<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being</title>
        <author>Felicia A. Huppert</author>
        <author>Timothy T. C. So</author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <p>Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the
           staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in
           standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.</p>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <title>Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being</title>
          <date>2013</date>
          <publisher>Social Indicators Research</publisher>
          <idno type="DOI">10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7</idno>
          
          <idno type="record">huppert2013-flourishing-across-europe-applicat</idno>
          <note type="staged-file">huppert2013-flourishing-across-europe-applicat.txt, the project's staged copy</note>
          <note type="text-sha1">1356f42fb1e46571f91879d95ea4d5cd020b61f5</note>
          <note type="rights">cc-by-nc</note>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <textClass><keywords><term>social-psychology</term></keywords></textClass>
      <particDesc>
        <person xml:id="paper"><p>the paper's own words</p></person>
        <person xml:id="tagger"><p>the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the
          paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation</p></person>
      </particDesc>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change when="2026-10-06"
              who="build_paper_edition.py">0 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them</change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <standOff>
    <spanGrp type="tags">
      <span xml:id="t0" type="object_of_study" ana="#object_of_study" resp="#paper">
        <label>A DEFINITION BUILT BY NEGATING ANOTHER DEFINITION - the symptoms of depression and generalised anxiety in DSM-IV and ICD-10, inverted one at a time by a panel of four, to give ten features of positive well-being</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t1" type="research_question" ana="#research_question" resp="#paper">
        <label>how well-being should be measured, given that a dozen conceptual definitions exist with no agreement on which to use, and that surveys routinely substitute a single life-satisfaction item for all of them</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t2" type="contribution" ana="#contribution" resp="#paper">
        <label>ten features of flourishing deduced from the diagnostic criteria for the common mental disorders, an operational definition combining them in the shape DSM uses for a diagnosis, and its application to 43,000 people in 23 countries</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t3" type="claim_type" ana="#claim_type" resp="#paper">
        <label>method</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t4" type="phenomenon" ana="#phenomenon" resp="#paper">
        <label>a positive construct with no agreed definition, in a field that had been measuring it with one question</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t5" type="method" ana="#method" resp="#paper">
        <label>survey</label>
        <term>survey</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t6" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>A DEFINITION BUILT BY NEGATING ANOTHER DEFINITION, SYMPTOM BY SYMPTOM: `By examining internationally agreed criteria for depression and anxiety (DSM and ICD classifications), and defining the opposite of each symptom, we identify ten features of positive well-being.` The corpus holds vocabularies revised, voted, counted and reclassified; this is one DERIVED FROM ANOTHER by inversion, and the derivation is the method section</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t7" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND IT INHERITS THE SOURCE&#x27;S BLIND SPOTS, WHICH THE AUTHORS PRINT: `Autonomy was not included in our list of features because its opposite is not specified in DSM or ICD diagnostic criteria for depression or anxiety. That is, loss of autonomy is not regarded as a symptom of these disorders. This raises the question about the necessity of autonomy as an element in positive human functioning.` A concept central to Jahoda, Ryff, and Ryan &amp; Deci is absent for NO REASON EXCEPT THE SHAPE OF THE SOURCE VOCABULARY - and the authors turn the absence into a question about the world rather than about their method</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t8" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND A WHOLE CLASS IS EXCLUDED BECAUSE THE NEGATION IS UNDEFINED: `the other categories of anxiety disorder (phobias, OCD, PTSD) do not have a polar opposite. For example, one either has a phobia (of different levels of severity) or not, but it is difficult to see what the positive pole of a distribution of phobia could be.` The method can only reach the disorders whose symptoms sit on a continuum with a positive end - and somatic symptoms go the same way, `it is not clear what the positive pole of these physical symptoms would be`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t9" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE INVERSION WAS DONE BY FOUR PEOPLE IN PLAIN ENGLISH: `a panel of four individuals (three psychologists and one lay person) began by expressing in simple English the words or phrases which best seemed to capture the positive pole of each symptom. ... We then assigned a single word or pair of words which in our judgement best summarised each positive concept.` And the honesty that follows: `Some opposites were easier to identify with confidence than others`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t10" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE THRESHOLD MOVED BECAUSE THE DATA WAS SKEWED: `on two of the items, the responses were so skewed that the vast majority of participants said they agreed (engagement 80.5%; positive relationships 90.2%), so in these two cases, we used the `STRONGLY AGREE` category ... We also calculated mean scores and found that for each item, the chosen cut points corresponded to the category above the mean.` The class boundary set by the response distribution, then checked against the mean afterwards</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t11" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION COPIES DSM&#x27;S SHAPE, NOT ONLY ITS CONTENT: `Diagnostic criteria for depression and anxiety do not require that all symptoms be present. They do, however, require the presence of one or two key symptoms ... Following this approach, we proposed that positive emotion be a required feature ... The criterion we selected was having all but one of the features of positive characteristics and all but one of the features of positive functioning, together with positive emotion. This was met by 15.8% of the total European sample.` A required item plus a majority rule, borrowed from the classification being inverted</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t12" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE SOURCE VOCABULARY IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN OPINION: `before the advent of DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria were based more on the personal opinions of members of the DSM task force than on scientific evidence. DSM-IV improved on this situation through the use of systematic evidence to support their decisions.` The paper cites that history as the reason it seeks data rather than deduction for the COMBINING step</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t13" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND A DIAGNOSIS IS AN ARBITRARY CUT POINT, SAID PLAINLY: `It has been recognised for some time that A clinical diagnosis such as depression represents an arbitrary cut point along A CONTINUUM. The cut point is intended to represent the severity at which the person is no longer able to function in their everyday life.` The source of the inversion is itself a threshold on a continuum, chosen for a practical consequence</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t14" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND A DOZEN CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS ALREADY EXISTED, OVERLAPPING AND DISAGREEING: `Quotation withheld` Every theorist disagrees with every other, and all of them disagree with the surveys</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t15" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THEIR OWN EARLIER DEFINITION IS STILL IN CIRCULATION: `In an earlier briefing document which we prepared for an OECD meeting, we used an operational definition which focused on depression as the opposite of flourishing. This document was cited by Seligman (2011) and Forgeard et al. (2011). The definition used in the present paper IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE, since it has considered the other common mental disorder, generalised anxiety, as well as depression.` Two versions of one team&#x27;s definition, both cited, four years apart</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t16" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>THE AUTHORS PREDICT THE DIVERGENCE THEIR METHOD WILL PRODUCE: `Subjective judgements were involved in the selection of survey items to be used as indicators of these features, as well as the cut-off score on each item to establish whether it is present or absent, and the number of features required to meet the criterion of flourishing. ... Other studies which use different surveys and different items as indicators of the ten features of flourishing might reach a different conclusion about cut points and the number and combination of features required.` Three subjectivities enumerated, and the disagreement forecast in the paper that starts it</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t17" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE OPERATIONALISATION IS BOUNDED BY WHAT A SURVEY HAPPENED TO ASK: `Five features of flourishing were represented by only a single item (competence, emotional stability, meaning, optimism, resilience) ... From a psychometric perspective it would have been preferable to have several good items per construct, but such data were not available.` Half the construct rests on one question each, and the reason is availability - the same shape as the gout criteria&#x27;s dispensing data and EWGSOP&#x27;s missing reference populations</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t18" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL MEASURE OVERLAPS THE SINGLE-ITEM ONE ONLY MODESTLY: `The Spearman correlation between flourishing and life satisfaction was .34 ... around half of those who were flourishing had high life satisfaction, and around one third of those with high life satisfaction were flourishing. Quotation withheld, and a great deal would be lost by measuring life satisfaction alone, although there is frequently pressure in large scale surveys to do so.`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t19" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>and the country spread is fourfold: `Application of this definition to respondents from the 23 countries which participated in the European Social Survey (Round 3) reveals a four-fold difference in flourishing rate, from 41% in Denmark to less than 10% in Slovakia, Russia and Portugal` - against 15.8% for Europe as a whole under the same definition</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t20" type="controls" ana="#controls[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>deducing the features from two INTERNATIONALLY AGREED diagnostic classifications (DSM-IV and ICD-10) rather than from the authors&#x27; own theory of well-being</label>
        <note>eliminates: a list of positive features chosen to suit the investigators - &#x27;we had no preconceptions about the nature and number of constructs which we would find&#x27; · outcome: partial</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t21" type="controls" ana="#controls[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>choosing item cut points from the response format, then checking them against the item mean</label>
        <note>eliminates: a cut point chosen to produce a particular prevalence · outcome: partial</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t22" type="controls" ana="#controls[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>standardising scores within each of three European regions before comparing, and testing measurement equivalence by multi-group confirmatory factor analysis</label>
        <note>eliminates: cross-regional response set - a country appearing to flourish because its respondents use the scale differently · outcome: held</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t23" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[0]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>flourishing</label>
        <term>flourishing</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t24" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[1]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>life satisfaction</label>
        <term>life satisfaction</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t25" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[2]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>well-being</label>
        <term>well-being</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t26" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[3]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>ten features</label>
        <term>ten features</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t27" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[4]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>phobia</label>
        <term>phobia</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t28" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[5]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>depression</label>
        <term>depression</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t29" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[6]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>autonomy</label>
        <term>autonomy</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t30" type="senses" ana="#senses[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`flourishing` (this paper, conceptual) - `the mirror opposite of the symptoms of` `depression and generalised anxiety`: `competence, emotional stability, engagement, meaning, optimism, positive emotion, positive relationships, resilience, self-esteem and vitality`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t31" type="senses" ana="#senses[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`flourishing` (this paper, OPERATIONAL) - positive emotion PLUS all but one of the positive characteristics PLUS all but one of the positive functioning features; met by 15.8% of Europeans</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t32" type="senses" ana="#senses[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`flourishing` (Huppert &amp; So 2009, the OECD briefing) - an earlier operational definition of their own, built on depression alone, cited by Seligman (2011)</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t33" type="senses" ana="#senses[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`life satisfaction` - the single item that generations of surveys used for the whole construct; correlates .34 with flourishing, and .68 with the happiness item</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t34" type="senses" ana="#senses[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`autonomy` - central to Jahoda, Ryff, and Ryan &amp; Deci, and ABSENT here because `its opposite is not specified in DSM or ICD diagnostic criteria`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t35" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>extends → Keyes (2007), who observed that subjective well-being research had UNINTENTIONALLY produced symptom clusters mirroring the DSM&#x27;s - this paper does the mirroring intentionally and systematically</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t36" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>critiques → the practice in generations of economic and social surveys of assessing positive human experience with a single life-satisfaction or happiness item</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t37" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>flourishing —distinct-from→ life satisfaction</label>
        <term>flourishing</term>
        <term>life satisfaction</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: &#x27;Clearly, flourishing…&#x27; The asymmetry is in the relation field because the type cannot carry it: the overlap runs 1/2 one way and 1/3 the other · the relation stated: overlapping but distinct: half of those flourishing have high life satisfaction, one third of those with high life satisfaction are flourishing, r = .34</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t38" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>phobia —distinct-from→ depression</label>
        <term>phobia</term>
        <term>depression</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: &#x27;one either has…&#x27; The two disorders are distinguished by whether their NEGATION IS DEFINABLE - a property of the vocabulary, not of the patients · the relation stated: phobia has NO POLAR OPPOSITE and depression does, so only depression can be inverted into a positive construct
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but phobia and depression are both said to lack a positive pole; distinct-from is loose.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t39" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>well-being —operationalised-as→ ten features</label>
        <term>well-being</term>
        <term>ten features</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: &#x27;we identify TEN…&#x27; The operationalising step is a NEGATION of another classification, which is why the ten features contain no autonomy: &#x27;its opposite…&#x27; · the relation stated: well-being is operationalised as ten features deduced by inverting the symptoms of depression and generalised anxiety</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t40" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>A DEFINITION BUILT BY NEGATING ANOTHER: `By examining internationally agreed criteria for depression and anxiety (DSM and ICD classifications), and defining the opposite of each symptom, we identify ten features of positive well-being`</label>
        <term>A DEFINITION BUILT BY NEGATING ANOTHER: `By examining internationally agreed criteria for depression and anxiety (DSM and ICD classifications), and defining the opposite of each symptom, we identify ten features of positive well-being`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t41" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND IT INHERITS THE SOURCE&#x27;S BLIND SPOT: `Autonomy was not included in our list of features because its opposite is not specified in DSM or ICD diagnostic criteria ... This raises the question about the necessity of autonomy as an element in positive human functioning`</label>
        <term>AND IT INHERITS THE SOURCE&#x27;S BLIND SPOT: `Autonomy was not included in our list of features because its opposite is not specified in DSM or ICD diagnostic criteria ... This raises the question about the necessity of autonomy as an element in positive human functioning`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t42" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND A CLASS EXCLUDED BECAUSE THE NEGATION IS UNDEFINED: `phobias, OCD, PTSD DO NOT HAVE A POLAR OPPOSITE ... it is difficult to see what the positive pole of a distribution of phobia could be`</label>
        <term>AND A CLASS EXCLUDED BECAUSE THE NEGATION IS UNDEFINED: `phobias, OCD, PTSD DO NOT HAVE A POLAR OPPOSITE ... it is difficult to see what the positive pole of a distribution of phobia could be`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t43" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE THRESHOLD MOVED BECAUSE THE DATA WAS SKEWED: `the responses were so skewed ... (engagement 80.5%; positive relationships 90.2%), so in these two cases, we used the `STRONGLY AGREE` CATEGORY`</label>
        <term>AND THE THRESHOLD MOVED BECAUSE THE DATA WAS SKEWED: `the responses were so skewed ... (engagement 80.5%; positive relationships 90.2%), so in these two cases, we used the `STRONGLY AGREE` CATEGORY`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t44" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE AUTHORS FORECAST THE DISAGREEMENT: `Other studies which use different surveys and different items ... might reach a different conclusion about cut points and the number and combination of features required`</label>
        <term>AND THE AUTHORS FORECAST THE DISAGREEMENT: `Other studies which use different surveys and different items ... might reach a different conclusion about cut points and the number and combination of features required`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t45" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE SOURCE VOCABULARY IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN OPINION: `before the advent of DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria were based more on the personal opinions of members of the DSM task force than on scientific evidence`</label>
        <term>AND THE SOURCE VOCABULARY IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN OPINION: `before the advent of DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria were based more on the personal opinions of members of the DSM task force than on scientific evidence`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t46" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`POSITIVE EMOTION as a required feature, together with ALL BUT ONE of the features of positive characteristics and ALL BUT ONE of the features of positive functioning` - met by 15.8% of the European sample</label>
        <term>flourishing</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t47" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`competence, emotional stability, engagement, meaning, optimism, positive emotion, positive relationships, resilience, self esteem, and vitality` - the mirror opposites of the symptoms of depression and generalised anxiety</label>
        <term>the ten features</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t48" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>under the operational definition adopted in this paper</label>
        <term>flourishing rate, Europe as a whole</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t49" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`a four-fold difference in flourishing rate` across 23 countries under ONE definition</label>
        <term>flourishing rate, country spread</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t50" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`around half of those who were flourishing had high life satisfaction, and around one third of those with high life satisfaction were flourishing`</label>
        <term>correlation between flourishing and life satisfaction</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t51" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>so the threshold for those two features became `strongly agree` instead of `agree`</label>
        <term>response skew that moved two cut points</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t52" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>the statistic behind the paper&#x27;s central negative claim - .34 between flourishing and life satisfaction, low enough that `a great deal would be lost by measuring life satisfaction alone`</label>
        <term>correlation between two well-being measures</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t53" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>the one feature made MANDATORY in the operational definition, `given that it is the only feature which addresses the hedonic (emotional) aspect of well-being`</label>
        <term>positive emotion</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
    </spanGrp>
  </standOff>
  <text>
    <body>
      <p><note type="rights">The full text of this article is not redistributable, so it is
      not included here. The evidence sentences are withheld with it; the tag layer and its
      grounding status remain. The article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7.</note></p>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
