medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología

Órgano Oficial del Sistema Mexicano de Investigación en Psicología (SMIP)
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2010, Number 1

<< Back

Rev Mex Invest Psic 2010; 2 (1)

Psychological well-being, satisfaction with life and the homeostatic theory of well-being

Durán JI
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 45-55
PDF size: 437.72 Kb.


Key words:

Psychological well-being, satisfaction with life, homeostasis, elder.

ABSTRACT

Satisfaction with life is basically a cognitive evaluation of the quality of one´s own experiences, an indicator of subjective well-being, which is studied through a person´s own evaluation. Such an evaluation is mediated by the homeostatic system of the individual, which has the role of creating a positive sense of well-being, non-specific and highly personalized, concerned only with well-being perceived in a general sense. The goal of this work was to test the homeostatic theory of life satisfaction in aged adults living in a Mexican city. An instrument that measures personal and local satisfaction with life was administered to 564 aged adults of both sexes. The main findings of this study point out that those domains related to personal well-being are more important to aged adults than those linked with the topics of the town physical- geographical environment.


REFERENCES

  1. Anguas, A.M. (2000). . Tesis de Doctorado. Facultad de Psicología. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

  2. Argyle, M. (1992). . Madrid, España: Alianza Editorial.

  3. Arita, B.Y. (2005). Satisfacción por la vida y teoría homeostática del bienestar. (1), 121-126. Xalapa, México: Universidad Veracruzana.

  4. Cummins, R. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Netherlands: , , 55-72.

  5. Cummins, R., Eckersley, J., Pallant, J., & Davern, M. (2002). . Australia: Australian Centre on Quality of Life/Deakin University.

  6. Cummins, R., Eckersley, J., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., Shelley, M., Pusey, R., & Misajon, M. (2001). . Sydney: Australian Centre on Quality of Life/Deakin University. *Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. , (1), 49-58.

  7. Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. , (1), 49-58.

  8. Diener, E. (1994). El bienestar subjetivo. , (8), 67-113, 1994. . (2007). México: Larousse.

  9. García, M. (2002). El bienestar subjetivo. , 6, 18-39.

  10. Hosen, R., Solovey-Hosen, D., & Stern, L. (2002). The acquisitionof beliefs that promote subjective well-being. , (4), 39-47.

  11. Moyano, E. & Ramos, N. (2007). Bienestar subjetivo: midiendo la satisfacción vital, felicidad y salud en población chilena de la región del Maule. , (2), 52-63.

  12. Vera, J.A., Sotelo,T. I. (2003). Bienestar y Redes de Apoyo Social en Población de la Tercera Edad. , , 95-102. México: Universidad Intercontinental.

  13. Zamarrón, M.D. (2006). El bienestar subjetivo en la vejez. Portal Mayores, Informes Portal Mayores, no. 52. (09/06/2006).




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Mex Invest Psic. 2010;2