Scholarlink

<p>Across three studies we explore the interface between self-determination theory (SDT) and Nussbaum’s philosophy of capabilities by exploring how societal capabilities relate to wellness via basic psychological needs. In Study 1 (N = 778, from Australia, India, Philippines, South Africa, and the United States) and Study 2 (N = 495 Americans), we examined Lorgelly et al.’s (Social Science &amp; Medicine 142:68–81, 2015) measure of capabilities, identifying a four-factor solution yielding variables for freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination, well-being, and home safety. We assessed links between freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination and wellness outcomes via basic psychological needs in Study 1, Study 2, and Study 3 (N = 203, Indigenous Australians, 500 non-indigenous Australians). Aligned with SDT’s dual process model, need satisfaction appears to account for the paths to well-being, and need frustration may account for paths to ill-being. This work steers SDT in a new direction by extending the dual process model beyond interpersonal contexts and more fully integrating philosophical perspectives on capabilities to shed light upon how macro-level societal affordances relate to wellness through basic psychological needs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Fundamental freedoms and optimal functioning: Nussbaum’s capabilities predict wellness in a dual process model via basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月23日

查看全文
  • Emma L. Bradshaw,
  • Kelly A. Ferber,
  • Cody R. DeHaan,
  • Richard M. Ryan

摘要

Across three studies we explore the interface between self-determination theory (SDT) and Nussbaum’s philosophy of capabilities by exploring how societal capabilities relate to wellness via basic psychological needs. In Study 1 (N = 778, from Australia, India, Philippines, South Africa, and the United States) and Study 2 (N = 495 Americans), we examined Lorgelly et al.’s (Social Science & Medicine 142:68–81, 2015) measure of capabilities, identifying a four-factor solution yielding variables for freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination, well-being, and home safety. We assessed links between freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination and wellness outcomes via basic psychological needs in Study 1, Study 2, and Study 3 (N = 203, Indigenous Australians, 500 non-indigenous Australians). Aligned with SDT’s dual process model, need satisfaction appears to account for the paths to well-being, and need frustration may account for paths to ill-being. This work steers SDT in a new direction by extending the dual process model beyond interpersonal contexts and more fully integrating philosophical perspectives on capabilities to shed light upon how macro-level societal affordances relate to wellness through basic psychological needs.