Concept of Happiness in Adults from Low-Income Class¹

Abstract:

There is relatively little research about the meaning of happiness, since studies measure it psychometrically (etic), and its meaning for the people remains opaque. The objective here is to identify what the concept of happiness is for low-income class people (emic) from popular Chilean sectors. By using the qualitative method, an interview with open questions about the meaning of happiness was applied to a sample of 141 adults of both genders, within the age range 24 to 88, from the city of Molina (Chile). Their answers were analyzed with the program NVivo, graphically represented through CmpasTools. For this sample, happiness can be understood through four axes of meaning: well-being, emotions, to be, and to have, and all these essentially represented as tranquility, joy, and, more globally as well-being, produced as a consequence of, or associated with, the obtainment of some basic satisfiers.

Keywords:
happiness; concepts; low income families

Resumen:

Existe escasa investigación acerca del significado de la felicidad, ya que los estudios la miden psicométricamente (etic), permaneciendo en la opacidad su significado para las personas. El objetivo aquí es identificar cuál es el concepto de felicidad que tienen personas (emic) de sectores populares chilenos, de bajos ingresos Utilizando método cualitativo fue aplicada una entrevista con preguntas abiertas acerca del significado de felicidad a una muestra de 141 adultos de ambos sexos, de 24 a 88 años de edad, de la comuna de Molina (Chile). Sus respuestas fueron analizadas con el programa NVivo y representadas gráficamente mediante CmpasTools. Para esta muestra la felicidad puede ser entendida mediante cuatro ejes de significado: bienestar, emociones, estar, y tener, siendo esencialmente representada como tranquilidad y alegría y más globalmente bienestar, producida como consecuencia de - o asociado a - la obtención de ciertos satisfactores básicos.

Palabras clave:
felicidad; conceptos; personas de bajos ingresos

Resumo:

Há escassa pesquisa sobre o significado da felicidade, já que boa parte dos estudos são psicométricos, permanecendo na opacidade seu significado para as pessoas. Este artigo teve por objetivo identificar o conceito de felicidade (emic) de pessoas de baixa renda do Chile. Usando o método qualitativo foi aplicada uma entrevista com perguntas abertas acerca dos significados da felicidade a uma amostra de 141 adultos de ambos os sexos, de 24 a 88 anos de idade, da cidade de Molina (Chile). As respostas foram analisadas por meio do programa NVivo e para sua representação gráfica utilizou-se CmpasTools. A felicidade pode ser entendida através de quatro eixos de significado: bem-estar, emoções, ser, e ter, sendo essencialmente representada como tranquilidade, alegria e bem-estar geral, produzida como consequência ou associada a satisfações básicas.

Palavras-chave:
felicidade; conceitos; pessoas de baixa renda

Happiness has been a fundamental objective for mankind ever since we became aware of our existence, however, and despite the centrality of the topic for life, it requires greater efforts to make advances in the definition of the concept (Rojas, 2014). Happiness and its study have typically been located within the greater construct of subjective well-being (SWB) (composed of life satisfaction and happiness) and where life satisfaction is a variable that is more used than the variable happiness. Thus, more studies about happiness are required, besides an improvement of the quality and informative content also (Moyano Díaz, 2016a). Other authors point out that there have been advances in the research about happiness, however, they are still insufficient both conceptually and psychometrically (Alarcón, 2006). With the emergence of positive psychology (Seligman, 2017), research on happiness, well-being, quality of life, satisfaction and related concepts have increased, but deficiencies persist in the specific study about SWB; very particularly on happiness. Moreover, according to some, the scope of SWB would actually be an area that is under construction (Scorsolini-Comin & Santos, 2010).

For Diener (1984) happiness would be the result of a comparison between recent events and the standards of one’s life, so that if the former are evaluated as better than these, the subject will experience happiness. Happiness refers to an inner experience in each person who makes a judgment about how they feel and the degree of satisfaction with the life that they have (Scorsolini-Comin & Santos, 2010). For Veenhoven (2000, p. 6), “happiness is an internal state of mind” so that the only way to measure it is by directly asking people whether they are happy or not. In this way, a central point is to identify what the person thinks or has in mind as a meaning of the concept when he or she answers the typical question of how happy they feel.

Margot (2007) states that to be happy you would have to have certain general conditions, which among them is health, freedom, love, and economic comfort. Although these are conditions or requirements for happiness without properly constituting a definition of the concept, this serves to illustrate that happiness depends on the cultural context in which a person develops and, therefore, it is variable according to the time, and type of society and culture in question, as evidenced in diverse studies (Biswas-Diener, Vitterso, & Diener, 2005; Lu, 2001; Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009).

For Csikszentmihalyi (2012) happiness will depend essentially on how events coming from the outside are interpreted, and it would not be a random product or something that can be acquired with money. In the same line, Fermín Bertossi (2011) argues that happiness is not ensured by obtaining material goods, being difficult to achieve, since the dissatisfaction with the complex access to certain basic goods such as health, food, housing, education, among others, as well as discrimination and social inequality, are sources of unhappiness. It is indicated from psychology’s point of view, that socio-demographic variables and life circumstances account for no more than 20% of happiness, being the strictly psychological factors the ones that weights more in its determination (Lyubomirsky, 2001).

Who is introduced to the subject of happiness in psychology will soon observe studies in which it is considered as part of the concept of SWB along with life satisfaction (LS). In others it is relieved as a greater and different construct. In not just a few studies, happiness is synonymous with SWB (Moyano Díaz, 2016a). “In the scope of scientific knowledge, the term ‘happiness’ has been translated by ‘subjective well-being’. Thus, the SWB construct has been conceived as the scientific study of happiness” (Scorsolini-Comin & Santos, 2010, p.193). This is undoubtedly confusing, and it illustrates the theoretical-conceptual weakness with respect to the term happiness, which suggests the need for its clarification. On the other hand, and from welfare economics perspective, it is showed that SWB refers to the practice of well-being in individuals, which means that happiness is indicated as an experience of the people (Rojas, 2014).

According to Teixeira (2013) happiness is undoubtedly related to the wellbeing of people and it is subjective, becoming an interesting area of research for many disciplines - social, psychological, religious, and philosophical, among others - and especially for the own human being. Studies in this field are typically carried out with samples drawn from populations of university students, or adults from the middle or educated sectors (Moyano Díaz & Ramos Alvarado, 2007; Rodríguez Araneda, 2015; Denegri, García & González, 2015), being the inclusion of popular sectors rather exceptional; ergo, those located just above the poverty line. However, these sectors constitute Chilean population majorities, and more generally in the Latin American region. Additionally, Latin American studies about the subject use psychometric instruments which origin from the English language extensively, ignoring cultural differences, uncritically, and the concept of happiness of those responding being left in opacity (Moyano Díaz, 2016a).

Notable exceptions regarding the use of instruments to measure happiness among Latin American authors are Alarcón (2006) in psychology and Rojas (2014) in economics. The former proposed that happiness is “an affective state of full satisfaction that the individual experiences subjectively in possession of a desired good” and points out five properties of a happy behavior. The first one refers to happiness as a feeling of satisfaction which would be experienced internally by the person, in a subjective manner, in such a way that it would be individual. The second property conceives it as a state, which may or may not persist in time. The third alludes to the character of the desired good, which would suppose that this is the source of happiness for the individual. The fourth property alludes to that these goods (sources of happiness) can have varied origins, material, ethical, psychological, social, religions, etc., to which people give positive or axiological characteristics. In this way the value of this good would not be intrinsic, and it is possible that it does not generate happiness for all individuals. Finally, the fifth property indicates that in any given time and society the possibility that the collective yearnings could agree on and desire the same good, cannot be set aside (Alarcón, 2006).

According to Rojas (2014), following the classical philosophers, happiness would be a ‘final objective’, referring to something that is sought without being used as a mode to achieve other objectives, but is a goal in itself, and for which different means could be used, that respond to the people’s different needs. Rojas (2007) created an instrument with 9 referents about happiness derived from a same number of classical philosophical conceptions regarding the same, advancing in the conceptual distinction, and showing how they can contribute to the explanation of the heterogeneous results found with respect to the levels of happiness with its association with economic variables. Likewise in Latin America, others like Rodríguez Araneda (2015) have studied the concept of happiness in educated populations from the perspective of social representations, or from semantic networks (Denegri et al., 2015).

Trying to advance through emic qualitative approach in the identification of the concept of happiness that adults from middle and educated sectors have, Moyano Díaz (2016b) analyzed a sample of 164 people. The emic approach is the one oriented to the study of the social reality, seeking to rescue the meanings from the construction of the social actor without starting from a previous theory, but it arises -eventually- from the data obtained (Strauss & Corbin, 2002). The researcher collects data and makes generalizations in an inductive manner, from the information provided freely by the people.

A voluntary sample (164 adults) of academic and administrative officials of a state university, with an average age of 45, answered the question: What is happiness for you? The answers were analyzed and classified (NVivo) giving space to five dimensions of meaning or conceptions about the concept: happiness as a ‘state’ (of being), happiness as ‘having’, happiness as ‘achievement’, happiness as ‘being’, and happiness as ‘well-being’. The first dimension refers essentially to an existential state of the spirit or the mind, which is referred to as peace, harmony, and balance with the physical environment and with the others. The second dimension corresponds to a sum of possessions, having a united family, a stable and well-paid challenging job, and time for oneself - leisure. The third dimension, very clear and exclusively concerns the obtainment - achievement - of individual and collective goals. The fourth is to be at leisure in certain places or spaces of security and freedom, of which the house-home is central. The fifth dimension refers to having a set of satisfactions or well-beings in different domains or areas of the human functioning: social, psychological, economic, and physical, which are accompanied by emotions of joy and states of tranquility, peace, recognition and hope. It refers to a variety of states or components related to happiness, more than this per se, and which can be considered as influential elements or determinants of happiness (Moyano Díaz, 2016b).

In an investigation about the meaning of the term happiness in samples of middle-class population of 12 countries of which Argentina, Mexico and Brazil in the Latin and Luso-American region, it was observed that -globally- happiness is conceived at two levels: psychological and contextual. At the psychological level it is predominantly understood as ‘internal harmony’, and balanced, positive and perceived connectivity between various aspects of the self, while the contextual level is understood as positive and harmonious family and social relationships (Delle Fave et al., 2016). According to these authors, the fact that Mexicans and Croats -from collectivist countries of the sample-point out less frequently than other participants definitions related to the psychological conception of internal harmony, emphasizing instead contextual aspects, could be related to more precarious economies, where the values of survival and the satisfaction of (basic) needs seem to have greater relevance.

Given the importance of the educational component (Molina Galarza, 2016) and more broadly cultural or socioeconomic as a factor of influence in the beliefs and representations of people about happiness (Lu, 2001, Uchida & Kitayama, 2009), arises the question about if the results reported in the mentioned studies -using typically samples of middle and affluent classes- will be found in popular sectors, less favored socio-economically and educationally of the population. It is about answering the question about What is the meaning of the term happiness for participants from popular sectors? Is it understood in the same way as for middle-class citizens, typically analyzed in psychological research?

Globally, it is made up by the social groups with the lowest economic incomes; that the scale of economic power would correspond to the lower part, and to which it would accompany a feeling of inferiority in relation to the other social groups (Barrueto & Navia, 2015). The so-called popular sector corresponds to “Those people who belong to the group whose income and social status does not make them part of what is commonly called the middle class, while they remain in a situation of vulnerability, or are barely above the poverty line” (Barrueto & Navia, 2015, p.64). Operationally, in Chile, to what specific socioeconomic group a person belongs to is frequently identified by the observation of the dwelling, commune of residence, neighborhood, belongings and way of expressing oneself that the interviewer does with respect to the surveyed. Thus, five socio-economic levels are established hierarchically from higher to lower income and possession of goods such as ABC1, C2, C3, D and E (Adimark, 2004).

The sector denominated ABC1 - 7.2% of the total population of the country- represents those who have the most education, incomes and properties. C2 corresponds to 15.4% of the total population, with incomplete technical or university level education and average income. The so-called ‘middle class’ is made up of group C3, representing 22.4% of the Chilean population, which typically has complete secondary education. Group D represents 34.8% of the total population of the country, is characterized by having mostly incomplete secondary education and a range of fluctuating income between 305 to 458 US dollars per month. Finally, group E concentrates 20.3% of the population, with an incomplete basic educational level, and with an income level equal to or less than $160,000 (US$244) per month (Adimark, 2004).

The popular sector corresponds to groups D and E (Barrueto & Navia, 2015) reaching a 55.1% of the total population of the country, with an average income between 244 and 458 US dollars per capita per month. There is no doubt of its quantitative importance in the Chilean society and, more broadly, in Latin American countries in general and, thus, of the relevance it represents for eventual public policies in the field of welfare. The purpose of this article is to identify the concept of happiness (emic) of people with low-income in Chile. This will allow an advance in its definition and cultural distinction.

Method

The qualitative methodological approach is used and more particularly an emic approach of a phenomenological type, following Moyano Díaz’s (2016b) study, to identify the concept of happiness in adults from popular sectors.

Participants

The sample is consisted of 141 adults, 71 men (50.4%) and 70 women (49.6%), from the age range 24 to 88, (M = 44.8 and SD = 13.6), selected through theoretical and intentional sampling (Sierra Bravo, 1988) not probabilistic, by availability, from sectors of social housing inhabited by citizens of the popular socioeconomic sectors D and E. The criteria for choosing these was to have their place of residence within the city, an age of 24 years or older, and belong to the socioeconomic levels D or E (with a maximum educational level of complete secondary education, and a declared individual income of up to US$460 per month). This is a theoretically oriented sample, which does not seek statistical generalization of the results, but representativeness of the social and economic sector from which the sample is extracted.

Instruments

Interviews were used. The aim is to identify and detail qualitatively the different ways in which the subjects experience (understand, perceive) their own phenomena or in their environment, with interviews being a main way of collecting data (González-Ugalde, 2014). The interview is carried out face-to-face in the participant’s home, semi-structured, without time limitation, containing three open questions of which the present study reports what was referred to in the first question (Moyano Díaz, 2016b): “What is happiness for you?” The other two were “Please say, what makes you happy?” and “what is social welfare for you?” The answers that were obtained with respect to the first question and reported here were recorded in audio, transcribed and analyzed with the program NVivo, and later graphed using Cmapstools.

Procedure

Data collection. In the city of Molina (42.000 hbts, Maule region, central valley of Chile), three territorial sectors recognized by its inhabitants as popular, in the east, south and west of the city, were identified. They are constituted by social housing acquired through the subsidy program for Vulnerable Sectors, aimed at families with social vulnerability (who do not own housing and who are part of the 40% of the population with the lowest resources) (Ministerio de la Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2016). Two Psychology graduates in the role of interviewers and wearing distinctive credentials with personal and institutional identification visited the neighborhoods to conduct interviews. Through a simple procedure called ‘door to door’ they called on each inhabitant to carry out interview, during the months of April to June 2016. The visits were made between 4 PM and 7 PM, corresponding to the period of the day when people are most likely to be in their home after returning from work outside. The voluntary nature of the participation in this research was read and explained to the participants via an informed consent (Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology). After it was signed by the person to be interviewed, the interview started, and was recorded.

Data analysis. The answers to the question in the face-to-face interviews were recorded in an audio format, later transcribed, put into a Word ad hoc database, and later into Excel, to be processed and encoded using the NVivo 8.0 program. Finally, they were graphed with the CmapsTool program. An analysis of responses per participant, taking the idea as the unit of analysis, gave a total of responses which, in turn, were categorized giving an origin to four dimensions of meaning. It is a ‘bottom-up’ analysis, without preconceived theoretical referentials.

Ethical Considerations

All the ethical considerations emanating from the informed consent approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology were observed throughout the development of the study, including the reading of the one assuring voluntariness, anonymity and withdrawal at any time during the interview.

Results

From the analysis of the content of the interviews carried out, it has been possible to interpret, codify and categorize the answers obtained making four dimensions or axes of organization of the meanings of happiness arise. Considering the idea as a unit of analysis, a basic accounting of the responses of each participant allows to identify a total semantic production of 402 responses (2.8 average responses per participant, in rank 1 to 7) where most of them corresponded to the categorization or dimension wellbeing (32.8%) followed by emotion or feeling (21.1%), being (19%) and having (15.6%). 10.4% of responses were not categorizable in these dimensions and have been classified as ‘Other’. Presented belo “What is happiness for you?” plotted with the help of the CmapsTools program (Figure 1).

Figure 1:
Categorical tree of meanings to the question “What is happiness for you?”.

The results obtained show that happiness can be understood under the category of four major axes that we have denominated, respectively: wellbeing, emotions or feelings, being with others, and having. They have been hierarchically arranged in the figure, following the clockwise direction -left to right- making Wellbeing the dimension that grouped most responses, followed by Emotions, and so on until To Have. Each of them includes different aspects or components that distinguish or characterize them with respect to the rest. Certainly, the limits or edges of the conceptual space own to each axis are not always necessarily clear, since different aspects within each one can come near other axes, without prejudice to which it is about spaces of essentially different meaning, which is precisely what allows its identification and differentiation.

Happiness as wellbeing. This category of meanings refers to “being well”, expressly indicated by the participants in relation to different areas of life, which among the most noteworthy are three: the family -the family wellbeing is rediscovered here- its own -own wellbeing- and the economic (economic wellbeing). In relation to the family wellbeing, this corresponds to a good family relationship (not only to have a family), and to the construction of the family. The second, own wellbeing appears associated with having a positive attitude towards life, which includes spirituality -very focused on the faith in God-, and having time for leisure. Also included here is the satisfaction related to the achievements and the absence of problems. Finally, the relevance of economic wellbeing for this sample is highlighted.

Happiness as emotion or feeling. this dimension of meanings is referred to emotions or feelings, within which and in order of hierarchy or decreasing frequency are tranquility, joy, love, harmony, satisfaction, conformity and trust. Happiness is also expressed as an ‘unattainable dream’ and plenitude.

Happiness as being with others. this meaning dimension refers to the simple presence in the life of the person of other people considered significant, such as the children, the family, the couple, and other non-consanguineous but close neighbors and friends. The ‘being in at home’ is also included here.

Happiness as to have. this dimension refers to the existence of certain elements that people consider fundamental -such as work- from where it is possible to obtain money and material goods. Another important element is education, mainly understood as a need for the children. Love is relieved and considered as an important element, having life, moments that include routine, having health -both one’s own and others-, having family -children and especially their the achievements and grandchildren- and, also central, having good interpersonal relationships, especially with the partner and with the neighbors. The most frequently observed words within the responses in this dimension are: having health and work.

Discussion

The main objective of this study was achieved through the identification of the meanings of the concept of happiness (emic) for adults with low-income in Chile. All the participants answered the question with different degrees of extension or development and variability, validating the method and technique. All the answers provided by the participants were collected and it was sought to categorize them according to their senses or meanings in order to give an account of the essential components of the concept of happiness, with meaning for the sample. The concept of happiness for the participants of this popular sector contains a set of meanings grouped into four main axes or dimensions: Wellbeing, Emotion-feeling, Being with Others, and To Have.

The Wellbeing dimension is expressed by the participants as “being well”, whether at a family level, an economic one or a personal. The surveyed say here that they are happy if they evaluate being well in the aforementioned elements, meaning that happiness changes if this situation of wellbeing -family, economic- changes. This refers to a comparison of their situation with or without a job, with family oriented well-being or not, in an analysis with respect to the past, but also with respect to the future. The reference to the past is related to the concept of Diener (1984), of happiness as a comparison between the current situation of the subject and a past, resulting in happiness if the current situation is better than the past. In the popular sector, and probably because of their vulnerable economic condition due to employment contingencies and uncertainties about the future, also makes them create a prospective comparison with a clear awareness that losing their job, for example, would be very dramatic with respect to their current happiness.

The Emotion-feeling dimension reflects the predominance of psychological order type responses and particularly emotional content to define happiness with a clear predominance of tranquility and joy. Certainly, these referred emotions cross or are transversal to different areas of human functioning, which means that they can be expressed at a level of relationship with a partner, family, and others (neighbors, colleagues). These would be the main elements for the construction of a definition for the concept of happiness.

The Being with Others dimension is related to the fact that being with certain significant people is a reason for happiness. If they are physically close to these people -including the partner, the children, and others (not specified)-, necessarily this is a reason for joy and happiness. This result is in line with what reported in other studies with different cultural groups (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). The mere presence, particularly of the partner and the children, leads the person to a state of happiness. It is very likely to be related, on the one hand, to the need to be able to count on others in vulnerable cultures to face shortcomings and vicissitudes (earthquakes and other natural disasters, but also inclemency in the work market, or to satisfy health needs), and on the other hand, with the high value given to family in the Latin American culture (Moyano Díaz, 2016b), which is also embedded in some measure with the following dimension.

The dimension To Have is fundamentally related to the possession of certain elements whose summation appears as a determining aggregation. As quoted by the interviewees “Happiness is having everything” and, within this “everything”, they mainly include having health and work, love and life. These elements have a hierarchical order since health and work are much more frequent than the others, with only the necessity of having its presence in life, as a necessary condition to be able to be happy. In line with the To Have, a relationship can be identified here with the definition of happiness that Margot (2007) delivers, as general conditions that leads the subject to be happy, within which are economy (work), health and love. It is here where the To Have is imbricated with its result or consequence, the implicit belief that by disposing of it, happiness derives naturally, or that it is indistinguishable from counting with such possessions.

Considering the resulting dimensions of the meanings given by the interviewees, a definition of happiness is proposed for the participants of the popular sector, and of what they point out as factors that trigger their happiness. “Happiness is the emotion of joy and the feeling of tranquility and harmony that results from having certain basic conditions related to a state of wellbeing and of the significant people, where the family occupies a central place, to which the existence of health, work and love is added”.

This definition is based on the answers given by the interviewees, from which some illustrative ones have been chosen -one or more ideas of each dimension- and transcribed below. “Happiness is being well in the family, having communication” (wellbeing), “Happiness is love, harmony and being well with the family” (emotions), “Happiness is everything, that is to be with the family, with the partner” (to be). “Happiness is when you have everything . . . the family, you have love, you have health” or “Having a job, having health and tranquility” (To Have).

Essentially, the happiness of people from popular sectors seems to have a mainly external reference (Rojas, 2007) - which we have referred to here as wellbeing - more than coming from an internal or proper state of the subject. In effect, the concept of happiness rests more explicitly and definitely in the existence of satisfiers from the environment, -materials (having work, housing, having the basics, having basic things for life) but also social (that the partner, family or children are well). There is an implicit dialectic between the external and the internal, since this external social referent has a strong component which is called ‘relational good’; more finely interpreted, the participants mean that their happiness is attributed mainly to their relationship with others, either by being with others (filiation) or that these others are well, that is, “relational connectivity” (Delle Fave et al., 2016). This meaning also seems to be in line with what Yamamoto (2016) has termed as non-autonomous interdependence, the non-individualistic collective self, and the collective confrontation of the challenges of existence.

In the study by Moyano Díaz (2016b), carried out with samples from middle and high socioeconomic sectors, as well as the one by Delle Fave et al. (2016), happiness seems stronger or decidedly conceived as an internal state (not as a trait). For it, the happiness is constituted by 5 components: state (of being), to have, achievement, to be and wellbeing. This greater number of dimensions, or diversification and differentiation of meanings about the concept, can be understood as a reflection of the high cultural capital of this socioeconomic sector (ABC1 and C2). These have a higher educational level, a varied linguistic repertoire that allows them to refer to different states of experience, greater elaboration and level of abstraction.

Instead, for the participants of the present study it was possible to configure a smaller number of four dimensions of meaning, constructed from a minor linguistic and symbolic production, which is expected given the existence of a more restricted linguistic capital (Mochón Morcillo & Díaz, 2016; Molina Galarza, 2016). Beyond the material and social wellbeing in the meaning of happiness for the popular sector sample, the internal or mental states and particularly the emotions of tranquility and joy appear as central.

Certainly, there is also To Have - which is also a dimension in the previous study- but in a smaller proportion than the emotions. Having as reference has to do with what is not ‘naturally’ guaranteed in the life of the participants of popular sectors; having a job, having a minimum satisfaction of basic needs for themselves and their families, to have certain securities in health and social security. People from popular sectors answer the question about happiness by referring to the obtainment of basic elements in their life, family, work, health, and love, unlike the participants in the study by Moyano Díaz (2016b), where happiness seems to be understood as derived or associated with the achievement of personal achievements, with a strong orientation towards self-realization, referring to higher levels in the hierarchy of needs. This tends to converge with results from Delle Fave et al. (2016) in the sense that, although with a middle class sample, those from countries with weaker economies presented a concept of happiness more associated with satisfaction of (basic) needs than with a state of internal or psychological harmony.

Thus, and widely interpreted, the results show that the popular sectors share four of the five dimensions of meaning with those of the middle socioeconomic sectors, ABC1 and C2, from the study by Moyano Díaz (2016b): Wellbeing, Emotions (referred to as ‘state’ in it), To Be and To Have, with internal components of state or more numerous emotions, nuanced or differentiated in the latter. What does not emerge clearly or delineated in the responses of the popular sectors would correspond to meanings that in the middle sector have been grouped as Achievement, a dimension that is very clearly present in the middle sectors and in the countries of individualist culture (Delle Fave et al., 2016) and not relieved as such in the popular sectors.

Among the results found here, and for public policy effects, the issue of the family reinforces its centrality, and should occupy the attention of public policy makers. Thus, the need to support the conformation and especially the functioning of the family appears relieved from this study on. In today’s Chile and probably with a little delay compared to other countries, in addition to work-family reconciliation policies with measures of labor flexibility and increased coverage of infant care (nurseries and kindergartens), new issues have emerged of concern or public discussion regarding the agreement of life in partnership, equal marriage and others. These are potentially instituting themes of family types, and can be analyzed in their role as a contribution to the promotion of the co-responsibility of men and women in construction -and fairness- regarding a good family functioning (Jiménez Figueroa & Gómez Urrutia, 2014). On the other hand, the education component mentioned by our participants is being addressed by the government through a new and free education policy. This will recover the old tradition -in extinction during the last 40 years- of providing educational opportunities through a public (state) system of wide territorial and inclusive coverage, which will undoubtedly contribute to satisfy this external component, and apparently one of the determinants of the happiness of people from popular sectors, very especially. Finally, the possibility of satisfying the apparent need for healthcare in the popular sector is distant, since the current health indicators referring to the provision of physicians and health personnel are far from being met in Chile today. This is aggravated when certain prevalence antithetical to happiness increase significantly, as the case of suicide, becoming the second country in which this has grown most in the Western world after South Korea in 2013, and whose rate today reaches the one of traffic accidents (Moyano Díaz, 2016c).

To conclude, it is necessary to make explicit that the meaning of happiness for those who belong to the popular sectors is strongly linked to having certain basic satisfactions following the Maslow’s need hierarchy. This is important because many times in the psychometric investigation (etic) of comparison between countries, poor people are shown as happier than expected given their economic limitations, which is very difficult to explain and is a problematic knot regarding the theoretical even today. People respond to psychometric instruments with closed items in which they are asked to choose a number that represents how happy they feel, or comparatively with others, and others of that type, and they effectively choose a number and in this manner the desired results are obtained. The researcher manages to put an average number at the level of happiness declared and eventually differentiate between groups, without seeking or finding out, however, what the meaning that the concept has for its subjects is. In contrast, when people are asked openly about what happiness is for them, emerges clearly and forcefully that for them happiness actually consists in the first place of having certain basic satisfactions regarding “bread, roof and shelter”, which means work, money, and health, but also, having good family and interpersonal relationships and love. Thus, it is noted that the concept of happiness for these participants is not a matter of only having money to meet their basic needs but aside from this, it contains the power to enjoy harmonious family and social relationships and, hopefully, romantic relationships.

Referencias

• Adimark. (2004). Mapa socio-económico de Chile: Nivel socioeconómico de los hogares del país basado en datos del Censo Santiago, Chile: Adimark. Recuperado de http://www.comunicacionypobreza.cl/wp-content/uploads/2004_Mapa_ Socioeconomico_-de_-Chile.pdf
  » http://www.comunicacionypobreza.cl/wp-content/uploads/2004_Mapa_ Socioeconomico_-de_-Chile.pdf
• Alarcón, R. (2006). Desarrollo de una escala factorial para medir la felicidad. Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 40(1), 99-106. Recuperado de http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rip/v40n1/v40n1a10.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rip/v40n1/v40n1a10.pdf
• Barrueto, F., & Navia, P. (2015). Evolución de las preferencias políticas y de políticas públicas entre el sector popular y el resto de la sociedad chilena entre 1990 y 2012. Perfiles Latinoamericanos, 23(46), 61-89. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/perlat/v23n46/v23n46a3.pdf
  » http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/perlat/v23n46/v23n46a3.pdf
• Biswas-Diener, R., Vitterso, J., & Diener, E. (2005). Most people are pretty happy, but there is cultural variation: The inughuit, the amish, and the maasal. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(3), 205-226. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-5683-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-5683-8
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). Fluir (Flow): Una psicología de la felicidad Barcelona, España: Kairós.
• Denegri, C. M., García J., C., & González R., N. (2015). Definición de bienestar subjetivo en adultos jóvenes profesionales chilenos. Un estudio con redes semánticas naturales. CES Psicología, 8(1), 77-97. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/cesp/v8n1/v8n1a07.pdf
  » http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/cesp/v8n1/v8n1a07.pdf
• Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Wissing, M. P., Araujo, U., Castro Solano, A., Freire, T., Soosai-Nathan, L. (2016). Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 30. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00030
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00030
• Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
• Fermín Bertossi, R. (2011). Felicidad, ¿derecho, sensación o promesa? Persona: Revista Iberoamericana de Personalismo Comunitario, 6(16), 27-29. Recuperado de http://www.personalismo.net/persona/sites/default/files/Persyreflexion.1Revista16.pdf
  » http://www.personalismo.net/persona/sites/default/files/Persyreflexion.1Revista16.pdf
• González-Ugalde, C. (2014). Investigación fenomenográfica. Magis, Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación, 7(14), 141-158. doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.M7-14.INFE
  » https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.M7-14.INFE
• Jiménez Figueiroa, A., & Gómez Urrutia, V. (2014). Corresponsabilidad familiar, prácticas organizacionales, equilibrio trabajo-familia y bienestar subjetivo en Chile. Civilizar Ciencias Sociales y Humanas 14(27), 85-95. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/ccso/v14n27/v14n27a06.pdf
  » http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/ccso/v14n27/v14n27a06.pdf
• Lu, L. (2001). Understanding happiness: A look into the Chinese folk psychology. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(4), 407-432. doi:10.1023/A:1013944228205
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013944228205
• Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56(3), 239-249. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.239
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.239
• Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo. (2016). Fondo solidario de elección de vivienda D.S.49 Recuperado de http://www.minvu.cl/opensite_20150715123916.aspx
  » http://www.minvu.cl/opensite_20150715123916.aspx
• Margot, J.-P. (2007). La felicidad. Praxis Filosófica, (25), 55-79. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/pafi/n25/n25a04.pdf
  » http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/pafi/n25/n25a04.pdf
• Mochón Morcillo, F., & Díaz, R.J. (2016). Happiness and social capital: Evidence from Latin American countries. In M. Rojas (Ed.), Handbook of happiness research in Latin America (pp. 143-161). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
• Molina Galarza, M. (2016). La sociología del sistema de enseñanza de Bourdieu: Reflexiones desde América Latina. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 46(162), 942-964. doi:10.1590/198053143615
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/198053143615
• Moyano Díaz, E. (2016a). Trends and challenges for the research in happiness in Latin America. In M. Rojas (Ed.), Handbook of happiness research in Latin America (pp. 63-87). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer .
• Moyano Díaz, E. (2016b). Building the concept of happiness for adults from phenomenography. Universum, 31(2), 141-156. doi:10.4067/S0718-23762016000200009
  » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-23762016000200009
• Moyano Díaz, E. (2016c). Sobrevuelo a la felicidad y el malestar en la sociedad actual. In A. Mendiburo, J. C. Oyanedel, & D. Páez (Eds.), La felicidad de los chilenos: Estudios del Bienestar (Vol. 2, pp. 125-126). Santiago, Chile: RiL Editores.
• Moyano Díaz, E., & Ramos Alvarado, N. (2007). Bienestar subjetivo: Midiendo satisfacción vital, felicidad y salud en población chilena de la Región del Maule. Universum, 22(2), 177-193. doi:10.4067/S0718-23762007000200012
  » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-23762007000200012
• Rodríguez Araneda, M. J. (2015). Representación social de la noción de felicidad en estudiantes y profesionales de educación y salud de Chile e Italia. Universitas Psychologica, 14(1), 271-286. doi:10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-1.rsnf
  » https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-1.rsnf
• Rojas, M. (2007). Heterogeneity in the relationship between income and happiness: A conceptual referent theory explanation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(1), 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2005.10.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.10.002
• Rojas, M. (2014). El estudio científico de la felicidad México, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
• Scorsolini-Comin, F., & Santos, M. A. (2010). El estudio científico de la felicidad y la promoción de la salud: Revisión integradora de la literatura. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 18(3), 472-479. doi:10.1590/S0104-11692010000300025
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692010000300025
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2017). La auténtica felicidad (M. D. Esteva & D. Cabeza, Trad.). Barcelona, España: Ediciones B.
• Sierra Bravo, R. (1988). Técnicas de investigación social: Teoría y ejercicios Madrid, España: Paraninfo.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa: Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada (E. Zimmerman, Trad.). Medellín, Colombia: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia.
• Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 482-493. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482
• Teixeira, J. (2013). Don’t worry, be happy: La felicidad: Fragmentos de una idea. UIC: Foro Multidisciplinario de la Universidad Intercontinental, (27), 11-16. Recuperado de http://www.biblioteca.uic.edu.mx/Revistas/forouic/UIC27.pdf
  » http://www.biblioteca.uic.edu.mx/Revistas/forouic/UIC27.pdf
• Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: Themes and variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441-456. doi:10.1037/a0015634
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015634
• Veenhoven, R. (2000). Well-being in the welfare state: Level not higher, distribution not more equitable. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2(1), 91-125. doi:10.1023/A:1010058615425
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010058615425
• Yamamoto, J. (2016). The social psychology of Latin American happiness. In M. Rojas (Ed.), Handbook of happiness research in Latin America (pp. 31-49). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

• ¹
  Paper deriving from the graduate dissertation by the first and second authors, under the advice of the third author, defended in the Graduate Program in Psychology at the Universidad de Talca (Chile). This study was supported by Fondecyt grant No.1131152 to E. Moyano-Díaz. And we want to thank the support received by the Grupo de Investigación en Calidad de Vida y Ambientes Saludables of the University of Talca.

• 10
  How to cite this article: Aburto, K. H., Rioseco, M. M., & Moyano-Díaz, E. (2017). Concept of happiness in adults from low-income class. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 27(Suppl. 1), 386-394. doi:10.1590/1982-432727s1201703

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Dec 2017

History

• Received
  29 Mar 2017
• Reviewed
  21 June 2017
• Accepted
  18 Oct 2017