Australia, and their findings supported the four wellbeing factors in the PERMA model, namely, positive emotion (13 items, reliability = 0.92), engagement (6 items, reliability = 0.70), relationships (9 items, reliability = 0.82), and accomplishment (6 items, reliability = 0.86). The items in the dimension of meaning (“I feel that my life has a purpose” and “I generally feel that what I do in my life is valuable and worthwhile”) are included in the factor of

2.4 PERMA Model

41

positive relationships because these two items alone may not be strong enough to emerge as a separate factor. Alternatively, these items reflect how meaning emerges during adolescence, such as how adolescents derive meaning from their interactions with others. However, a longitudinal follow-up study of 134 college students over 4 years from 2006 to 2009 and a 2013 cross-sectional survey of 831 participants’ wellbeing both showed that 5 dimensions can effectively measure wellbeing, namely, positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. The PERMA model shows a good fit and becomes increasingly stable from sophomore to senior year. In other words, the individual differences in PERMA scores grow more stable over time (Coffey et al., 2016). Gander et al. (2016) collected data from three samples and ultimately provided evidence supporting the structural validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and 1-, 3-, and 6-month repeated test reliability of the PERMA model, thereby confirming its psychometric properties. They also showed that positive interpersonal relationships and accomplishments could be developed through intervention. In addition to explorations similar to previous psychological studies that focus on theory construction and empirical analysis, positive psychology focuses on applying theories in real-life situations and enhancing individuals’ wellbeing. On the basis of the PERMA model, Seligman et al. (2011) developed several intervention exercises for enhancing wellbeing that aim to use individual strengths to gain more positive emotions, meaning, engagement, accomplishment, and relationships, thereby going beyond unidimensional life satisfaction and achieving a thriving life (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman, 2011; Seligman et al., 2005). In an online positive psychology intervention, 1,624 adults aged 18 to 78 years were randomly assigned to 7 groups with different conditions. The participants were asked to write down three things related to one of the five elements of the PERMA theory of wellbeing (groups 1 to 5), things related to all five elements (group 6), or things related to early childhood memories (placebo control group). The participants’ levels of wellbeing and depression were assessed before and 1, 3, and 6 months after the intervention. All interventions have been proven effective in improving wellbeing and alleviating most depressive symptoms and are particularly effective for those individuals with moderate levels of wellbeing. Therefore, interventions based on happiness, engagement, meaning, positive relationships, and accomplishment can effectively promote wellbeing and relieve depressive symptoms, whereas positive psychology interventions are most effective for those individuals with moderate levels of wellbeing (Gander et al., 2016). In China, Gu et al. (2017) randomized 53 patients hospitalized with AIDS into a control group (n = 26) and an intervention group (n = 27). The patients in the control group were given eight health literacy interviews, whereas those in the intervention group attended eight consecutive positive psychology interviews based on the PERMA model of wellbeing and were asked to complete the relevant scales. Despite showing no significant improvements in their physiological and environmental fields of quality of life, the scores of the intervention group for positive emotions and the other dimensions of quality of life are significantly higher than those of the control group.

42

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

To help people measure, understand, and improve their wellbeing and develop their wellbeing plans, Seligman et al. (2011) built the PERMA survey website (www.PERMAHSurvey.com). Latest advancements in positive psychology research on wellbeing can also be found on the Authentic Happiness website of the University of Pennsylvania (www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/). Many of the measuring tools related to positive psychology and wellbeing enhancement interventions can be found in the questionnaire center (www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/testce nter).

2.5 Summary According to Seligman (2002) and Jørgensen and Nafstad (2012), living a good life is a dynamic progression from simple to complex and then to optimal and can be divided into “pleasant,” “good,” “meaningful,” and “full” lives. The theoretical development of wellbeing also reflects this change in hierarchy. Happiness was initially thought to result from experiencing more positive emotions (e.g., living a pleasant, happy, and joyful life) and less negative emotions. Given the short-term nature of emotional evaluations, researchers have started to add a cognitive dimension in their assessments and consider wellbeing an evaluation of life that involves an individual’s overall feeling about his/her life over time. After confirming that both emotions and cognition are dimensions of wellbeing, positive emotion and life satisfaction evaluation have been integrated and extended to the higher-level needs (i.e., needs for self-actualization) of individuals. Therefore, positive emotion and life satisfaction evaluation focus on an individual’s internal search for a state of meaningful realization and a flourishing life. A happy life enhances one’s sense of meaning in life, which would help him/her realize his/her own personal values and the meaning of his/her life. Wellbeing theory clearly outlines the development trends in humans’ pursuit of wellbeing. Empirical studies also confirm the need and validity of integration trends. Keyes et al. (2002) found that subjective wellbeing and psychological wellbeing are distinct yet interrelated. By using data from 3,032 Americans aged 25 to 74 years, they found that optimal wellbeing (high subjective and psychological wellbeing) is positively associated with age, education, extraversion, and conscientiousness in a person’s personality traits but is negatively associated with neuroticism in his/her personality traits. In the Chinese cultural context, Wan et al. (2010) used the subjective wellbeing scale to validate Keyes et al.’s contention that subjective and psychological wellbeing are independent yet interrelated. They found that environmental mastery can help alleviate negative emotions and that self-acceptance positively influences both positive emotions and life satisfaction. Chen and Li (2014) investigated the subjective, psychological, and social wellbeing of 3,192 urban residents of different ages to test the integrated model of wellbeing and found that subjective, psychological, and social wellbeing are significantly and positively correlated with one another. The integrated model of wellbeing also shows good reliability across different age

References

43

and gender groups. Therefore, the study of sense of gain should be in line with wellbeing and should pay attention to the integration of different levels to obtain a more comprehensive theoretical and operational model. Therefore, the theoretical content of sense of gain and the reflected individual social experience should be as comprehensive and accurate as possible. Sense of gain has gradually transformed from a single to a multi-dimensional concept. For example, Zhao (2018) defined sense of gain as a feeling of needs satisfaction, which is a subjective psychological feeling based on a certain “gain.” Qiu et al. (2019) defined sense of gain as a positive psychological experience and the result of subjective satisfaction based on gaining objective materials and improving living conditions. According to Zhang (2016), sense of gain is a combination of the objective “gain” and the subjective “feeling.” In general, the definition of sense of gain is always based on one or more existing concepts, such as wellbeing, life satisfaction, meaning, and flourishing. Scholars also propose that sense of gain is inclined toward a subjective feeling and satisfaction. However, sense of gain based on psychological theory ignores the interaction between humans and their social environment and proposes that sense of gain should not only refer to the subjective feeling and satisfaction of individuals about their lives but should also reflect the feelings of individuals in a specific social environment. Therefore, to accurately interpret the rich and comprehensive connotation of sense of gain and to construct a corresponding index system, individuals should be placed in an objective social environment where they can think about their gains at multiple levels. Doing so requires the introduction of a sociological vision. The theoretical discussion from the sociological perspective that will be presented in the next chapter aims to compensate for the weaknesses of this chapter, which focused too much on the internal psychology of individuals and ignored the external environmental factors.

References Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ Perceptions of Life Quality. Plenum. Anglim, J., & Grant, S. (2016). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over the Big 5. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9583-7 Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2 Carley, M. J. (1979). Social theory and models in social indicator research. International Journal of Social Economics, 6(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb017467 Chen, S., & Le, G. (2001). A research on urban residents’ life satisfaction and its related factors. Journal of Psychological Science, (06), 664–666+765. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.16716981.2001.06.007

44

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

Chen, Z., & Li, Q. (2014). Test the integrated model of well-being in different ages and gender. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(1), 78–83. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.10053611.2014.01.031 Coffey, J. K., Wray-Lake, L., Mashek, D., & Branand, B. (2016). A multi-study examination of wellbeing theory in college and community samples. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9590-8 Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2011). The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752934 Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205007 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books. D’raven, L. L., & Pasha-Zaidi, N. (2016). Using the PERMA model in the United Arab Emirates. Social Indicators Research, 125(3), 905–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0866-0 Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough: Lessons from subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(3), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1996.0027 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1998). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions(2nd Ed). Guilford. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y Duan, J., & Li, X. (2007). Research on physical activity and psychological well-being. Journal of Beijing Sport University, (09), 1206–1208. https://doi.org/10.19582/j.cnki.11-3785/g8.2007. 09.019 Dulaney, E. S., Graupmann, V., Grant, K. E., Adam, E. K., & Chen, E. (2018). Taking on the stress-depression link: Meaning as a resource in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 65, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.02.011 Ebesutani, C., Regan, J., Smith, A., Reise, S., Higa-McMillan, C., & Chorpita, B. F. (2012). The 10-item positive and negative affect schedule for children, child and parent shortened versions: Application of item response theory for more efficient assessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9273-2 Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 21–55). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Esch, T., Jose, G., Gimpel, C., von Scheidt, C., & Michalsen, A. (2013). Die flourishing scale (FS) von diener et al. liegt jetzt in einer autorisierten deutschen fassung (FS-D) vor: Einsatz bei einer mind-body-medizinischen fragestellung. Complementary Medicine Research, 20(4), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1159/000354414 Feng, J. (1992). Western happiness theory. Jilin People’s Press. Fernandes, H. M., Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., & Teixeira, C. M. (2010). Preliminary analysis of the psychometric properties of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being in portuguese adolescents. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1017/S11387416000 02675 Forgeard, M. J., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1). https://doi.org/ 10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15 Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to embrace the hidden strengths of positive emotions, overcome negativity and thrive. InterAction, 1(1), 89.

References

45

Gamble, A., & Gärling, T. (2012). The relationships between life satisfaction, happiness, and current mood. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9248-8 Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2016). Positive psychology interventions addressing pleasure, engagement, meaning, positive relationships, and accomplishment increase well-being and ameliorate depressive symptoms: A randomized, placebo-controlled online study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 686. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00686 Gao, S., & Sun, J. (2009). A study on the correlation between personality traits and psychological well-being of college students. Journal of Capital Normal University(Social Sciences Edition) (S4), 63–67. Gao, X., & Xia, L. (2014). A related research of interpersonal independence, positive mood state and negative mood state. Health Medicine Research and Practice, 11(02), 25–27. Gencoz, T. (2000). Positive and negative affect schedule: A study of validity and reliability. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15(46), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01551-5 Gokcen, N., Hefferon, K., & Attree, E. (2012). University students’ constructions of “flourishing” in British higher education: An inductive content analysis. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i1.1 Greenleaf, C., Petrie, T. A., & Martin, S. B. (2014). Relationship of weight-based teasing and adolescents’ psychological well-being and physical health. Journal of School Health, 84(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12118 Gu, J., Fan, X., Gao, Y., & Zeng, Y. (2017). Impacts of a well-being PERMA mode on emotion and quality of life of hospitalized AIDS patients. Journal of Nursing Science, 32(19), 89–92. Hamilton, N. A., Nelson, C. A., Stevens, N., & Kitzman, H. (2007). Sleep and psychological wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9030-1 Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88–110. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_1 Hone, L., Jarden, A., & Schofield, G. (2014). Psychometric properties of the flourishing scale in a New Zealand sample. Social Indicators Research, 119(2), 1031–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-013-0501-x Huang, D., & Wu, M. (2017). Sense of gain to ideological and political education: Connotation, composition and formation mechanism. Studies in Ideological Education, (06), 28–32. CNKI:SUN:SIXI.0.2017-06-006. Huebner, E. S. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for children. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590. 6.2.149 Huppert, F. A., Abbott, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Richards, M., & Kuh, D. (2010). Parental practices predict psychological well-being in midlife: Life-course associations among women in the 1946 British birth cohort. Psychological Medicine, 40(9), 1507–1518. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00332 91709991978 Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7 Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. Basic Books. Jiang, H., Liu, H., Miao, M., & Gan, Y. (2015). Daily hassles and psychological adjustment among freshmen: The moderating effect of meaning in life. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(01), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2015.01.014 Jørgensen, I. S., & Nafstad, H. E. (2012). Positive psychology: Historical, philosophical, and epistemological perspectives. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive Psychology in Practice. John Wiley & Sons. Kafka, G. J., & Kozma, A. (2002). The construct validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological WellBeing (SPWB) and their relationship to measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014451725204

46

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage. Kern, M., Waters, L., Adler, A., & White, M. (2015). A multifaceted approach to measuring wellbeing in students: Application of the PERMA framework. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936962 Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007 Kitamura, T., Kishida, Y., Gatayama, R., Matsuoka, T., Miura, S., & Yamabe, K. (2004). Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Inventory: Factorial structure and life history correlates among Japanese university students. Psychological Reports, 94(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0. 94.1.83-103 Kubovy, M. (1999). On the pleasures of the mind. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 134–154). Russell Sage Foundation. Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 81(4), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1037//00223514.81.4.684 Li, F. (2007). Positive experience and mental health. Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education, 26(05), 56–58. Li, R. H. (2014). Reliability and validity of a shorter Chinese version for Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale. Health Education Journal, 73(4), 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/001789 6913485743 Li, X., & Hu, H. (2018). Viewing “sense of gain” from Marx’s justice. Social Sciences Journal of Universities in Shanxi, 30(04), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.16396/j.cnki.sxgxskxb.2018.04.003 Li, X., & Lu, Q. (2010). Relationship between life meaning feeling and mental health status of college freshmen. China Journal of Health Psychology, 18(10), 1232–1235. https://doi.org/10. 13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2010.10.037 Li, Y., He, W., & Zhang, X. (2014). The relationship between parenting style, coping style, index of well-being and life of meaning of undergraduates. China Journal of Health Psychology, 22(11), 1683–1685. Liu, H., Hu, Z., & Peng, D. (2008). The relationship of positive and negative emotion: Theories and researches. Advances in Psychological Science, 02, 295–301. Liu, J. (2007). Advances in domestic research on adolescent life satisfaction. Science of Social Psychology, Z2, 43–47. Miao, Y. (2003). Happiness in psychology filed—Research into the theory and measurement of well-being. [Doctoral dissertation, Nanjing Normal University]. CNKI. https://kns.cnki.net/ kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CDFD&dbname=CDFD9908&filename=2003070557.nh&uni platform=NZKPT&v=jXchEC6l1OAoUKd2kg8gUgT73X6piLParLyVbm0ppP19HDyIFnD UPDYge9SWX5sJ O’Connor, M., Sanson, A. V., Toumbourou, J. W., Norrish, J., & Olsson, C. A. (2017). Does positive mental health in adolescence longitudinally predict healthy transitions in young adulthood? Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(1), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9723-3 Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301 Peng, K. P. (2016). My heart can be seen: The surging stream of blessings. Tsinghua University Press. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press. Plach, S. K., Heidrich, S. M., & Waite, R. M. (2003). Relationship of social role quality to psychological well-being in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Research in Nursing & Health, 26(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.10087

References

47

Prizmi´c-Larsen, Z., Kaliterna-Lipovˇcan, L., Larsen, R., Brkljaˇci´c, T., & Brajša-Žganec, A. (2020). The role of flourishing in relationship between positive and negative life events and affective well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(5), 1413–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11 482-019-09743-y Qiu, L., Zheng, X., & Wang, Y. (2008). Revision of the positive affect and negative affect scale. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(03), 249–254+268. Qiu, W., Yuan, W., & Guan, W. (2019). Rural residents’ livelihood security sense of gain in rural revitalization: Influencing factors, level measurement and optimization. Finance & Economics, 5, 81–90. Radler, B. T., Rigotti, A., & Ryff, C. D. (2018). Persistently high psychological well-being predicts better HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels: Findings from the midlife in the U.S. (MIDUS) longitudinal study. Lipids in Health and Disease, 17(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-0170646-8 Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2003). Toward a positive psychology of relationships. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived, pp. 129–159. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10594-006 Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.3 Ruth, J. A., Brunel, F. F., & Otnes, C. C. (2002). Linking thoughts to feelings: Investigating cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions in a mixed-emotions context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079459994317 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 Ryff, C. D. (1989a). Beyond ponce de leon and life satisfaction: New directions in quest of successful ageing. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 016502548901200102 Ryff, C. D. (1989b). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.57.6.1069 Ryff, C. D. (2018). Well-Being with soul: Science in pursuit of human potential. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699836 Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing: A positive health agenda for the new millennium. Personality Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327 957PSPR0401_4 Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-006-9019-0 Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Dienberg Love, G. (2004). Positive health: Connecting well-being with biology. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1383–1394. https:// doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1521 Schnell, T., & Becker, P. (2006). Personality and meaning in life. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.030 Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. Simon and Schuster. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. Free Press. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of mihaly csikszentmihalyi, pp. 279–298. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94017-9088-8_18

48

2 Psychological Basis of Sense of Gain

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066x.60.5.410 Shen, Q., & Jiang, S. (2013). Life meaning and well-being in adolescents. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 27(08), 634–640. Silva, A. J., & Caetano, A. (2013). Validation of the flourishing scale and scale of positive and negative experience in portugal. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 469–478. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11205-011-9938-y Song, B., Li, Y., Dong, H. Y., Fang, P., & Wang, Y. (2015). Achievement motivation as predictors of psychological well-being in college students. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(01), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2015.01.026 Springer, K. W., & Hauser, R. M. (2006). An assessment of the construct validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being: Method, mode, and measurement effects. Social Science Research, 35(4), 1080–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.07.004 Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80 Sumi, K. (2014). Reliability and validity of Japanese versions of the Flourishing Scale and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience. Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 601–615. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11205-013-0432-6 Tang, X., Duan, W., Wang, Z., & Liu, T. (2014). Psychometric evaluation of the simplified Chinese version of Flourishing Scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(5), 591–599. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1049731514557832 Telfer, E. (1980). Happiness. Martin’s Press. Terraciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Factorial and construct validity of the Italian positive and negative affect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.2.131 Tian, L., & Liu, W. (2005). Test of the Chinese version of the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 05, 11–13. Tian, L., Zhang, J., & Huebner, E. S. (2015). Preliminary validation of the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS) among Chinese elementary school students. Child Indicators Research, 8(4), 907–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9295-x Triadó, C., Villar, F., Solé, C., & Celdrán, M. (2007). Construct validity of Ryff’s Scale of Psychological Well-Being in Spanish older adults. Psychological Reports, 100(3), 1151–1164. https:// doi.org/10.2466/pr0.100.4.1151-1164 Uysal, R. (2015). Social competence and psychological vulnerability: The mediating role of flourishing. Psychological Reports, 117(2), 554–565. https://doi.org/10.2466/21.PR0.117c18z2 Van Tongeren, D. R., & Green, J. D. (2010). Combating meaninglessness: On the automatic defense of meaning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10), 1372–1384. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0146167210383043 Wan, Y., Zheng, X., & Yu, X. (2010). SWB & PWB: The integration of two well-being research orientation. Studies of Psychological and Behavior, 08(3), 190–194. Wang, S. (2018). Structure of gain and prioritization of gain for the poor and vulnerable. China Social Work, 13, 62. Wang, X., & Wang, X. (1999). Rating scales for mental health, second edition. China Mental Health Journal. Waterman, A. S. (1990a). The relevance of Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia for the psychological study of happiness. Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 10(1), 39–44. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0091489 Waterman, A. S. (1990b). Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. The Journal of Mind Behavior, 47–73.

References

49

Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Xing, Z., & Niu, Q. (2017). Sense of gain: A new benchmark for shared development under the perspective of supply and demand. Theory Journal, (05), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.14110/j. cnki.cn-37-1059/d.2017.05.015 Xu, C., Wan, M., & Sun, J. (2015). A study of mediating variables between Christian religiosity and psychological well-being. The World Religious Cultures, 01, 95–99. Xu, S., Wu, Z., Wu, Z., Sun, C., & Zhang, Y. (2003). Age differences of psychological well-being of Chinese adults. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 03, 167–171. Yang, L., Dong, G., & Jin, X. (2007). Brain reaction difference of positive and negative emotions. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 5(03), 224–228. Yao, B., Shi, S., & Fang, S. (2011). A review on the study of life satisfaction. Academics, (08), 218–227+289. Yuan, L., & Zhang, R. (2007). A research on the relationships among explanatory style, dispositional optimism and psychological well-being. Psychological Development and Education, 02, 111– 115. Zeng, W. (2017). “To the end of the reform” pen talk of the fifth effectively enhance the people’s sense of gain. Chongqing Social Sciences, (8), 14–15. https://doi.org/10.19631/j.cnki.css.2017. 08.021 Zhang, L., Zheng, X., Yan, B., Wen, J., & Shi, Y. (2007). Researches on the relationship between interpersonal disturbances and subjective well-being in college students. Psychological Development and Education, 23(2), 116–121. Zhang, L., & Zuo, B. (2007). Eudaimonic well-being: A review on psychological well-being. Advances in Psychological Science, 01, 134–139. Zhang, P. (2016). The theoretical connotation and contemporary value of “sense of gain”. Journal of Henan Polytechnic University (Social Sciences), 17(04), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.16698/j. hpu(social.sciences).1673-9779.2016.04.002 Zhang, Y., & Liu, C. (2010). Aristotle’s quick optimism and its modern life implications—Rereading The Nicomachean Ethics. Social Sciences in Guangdong, 02, 67–72. Zhao, N., Ma, M., & Xin, Z. (2017). Mental mechanism and the influencing factors of meaning in life. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(06), 1003–1011. Zhao, W. (2018). Research on the people’s sense of gain from the perspective of consumption. Journal of Beijing University of Technology (social Sciences Edition), 18(04), 1–7. https://doi. org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-0398.2018.04.002 Zhu, L., & Meng, N. (2017). The relationship between life satisfaction and subjective well-being of migrant children. Western China Quality Education, 3(05), 198–199. https://doi.org/10.16681/j. cnki.wcqe.201705152

Chapter 3

Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

The previous chapter discussed the possible foundations of theory of sense of gain, namely, wellbeing-related affect, life satisfaction, psychological wellbeing, and the PERMA model, from a psychological perspective. From a sociological perspective, some scholars pointed out that sense of gain is an evaluative state that can be produced by comparison and changes in living conditions. This supposedly positive state is a combination of “gain” and “sense,” with the premise of “gain” rather than “loss” (Huang & Wu, 2017). Some scholars added that the imbalance between the structure of actual gain and multilevel needs can lead to partial alienation as indicated by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Therefore, sense of gain becomes relative deprivation, which refers to the perception and feeling of being at a disadvantageous position or deprived of benefits in comparison with a reference group (Walker & Smith, 2002). Huang et al. (2017) found that the effect of sense of gain on income follows the law of diminishing marginal utility, thereby indicating a real-life dilemma wherein sense of gain may not be consistent with the concept of “gain.” Therefore, the relationship between “gain” and sense of gain may not be a single arrow. Even if their objective realities are the same, the choices of different reference groups will produce very different feelings of “gain.” Specifically, downward comparisons tend to produce feelings of relative satisfaction and sense of gain, whereas upward comparisons may produce feelings of relative deprivation (Guo, 2001). Sense of gain and relative deprivation are essentially in a coupling relationship that is driven by the same antecedent variables. However, due to different cognitive frameworks, the objective gain is partially alienated from sense of gain that relates to relative deprivation (Huang et al., 2017). In retrospect, the theoretical constructions of relative deprivation have shifted from horizontal to vertical comparisons, from division to synthesis, and from individual to intergroup. The development path of relative deprivation is inevitably structurally linked to the future development of the theoretical framework of sense of gain. Therefore, analyzing the theoretical framework of relative deprivation can provide a reference for the construction of the theoretical framework of sense of gain. This chapter focuses on the sociological perspectives of quality of life theory, relative deprivation theory, and social representation theory related to sense of gain © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Duan and Y. Li, Huodegan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4_3

51

52

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

and systematically reviews the development orientation, conceptual connotation, measurement methods, and empirical studies of each representative theory to further consolidate the theoretical foundation of sense of gain.

3.1 Quality of Life Theory Quality of life in Chinese can be translated to 生活质量 and 生命质量. The International Society for Quality of Life Studies (ISQLS) (2019) argued that quality of life studies are interdisciplinary works that focus on the improvement of quality of life in the fields of sociology, psychology, economics, health, philosophy, arts, environment, management, and political science. These studies are concerned with the wellbeing of individuals, societies, and nations. Therefore, quality of life studies can adopt either a micro or macro perspective (e.g., individuals, households, population sectors, organizations, communities, industries, countries, environments, regions, or the broader global world) to explore quality of life indicators, such as wellbeing, relationships between objective and subjective life, and subjective perceptions of objective life. These studies focus on specific life domains including but not limited to personal health, work, marriage, family, community, and overall wellbeing (e.g., overall satisfaction with life). ISQLS (2019) added that quality of life includes multiple aspects of people’s lives, including health, material comforts, personal safety, relationships, learning, creative expression, opportunities to help and encourage others, participation in public affairs, and socialization and leisure. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (2019) defined quality of life as “an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and concerning their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns.” The above definitions show that quality of life studies are all based not on a single “person” but on “people in society.” These studies also further explore the social environment and social systems. As described in the previous chapter, the construction and measurement of wellbeing have evolved to include three reference standards for individuals, others, and the social environment. Wellbeing is an essential index in quality of life studies. Individuals’ evaluation of their social quality of life is gradually considered the core connotation of social wellbeing (Liu & Wang, 2018). Meanwhile, social wellbeing is viewed as the product of an individual’s subjective evaluation of the quality of relationships between himself/herself and others and between the collective and society (Keyes, 1998). Scholars have also proposed operational definitions of quality of life based on social wellbeing. First, social integration is manifested by individuals’ perception that they are part of a society and their feelings of belongingness to their communities and societies. Social integration arises when individuals receive support from a group and share their social welfare with others. Second, social acceptance is manifested by individuals’ positive trusting attitudes and perceptions of others, such as believing that others are kind and hardworking or are able to get along with others. Third, social contribution is manifested by individuals’ belief that they are

3.1 Quality of Life Theory

53

important to society, that their behavior can bring value to society, and that they are valued by society. Fourth, social actualization is manifested by individuals’ hope in the future of their society, their recognition of their society’s potential for development, and their belief that the world can improve for people like themselves. Fifth, social coherence is manifested by the individuals’ perception and awareness of the quality of society as discernable, sensible, and predictable (Keyes & Shapiro, 2004). Quality of life studies emerged in developed western countries in the 1950s and 1960s and are largely based on life indicators. Among the pioneers of quality of life research are Rostow, Campbell, Conways, and Roger. Rostow’s research on the correlation between the stages of economic growth and quality of life have inspired further research into quality of life in general. In MIDUS, Campbell, Conways, and Roger systematically investigated the quality of life of the population and hence played a crucial role in the development of this research area (Yi, 1998). Research on social wellbeing in China has also focused on quality of life. These studies proliferated especially after the reform and opening up and along with the improvement in people’s living standards and the country’s social statistical indicators (Yi, 1998). Quality of life refers to people’s assessment and description of their satisfaction, perceptions, and feelings about life. The quality of life index is an integral social indicator, and quality of life theory helps us understand people’s living conditions and their level of improvement, which in itself is a critical indicator of people’s wellbeing or lack of wellbeing in their social life (Lin, 2015). Each discipline has adopted a unique perspective in interpreting quality of life. For instance, social psychology regards quality of life as a subjective, mutual, and complex concept. For economics, improvement of quality of life is inseparable from the allocation and utilization of resources. Only by improving inputs, such as time, money, resources, and skills, can an individual achieve a better quality of life. From the perspective of ecology, quality of life is a factor in the whole ecological operation process that involves a constant process of change. People’s quality of life is influenced by their environment (Yi, 1998). The systemic quality of life model, which is based on systems theory, places individuals in a complex system with a large number of interacting characteristics and refers to any system (e.g., individuals, social organizations, and other abstract systems) that affects quality of life (Shye, 1985). This model posits that in its specific application, quality of life is defined by its individual functions. This model also specifies that each event related to the system has two constituent forms, namely, emergence and actualization. Under the presence of external and internal systems, 4 functional models have been derived, namely, the expressive model, the adaptive model, the integrative model, and the conservative model, which can be divided into 16 human functioning sub-systemic modes, namely, fulfillment of personal aspirations/self-actualization, manifesting body/material power and control, inter-personal influence/social status, cultural-value activity/educational influence, resources for recreation, biological compatibility/suitable resources, role fulfillment relations with social institutions, value compatibility with the environment, peace of mind/reducing anxiety/reducing tension and stress, balanced bodily

54

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

processes/health/feel fit, wholesome social disposition/intimate friendships, agreement among various values and beliefs held, stable personal/identity/self-confidence, stable body structure/security from bodily threats, stable social network/sense of social trust and belonging, and stability of belief structure/adherence to fundamental values. The good functioning of these 16 functions is an essential source of social wellbeing for individuals (Shye, 2010). With the development of quality of life studies and related disciplines, the extant quality of life measurements have gradually formed a complete system with a rigorous theoretical framework, accepted methodological tools, and a wide variety of applications. Quality of life is currently evaluated and measured using three approaches (Yi, 1998). The first is to understand quality of life in terms of subjective feelings while focusing on the evaluation of satisfaction in different life areas. The second is to understand quality of life in terms of objective conditions while focusing on the evaluation of individual economic, political, environmental, health, and educational indices. The third is to combine subjective feelings and objective conditions in evaluating an individual’s quality of life, and the choice of these indices can be adjusted according to the situation. Studies in the field of psychology have also explored quality of life indices. In the 1970s, American psychologist John Flanagan created and administered the quality of life scale (QOLS) among 3,000 people of all ages, races, and backgrounds. After obtaining key events from these respondents, Flanagan developed a 5-factor model comprising 15 items. QOLS measures five conceptual domains of quality of life, namely, material and physical wellbeing, relationships with other people, social community and civic activities, individual wellbeing and fulfillment, and recreation. QOLS demonstrated good reliability and validity. Each item in this scale is rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = “poor” to 7 = “satisfactory” and have been translated to at least 16 languages, including Arabic, Danish, Farsi, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Icelandic, Italian, Chinese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, and Turkish (Burckhardt & Anderson, 2003). The quality of life inventory (QOLI) was developed in China and validated by a sample of 4,800 households in 6 representative areas of Hunan Province that were selected via urban and rural stratified sampling. QOLI is mainly used to assess the quality of life of the general community population and is characterized by two dimensions, namely, subjective life satisfaction and objective life status, which need to be scored separately on a five-point scale, with higher scores indicating a better quality of life (Li et al., 1995). In addition to the quality of life questionnaires developed for general communities, researchers worldwide have also developed questionnaires for measuring the quality of life of specific groups. For example, the WHO quality of life team spent four years working with several cultural diversity centers to assess the quality of life of approximately 4,500 respondents in 15 cultural settings, which resulted in the development of the WHO quality of life questionnaire (WHOQOL-100) (Group) that contains 100 items covering 6 domains (i.e., physical, psychological, level of independence, social relationships, environment, and spirituality/religion/personal beliefs) and 24 aspects related to quality of life. To facilitate the dissemination of WHOQOL, in

3.1 Quality of Life Theory

55

1998, the WHO developed another questionnaire to assess overall quality of life and general health status. This questionnaire, called WHOQOL-BREF, has been simplified based on previous studies (Rahman, 1998) and measures 4 domains of quality of life, covers 24 dimensions that are considered essential in assessing quality of life across 15 cultures, and contains 4 general items for evaluating overall quality of life and health issues. Each of the 24 dimensions in this scale is measured using 4 items and can be grouped into the physical health, psychological, social relationships, and environment domains. The physical health domain includes pain and discomfort, sleep and rest, energy and fatigue, mobility, daily living activities, dependence on medicinal substances and medical aids, and work capacity. The psychological domain includes positive feelings, thinking, learning, memory, and concentration, self-esteem, bodily image, and appearance, negative feelings, and spirituality, religion, and personal beliefs. The social relationships domain includes personal relationships, social support, and sexual activity. The environment domain includes freedom, physical safety, and security, home environment, financial resources, health and social care, accessibility and quality, opportunities for acquiring new information and skills, participation in and opportunities for recreation/leisure activity, physical environment/pollution/noise/traffic/climate, and transport. The WHOQOL-BREF is most convenient to use in studies that require a brief assessment of quality of life and is particularly recommended for large-scale epidemiological studies and clinical trials. The Chinese version of WHOQOL was first administered in 1996 by the Sun Yatsen University Zhongshan School of Medicine and other institutions in Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai among 1,654 respondents who were selected via two-stage sampling. The Chinese WHOQOL contains 100 items rated on a 5-point scale, 25 factors, and 6 dimensions, namely, somatic functioning, psychological functioning, independence, social interaction, living environment, and life beliefs. The reverse scoring factors include pain, negative affect, and medical dependence, whereas the other factors are treated as positive scoring factors. A higher score indicates a better quality of life. The Chinese WHOQOL demonstrated good reliability and validity (Fang et al., 1999) and was gradually expanded to cover a specific group of patients with chronic diseases along with their caregivers. This scale was validated among a sample of 460 patients with different chronic diseases, such as hypertension and kidney disease. The Chinese WHOQOL also includes a self-administered quality of life scale, whose structural validity was evaluated using internal consistency coefficients, criterion-related validity, and PCA. This version of WHOQOL demonstrated good psychometric properties and can be applied to patients and caregivers with chronic diseases in China (Li et al., 2003). Other instruments for specific populations include the quality of life questionnaire for bronchial asthma patients, the quality of life questionnaire of for patients with gastric cancer, and the quality of life questionnaire for women (Bao et al., 2005; Hu & Hu, 2008; Xu et al., 2001). Some researchers used the WHOQOL along with the symptom checklist to measure the mental health status and quality of life of family members of patients with major depression (N = 322). Their analysis revealed that mental health is significantly and positively associated with quality of life and that

56

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

the mental health status and quality of life of family members of patients with major depression are significantly worse than those of the general population (Wu & Liu, 2018).

3.2 Relative Deprivation Theory In his investigation of US military personnel’s quality of life and psychological condition, the American sociologist Samuel Stouffer found that the most disgruntled people in the military are not the army soldiers who cannot be promoted but the Air Force soldiers who are being transferred and promoted quickly. These soldiers always regard their seniors with prominent status in the military as a comparison group and find themselves inferior to these figures in terms of power, income, prestige, and opportunities for promotion, thereby leaving them feeling deprived and unable to move to their ideal status. Therefore, these soldiers tend to develop subjective reactions, such as dissatisfaction, resentment, and anger. This phenomenon can also be explained by Confucius’s idea of “to worry more about the unequal distribution of wealth than poverty” (Analects of Confucius-The Sixteenth Psalm of Ji Shi), which suggests that individuals are dissatisfied not because they get less but because of their disparity with others. Stouffer introduced the concept of relative deprivation to explain the above phenomenon (Crosby, 1976). Relative deprivation is defined as an individual’s perception of being disadvantaged compared with a reference group (Walker & Smith, 2002), that is, one’s perception of being deprived of his/her benefits, thereby placing him/her at a disadvantaged position compared with others. Hyman defined reference groups as individuals or groups with which individuals compare themselves when setting or maintaining specific standards (Hyman, 1942). According to Merton, when comparing themselves with reference groups that occupy the social roles they aspire (Merton, 1957), individuals may be driven to two different feelings: upward striving or relative deprivation. Individuals may also compare themselves with inferior groups to generate relatively positive feelings, such as satisfaction. Therefore, reference groups can be defined as those groups to which people refer when evaluating their own qualities, environments, attitudes, values, and behaviors (Thompson & Hickey, 2005). These groups can be of higher, lower, or parallel levels. Upward comparisons associated with feelings of resentment and anger can not only cause real-life losses but also damage one’s psychological health (Folger, 1987; Mummendey et al., 1999). Many scholars have proposed operational definitions of relative deprivation (Table 3.1). For instance, on the basis of the formation process of relative deprivation, Davis (1959) argued that if individuals do not have X (which can be a desired thing or opportunity, including intelligence, goods, or income) but see that similar others have X, then they start wanting to have X and believe that they have the right to have X. This situation leaves them with a feeling of relative deprivation. All elements in this process are indispensable. However, the sociologist Runciman (1966) proposed

3.2 Relative Deprivation Theory

57

a missing link in this process, which is that the individual believes that it is feasible to go and obtain an expectation such as X. If the individuals still do not have X, then relative deprivation arises. In contrast to the findings of Runciman (1966), Gurr (1970) argued that relative deprivation occurs when individuals believe that the expectation of obtaining X is not feasible. He went beyond horizontal comparisons and started with vertical comparisons by arguing that relative deprivation arises when the actual ability to value is inconsistent with the expectation of value. Value refers to the events, objects, and conditions that people expect, value expectation is the general value status that people generally expect to obtain, and value capability is the general value status that people can obtain or maintain. Three inconsistencies may emerge between value capability and expectation. First, aspirations of deprivation arise when value expectation increases but value capability remains constant. Second, decremental deprivation arises when value expectation remains constant but value capability decreases. Third, progressive deprivation occurs when value expectations increase while value capabilities decrease. Therefore, relative deprivation should be the functional result of value expectation and value capability, that is, relative deprivation = (value expectation − value capability) / value expectation (Gurr, 1970). Later scholars extended the relative deprivation model based on their predecessors while considering the results of horizontal and vertical comparisons. For instance, Crosby (1976) defined feelings of relative deprivation as a mediating variable that only arises when all preconditions for relative deprivation are present. The five prerequisites and corresponding antecedents of relative deprivation include different personality traits (self-blame/blame and desire for achievement), past experiences (seeing others having X, wanting X, seeing it feasible to have X), current state (similarity between individuals who have X), social environment (perceived differences within the social environment), and biological needs (need for survival), which in turn generate the corresponding behavioral outcomes. When individuals feel relative deprivation, those who are accustomed to self-attribution will experience stress if they have a low level of self-regulation. However, if they have a high level of self-control and find an opportunity for change, then these individuals will engage in self-enhancement. By contrast, if they find no opportunity for change, then these individuals will experience stress. Those individuals who are accustomed to external attribution and have a low level of self-regulation will engage in direct antisocial behavior when they feel relative deprivation. Meanwhile, those individuals with higher levels of self-control will also engage in antisocial behavior when they find no opportunity to change. Otherwise, they will change their society to achieve an individual or social improvement. The sources of relative deprivation in the above studies have been limited to individual comparisons with others. However, Smith et al. (2012) argued that relative deprivation may also arise from individual-group or group-group comparisons. In their theoretical discernment and meta-analysis of 210 studies (comprising 293 independent samples, including 421 tests, with 186,073 respondents), Smith et al. (2012) identified three necessary conditions for relative deprivation to arise. First, individuals must make comparisons; otherwise, subsequent emotional development will not occur. Second, there must be a cognitive appraisal in which individuals recognize

58

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

Table 3.1 Theoretical model of relative deprivation perception Scholars

Prerequisites

Conditions

Result when individuals are compared with a reference group having X

Davis (1959)

The individual itself • Seeing others with X • Relative deprivation does not have X • Wanting to have X • Have the right to have X

Runciman (1966)

The individual itself • Seeing others with X • Relative deprivation does not have X • Wanting to have X • Have the right to have X • Getting X is possible

Gurr (1970)

The individual itself • Seeing others with X • Relative deprivation does not have X • Wanting to have X • Have the right to have X • Cannot get X

Crosby (1976)

The individual’s personality, past experiences, current state, social environment, and biological needs

Smith (2012)

The position of the • Cognitive individual or the comparisons: group itself in the individual vs. current environment past/future self, other members of own group, members of other groups; own group vs. other groups, past/future group of self • Cognitive appraisals: unfavorable • Justice-related affect: inequality, injustice; should have X; angry resentment

• Seeing others with X • Relative deprivation • Wanting to have X – Different • Have the right to behaviors may be have X generated after considering self• Getting X is tangible blame/blaming • Not getting X is not others, level of caused by the individual control, individual itself and opportunities for change: stress symptoms, self-improvement, violence against society, and constructive change in society • Relative deprivation − Individual attitudes − Individual behavior − Group attitudes − Group behavior

(continued)

3.2 Relative Deprivation Theory

59

Table 3.1 (continued) Scholars

Prerequisites

Conditions

Smith and Huo (2014) The position of the • Individual relative individual or the deprivation: group itself in the individuals deserve current environment X but do not receive it compared with others or other periods of their lives • Group relative deprivation: the group is entitled to X but is not entitled to it compared with other groups or other periods of one’s group

Result when individuals are compared with a reference group having X • Relative deprivation − Open system: individual conventional ways (e.g., hard work); conventional group ways (e.g., legal demonstrations) − Closed system: individual non-conventional ways (e.g., antisocial behavior); group non-conventional ways (e.g., vandalism and looting)

themselves and their groups in an inferior position. Third, this inferior position should be perceived as unfair. Individuals believe that themselves or their group deserve better, thereby leading to relative deprivation accompanied by anger and resentment. The cognitive appraisal should be highlighted in this process because individuals may still obtain different cognitive assessment results even if they are placed in similar situations. These different cognitive appraisal results will produce different emotional outcomes, and individuals will face different consequences depending on whether or not they have developed a relative deprivation. Therefore, future research should focus on the link between relative deprivation and specific outcomes and explore whether the outcomes of individuals’ relative deprivation, including attitudes and behaviors, are representative of the individuals themselves or originate from their groups. Smith and Huo (2014) integrated the findings of Crosby (1976) regarding the effect of opportunities for change on the outcomes of relative deprivation and found that when relative deprivation arises, individuals or groups will use conventional methods to remedy their situation if they recognize an opportunity to change (i.e., the system is open), such as by working hard or engaging in legal demonstrations. Otherwise (i.e., the system is closed), they may engage in deviant or confrontational behavior, such as personal revenge and vandalism. Given the inconsistencies in the operationalized definitions, scholars have not yet reached a consensus on the definition and structure of relative deprivation and its corresponding measurements. However, existing theoretical models show that the structure of relative deprivation can be mainly divided into individual-group orientation and cognitive-emotional orientation, whereas the dimensions of the measuring tools can either be one of these two structural orientations or their integration.

60

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

Individual- or group-orientated measurement explores whether relative deprivation arises from interpersonal or intergroup relationships. One of the most commonly used scales is the self-anchoring striving scale developed by Cantril (1965), which measures the respondents’ self-assessment based on their economic, political, and social status, including their current situation and their life situation over the next five years. This scale is assessed as a 10-step ladder, where step 10, according to Grofman and Muller (1973), represents the “best possible way of life” or an individual’s expected level of life. Gaskell and Smith (1984) constructed the index of deserved relative deprivation by subtracting the current position (self-rating) from the deserved position. Appelgryn and Nieuwoudt (1988) suggested that the results of this scale can demonstrate two types of relative deprivation, namely, personal relative deprivation (the difference in life status rating between oneself and other group members) and group relative deprivation (the difference in life status rating between one group and other groups). To eliminate negative scores, they calculated relative deprivation scores in the economic, political, and social situation dimensions by adding a constant value of 10 to the differences between the apparent ratings, with the final score indicating the presence of relative deprivation. Specifically, a final score of above 10 confirms the presence of relative deprivation, whereas a final score of below 10 confirms its absence. The cognitive-emotional orientated measurement suggests that an adequate measurement of relative deprivation must satisfy both assessments of cognitive comparison processes (perceived inability to achieve desired levels in comparison with a reference group) and emotional outcome components (emotional experiences, such as feelings of unfairness and anger brought about by cognitive appraisal) (Bougie et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2012; Walker & Pettigrew, 1984). Zoogah (2010) used cognitive-emotional orientation to measure the relative deprivation of 144 employees in Ghana. They modified the six-item scale of Walker (1999) to measure cognitive-emotional relative deprivation by reminding the respondents of their disadvantage compared with the advantaged employees around them. Three questions, including “Foreign-educated employees are paid more,” were used to measure the cognitive component, and three questions, such as “I resent that my payment is less than that of foreign-educated employees in my organization,” were used to measure the emotional component. Results of his CFA support the two-dimensional cognitiveemotional model of relative deprivation. Callan et al. (2015) used the items “I feel deprived when I think about what I have compared with what other people like me have” and “I feel privileged compared with other people like me (reverse scoring)” to measure the cognitive component and then used the items “I feel resentful when I see how prosperous other people like me seem to be,” “When I compare what I have with what others like me have, I realize that I am quite well off (reverse scoring),” and “I feel dissatisfied with what I have compared with what other people like me have” to measure the emotional component. By contrast, Chinese scholars, such as Huang and Huang (2018), studied the perceptions of employees in nonprofit organizations toward the deprivation of their entitlements by comparing themselves with their leaders’ “insiders.” They used the same six-item relative deprivation scale to contextualize their comparison and asked 477 employees to answer questions, such

3.2 Relative Deprivation Theory

61

as “My direct leader’s insiders are given more opportunities than me.” They found that the relative deprivation of nonprofit employees is a direct cause of their emotional exhaustion. Most scholars have agreed that relative deprivation differs between cognition and emotion and between individuals and groups. Therefore, the two-dimensional vertical intersection model of individual-group and cognitive-emotional orientations may offer a complete representation of the content structure of relative deprivation (Xiong & Ye, 2016). Koomen and Fränkel (1992) defined relative deprivation as a belief derived by comparison. However, the mere belief in inequality differs from the dissatisfaction associated with this belief. The large gap perceived between groups may not necessarily lead to feelings of strong dissatisfaction. Therefore, Koomen and Fränkel (1992) used four relative deprivation scales, namely, cognitive-egoistic relative deprivation, cognitive-fraternalism relative deprivation, affective-egoistic relative deprivation, and affective-fraternalism relative deprivation. For egoistic relative deprivation, the respondents compared themselves with other Surinamese living in the Netherlands. By contrast, for fraternalism relative deprivation, the Surinamese as a group was compared with the white Dutch. In the group comparison, the respondents were asked following a short introduction: “If you were to compare the Surinamese here in the Netherlands with the white Dutch, could you indicate what their position is with regard to…” The respondents then indicated their positions on a five-point scale ranging from “much better” to “much worse.” The five domains of comparison include achievements in life, housing, education, discrimination, and income. The two effective types of relative deprivation are measured by asking follow-up questions, such as “What are your feelings on that?” and “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied,” which are rated on a five-point response scale ranging from “satisfied” to “dissatisfied.” This 20-item scale demonstrated good reliability and validity. Osborne et al. (2015) collected data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study from 2009 to 2011 and used a sample of 6,880 New Zealanders to examine relative deprivation. They used “I’m frustrated by what I earn relative to other people in New Zealand” as an emotional component and “I generally earn less than other people in New Zealand” as the cognitive component to measure individual relative deprivation. They found that people can be classified into four categories based on individual and group relative deprivation: (i) doubly deprived (high individualbased relative deprivation and high group-based relative deprivation), (ii) individually deprived (higher individual-based relative deprivation), (iii) deprived but only at the group level (higher group-based relative deprivation), and (iv) mild deprivation (low individual-based relative deprivation and low group-based relative deprivation). However, subsequent empirical data show that the doubly deprived group lacks enough people to fully support the classification of the four potential types. In summary, relative deprivation results from wanting and deserving but feeling uneven or unattained (Sun & Guo, 2016). The theoretical structure of relative deprivation can be divided into two parts, namely, cognitive and emotional, and has two different orientations, namely, individual and group, depending on the choice of the reference group. Horizontal and vertical differences are also detected according to

62

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

the spatial and temporal stages in which the individuals themselves and the reference groups are located. These two orientations correspond to cognitive-emotional and individual-group in the measurement.

3.3 Social Representation Theory Introduced by the French psychologist Moscovici in 1973 (Moscovici & Herzlich, 1973), social representation has its theoretical roots in collective representation as proposed by Dürkheim in his book The Rules of Sociological Method, where he described in detail the complete system and development of his sociology of knowledge and viewed scientific causality, which is a back and forth representation, as the interaction between the external manifestation and the internal essence of social facts, such as social life (Durkheim, 1982). Dürkheim added that as long as the law of cause and effect makes sense, the identified characteristics are closely related to and consistent with the essence of a given context for all present phenomena without exception. Dürkheim conceptualized what he called the “external manifestation of the intrinsic nature of the studied content” as a collective representation. This concept covers all symbolic things related to social life, including religion, common values, moral standards, laws and regulations, forms of domination, collective norms, customs, and other models of human thought formation and their specific contents. He argued that such collective representation makes social life possible, is shared by every individual in the same society, and forms the essence of social life. Dürkheim pointed out that individual representation is achieved when collective representation is given to individuals and not when a collection of individual representation forms a collective representation. In addition, collective representation always takes precedence over individual representation. Therefore, the common thoughts, such as social core values and moral norms, as well as actual models, such as social systems, operating mechanisms of various groups, and political institutions that have been formed in the societies in which people live, comprise a collective representation that explains the essence of society. By studying collective representation, the development context of different societies and the similarities and differences in their core cultures can be distinguished. Individuals internalize the common ideas and institutional models of the society they live in through the complete socialization process and are thus endowed with collective representation from which they form their individual representation. Dürkheim’s understanding of the relationship between individual and collective representations stems from his analysis of the relationship between the individual and his/her society. To quote, “The determining cause of a social fact must be sought among antecedent social facts and not among the states of the individual consciousness. Moreover, we can easily conceive that all that has been stated above applies to the determination of the function as well as the cause of a social fact.” In sum, Dürkheim argued that collective representation, as a shared consciousness of each individual in society, allows people to understand and communicate with one

3.3 Social Representation Theory

63

another and maintain stable interactions. The collection of social actions and social relations ultimately constitute social life. Dürkheim also believed that individual and collective representations may become a research focus in different academic fields. Individual representation is an important factor in the process of individual construction and thus should focus on the psychological aspect, whereas collective representation is a core research topic in the sociological field. Inspired by Dürkheim’s concepts of representation, individual representation, and collective representation, Moscovici (2011) proposed social representation theory, the results of which have been summarized in his book Social Representation: Explorations in Social Psychology, which systematically illustrates how the concept of social representation is formed and how theory of social representation is constructed and developed. In this book, Moscovici began by admitting that social representation theory is inspired by the concept of collective representation and that the concept of social representation is indeed based on the concept of collective representation. The main difference between these two concepts is that social representation is integrated into the fields of sociology and psychology and is a subject of research in the intertwined disciplinary field of social psychology. Moscovici accepted the argument that collective representation precedes individual representation and acknowledged that the existence of this inherited common consciousness is not influenced by individuals but by common consciousness, that is, collective representation frames the thinking and behavior norms of each individual. However, Moscovici pointed out that collective representation should not be considered a separate sociological study from individuals; instead, social phenomena need to be brought into psychology for consideration along with historical events and cultural environments. According to Moscovici, Dürkheim’s concept of collective representation, which is on the same level as the collective itself, completely ignores the psychosocial phenomenon, which tends to describe a common consciousness rooted in the collective and is shared among several generations. Regardless of the social system, Dürkheim’s collective representation may be symbolized as a religion, custom, or legend, and these different symbols do not change the characteristics of the collective representation. This representation still takes the same action on the members of the collective and can be summarized as a means of collective control over its members. Therefore, collective representation does not vary from one collective to another and can even be linked to a collective without other representations (Moscovici & Marková, 1998). In the articles above, Moscovici pointed out not only the stagnation of the concept of collective representation but also the excessive reliance on the dissection of primitive societies for the formulation of collective representation. In primitive societies, people come together in relatively simple groups, strictly adhere to customs or institutions, and have a high degree of acceptance for a collective set of representations. The vast majority of people do not question those norms that resemble some code of conduct because they are born with such set of ideas. Meanwhile, for few individuals who question these norms, their questioning will not be recognized by others. The set tasks to be accomplished at each stage of life seem to have been framed in such a way that each individual in the collective shares the same set of values.

64

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

Moscovici discussed in depth the shortcomings of the notion of collective representation as highlighted by Dürkheim and condensed such notion into a single point by stating that each individual in a collective finds that these representations, which have been fully established before they were even born, do not require their participation. Therein lies the characteristic of Dürkheim’s collective representation, which is compulsory and to which individuals in the collective can only submit unconditionally. The individuals in a collective have no choice but to submit unconditionally to these compulsory representations. Moscovici defined his concept of social representation as “a system of values, ideas, and practices” that serve (1) to establish a social order in which individuals can locate and control the material and social worlds in which they live and (2) to enable community members to communicate through shared social communication codes and then naming and classifying all aspects of their social world, including their personal and group histories (Moscovici, 1972). In Social Representation: Explorations in Social Psychology, Moscovici went further with this definition and summarized social representation as the principle and way to construct the reality of one’s daily life and form boundaries among different groups through the communication of social influences (Moscovici, 2011). As a shared consciousness and as a set of established symbols in social culture or forms of life, social representation is often thought to be different from certain ideologies, such as cognition. Moscovici explained, “I am often asked to justify the definition of social representation and to explain how it differs from other definitions, such as attitudes, social cognitive differences. What I am saying is that the definition of the concept of collective or social representation predates all of these. This distinction is necessary.” How Moscovici used a psychological perspective to study social representation has been supported by examples from Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Moscovici and his colleagues designed an experiment in which people are divided into different social representation groups, presenting how people behave in real life when guided by representations (Moscovici, 2011). As a comprehensive theory that integrates multidisciplinary perspectives from sociology, psychology, anthropology, and history, social representation theory can be effectively used to nest social phenomena and practices in different social environments and multicultural contexts. Accordingly, this theory has received wide attention in China. For instance, Guan (2009) systematically outlined the formation process of social representation depicted in Moscovici’s series that includes the two main processes of anchoring and objectifying. He defined anchoring as the process of integrating existing knowledge and meaning into the collective and turning such knowledge and meaning into a new system. Anchoring involves the assignment of names to new things that are unfamiliar to people, giving them specific meanings and properties, defining them by using existing familiar vocabulary, and further explaining them in order for people to understand them successfully. In this process, some similar pre-existing definitions may be used. In other words, anchoring is also a process of stratification and secularization that uses existing concepts and patterns to transfer the understanding and mastery of something new, thereby avoiding the tension and anxiety that may arise when people face unfamiliar things (Guan & Yue,

3.3 Social Representation Theory

65

2007). Moscovici explained that anchoring processes are usually performed in two ways, namely, interpretation and naming. When a ready-made idea directly enters our minds, we try to find information and details that fit such idea. However, our mind already has a definite point and tries to report this idea accurately. By generalizing, we narrow down the differences among things. Therefore, we randomly selected a feature to create a category, and this feature includes all attributes of a certain category (Moscovici, 2011). One should note that the anchoring process is not only a logical process of introducing freshness into common sense but also involves a function of attitude. Given that people grasp new things through known and familiar knowledge, they naturally develop their attitudes toward such knowledge when they further understand its content. They will eventually develop positive or negative attitudes toward this knowledge and evaluate such knowledge accordingly. People are exposed to one another’s attitudes toward things and may have interpersonal perceptions and relationships based on the similarities and differences in their attitudes. In the above attitudinal processes, anchoring undoubtedly brings richer content to the existing social consciousness and information other than new knowledge itself, leads to specific thinking perspectives and behavioral preferences through attitudinal activities beyond knowledge, and motivates individuals to form interpersonal networks that may evolve into macro norms rooted in the individual, collective, and society. The objectifying process immediately follows the anchoring process. Objectifying merges different ideas with reality and makes them essential to the fact. To objectify is to uncover the pictorial properties of an inaccurate idea or to reproduce a concept within an appearance. A comparison already describes the process of filling something empty with matter. The realization of social representation relies on objectifying, which can be done simply by replacing adjectives or adverbs with real words depending on the definition of the object or the person being referred. Therefore, properties or relations are transformed into things (Moscovici, 2011). In sum, objectifying means that various elements, including norms and values, form a social framework that is developed and constructed with representational elements under the impetus of communication. This process also concretizes vague and abstract ideas. The mechanism of objectifying is a continuation of the mechanism of anchoring. Those abstract things that exist at the level of text or meaning as defined in the misspecification can be objectified into a subjective and conscious visible, palpable, and controllable reality. Rhetoric presents a good way of objectifying. For example, when we say that someone is dominated by his/her unconscious or that s/he is experiencing repression as if s/he has goiter or sore throat, what we mean is that s/he is not conscious of what s/he is doing and thinking. Similarly, when we say that an individual suffers from anxiety, we are actually suggesting that s/he is in a state of anxiety or acting anxiously. When we use a noun to describe a person’s state or to indicate that s/he is dominated by his/her unconscious or suffers from anxiety without saying that his/her behavior does not fit a certain profile (i.e., that s/he is in a state of unconsciousness or anxiety), we are increasing the number of people by increasing the number of nouns we use. Therefore, the tendency to transform verbs into nouns, or the preference for these words with similar meanings in rhetorical categories, clearly indicates that rhetoric is being concretized and that words are not

66

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

just characterizing things but also giving them their own identity while creating them (Moscovici, 2011). The concept of themata, which lies at the core of the social representation theory, aims to explain the whole process and social function of evolution and the development of knowledge and common sense in a non-reductive way. Themata has been proposed as a concept that can reflect the importance of research content and highlight the relationship between cognition and communication and between mental and linguistic operational activities (Moscovici & Halls, 1993). Themata can be described as concept images or primary concepts of primitive ideas rooted in the collective memory (Moscovici, 2011). This concept, which is placed at the core of representational dimensions, presents a logical way of inductively deriving scientific interpretations from complex phenomena. These phenomenal representations and logical ways are generated by the core dimension of themata, which, in its existential form, often appears as binary or ternary even pairs (Guan, 2009). If human cognition only includes learning and memory while excluding the roles of cognition and development based on a continuous adaptive process, then the excellent adaptability of humans cannot be easily understood. This adaptation process can be manifested as a deepening of knowledge and organized in a process-oriented way by common themata. Such themata refers to the commonly accepted knowledge or fundamental perspectives that serve as the root cause of the adaptation process (Moscovici, 2011). In other words, as the core of social representation, themata refer to the deeper structures in social representations. Different groups or societies have their unique cultures. Therefore, individuals in different groups and societies think habitually based on their unique cultural perspectives toward the same event or phenomenon and hence achieve different results. These diverse results then underscore the significance of the themata model. For example, when talking about how men and women should get along in a relationship, Western and Asian cultures may hold different views, and many behaviors and attitudes toward these interactions can reflect the prevailing ideas. In sum, social representation presents a way for members of a social group to express their collective understanding and perception of objects, such as specific phenomena or events in society, through cognition, communication, and knowledge sharing to improve communication and exchange. Social representation can be reduced or materialized into specific concepts, schemas, themata, and symbolic core knowledge, such as laws and common sense, in collective memory. Social standards allow the members of a group to communicate efficiently and gain a deeper understanding of their social environment. Social representation theory has been applied in many empirical social psychology studies. For example, Yang and Zhang (2008) used urban communities in Beijing as the research object and found in their textual analysis that residents’ social representation of ideal communities mainly includes three dimensions, namely, community environment, community philosophy, and community participation. Guan (2014) explored the concept of body imagery from the perspective of social representation theory and emphasized the organic combination of individually and socially constructed bodies, the social and interactive nature of the social representation

3.4 Summary

67

construction of body imagery, and the static and dynamic meanings of body imagery. Shao (2015) investigated the cultural symbols in Chinese dresses in a diversified and in-depth manner with the idea of constructing a social representation and found that dresses are being used by the Chinese as an image statement and social representation with rich symbolic significance. Miglietta and Acquadro Maran (2017) investigated how stalking is understood by the general population from the perspective of social representation by analyzing whether the respondents’ gender and attitudes toward women are related to the way they describe and understand stalking. They administered a questionnaire survey among 315 university students in Turin who never experienced stalking to understand their knowledge of the phenomenon and the extent of sexism. These respondents identified the reasons behind stalking in situations where the outcome of a romantic relationship is distorted. They argued that the purpose of stalking is to control and attribute psychological distress to the victim. Women tend to associate stalking with unspecified behaviors, whereas hostile sexists tend to underestimate the psychological consequences for their victims. The representation of stalking shows a dichotomy between pathological and aggression that is associated with sexist attitudes toward women. Specifically, well-intentioned sexism views stalking as an annoying but not dangerous event. Miglietta and Acquadro Maran eventually suggested that the symptoms and causes of stalking should be further explored to identify solutions to this behavior. Martikainen (2019) investigated the social representation of teachers based on the drawings of students and teachers. To understand the social representations of teachers, 59 Finnish upper secondary education students and 39 teachers were asked to draw a mental image of a typical teacher and then evaluate their drawings verbally. This study focused on the social representation of teachers as implied by these drawings and examined the interconnection between the social representations of teachers and students. Results of a content analysis revealed differences in the social representations of teachers as perceived by teachers and students, and these representations even deviated from the Finnish educational policy to some extent. Teachers also occasionally ignored their visual or nonverbal behaviors, thereby resulting in an unfavorable social representation of teachers as perceived by students. These empirical works prove that social representation theory serves as an excellent tool for depicting social phenomena in the context of social psychology. Therefore, this study adopted social representation theory to describe the concept of sense of gain, theoretically sublimate and enrich its original concept, and develop a connotation and extension of this concept.

3.4 Summary As a new-era symbol of the Communist Party of China that aims to serve the people wholeheartedly, huodegan represents the value pursuit of contemporary Communists, echoes the supremacy of people’s interests, and reflects the innovation of the Party’s governance over the past 90 years since its founding (Xiao, 2019). Sense

68

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

of gain is a contemporary Chinese social representation that is particularly significant to the new era, possesses Chinese social characteristics, reflects people’s living standards and social mentality, and symbolizes comprehensive conditions in the social environment, including ecological environment, political environment, labor system, market economy, and education. Sense of gain meets the core requirements of themata and can serve as a deep-seated, rooted evaluation criterion in Chinese society. Solving the question of “what” (i.e., the conceptual definition of sense of gain) can be a prerequisite path for sense of gain research. Following the logic of social representation theory, this study aims to “anchor” the concept of sense of gain by using existing concepts that have been extensively studied in sociology and psychology (e.g., wellbeing, life satisfaction, and sense of meaning in life) and to “objectify” the abstract understanding of sense of gain in a practical context by using some rhetorical techniques in conjunction with the theories presented in this and the previous chapter. Chapter 2 examined the concepts related to sense of gain from a psychological perspective while emphasizing an individual’s wellbeing experience. Additional multi-level needs have emerged after researchers went beyond their personal focus and started paying attention to the interactions among people and the connections between people and society. In addition to the pleasure, beauty, and meaning of being an individual, individuals as members of society also demand a positive experience of quality of life and social development. Only when multi-level wellbeing is multi-faceted can individual earnestness and social human enrichment both reach harmony and subsequently result in full happiness. Although the dimensions and connotations of the different orientations of wellbeing theories show many differences, wellbeing has subjective homogeneity, which means that subjective happiness, psychological happiness, and social happiness are all based on subjective cognition and that individuals can perceive all these forms of happiness. Therefore, individuals may have different needs and actions for subjective wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, and social wellbeing and produce different behavioral outcomes. In this case, a single orientation of wellbeing is insufficient for comprehensively evaluating individuals’ perceptions of wellbeing (Peng & Chen, 2010). This chapter discussed the results related to the interaction between individuals and their social environment and the combination of individual psychological factors and environmental interaction factors, which are better sources for anchoring sense of gain compared with the micro level. Many theoretical and empirical studies on wellbeing have also pointed toward the fundamental issue of cross-cultural invariance. According to the thematic model of social representation theory (Moscovici, 2011), the socio-cultural connotations of any society can trigger the tendency for individuals to think under the influence of their society’s culture. Therefore, we need to take cultural differences into account when discussing the same concepts across different cultural settings. Moreover, when using Western concepts such as wellbeing to anchor sense of gain, we need to consider the conceptual differences across cultural contexts. After compiling theoretical models of subjective wellbeing and theoretical and empirical studies on relevant cultural influences, Miao and Yu (2003) concluded that subjective wellbeing varies across

3.4 Summary

69

cultures because cultural contexts differentially influence wellbeing through the goals chosen and the resources used to reach them. Therefore, future research should further explore the cross-cultural consistency of wellbeing. Several empirical studies on psychological wellbeing highlighted the importance of analyzing the abovementioned topic. Wissing and Temane (2008) conducted a survey among 2,024 participants from individualistic and collectivistic cultural backgrounds to test their emotion, cognition, communication, spirit, interpersonal relationship, and social wellbeing. They found that even though the structure of wellbeing is present in both relatively individualistic and collectivistic cultural contexts, the main factors that constitute this concept differ between these contexts. Two main factors, namely, mental health and social/environmental satisfaction, were identified from the data collected from participants located in relatively collectivistic cultural contexts. The first main factor that emerged from the relatively individualistic cultural group was mental health, which includes the social support component of the social environment satisfaction dimension, whereas the second emerging factor was selfefficacy, which is characterized by general self-efficacy beliefs, the directionality of goals, and flexibility in behavior to achieve such goals. Self-efficacy was also identified as a mental health factor in collectivistic groups. These findings highlight that the salience of specific wellbeing factors may vary across cultural/social contexts. Chinese scholars have confirmed differences in the wellbeing priorities of various cultural groups. For example, 20 factors that explained 53.94% of the total variance were extracted through a factor analysis of the data collected from Chinese college students using the 6-dimension psychological wellbeing scales developed in Western cultures. The first six of these factors explained only 33.42% of the total variance, and results of an EFA revealed that the distribution of items within each factor also diverged from the original scale in Western culture. Moreover, the scale had an unsatisfactory structural validity when applied in the Chinese cultural context. Therefore, Chinese wellbeing scales should be revised to reflect the context of Chinese culture and language habits to improve their scientific validity and accuracy (Cui et al., 2005). Xing and Huang (2004) also found that the sense of happiness scale had unsatisfactory structural validity when administered among a population of urban Chinese residents. Therefore, all items in this scale were re-subjected to an EFA to generate a nine-item psychological wellbeing scale for Chinese urban residents. These items include self-growth and initiative, interpersonal adaptation, sense of autonomy, sense of stress, and sense of future. Results of the validation factor analysis revealed that this psychological wellbeing scale has good structural validity and that its criterion validity is within the acceptable limits. Therefore, defining and operationalizing sense of gain based on specific Chinese cultural and social contexts are required for the localization of Chinese academics and to cater to the scientific and accurate nature of the Huodegan Index. Some researchers argued that wellbeing and sense of wellbeing are two different concepts. Wellbeing can be judged based on multiple subjects and has multiple carriers, including individuals, groups, or societies. Meanwhile, sense of wellbeing is based on individual self-perception (i.e., wellbeing is the result of a self-subjective evaluation) and can only be carried by individuals (Peng & Chen, 2010). Therefore,

70

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

those individuals who are considered happy by others, groups, or societies should have a sense of wellbeing, but the opposite may be true. Specifically, individuals may experience relative deprivation when making upward comparisons even if they are perceived as happy. Similarly, sense of gain, as an indicator of social development and feedback from individual feelings and objective reality to subjective perception, can be influenced by the contrast between the state of individual sense of gain before and after the deepening reform and by the difference between the states of individual and reference group sense of gain. The vertical comparison can underscore the effectiveness of the deepening reform and development, whereas the horizontal comparison reveals an “unbalanced and insufficient development.” Therefore, for the analysis path and research framework of relative deprivation, we need to build a comprehensive analysis model according to different orientations and dimensions, pay attention to the relationship between “gain” and “sense of gain,” integrate the individual and group senses of gain, make sense of gain focus on both individual and universal group needs, seek the optimum balance between “unidimensional” and “multidimensional,” cover both “social development” and “individual wellbeing,” and reflect “multiple sense of gain at the level of social development” and “multidimensional satisfaction at the level of individual wellbeing.” In this way, we can build a scientific and precise theoretical and structural model of sense of gain and its corresponding index system.

References Appelgryn, A. E., & Nieuwoudt, J. M. (1988). Relative deprivation and the ethnic attitudes of blacks and Afrikaans-speaking whites in South Africa. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1988.9713748 Bao, f., Tao, X., Chunxiao, L., Min, X., Yongchun, C., & Jialin, W. (2005). Development of Chinese Version of QLQ-STO22. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19(5), 310–312. https://doi.org/10. 3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2005.05.005 Bougie, E., Usborne, E., de la Sablonnière, R., & Taylor, D. M. (2011). The cultural narratives of Francophone and Anglophone Quebecers: Using a historical perspective to explore the relationships among collective relative deprivation, in-group entitativity, and collective esteem. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 726–746. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X526018 Burckhardt, C. S., & Anderson, K. L. (2003). The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): Eliability, validity, and utilization. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-75251-60 Callan, M. J., Kim, H., & Matthews, W. J. (2015). Predicting self-rated mental and physical health: The contributions of subjective socioeconomic status and sersonal relative deprivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01415 Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press. Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83(2), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85 Cui, C., Li, C., Wang, X., & Yang, H. (2005). The applications of Ryff’s Psychologcal Well-Being Scale in college students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19(2), 128–130. https://doi.org/10. 3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2005.02.025 Davis, J. A. (1959). A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry, 22(4), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786046

References

71

Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. The Free Press. Fang, J., Hao, Y., & Li, C. (1999). Reliability and validity for Chinese version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 13(4), 203–205. Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183–215). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gaskell, G., & Smith, P. (1984). Relative deprivation in black and white youth: An empirical investigation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 2044-8309.1984.tb00621.x Grofman, B. N., & Muller, E. N. (1973). The strange case of relative gratification and potential for political violence: The V-curve hypothesis. American Political Science Review, 67(2), 514–539. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958781 Group, T. W. (1995). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41(10), 1403– 1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K Group, T. W. (1998). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine, 46(12), 1569– 1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00009-4 Guan, J. (2009). Origin and development of social representation theory. Sociological Studies, (4), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.19934/j.cnki.shxyj.2009.04.011 Guan, J. (2014). Social representations and psychological perspective of body image. Nankai Journal (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), (3), 140–151. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN: LKXB.0.2014-03-016 Guan, J., & Yue, G. (2007). Social representation theory and its development. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social Science), (1), 92–98. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:NJSS.0.2007-01-017 Guo, X. (2001). An empirical study on relative deprivation of urban residents. Journal of Renmin University of China, 15(3), 71–78. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZRDX.0.2001-03-013 Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton University Press. Hu, L., & Hu, P. (2008). Development of sexual quality of life questionnaire for women. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 22(6), 447–450. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZXWS.0.2008-06-017 Huang, D., & Wu, M. (2017). Sense of gain to ideological and political education: Connotation, composition and formation mechanism. Studies in Ideological Education, (6), 28–32. https://doi. org/CNKI:SUN:SIXI.0.2017-06-006 Huang, J., & Huang, L. (2018). The impact of individual relative deprivation of non-profit organization employee on emotional exhaustion: The mediating effect of psychological contract violation. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26(1), 155–157+154. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki. 1005-3611.2018.01.034 Huang, Y., Zhang, W., & Zhao, J. (2017). Actual gain, equity perceptions, and residents’ gain. Modern Economic Research, (11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.13891/j.cnki.mer.2017.11.001 Hyman, H. H. (1942). The psychology of status. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University). Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2787065 Keyes, C. L. M., & Shapiro, A. D. (2004). Social well-being in the United States: A descriptive epidemiology. In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & R. C. Kessler (Eds.), How healthy are we?: A national study of well-being at midlife (pp. 350–372). The University of Chicago Press. Koomen, W., & Fränkel, E. G. (1992). Effects of experienced discrimination and different forms of relative deprivation among Surinamese, a Dutch ethnic minority group. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450020106 Li, L., Hao, W., Yang, D., Zhang, Y., Wu, G., Luo, Y., …, Liao, J. (1995). Development of the Quality of Life Study-III Quality of Life Questionnaire (Qoli) for community populations. Chinese Mental Health Journal, (5), 227–231. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZXWS.0.1995-05-019 Li, L., Yang, D., Zhou, L., Hao, W., Wang, X., & Liu, T. (2003). The validity and reliability of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire in chronic patients and family

72

3 Sociological Basis of Sense of Gain

caregivers. Chinese Journal of Psychiatry, 36(3), 143–147. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZHMA. 0.2003-03-007 Lin, K. (2015). Quality of life and social quality: A comparative study on theory and methodology. The Journal of Jiangsu Administration Institute, (2), 59–66. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:JSXZ.0. 2015-02-010 Liu, B., & Wang, Z. (2018). Developmental evolution of the five conceptual models of wellbeing. Journal of Heilongjiang Institute of Teacher Development, 07, 97–99. Martikainen, J. (2019). Social representations of teachership based on students’ and teachers’ drawings of a typical teacher. Social Psychology of Education, 22(3), 579–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11218-019-09490-w Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (Rev). Free Press. Miao, J., & Yu, J. (2003). Subjective wellbeing in a cross-cultural perspective. Social Sciences in Guangdong, (1), 120–124. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:GDSK.0.2003-01-021 Miglietta, A., & Acquadro Maran, D. (2017). Gender, sexism and the social representation of stalking: What makes the difference? Psychology of Violence, 7(4), 563–573. https://doi.org/10. 1037/vio0000070 Moscovici, S. (2008). Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public. Polity. Moscovici, S., & Halls, W. (1993). The invention of society: Psychological explanations for social phenomena. Polity Press. Moscovici, S. (1972). Theory and society in social psychology. In J. Isreal & H. Tajfel (Eds.), The context of social psychology: A critical assessment. Academic Press. Moscovici, S., & Herzlich, C. (1973). Introduction. In C. Herzlich (Ed.), Health and illness: A social psychological analysis (pp. 9–16). Academic Press. Moscovici, S., & Marková, I. (1998). Presenting social representations: A conversation. Culture & Psychology, 4(3), 371–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9800400305 Moscovici, S. (2011). Social representations: Explorations in social psychology (J. Guan, W. Gao, & R. Yu, Trans.). China Renmin University Press (Original work published 2003). Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229 Osborne, D., Sibley, C. G., Huo, Y. J., & Smith, H. (2015). Doubling-down on deprivation: Using latent profile analysis to evaluate an age-old assumption in relative deprivation theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(4), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2099 Peng, Y., & Chen, H. (2010). Reconstruction on the connotation of wellbeing based on an integrative perspective. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(7), 1052–1061. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN: XLXD.0.2010-07-007 Rahman, A. R. (1998). Development of the World Health Organization Whoqol-Bref Quality of Life assessment. The Whoqol Group. Psychological Medicine, 28(3), 551–558. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/s0033291798006667 Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Shao, X. (2015). An experiment on the symbolization of Chinese costume culture. Forum on Chinese Culture, (7), 150–153. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZHWL.0.2015-07-027 Shye, S. (1985). Nonmetric multivariate models for behavioral action systems. Springer. Shye, S. (2010). The motivation to volunteer: A systemic quality of life theory. Social Indicators Research, 98(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9545-3 Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (2014). Relative deprivation: How subjective experiences of inequality influence social behavior and health. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214550165 Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311430825

References

73

Sun, D., & Guo, Y. (2016). Relative deprivation: Wanting, deserving, resentment for not having. Journal of Psychological Science, 39(3), 714–719. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981. 20160330 Thompson, W. E., & Hickey, J. V. (2005). Society in focus: An introduction to sociology. Rowman & Littlefield. Walker, I. (1999). Effects of personal and group relative deprivation on personal and collective self-esteem. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1368430299024004 Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.20448309.1984.tb00645.x Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration. Cambridge University Press. Wissing, M. P., & Temane, Q. M. (2008). The structure of psychological wellbeing in cultural context: Towards a hierarchical model of psychological health. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2008.10820170 Wu, Z., & Liu, Q. (2018). Psychological state and quality of life of the major depressed patients’ relatives. Chinese Journal of Health Psychology, (3), 330–333. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki. cjhp.2018.03.004 Xiao, S. (2019). People’s sense of gain: Innovative practices of the Chinese communist party in the new era of governance. Theory Journal, (1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.14110/j.cnki.cn-37-1059/ d.2019.01.006 Xing, Z., & Huang, L. (2004). Study of appling to citizens in China on Ryff’s psychological wellbeing scales. Health Psychology Journal, 12(3), 231–233. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp. 2004.03.036 Xiong, M., & Ye, Y. (2016). The concept, measurement, influencing factors and effects of relative deprivation. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(03), 438–453. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN: XLXD.0.2016-03-013 Xu, D., Xu, J., Ruan, X., Fu, L., & Wen, J. (2001). A study of life quality questionnaire on asthma. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 16(3), 169–172. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZGKF. 0.2001-03-012 Yang, Y., & Zhang, S. (2008). Social representations of ideal community: Qualitative study on the concept of community by residents in Beijing. Journal of China Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 25(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.13240/j.cnki.caujsse.2008.01.010 Yi, S. (1998). A brief review of the development of life quality’s study. Journal of Shenzhen University (Humanities & Social Sciences), (01), 102–109. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:SZDS.0.199801-013 Zoogah, D. B. (2010). Why should I be left behind? Employees’ perceived relative deprivation and participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 159–173. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0018019

Chapter 4

Methodology for the Construction of the Sense of Gain Index System

As a Chinese concept, sense of gain represents an expansion of the traditional Western theories of wellbeing. The proposal of this concept promotes the localization and exploration of sense of gain, facilitates the establishment of an index system for evaluating sense of gain, and guides a Chinese, localized, and distinctive study of sense of gain. This chapter systematically reviews the recent studies that have constructed sense of gain index systems and the related concepts at home and abroad. The various methodologies adopted in these studies are also discussed. These methodologies can be mainly classified into (1) theory and data driven, (2) objective and subjective index, and (3) unidimensional and multidimensional index. Discussing the advantages and disadvantages of these methodologies can guide the subsequent construction of a highly scientific sense of gain index system in this study.

4.1 Theory and Data Driven 4.1.1 Construction of the Theory-Driven Index System The traditional social sciences research paradigm is primarily a descriptive study of objective laws. The latest approach for investigating the essential objective law of the development of things emphasizes complex causal relationships based on previous empirical evidence and theoretical models. A theory-driven concept is based on reviews of the related literature. Researchers should draw upon specific theoretical frameworks or conduct a theoretical extrapolation to identify breakthroughs in current research and to identify highly nuanced research questions (Liu & Yin, 2017). The current theory-driven research on sense of gain index systems has drawn upon one or more theoretical frameworks to understand causal relationships and to identify what constitutes a sense of gain index. Chen et al. (2018) constructed the laborer’s sense of gain index system based on Marx’s labor theory of value. They initially defined workers’ sense of gain according © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Duan and Y. Li, Huodegan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4_4

75

76

4 Methodology for the Construction …

to Marx’s labor theory of value and then divided workers’ sense of gain into material and spiritual satisfaction, of which the former belongs to the objective aspect of needs, whereas the latter belongs to the subjective aspect (Chen et al., 2018). Workers’ sense of gain can also be divided into five dimensions. These dimensions in turn can be further refined into the following measuring indices based on their connotations: (1) measuring indices of the economic life dimension, including economic development, income levels, consumption levels, and quality of residence, (2) measuring indices of political life, including democracy, rule of law, equity, and justice, (3) measuring indices of cultural life, including education training and cultural development, (4) measuring indices of social life, including social security, public services, health, safety, and support networks, and (5) measuring indices of ecological life, including environmental resources and environmental governance. On the basis of the preliminarily derived evaluation indices of laborers’ sense of gain, Chen et al. (2018) further clarified the goal and criterion facets (including dimension, factor, and index facets) and determined the weights of each dimension, with economic life and cultural life accounting for the largest and smallest weights. Similarly, Pan and Yang (2018) discussed the concept of people’s sense of gain based on the relevant theories of Sinicization of Marxism. They emphasized the importance of perceiving people as subjects of the evaluation of reform effectiveness, using the acquisition of their actual benefits as the evaluation content, and adopting their sense of gain as an evaluation criterion. However, they did not analyze any specific measurement index.

4.1.2 Construction of the Data-Driven Index System With the development of Internet technology, information and views are updated by hundreds of millions every day, and big data convey a wide variety of concepts. The technologies for collecting big data are becoming increasingly mature and convenient, and big data are increasingly being used to study various problems. With the advent of the big data era, data-related analysis methods are taking on an increasingly important role in contemporary internationalization research. The data-driven concept suggests that in order to construct a new explanatory model, an appropriate sample should be selected based on the premise of an extensive database relevant to the subject of the study and according to a specific research purpose (Wang et al., 2005). A data-driven approach should primarily draw upon data modeling to construct a sense of gain index system. Data-based algorithms include factor analysis, structural equation models, entropy method, weighting method, and text coding. However, even though the data-driven approach is objective, scientific, and not highly influenced by human subjective factors (e.g., values), its index composition is not convincing enough due to its lack of a theoretical basis. Given the lack of a unified or clear understanding of the sense of gain index in the context of building an all-round well-off society, Duan (2017) further elaborated on the knowledge and understanding of the sense of health and security by conducting an in-depth analysis of the relationship between national health and overall well-off.

4.1 Theory and Data Driven

77

He identified mental and physical health as the determinants of people’s sense of gain and concluded that this concept can be measured by a “sense of health and security;” therefore, “sense of health and security” may be included in the sense of gain index system (Duan, 2017). The internal logic of this argument includes the expansion of the health concept from physical to mental, social, and moral health, all of which determine people’s health-related values and attention. Furthermore, “health and security” have become essential sources of good internal satisfaction, which can be measured as people’s sense of gain. On the basis of the aforementioned theoretical logic, Duan (2017) further divided the sense of gain measured by “sense of health and security” into “real” and “expected” sense of gain according to the actual development situation. The index of “sense of health and security” can also be subdivided into four dimensions: (1) sense of health and security in normal times (i.e., not worrying about the health of children, elderly, disabled, and poor); (2) sense of health and security in sick times (i.e., having access to a doctor, being able to afford a doctor, having a good doctor, and paying less for a doctor); (3) sense of health and security in old age (i.e., the elderly not getting sick, the elderly getting sick later, the elderly developing a minor illness, and the elderly receiving early treatment); and (4) sense of health and security in special times (i.e., protecting special groups, including the disabled, incapacitated, widows, orphans, poor, and unemployed). Li et al. (2017) used the entropy method and Tobit model to construct a sense of gain index system. They collected their data from 450 forest farmers in 8 regions of Fujian Province from 2014 to 2016 to evaluate sense of gain under different forest rights reform models. The entropy method assigned weights to seven aspects, including forest rights mortgage policy, village cadres’ work, and rate of issuing forest rights certificates. The weights of the calculated indices were ranked in a descending order as follows: forest rights certificates issued (0.235), harvesting index (0.169), forest division methods (0.158), forest rights mortgage loans (0.150), village cadres’ work (0.147), and forest rights disputes (0.141). A Tobit model was then used to further calculate the significant factors that influence the sense of gain of foresters. Meanwhile, T. Li et al. (2018) modeled the sense of gain of seafarers to understand the structure and uniqueness of this concept based on the specificity of the seafarer profession. They collected data from 34 seafarers via semi-structured interviews. Ultimately, they derived a three-dimensional nine-factor model from the results of their cluster analysis. These three dimensions included self, others, and environment, whereas the nine factors included medical support, further education and promotion, children’s education, professional prestige, interpersonal relationships, income disparity, safety and security, environmental conditions, and internet coverage. Qu (2018) explored sense of gain from the perspective of post-compulsory education for migrant children. They collected data from 34 respondents via interviews and then constructed the core criteria for the index of the sense of gain from postcompulsory education for migrant children. The development process was completed in four steps. First, the interview materials were collated into textual materials. Second, the qualitative analysis software MAXQDA was used to document each case. Third, open coding, axial coding, and selective coding were performed based on grounded theory analysis. Fourth, a theoretical saturation test was conducted.

78

4 Methodology for the Construction …

Chen et al. (2019) constructed an index for evaluating people’s sense of gain from health services and performed a self-administered survey among 3,780 residents of 14 regions in Gansu Province. The questionnaire contained 28 items and was divided into 3 sections, including awareness rate of public health services (i.e., essential public health awareness, policy awareness, awareness of child vaccination, awareness of maternal health management, awareness of free medical check-ups for the elderly aged over 65 years, and awareness of blood pressure health services), the utilization rate of public health services (i.e., establishing health records, receiving health education, and signing up for medical insurance), and rate of satisfaction with public health services (i.e., satisfaction with service attitudes, satisfaction with treatment effects, satisfaction with explanation of illnesses, satisfaction with privacy protection, satisfaction with professional skills, satisfaction with waiting time, satisfaction with distance, satisfaction with service environment, satisfaction with children’s health services, satisfaction with maternal health services, satisfaction with health services for the elderly aged over 65 years, and satisfaction with hypertension health services). Results of a PCA generated the final seven dimensions of the scale, which were scored based on the factor weights recommended by experts. These dimensions included (1) the population-wide service awareness factor (knowledge of essential public health and policy), (2) population-wide service utilization factor (establishing health profiles, health education, and health insurance), (3) populationwide service satisfaction factor (satisfaction with health education and health insurance), (4) key population service awareness factor (knowledge of child vaccination, knowledge of maternal health management, knowledge of blood pressure health services, and knowledge of diabetes health services), (5) service utilization factor for key populations (children’s vaccination services, service satisfaction, maternal health services, elderly health management services, and hypertension health services), (6) service satisfaction factor for key populations (service attitude, treatment effectiveness, explanation of illnesses, privacy protection, professional skills, waiting time, distance, and service environment), (7) policy perception factor (importance and necessity of policies), and (8) overall sense of gain factor (a combination of the abovementioned factors). In addition to the above domain-specific index systems for sense of gain, other researchers have constructed highly comprehensive sense of gain index systems. For instance, Wang and Liu (2019) used the free association and prototype enumeration method to obtain 12,952 and 1,334 words from people’s understanding of sense of gain, respectively. Afterward, they selected 155 high-frequency words and invited 501 participants to understand the high-frequency words about sense of gain via factor analysis to abstract the structure of this concept. The structure of sense of gain was then divided into the five dimensions of gain contents, gain conditions, gain approach, gain sharing, and gain experience. Sixteen key dimensions were eventually selected to create the sense of gain index system, including good educational conditions, stable jobs, satisfactory income, and reliable social security.

4.2 Objective and Subjective Indices

79

4.2 Objective and Subjective Indices According to Social Indicators, an original collection of papers, the construction of social index systems can be divided into two schools of thought. One school is based on the construction of objective social index systems, whereas the other is based on subjective social index systems.

4.2.1 Objective Indices in the Index System Yang (2018) used data from the Chinese Social Survey in 2003 to construct an index system for measuring people’s sense of gain from public services based on their objective ratings of the public services they received. After reviewing the measures and concepts related to sense of gain, the four dimensions of adequacy, parity, convenience, and universality were selected to construct the model, and the significance of the factor loadings were tested via EFA and CFA. The potential dimensions were then differentiated from specific measurement indices to reduce measurement errors by using the multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) model. The specific measurement indices included public education, health care, and housing security. An extended version of the MIMIC model was also used for the robustness test with additional control variables, including income, income disparity, perception of equity, gender, and age. Lv and Huang (2018) used data from the Chinese Social Survey between 2006 and 2015 to construct a social-level measurement index of sense of gain. They also proposed two rules of measurement that need to be followed in building a universal sense of gain index system: horizontal comparing: comparing oneself with certain reference groups; historical comparing: comparing oneself with the past situation. In their retrospective analysis of sense of gain index systems that were built based on the Chinese Social Survey, Lv and Huang (2018) revealed that only few questions are available for horizontal comparing. However, items related to historical comparing are sufficient. Items related to historical comparing can form four dimensions of sense of gain: personal development (e.g., “Compared with five years ago, what is your standard of living now?;” related to years 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2013), social security (e.g., security of property, personal security, transport security, medical security, food security, labor security, security of personal information and privacy; related to years 2006, 2008, and 2013), social justice (e.g., the distribution of wealth and income, work and employment opportunities, the higher education system, public health care, actual enjoyment of political rights, administration of justice and law enforcement, and treatment between urban and rural areas; related to years 2006, 2008, 2013, and 2015), and satisfaction on government (e.g., health services, social security and assistance, compulsory education, environmental protection, maintenance of social security, law and order, and economic development; related to years 2006 and 2008).

80

4 Methodology for the Construction …

However, even though Lv and Huang (2018) constructed the four dimensions of the sense of gain index, they did not calculate the weights of each dimension. There are also objective indices in the social indicators of other countries. With the development of the theoretical system of wellbeing, an increasing number of scholars believe that the measurement of wellbeing needs to include the three aspects of the individual himself, others, and the social environment, whereas the individual’s evaluation of the quality of social life should be the core connotation of the sense of social wellbeing (Liu & Wang, 2018). Wellbeing based on quality of social life is mainly measured using the objective quality of life index (Wang, 2018). Botha (2016) studied the wellbeing of African people in 45 countries and constructed the GASI, which includes 9 dimensions that are translated into objective questions that reflect actual social development. These dimensions include economic sustainability, democracy and freedom, child wellbeing, environment and infrastructure, safety and security, health and health systems, integrity and justice, education, and social sustainability and cohesion, with each dimension divided into four items. The good society index for Africa is derived from the good society framework and is refined based on the availability and theoretical interpretability of data. Meanwhile, the good society framework index draws on the existing happy planet index, the genuine progress indicator, and the life quality index for its content analysis. Hashemi et al. (2016) constructed a social wellbeing system for Iran by proposing a new comprehensive model of social wellbeing based on the findings of previous studies. Their social dimension system of wellbeing include suicide rates across all age groups, average social capital score of adults, Gini index, employment rate among people aged 18 to 60 years, Amarya Sen’s social welfare function score, the percentage of population sensitive to social issues at or above the medium level, the percentage of population who have a sense of attachment to their societies, the percentage of persons aged 60 years and above receiving pensions, the percentage of unemployed receiving unemployment benefits, the percentage of individuals who ran away from their homes without telling anyone (for at least one night), ratio of divorces to marriages in a year, child and youth abuse cases in a year, number of homeless children with or without parents, number of children in correction and rehabilitation centers, average age of initiation of prostitution, rate of perceived discrimination, average number of homeless people using shelters in a month, rate of brain drain, prevalence of physical abuse among women, rate of driving offenses, number of embezzlement or bribery court cases in a year, number of human trafficking cases for unpaid labor in a year, rate of homicides, number of armed robberies in a year, number of fatal accidents due to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in a year, prevalence of addiction to drugs, infant mortality rate, and prevalence of mental health disorders among adults.

4.2 Objective and Subjective Indices

81

4.2.2 Subjective Indices in the Index System The construction of the sense of gain index system is closely linked to the wellbeing index system. Early measures of the wellbeing index mainly were evaluated by the subjective sense of wellbeing. For example, Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) used the subjectivist approach to collect 14 samples involving 2,732 participants aged 14 to 94 years at different times and locations, including both student and community samples. These participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire with items including “In general, I consider myself happy,” “Compared with most of my peers, I consider myself happy,” and “Some people are generally very happy.” They were also asked to which extent do these characteristics describe them on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all” to 7 = “fully compliant”). In China, previous studies on sense of gain constructed their index systems at the social and personal development levels and used Likert scales (i.e., satisfaction ratings) to measure specific operationalized indices. For example, in his review of students’ sense of gain, M. Zhang (2017) suggested that sense of gain is a subjective psychological feeling. The scales related to sense of gain from public services mainly used data from a subjective index of the People’s Livelihood Index Survey from 2010 to 2014 (Zhou et al., 2015). These same data were later used to measure the sense of gain from environmental governance (Zhang & Hao, 2017). Xing (2006) surveyed the psychological experience of subjective happiness of urban residents in a coastal province every year from 2002 to 2004 and performed follow-up surveys every two years after 2005. Xie et al. (2008) constructed a subjective sense of wellbeing index system for rural residents in the Hongta District of Yuxi, Yunnan Province. Using data from the Chinese General Social Survey 2006, Song (2013) explored the subjective sense of wellbeing of the Chinese middle class. Meanwhile, Li and Zhao (2000) measured the subjective wellbeing of university students in Beijing to analyze and test their subjective wellbeing scale. Zhou et al. (2016) constructed an index system of college and university students’ sense of gain based on a redefinition of sense of gain, that is, the positive and comprehensive psychological feeling felt by students who receive a school education that meets their learning and life needs, have a good sense of identity, and are filled with a sense of achievement. They tested this system among 43,574 participants from 81 private colleges and universities in 8 provinces across China. Four factors, namely, degree of identification, satisfaction status, participation opportunities, and achievement level, were used to measure the subjective psychological feelings on a five-point Likert scale. Meanwhile, Zhu (2018) focused on the sense of gain from new-era ideological and political theory courses in colleges and universities and identified the core elements of this concept, namely, the sense of gain on ideas (a spirit of freedom and liberation), the sense of gain on emotions (a sense of identity arising from the learning of ideology and politics), the sense of gain on morality and rules (acquiring knowledge about moral norms and laws, thereby developing a clear perception of which behaviors are in line with moral and legal norms, consciousness of maintaining the healthy operation of society, and maintaining ethical norms, laws,

82

4 Methodology for the Construction …

and regulations), and the sense of gain on growth (an internal and subjective feeling of growth). Tan et al. (2018) investigated the current situation and influencing factors of young adults’ sense of gain by using data from the CASS-Intell Vision Sense of Gain Survey 2018, which was jointly developed by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Intell Vision and included 3,133 young adults aged 18 to 35 years. The survey comprised 16 questions related to livelihood issues and quality of life rated on a 7-point Likert scale as well as specific questions related to good education conditions, stable jobs, satisfactory income, good public services, safe living environment, democracy, rule of law, fairness, justice, respect, and social stability and order. Results showed that safe living environment, social stability and order, and rule of law are the three most important indices of sense of gain. Shi and Fu (2017) measured sense of gain by rating college students’ employment settlement, democratic participation, educational equity, social security, and food security on a five-point Likert scale to evaluate the respondents’ subjective feelings. The respondents included 1,987 villagers coming from 10 towns in the provinces of Zhejiang and Sichuan who were selected via non-probability sampling. The primary purpose of the survey was to examine the effects of individual- and village-level variables on the satisfaction of villagers with their village committee work. The individual-level variable was the sense of gain during the consultation, which was further subdivided into sense of gain in consultation opportunity and result. This study defined sense of gain during the consultation as a subjective variable even though the measurement indices were borrowed from the consultation and election democracy questionnaires (Li & Li, 2018). The items of sense of gain in consultation opportunity included whether the local town government discusses with the villagers some matters that are closely related to their production and life, whereas the items of sense of gain in consultation results included whether the local town government pays attention to the opinions of the people on significant matters related to their life and production (e.g., land issues) (Li & Li, 2018). Subsequent analyses used zero and multi-layer models to find village heterogeneity at the village and individual levels and to test the effects of villagers’ sense of gain during the consultation on their satisfaction with village committee work (Li & Li, 2018).

4.3 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Indices 4.3.1 Unidimensional Index Research on wellbeing related to sense of gain has shifted from unidimensional to multidimensional measurements. The unidimensional measurement of wellbeing refers to conceptual unidimensionality, such as the unidimensional model used in interpreting general life satisfaction, which argues that a subjective assessment of general life satisfaction is sufficient to understand an individual’s subjective state of

4.3 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Indices

83

wellbeing (Yao et al., 2011). This measurement may also refer to a specific group, region, and organization (e.g., measuring the life satisfaction scale related to the wellbeing of college students; Diener et al., 1985). One of the most significant recent refinements in theories related to wellbeing is the development of multidimensional indices of wellbeing. This multidimensional approach utilizes a comprehensive and integrated set of measurement indices. A few of the measures of sense of gain are unidimensional. For instance, Li et al. (2019) investigated people’s sense of gain in the context of targeted poverty reduction with an aim to take the government as the research subject to clarify the relationship among government trust, government commitment, and people’s sense of gain from a psychological perspective. They collected data from 686 poor households in Guangxi Province and used a self-administered people’s sense of gain scale with 15 questions. Results of their factor analysis revealed a standardized internal consistency coefficient of 0.728, and the instrument lacked any dimensional or operationalized questions. Given the richness of the connotation of the concept of sense of gain, most of its measurements are multidimensional. However, the sense of gain indices mainly focus on a specific area, whereas comprehensive indices that cater to a wide range of applications are still lacking. The examples mentioned earlier in this chapter show that the current construction of the sense of gain index system has always focused on specific objects, regions, life aspects, and periods. For instance, Li (2018) focused on the key position of sense of gain in structuring teachers’ professional identity and the path of strengthening such sense of gain to provide some references for the subsequent construction of indexes for measuring the sense of gain of teachers’ professional identity. Chen et al. (2018) constructed an index system for laborers’ sense of gain. Li et al. (2017) and Li and Li (2018) constructed an index system for villagers’ sense of gain. T. Li et al. (2018) constructed an index system for seafarers’ sense of gain. Zhou et al. (2016), Shi and Fu (2017) constructed an index system for students’ sense of gain. Chen et al. (2019) and Zhou et al. (2015) constructed sense of gain indices for public health services. Zhang and Hao (2017) measured sense of gain in environmental governance. Each set of indices has its own system, and no universal index system has been created as of yet. The overall applicability of extant index systems remains unsatisfactory. An instrument with broad applicability should consider different subjects, life aspects, periods, and the regional dimensions of its subjects.

4.3.2 Multidimensional Index Many scholars adopted a multidimensional perspective in constructing a sense of gain index system. For example, Wen (2018) established a three-dimensional theoretical model of college students’ sense of gain, including their participation opportunity gain, identity gain, and personal achievement gain. They described the definition of sense of gain, its relationship with needs and equity, and the theoretical content

84

4 Methodology for the Construction …

and interrelationship among the three dimensions of this concept. J. Zhang (2017) designed a self-administered questionnaire on the sense of gain of 685 higher vocational college students from 17 higher vocational colleges across 7 provinces in China. Results of a factor analysis identified 8 dimensions of sense of gain, including social, self-reliance, and extension, with 63 items. The operationalization items on the social dimension included an increased concern for society, having learned to solve problems independently, improved aesthetic level, becoming more hands on, learning to take responsibility, becoming more rigorous, improved problem analysis abilities, learning some manners, improved solidarity and cooperation abilities, better relationships with relatives, enhanced social adaptation, learning to consider the feelings of others, improved self-control and self-regulation, accepting others, and having a greater love of life. The operationalization items on the self-sufficiency dimension included improved self-learning ability, increased sense of democracy, physical development, enhanced self-confidence, adjustment of mentality, learning time management, increased boldness, and learning to think rationally. Meanwhile, the operationalization items on extending, accommodating, self-discipline, daring, knowledge, and life included eloquence, being considerate of others, increased sense of patriotism, extroverted personality, learned professional skills, and increased emotional needs, respectively. Results highlighted social as the most important dimension that warrants further discussion. Wang and Ji (2018) elaborated on the contemporary significance of sense of gain to highlight the changes in this concept across time. After considering the concept of relative deprivation, they distinguished sense of gain into horizontal and vertical senses of gain. Their measurement drew upon three-period data from the International Social Justice Project and the National Civic Values Project. The developed index system was administered among 3,267 migrants all over the country who were identified using GPS technology. The scale contained 11 items on sense of gain (e.g., “In the ongoing changes in our country, some people have lost a lot, and others have gained a lot. Do you feel that you have gained or lost more?”), including both its vertical and horizontal dimensions. In fact, the construction of a multidimensional measurement system for sense of gain can draw on the development of the multidimensional measurement system for wellbeing. For example, Renshaw and Bolognino (2016) initially developed and validated the college student subjective wellbeing questionnaire to measure the sense of wellbeing of college students. However, the applicability of this multidimensional yet straightforward questionnaire was only limited to college students. This questionnaire was administered among 917 college students to explore the incremental validity between the global applicability and domain-specific measures of wellbeing. Five core factors of subjective wellbeing that are often studied in positive psychology, namely, self-efficacy, gratitude, grit, connectedness, and life satisfaction, were initially selected. Afterward, on the basis of the components of the wellbeing of college students, five dimensions of the subjective wellbeing questionnaire were derived, namely, academic self-efficacy, college gratitude, academic grit, school connectedness, and academic satisfaction. Afterward, six items were assigned to each of these five dimensions. After the factor analysis and reliability test, those dimensions and items that did not meet psychometric criteria were eliminated. The

4.3 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Indices

85

final 15 items based on the 4 dimensions included school connectedness (“I feel like a real part of [name of university],” “I can really be myself at this school,” “I feel proud of belonging to [name of university],” and “Other students here like me the way I am”), academic efficacy (“I am a hard worker in my classes,” “I am a diligent student,” “I am an organized and effective student,” and “I study well for my classes”), college gratitude (“I am so thankful that I’m getting a college education,” “I am grateful to the professors and other students who have helped me in class,” “I feel thankful for the opportunity to learn so many new things,” and “I am grateful for the people who have helped me succeed in college”), and academic satisfaction (“I have had a great academic experience at [name of university],” “I am happy with how I’ve done in my classes,” and “I am satisfied with my academic achievement since coming to [name of university]”). Singh and Aggarwal (2018) constructed a wellbeing measurement index in the work domain by combining qualitative and quantitative methods. They began with an open-ended qualitative approach to collect information on events related to wellbeing at work in the past year from 683 workers, who were also asked to mention their anticipated future wellbeing-related activities in the workplace. To distinguish wellbeing at work from wellbeing in their personal lives, the respondents were asked to mention similar events in their past and the year ahead. The collected data were subsequently coded using deductive and inductive methods following the noticingcollecting-thinking approach, yielding 10 dimensions with 118 items, including job satisfaction, work engagement, thriving and vigor, flow, affect, supportive work experience, team experiences, workplace hygiene, job security, and impact on others. On the basis of these items, two sets of data were collected from 750 and 270 staff members, and factor extraction was carried out via EFA. Similarly, Salsman et al. (2013) developed and validated the positive affect and wellbeing scale for the neurology quality of life, a health-related quality of life measurement system for patients with major neurological diseases (e.g., stroke, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, or epilepsy), to assess and understand the potentials of positive health processes among these patients. They developed this instrument based on data collected from 513 individuals from the general population as a standard sample and 581 patients with various neurological disorders as a validated sample. First, an item pool was created by reviewing the existing measurements and designing new items. This process generated over 750 items, which were categorized by 3 researchers into conceptual areas (e.g. anxiety, depression, and stigma). In case of inconsistencies between the scoring decisions of two raters, a third rater collated the differences for moderating judgments. Each rater was involved in the selection process of paring down the item pools into smaller sets. External experts were also consulted throughout the process to help reduce redundancy and to modify the items to conform to a consistent format. All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always). Salsman et al. (2013) then used the generated item pool to conduct phone cognitive interviews in English and Spanish with 63 patients having neurological disorders. These interviews helped assess the patients’ perceptions and understanding of items and gave researchers a final opportunity to make

86

4 Methodology for the Construction …

pre-test modifications, which resulted in a preliminary scale containing 27 items. Favorable quantitative analysis results were obtained from 27 items, including “I was able to enjoy life,” “I felt a sense of purpose in my life,” “I could laugh and see the humor in situations,” “I was able to be at ease and feel relaxed,” “I looked forward with enjoyment to upcoming events,” “Many areas of my life were interesting to me,” “I felt emotionally stable,” “I felt lovable,” “I felt confident,” “I felt hopeful,” “I had a good life,” “I had a sense of wellbeing,” “My life was satisfying,” “I had a sense of balance in my life,” “My life had meaning,” “My life was peaceful,” “My life was worth living,” “My life had a purpose,” “I was living life to the fullest,” “I felt cheerful,” “In most ways, my life was close to my ideal,” “I had good control of my thoughts,” and “Even when things were going badly, I still had hope.” Another well-known study adopted a multidimensional approach and developed a model for evaluating sense of wellbeing and the corresponding measurements. Kern et al. (2015) collected data from 516 students aged 13 to 18 years to develop a multidimensional wellbeing measure based on Seligman’s PERMA model, whose core elements included positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and achievement. In constructing the items, they drew upon 12 items from the EPOCH measure of adolescent wellbeing, 30 items from the positive and negative affect schedule for children, and 7 other items. The multidimensional wellbeing scale was then divided into six dimensions, namely, positive emotion, engagement, relationships, accomplishment, depression, and anxiety. Some specific measurements of positive emotions included “How often have you felt cheerful,” “How often have you felt joyful,” “How often have you felt energetic,” “How often have you felt delighted,” “How often have you felt proud,” “How often have you felt fearless,” “How often have you felt calm,” “How often have you felt happy,” “How often have you felt excited,” “How often have you felt active,” “How often have you felt daring,” “How often have you felt strong,” and “How often have you felt lively.” Meanwhile, the specific measurements of engagement included “When I am reading or learning something new, I often lose track of how much time passed,” “I often get completely absorbed in what I am doing,” “I get so involved in activities that I forget about everything else,” “When I see beautiful scenery, I enjoy it so much that I lose track of time,” “How often have you felt interested,” and “How often have you felt alert.” Specific measurements of relationships included “My relationships are supportive and rewarding,” “I actively contribute to the happiness and wellbeing of others,” “I generally feel that what I do in my life is valuable and worthwhile,” “When something good happens to me, I have people in my life that I like to share the good news with,” “I have friends that I really care about,” “There are people in my life who really care about me,” “When I have a problem, I have someone who will be there for me,” “I feel that I am loved,” and “I feel that my life has a purpose.” Specific measurements of accomplishment included “I finish whatever I begin,” “Once I make a plan to get something done, I stick to it,” “I am a hard worker,” “I keep at my schoolwork until I am done with it,” “Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do,” and “During the past two weeks, I have been pleased about completing something that was hard to do.” Specific measurements of depression included “How often have you felt miserable,” “How often have you felt sad,” “How often have you felt

4.4 Conclusion

87

gloomy,” “How often have you felt lonely,” “How often have you felt upset,” “How often have you felt disgusted,” “How often have you felt blue,” and “How often have you felt angry.” Specific measurements of anxiety included “How often have you felt nervous,” “How often have you felt scared,” “How often have you felt afraid,” “How often have you felt jittery,” “How often have you felt guilty,” “How often have you felt frightened,” and “How often have you felt ashamed.”

4.4 Conclusion Many theoretical interpretations of sense of gain have emerged since the introduction of this concept. Empirical studies by Chinese scholars have mainly constructed operationalized index systems and investigated their extent and influencing factors. However, for many studies, the process of constructing an index system is plagued by inconsistent theoretical foundations, biased data orientations, unfair selection of subjective and objective indexes, and lack of comprehensive synthesis. To solve these problems, we need to select items that reflect genuine satisfaction and gain and maintain the balance between objective wellbeing and subjective development when constructing a sense of gain index system. In this way, the constructed index system can reflect the subjectivity, originality, topicality, and international influence of sense of gain. To comprehensively and systematically construct an index system that reflects both specificity and universality, the following points should be considered at the methodological level: First, theory-driven and data-driven methods should be combined in the construction of the index system. Sense of gain indices should fit the theoretical connotation, be scientifically reasonable, and be easy to operate. The indices proposed in the literature were largely uneven, and the corresponding academic research findings were diverse. Most empirical studies have only constructed relatively simple indices yet have not rigorously or scientifically verified their psychometric properties. For example, Zhao (2018) defined sense of gain from five aspects (i.e., subject, object, and means) and divided this concept into absolute and relative senses of gain. Nevertheless, sense of gain was simply operationalized as the evaluation of living standards and socioeconomic status, and the obtained conclusions were limited to the market and social levels and ignored the critical component of sense of gain at the individual level. Li et al. (2018) combined interviews and questionnaires to investigate the sense of gain of more than 300 poor people living in the ethnic areas of southwest China. They eventually constructed a comprehensive theoretical model of the sense of gain of poor people in this region while considering the multidimensional nature of poverty, the special characteristics of ethnic areas, and the definition and key factors influencing sense of gain. This theoretical model comprised the three facets (i.e., material, psychological, and spiritual) and five dimensions (i.e., perceptible material, security, equity, competence, and dignity) of sense of gain. Although Li et al. (2018) provided sufficient theoretical evidence on what constitutes sense of gain, a

88

4 Methodology for the Construction …

psychometric validation of this concept was lacking, and the operational items were missing (D. Li et al., 2018). Therefore, a measurement that lacks a rigorous scientific theoretical justification process does not adequately reflect sense of gain, and the scientificity and rigor of its findings are inevitably questioned. A measurement that remains at the theoretical level cannot be implemented in practice. Given the inconsistency in the current procedures and standards for developing the sense of gain index system, the essential characteristics of this concept should be identified via theoretical analysis, and an index system that reflects the essential characteristics and connotations of sense of gain should be constructed. Second, the construction of the sense of gain index system needs to focus on objectivity and subjectivity. The current construction of indices for measuring sense of gain focuses on either individual or social development, respectively. However, the two aforementioned aspects should be combined. For example, Cai (2018) measured subjective sense of gain in his study of the relationship among socioeconomic status, subjective perceptions of achievement, and class identity. Subjective sense of gain included three dimensions, namely, degree of benefit from reform, self-induced success, and life improvement. However, the data based on sense of gain measurements might be lagged and ignore the changes over time. In this case, to accurately reflect a specific level of sense of gain, a more realistic measurement of sense of gain should be chosen instead of merely constructing a subjective index (Wang, 2018). For instance, Wen and Liu (2018) considered additional objective factors, including economic, political, and livelihood sense of gain, explored the time factor from the perspective of longitudinal development, and performed a time series comparison of people’s sense of gain. They concluded that the economic sense of gain dimension can be further divided into current sense of gain, relative sense of gain, and expected sense of gain. The distribution of fair sense of gain under this dimension showed an inverted U-shaped trend across the data. Under the dimension of political sense of gain, the sense of gain in fighting corruption showed a decreasing trend before increasing, whereas the sense of gain in political participation generally showed a decreasing trend every year. The sense of gain in livelihood security was further divided into sense of gain in old age security, housing security, and security of safety, all of which showed good development trends every year. The development of security under the livelihood sense of gain dimension was also further divided into security sense of gain in education, employment, and health care, all of which showed good development trends across all years. Third, we should combine the development characteristics of the times and the regional and cultural differences to build a comprehensive sense of gain index system from both the horizontal and vertical aspects. The dimensions that need to be considered in constructing this index system include the objective social development and perceived individual wellbeing facets. The objective material dimension needs to include food, clothing, housing, transport, and other materials, the gain of economic levels (active income and fixed assets), the gain of political rights (right to participation, expression, and supervision), the gain of the achievement of the development of the times (cultural, social, and ecological development), sense of national dignity and honor, the gain of self-worth of the times, opportunities for economic participation,

4.4 Conclusion

89

and recognition of the degree of sustainability of sense of gain (Cao & Li, 2017). We also need to focus on the 15 key areas of the comprehensive deepening reform. The subjective spiritual dimension needs to encompass all dimensions related to life satisfaction, positive emotions, negative emotions, personal growth, good relationships, environmental control, and vitality of life related to traditional hedonistic wellbeing and realistic wellbeing. This index system should also combine comprehensive survey indices with specific development characteristics. Given the lack of an authoritative standard for the construction of this index system, apart from selfadministered questionnaires, some studies have constructed or analyzed sense of gain and its influencing factors by drawing upon the relevant index systems developed by authorities and their survey data. However, the main drawback of this approach is that large household-based survey data cannot accurately reflect the subjective feelings of different individuals within the household. In operationalizing the subjective mental dimension of sense of gain, the subjectivity of sense of gain should be taken into account. For example, Li et al. (2019) analyzed the dimensions and items of people’s sense of gain in targeted poverty reduction on a household basis. Furthermore, by using data from a national survey conducted by the China Livelihood Index Research and Development Center of the Southwestern University of Finance and Economics at the end of 2014, Ye et al. (2018) constructed a unique and holistic livelihood gain index that collected data from 9,308 households. By using data from the 2016 National Economic Survey of Low-Income Households covering 3,240 households, Liang (2018) constructed indices for measuring the economic sense of gain of lowincome households. This household-based survey data most likely reflect the sense of gain of one member of the household yet do not represent the feelings of all household members. In his research on the quality of life of Chinese residents, Wang (2018) proposed that due to differences in personal values, the unit of measurement of subjective quality of life is the individual, and each individual will reflect different subjective feelings. Therefore, the specific points of the sense of gain itself should be considered, and a comprehensive survey index should be used to construct a sense of gain index system. Whether it be a self-administered questionnaire or a comprehensive survey, the adopted measurement should focus on the characteristics of sense of gain itself. To construct a scientific, reasonable, and well-established index system, researchers should not only grasp the universal characteristics of sense of gain but also integrate the development characteristics and dynamic changes in their research subjects into the sense of gain index system based on the requirements related to the gain (Tan et al., 2018).

90

4 Methodology for the Construction …

References Botha, F. (2016). The Good African Society Index. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0891-z Cai, S. (2018). Social economic status, subjective sense of gain and stratum identification. Journal of Fujian Provincial Committee Party School of CPC (Fujian Academy of Governance), (03), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.15993/j.cnki.cn35-1198/c.2018.03.008 Cao, X., & Li, S. (2017). The connotation of “gain” and the foreign experiences. Frontiers, (02), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.16619/j.cnki.rmltxsqy.2017.02.002 Chen, H., Guo, X., & Wang, J. (2018). Study on the construction of evaluation index system of the laborers’ sense of gain based on the view of Marx’s labor value theory. Productivity Research, (3), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.19374/j.cnki.14-1145/f.2018.03.002 Chen, Y., Wang, L., Yan, C., Lian, S., & Li, J. (2019). Perceived acquisition of basic public health services among residents in Gansu province: A cross-sectional study. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 35(06), 685–688. https://doi.org/10.11847/zgggws1118557 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Duan, Z. (2017). Sense of health and security: A vital standard for people’s sense of achievement. Social Sciences Journal of Universites in Shanxi, 29(2), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.16396/j.cnki. sxgxskxb.2017.02.007 Kern, M. L., Waters, L. E., Adler, A., & White, M. A. (2015). A multidimensional approach to measuring well-being in students: Application of the PERMA framework. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936962 Li, B. (2018). The sense of gain: The contemporary construction of teachers’ professional identity. Theory and Practice of Education, 38(29), 36–38. Li, D., Yang, L., & He, Z. (2018a). A survey on the sense of gain among the poor in Southwest China’s minority areas in the context of targeted poverty reduction. Journal of Sichuan University (philosophy and Social Science Edition), 03, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-0766. 2018.03.009 Li, J., & Zhao, Y. (2000). Validation of index of well-being in a sample of Chinese college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8(4), 225–226+224. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki. 1005-3611.2000.04.009 Li, Q., & Li, J. (2018). Heterogeneity of the villages, villagers’ perception on deliberative acquisition and their satisfaction of the villagers’ committee. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, 04, 81–90. Li, T., Dong, Z., & Tian, X. (2018b). A study on the formation mechanism of seafarers’ sense of gain—A grounded analysis based on the in-depth interview Data. Maritime Education Research, 3(35), 21–25+29. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-8724.2018.03.006 Li, T., Lan, L., & Su, S. (2017). Comparative analysis of gain sense of farmers under policy of two typical modes of forest right reform in Fujian. Resource Development & Market, 33(5), 524–528. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-8141.2017.05.003 Li, T., Tao, M., & Zhang, J. (2019). People’s sense of gain in poverty alleviation: An empirical study of the case in Guangxi ethnic areas. Journal of Management, 32(01), 8–19. https://doi.org/ 10.3969/j.issn.1674-6511.2019.01.002 Liang, T. (2018). Environmental factors, policy effects and the sense of economic gain of low-income families: An empirical analysis based on the survey data of CLIFSS2016. Modern Economic Research, (09), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.13891/j.cnki.mer.2018.09.004 Liu, B., & Wang, Z. (2018). The developmental evolution of the five conceptual models of sense of happiness. Journal of Heilongjiang Institute of Teacher Development, 37(07), 97–99. https:// doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-7836.2018.07.033 Liu, T., & Yin, D. (2017). The age of big data and paradigm change in social science research. Theoretical Exploration, 6, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-4175.2017.06.005

References

91

Lv, X., & Huang, Y. (2018). Measuring “sense of gain”: Based on the analysis of the survey data of Chinese society. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 55(05), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.16783/j.cnki.nwnus.2018.05.006 Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/a: 1006824100041 Mirbaha-Hashemi, F., Pourmalek, F., Tehrani, A., Abachizadeh, K., Memaryan, N., Hazar, N., Omidnia, S., Ziari, A., & Moradi-Lakeh, M. (2016). Monitoring social well-being in Iran. Social Indicators Research, 129(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1087-2 Pan, J., & Yang, L. (2018). The logic and practice of Xi Jinping’s “thought of people’s sense of gain”. Study and Practice, (02). https://doi.org/10.19624/j.cnki.cn42-1005/c.2018.02.001 Qu, X. (2018). Interpretations and reflections on sense of gain to post-compulsory education for migrant children—A grounded research based on a sample of 34 interviews. Contemporary Educational Sciences, (07), 7–11+16. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-2221.2018.07.003 Renshaw, T. L., & Bolognino, S. J. (2016). The college student subjective wellbeing questionnaire: A brief, multidimensional measure of undergraduate’s covitality. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9606-4 Salsman, J. M., Victorson, D., Choi, S. W., Peterman, A. H., Heinemann, A. W., Nowinski, C., & Cella, D. (2013). Development and validation of the positive affect and well-being scale for the neurology quality of life (Neuro-QOL) measurement system. Quality of Life Research, 22(9), 2569–2580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0382-0 Shi, Q., & Fu, A. (2017). A study on the relationship between sense of gain, political trust and political party identification: Based on the survey data of college students in six ministry-affiliated universities in Hubei province. Journal of South-Central Minzu University (humanities and Social Sciences), 37(01), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-433X.2017.01.019 Singh, S., & Aggarwal, Y. (2018). Happiness at work scale: Construction and psychometric validation of a measure using mixed method approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(5), 1439–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9882-x Song, C. (2013). Measuring middle class identity and sense of happiness among the Chinese middle class: An empirical analysis based on the China general social survey 2006. Jianghan Tribune, 11, 139–144. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-854X.2013.11.028 Tan, X., Zhang, R., Dong, H., & Wang, J. (2018). The current situation of youth sense of gain and its influencing factors. China Youth Study, (10), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.19633/j.cnki.11-2579/ d.2018.0159 Thakur, B., & Mann, M. (2014). Data mining for big data: A review. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 4(5), 469–473. Van Landeghem, B. (2012). A test for the convexity of human well-being over the life cycle: Longitudinal evidence from a 20-year panel. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(2), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.001 Wang, J., & Liu, X. (2019). The status quo, change and the dynamics: Sense of security, sense of gain and sense of happiness, and the paths to enhancement. Jiangsu Social Sciences, (01), 41–49+258. https://doi.org/10.13858/j.cnki.cn32-1312/c.2019.01.006 Wang, P. (2018). Study on the quality of life of Chinese residents with social change. Social Sciences Academic Press(China). Wang, P., & Ji, C. (2018). Relative acquisition in transitional society: Measurement, change and comparison. Chinese Public Administration, 01, 6–12. https://doi.org/10.3782/j.issn.1006-0863. 2018.01.01 Wang, Z., Cai, L., & Ai, H. (2005). Text-to-visual speech in Chinese based on data-driven approach. Journal of Software, 16(6), 1054–1063. Wen, H., & Liu, Z. (2018). Timing comparison of the sense of gain to China: Trends and disparities empirical analysis based on Chinese urban and rural social governance data. Journal of Social Sciences, (3), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.13644/j.cnki.cn31-1112.2018.03.001

92

4 Methodology for the Construction …

Wen, J. (2018). Research on college students’ sense of gain in AIA three dimensions in new age. Journal of Guangzhou City Polytechnic, 12(01), 97–100. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.16740408.2018.01.018 Xie, Y., Li, C., & Feng, J. (2008). Construction of a subjective sense of well-being indicator system for rural residents and its comprehensive evaluation: The case of Hongta district, Yuxi, Yunnan. Country Agriculture Farmers(A), (06), 46–47. Xing, Z. (2006). Study on the construction and tracking of indicator system of happiness index. Data, 08, 10–12. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-5954.2006.08.006 Yang, Y. (2018). The obtained sense from the minsheng public services: Measurement and explanation. Journal of Public Administration, 11(05), 117–137+189. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn. 1674-2486.2018.05.006 Yao, B., Shi, S., & Fang, S. (2011). A review on the study of life satisfaction. Academics, (08), 218–227+289. Ye, X., Xie, C., & Mao, Z. (2018). The sense of gain and the satisfaction of people’s livelihood in China: Measuring and variance analysis. The Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, 35(10), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.13653/j.cnki.jqte.2018.10.001 Zhang, H., & Hao, W. (2017). Research on the influential factors of college students’ sense of gain in environmental governance. Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 02, 1–5. https:// doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-2614.2017.02.001 Zhang, J. (2017a). A research study on the sense of gain of higher education students. Journal of Vocational Education, (24), 25–29. Zhang, M. (2017b). A review of students’ sense of gain research. Education Science Forum, (32), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-4289.2017.32.010 Zhao, W. (2018). Research on the people’s sense of gain from the perspective of consumption. Journal of Beijing University of Technology (socIal Sciences Edition), 18(04), 1–7. https://doi. org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-0398.2018.04.002 Zhou, H., Zhang, M., & Luo, W. (2016). Analysis on students’ sense of achievement in private higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 37(09), 54–59. Zhou, S., Wang, H., & Su, Y. (2015). How can Chinese people have a higher level of sense of happiness: Based on people’s livelihood index survey in China. Management World, (06), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2015.06.002 Zhu, G. (2018). On the sense of gain in the ideological and political theory courses of universities in the new era. Hubei Social Sciences, (09), 161–166. https://doi.org/10.13660/j.cnki.42-1112/c. 014757

Chapter 5

Structure of Sense of Gain

5.1 Theoretical Structure of Sense of Gain The earliest search for the term huodegan on the China Knowledge Network (CNKI) was reported in 2015, and given that a detailed description of the concept of gain was already presented in the previous article, this section only provides a brief review of this concept. According to Zhan (2015), sense of gain refers to the perception that residents’ interests are protected, fairness and justice are achieved, the quality of the environment is improved, and the political and social culture is purified from subjective to objective and from national planning to people’s livelihood. In short, sense of gain refers to the people’s aspiration for a better life. At the semantic level, Zhang (2016) considered the context of the times and the changes in the context in which sense of gain is proposed and then argued that sense of gain combines the two dimensions of “gain” (which focuses on objective gains) and “sense” (which focuses on subjective feelings) to describe the sustainable satisfaction resulting from material and spiritual gains. Huang and Wu (2017) further proposed an endogenous mechanism of “expectation-engagement-satisfaction-identity” between “gain” and “sense.” Therefore, these two dimensions have a progressive causal relationship, and given that premise is a “gain” rather than a “loss,” the sense of gain, as a subjective feeling, should be positive. Zeng (2017) argued that people’s sense of gain is not only reflected in material aspects, such as clothing, food, housing, and transportation, but also in spiritual aspects, such as fairness, justice, and self-fulfillment, the last of which pertains to a feeling and concern of people about the status of the realization of their interests in economic and social development. He further pointed out that the state of people’s sense of gain will also change along with the level of their needs and living conditions. Xing and Niu (2017) identified the subject of sense of gain as the degree of socio-economic development and its actual benefits for the people, whereas its object is the diversified social supply sector. From a twoway perspective, sense of gain can be viewed as the people’s recognition of social development, the degree of coordination in improving people’s wellbeing, and the satisfaction of people’s needs by social supply. Li and Hu (2018) argued that sense © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Duan and Y. Li, Huodegan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4_5

93

94

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

of gain is a comprehensive perception of wellbeing and a sense of comfort and satisfaction arising from people’s comparison of their present and past lives and then suggested that sense of gain is consistent with the political position of the Marxist concept of justice, which measures the rationality of the social order based on its justness, the subjective role of the people, the importance attached to the development of productive forces, and the need for a fair distribution of social factors. Guided by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, Wang (2018) explored the priority of satisfying the sense of gain of poor and vulnerable groups. Similarly, Xing and Niu (2017) emphasized the sense of gain to subjects and sense of gain to valuable objects and then defined sense of gain as the process and positive subjective rating of people’s acquisition of valuable things. The aforementioned views all define sense of gain as a concept with a rich meaning, a more comprehensive and relevant concept than traditional ones, such as happiness and satisfaction (Feng & Luo, 2018), and a collection of social development, individual spiritual enhancement, satisfaction, fairness and justice, selffulfillment, feelings and concerns, identity, happiness, comfort, satisfaction, and subjective positive evaluation. This very local “Chinese concept” has a distinctive contemporary color and must be taken in the contexts of deepening reforms, transformation of economic and social development modes, and achievement of shared development (Cao & Li, 2017). Therefore, exploring the Chinese concept of sense of gain should clarify the progressiveness between “gain” and “sense,” reflect the diversity of “social development” and “individual wellbeing,” and encompass the characteristics of the times and cultural connotations. This study then defines sense of gain as an individual’s perception of social development and individual wellbeing based on social facts and a comprehensive, international concept that combines the specificity of subjective experiences and the universality of colonial mentality.

5.1.1 Perceived Social Development Entering the keyword “sense of gain” in the CSSCI journal database of CNKI returned 104 articles published before December 31, 2019. These articles were then sorted using the manual reading method by two postgraduate students in sociology to filter out empirical papers that dealt with the definition or measurement of sense of gain. A sociology professor then read and sorted through the documents compiled by the two postgraduate students to further identify empirical papers that provided operational definitions and practical measurements of sense of gain. Table 5.1 lists the empirical studies published in CSSCI journals that discuss the operational definitions and measurements of sense of gain. A careful review of the operational definitions and elements of sense of gain in the literature reveals that the current indices for measuring sense of gain are mainly based on one or more of the following dimensions: economic, political, cultural, livelihood, and ecological. This finding is in line with the five-sphere integrated plan overall layout proposed during the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of

5.1 Theoretical Structure of Sense of Gain

95

Table 5.1 Definitions/operational definitions and elements of sense of gain as discussed in empirical studies Authors

Definitions/operational definitions Elements involved

Wang and Ji (2019)

People’s sense of gain can be distinguished into vertical and horizontal gains, which together constitute the overall sense of gain for each individual

As a positive spatial comparison vector, the horizontal sense of gain reflects an individual’s sense of gain when comparing himself/herself with others. By contrast, the vertical sense of gain is an individual’s positive sense of gain when comparing his/her previous situation with his/her expectations for the future

Wang and Liu (2019)

The cognitive experience of an individual after gaining through effort

(i) The content of gain, including material conditions and achievement results; (ii) the gain environment; (iii) the gain experience; (iv) the gain pathway; and (v) the gain and share

Cheng and Liu (2019)

Equalization of public health services is an important manifestation of people’s sense of gain from their livelihood

The sense of people’s livelihood includes five categories, namely, economic security, social welfare, public service facilities, ecological environment, and social governance

Xie and Lan (2019)

Grassroots civil servants’ sense of Sense of income, satisfaction, gain refers to satisfaction resulting and wellbeing from their material and spiritual gains

Yang and Zhang (2019)

Sense of gain is not only an organic fusion of the ideas of fairness and justice, shared development, and common prosperity but also considers people’s status and the realization of their needs (e.g., material or spiritual needs) and includes the subjective feelings resulting from this transformation

People’s sense of gain includes five aspects, namely, economic gain, public service gain, political gain, security gain, and self-fulfillment gain

(continued)

the Communist Party of China and with the current situation and development goals of China’s comprehensive deepening reform. In other words, sense of gain should cover multiple areas and groups. In the context of the comprehensive deepening reform, sense of gain can be summarized into the five areas of economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection. In the context of the deepening reform, the economic level aspect includes the residents’ perceptions toward their income, expenditure, and socioeconomic status and

96

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Table 5.1 (continued) Authors

Definitions/operational definitions Elements involved

Qiu et al. (2019)

Sense of gain is a positive psychological experience based on objective material gains and improvements in one’s life situation

Wu and Liu (2019)

The overall measurement is based Sense of gain to economic, sense on the objective possession and of gain to political, and sense of subjective perception of economic gain to livelihood and social development results

Liang (2019)

Sense of gain to the economy comes from objective financial gain. For low-income groups, their financial gains in the process of the reform and opening up cover their current household income, housing status, wealth accumulation, and other aspects of objective economic conditions

Includes the four aspects of overall sense of gain, vertical sense of gain, horizontal sense of gain, and expected sense of gain

Nie (2019)

Sense of gain refers to people’s personal feelings based on the benefits and rights brought about by the reform

Objective sense of gain includes economic benefits, material benefits, social rights, and political rights, whereas subjective sense of gain refers to the subjective experience brought about by material gain

Farmers’ sense of gain comes from the following aspects: concerns about major social issues, concerns and expectations about their children’s education, employment, income disparity, their education and the education of the next generation, country climate and neighborhood relations, government trust and infrastructure development, income and family wealth, social interaction and ability enhancement, kinship input, human security environment, and family medical health

(continued)

other elements related to the country’s macroeconomic situation, such as narrowing the urban-rural gap and the wealth gap and understanding the achievements of certain social development strategies, such as the battle against poverty. Therefore, both the economic level of an individual and the economic development level of the country, region, and society are all covered by sense of gain. Under the continuous development of the legal system in China, political rights cover many democratic rights that citizens enjoy, such as the political rights to vote, to be informed, and to participate, as well as their views toward the construction of democratic politics and rule

5.1 Theoretical Structure of Sense of Gain

97

Table 5.1 (continued) Authors

Definitions/operational definitions Elements involved

Zhang and Deng (2019) Teacher training gain refers to the tangible gains that teachers obtain through training and their positive emotional experiences

Includes the three dimensions of knowledge and skills, emotional relationship, and value and meaning as well as six specific indicators, namely, clarity of training objectives, perception of training results, emotional support, participation in training activities, self-awareness deepening, and self-regulation conscientiousness

Wang (2019)

Sense of gain to economic is the subjective satisfaction of individuals based on their actual economic income

The relative level of intra-village self-assessment of household income is used as a cross-sectional measure of the real sense of gain in economic, whereas the expected change in income growth is used as a vertical measure

Li and Bai (2019)

Sense of gain is a subjective feeling felt after acquiring something objectively

Sense of gain to economic, sense of gain to livelihood, and sense of gain to political

Shao (2019)

People’s subjective sense of gain refers to the positive feelings of the general public about the cognitive evaluation, emotional recognition, and need satisfaction with the results of China’s reform and opening up

Sense of gain to political construction, sense of gain to economic construction, sense of gain to social construction, sense of gain to cultural construction, and sense of gain to ecological construction

Lv and Zhang (2020)

In the health care reform, the Objective gain at the individual people’s subjective feelings as level, subjective perception, and patients about the various services accurate gain at the group level provided by the whole health care system

Li et al. (2019)

Sense of gain is a subjective perception of benefits gained and a subjective mapping of objective gain (i.e., people’s recognition of their resource possession and gain)

Sense of gain to economic, sense of gain to political, and sense of gain to livelihood

(continued)

98

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Table 5.1 (continued) Authors

Definitions/operational definitions Elements involved

Dong et al. (2019)

They initially focus on the content Gain experience, gain of “gain” and mainly explore environment, gain content, gain “gain” to economic benefits, pathways, and gain and share development achievements, or essential public services. Afterward, they analyze the “sense” of gain with a focus on subjective feelings based on “gain,” emphasize the “benefits” that are more specific and practical than “wellbeing,” and explore sense of gain as the satisfaction arising from the the material or spiritual level of gain

Wang and Yan (2019)

Sense of gain refers to an individual’s sense of satisfaction and fulfillment in his/her existence and development and his/her subjective feeling of wellbeing from the maintenance and realization of his/her interests in the operation of society

Sense of gain refers to an individual’s sense of satisfaction and fulfillment in his/her existence and development and his/her subjective feeling of wellbeing from the maintenance and realization of his/her interests in the operation of society

Chen et al. (2019)

Satisfaction arises from the material or spiritual gains that may persist throughout one’s existence

The sense of gain of essential public services includes knowledge of services for the whole population, utilization of services for the whole population, satisfaction with services for the whole population, knowledge of services for key populations, utilization of services for key populations, satisfaction with services for key populations, and policy awareness (continued)

5.1 Theoretical Structure of Sense of Gain

99

Table 5.1 (continued) Authors

Definitions/operational definitions Elements involved

Li and Zhang (2018)

Positive psychological feelings after improving and enhancing all aspects of material conditions, abilities, and interpersonal interactions

Evaluation of the sense of gain in the implementation of targeted poverty alleviation policies, evaluation of the sense of fairness in precise identification, evaluation and feedback on the participation of the poor in poverty alleviation production projects, and evaluation of the sense of gain of the poor participating in skills training

Chen et al. (2018)

A comprehensive concept that involves workers’ material and spiritual needs is proposed

Economic life, political life, cultural life, social life, and ecological civilization

Yang (2018)

A subjective feeling that emphasizes the real “gain,” including both material and spiritual aspects

Convenience, adequacy, universality, and equality of public services for people’s livelihood

Tan et al. (2018)

The basic needs of the research subjects should be considered as a necessary part of the research on sense of gain

The importance of projects based on sense of gain to the quality of life of the population, current perceptions of gain, and future expectations of gain

Ye et al. (2018)

People’s sense of gain to livelihood is a perception of the effectiveness of people’s livelihood improvement

Economic life, social security, culture and education, living environment and public affairs, evaluation of the effectiveness of people’s livelihood

Wang et al. (2018)

Sense of gain is based on objective Sense of gain to economic, sense and real gains, and the content of of gain to political, and sense of gain includes not only material gain to livelihood gains but also spiritual gains

Li et al. (2018)

In addition to material and spiritual satisfaction, it also includes rights, such as dignity, fairness, and justice

Materiality, security, equity, competence, and dignity

(continued)

100

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Table 5.1 (continued) Authors

Definitions/operational definitions Elements involved

Lv and Huang (2018)

Sense of gain is a subjective experience of the people, especially those at the bottom, of the universality of material benefits and basic rights and interests brought about by the reform and development in the basic social context of the current comprehensive deepening of reform in China

Wen and Liu (2018)

Sense of gain comprehensively Sense of gain to livelihood, sense considers the objective enjoyment of gain to economic, and sense of and subjective feeling of people gain to political with the fruits of economic and social development. It is a multidimensional subjective indicator that combines subjective feelings and objective, material, and spiritual gains

Zhao (2018)

Need satisfaction is a subjective psychological feeling based on a specific “gain” (including material, spiritual, cultural, and other gains)

Li and Zhang (2018)

Sense of gain to public services Public service satisfaction and refers to residents’ perception of gain of public service resources the effectiveness of various aspects of public service resources in their area during the process of gaining public services

Sense of personal development, sense of social security, sense of social justice, and government job satisfaction

Standard of living and socioeconomic status

of law in China. Leisure and education, which mainly refer to cultural, sports, and education activities, reflect the results of the modern public cultural service system, cultural system reform, and education mechanism system reform and should take into account daily cultural, sports, and recreational activities and facilities as well as institutionalized education services. Social livelihood, which is closely related to people’s life, includes the indicators of medical care, employment, pension, social security, basic living materials, food security, security, housing, public transportation, and government public services. The residents’ perceptions toward social livelihood can directly reflect their living conditions and partially reflect how the state and society benefit the people. Ecological protection is required to establish a systematic and complete ecological civilization system. This factor has several indicators, including air quality, water pollution, and biodiversity, which reflect the awareness of residents about their living environment, the situation of their country, and their

5.1 Theoretical Structure of Sense of Gain

101

ecosystem. Ecological protection also includes the environmental protection behaviors and policies made by individuals themselves or their country to improve their ecological environment. However, the extant measurement frameworks for sense of gain remain deficient. Although most scholars have agreed that sense of gain encompasses the facets of perceived social development and perceived individual wellbeing, a comprehensive measurement for this concept remains lacking. Some measurement frameworks have focused on a few specific domains, such as livelihood, politics, and economics. Some studies also serve only few specific groups, such as the poor, the disadvantaged, and the working population, while others have focused only on a single facet of social development. The framework for measuring sense of gain based on this approach is largely the same as the traditional satisfaction theory, which focuses too much on social development and pays little attention to the individual, thereby failing to reflect the sense of gain defined in this study.

5.1.2 Perceived Individual Wellbeing At the individual level, Seligman (2002) and Jorgensen and Nafstad (2004) argued that a happy and good life is a dynamic progression from simple to complex and then to optimal and can be divided into four levels, namely, pleasant life, good life, meaningful life, and full life. Such change in level can also be reflected by the theoretical development of wellbeing. In fact, wellbeing was initially considered equivalent to emotions that are more positive and less negative (e.g., a pleasant, happy, and joyful life) (Bradburn, 1969). Given the short-term nature of emotional states, cognitive factors need to be taken into account. Therefore, wellbeing is considered an evaluation of one’s life (i.e., the overall feeling of an individual after considering his/her assessment of his/her own life over time; an individual believes that his/her life is satisfactory, sound, and does not need to be changed). Researchers then extended wellbeing to an individual’s higher-level needs (i.e., need for self-actualization or meaning; a life that where an individual realizes his/her value and meaning in life is considered a happy life) (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 1993). As researchers have started looking beyond their personal focus to human interaction and human-social connections, additional levels of needs have emerged. The sense of social support that comes from positive relationships and the perception of being cared for, loved, respected, and valued has been identified as one of the defining influences of a happy life in addition to the pleasure, beauty, and meaning of being an individual in its own right (Reis & Gable, 2003). As a member of society, an individual requires a positive quality of life and social development (Keyes, 1998; Keyes & Shapiro, 2004). When multiple levels of wellbeing are triangulated, the flourishing of an individual and the fullness of his/her community will reach harmony, thereby leading to a fulfilling life. Previous studies suggest that a happy life for Chinese people involves positive experiences, harmonious interrelationships, and social development (Lu & Gilmour, 2004). In other words, in terms of individual wellbeing, Chinese

102

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

people evaluate how well they are doing on the individual, interpersonal, and social levels. In addition to positive experiences such as happiness, joy, and fulfillment, selfrealization should also include one’s ability to be independent, personal growth, selfregulation, self-control, and perception of his/her purpose and meaning in life (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 2008). Therefore, sense of gain, which is in line with wellbeing, should be compatible with the dimensions of wellbeing in the individual and start from the interpersonal and social facets of individual wellbeing needs (e.g., including satisfaction, ability, target, amity, and unity) to build a complete measurement framework that reflects contemporary sense of gain. Satisfaction refers to the positive experiences of an individual and his/her satisfaction with the results, including positive emotions, sense of achievement, gratification, and other psychological feelings. In addition to an individual’s own spiritual need, the spiritual need that arises when s/he interacts with others and societies also needs to be satisfied. Ability is defined as an individual’s recognition of the value of self-determination in achieving his/her life goals and realizing the meaning of his/her life. Ability may also refer to one’s ability to be independent, regulate his/her behavior, develop a good sense of stewardship, and control complex external activities. People with ability can effectively use the opportunities around them, choose or create an environment that suits their needs and values, be open to new experiences, and have the sense to explore their potential and continuously develop at all aspects over time (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 2008). These individuals have targets, intentions, and directions in life and can make steady progress toward achieving value and meaning (Coffey et al., 2016). Amity refers to the ability of individuals to reach a state of satisfaction and wellbeing when interacting with others interpersonally. In this state, individuals develop positive and trusting attitudes and perceptions of others, such as believing that others are kind and hardworking. These individuals also demonstrate positive interpersonal behaviors, such as being able to treat others with courtesy, mutual respect and support, and harmony. Ultimately, they can build warm and trusting interpersonal relationships with one another (Gander et al., 2017). Unity refers to a state in which an individual’s spiritual needs are satisfied when interacting with his/her society. The specific manifestations of unity include social integration, social contribution, social development, and social harmony (Keyes & Shapiro, 2004). Individuals with unity believe that they are part of a social group, can receive support from this group, and can share their social welfare with others. They believe that they are important to their society, that their behavior can bring value to the society, and that they are valued by their society. They are also hopeful about the future of their society, recognize that their society has development potential, and believe that they can benefit from social development. They also perceive their society as knowable, fair, and predictable. In sum, only when the five-sphere integrated plan is put into practice and when the people’s social, interpersonal, and psychological needs are met can we say that people have multiple senses of gain at the social development level and multidimensional satisfaction at the individual wellbeing level. Therefore, the measurement framework of sense of gain should be a “2-facet, 10-dimension” system that includes the 5 dimensions of perceived social development (i.e., economic level, political rights,

5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index

103

Fig. 5.1 Theoretical structure of sense of gain

leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection) and the 5 dimensions of perceived individual wellbeing (i.e., target, ability, satisfaction, amity, and unity) (Fig. 5.1).

5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index 5.2.1 Source of the Item Pool The items in the Huodegan Index were mainly derived from the following domestic and international measurement indices and measurement tools: The 2015 Chinese General Social Survey. The Chinese General Social Survey is a nationally representative survey executed by the China Survey and Data Center of the Renmin University of China. Since 2003, this cross-sectional survey collects data from approximately 10,000 households located across various provinces and cities in China at multiple levels, including the society, community, family, and individual. This survey summarizes trends in social change, explores topics

104

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

with great scientific and practical significance, promotes openness and sharing of domestic scientific research, provides data for international comparative studies, and serves as a multidisciplinary platform for economic and social data collection. The 2015 China Integrated Social Survey covered 478 villages and residences in 28 provinces/municipalities/autonomous regions across China, and the questionnaire includes 6 parts, namely, Part A Core Module (family member relationships, socio-demographic attributes, health, migration, lifestyle, social attitudes, class identity, individual cognitive ability, labor market, and social security), Part B 10-Year Review Module (2005 Economic Attitudes and Behavior Evaluation), Part C EASS Module (East Asia Social Survey), Part D ISSP Module (International Social Survey Program), Part E Energy Module, and Part F Rule of Law Module. To develop the initial item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the 2015 China General Social Survey for the dimensions of economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, ecological protection, and unity. The 2015 Chinese Social Survey. The Chinese Social Survey is a nationally representative survey initiated by the Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2005. A long-term longitudinal study of all aspects of the national population was conducted to obtain comprehensive data on social change in China during its transition period. The survey is being conducted every other year using population proportionate sampling and covers 31 provinces/autonomous regions/municipalities that fall directly under the central government. Each round of the survey has a sample size covering about 7,000 to 10,000 households. The 2015 questionnaire is divided into 11 parts, namely, Part A Household members (basic personal information), Part B Personal work status (engaged in production, work, or business activities), Part C Household production and living conditions (household residence and income), Part D Quality of life (whether there are some problems in life and the evaluation of life), Part E Social security (social security situation and evaluation), Part F Social solidarity/social integration (views on social issues), Part G Social cohesion/values/national and social evaluation (evaluation of social climate and local government work), Part H Social/political participation (participation in social activities), Part I Values, Part J Social mentality, and Part K Interview records. To develop the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the 2015 questionnaire for the dimensions of economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, ecological protection, amity, and unity. Measurement of Subjective Wellbeing and Poverty. This measurement instrument was derived from a questionnaire that was originally designed for the rural population in Pakistan. Shams (2016) developed a corresponding subjective wellbeing and poverty model based on the collected survey data to determine the extent to which economic dimensions impact our understanding of subjective wellbeing and poverty, especially the current income or expenditure of households. The items in this subjective well-being and poverty measure include “How satisfied are you with your current income and expenditure” and “How satisfied are you with your current socioeconomic situation,” which are rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =

5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index

105

“not at all satisfied” to 4 = “very satisfied”). This scale aims to measure the respondents’ subjective wellbeing, social development, and poverty perceptions. Results showed that economic status significantly affects the level of wellbeing of individuals. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the measurement of subjective wellbeing and poverty for the dimension of economic level. Good African Society Index (GASI). Created by Botha (2016), GASI covers 45 African countries and regions and contains 9 leading indices, namely, economic sustainability (daily income, real GDP per capita growth, export diversification, and income disparity), democracy and freedom (democracy index, freedom of the press, proportion of female parliamentary members, and government effectiveness), child wellbeing (child mortality, immunization against measles, teen fertility rate, and child nutrition), environment and infrastructure (carbon dioxide emissions, forest area lost, percentage of roads paved, and communication networks), safety and security (homicide rate, road fatalities, political stability, absence of violence, and security apparatus), health and health systems (life expectancy, infant mortality rate, obesity levels, and number of doctors), integrity and justice (corruption, enforcement of contracts, prison population, and rule of law), education (enrollment, expected years of schooling, youth literacy rate, and pupil/teacher ratio), and social cohesion and sustainability (group grievance, human flight, brain drain, stock of migrants, and uneven economic development). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices from GASI for the dimension of economic level. Happiness-Enhancing Activities and Positive Practices Inventory. Developed by Henricksen and Stephens (2013), the self-reported happiness-enhancing activities and positive practices inventory scale aims to assess the importance of participating in activities that promote wellbeing. This scale contains 22 items that assess 6 categories of activities, namely, other-focused (speaking to or doing something with family, good friends, or partners, meeting with similar others, and spending time helping others), personal recreation and interests (spending time on hobbies or interests, spending quality time alone doing your own thing, doing something you find amusing, going on trips, going on outings, spending time with a pet/animal, and exercising or doing some other form of physical activity), thoughts and attitudes (counting your blessings and framing things in a positive light), achievement (working on something that gives you get a sense of achievement, doing something you find mentally challenging, devoting your effort to a work goal, working toward achieving a property goal, and devoting time to an important personal goal), spirituality (spiritual activities, prayer, meditation, and worship), and self-coordinated work (doing something that uses your particular strengths and skills and working in a role that you enjoy). The respondents should rate each topic in terms of their importance and frequency of involvement in improving wellbeing. Importance is measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all important” to “extremely important,” whereas frequency of involvement is measured from 0 = “never” to 4 = “every day or more often.” In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, several indices and items from the happiness-enhancing activities and positive practices inventory were selected for the dimensions of political rights and satisfaction.

106

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Steen Happiness Index. Developed by Kaczmarek et al. (2015), the Steen happiness index aims to measure individual happiness by using 20 items. The respondents are asked to read a series of statements and then choose the statement that best describes their situation in the past week. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “negative” to 5 = “extremely positive.” This scale covers the aspects of pleasure (e.g., “My life is full of pleasure”), engagement (e.g., “Time passes so quickly during all my activities that I do not even notice it”), and meaning (e.g., “I have a very clear idea about my purpose in life”). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, the relevant indices and items from the Steen happiness index were selected for the dimension of political rights. Sustainable Society Index. Developed by Rodríguez-Rosa et al. (2017), the sustainable society index measures the sustainability of a society. This index has three main dimensions, namely, social wellbeing (sufficient food, sufficient drink, safe sanitation, healthy life, clean air, clean water, education, gender equality, income distribution, and good governance), environmental wellbeing (air quality, biodiversity, renewable water resources, consumption, wasting diseases, renewable resources, and greenhouse gases), and economic wellbeing (organic farming, genuine savings, GDP, employment, and public debt). If the sustainability value of an indicator is known, then this indicator is assigned a value of 10 indicating 100% sustainability; otherwise, this indicator is assigned a value of 0 indicating no sustainability. If an indicator already has a set of values, then the data for this indicator will be converted on a scale of 0 to 10. The basic data are converted into indicator values via standardization, and complex formulas are used for some indices while taking into account the characteristics of each indicator. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices from the sustainable society index for the dimensions of leisure and education and ecological protection. Urban Hassles Index. Developed by Miller and Bennett (2016), the urban hassles index measures social and environmental stressors that are closely associated with adolescents living in urban environments. Each item in this scale is rated on a fourpoint Likert scale ranging from 0 = “never” to 3 = “very often” to indicate how often adolescents experience specific troubles over the past 3 months. Higher scores indicate greater trouble. The urban hassles index covers four areas, namely, social disorganization (walking past abandoned buildings and lots and waiting for buses near dirty and poorly maintained bus stops), anxiety (worrying about the safety of friends, worrying about the safety of family members, living in an unsafe area, and always worrying), harassment (being asked to sell drugs, being asked to hide or carry drugs, and being asked for money by a drug user), and coercion (being pressured for sex by boyfriend or girlfriend and being pressured by friends to join a gang). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the urban hassles index for the dimension of social livelihood. Multidimensional Poverty Index. The multidimensional poverty index developed by Alkire and Santos (2014) contains seven dimensions, namely, material resources (household income), employment (long-term unemployment, marginal dependence on the labor force, underemployment, and living in an unemployed

5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index

107

household), education and skills (poor English proficiency, low educational attainment, and limited work experience), health and disability (poor general health, poor physical health, poor mental health, chronic health problems, and having a person with a disability in the household), social support (little social support and low social activity), community involvement (low neighborhood satisfaction, low community connectedness, non-participation in community activities, and non-volunteer work), and personal safety (feeling a sense of poor personal safety). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices from the multidimensional poverty index for the dimension of social livelihood. National Work-Life Balance Index. Established by Fernandez-Crehuet et al. (2016), the national work-life balance index evaluates the work-life balance of the population. This index covers five dimensions, namely, time/schedule (weekly working hours, daily commuting time, flexibility to change work schedule, flexibility to accumulate hours of work, flexibility to take a day off, and average number of annual holidays), work (unemployment rates, long-term unemployment rates, female employment rates, percentage of people working part time, labor productivity, and self-employment rate), family (ideal number of children for males, ideal number of children for females, mean annual earnings, average gender wage gap, and proportion of children aged below 3 years in formal education), policy (duration of maternity leave, average payments during maternity leave, percentage of GDP spent in family policies, and debt as a percentage of GDP), and health (frequency of participation in care activities and chores). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices from the national work-life balance index for the dimension of social livelihood. Lived Poverty Index Scale. Developed by Meyer and Keyser (2016), the lived poverty index scale aims to measure the extent of lived poverty. This scale covers the aspects of not enough food, not enough clean water for cleaning and drinking, not enough electricity for lights/heating/cooking, not enough medical access, not enough fuel for heat and cooking, not enough income, no decent housing, not enough decent clothing, and insufficient access to schooling/education and training. The respondents are asked to choose among “never a problem,” “twice per year,” “twice per month,” “once per week,” “daily,” and “uncertain” in answering each item based on their situation in the past year. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the lived poverty index scale for the dimension of ecological protection. Positive Relationships and Accomplishment Scale. Created by Gander et al. (2017), the positive relationships and accomplishment scale aims to measure the positive relationships and accomplishments of individuals. This instrument covers the two dimensions of positive relationships (“When choosing what to do, I always take into account if I can do it together with others,” “A good life means that I can share it with others,” and “What really matters in life is to be on good terms with other people”) and accomplishment (“There is nothing better than having achieved a goal I was aspiring to,” “Most things I do give me a feeling of accomplishment,” and “I am able to complete most things I do successfully”). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “very much unlike me” to 5 = “very

108

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

much like me.” The scores for each question are eventually summed to indicate a respondent’s level of positive relationships and achievement. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the positive relationships and accomplishment scale for the dimension of satisfaction. Anhedonic Depression Scale. The anhedonic depression scale was derived from the mood and anxiety symptom questionnaire created by Kendall et al. (2016) to measure an individual’s emotional state and experience. This scale contains 22 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert scale to assess the degree of emotional experience of the respondents over the past week. Fourteen of these items are reverse scored to directly assess positive emotional experiences (“I felt really happy,” “I felt like I was having a lot of fun,” and “I felt really good about myself”), whereas the remaining eight items are designed to assess negative emotional experiences (“I felt really bored,” “I thought about death or suicide,” and “I felt nothing was very enjoyable”). The scale obtained a good internal consistency coefficient (α = 0.90). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the anhedonic depression scale for the dimension of satisfaction. Ontological Wellbeing Scale. Ontological wellbeing advocates that life itself should be considered when assessing wellbeing. Developed by Sim¸ ¸ sek and Kocayörük (2013), the ontological wellbeing scale assesses the emotions and perceptions of respondents toward their life. This scale contains three questions, namely, “When I look at the completed part of my life project, I feel proud/disappointed /satisfied/regretful/upset/guilty/incompetent,” “When I look at the ongoing part of my life, I feel tired/enthusiastic/aimless/lost/ motivated/energetic/excited/irresponsible/empty/anxious/helpless,” and “When I look at the future of my life project, I feel/hopeful/strong/confident/ courageous/looking forward/ambitious.” The respondents rate each item on a fivepoint Likert scale ranging from 1 = “very slightly or not at all” to 5 = “extremely” to indicate their actual situation. The scale obtained a good internal consistency coefficient (α = 0.91). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the ontological wellbeing scale for the dimension of satisfaction. Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PNAS). PNAS was designed by Watson et al. (1988) to measure an individual’s experience of PA and NA. This scale contains 20 words that describe PA and NA, namely, enthusiastic, interested, determined, excited, inspired, alert, active, strong, proud, attentive, scared, afraid, upset, distressed, jittery, nervous, ashamed, guilty, irritable, and hostile. The respondents are asked to rate each of these words from 1 = “very slightly or not at all” to 5 = “extremely.” In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from PNAS for the dimension of satisfaction. Negative and Positive Affect Scale. Developed by Joshanloo (2017), the negative and positive affect scale measures the negative and positive affective emotions of individuals. Unlike PNAS, this scale emphasizes the importance of high and low arousal affective states. This scale covers two dimensions, namely, NA (“You are so sad that nothing could cheer you up/nervous/restless or fidgety/hopeless/feel that everything was an effort/worthless”) and PA (“You are cheerful/in good spirits/extremely

5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index

109

happy/calm and peaceful/satisfied/full of life”). Each dimension has six items that ask the respondents to assess their emotional state over the past month on a scale ranging from 1 = “all the time” to 5 = “never.” The scale obtained a good internal consistency coefficient (α > 0.829). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the negative and positive affect scale for the dimension of satisfaction. Multidimensional Approach to Measuring Wellbeing. Kern et al. (2015) developed the multidimensional approach to measuring wellbeing based on the PERMA framework of wellbeing. This scale combines the index of positive wellbeing as proposed by PERMA theory with NA and covers six dimensions, namely, positive emotion (“How often you feel cheerful,” “How often do you feel joyful,” and “How often do you feel energetic”), engagement (“When I am reading or learning something new, I often lose track of how much time has passed,” “I often get completely absorbed in what I am doing,” and “I get so involved in activities that I forget about everything else”), relationships (“My relationships are supportive and rewarding,” “I actively contribute to the happiness and wellbeing of others,” and “I generally feel that what I do in my life is valuable and worthwhile”), accomplishment (“I keep doing my schoolwork until I am done with it,” “In most days, I feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do,” and “During the past two weeks, I am pleased about completing something that was hard to do”), depression “How often have you felt sad,” “How often have you felt gloomy,” and “How often have you felt lonely”), and anxiety (“How often have you felt nervous,” “How often have you felt scared,” and “How often have you felt afraid”). The scale obtained a good internal consistency coefficient of above 0.68. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the multidimensional approach to measuring wellbeing scale for the dimension of satisfaction. Positive Mental Health Scale. Positive mental health can be defined as emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing. The positive mental health scale measures positive mental health among students, patients, and the public (Lukat et al., 2016). This scale contains nine items, including “I am often carefree and in good spirits,” “I enjoy my life,” “I feel that I am actually well equipped to deal with life and its difficulties,” and “Much of what I do brings me joy.” Each item is rated from 1 = “not true” to 4 = “true” according to the actual situation of the respondents. The scale is stable across different periods and groups and demonstrates high internal consistency and retest reliability. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the positive mental health scale for the dimension of satisfaction. Satisfaction with Life Scale. Developed by Diener et al. (1985), the satisfaction with life scale measures the satisfaction of individuals with their lives from a comprehensive perspective. This scale contains five items, including “The conditions of my life are excellent” and “I am satisfied with my life.” Each item is rated on a sevenpoint Likert ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree.” The scale has been widely used in previous studies to measure overall life satisfaction and has shown good reliability and validity. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan

110

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the satisfaction with life scale for the dimension of satisfaction. Positive Affect and Wellbeing Scale. Salsman et al. (2013) developed the positive affect and wellbeing scale based on item response theory for measuring psychiatric quality of life. This scale has 23- and 9-item versions that measure positive affect (“I could laugh and see the humor in situations” and “I feel emotionally stable”), life satisfaction (“I have a good life” and “I was living life to the fullest”), sense of purpose (“My life has purpose”), and sense of meaning (“My life has meaning”). Each item in this scale is rated from 1 = “never” to 5 = “always.” In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected indices and items from the positive affect and wellbeing scale for the dimension of satisfaction. Meaningful Life Measure. Designed by Morgan and Farsides (2009), the meaningful life measure evaluates an individual’s sense of meaningful life across five dimensions, namely, exciting life (“My life interests and excites me” and “My daily living is dull and routine”), accomplished life (“So far, I am pleased with what I have achieved in life” and “I have been very successful in achieving certain things”), principled life (“The beliefs I hold about the world enable me to make sense out of my existence” and “I hold certain values which I feel greatly enrich my life with significance”), purposeful life (“I have a clear idea of what my future goals and aims are” and “I tend to wander aimlessly through life without much sense of purpose or direction”), and valued life (“My life is worthwhile” and “I really value my life”). Each item in this scale is rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree.” The scale obtained a good internal consistency coefficient (α > 0.94). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the meaning life measure for the dimensions of satisfaction and target. Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ). Developed by Hills and Argyle (2002), OHQ is an improved version of OHI where the items from the original questionnaire have been retained but the way they are answered has been changed. This scale covers seven dimensions, namely, satisfaction with life (“I am well satisfied about everything in my life”), efficacy (“I do not find it easy to make decisions”), sociability/empathy (“I am intensely interested in other people”), positive outlook (“I am not particularly optimistic about the future”), wellbeing (“I often experience joy and elation”), cheerfulness (“I laugh a lot”), and self-esteem (“I am happy”). Fourteen items in this questionnaire are reverse scored. Each item is rated on a sixpoint Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 6 = “strongly agree.” In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from OHQ for the dimension of satisfaction. Happiness at Work Scale. Designed by Singh and Aggarwal (2018), the 16-item happiness at work scale evaluates individual happiness at work at both organizational and employee levels. Organizational-level happiness is divided into supportive organizational experiences (“My organization provides all necessary training and information to complete work on time” and “The decision-making process in my company is fair and just”) and unsupportive organizational experiences (“My organization does not have proper guidelines to regulate team behavior” and “The work

5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index

111

requires collective effort”), whereas employee-level happiness is divided into flow and intrinsic motivation (“I feel internally driven to do great things at my work”) and work repulsive feelings (“I hate a lot of people here for always being around the boss for personal gains”). The internal consistency coefficients for these four dimensions range from 0.71 to 0.75. Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree.” In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, the relevant indices and items from the happiness at work scale were selected for the dimension of satisfaction. Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale. The satisfaction and frustration of psychological needs in the three dimensions of autonomy, relatedness, and competence can affect an individual’s happiness or misfortune. On the basis of self-decision theory, Longo et al. (2016) created an 18-item need satisfaction and frustration scale comprising 3 dimensions, namely, sense of autonomy (“I feel free to decide what to do” and “I feel completely free to make my own decisions”), sense of relatedness (“I feel I am perfectly integrated into a group” and “I feel very close and connected with other people”) and sense of competence (“I feel I am very good at the things I do,” “I feel I can accomplish even the most difficult tasks,” and “I feel I can accomplish the most difficult tasks”). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” The scale has good internal consistency (α > 0.70). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the need satisfaction and frustration scale for the dimension of ability. Psychological Wellbeing Scale. Developed by Diener et al. (2009), the psychological wellbeing scale aims to measure the level of psychological wellbeing of individuals in terms of meaning, positive social relationships (to others and to society), self-esteem, competence, and proficiency. This scale contains eight items, namely, “I lead a purposeful and meaningful life,” “My social relationships are supportive and rewarding,” “I am engaged and interested in my daily activities,” “I actively contribute to the happiness and wellbeing of others,” “I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me,” “I am a good person and live a good life,” “I am optimistic about my future,” and “People respect me.” Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree.” The scale demonstrates good reliability and validity. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the psychological wellbeing scale for the dimensions of ability, target, amity, and unity. Student Engagement Scale. Developed by Darr (2012), the student engagement scale comprehensively measures the campus and classroom engagement of students. The dimensions for campus engagement include values (“I believe college is good for me” and “I think the rules of college are fair for everyone”), sense of belonging (“I have close friends on campus” and “I feel at ease on campus”), and involvement (“I participate in sports/cultural activities in campus activities/club activities”), whereas the dimensions for classroom engagement include cognitive participation (“I try to do my best in class” and “I prepare for class ahead of time”), emotional participation (“My class is fun” and “I enjoy interacting with the teacher”) and behavioral participation (“I follow the rules in class” and “I try to fulfill my responsibilities in group

112

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

work”). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “completely disagree” to 7 = “completely agree.” The scale has an internal consistency coefficient of 0.96 and shows good correlations between its items and factors. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected the relevant indices and items from the student engagement scale for the dimension of ability. Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving and Brief Inventory of Thriving. Thriving is a combination of “hedonistic” and “realization” happiness and covers both subjective and psychological wellbeing. The comprehensive inventory of thriving and brief inventory of thriving assess the level of an individual’s composite wellbeing (Su et al., 2014). The 18 dimensions in the comprehensive inventory of thriving include support, community, trust, respect, loneliness, belongingness, flow, skill, learning, lack of control, accomplishment, self-efficacy, self-worth, meaning, optimism, life satisfaction, positive emotions, and negative emotions. Each of these dimensions has 3 items, thereby amounting to 54 items, of which 6 are reverse scored. Meanwhile, the 10 dimensions of the brief inventory of thriving include life satisfaction, positive feelings, support, belonging, meaning, engagement, self-worth, self-efficacy, accomplishment, and positive, which correspond to 10 items. The items in both inventories are rated on a five-point Likert scale, with a higher total or mean score indicating a higher level of wellbeing. Duan et al. (2016) later revised the brief inventory of thriving by retaining all original items and applying them to Chinese university students and community residents. The scale has an internal consistency coefficient of 0.89 in the university student sample. Similarly, Duan et al. (2018) revised the comprehensive inventory of thriving by retaining all the items from the original scale and applying them to a group of Chinese community residents. The revised scale also has good internal consistency coefficients (all above 0.61). In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the comprehensive and brief inventories of thriving for the dimensions of ability, amity, and unity. Meaning in Life Questionnaire. The meaning in life questionnaire measures the individual’s perceptions and search for meaning in life (Steger et al., 2006) with 10 items, 5 of which measure presence (“I have a clear sense of purpose in my life,” “I have a good sense of what makes my life meaningful” and “I have discovered a satisfying life purpose”) and the other 5 measure search (“I am always searching for something that makes my life feel significant,” “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life,” and “I am searching for meaning in my life”). One of these items is reverse scored. Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “absolutely untrue” to 7 = “absolutely true.” The average dimensional scores are computed, with higher scores indicating a higher level of meaning experience or seeking. Chinese version questionnaires are available for university and secondary school students, both of which have shown good reliability and validity. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the meaning in life questionnaire for the dimension of target. Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale. The multidimensional existential meaning scale explains and measures sense of meaning in terms of understanding, purpose, and significance to advance the study of the meaning of life and living

5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index

113

(George & Park, 2017). This scale has 28 items divided into 3 dimensions, namely, comprehension (“I understand my life” and “I can make sense of the things that happen in my life”), purpose (“I have overarching goals that guide me in my life” and “My direction in life is motivating to me”), and mattering (“I am certain that my life is of importance” and “My life makes sense”). Each item is rated on a sevenpoint Likert scale ranging from 1 = “very strongly disagree” to 7 = “very strongly agree.” The internal consistency coefficients of the three subscales are all higher than 0.84, thereby indicating high retest reliability and validity. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the multidimensional existential meaning scale for the dimension of target. Post-Migration Growth Scale. Pan et al. (2013) developed the post-migration growth scale from the perspectives of personal growth after migration. This scale contains 14 items that are divided equally between the dimensions of interpersonal growth (“I am able to relate to others in a peaceful manner” and “I have learned how to make friends and cherish friendships”) and intrapersonal growth (“I have learned to perceive stress and difficulties in a more positive way” and “I have become more down to earth”). Each item is rated on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 6 = “a great deal.” This scale has been used among Chinese migrant students and has demonstrated good reliability and validity. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the post-migration growth scale for the dimension of target. Positive Thinking Scale. The positive thinking scale measures individuals’ positive and negative thoughts and ideas (Diener et al., 2009). This scale has 22 items, of which 11 items measure positive thoughts and perceptions, and the other 11 measure negative thoughts and perceptions. These items are grouped into positive thinking (“I see the good in most people” and “I am optimistic about my future”) and negative thinking (“I see my community as a place full of problems” and “I regret many things from my past”). The respondents answer each item with either “yes” or “no” according to their actual situation. They receive one point each time they answer “yes” to a question related to positive thoughts and perceptions and “no” to a question related to negative thoughts and perceptions. The total score of each respondent is then computed to indicate his/her level of positive thoughts. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected indices and items from the positive thinking scale for the dimension of amity. Mental Health Continuum-Short Form. The short form of the mental health continuum measures an individual’s level of positive mental health in three dimensions, namely, emotional, social, and psychological wellbeing (Orpana et al., 2017). This scale contains 14 items that are divided into 3 dimensions, namely, emotional wellbeing (happy, interested in life, and satisfied with life), social wellbeing (“You belong to a community, such as a social group or your neighborhood”), and psychological wellbeing (“You are confident to think or express your own ideas and opinions, and your life has a sense of direction or meaning to it”). The respondents are required to choose among six options, namely, never, once or twice, once a week, about two to three times a week, almost every day, and every day, to indicate how often they have felt the abovementioned conditions in the past month. The three

114

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

factors of the mental health continuum brief scale have good structural validity, and the internal consistency coefficients all exceed 0.77. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the mental health continuum short form for the dimension of unity. Authentic Happiness Inventory. The authentic happiness inventory measures the happiness experienced by individuals in real life (Zabihi et al., 2014). This scale contains 22 items divided into 4 dimensions, namely, meaningful and purposeful life (“I feel like a failure,” “I do not feel like a winner,” “I feel like I have succeeded more than most people,” “As I look back on my life, all I see are victories,” and “I feel I am extraordinarily successful”), pleasures and positive emotions (“I have sorrow in my life,” “I have neither sorrow nor joy in my life,” “I have more joy than sorrow in my life joy,” “I have much more joy than the sorrow in my life,” and “My life is full of joy”), engagement in life activities (“I have little or no enthusiasm,” “My enthusiasm level is neither high nor low,” “I have a good amount of enthusiasm,” “I feel enthusiastic doing almost everything,” and “I have so much enthusiasm that I feel I can do anything”), and interpersonal connectedness (“I am usually in a bad mood,” “I am usually in a neutral mood,” “I am usually in a good mood,” “I am usually in a great mood,” and “I am usually in an unbelievably great mood”). Each question has five options with different contents, and the respondents are asked to choose the one that best suits their situation. The scale has good reliability and validity. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the authentic happiness inventory for the dimension of unity. Individual Authenticity Measure at Work. The individual authenticity measure at work evaluates individuals’ authenticity at work based on work-state authenticity theory (van den Bosch & Taris, 2014). This scale has 21 items divided into 3 dimensions, namely, authentic living (“I behave in accordance with my values and beliefs in the workplace” and “At work, I feel free to express my emotions to others”), selfalienation (“At work, I feel alienated” and “I do not feel who I truly am at working”), and accepting external influence (“I am strongly influenced in the workplace by the opinions of others” and “Other people influence me greatly at work”). The short version of this scale consists of 12 items. The respondents are asked to imagine how much each statement applied to them only at work and not in other situations during the past four weeks. Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “does not describe me at all” to 7 = “describes me very well.” This measure and its short version both exhibit good reliability (α = 0.67 to 0.83), and both the firstand the second-order three-factor models have good structural validity. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the individual authenticity measure at work for the dimension of unity. Adolescent Life Goal Profile Scale. Developed by Gabrielsen et al. (2012), the adolescent life goal profile scale measures the life goal profiles of adolescents with 16 items divided into 4 dimensions, namely, relations (to know someone to share everything with and to be around friends), generativity (to work to make the world a better place, to help people who need it, and to create something for the future), religion (to believe in God and to have a “life” after death), and achievements (to achieve higher education and to get status for something I am good at). Each item

5.2 Generation of Candidate Items of the Huodegan Index

115

is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “I totally disagree” to 7 = “totally agree.” The scale has good reliability and validity. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected relevant indices and items from the adolescent life goal profile scale for the dimension of unity. Orientations to Happiness and Life Satisfaction. Developed by Peterson et al. (2005), the orientations to happiness and life satisfaction scale measures individuals’ attitudes and orientations toward happiness and satisfaction in life. This scale has 18 items divided into 3 dimensions, namely, life of meaning (“My life serves a higher purpose,” “I have a responsibility to make the world a better place,” and “What I do matters to society”), life of pleasure (“In choosing what to do, I always take into account whether it will be pleasurable” and “For me, a good life is a pleasurable life”), and life of engagement (“Regardless of what I am doing, time passes very quickly,” “I am always very absorbed in what I do,” and “I am rarely distracted by what is going on around me”). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = “very much unlike me” to 5 = “very much like me.” The scale has good reliability (internal consistency coefficient above 0.72) and good predictive validity and can significantly predict individual life satisfaction. In developing the item pool for the Huodegan Index, this study selected indices and items from the orientations to happiness and life satisfaction scale for the dimension of unity.

5.2.2 Indices and Item Pool On the basis of the sociological and psychological theories of sense of gain as discussed in the previous chapters and combined with the “2-facet, 10-dimension” theoretical framework of sense of gain, this study developed the following principles as the criteria for selecting the items for the Huodegan Index: (1) economic level: according to quality of life theory and relative deprivation theory, the selected items (e.g., income, expenditure, and socioeconomic status) are consistent with individuals’ perceived gain or deprivation of economic status; (2) political rights: according to quality of life theory and relative deprivation theory, the selected items (e.g., the right to vote and stand for election, access to information, and the right to be heard, to participate, and to oversee) are consistent with individuals’ perceived realization or deprivation of democratic rights under the goal of institutionalization and legalization in China; (3) leisure and education: according to quality of life theory and relative deprivation theory, the selected items (e.g., sports, recreation, and education services) are consistent with individuals’ perceived gain or deprivation of public services; (4) social livelihood: according to quality of life theory and relative deprivation theory, the selected items (e.g., medical care, employment, aged care, social security, and public transportation) are consistent with individuals’ perceived gain or deprivation of services; (5) ecological protection: according to quality of life theory and relative deprivation theory, the selected items (e.g., air quality, water pollution, biodiversity, vegetation coverage, and energy supply) are related to individuals’ perceived gain or deprivation of the living environment; (6) target: on the basis of the meaning in

116

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

life literature, the selected items are related to individuals’ perceived meaningful goals, intentions, and directions in life and plans for steadily achieving value and meaning in life; (7) ability: according to theory of psychological wellbeing, the selected items are consistent with individuals’ perceived independence, autonomy, motivation, and self-control in the process of realizing goals and meaning of life; (8) satisfaction: according to positive/negative affect theory, life satisfaction theory, and PERMA model, the selected items (e.g., positive emotion, sense of achievement, gratification, and satisfaction and other psychological feelings) are consistent with individuals’ perceived positive experience and satisfaction; (9) amity: on the basis of PERMA model, the selected items meet individuals’ perceived satisfaction and joy when interacting with others; and (10) unity: on the basis of psychological wellbeing theory and the PERMA model, the selected items (e.g., social contribution, social development, and social harmony) are related to individuals’ perceived satisfaction of mental needs when interacting with society. Therefore, using 36 measurement indices and instruments related to sense of gain, this study developed a sense of gain index item pool containing 159 items (Table 5.2).

5.3 Summary Due to the Chinese origin and characteristics of sense of gain, research on this concept should be conducted from a localization perspective by taking China’s comprehensive deepening reform, transformation of the economic and social development model, and realization of shared development into account (Cao & Li, 2017). This chapter started by exploring the theoretical structure of sense of gain. First, the definitions/operational definitions and elements of sense of gain in existing empirical studies were reviewed. In this study, sense of gain was defined as a comprehensive and international concept that combines the specificity of subjective experiences and the universality of the social mind. Second, on the basis of the sociological and psychological theories of sense of gain as discussed in the previous chapters, the “2-facet, 10-dimension” theoretical model, the multiple gain concept of “perceived social development” (economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection), and the concept of “perceived individual wellbeing” (target, ability, satisfaction, amity, and unity) were constructed. A total of 36 indices and instruments developed in different countries and regions were selected as sources for the item pool of sense of gain. Third, on the basis of the 10 principles for developing the item pool of sense of gain, 159 items were selected from the 36 abovementioned indices and instruments, and the initial item pool for the Huodegan Index was formed. The “2-facet, 10-dimension” theoretical framework of sense of gain combines perceived social development with perceived individual wellbeing and highlights the characteristics of the times and development. As the first facet of sense of gain, perceived social development not only reflects the development direction of the new

Source

• 2015 Chinese General Social Survey • 2015 Chinese Social Survey • Happiness-Enhancing Activities and Positive Practices Inventory • Steen Happiness Index

Political rights

2015 Chinese General Social Survey 2015 Chinese Social Survey Measurement of Subjective Wellbeing and Poverty Good African Society Index

• • • •

Economic level

Perceived social development

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 Sense of gain index and item pool

(continued)

8. I feel that the rule of law is gradually being strengthened in my region 9. I think that the legislation system is improving 10. I think that the current laws and regulations are relatively sound 11. I can vote in resident/village committee elections 12. I keep up to date with important decisions and matters of the current society 13. I keep up to date with important decisions and matters of the current society 14. I am aware of the current events relevant to the rights and interests of citizens 15. I talk to others about current events 16. I can participate in day-to-day management and decision-making activities related to public life 17. I can participate in the activities of the village, resident, or property committee 18. I often meet with people having things in common (e.g., interest groups and support groups)

1. I feel happy with my current socioeconomic status 2. I feel that the trend toward balanced economic development in my region is gradually emerging 3. I feel that income inequality has eased in my region 4. I feel that the number of people and groups in poverty in my region has decreased 5. I am satisfied with the current income level 6. I think that the current income gap among the members of the community is acceptable 7. I feel satisfied with the current level of expenditure

Title

5.3 Summary 117

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 (continued)

Source

(continued)

19. I am involved in some group activity or action 20. My suggestions are adopted by the relevant sectors 21. My suggestions can be heard by the relevant sectors 22. I propose suggestions for solving social or environmental problems 23. The ideas of ordinary villagers/residents like me are taken seriously 24. I am proactive about social issues reported on the radio, television, and newspapers 25. I keep up to date with the implementation of relevant policies, regulations, and instructions 26. Our attitudes and views on social issues are valued 27. I am able to participate in overseeing activities in many aspects 28. I have the right to express myself 29. I think individuals treat one another equally 30. I think freedom should be enjoyed by everyone 31. I think the decision-making process of social mechanisms is fair and just 32. I think that the legislation system treats everyone fairly 33. I think that society treats all people with fairness and justice 34. I think that the current social policies are fair 35. I think that everyone has the same right to discuss what is happening in the society at the moment

Title

118 5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Source

Leisure and education • 2015 Chinese General Social Survey • 2015 Chinese Social Survey • Sustainable Society Index

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 (continued)

(continued)

36. I can participate in lectures, consultation, propaganda, or other activities 37. I read newspapers, magazines, and books on current affairs 38. I think that there are many ways to acquire knowledge 39. I feel that I have access to a wealth of recreational facilities 40. I feel that I can afford the recreational or leisure activities that I like (e.g., holidays, cinema, theater, or music events) 41. I feel that I have opportunities for education and training 42. I think that the current public education services are adequate 43. I think that the public education services are accessible 44. I think that the current education system and opportunities are relatively fair for everyone 45. I think that access to good education is a good way to access social resources 46. I think that access to education is essential for success

Title

5.3 Summary 119

Social livelihood

2015 Chinese General Social Survey 2015 Chinese Social Survey Urban Hassles Index Multidimensional Poverty Index National Work-Life Balance Index

Source

• • • • •

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 (continued)

(continued)

47. I have access to adequate medical care whenever I am not feeling well 48. I am satisfied with all aspects of primary health care 49. I am satisfied with all aspects of public health care services 50. I believe that the current public health care services are adequate 51. When going to the hospital, I do not worry that I will be unable to afford the medical expenses 52. I think that the current health care system provides adequate services and resources 53. I think that the access to public health care services is convenient 54. I think that the current aged care welfare system provides adequate services and resources 55. I am satisfied with all aspects of the basic aged care welfare system 56. I never worry about the personal safety of my family and friends 57. I have not experienced any dangerous event 58. I have a good sense of personal security 59. I think that the place where I live in (e.g., community and village) is safe

Title

120 5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 (continued)

Source

(continued)

60. I am satisfied with all aspects of the current social welfare services 61. I feel that there are high-quality public services in my region 62. When I have a problem, I can ask for help from unions and women’s associations, among others 63. The current social insurance program can provide my family enough protection 64. I think that the staff of relevant departments in my region are efficient in providing day-to-day services 65. I think that people can safely purchase food from the market 66. I think that the transportation system is convenient 67. I do not think that the unemployment rate around me is high 68. I do not think that it is hard to get a job 69. I think it will take some effort to find an ideal job 70. I think it is not difficult to find a job that can support me 71. I am satisfied with the average working hours per week now 72. I think that I have good living conditions 73. I can afford to replace worn-out furniture 74. I now have a comfortable home 75. I find the basic functional layout of my current home generally satisfactory 76. I think I am satisfied with the basic housing security public services 77. I think I can get enough balanced food 78. I believe that the basic housing security public services are adequate 79. I think that the basic public housing security services can be accessed easily 80. I think that today’s society is fair 81. I think that the social security system is sounder now, and I am sure of my future

Title

5.3 Summary 121

Target

• • • • •

Meaning in Life Questionnaire Meaningful Life Measure Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale Post-Migration Growth Scale Psychological Wellbeing Scale

Perceived individual wellbeing

2015 Chinese General Social Survey 2015 Chinese Social Survey Lived Poverty Index Scale Sustainable Society Index

Source

Ecological protection • • • •

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 (continued)

(continued)

93. I think that I have a clear sense of purpose in my life 94. I have a clear understanding of my life goals 95. I feel that I have life goals that are worth my effort 96. I think I have a preliminary plan for my future career development 97. I know what brings meaning to my life 98. I can make anything that happens to me meaningful 99. I feel that my life is purposeful and meaningful 100. I seek a purpose or mission for my life 101. I feel that I am pursuing my dream 102. I think everyone’s existence has value and meaning

82. I think I live in a place with good air quality 83. I think that the air quality is satisfactory most of the time 84.I live in an area with a high level of biodiversity 85. Forest destruction in my region has been alleviated 86. I usually choose an environmentally friendly transportation 87. I think that greenhouse gas emissions have been limited 88. I do not think that the drinking water is contaminated 89. I think there is enough clean water for cleaning and drinking 90. I think people have access to enough electricity or fuel for lighting and heating 91. I have participated in activities related to environmental awareness and education 92. I think there is equality between people and nature

Title

122 5 Structure of Sense of Gain

• • • •

• Positive Relationships and Accomplishment Scale • Happiness-Enhancing Activities and Positive Practices Inventory • Anhedonic Depression Scale • Ontological Wellbeing Scale • Positive and Negative Affect Scale • Negative and Positive Affect Scale • Multidimensional Approach to Measuring Wellbeing • Positive Mental Health Scale • Satisfaction With Life Scale • Positive Affect and Wellbeing Scale • Meaningful Life Measure • Oxford Happiness Questionnaire • Happiness at Work Scale

Ability

Satisfaction

Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale Psychological Wellbeing Scale Student Engagement Scale Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving and Brief Inventory of Thriving

Source

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 (continued)

(continued)

114. I think that most of what I am doing gives me a sense of accomplishment 115. I think I am doing a job where I can get a sense of accomplishment 116. I think I have a lot of things to be proud of 117. I feel proud of what I have done 118. I feel satisfied when I think about what I have achieved in my life 119. I am satisfied with my life 120. I feel quite comfortable now, and there is not much to make me anxious about life 121. I feel happy most of the time 122. So far, I own the important things I want in my life 123. In my daily life, I feel energetic 124. I am full of hope and enthusiasm for the future 125. I think my general wellbeing is good 126. In most cases, I think I like my job

103. I feel I am free to make my own decisions 104. I feel free to decide on what I want to do 105. I feel I have the freedom to decide how to do things 106. I think I can accomplish difficult tasks 107. I have the ability and knowledge to comment and participate in an event 108. I think I’m perfectly capable of doing my job 109. I think I am capable of doing what is important to me 110. I feel like I learn something new every day 111. For people like me, it is important to be educated 112. I feel I have sufficient knowledge of the laws and regulations 113. I value and take my education seriously

Title

5.3 Summary 123

• • • •

• 2015 Chinese General Social Survey • 2015 Chinese Social Survey • Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving and Brief Inventory of Thriving • Psychological Wellbeing Scale • Mental Health Continuum-Short Form • The Authentic Happiness Inventory • Individual Authenticity Measure at Work • Adolescent Life Goal Profile Scale • Orientations to Happiness and Life Satisfaction Scale

Amity

Unity

2015 Chinese Social Survey Psychological Wellbeing Scale Positive Thinking Scale Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving and Brief Inventory of Thriving

Source

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 (continued)

(continued)

138. I feel a sense of belonging to the community and city I live in 139. I feel that I belong to a community, such as a social group or neighborhood 140. I feel that I have a sense of belonging to my motherland 141. I am willing to be part of a community/unit 142. I think my existence makes society and the world better 143. I feel that I am trying to make the whole society and the world a better place 144. I feel that what I do contributes to society

127. I feel that people respect me 128. I respect everyone around me 129. I feel that I get the same respect as others 130. I think my social relationships are supportive and beneficial 131. I think I get social support from others 132. I am polite to others 133. I think people are polite to me 134. I think that in this society, the vast majority of people can be trusted 135. I think I can trust most people in society 136. I think my neighbor is trustworthy 137. I believe that all people have good qualities

Title

124 5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Overall feeling

Dimensionality

Table 5.2 (continued)

Source

157. How would you rate your perceived social development from low to high? 158. How would you rate your perceived individual wellbeing from low to high? 159. How would you rate your overall sense of gain from low to high?

145. I think I am actively contributing to the happiness and wellbeing of others 146. I feel that the work I do is important to others 147. I am optimistic about my future 148. I think that social development is promising 149. I think people nowadays have the best expectations and are trying to achieve them 150. I treat everyone around me equally 151. I feel that I can be treated fairly and justly in life 152. I think people can share the fruits of social development equally 153. I have not been mistreated by others 154. I think paying attention to equality plays a role in society 155. Considering my educational background, workability, qualifications, and other aspects, I think my current income is fair 156. I do not think inequality exists in my life

Title

5.3 Summary 125

126

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

era of socialism with Chinese characteristics but also responds to the people’s aspiration for a better life. The people’s perceived economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection are closely related to their sense of gain and the satisfaction of their need for a better life. As the second facet of sense of gain, perceived individual wellbeing comprehensively combines the gains of personal subjective and psychological wellbeing. Personal subjective wellbeing usually refers to positive emotions currently experienced by individuals, such as pleasure, joy, comfort, and satisfaction with life. Meanwhile, personal psychological wellbeing refers to the potential state of individuals and the execution of positive personal functions, such as personal life, participation, social relationships, and future (Su et al., 2014). An individual’s gain and satisfaction in target, ability, satisfaction, amity, and unity can promote their subjective and psychological satisfaction and happiness. Sense of gain is a representation of the contemporary Chinese society that highlights the significance of the new era and Chinese social characteristics. This concept not only reflects people’s living standards and psychological wellbeing but also symbolizes comprehensive social conditions, such as the ecological environment, political environment, labor system, market economy, and educational conditions. In selecting the items for the Huodegan Index, according to quality of life theory and relative deprivation theory, those items that reflect the residents’ perceived gain or deprivation in the economic, political, leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection aspects were selected for each dimension of perceived social development. Meanwhile, according to positive/negative affect theory, life satisfaction theory, psychological wellbeing theory, and PERMA model, those items that reflect the perceived gain or deprivation in the dimensions of target, ability, satisfaction, amity, and unity were selected for each dimension of perceived individual wellbeing. The subsequent chapters construct and apply the Huodegan Index via a large-scale measurement and survey.

References Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2014). Measuring acute poverty in the developing world: Robustness and scope of the multidimensional poverty index. World Development, 59, 251–274. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.026 Botha, F. (2016). The good African society index. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 57–77. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0891-z Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine. Cao, X., & Li, S. (2017). The connotation of “gain” and the foreign experiences. Frontiers, (2), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.16619/j.cnki.rmltxsqy.2017.02.002 Chen, H., Guo, X. & Wang, J. (2018). Study on the construction of evaluation index system of the laborers’ sense of gain based on the view of Marx’s labor value theory. Productivity Research (3), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.19374/j.cnki.14-1145/f.2018.03.002 Chen, Y., Wang, L., Yan, C., Lan, S., & Li, J. (2019). Perceived acquisition of basic public health services among residents in Gansu province: A cross-sectional study. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 35(6), 685–688.

References

127

Cheng, D., & Liu, G. (2019). Study on the impact of equalization of public health services on people’s sense of gain. Statistics & Decision, 35(5), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.13546/j.cnki. tjyjc.2019.05.026 Coffey, J. K., Wray-Lake, L., Mashek, D., & Branand, B. (2016). A multi-study examination of wellbeing theory in college and community samples. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9590-8 Darr, C. W. (2012). Measuring student engagement: The development of a scale for formative use. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 707–723). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_34 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., & Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 247–266). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90481-2354-4_12 Dong, H., Tan, X., Dou, X., & Wang, J. (2019). The structure of Chinese sense of gain. Psychological Exploration, 39(5), 468–473. Duan, W., Fei, Y., Zhao, J., & Guo, X. (2018). Incremental validity of the comprehensive inventory of thriving in predicting self-reporting mental and physical health among community populations. Journal of Health Psychology, 25(10–11), 1366–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910531875 5265 Duan, W., Guan, Y., & Gan, F. (2016). Brief inventory of thriving: A comprehensive measurement of wellbeing. Chinese Sociological Dialogue, 1(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/239720091 6665230 Feng, S., & Luo, J. (2018). Market incentives, national supply and individual characteristics: A study of chinese inhabitants’ sense of gain. Journal of Guizhou Normal University (Social Sciences) (3), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.16614/j.gznuj.skb.2018.03.005 Fernandez-Crehuet, J. M., Gimenez-Nadal, J. I., & Reyes Recio, L. E. (2016). The national worklife balance index: The European case. Social Indicators Research, 128(1), 341–359. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11205-015-1034-2 Gabrielsen, L. E., Ulleberg, P., & Watten, R. G. (2012). The adolescent life goal profile scale: Development of a new scale for measurements of life goals among young people. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6), 1053–1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9306-2 Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2017). The subjective assessment of accomplishment and positive relationships: Initial validation and correlative and experimental evidence for their association with well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(3), 743–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-016-9751-z George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2017). The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546 Henricksen, A., & Stephens, C. (2013). The Happiness-Enhancing Activities and Positive Practices Inventory (HAPPI): Development and validation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9317-z Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford happiness questionnaire: A compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), 1073– 1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00213-6 Huang, D., & Wu, M. (2017). The sense of gain to ideological and political education: Connotation, composition and formation mechanism. Studies in Ideological Education, 06, 28–32. Jorgensen, I., & Nafstad, H. E. (2004). Positive psychology: Historical, philosophical, and epistemological perspectives. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 15–34). Wiley.

128

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Joshanloo, M. (2017). Factor structure and criterion validity of original and short versions of the Negative and Positive Affect Scale (NAPAS). Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 233– 237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.060 Kaczmarek, L. D., Bujacz, A., & Eid, M. (2015). Comparative latent state-trait analysis of satisfaction with life measures: The steen happiness index and the satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(2), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9517-4 Kendall, A. D., Zinbarg, R. E., Bobova, L., Mineka, S., Revelle, W., Prenoveau, J. M., & Craske, M. G. (2016). Measuring positive emotion with the mood and anxiety symptom questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the Anhedonic Depression Scale. Assessment, 23(1), 86–95. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1073191115569528 Kern, M. L., Waters, L. E., Adler, A., & White, M. A. (2015). A multidimensional approach to measuring well-being in students: Application of the PERMA framework. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936962 Keyes, C. L., & Shapiro, A. D. (2004). Social well-being in the United States: A descriptive epidemiology. In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & R. C. Kessler (Eds.), How healthy are we: A national study of well-being midlife (pp. 350–373). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/978022 6074764 Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 121–140.https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2787065 Li, B., & Zhang, G. (2018). Differentiation of living space and public services: A study of urban residents’ sense of gain to public services. Theory Journal (1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.14110/ j.cnki.cn-37-1059/d.2018.01.015 Li, D., Yang, L., & He, Z. (2018). A Survey on the sense of gain among the poor in Southwest China’s minority areas in the context of targeted poverty reduction. Journal of Sichuan University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) (3), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-0766. 2018.03.009 Li, D., & Zhang, M. (2018). Where does the sense of gain for the impoverished population come from in southwest China’s ethnic minority areas? Research on Financial and Economic Issues (11), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.19654/j.cnki.cjwtyj.2018.011.018 Li, H., Hu, Z., & Chen, Y. (2019). Capital endowment, sense of gains and peasant’s orderly political participation: An empirical analysis based on CGSS2015. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics (10), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.13246/j.cnki.jae.2019.10.002 Li, P., & Bai, W. (2019). A study on the influence of people’s sense of gain to government trust. Administrative Tribune, 26(4), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.16637/j.cnki.23-1360/d.2019.04.010 Li, X., & Hu, H. (2018). Viewing “sense of gain” from Marx’s justice. Social Sciences Journal of Universities in Shanxi, 30(4), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.16396/j.cnki.sxgxskxb.2018.04.003 Liang, T. (2019). Connotation analysis, main characteristics and promotional countermeasures of the sense of economic acquisition for rural. Study and Practice (5), 78–87. https://doi.org/10. 19624/j.cnki.cn42-1005/c.2019.05.009 Longo, Y., Gunz, A., Curtis, G. J., & Farsides, T. (2016). Measuring need satisfaction and frustration in educational and work contexts: The Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (NSFS). Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9595-3 Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902004-8789-5 Lukat, J., Margraf, J., Lutz, R., van der Veld, W. M., & Becker, E. S. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Positive Mental Health Scale (PMH-scale). BMC Psychology, 4(1), 8. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s40359-016-0111-x Lv, X., & Huang, Y. (2018). Measuring “sense of gain”: Based on the analysis of the survey data of Chinese society. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 55(5), 46–52. https:// doi.org/10.16783/j.cnki.nwnus.2018.05.006

References

129

Lv, X., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Chinese people’s medical sense of gain and its determinants. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 57(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.16783/j.cnki. nwnus.2020.01.013 Meyer, D. F., & Keyser, E. (2016). Validation and testing of the Lived Poverty Index Scale (LPI) in a poor South African community. Social Indicators Research, 129(1), 147–159. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11205-015-1096-1 Miller, D. B., & Bennett, M. D. (2016). Continued development of the Urban Hassles Index: Evolving examination of urban adolescent stressors. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-015-0430-4 Morgan, J., & Farsides, T. (2009). Measuring meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9075-0 Nie, W. (2019). Employment quality, life control and migrant workers’ sense of gain. Chinese Journal of Population Science (2), 27–39+126. Orpana, H., Vachon, J., Dykxhoorn, J., & Jayaraman, G. (2017). Measuring positive mental health in Canada: Construct validation of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form [Mesurer la santé mentale positive au Canada: Validation des concepts du Continuum de santé mentale — Questionnaire abrégé]. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada: Research, Policy and Practice, 37(4), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.37.4.03 Pan, J., Wong, D. F. K., & Ye, S. (2013). Post-migration growth scale for Chinese international students: Development and validation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(6), 1639–1655. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9401-z Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10902-004-1278-z Qiu, W., Yuan, W., & Guan, W. (2019). Rural residents’ livelihood security sense of gain in rural revitalization: Influencing factors, level measurement and optimization. Finance & Economics, 5, 81–90. Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2003). Toward a positive psychology of relationships. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 129–159). American Psychological Association. Rodríguez-Rosa, M., Gallego-Álvarez, I., Vicente-Galindo, M. P., & Galindo-Villardón, M. P. (2017). Are social, economic and environmental well-being equally important in all countries around the world? A study by income levels. Social Indicators Research, 131(2), 543–565. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1257-x Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69. 4.719 Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-006-9019-0 Salsman, J. M., Victorson, D., Choi, S. W., Peterman, A. H., Heinemann, A. W., Nowinski, C., & Cella, D. (2013). Development and validation of the Positive Affect and Well-Being Scale for the neurology quality of life (Neuro-QOL) measurement system. Quality of Life Research, 22(9), 2569–2580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0382-0 Seligman‚ M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. Simon and Schuster.

130

5 Structure of Sense of Gain

Shams, K. (2016). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being and poverty: An economic perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(6), 2213–2236. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-015-9691-z Shao, Y. (2019). Construction of indicators and analysis of influencing factors of people’s subjective sense of gain in the new era. Social Sciences in Xinjiang (4), 139–147. Sim¸ ¸ sek, Ö. F., & Kocayörük, E. (2013). Affective reactions to one’s whole life: Preliminary development and validation of the Ontological Well-Being Scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 309–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9333-7 Singh, S., & Aggarwal, Y. (2018). Happiness at work scale: Construction and psychometric validation of a measure using mixed method approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(5), 1439–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9882-x Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80 Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6(3), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027 Tan, X., Zhang, R., Dong, H., & Wang, J. (2018). The current situation of youth sense of gain and its influencing factors. China Youth Study (10), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.19633/j.cnki.11-2579/ d.2018.0159 van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). Authenticity at work: Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10902-013-9413-3 Wang, J., & Liu, X. (2019). The status quo, change and the dynamics: Sense of security, sense of gain and sense of happiness, and the paths to enhancement. Jiangsu Social Sciences (1), 41–49+258. https://doi.org/10.13858/j.cnki.cn32-1312/c.2019.01.006 Wang, J., & Yan, W. (2019). A research on relative income level and Urban residents’ sense of gain. Journal of Central University of Finance & Economics (10), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.19681/ j.cnki.jcufe.2019.10.010 Wang, P. & Ji, C. (2019). Resolving mechanism of the contradiction between China’s inequality and social stability: An explanation based on relative acquisition. CASS Journal of Political Science (1), 63–76. Wang, S. (2018). Structure of sense of gain and prioritization of sense of gain for the poor and vulnerable. China Social Work (13), 62–62. https://doi.org/0.3969/j.issn.1674-3857.2018.13.034 Wang, T., Tan, Y. & Fu, X. (2018). The residents’ sense of gain in China and its determinants. Finance & Economics (9), 120–132. Wang, Y. (2019). Does participation in e-commerce increase rural households’ sense of economic gain? The difference between registered poor households and non-poor household. Chinese Rural Economy (7), 37–50. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Wen, H., & Liu, Z. (2018). Timing comparison of the sense of gain to China: Trends and disparities empirical analysis based on Chinese urban and rural social governance data. Journal of Social Sciences (3), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.13644/j.cnki.cn31-1112.2018.03.001 Wu, K., & Liu, Z. (2019). Using factor analysis method to research evaluation of people’s Sense of Gain Index. Journal of Xiangtan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 43(3), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.13715/j.cnki.jxupss.2019.03.003

References

131

Xie, Z., & Lan, Y. (2019). A study of the gain of fairness and the sense of gain in grass-roots public servants: Analysis based on 3209 questionnaires. Journal of Xiangtan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 43(2), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.13715/j.cnki.jxupss.2019.02.004 Xing, Z., & Niu, Q. (2017). Sense of gain: A new benchmark for shared development in the context of supply and demand. Theory Journal (5), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.14110/j.cnki.cn-37-1059/ d.2017.05.015 Yang, J., & Zhang, S. (2019). Analysis of the general social survey data on the Chinese people’s sense of fulfillment. Studies on Marxism, 3, 102–112. Yang, Y. (2018). The obtained sense from the minsheng public services: Measurement and explanation. Journal of Public Administration, 11(5), 117–137+189. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.16742486.2018.05.006 Ye, X., Xie, C., & Mao, Z. (2018). The sense of gain and the satisfaction of people’s livelihood in China: Measuring and variance analysis. The Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, 35(10), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.13653/j.cnki.jqte.2018.10.001 Zabihi, R., Ketabi, S., Tavakoli, M., & Ghadiri, M. (2014). Examining the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the Authentic Happiness Inventory (AHI) among Iranian EFL Learners. Current Psychology, 33(3), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9217-6 Zeng, W. (2017). “To the end of the reform” pen talk of the fifth effectively enhance the people’s sense of gain. Chongqing Social Sciences (8), 14–15. https://doi.org/0.19631/j.cnki.css.2017. 08.021 Zhan, Y. (2015). Focus on the two sessions: Let the “sense of gain” stir the tide of reform. People’s Daily. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/gn/2015/03-02/7090859.shtml Zhang, P. (2016). The theoretical connotation and contemporary value of “sense of gain”. Journal of Henan Polytechnic University (Social Sciences) (4), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.16698/j.hpu (social.sciences).1673-9779.2016.04.002 Zhang, S., & Deng, S. (2019). The connontation, structure and path of promotion of teacher’s sense of achievement in training. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method (7), 138–143. https://doi. org/10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2019.07.022 Zhao, W. (2018). Research on the people’s sense of gain from the perspective of consumption. Journal of Beijing University of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 18(4), 1–7. https://doi. org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-0398.2018.04.002

Chapter 6

Development of the Huodegan Index

6.1 Introduction Sense of gain is a new social indicator. However, previous research on the core concept of sense of gain suffers from a simplistic framework, confusing criteria, and one-sided results. The previous chapter discussed the theoretical structure of sense of gain in detail based on existing theories. The item pool of the proposed sense of gain index was also developed. This concept can be divided into the social development and individual wellbeing dimensions. The core of perceived social development was extracted based on the results of empirical literature. The connotation of perceived individual wellbeing was constructed based on the inheritance and development of theory of wellbeing. The framework for sense of gain includes “multiple gains at the level of perceived social development” and “multidimensional satisfaction at the level of perceived individual wellbeing.” Perceived social development includes economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection, whereas perceived individual wellbeing measures target, ability, satisfaction, amity, and unity. This chapter develops the Huodegan Index based on this “2-facet, 10-dimension” framework. Different data analysis methods were used to validate the psychometric properties of this index and to test the scientific validity of the proposed framework. As discussed in the previous chapters, perceived social development and individual wellbeing may be skewed. As an indicator of social development and individual perceptions, sense of gain shows inconsistencies in the process of transferring from objective reality to subjective perceptions. When an imbalance is detected between the actual structure of sense of gain and the multi-level needs proposed in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the potential sense of gain may partially lead to relative deprivation, which refers to the feeling and perception of being in a disadvantaged position where one feels deprived of benefits compared with others (Walker & Smith, 2002). An individual’s sense of gain may fall in one of four quadrants (Fig. 6.1). For those groups situated in these quadrants, effective policy adjustments can move them to a quadrant with high levels of “perceived individual wellbeing and perceived social © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Duan and Y. Li, Huodegan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4_6

133

134

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Fig. 6.1 Four quadrants of sense of gain

development” over a certain period. Therefore, this study adopted LPA to obtain a stable and accurate classification of sense of gain and its corresponding categories (Zhao et al., 2013).

6.2 Methods This chapter aims to construct a framework of sense of gain based on the “2-facet, 10-dimension” framework and by using qualitative (e.g., tripartite translation groups, Delphi method, and cognitive interviews) and quantitative methods (e.g., EFA and CFA). LPA was applied to obtain a categorical picture of sense of gain and its corresponding categories. This series of analyses is expected to produce a theoretically and empirically grounded measurement tool for sense of gain. A classification based on sense of gain was then used to classify the sample. In this way, the strengths and weaknesses of governance measures can be scientifically, accurately, and effectively diagnosed, which in turn would provide a reference for local governments to optimize their programs and an empirical basis for social work interventions to improve sense of gain. The study was divided into the following phases: Phase 1: To develop a framework and item pool. The “2-facet, 10-dimension” theoretical framework of sense of gain was established by reviewing empirical studies and related theories. On the basis of this framework, a few items were selected from developed and validated instruments, such as the community socioeconomic composition index, social policy index, Chinese Social Survey, WHO wellbeing index, and global happiness scale, to form the item pool for the proposed Huodegan Index. A tripartite translation team, Delphi method, and cognitive interview method were used in this process. Two social psychology

6.2 Methods

135

professors and one social work professor translated the first draft of the instrument, which was then checked and proofread by three social psychology professors followed by two foreign language professors. This process was repeated until the contents of the translated and proofread drafts converged to form a preliminary item pool. Afterward, a seven-member selection panel comprising one graduate student in social psychology, two graduate students in social work, one professor of social psychology, and three general residents was formed to determine whether to include certain items in the pool by using the Delphi method. The selected team members were given the research materials and screening targets for the sense of gain framework. They were asked to independently screen items for the 10 levels, match the selected items with the sense of gain dimensions, and explain the reason for their decisions. This process was repeated until each group member no longer changed their opinions. At this point, 159 items were selected and arranged according to the sense of gain framework. A total of 24 community residents participated in the pre-tests and cognitive interviews, of which 11 were male and 13 were female. These participants were aged between 18 and 48 years (M = 26.56, SD = 6.87), 3 of them had junior high school education or less, 4 had high school/specialist/technical school education, 3 had a college degree or below, 6 had a bachelor’s degree, 4 had a master’s degree or above, and 4 did not report their education level. In addition, 12 of these participants were single, 6 were in a relationship, and 6 were married. The pre-tests and cognitive interviews were performed to determine whether the residents understand the concept of sense of gain and its measurement items and to ensure the readability and comprehensibility of the item pool. Results showed that 21 of the 159 items were inconsistent with the participants’ perceptions or caused bias in their understanding. After eliminating these items, the initial scale contained 138 items, and each of the 10 dimensions of sense of gain had 7–31 items. This scale was called the “sense of gain index (original version)” in the following survey phase. Phase 2: To construct the sense of gain index. The independent sample 1 in this phase included 606 valid samples. Each item in the questionnaire was rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 = “totally disagree” to 9 = “totally agree” to represent their level of agreement and true feelings. The participants were from Anhui, Macau, Beijing, Fujian, Guangdong, Guizhou, Hainan, Hebei, Henan, Heilongjiang, Hubei, Hunan, Jilin, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Shanghai, Sichuan, Tianjin, Xinjiang, Yunnan, Zhejiang, and Chongqing. In terms of residence, 348 and 258 of these participants were residing in urban and rural areas, respectively. In terms of gender, 389 were female (64.20%) and 217 were male (35.80%) with a mean age of 27.73 years (SD = 7.57, range = 18–68). In terms of education, 148 (24.42%) had a college degree or below, 293 (48.35%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 165 (27.23%) had a master’s degree or above. EFA was performed to extract the representative items with high factor loadings, and then a preliminary construction of the Huodegan Index was carried out.

136

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Phase 3: To assess psychometric properties of the Huodegan Index. The independent sample 2 at this stage included 633 valid samples. Using the Huodegan Index developed in Phase 2, the participants chose from 1 = “totally disagree” to 9 = “totally agree” to indicate their level of agreement with and true feelings for each statement. The total score for each subscale represented the perceived sense of gain of the participants, and higher scores corresponded to higher levels of sense of gain. The participants were from Anhui, Macau, Gansu, Beijing, Fujian, Guangdong, Guizhou, Hainan, Hebei, Henan, Heilongjiang, Hubei, Hunan, Jilin, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Shanghai, Sichuan, Tianjin, Yunnan, Zhejiang, and Chongqing. In terms of residence, 367 and 266 of these participants were residing in urban and rural areas, respectively. In terms of gender, 359 were female (56.70%) and 274 were male (43.30%) with a mean age of 27.73 years (SD = 7.57, range = 18–68). In terms of education, 169 (26.70%) had a college degree or below, 306 (48.34%) had bachelor’s degrees, and 158 (24.96%) had a master’s degree or above. CFA was conducted to examine the structural validity of the Huodegan Index. Phase 4: To conduct LPA. At this stage, independent samples 1 and 2 were combined to obtain a total sample of 1,239 participants. The distribution of wellbeing across different sense of gain profiles was explored. To avoid burnout of participants due to the large number of items, only one item, “I think I am happy” (rated from 1 = “completely disagree” to 9 = “completely agree”) was used to assess their level of wellbeing apart from the Huodegan Index. To avoid homologation method bias, the items in the 10 dimensions were randomly arranged in the questionnaire, and a polygraph question was added in the first and second halves of the instrument. A total of 113 samples were removed as invalid samples because their response times were less than 200 s and they received a difference of more than ±5 in the polygraph questions. Valid data from independent samples 1 and 2 were then obtained. All participants in the four phases signed an informed consent form before participating in the interviews or completing the questionnaire.

6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical method that explores the underlying structure of the data by testing the internal dependence among variables and converting them into a small number of uncorrelated or less correlated composite indicators (i.e., factors). Factor structure is used to represent the structure embedded in the data (Sun & Zhou, 2005). In the scale construction process, factor analysis can summarize a smaller number of factors from the existing variables and use the more concise factors to summarize the concept system in the original scale to the greatest extent. The two most commonly used methods in determining factor structure are EFA and CFA (Zhang et al., 2007). EFA is most suitable for exploring the factor structure and

6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index

137

effect of each variable under each factor without preset conditions, whereas CFA is most suitable for verifying the existing factor structure (He, 2004). Therefore, in the scale construction process, EFA is often used to process the data, select the most concise main factors, and then explore the variables that are most suitable for these main factors or classify these variables according to the existing factor structure. Given the “2-facet, 10-dimension” theoretical framework in this study, EFA was used to analyze the correlation strength between each items and the 10 factors (i.e., factor loadings). PCA and promax rotation were employed in EFA. PCA assumes that the variance of all observed variables can be explained by the factor, whereas promax rotation is an analytical method with high generality to understand and explain the practical meaning of factors and is not limited by the presence or absence of a correlation between factors. Therefore, the variances among the variables explained by each factor may overlap (Sun & Zhou, 2005). Moreover, while EFA cannot explain the potential relationship between various factors, CFA can make up for this defect. Therefore, when examining the construct validity of the scale, combining EFA and CFA can generate optimal results for the factor structure analysis (Li & Huang, 2007). Many studies have adopted both EFA and CFA to develop their scales. For example, Groarke and Hogan (2018) developed a new method for evaluating the function of listening to music in outcome-based music listening and health studies. By conducting EFA and CFA, they identified 46 items and 11 factors to form their adaptive functions of music listening scale. These 11 factors include stress regulation, anxiety regulation, anger regulation, loneliness regulation, rumination, reminiscence, strong emotional experiences, awe and admiration, cognitive regulation, identity, and sleep. Similarly, on the basis of the hierarchy competency model of social work, Duan et al. (2020) used EFA and CFA to form the structure of the social work core competence inventory. They identified 24 items that are loaded on the 8 factors of knowledge and theory, including knowledge and theory, communication and cooperation, value and ethics, planning and assessment, case work skills, group work skills, community work skills, and research and development. Therefore, in this study, EFA was initially conducted to obtain the factor structure, and then CFA was performed to test whether the combination of corresponding variables is appropriate and to test the “2-facet, 10-dimension” theoretical framework.

6.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis In SPSS24.0, PCA and promax rotation were used to explore the 10 dimensions of the Huodegan Index. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (0.915–0.968) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.001) indicated that the data quality was suitable for factor analysis. The items in each subscale could be well loaded on the hypothetical factors. To ensure the good representativeness and stability of the selected items, those items with a factor loading of over 0.60 were retained. Moreover, to ensure that each subscale has the same number of items, the number of items in the subscale with the least number of items was taken as the standard in

138

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

the item selection process. Each subscale eventually included 7 items that explain 53.692%–68.561% of the total variance. The factor loadings of EFA are shown in Table 6.1. To facilitate the subsequent data analysis, the items in the Huodegan Index were ranked according to the order of EFA and were renumbered.

6.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis The construct validity of the 10 subscales in the Huodegan Index was tested using independent sample 2 by Mplus 7.4. CFA was performed to verity the dimensionality (or factor structure) and to test whether the number of factors and factor loadings of the observed variables are consistent with the expectations based on pre-established frameworks. Therefore, CFA must be underpinned by a specific theory or framework. In this case, whether the metric model derived from the theory is reasonable and appropriate can be mathematically confirmed by CFA (Wang, 2014). The maximum likelihood estimation method was used to estimate the framework. The data analysis at this stage reported the standardized root means square residual (SRMR), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and its 90% confidence interval (CI). CFI and TLI greater than 0.90 and 0.95 are often indicative of acceptable and good fitting index values (Hu & Bentler, 1999), respectively. Meanwhile, SRMR values smaller than 0.08 and 0.05 indicate an acceptable and good model fit, respectively, whereas RMSEA values smaller than 0.08 and 0.06 suggest that the model fit is within acceptable and good ranges (Hu & Bentler, 1999), respectively. Tables 6.2–6.11 and Figs. 6.2–6.11 report the CFA model fit indices and factor loading of the 10 dimensions of the Huodegan Index. According to the corresponding model fit indices and factor loadings, the 10 subscales all showed an excellent fit, thereby confirming their structural validity. Table 6.2 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the economic level dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both the CFI and TLI were greater than 0.95, the SRMR was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good fit and stable factor structure. Figure 6.2 reports the factor loadings through CFA on the economic level dimension of the Huodegan Index. JS denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the economic level dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from 0.676 to 0.802, thereby indicating that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative. Table 6.3 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the political rights dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, all of which indicate a good model fit with a stable factor structure.

6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index

139

Table 6.1 Exploratory factor analysis factor loadings (n = 606) Factors

Titles

Items

Factor loadings

JS1

154. I feel satisfied with the current level of expenditure

0.827

JS2

52. I feel that income inequality has eased in my region

0.826

JS3

106. I am satisfied with the current income level

0.818

JS4

118. I think that the current income gap among the members of the community is acceptable

0.813

JS5

19. I feel happy with my current socioeconomic status

0.778

JS6

31. I feel that the trend towards balanced economic development in my region is gradually emerging

0.767

JS7

77. I feel that the number of people and groups in poverty in my region has decreased

0.721

ZQ1

145. I am aware of the current events relevant to the rights and interests of citizens

0.830

ZQ2

123. I keep up to date with important decisions and matters of the current society

0.823

ZQ3

104. I keep up to date with the implementation of relevant policies, regulations, and instructions

0.815

ZQ4

133. I think that the legislation system is improving

0.797

ZQ5

83. I am involved in some group activity or action

0.770

ZQ6

41. I am proactive about social issues reported on the radio, television, and newspapers

0.754

Perceived social development Factor 1: economic level Explanation difference: 63.018% KMO: 0.915 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

Factor 2: political rights Explanation difference: 55.383% KMO: 0.966 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

(continued)

140

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Table 6.1 (continued) Factors

Titles

Items

Factor loadings

ZQ7

93. I propose suggestions for solving social or environmental problems

0.729

WJ1

62. I think that the public education services are accessible

0.819

WJ2

111. I feel that I have opportunities for education and training

0.811

WJ3

100. I feel that I have access to a wealth of recreational facilities

0.791

WJ4

88. I think that there are many ways to acquire knowledge

0.785

WJ5

24. I think that the current public education services are adequate

0.762

WJ6

48. I can participate in lectures, 0.754 consultation, propaganda, or other activities

WJ7

36. I feel that I can afford the recreational or leisure activities that I like (e.g., holidays, cinema, theater, or music events)

0.734

SM1

101. I think that the current aged care welfare system provides adequate services and resources

0.871

SM2

79. I think that the current health care system provides adequate services and resources

0.867

SM3

150. I think I am satisfied with the 0.862 basic housing security public services

SM4

81. The current social insurance program can give my family enough protection

SM5

158. I think that the staff of 0.776 relevant departments in my region are efficient in providing day-to-day services

SM6

148. I think that people can safely 0.734 purchase food from the market

SM7

1. I am satisfied with all aspects of 0.720 the current social welfare services

Factor 3: leisure and education Explanation difference: 58.135% KMO: 0.932 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

Factor 4: social livelihood Explanation difference: 54.200% KMO: 0.974 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

0.829

(continued)

6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index

141

Table 6.1 (continued) Factors

Titles

Items

Factor loadings

SH1

91. Forest destruction in my region has been alleviated

0.819

SH2

89. I live in an area with a high level of biodiversity

0.805

SH3

69. I think that the air quality is satisfactory most of the time

0.796

SH4

116. I think that greenhouse gas emissions have been limited

0.788

SH5

73. I think there is enough clean water for cleaning and drinking

0.748

SH6

113. I usually choose an environmentally friendly transportation

0.632

SH7

16. I think people have access to enough electricity or fuel for lighting and heating

0.629

YF1

131. I think I have a clear sense of 0.856 purpose in my life

YF2

66. I feel that I am pursuing my dream

0.849

YF3

130. I know what brings meaning to my life

0.844

YF4

29. I feel that my life is purposeful and meaningful

0.841

YF5

60. I can make anything that happens to me meaningful

0.834

YF6

53. I think I have a preliminary plan for my future career development

0.810

YF7

14. I have a clear understanding of my life goals

0.810

LN1

115. I think I am capable of doing 0.878 what is important to me

LN2

114. I feel free to decide on what I 0.835 want to do

LN3

71. I feel I am free to make my own decisions

Factor 5: ecological protection Explanation difference: 53.692% KMO: 0.918 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

Perceived individual wellbeing Factor 1: target Explanation difference: 68.561% KMO: 0.945 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

Factor 2: ability Explanation difference: 63.458% KMO: 0.928 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

0.827 (continued)

142

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Table 6.1 (continued) Factors

Titles

Items

Factor loadings

LN4

46. I have the ability and knowledge to comment and participate in an event

0.809

LN5

135. I feel like I learn something new every day

0.807

LN6

87. I think I’m perfectly capable of doing my job

0.796

LN7

15. I think I can accomplish difficult tasks

0.691

XY1

127. I think I have a lot of things to be proud of

0.864

XY2

138. In my daily life, I feel I am energetic

0.860

XY3

153. I feel proud of what I have done

0.853

XY4

80. I am satisfied with my life

0.841

XY5

126. I think I am doing a job where I can get a sense of accomplishment

0.829

XY6

108. I feel happy most of the time 0.828

XY7

26. I feel satisfied when I think about what I have achieved in my life

0.795

YW1

128. I think people are polite to me

0.873

YW2

112. I feel that I get the same respect as others

0.859

YW3

155. I believe that all people have 0.841 good qualities

YW4

156. I think my neighbor is trustworthy

0.821

YW5

139. I think I get social support from others

0.807

YW6

78. I think I can trust most people 0.797 in society

YW7

58. I think my social relationships 0.791 are supportive and beneficial

AL1

95. I think people nowadays have the best expectations and are trying to achieve them

Factor 3: satisfaction Explanation difference: 66.789% KMO: 0.947 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

Factor 4: amity Explanation difference: 64.699% KMO: 0.943 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

Factor 5: unity Explanation difference: 55.751% KMO: 0.968 Bartlett’s test: p < 0.001

0.849

(continued)

6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index

143

Table 6.1 (continued) Factors

Titles

Items

Factor loadings

AL2

90. I am optimistic about my future

0.837

AL3

32. I think that social development is promising

0.827

AL4

82. I think I am actively contributing to the happiness and wellbeing of others

0.800

AL5

61. I feel that I have a sense of belonging to my motherland

0.794

AL6

49. I think paying attention to equality plays a role in society

0.771

AL7

122. I am willing to be part of a community/unit

0.765

Table 6.2 CFA fit indices for economic level (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Economic level

98.450

14

0.975

0.963

0.029

0.066

[0.048, 0.086]

Fig. 6.2 Factor loadings through CFA on the economic level dimension

144

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Table 6.3 CFA fit indices results for political rights (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Political rights

63.277

14

0.990

0.985

0.021

0.040

[0.018, 0.062]

Figure 6.3 reports the factor loadings through CFA on the political rights dimension of the Huodegan Index. ZQ denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the political rights dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from 0.726 to 0.829, thereby indicating that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative. Table 6.4 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the leisure and education dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good model fit with a stable factor structure. Figure 6.4 reports the factor loadings through CFA on the leisure and education dimension of the Huodegan Index. WJ denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the leisure and education dimension, the factor loadings of the

Fig. 6.3 Factor loadings through CFA on the political rights dimension

6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index

145

Table 6.4 CFA fit indices results for leisure and education (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Leisure and education

67.830

14

0.984

0.976

0.024

0.050

[0.030, 0.071]

7 items ranged from 0.651 to 0.815, thereby indicating that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative. Table 6.5 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the social livelihood dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good model fit with a stable factor structure. Figure 6.5 reports the factor loading through CFA on the social livelihood dimension of the Huodegan Index. SM denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown

Fig. 6.4 Factor loadings through CFA on the leisure and education dimension

Table 6.5 CFA fit indices results for social livelihood (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Social livelihood

91.163

14

0.984

0.976

0.022

0.058

[0.039, 0.078]

146

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

in the figure, in the social livelihood dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from 0.681 to 0.876, thereby suggesting that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative. Table 6.6 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the ecological protection dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good model fit with a stable factor structure. Figure 6.6 reports the factor loading through CFA on the ecological protection dimension of the Huodegan Index. SH denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the ecological protection dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from 0.616 to 0.813, thereby suggesting that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative.

Fig. 6.5 Factor loading through CFA on the social livelihood dimension

Table 6.6 CFA fit indices results for ecological protection (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Ecological protection

79.392

14

0.976

0.964

0.029

0.060

[0.041, 0.080]

6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index

147

Fig. 6.6 Factor loading through CFA on the ecological protection dimension

Table 6.7 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the target dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good model fit with a stable factor structure. Figure 6.7 reports the factor loading through CFA on the target dimension of the Huodegan Index. YF denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the target dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from 0.774 to 0.876, thereby suggesting that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative. Table 6.8 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the ability dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good model fit with a stable factor structure. Table 6.7 CFA fit indices results for target (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Target

65.013

14

0.989

0.983

0.016

0.054

[0.035, 0.074]

148

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Fig. 6.7 Factor loading through CFA on the target dimension

Table 6.8 CFA fit indices results for ability (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Ability

115.037

14

0.973

0.960

0.028

0.075

[0.046, 0.094]

Figure 6.8 reports the factor loading through CFA on the ability dimension of the Huodegan Index. LN denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the ability dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from 0.676 to 0.874, thereby suggesting that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative. Table 6.9 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the satisfaction dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good model fit with a stable factor structure. Figure 6.9 reports the factor loading through CFA on the satisfaction dimension of the Huodegan Index. XY denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the satisfaction dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from

6.3 Factor Structure of the Huodegan Index

149

Fig. 6.8 Factor loading through CFA on the ability dimension

Table 6.9 CFA fit indices results for satisfaction (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Satisfaction

73.777

14

0.988

0.983

0.021

0.053

[0.033, 0.073]

0.766 to 0.865, thereby suggesting that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative. Table 6.10 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the amity dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good model fit with a stable factor structure. Figure 6.10 reports the factor loading through CFA on the amity dimension of the Huodegan Index. YW denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the amity dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from 0.763 to 0.866, thereby suggesting that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative. Table 6.11 reports the fit indices of the CFA model for the unity dimension of the Huodegan Index. Both CFI and TLI were significant above 0.95, the SRMR value

150

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Fig. 6.9 Factor loading through CFA on the satisfaction dimension

Table 6.10 CFA fit indices results for amity (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Amity

108.309

14

0.979

0.968

0.026

0.066

[0.048, 0.086]

was less than 0.05, and the RMSEA value was less than 0.08, thereby indicating a good model fit with a stable factor structure. Figure 6.11 reports the factor loading through CFA on the unity dimension of the Huodegan Index. AL denotes the redefined item number corresponding to Sect. 6.3.1 that can be used for querying the content of the items. As shown in the figure, in the unity dimension, the factor loadings of the 7 items ranged from 0.706 to 0.848, thereby suggesting that the factors stably loaded on this dimension and that the items were representative.

6.4 Latent Profile Analysis Results

151

Fig. 6.10 Factor loading through CFA on the amity dimension

Table 6.11 CFA fit indices results for unity (n = 633) Model

χ2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

90%CI

Unity

76.469

14

0.984

0.976

0.024

0.055

[0.036, 0.075]

6.4 Latent Profile Analysis Results After summarizing independent samples 1 and 2, the internal consistency coefficient of each subscale was calculated. The results of the 10 subscales all showed good internal reliability (economic level [α = 0.905], political rights [α = 0.913], leisure and education [α = 0.895], social livelihood [α = 0.929], ecological protection [α = 0.880], target [α = 0.933], ability [α = 0.916], satisfaction [α = 0.936], amity [α = 0.929], and unity [α = 0.919]). Latent class analysis (LCA) is a method for classifying an individual’s latent characteristics based on observable behavioral indicators and for exploring potential heterogeneity (Merz & Roesch, 2011). When the latent variables are continuous variables, LCA is also known as LPA (Dziak et al., 2016), which can be used to observe the characteristics of different groups (Bravo et al., 2016).

152

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Fig. 6.11 Factor loading through CFA on the unity dimension

LPA was performed using Mplus7.4. The average scores of perceived social development and individual wellbeing in the Huodegan Index were calculated and used to divide the sample into different groups. Similar to other LPA studies (Duan & Wang, 2018), this study employed different methods to evaluate the fit indices, including Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), sample size adjustment using Bayesian information criterion (SSABIC), entropy, and Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (LMR-LRT). AIC, BIC, and SSABIC are commonly used to compare fit indices, with a lower score indicating a better model fit. The entropy value represents the accuracy of individual classification, with a higher value indicating a better model fit. LMR-LRT was used to compare the fit indices, and the significant value (p < 0.001) indicated that the corresponding k model is better than the k-1 model. According to the results of the literature review, the levels of perceived social development and individual wellbeing in the Huodegan Index may fall within four quadrants. In theory, there are two categories (matching and mismatching) and four types, namely, (1) both the perceived social development and individual wellbeing levels are highly matching, (2) both the perceived social development and individual wellbeing levels are lowly matching, (3) the perceived social development is high, whereas the perceived individual development is comparatively low, and (4) the

6.4 Latent Profile Analysis Results

153

Table 6.12 Model fit indices of sense of gain by LPA (n = 1,239) Class

AIC

BIC

SSABIC

Entropy

LMR-LRT

Percentage of Category people in the distribution smallest probabilities category (%)

2

8113.476

8149.331

8127.095

0.736

< 0.001

43.34

[0.919, 0.928]

3

7507.029

7558.313

7526.548

0.881

< 0.001

5.65

[0.944, 0.953]

4

7205.458

7272.045

7230.751

0.858

< 0.001

5.65

[0.896, 0.948]

5

6980.781

7062.743

7011.911

0.838

0.1056

4.04

[0.842, 0.962]

perceived social development is low, whereas the perceived individual development is comparatively high. Therefore, the fit indices were expected to reach their optimum levels in these four categories, which is consistent with what was assumed at the beginning of this chapter. The sample included 599 undergraduate students (48.30%) and 323 postgraduates or above (24.96%), hence suggesting that the education of the participants was generally on the high level. Using 2003 to 2013 CGSS data, Li (2018) conducted age, period, and cohort analyses to explore the changes in the subjective wellbeing of Chinese residents and the factors that influence such wellbeing. Results showed that the scores of wellbeing of the higher educated group are always higher than that of the other groups. Therefore, the perceived individual wellbeing of the participants in this study may be relatively higher than their perceived social development, that is, we might not have a category with a mix of high-level perceived social development and low-level perceived individual wellbeing. Instead, the scores for these two types of development tended to be equivalent. The fit indices of the model are shown in Table 6.12. On the basis of the LMR-LRT results, 4 classes were formed and numbered from 2 to 5. Given that the results of the LMR-LRT for the fifth class was not significant, this model was rejected. The fourth class had the smallest AIC, BIC, and SSABIC values and therefore had the best model fit. Meanwhile, the third class had the largest entropy value, but that of the fourth model also reached 0.858. Given that the fourth class obtained the best AIC, BIC, and SSABIC values among all models, the scheme for this class was deemed the most suitable. For the first class in the LPA, individual’s needs were not met both in perceived social development and individual wellbeing as indicated by their low scores. This class was then labelled as “deprived and disappointed,” which included 70 participants accounting for only 5.65% of the sample. For the fourth class, both perceived individual wellbeing and perceived social development were relatively high. This class was then named “affluent and satisfied,” which included 136 participants accounting for 10.98% of the sample.

154

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Fig. 6.12 Characteristics of the four categories of sense of gain

The third class, named “poor but contented,” had a relatively low score for perceived social development but a comparatively high score for perceived individual wellbeing. This class included 589 participants accounting for nearly half (47.54%) of the sample. The sense of gain score in this class was generally higher than that of the “deprived and disappointed” class. According to the classification hypothesis, there should be a group of people who have a high score for perceived social development but a relatively low score for perceived individual wellbeing. This class, called “well-off but lost,” corresponded to class 2 in the LPA. However, as can be seen in Fig. 6.12, this class had similar levels of perceived social development and individual wellbeing, which is consistent with the speculation that data deviations may result from the generally high education level of the sample. Table 6.13 shows the mean score of wellbeing in different classes of sense of gain and the significance of the difference among these mean scores. The comparison revealed significant differences in wellbeing across classes. Class 4 had the highest level of wellbeing, followed by classes 2, 3, and 1. These results validated the four latent classes obtained from the LPA.

6.5 Development of the Short Version Index After the EFA, CFA, and LPA, 70 items were retained in the Huodegan Index. The metric attributes of these 70 items were verified in the “2-facet, 10-dimension” theoretical framework, thus forming the Huodegan Index-70 (Table 6.14).

6.5 Development of the Short Version Index

155

Table 6.13 Mean comparison of wellbeing in the four classes of sense of gain (n = 1,239) Class

Mean of wellbeing

Approximate chi-square value of mean comparison 1

2

1

3.081

2

6.921

348.058***

3

5.368

120.089***

227.303***

4

8.382

617.581***

154.301***

3

730.465***

Note *** p < 0.001

However, this new index may be too long to use in practice. The same problem has been observed in measuring other psychological indicators. For example, for people with reading disorders, reading sentences can be a challenge. Therefore, completing a long scale may be difficult, arduous, or even impossible for these people. Completing lengthy questionnaires can also be equally challenging for people with mental health problems as this task demands a great deal of patience and concentration. Therefore, psychologists tend to develop shorter versions of their measurement scales for evaluating the same psychological indicator (Ziegler et al., 2014). For example, to achieve a better effect in practice, the 90-item symptom checklist was simplified to a certain extent by screening out those items with cross-repetition (Derogatis et al., 1974). This simplification process resulted in the creation of the shorter 53-item (Derogatis, 1993) and 18-item brief symptom inventories (Derogatis & Fitzpatrick, 2004). Similarly, the 96-item Chinese virtues questionnaire (CVQ) (Duan et al., 2013) was designed to assess individual strengths. However, this questionnaire was later criticized for being too long for clinical use and unsuitable for wide community surveys. In response, Duan and Bu (2017) simplified the CVQ by using 556 Western and 518 Asian samples to develop the 15-item and 3-dimensional inventory of character strengths to measure individual strengths. The validity of these short versions is not negatively influenced by their length. For these reasons, shorter versions of the proposed Huodegan Index with good validity were developed using the same methods that were employed in developing the original index. EFA was initially performed to select those items with the highest factor loading in each subscale of the original Huodegan Index (Duan et al., 2019). The results are shown in Table 6.15. The 3 items with the largest factor loadings corresponded to the 10 factors in the “2-facet, 10-dimension” framework. The 30-item Huodegan Index-30 was eventually obtained (Table 6.16), and the item with the largest factor loading was used to develop the 10-item Huodegan Index-10 (Table 6.17).

156 Table 6.14 Huodegan Index-70

6 Development of the Huodegan Index Huodegan Index-70 Perceived social development Factor 1: economic level 1. I feel satisfied with the current level of expenditure 2. I feel that income inequality has eased in my region 3. I am satisfied with the current income level 4. I think that the current income gap among the members of the community is acceptable 5. I feel happy with my current socioeconomic status 6. I feel that the trend toward balanced economic development in my region is gradually emerging 7. I feel that the number of people and groups in poverty in my region has decreased Factor 2: political rights 8. I am aware of the current events relevant to the rights and interests of citizens 9. I keep up to date with important decisions and matters of the current society 10. I keep up to date with the implementation of relevant policies, regulations, and instructions 11. I think that the legislation system is improving 12. I am involved in some group activity or action 13. I am proactive about social issues reported on the radio, television, and newspapers 14. I propose suggestions for solving social or environmental problems Factor 3: leisure and education 15. I think that the public education services are accessible 16. I feel that I have opportunities for education and training 17. I feel that I have access to a wealth of recreational facilities 18. I think that there are many ways to acquire knowledge 19. I think that the current public education services are adequate 20. I can participate in lectures, consultation, propaganda, or other activities 21. I feel that I can afford the recreational or leisure activities that I like (e.g., holidays, cinema, theater, or music events) Factor 4: social livelihood 22. I think that the current aged care welfare system provides adequate services and resources (continued)

6.5 Development of the Short Version Index Table 6.14 (continued)

157

Huodegan Index-70 23. I think that the current health care system provides adequate services and resources 24. I think I am satisfied with the basic housing security public services 25. The current social insurance program can give my family enough protection 26. I think that the staff of the relevant departments in my region are efficient in providing day-to-day services 27. I think that people can safely purchase food from the market 28. I am satisfied with all aspects of the current social welfare services Factor 5: ecological protection 29. Forest destruction in my region has been alleviated 30. I live in an area with a high level of biodiversity 31. I think that the air quality is satisfactory most of the time 32. I think that greenhouse gas emissions have been limited 33. I think there is enough clean water for cleaning and drinking 34. I usually choose an environmentally friendly transportation 35. I think people have access to enough electricity or fuel for lighting and heating Perceived individual wellbeing Factor 1: target 36. I think that I have a clear sense of purpose in my life 37. I feel that I am pursuing my dream 38. I know what brings meaning to my life 39. I feel that my life is purposeful and meaningful 40. I can make anything that happens to me meaningful 41. I think I have a preliminary plan for my future career development 42. I have a clear understanding of my life goals Factor 2: ability 43. I think I am capable of doing what is important to me 44. I feel free to decide on what I want to do 45. I feel I am free to make my own decisions 46. I have the ability and knowledge to comment and participate in an event 47. I feel like I learn something new every day 48. I think I’m perfectly capable of doing my job 49. I think I can accomplish difficult tasks (continued)

158 Table 6.14 (continued)

6 Development of the Huodegan Index Huodegan Index-70 Factor 3: satisfaction 50. I think I have a lot of things to be proud of 51. In my daily life, I feel I am energetic 52. I feel proud of what I have done 53. I am satisfied with my life 54. I think I am doing a job where I can get a sense of accomplishment 55. I feel happy most of the time 56. I feel satisfied when I think about what I have achieved in my life Factor 4: amity 57. I think people are polite to me 58. I feel that I get the same respect as others 59. I believe that all people have good qualities 60. I think my neighbor is trustworthy 61. I think I get social support from others 62. I think I can trust most people in society 63. I think my social relationships are supportive and beneficial Factor 5: unity 64. I think people nowadays have the best expectations and are trying to achieve them 65. I am optimistic about my future 66. I think that social development is promising 67. I think I am actively contributing to the happiness and wellbeing of others 68. I feel that I have a sense of belonging to my motherland 69. I think paying attention to equality plays a role in society 70. I am willing to be part of a community/unit

6.6 Conclusion Based on the “2-facet, 10-dimension” framework of sense of gain, this study constructed the Huodegan Index and its short versions. Results of the factor analysis and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient highlighted the good structural validity and reliability of the proposed index. Overall, the Huodegan Index showed an excellent internal consistency coefficient, clear factor structure, and high factor loading and can therefore scientifically, effectively, and stably evaluate the sense of gain of individuals and groups. The existing sense of gain theory and its measurement tools have been extended to a certain extent by identifying the concept of sense of gain, expanding its measurement framework, and constructing the Huodegan Index.

6.6 Conclusion

159

Table 6.15 EFA results of the Huodegan Index-70 in the total sample (n = 1,239) Huodegan Index-70

Factor loading

Perceived social development Factor 1: economic level 1. I feel satisfied with the current level of expenditure

0.814

2. I feel that income inequality has eased in my region

0.823

3. I am satisfied with the current income level

0.818

4. I think that the current income gap among the members of the community is 0.822 acceptable 5. I feel happy with my current socioeconomic status

0.790

6. I feel that the trend toward balanced economic development in my region is 0.789 gradually emerging 7. I feel that the number of people and groups in poverty in my region has decreased

0.727

Factor 2: political rights 8. I am aware of the current events relevant to the rights and interests of citizens 0.839 9. I keep up to date with important decisions and matters of the current society 0.848 10. I keep up to date with the implementation of relevant policies, regulations, 0.834 and instructions 11. I think that the legislation system is improving

0.791

12. I am involved in some group activity or action

0.805

13. I am proactive about social issues reported on the radio, television, and newspapers

0.766

14. I propose suggestions for solving social or environmental problems

0.796

Factor 3: leisure and education 15. I think that the public education services are accessible

0.833

16. I feel that I have opportunities for education and training

0.816

17. I feel that I have access to a wealth of recreational facilities

0.81

18. I think that there are many ways to acquire knowledge

0.772

19. I think that the current public education services are adequate

0.767

20. I can participate in lectures, consultation, propaganda, or other activities

0.733

21. I feel that I can afford the recreational or leisure activities that I like (e.g., holidays, cinema, theater, or music events)

0.759

Factor 4: social livelihood 22. I think that the current aged care welfare system provides adequate services and resources

0.885

23. I think that the current health care system provides adequate services and resources

0.874

24. I think I am satisfied with the basic housing security public services

0.884 (continued)

160

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Table 6.15 (continued) Huodegan Index-70

Factor loading

25. The current social insurance program can give my family enough protection

0.860

26. I think that the staff of the relevant departments in my region are efficient in providing day-to-day services

0.823

27. I think that people cans safely purchase food from the market

0.801

28. I am satisfied with all aspects of the current social welfare service

0.728

Factor 5: ecological protection 29. Forest destruction in my region has been alleviated

0.835

30. I live in an area with a high level of biodiversity

0.825

31. I think that the air quality is satisfactory most of the time

0.769

32. I think that greenhouse gas emissions have been limited

0.765

33. I think there is enough clean water for cleaning and drinking

0.76

34. I usually choose an environmentally friendly transportation

0.691

35. I think people have access to enough electricity or fuel for lighting and heating

0.693

Perceived individual wellbeing Factor 1: target 36. I think that I have a clear sense of purpose in my life

0.877

37. I feel that I am pursuing my dream

0.843

38. I know what brings meaning to my life

0.869

39. I feel that my life is purposeful and meaningful

0.865

40. I can make anything that happens to me meaningful

0.824

41. I think I have a preliminary plan for my future career development

0.826

42. I have a clear understanding of my life goals

0.812

Factor 2: ability 43. I think I am capable of doing what is important to me

0.834

44. I feel free to decide on what I want to do

0.829

45. I feel I am free to make my own decisions

0.811

46. I have the ability and knowledge to comment and participate in an event

0.824

47. I feel like I learn something new every day

0.817

48. I think I’m perfectly capable of doing my job

0.713

49. I think I can accomplish difficult tasks

0.834

Factor 3: satisfaction 50. I think I have a lot of things to be proud of

0.879

51. In my daily life, I feel I am energetic

0.870

52. I feel proud of what I have done

0.867

53. I am satisfied with my life

0.835 (continued)

6.6 Conclusion

161

Table 6.15 (continued) Huodegan Index-70

Factor loading

54. I think I am doing a job where I can get a sense of accomplishment

0.857

55. I feel happy most of the time

0.845

56. I feel satisfied when I think about what I have achieved in my life

0.799

Factor 4: amity 57. I think people are polite to me

0.877

58. I feel that I get the same respect as others

0.86

59. I believe that all people have good qualities

0.847

60. I think my neighbor is trustworthy

0.837

61. I think I get social support from others

0.843

62. I think I can trust most people in society

0.800

63. I think my social relationships are supportive and beneficial

0.805

Factor 5: unity 64. I think people nowadays have the best expectations and are trying to achieve them

0.869

65. I am optimistic about my future

0.854

66. I think that social development is promising

0.832

67. I think I am actively contributing to the happiness and wellbeing of others

0.810

68. I feel that I have a sense of belonging to my motherland

0.822

69. I think paying attention to equality plays a role in society

0.770

70. I am willing to be part of a community/unit

0.786

The hypothesized four-quadrant classification structure of sense of gain was verified by LPA, whose results clearly demonstrated the degree of difference between perceived social development and individual wellbeing. Xin (2016) found that despite the continuous development of society and improvement of people’s living standards, people’s sense of gain does not improve, thereby confirming a gap between sense of gain and “gain” itself. This finding may be ascribed to three reasons. First, the level of people’s needs increases along with the development of their society, and the types of people’s needs also change from “survival” to “developmental,” thereby increasing their demand for “gain.” When the satisfaction of these higher needs is hindered, people’s perception of gain in reality decreases, thereby resulting in the “passivation of sense of gain.” Second, due to some societal phenomena, such as unfair distribution of resources and rent-seeking behaviors, people may feel injustice or a sense of relative deprivation. Third, expectations for the future are largely uncertain due to the transformation of the social structure triggered by China’s reform and opening up. In addition, the serious environmental and social problems brought about by technological progress and economic growth have resulted in environmental pollution, ecological damage, and widening gap between the rich and the poor, all of which can influence people’s sense of security and gain. Some empirical studies confirmed that

162 Table 6.16 Huodegan Index-30

6 Development of the Huodegan Index Huodegan Index-30 Perceived social development Factor 1: economic level 1. I feel that income inequality has eased in my region 2. I am satisfied with the current income level 3. I think that the current income gap among the members of the community is acceptable Factor 2: political rights 4. I am aware of the current events relevant to the rights and interests of citizens 5. I keep up to date with important decisions and matters of the current society 6. I keep up to date with the implementation of relevant policies, regulations, and instructions Factor 3: leisure and education 7. I think that the public education services are acceptable 8. I feel that I have opportunities for education and training 9. I feel that I have access to a wealth of recreational facilities Factor 4: social livelihood 10. I think that the current aged care welfare system provides adequate services and resources 11. I think that the current health care system provides adequate services and resources 12. I think I am satisfied with the basic housing security public services Factor 5: ecological protection 13. Forest destruction in my region has been alleviated 14. I live in an area with a high level of biodiversity 15. I think that the air quality is satisfactory most of the time Perceived individual wellbeing Factor 1: target 16. I think that I have a clear sense of purpose in my life 17. I know what brings meaning to my life 18. I feel that my life is purposeful and meaningful Factor 2: ability 19. I think I am capable of doing what is important to me 20. I feel free to decide on what I want to do 21. I feel I am free to make my own decisions Factor 3: satisfaction 22. I think I have a lot of things to be proud of (continued)

6.6 Conclusion Table 6.16 (continued)

163 Huodegan Index-30 23. In my daily life, I feel energetic 24. I feel proud of what I have done Factor 4: amity 25. I think people are polite to me 26. I feel that I get the same respect as others 27. I believe that all people have good qualities Factor 5: unity 28. I think people nowadays have the best expectations and are trying to achieve them 29. I am optimistic about my future 30. I think that social development is promising

Table 6.17 Huodegan Index-10

Huodegan Index-10 Perceived social development Factor 1: economic level 1. I feel that income inequality has eased in my region Factor 2: political rights 2. I keep up to date with important decisions and matters of the current society Factor 3: leisure and education 3. I think that the public education services are accessible Factor 4: social livelihood 4. I think that the current aged care welfare system provides adequate services and resources Factor 5: ecological protection 5. Forest destruction in my region has been alleviated Perceived individual wellbeing Factor 1: target 6. I think that I have a clear sense of purpose in my life Factor 2: ability 7. I think I am capable of doing what is important to me Factor 3: satisfaction 8. I think I have a lot of things to be proud of Factor 4: amity 9. I think people are polite to me Factor 5: unity 10. I think people nowadays have the best expectations and are trying to achieve them

164

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

the above reasons also explain the inconsistency between perceived social development and individual wellbeing to a certain extent. For example, Huang et al. (2017) empirically found that material wealth is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for generating sense of gain. An increase in material wealth is conducive to improving sense of gain, but the feeling of unfairness can reduce this sense of gain. By using data from the 2016 China Labor Force Dynamic Survey, Xiang (2019) found that an increase in objective “gain” does significantly improve the subjective “sense of gain,” but this relationship is neither inevitable nor a one-to-one correspondence. People’s “perception” toward the same “gain” may also differ. Results of the data analysis showed that the low level of and inconsistency between perceived social development and individual wellbeing create an intervention space for professional social work. Social work practice is aligned with the characteristics of clients, is responsive to the needs of clients, and embeds pathways in client development in three ways (Yang & He, 2010). The first of these three ways is theory proposition, which demonstrates how to the characteristics of clients can be connected and requires social workers to clarify these characteristics before performing an intervention. Through questionnaires and interviews, the characteristics of the sense of gain of clients can be clarified, and then social workers can understand the working environments, conditions, and requirements that would lead them to their initiative. The second method is project-based proposition or responding to the needs of clients. To intervene in sense of gain, social workers must focus on those groups with a greater service demand or with low or inconsistent perceived social development and individual wellbeing. Their services should be appropriately tailored to those people belonging to the “deprived and disappointed,” “poor but contented,” and “well-off but lost” classes to ensure the effective and harmonious development of their clients. Social workers should also directly provide services to deprived and disappointed people and learn about their family situation and basic living conditions. In this way, social workers can allocate supplies, link volunteer services and social resources, and help these people connect to their communities and societies, obtain social support, and engage in social activities, which would systematically improve their perceived social and individual development from “being helped” to “self-development.” This approach can also improve the driving force of self-antipoverty and anti-barrenness. Third, social workers promote the development of their clients by embedding pathways. Casework, group work, and community work are three primary methodologies in social work. Social workers need to choose different working methods when facing clients with different sense of gain characteristics. Casework mainly applies to “deprived and disappointed” clients. By adopting theories of narrative therapy and strengths, social workers can provide case consultation, psychological counseling, policy description, and resource links for their clients to empower them and boost their resilience. Group work mainly aims at the “poor but contented” and “well-off but lost” clients. People sharing the similar characteristics tend to belong to the same group. Through their interactions, group members can help one another resolve similar issues. Group work can help the “poor but contented” people in improving their perceived social development and help the “well-off but lost” people in improving their perceived individual wellbeing. This method can also

References

165

link these clients to a supportive relationship. Community work targets communities and their residents. Social workers may mobilize residents in a target community to participate in collective action as well as transmit, replicate, integrate, and promote their internal and external resources to improve their relations and cohesion. Community work is particularly useful for stabilizing and developing the sense of gain of “affluent and satisfied” people. By organizing effective community activities, social workers can improve the social participation of the “affluent and satisfied” people, encourage community or social interactions, build a relationship network, stabilize and improve the sense of gain of the community, and build connections between the “affluent and satisfied” group and the three other groups. The outcomes of these approaches not only allow people to help themselves but also encourage them to help others. This study developed and validated the Huodegan Index, identified the latent profile characteristics of the sense of gain of different populations, and then proposed a potential path of social work intervention for improving sense of gain. The findings of this work provide an empirical basis for solving the problems of “what is” and “how to measure” sense of gain, a theoretical basis for “how to” improve sense of gain, and carries great significance for the development and practical application of sense of gain theory. However, this study also has some limitations. First, the data were collected using a cross-sectional design, thereby preventing the collection of a long-term and stable longitudinal dataset for exploring causal conclusions. Future studies should consider adopting a longitudinal design to test the measurement and prediction effects of the Huodegan Index. The other psychometric properties of this index, such as its criterion validity, discriminant validity, convergent validity, and incremental validity, should also be further investigated in future studies. Second, the representativeness of LPA needs to be strengthened. Given the skewed distribution of education level in the sample, future research should consider building a more universal sample. Third, some meta-analyses revealed that a single item can have acceptable reliability and validity and may be suitable for measuring non-core concepts (Wei & Zhang, 2019), such as the concept of wellbeing in this study. However, future research should consider adopting multiple items to measure the relevant variables. They may also incorporate these variables to explore the internal mechanism and influencing factors of sense of gain and to analyze the antecedent variables and cognitive framework that lead to the inconsistency between perceived social development and individual wellbeing. In this way, more scientific social work intervention strategies for improving the sense of gain of different groups can be designed.

References Bravo, A. J., Boothe, L. G., & Pearson, M. R. (2016). Getting personal with mindfulness: A latent profile analysis of mindfulness and psychological outcomes. Mindfulness, 7(2), 420–432. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0459-7

166

6 Development of the Huodegan Index

Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring, and procedures manual. National Computer Systems. Derogatis, L. R. & Fitzpatrick, M. (2004). The SCL-90-R, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the BSI-18. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830190102 Duan, W., & Bu, H. (2017). Development and initial validation of a short three-dimensional inventory of character strengths. Quality of Life Research, 26(9), 2519–2531. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11136-017-1579-4 Duan, W., Guan, Q., Sheng, J., & Qi, B. (2020). Initial development of the social work core competency inventory. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(3), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/ bjsw/bcz01 Duan, W., He, C., Huang, L., & Sheng, J. (2019). The 12-item big three perfectionism scale for adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2019.109536 Duan, W., Ho, S. M., Bai, Y., & Tang, X. (2013). Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese virtues questionnaire. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(3), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/104 9731513477214 Duan, W., & Wang, Y. (2018). Latent profile analysis of the three-dimensional model of character strengths to distinguish at-strengths and at-risk populations. Quality of Life Research, 27(11), 2983–2990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1933-1 Dziak, J. J., Bray, B. C., Zhang, J., Zhang, M., & Lanza, S. T. (2016). Comparing the performance of improved classify-analyze approaches for distal outcomes in latent profile analysis. Methodology, 12(4), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000114 Groarke, J. M., & Hogan, M. J. (2018). Development and psychometric evaluation of the adaptive functions of music listening scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 516. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2018.00516 He, X. (2004). Multivariate statistical analysis. China Renmin University Press. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Huang, Y., Zhang, W., & Zhao, J. (2017). Actual gain, equity perceptions, and residents’ gain. Modern Economic Research (11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.13891/j.cnki.mer.2017.11.001 Li, T. (2018). Which generation is happier? An age-period-cohort analysis on the subjective wellbeing of Chinese residents. Population & Economics (01), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.19633/j. cnki.11-2579/d.2018.0159 Li, Y., & Huang, Z. (2007). Role of confirmatory factor analysis in checking questionnaire’s construct validity. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 23(10), 1198. Merz, E. L., & Roesch, S. C. (2011). A latent profile analysis of the five factor model of personality: Modeling trait interactions. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 915–919. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.022 Sun, X., & Zhou, Z. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis and its main problems in application. Psychological Science, 28(6), 1440–1442. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2005. 06.039 Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration. Cambridge University Press. Wang, M. C. (2014). Latent variable modeling and Mplus application (1st ed.). Chongqing University Press. Wei, X., & Zhang, L. (2019). Single-item measures: Queries, responses and suggestions. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(7). https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01194 Xiang, J. (2019). Objective attainment and subjective attainment: From the perspective of status attainment and social mobility. Journal of Social Development, 6(02), 135–153+245.

References

167

Xin, X. (2016). Analysis on the causes of “passivation” of sense of gain: From the perspective of hierarchy of needs theory. Journal of the Party School of C.P.C Qingdao Municipal Committee and Qingdao Administrative Institute (04), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.13392/j.cnki.zgqd.2016.04.011 Yang, F., & He, X. (2010). Social worker intervention in post-disaster social reconstruction: Concept, goal, and method: An empirical study based on Q resettlement site in Dujiangyan, Sichuan Province. Gansu Social Sciences (03), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.15891/j.cnki.cn62-1093/c. 2010.03.013 Zhang, C., Xu, Y., & Chen, P. (2007). Comparison and application of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis in scale research. Journal of Southern Medical University (11), 1699–1700+1705. http://dx.chinadoi.cn/10.3321/j.issn:1673-4254.2007.11.052 Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales: Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1027/ 1614-0001/a000148 Zhao, L., Li, L., Zhou, S., Zhang, Y., & Gao, Y. (2013). Comparison with the latent profile analysis and systemic clustering method. Journal of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, 29(02), 206– 209. http://dx.chinadoi.cn/10.3969/j.issn.1006-8783.2013.02.023

Chapter 7

Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

7.1 Introduction In Chapter 5, following a review of previous theories and an analysis of empirical studies on sense of gain, theory of sense of gain was constructed based on the “multiple gains of perceived social development” and “multidimensional satisfaction of perceived individual wellbeing.” Afterward, a framework with 10 dimensions (i.e., economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, ecological protection, target, ability, satisfaction, amity, and unity) was constructed. By referring to social indicator scales and questionnaires that are commonly used domestically and internationally, 159 questions were selected for the proposed index based on theoretical guidance and content matching. In Chapter 6, guided by the “2-facet, 10-dimension” theoretical framework, EFA and CFA were performed to construct the Huodegan Index-70, the Huodegan Index-30, and the Huodegan Index-10 using data from a cross-sectional survey. The model fit indices for all 10 dimensions of the Huodegan Index reached good standards with high factor loadings (> 0.6). LPA was also performed to analyze the total sample of 1,239 respondents. Results showed that the model fit indices of the four-quadrant classification structure reached optimum levels (i.e., high matching between perceived social development and individual wellbeing, low matching between perceived social development and individual wellbeing, high perceived social development but low perceived individual wellbeing, and low perceived social development but high perceived individual wellbeing). However, the 1,239 respondents were recruited via convenient sampling, and the distribution of their education levels was skewed, hence limiting the representativeness and universality of the collected data. To compensate for the above deficiencies and further improve the effectiveness of the 10-dimensional Huodegan Index, this study used data from a large-scale social survey in China to identify those items that are consistent with the framework of sense of gain and to construct a new sense of gain index based on this framework. On the one hand, using data from this survey can further confirm the consistency between the proposed sense of gain framework and social facts and provide some scientific © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Duan and Y. Li, Huodegan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4_7

169

170

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

evidence for the development of sense of gain theory. On the other hand, this index can be used to observe and analyze the overall situation of citizens’ sense of gain in the process of the deepening reform in China and to further depict and reflect the operation and overall effectiveness of China’s reform and opening up policies.

7.2 Methods 7.2.1 Participants and Procedures This study used data from the CGSS2015 of the National Survey Research Center at the Renmin University of China. These data are diverse, representative, and scientifically sound given that the survey participants were selected using a stratified multi-sectional sampling method. The survey covered 478 communities across 28 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions (except the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Tibet Autonomous Region, and Hainan Province) in Mainland China. All data were collected through face-to-face interviews. This standardized sampling and survey approach ensured that the sample is universal and representative, hence allowing us to comprehensively collect data at multiple levels, including the individual, household, community, and social levels. A total of 10,968 valid questionnaires were completed in CGSS2015. The sample included 5,134 males (46.80%) and 5,834 females (53.20%) with an average age of 54.40 years (SD = 16.90). These participants had an average annual personal income of 32,805.33 yuan (SD = 205,840.55). At the time of the survey in 2015, the median and mode of the education level of Chinese residents were middle school; in the sample, 9,166 participants (83.79%) had below tertiary education, whereas 1,773 participants (16.21%) had equal to or above tertiary education. Meanwhile, the median and mode of marital status were in the first marriage (8,289 people, 75.57%). Among the respondents, 6,470 (58.99%) were from cities, whereas the remaining 4,498 (41.01%) were from towns and villages. Some significant differences were observed among the provinces in terms of sample size. Specifically, the number of respondents in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (n = 94), Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (n = 99), Qinghai (n = 101), and Gansu (n = 195) was less than 200. Meanwhile, less than 300 respondents were recruited in Guizhou (n = 249), Chongqing (n = 265), Shanxi (n = 280), Tianjin (n = 288), Fujian (n = 294), and Hebei (n = 295). The number of respondents in Shaanxi (n = 369), Yunnan (n = 385), Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (n = 393), Liaoning (n = 395), Anhui (n = 397), Zhejiang (n = 462), Jilin (n = 465), Hunan (n = 475), Jiangxi (n = 476), and Jiangsu (n = 499) ranged between 300 and 500. Those regions with more than 500 respondents included Shanghai (n = 502), Guangdong (n = 531), Beijing (n = 547), Sichuan (n = 566), Shandong (n = 575), Henan (n = 582), Heilongjiang (n = 589) and Hubei (n = 600).

7.2 Methods

171

7.2.2 Statistical Analysis Strategy The CGSS2015 Huodegan Index was analyzed using SPSS 24.0. First, those items in the CGSS2015 questionnaire that were consistent with the “2-facet, 10-dimension” sense of gain framework were selected. After applying the transformation of the scoring method, scoring direction, and standardization, the CGSS2015 Huodegan Index with high sample representativeness and universality was constructed as a technical foundation for examining sense of gain. A descriptive analysis was then conducted, and the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and percentile values were calculated for the 10 dimensions of the CGSS2015 Huodegan Index, perceived social development, perceived individual wellbeing, and overall sense of gain to describe the degrees of concentration and dispersion. Second, cluster analysis was carried out to study the characteristics of the participants assigned to different classes. Similar to the LPA conducted in Chapter 6, cluster analysis is another method for simplifying the data for model construction. A classification standard need not be given in advance. Instead, cluster analysis automatically performs exploratory classification from the data itself. By classifying the participants, the CGSS2015 Huodegan Index can comprehensively and scientifically reflect the characteristics of the sense of gain of different groups. This index can also verify whether the results of the LPA are consistent with those of cluster analysis by using large-scale data. Due to the large sample size, a large number of observations may be retrieved. The icicle plot or genealogy diagram from systematic cluster analysis can be scattered and may be unsuitable for reading and interpretation. Therefore, K-means cluster analysis was adopted in this study. By taking perceived social development and individual wellbeing as variables, K-means cluster analysis clusters the whole sample according to similarity. The results of the K-means cluster analysis are expected to be consistent with the four classification results obtained in the previous chapter. Afterward, by performing ANOVA and post-comparison of the values of each cluster, the sense of gain characteristics of groups across different clusters can be obtained. Third, on the basis of the existing CGSS2015 Huodegan Index and cluster analysis results, the sense of gain index in the provinces and municipalities of China was described via descriptive analysis to provide empirical data support for subsequent policy suggestions. This study took provinces or municipalities as units to describe the perceived social development, perceived individual wellbeing, and general sense of gain index. At the same time, on the basis of the clustering results for sense of gain across 28 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions, the proportion of sense of gain classes was displayed in detail to preliminarily describe the current situation of sense of gain in these provinces, cities, and autonomous regions based on CGSS2015 data.

172

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

7.3 Index Construction To quantify the CGSS2015 Huodegan Index, those questions that were consistent with the sense of gain framework were selected from the CGSS2015. Perceived social development covered 5 dimensions, namely, economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection, whereas perceived individual wellbeing covered unity, amity, target, ability, and satisfaction. In the CGSS2015 questionnaire, the respondents were required to complete the core module (Part A) and 10-year review module (Part B) of the economic attitude and behavior evaluation. However, completing the other modules was not mandatory. The probability of the work module was 1/6, whereas that of the energy and legal modules was 1/3. Therefore, to ensure the integrity, universality, and representativeness of the data, items were selected only from Parts A and B of CGSS2015. The operationalization process and final process of generating perceived social development and individual wellbeing are discussed separately along with the items selection and index construction processes.

7.3.1 Item Selection To ensure that the items selected from the CGSS2015 questionnaire can accurately reflect the connotation of the sense of gain framework, the following principles were developed based on previous research experience: (1) theoretical guidance: all selected items should be within the scope of the theory and framework of sense of gain, including the sense of gain theories of “perceived social development” and “perceived individual wellbeing,” and the 10-dimensional framework; and (2) content matching: the items under each of the 10 dimensions must be consistent with the connotation and extension of the dimension itself and represent the content and meaning of this dimension in all aspects. Three graduate students majoring in psychology, three residents, and one sociology professor were invited to select the items from the CGSS2015 questionnaire. Each team member selected items independently in two steps. First, all items related to the sense of gain framework were selected and matched with the 10 dimensions of sense of gain. Second, the sociology professor summarized the items, and if several team members held different opinions on the same item, then this item should be discussed and revised. The revision and discussion was repeated until a consensus was reached. The following items of sense of gain were eventually selected: Economic level was measured by the following four items: • • • •

“Which economic level is your family at in your region?” “What do you think of your socioeconomic status compared with your peers?” “How has your socioeconomic status changed compared with three years ago?” “Do you think that your current income is reasonable considering your capability and working situation?”

7.3 Index Construction

173

Political rights was measured by the following three items: • “Did you vote in the last neighborhood/village committee election?” • “Are you satisfied with the government’s performance in fair enforcement?” • “Are you satisfied with the performance of government departments in handling affairs impartially?” Leisure and education was measured by the following four items: • “In the past year, have you regularly engaged in the following activities in your free time (11 recreational and sports activities other than reading books/newspapers/magazines)” • “Are you satisfied with the government’s performance in providing high-quality elementary education?” • “How satisfied are you with the public education services provided by the government?” • “How satisfied are you with the public cultural and sports services provided by the government?” Social livelihood was measured by the following nine items: • “Are you satisfied with the government’s performance in providing healthcare services to patients?” • “Are you satisfied with the government’s performance in providing adequate livelihood security for the elderly?” • “How satisfied are you with the health care services provided by the government?” • “How satisfied are you with the housing security services provided by the government?” • “How satisfied are you with the social administration services provided by the government?” • “How satisfied are you with the labor and employment services provided by the government?” • “How satisfied are you with the social welfare services provided by the government?” • “How satisfied are you with the elementary social services provided by the government, such as low-income insurance, disaster, vagrant, disability, and orphan assistance, pension, marriage registration, and funeral?” • “How satisfied are you with the adequacy, balanced distribution, accessibility, and universality of public services in general?” Ecological protection was measured by the following item: • “Are you satisfied with the government’s performance in environmental protection?” Unity was measured by the following four items: • “Generally speaking, do you think that today’s society is fair or unfair?”

174

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

• “Nowadays, some people earn more and some earn less, but it is fair, don’t you agree?” • “If a child works hard enough and is smart enough, they can all have the same opportunities of going on to higher education, don’t you agree?” • “In our society, the descendants of workers and farmers have the same opportunities to become wealthy and powerful, don’t you agree?” Amity was measured by the following three items: • “Generally speaking, do you agree that the majority of people can be trusted in this society?” • “Generally speaking, do you agree that in this society, if you are not careful, people will find ways to take advantage of you?” • “In general social contacts that do not involve direct financial gain, how many of the following people would you trust: neighbors, relatives, colleagues, old school friends, people who participate in religious or public activities together, and strangers?” Target was measured by the following item: • “People want to get some benefits or rewards from their work. Which of the following work rewards would you most like to receive? What would you like to receive afterward and the next?” Ability was measured by the following two items: • “In the past year, have you often engaged in reading books/newspapers/magazines in your spare time?” • “In the past year, have you regularly studied and recharged in your free time?” Satisfaction was measured by the following two items: • “How often have you felt depressed or frustrated in the past four weeks?” • “In general, do you think you have a happy life?”

7.3.2 Scoring Processing The expression of the item contents and the scoring method varies from one item to another. Therefore, to ensure a uniform scoring of the items in the item pool, the scoring needs to be completed before generating the index. The first issue lies in the way individual items were scored. The items in the target dimension were sorting questions, whose scoring was inconsistent with that of the other items. Therefore, this study started from the theoretical implications and social facts of the target dimension. This dimension included 12 options, namely, high income, long-term job security, social prestige and respect, greater authority, satisfaction of personal interests, promotion opportunities, working hours, broadening personal social relations, being able to serve the public and society, realizing

7.3 Index Construction

175

the full potential and having a sense of achievement, having more free time, and others. “Being able to serve the public and society” scored 2 points, and “realizing the full potential and having a sense of achievement” scored 1 point. If the contents filled in the “other” options were consistent with the contents of the two scoring options, then they would also be scored accordingly, but the other options would not be scored. The final score of this item was computed as “first ranked work reward score * 3 + second-ranked work reward score * 2 + third-ranked work reward score * 1.” For example, if a respondent’s first-, second-, and third-ranked work rewards were “satisfaction of personal interests,” “being able to serve the public and society,” and “realizing the full potential and having a sense of achievement,” respectively, then this respondent would eventually receive five points. The second issue lies in unifying the scoring direction. Some items in the questionnaire with a higher score corresponded to a more positive situation or better status, but the opposite holds true for the other items. To facilitate subsequent calculations, the items were re-encoded with reverse scoring such that a higher score corresponded to a more positive situation. After unifying the scoring method, the scores of all items were standardized. Dimension was used as the scale for comparing the numerical values. Only by unifying the dimension can we accurately measure and compare the social facts reflected by different items. The construction of the index also required a standard normal distribution of variables (Zhang et al., 2015). Therefore, the scores of all items should be standardized. In this study, the standard deviation standardization method (z-score standardization) was used. Specifically, the subject score was standardized according to the mean and standard deviation of the original data. The following conversion formula was used: Xz−score =

X−μ σ

where μ is the average score of all respondents for this item, and σ is the standard deviation of all respondents’ scores for this item. Due to the standardization of the square variance of the new data, each item was normally distributed with a mean value of 0 and variance of 1, which means that the dimension of each item was equivalent at this point. Therefore, in further data analysis, each item was nondimensionalized to avoid the impact of using different dimensions and to ensure the unity of dimensions and the standard normal distribution of variables. The mean values of the standardized scores of the items in each dimension were then calculated as the final 10 dimensions. The standardized score of perceived social development was computed as the mean value of the five dimensions of economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection, whereas the standardized score of perceived individual wellbeing was computed as the mean value of the five dimensions of unity, amity, target, ability, and satisfaction. Similar to Zhang et al. (2015), this study used Wechsler’s deviant IQ to convert the perceived social development and individual wellbeing into an index with an

176

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

average of 100 and a score of 15 as a hierarchy. The following conversion formula was employed: Index = 100 + 15Z where Z is the participant’s perceived social development or individual wellbeing standardization score.

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results 7.4.1 Descriptive Analysis Table 7.1 presents the descriptive results of each main observation index and the perceived social development and individual wellbeing of the CGSS2015 Huodegan Index by computing for the average, median, mode, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and percentile values. Among the 10 dimensions of sense of gain, the standard deviation of economic level, political rights, social livelihood, ecological protection, unity, amity, ability, and satisfaction was greater than 10, whereas that of ecological protection and target was equal to 15, thereby suggesting that most values significantly differed from the mean. In other words, the respondents’ scores on different indicators were relatively scattered. The standard deviation of perceived social development and individual wellbeing was relatively small and stable. In other words, despite significant differences in the respondents’ experiences on different indicators, the values of both perceived social development and individual wellbeing were relatively stable and concentrated compared with the average value of the overall sample.

7.4.2 Cluster Analysis Iterative and classification methods were then applied for K-means clustering, and the number of clusters was set as 2, 3, 4, and 5. The final cluster center values are shown in Tables 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5. A comparison of the final cluster center value revealed that when the cluster number was 2 or 4, the characteristics of different categories can be clearly interpreted. When the cluster number was 3 or 5, some category characteristics overlapped, thereby leading to unclear distinction. When the cluster number was 4, the category characteristics when there were 2 clusters were represented, and the other categories with unique characteristics were also included. Therefore, the cluster with 4 centers was selected in this study. The minimum distance between the initial centers was 36.62, and convergence was achieved after 30 iterations. Results of the one-way

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

177

Table 7.1 Descriptive statistics of sense of gain (n = 10,968) Economic level

Political rights

Leisure and education

Social livelihood

Ecological protection

Perceived social development

Mean

99.93

99.96

99.97

100.02

100.00

99.97

Median

103.10

100.50

99.52

100.59

95.07

100.34

Mode

104.59

110.29

92.47

111.26

111.47

91.74

Std. Deviation

10.29

10.32

6.64

10.54

15.00

7.01

Minimum

56.17

57.57

75.90

48.33

62.27

68.43

Maximum

134.16

126.91

141.88

129.43

127.87

122.45

25

92.53

92.93

95.28

93.66

95.07

95.51

50

103.10

100.50

99.52

100.59

95.07

100.34

75

105.38

107.50

104.20

107.28

111.47

104.98

Target

Ability

Satisfaction

Amity

Unity

Perceived individual wellbeing

Mean

100.00

99.99

99.99

100.10

100.01

100.01

Median

93.53

97.61

102.51

100.61

100.32

99.57

Percentile

Mode

93.53

86.79

102.51

94.13

107.34

93.02

Std. Deviation

15.00

13.23

12.22

9.32

10.09

6.40

Minimum

93.53

86.78

47.62

60.62

62.44

74.32

Maximum

185.33

136.25

120.69

130.47

126.92

130.25

25

93.53

86.79

94.39

94.52

92.86

95.94

50

93.53

97.61

102.51

100.61

100.32

99.57

75

93.53

109.98

110.63

106.27

107.34

103.59

Percentile

Table 7.2 Final clustering result with two K-means clusters Cluster

Perceived social development

Perceived individual wellbeing

N

1

94.45

96.41

5,068

2

104.71

104.71

5,900

Table 7.3 Final clustering result with three K-means clusters Cluster

Perceived social development

Perceived individual wellbeing

N

1

104.60

108.03

2,647

2

103.49

98.10

4,604

3

92.48

96.55

3,717

178

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Table 7.4 Final clustering result with four K-means clusters Cluster

Perceived individual wellbeing

N

1

Perceived social development 95.83

102.84

2,627

2

103.83

97.65

3,997

3

91.62

93.34

2,264

4

106.86

108.25

2,080

Table 7.5 Final clustering result with five K-means clusters Cluster

Perceived social development

Perceived individual wellbeing

N

1

105.87

111.43

1,211

2

89.06

93.75

1,567

3

106.54

100.77

2,999

4

96.11

103.10

2,426

5

99.81

95.03

2,765

ANOVA showed that perceived social development and individual wellbeing significantly contributed to the clustering results (p < 0.001), which were retained in our analysis. The cluster analysis results are shown in Table 7.6. On the basis of their characteristics, perceived social development represented four types, namely, deprived (M = 91.62; SD = 5.09) < poor (M = 95.83; SD = 3.56) < well-off (M = 103.83; SD = 3.42) < affluent (M = 106.86; SD = 4.36). Similarly, perceived individual wellbeing also represented four types, namely, disappointed (M = 93.34; SD = 3.88) < lost (M = 97.65; SD = 3.24) < contented (M = 102.84; SD = 3.73) < satisfied (M = 108.25; SD = 4.96). According to the factor characteristics of each category, the CGSS2015 Huodegan Index was divided into four classes, which was consistent with the four-quadrant classification structure of sense of gain verified by the LPA in Chapter 6 (Fig. 7.1). The proportion of participants in these four categories is shown in Fig. 7.2. The first type, “poor but contented,” included those participants with low scores for perceived social development (indicating a low level of perceived social development) and high scores for perceived individual wellbeing (indicating a state of contentment). In CGSS2015, those residents with low perceived social development scores yet comparatively high perceived individual wellbeing scores accounted for 24.32% of the sample. The second type, “well-off but lost,” included those participants whose multilevel gain of perceived social development reached a high standard yet whose needs of perceived individual wellbeing were not met. In CGSS2015, those residents with high perceived social development scores yet relatively low perceived individual wellbeing scores accounted for 36.44% of the sample.

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

179

Table 7.6 K-means cluster analysis results with four clusters Cluster M (SD)

N

Type

Perceived social development Perceived individual wellbeing 1

95.83(3.56)

102.84(3.73)

2,627 Poor but contented

2

103.83(3.42)

97.65(3.24)

3,997 Well-off but lost

3

91.62(5.09)

93.34(3.88)

2,264 Deprived and disappointed

4

106.86(4.36)

108.25(4.96)

2,080 Affluent and satisfied

Fig. 7.1 Four classification structures of sense of gain Fig. 7.2 Proportion of participants in the four classifications of sense of gain

180

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

The third type, “deprived and disappointed,” included those participants whose needs of perceived social development and individual wellbeing were not met. In this case, these participants had no positive feedback on perceived social development and no positive experience of perceived individual wellbeing. In CGSS2015, those residents with low perceived social development and individual wellbeing scores accounted for 20.64% of the sample. The fourth type, “affluent and satisfied,” included those participants with high perceived social development and individual wellbeing. These people think that all aspects of social development are good, that life is rich, and that their needs of individual wellbeing have been met. In CGSS2015, those residents with high perceived social development and individual wellbeing accounted for 18.96% of the sample. In sum, the CGSS2015 data show that China has a large number of well-off but lost residents whose multiple gains of perceived social development had been relatively realized but whose multidimensional satisfaction of perceived individual wellbeing was relatively low. Among these residents, 55.41% showed a highly positive attitude toward perceived social development, whereas less than half (43.28%) experienced better perceived individual wellbeing. Variance analysis and post-test were carried out for the four types of the Huodegan Index. Variance analysis results showed that F (3, 83,308.54) = 11,246.42, p < 0.001, which points toward significant differences among the four indices of sense of gain. Among them, the affluent and satisfied sense of gain index (M = 107.55, SD = 3.00) was the highest, followed by the well-off but lost sense of gain index (M = 100.74, SD = 2.50), the poor but contented sense of gain index (M = 99.34, SD = 2.42), and the deprived and disappointed sense of gain index (M = 92.48, SD = 3.12). Table 7.7 reports the post-test results of the sense of gain index in four clusters. The sense of gain in affluent and satisfied cluster was significantly higher than that of the other three clusters (p < 0.001), whereas the sense of gain in well-off but lost cluster was significantly higher than that in the poor but contented and deprived and disappointed clusters (p < 0.001). Therefore, perceived social development is more important than perceived individual wellbeing in the current stage of sense of gain.

7.4.3 Provinces Description On the basis of provincial and municipal data from CGSS2015, this study summarized the scores of the 10 dimensions of sense of gain in 28 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions across China. Table 7.8 presents the mean and standard deviation of these dimensions, whereas Figs. 7.3 and 7.30 show the specific 10dimensional sense of gain index of each province, municipality, and autonomous region. Figure 7.3 shows the scores for the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Unity, ecological protection, and amity scored the highest, thereby suggesting that the residents in this region had lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing.

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

181

Table 7.7 Post-test results for various sense of gain indices Cluster I

Cluster J

MD (I-J)

SD

p

Poor but contented

Well-off but lost

−1.40

0.07

< .001

Deprived and disappointed

6.86

0.08

< .001

Affluent and satisfied

−8.21

0.08

< .001

Poor but contented

1.40

0.07

< .001

Deprived and disappointed

8.26

0.07

< .001

Affluent and satisfied

−6.81

0.07

< .001

Poor but contented

−6.86

0.08

< .001

Well-off but lost

Deprived and disappointed

Affluent and satisfied

Well-off but lost

−8.26

0.07

< .001

Affluent and satisfied

−15.07

0.08

< .001

Poor but contented

8.21

0.08

< .001

Well-off but lost

6.81

0.07

< .001

Deprived and disappointed

15.07

0.08

< .001

Figure 7.4 shows the scores for Chongqing. Ecological protection, social livelihood, and amity received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.5 shows the scores for Gansu. Ecological protection, political rights, and unity received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.6 shows the scores for the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. Ecological protection, unity, and amity received the highest scores, thereby suggesting that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.7 shows the scores for Sichuan. Social livelihood, ecological protection, and political rights received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.8 shows the scores for Hubei. Amity, ecological protection, and target dimensions received the highest scores, thereby suggesting that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.9 shows the scores for Shanxi. Ecological protection, political rights, and unity scored the highest, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.10 shows the scores for Hunan. Social livelihood, target, and unity received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.11 shows the scores for Yunnan. Political rights, social livelihood, and ecological protection received the highest scores, thereby suggesting that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing.

182

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Table 7.8 Descriptive analysis of the 10 dimensions of sense of gain in provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions Ningxia Hui Autonomous region

Chongqing

Gansu Province

Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region

M

M

M

M

SD

SD

SD

SD

Economic level

96.93

13.01

98.67

11.04

97.75

10.95

95.93

10.85

Political rights

99.49

12.60

102.49

8.63

103.71

12.52

100.41

10.26

Leisure and education

98.16

7.19

99.20

6.78

99.75

6.07

98.56

5.93

Social livelihood

97.13

12.45

102.94

8.21

101.18

11.97

100.36

10.84

Ecological protection

100.48

18.53

103.98

12.35

103.98

19.00

102.74

13.70

Target

98.63

13.36

97.80

12.69

102.21

17.68

97.89

13.22

Ability

99.94

14.41

95.68

11.63

97.71

15.10

96.83

12.12

Satisfaction

94.77

17.43

94.84

12.32

95.89

16.10

96.43

13.37

Amity

99.95

10.26

102.56

7.49

101.52

9.94

100.46

8.76

Unity

101.71

9.35

100.90

9.16

103.27

11.28

102.43

8.82

Sichuan Province M Economic level

100.76

Political rights

101.28 99.06

Social livelihood

102.75

Ecological protection

Leisure and education

Hubei Province SD

Hunan Province

SD

M

M

SD

98.83

11.11

100.85

9.72

100.42

10.29

9.07

99.07

10.48

102.61

10.00

99.77

10.29

6.12

98.55

6.24

99.39

7.02

99.16

6.09

7.53

99.16

10.78

102.00

10.22

101.97

9.36

8.97

M

Shaanxi Province SD

102.12

11.81

100.51

14.53

105.84

12.38

100.12

15.10

Target

96.34

9.37

100.16

15.30

99.20

14.59

101.61

16.82

Ability

96.39

11.03

98.08

13.18

96.85

11.96

98.54

11.87 11.78

Satisfaction

96.77

10.22

97.30

13.01

97.43

12.32

97.46

Amity

100.10

9.08

101.70

9.56

99.03

8.64

99.97

8.12

Unity

100.65

9.02

100.00

10.02

102.64

9.91

100.75

9.03

Economic level

Yunnan Province Heilongjiang Province

Jiangxi Province

Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region

M

M

98.75

SD

M

SD

M

10.23

96.88

11.14

100.17

SD 9.82

102.23

SD 9.66 (continued)

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

183

Table 7.8 (continued) Yunnan Province Heilongjiang Province

Jiangxi Province

M

M

M

SD

SD

M

SD

102.47

9.25

99.23

11.45

99.56

10.78

103.99

10.36

99.00

6.72

97.23

6.35

99.97

6.95

97.25

7.20

Social livelihood

102.52

9.08

96.33

12.61

100.16

10.91

101.41

11.11

Ecological protection

102.28

13.31

99.46

15.60

100.05

14.49

104.68

14.82

Target

100.74

16.80

99.30

14.16

98.20

12.87

98.58

13.70

Ability

94.59

11.21

95.55

11.79

98.79

12.55

94.87

11.89

Political rights Leisure and education

Satisfaction

SD

Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region

97.56

10.96

98.67

14.20

99.08

10.96

99.46

13.96

Amity

102.01

9.25

97.15

9.56

100.55

8.53

96.91

9.71

Unity

101.87

9.81

96.88

11.14

101.87

8.99

100.20

9.56

Anhui Province Guangdong Province

Guizhou Province

M

M

SD

M

SD

Fujian Province SD

M

SD

Economic level

101.56

9.87

100.21

9.97

101.73

8.68

98.80

10.35

Political rights

102.58

8.57

95.08

10.09

99.98

9.98

98.34

9.95

Leisure and education

97.86

5.90

101.34

6.34

101.76

7.68

101.15

6.64

Social livelihood

103.20

9.06

94.89

9.45

99.07

9.73

97.91

10.82

Ecological protection

103.12

13.08

93.45

15.16

102.80

13.60

97.75

15.74

Target

101.65

17.61

100.99

14.47

98.49

12.46

99.15

12.98

Ability

94.15

10.63

104.51

13.48

100.98

13.05

98.94

13.20

Satisfaction

99.54

10.94

99.89

11.42

99.93

10.48

100.57

12.34

Amity

102.16

9.59

99.02

8.59

97.02

10.65

102.27

9.60

Unity

102.62

8.76

97.47

9.86

103.31

10.76

98.60

11.05

Jiangsu Province M

Qinghai Province SD

M

Shanghai SD

M

Henan Province SD

M

SD

Economic level

101.20

9.74

98.29

11.40

98.12

10.48

102.76

9.04

Political rights

97.99

9.73

98.99

10.98

99.76

9.37

101.47

8.64

100.40

6.58

101.98

6.22

102.11

7.13

98.17

5.84

Leisure and education

(continued)

184

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Table 7.8 (continued) Jiangsu Province M

Qinghai Province SD

M

Shanghai SD

M

Henan Province SD

M

SD

Social livelihood

98.08

9.83

97.97

12.13

98.54

11.06

100.90

8.60

Ecological protection

96.94

14.66

104.25

13.85

95.83

13.51

102.18

13.72

Target

97.82

11.45

101.71

18.02

97.86

12.01

100.09

15.92

Ability

100.08

12.14

102.54

14.03

109.17

11.93

98.38

13.47

Satisfaction

100.79

11.61

101.10

14.15

101.67

12.31

102.05

10.18

Amity

100.85

8.87

97.43

11.55

95.39

10.91

102.16

7.48

Unity

98.59

9.99

97.11

10.84

96.05

11.18

100.25

8.97

Hebei Province

Liaoning Province

M

M

SD

SD

Jilin Province

Zhejiang Province

M

SD

M

SD

Economic level

99.23

10.81

99.17

10.34

99.57

10.06

103.16

9.85

Political rights

100.67

12.54

97.22

10.23

100.44

10.70

100.73

10.15

Leisure and education

99.69

6.58

100.17

6.03

100.20

7.57

102.17

6.29

Social livelihood

99.85

12.94

97.55

10.92

99.52

11.58

102.88

10.14

100.67

17.71

95.82

16.34

99.66

15.87

101.27

14.66

Target

98.51

13.24

101.92

17.68

98.58

13.04

102.16

16.80

Ability

97.97

12.65

101.87

12.41

98.17

12.14

105.23

14.21

Satisfaction

102.20

13.62

102.31

11.54

102.54

11.75

102.69

11.25

Amity

100.95

9.72

96.56

8.83

97.92

8.37

100.92

9.26

Unity

97.99

11.20

98.74

9.99

101.67

9.76

99.52

10.25

Ecological protection

Shandong Province

Shanxi Province

Tianjin

Beijing

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Economic level

101.48

9.21

100.86

8.82

99.60

9.80

100.12

11.14

Political rights

100.12

10.44

99.75

9.20

99.76

9.39

98.56

11.00

Leisure and education

100.48

6.44

102.63

5.82

100.09

6.03

103.46

5.94

Social livelihood

102.02

10.07

101.34

8.23

101.48

10.04

98.49

10.87

Ecological protection

99.35

14.98

101.92

13.54

97.08

16.30

96.42

16.48 (continued)

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

185

Table 7.8 (continued) Shandong Province

Shanxi Province

Tianjin M

SD

Beijing

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Target

100.61

15.35

98.49

12.60

103.63

16.56

106.38

19.99

Ability

100.45

12.16

104.33

12.53

105.66

13.22

108.73

13.91

Satisfaction

102.77

10.49

103.20

11.98

102.96

10.46

103.62

12.19

Amity

103.91

8.26

99.48

8.96

99.17

7.95

100.98

9.89

Unity

100.36

10.48

96.08

9.96

98.42

9.48

97.54

10.52

Fig. 7.3 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region

Figure 7.12 shows the scores for Heilongjiang. Unity, ecological protection, and target received the highest scores, thereby indicating that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.13 shows the scores for Jiangxi. Unity, amity, and economic level received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.14 shows the scores for the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Ecological protection, political rights, and economic level received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.15 shows the scores for Anhui. Social livelihood, ecological protection, and unity received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing.

186

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Fig. 7.4 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Chongqing

Fig. 7.5 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Gansu Province

Figure 7.16 shows the scores for Guangdong. Ability, leisure and education, and target received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.17 shows the scores for Guizhou. Unity, ecological protection, and leisure and education received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing.

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

187

Fig. 7.6 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region

Fig. 7.7 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Sichuan Province

Figure 7.18 shows the scores for Fujian. Amity, leisure and education, and satisfaction received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.19 shows the scores for Jiangsu. Economic level, satisfaction, and amity received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.20 shows the scores for Qinghai. Ecological protection, ability, and leisure and education received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in

188

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Fig. 7.8 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Hubei Province

Fig. 7.9 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Shaanxi Province

this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.21 shows the scores for Shanghai. Ability, leisure and education, and satisfaction obtained the highest scores, which suggests that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.22 shows the scores for Henan. Economic level, ecological protection, and amity received the highest scores, thereby suggesting that the residents

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

189

Fig. 7.10 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Hunan Province

Fig. 7.11 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Yunnan Province

in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.23 shows the scores for Hebei. Satisfaction, amity, political rights, and ecological protection received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing.

190

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Fig. 7.12 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Heilongjiang Province

Fig. 7.13 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Jiangxi Province

Figure 7.24 shows the scores for Liaoning. Satisfaction, target, and ability obtained the highest scores, thereby suggesting that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.25 shows the scores for Jilin. Satisfaction, unity, and political rights obtained the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing.

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

191

Fig. 7.14 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in the inner Mongolia autonomous region

Fig. 7.15 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Anhui Province

Figure 7.26 shows the scores for Zhejiang. Ability, economic level, and social livelihood received the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.27 shows the scores for Shandong. Amity, satisfaction, and social livelihood received the highest scores, thereby suggesting that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing.

192

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Fig. 7.16 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Guangdong Province

Fig. 7.17 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Guizhou Province

Figure 7.28 shows the scores for Tianjin. Ability, target, and satisfaction received the highest scores, thereby suggesting that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.29 shows the scores for Shanxi. Ability, satisfaction, and leisure and education had the highest scores, indicating that the residents in this region had a higher perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing.

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

193

Fig. 7.18 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Fujian Province

Fig. 7.19 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Jiangsu Province

Figure 7.30 shows the scores for Beijing. Ability, target, and satisfaction obtained the highest scores, thereby suggesting that the residents in this region had a lower perceived social development than perceived individual wellbeing. Figure 7.31 shows the perceived social development and individual wellbeing of residents across 28 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in China. Among all regions, the residents in Shanxi, Zhejiang, and Inner Mongolia

194

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Fig. 7.20 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Qinghai Province

Fig. 7.21 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Shanghai

Autonomous Region had the highest perceived social development, whereas the residents in Guangdong, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning had the lowest perceived social development. Meanwhile, the residents in Zhejiang, Beijing, and Tianjin had the highest perceived individual wellbeing, whereas those in Chongqing, Sichuan, and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region had the lowest perceived individual wellbeing. The perceived individual wellbeing of residents in Guangdong, Liaoning,

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

195

Fig. 7.22 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Henan Province

Fig. 7.23 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Hebei Province

Tianjin, and Beijing was significantly higher than their perceived social development, and the opposite was observed among residents in Sichuan, Chongqing, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, and Shaanxi. Figure 7.32 illustrates the distribution of the four clusters of residents in each of the 28 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions according to the Huodegan Index. The proportion of “deprived and disappointed” residents exceeded 25% in 6 regions, namely, Hebei (26.10%),

196

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Fig. 7.24 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Liaoning Province

Fig. 7.25 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Jilin Province

Liaoning (26.30%), Hubei (26.50%), Guangdong (27.50%), Heilongjiang (30.90%), and Ningxia (33.00%). Meanwhile, the proportion of “poor but contented” residents exceeded 25% in 7 regions, namely, Tianjin (28.80%), Shandong (29.00%), Liaoning (31.10%), Shanghai (31.70%), Fujian (32.70%), Beijing (35.80%), and Guangdong (36.90%). Shanghai (31.70%), Beijing (35.80%), Tianjin (28.80%), Guangdong (36.90%), Fujian (32.70%), and Liaoning (31.10%) had the highest percentage of

7.4 Empirical Analysis Results

197

Fig. 7.26 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Zhejiang Province

Fig. 7.27 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Shandong Province

“poor but contented” residents, whereas Ningxia (33.00%) had the highest percentage of “deprived and disappointed” residents.

198

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data

Fig. 7.28 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Tianjin

Fig. 7.29 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Shanxi Province

7.5 Conclusion This chapter constructed the CGSS2015 Huodegan Index with unified dimensions using CGSS2015 data. Results of the cluster analysis revealed that residents can be classified by the Huodegan Index into “deprived and disappointed,” “poor but contented,” “well-off but lost,” and “affluent and satisfied.”

7.5 Conclusion

199

Fig. 7.30 Ten dimensions of sense of gain in Beijing

Fig. 7.31 Distribution of perceived social development and individual wellbeing in 28 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions

The CGSS2015 Huodegan Index revealed that in the process of the deepening reform, the residents’ average scores in the 10 dimensions (i.e., economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, ecological protection, unity, amity, target, ability, and satisfaction) all reached a good level. However, the scores in eight of these dimensions were not stable (i.e., economic level, political rights, social livelihood, ecological protection, unity, target, ability, and satisfaction), thereby suggesting a relatively large inter-individual gap in these scores. Results of the cluster analysis revealed that perceived social development and perceived individual wellbeing are not always proportional. The matching results of

200

7 Applying the Sense of Gain Framework to CGSS Data Zhejiang

11.70%

Shanxi

12.50%

Shandong

13.60%

21.60% 22.50%

Henan

14.30% 14.60%

18.60%

46.40%

29.00%

Beijing

31.20%

35.50%

26.30%

31.10%

22.90%

19.40%

43.50%

35.80%

Anhui

16.10%

Gansu

16.90%

Inner Mongolia

17.20%

Tianjin

17.70%

Sichuan

18.00%

16.30%

Shaanxi

18.40%

13.80%

Yunnan

18.70%

Chongqing

20.00%

15.50%

Guizhou

20.10%

16.90%

29.60%

19.90%

16.40%

23.20%

44.30%

19.00%

25.60%

38.50%

12.10%

12.10%

58.60% 28.80%

27.40%

26.00%

56.20%

9.50%

46.30%

16.10%

21.40%

48.30%

16.90%

51.30%

13.20%

37.80%

25.30%

Jilin

20.20%

24.90%

36.10%

18.70%

Hunan

21.30%

22.90%

37.50%

18.30%

Jiangxi

22.70%

Shanghai

22.70%

Qinghai

22.80%

Fujian

22.80%

Guangxi

23.90%

Jiangsu

24.80%

22.90%

Hubei

26.50%

Guangdong

27.50%

Ningxia

10%

20%

Deprived and Disappointed

21.40%

25.80%

23.00%

35.70%

17.00%

Poor but Contented

17.80% 21.50%

23.30%

40%

16.70%

32.70%

36.90%

30%

15.40%

32.20%

31.10%

33.00% 0%

14.00%

34.90%

20.30%

30.90%

14.60%

41.20%

24.80%

26.30%

20.80% 29.90%

20.90%

26.10%

18.50%

38.60%

32.70%

Hebei

16.80%

27.10%

17.80%

Liaoning

Heilongjiang

37.60%

31.70%

10.20%

29.80% 50%

60%

70%

Well-off but Lost

14.10%

20.20% 80%

90%

100%

Affluence and Satisfied

Fig. 7.32 Proportion of four clusters of residents in 28 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions

perceived social development and individual wellbeing suggested that the residents can be classified into the four clusters of “deprived and disappointed,” “poor but contented,” “well-off but lost,” and “affluent and satisfied.” The proportions of these four clusters varied across province and municipality. However, some regions with a higher GNP did not show a higher degree of perceived social development, and

References

201

those regions with a higher degree of perceived social development did not necessarily have a higher degree of perceived individual wellbeing, especially Guangdong, Beijing, Shanghai, Hubei, Jiangsu, and other center cities and provinces with high population mobility that experienced significant changes in their politics, culture, technology, education, and finance during the reform and opening up. In addition to the possible variation in data resulting from the differences in regional sample sizes, this unexpected result may also be ascribed to the difference between “gain” and “ sense of gain.” Specifically, those individuals who are perceived by others, groups, or society as “have gained” should have a sense of gain. However, the opposite may be true, that is, when they are compared upward, those individuals who are perceived to “have gained” may still feel that they are in a disadvantaged state. Similarly, as an indicator of social development and individual feelings, the sense of gain, from objective reality to subjective perception, is influenced by the contrast between the state of individual gain before and after the benefits of the reform and by the contrast between the state of individual gain and that of the reference group. This vertical comparison can be described as a demonstration and evaluation of the effectiveness of the deepening reform and development, whereas the horizontal comparison can be described as a perception of an “unbalanced and insufficient development.” Instead of generating sense of gain, the mismatch between the structure of perceived social development and individual wellbeing and the multilevel needs of an individual may lead to the negative feeling of “not getting what you deserve.” This sense of relative deprivation refers to the feeling of being at a disadvantage compared with a reference group (Walker & Smith, 2002).

References Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration. Cambridge University Press. Zhang, Y., Wei, Q., & Li, H. (2015). Social prosperity and social confidence in the development process-constructurting concepts, scales and indices. Social Sciences in China, (04), 64–84+205– 206.

Chapter 8

Influencing Factors of Sense of Gain

8.1 Introduction Evaluating the results of the deepening reform requires a clear identification and understanding of sense of gain in the contemporary and local contexts. Academic research requires us to standardize the study on theory and measurement of sense of gain from an innovative and international perspective. Meanwhile, the interpretation of social facts requires us to use a theoretical model of sense of gain to reflect the characteristics of the Huodegan Index. The previous chapters answered several questions related to the definition, framework, measurement, index system, clusters, and characteristics of sense of gain. Exploring those factors that influence sense of gain should be the ultimate focus of this study. This chapter continues using data from CGSS2015 to highlight differences in the sense of gain of different groups, to identify those factors that affect sense of gain, to provide a deeper understanding of the group differences in sense of gain, and to offer as an empirical basis and scientific reference for subsequent academic research and policy development. The aims of this study are as follows: 1. Perform ANOVA, post hoc tests, and regression analysis to determine whether demographic factors influence sense of gain. 2. Perform ANOVA and regression analysis to determine whether the household type (hukou) and population mobility resulting from China’s household registration system affect sense of gain. 3. Perform correlation and regression analyses to analyze the subjective and objective indices of socioeconomic status and to determine whether socioeconomic status affects sense of gain.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Duan and Y. Li, Huodegan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4949-4_8

203

204

8 Influencing Factors of Sense of Gain

8.2 Method The CGSS2015 dataset involving 10,968 participants, whose details were already described in the previous chapter, was used in this evaluation. IBM SPSS Statistics 24 was used to analyze the data on the sense of gain indices of different groups. The main statistical methods applied included descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, ANOVA, correlation analysis, and regression analysis. During the data processing, to prevent the alteration of the original data’s information system from affecting the results of the later analysis, the responses of those participants who refused to answer the relevant questions were regarded as missing values, and only those participants who provided complete responses were retained in the analysis. While exploring the influencing factors, the corresponding research hypotheses were formulated based on the results of the literature review, and the dependent, independent, and control variables were identified from the recoded CGSS2015 data according to the research requirements.

8.3 Influence of Demographic Factors on Sense of Gain 8.3.1 Research Background Demographic variables, such as gender, age, marital status, self-rated health status, and political affiliation, are essential attributes of the population and serve as the underlying phenotypic variables of individual heterogeneity. Therefore, these variables are often used to analyze the influence of inherent individual attributes on the key variables. Some wellbeing scholars used a multilayer logistic model to explore the effects of gender, age, marital status, and health level on the wellbeing of Chinese residents based on CGSS2008 data. Their empirical results showed that the gender and age differences among individuals significantly influenced their wellbeing, whereas their marital status and health level also had a huge effect (Tang & Gan, 2013). Identity and socioeconomic decisions tended to influence each other, and identity could explain and predict individual and group micro-decision-making behavior to a certain extent. On the basis of the framework of identity economics, Lu et al. (2016) argued that Party membership can influence the wellbeing of residents. They used CGSS2012 data to analyze the relationship between these factors and found that Party membership is related to residents’ wellbeing and that being a Party member can positively affect the residents’ wellbeing. Compared with wellbeing, sense of gain is more externally directed and empirically operational (Tan et al., 2018). This concept not only focuses on individual subjective perceptions but also reflects, to some extent, the social provision facts perceived by residents. Therefore, exploring the impact of inherent individual

8.3 Influence of Demographic Factors on Sense of Gain

205

attributes on individuals’ subjective sense of gain is useful in analyzing betweengroup differences in subjective perceptions and in reflecting group differences in reform effectiveness from another perspective. Demographic factors have also been explored in the sense of gain literature. For example, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences conducted a survey on the state of the sense of gain of Chinese residents in 2018. Using data from this survey, Tan et al. (2018) explored the differences in the sense of gain of the youth across gender and age by performing independent sample t-tests and ANOVA. They found differences in the sense of gain scores of youths from different gender and age groups. Meanwhile, in their questionnaire survey involving 3,209 grassroots public servants, Xie and Lan (2019) revealed that gender, age, marital status, and political affiliation are significantly correlated with the sense of gain of this population. Wang et al. (2018) used the existing conceptual framework of sense of gain based on CGSS2013 data to explore those factors that influence this concept, including age, health level, and political affiliation. The above studies all indicate that a highly scientific theoretical and measurement framework of sense of gain can be built by using CGSS, the most comprehensive and representative survey in China, to explore those factors that influence this concept.

8.3.2 Main Variables Dependent variable: The CGSS2015 Huodegan Index. On the basis of the aforementioned sense of gain measurement framework, CGSS2015 data were used to construct the proposed Huodegan Index. The perceived social development indices comprised the mean values of economic level, political rights, leisure and education, social livelihood, and ecological protection, whereas the perceived individual wellbeing indices comprised the mean values of target, ability, satisfaction, amity, and unity. These 10 dimensions altogether constituted the CGSS2015 Huodegan Index. The detailed construction process and descriptive statistics were already described in Chapter 7. Independent variables: The independent variables were mainly demographic variables, whose basic information can be found in Table 8.1. On the basis of the original data, the male participants were assigned a value of 1, whereas the female participants were assigned a value of 0. The age and squared age of the participants were also calculated. In the independent sample t-test, those residents aged 22 to 39 years were defined as the youth group and were assigned a value of 1, whereas those residents aged 40 years and above were defined as the middle-aged and elderly group and were assigned a value of 0. In terms of marital status, first married with a spouse, remarried with a spouse, and separated but not divorced participants were defined as the married group and were assigned a value of 1, whereas the unmarried, cohabiting, divorced, and widowed participants were defined as the not-married group and were assigned a value of 0. Self-rated health level was scored with raw data and divided into five levels, namely, 1 = very unhealthy, 2 = relatively unhealthy, 3 = fair, 4 =

206

8 Influencing Factors of Sense of Gain

Table 8.1 Independent variable definitions and descriptive statistical analysis (n = 10,968) Variable Gender Age

M

SD

0.470

0.499

Min

Max

Definition

0

1

Dummy variable; Male = 1, Female = 0

54.397

16.897

22

99

Continuous variable

Marital status

0.777

0.416

0

1

Dummy variable; Married = 1, Not-married = 0

Self-rated health level

3.605

1.081

1

5

Ordinal variable; Very unhealthy–Very healthy (1–5)

Political affiliation

0.104

0.305

0

1

Dummy variable; Communist Party member = 1, Not Communist Party member = 0

relatively healthy, and 5 = very healthy. Political affiliation was similarly divided, with Communist Party members being assigned a value of 1 and all others being assigned a value of 0.

8.3.3 Between-Group Differences in Sense of Gain An independent sample t-test and ANOVA were performed to test for between-group differences in sense of gain. Detailed results are presented in Tables 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8. Table 8.2 reports the differences in perceived social development and individual wellbeing across gender groups. The result of the independent sample t-test with a 95% confidence interval indicated that in terms of perceived social development, males scored significantly higher on economic level than females (p < 0.01), but the opposite was observed for leisure and education (p < 0.01). In terms of political rights, social livelihood, and ecological protection, males and females did not show significant differences in their scores (p > 0.05). In terms of perceived individual wellbeing, males scored significantly higher than females on target, ability, and satisfaction (p < 0.001). At the same time, no significant difference was detected between these groups in their scores on amity and unity (p > 0.05). Overall, no significant differences were observed between males and females in terms of perceived social development (p > 0.05), but males scored significantly higher than females on perceived individual wellbeing (p < 0.001). Table 8.3 reports the differences in perceived social development and individual wellbeing across age groups. The result of the independent sample t-test with a 95% confidence interval indicated that in terms of perceived social development, the youth group scored significantly higher on economic level compared with the middle-aged and elderly group (p < 0.01), but the opposite was observed for social livelihood (p < 0.01). In terms of political rights, leisure and education, and ecological protection, both groups did not show significant differences in their scores (p > 0.05).

8.3 Influence of Demographic Factors on Sense of Gain

207

Table 8.2 Differences in sense of gain across gender groups Male (n = 5134)

Female (n = 5834)

t-test

M

SD

M

SD

F (t)

p

Economic level

100.151

10.499

99.729

10.095

7.859 (2.146)

0.005

Political rights

99.952

10.455

99.963

10.193

2.678 (−0.057)

0.102

Leisure and education

99.753

6.533

100.167

6.733

8.264 (−3.256)

0.004

Variable

Social livelihood

99.875

10.551

100.147

10.532

0.191 (−1.346)

0.662

Ecological protection

99.811

15.171

100.168

14.846

2.088 (−1.233)

0.148

Perceived social development

99.905

7.116

100.021

6.917

3.053 (−0.866)

0.081

Target

100.911

16.078

99.199

13.935

89.682 (5.975)