CHAPTER 4

Toward a Contextual Model of Arts and Humanities Engagement and Human Flourishing

Yerin Shim

Abstract

Whether engagement with the arts and humanities leads to human flourishing remains a compelling yet undertested question in the extant literature. This chapter argues that people commonly engage with the arts and humanities across various life domains, such as education, work, leisure, and health; and that there are multiple moderated pathways through which these engagements with the arts and humanities may or may not lead to flourishing outcomes in individuals, based on a variety of individual and sociocultural contextual factors. Thus, this chapter makes a case for the need of a contextual model of arts and humanities engagement and human flourishing that considers the impact of personal characteristics, as well as immediate and broader sociocultural contexts. Relevant existing empirical research, current gaps in the literature, and avenues for future research are explored.

Key Words: arts, humanities, human flourishing, well-being, contextual model, ecological systems theory

Does engagement with the arts and humanities make people flourish? This simple question, as it appears, is far more complex to answer. In addition to the breadth and depth of the topic of interest, the many variables of the humans involved make this question intricate. Indeed, human flourishing through the engagement with the arts and humanities does not happen in a vacuum. People of diverse backgrounds and contexts engage with the arts and humanities in various ways throughout their lifetime, which can lead to differential flourishing outcomes. These diverse trajectories between arts and humanities engagement and human flourishing, however, have yet to be fully explored.

Recently, a group of researchers suggested that many potential factors could moderate the pathway between arts and humanities engagement and human flourishing outcomes (Tay, Pawelski, & Keith, 2018). Specifically, they hypothesized that these moderators may exist at individual, institutional, and societal levels (Tay et al., 2018). Considering the role of these moderators is critical in a more sophisticated understanding of the relationship between arts and humanities engagement and human flourishing. Accordingly, this chapter attempts to present a working contextual model of arts and humanities engagement and human flourishing that integrates these possible moderating factors on multiple levels, based on prior research, to facilitate future research in this area. Prior to discussing the model, we will first briefly explore common life domains where people engage with the arts and humanities and how this may relate to their flourishing.

Life Domains of Arts and Humanities Engagement

People engage with the arts and humanities in a variety of ways based on their unique contexts, yet it appears that there are several common life domains in which these engagements tend to occur. In this section, I describe four of these life domains—education, work, leisure, and health—and briefly discuss how engaging with the arts and humanities within these domains may relate to human flourishing.

Arts and Humanities Engagement in Education

Education is the entryway to arts and humanities engagement for most people. Either formally or privately, we learn how to engage in the arts and humanities from an early age through education. Children are exposed to different types of books, music, and art activities at home and at school. Among these children, some will pursue more specialized education in the arts and humanities through higher education. Despite the widespread concern over the decline of arts and humanities majors, a recent report from Columbia University suggests contradictory evidence indicating that college students remain interested in learning about this field (Pippins, Belfield, & Bailey, 2019). Other disciplines, such as medicine and health sciences, are also recognizing the value of arts and humanities education, applying it to their professional training curriculum (Bleakley, 2015; Crawford, Brown, Baker, Tischler, & Abrams, 2015). Furthermore, adults in later life often re-engage with the arts and humanities through continuing education, suggesting that arts and humanities education can be a lifelong form of engagement.

Previous research on arts and humanities education has shown mixed results on its instrumental effect on academic outcomes (Hetland & Winner, 2001); however, there is emerging causal evidence on its non-academic flourishing effects. A recent randomized controlled trial with a large sample of upper grade level students from over forty schools indicated that arts education increases a host of socioemotional outcomes, such as school engagement, empathy, compassion, and perceived value for the arts (Bowen & Kisda, 2019). Moreover, psychologist Carol Ryff, who is known for her research on psychological well-being, recently suggested that higher education in the arts and humanities can play a critical role on lifelong well-being and health, particularly in aspects such as meaning and purpose in life, and building good societies (Ryff, 2019). Future longitudinal studies could further examine the role of arts and humanities education in cultivating these flourishing outcomes.

Arts and Humanities Engagement in Work

As people become embedded in the arts and humanities through education, some choose to engage with them as part of their professional life. Arts and humanities professions include a wide range of occupations, including teachers, researchers, artists, and other related jobs that require artistic and humanistic skills (U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, 2021).

Findings from an empirical study with undergraduate and prospective students indicate that the choice of arts and humanities degrees are mostly driven by interest in the subject (Skatova & Ferguson, 2014). However, not all of them pursue the arts and humanities as a career. Part of this may stem from a concern with obtaining stable employment, which is partially supported by survey data on the arts and humanities workforce. This data suggests that arts and humanities professionals have more education, but less stable employment, such as higher rate of unemployment and part-time employment, compared to other professions (American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2018; National Endowment for the Arts, 2011). On the other hand, people with arts and humanities careers have the potential to have more psychologically flourishing experiences in their work, such as creativity and flow, than those in other fields (Delle Fave & Kocjan, 2016).

Engaging in the arts and humanities as a profession may function as a double-edged sword in flourishing—by satisfying the intrinsic interests and providing meaning for those who pursue them, but not without costs in working conditions. Accordingly, this area of research requires keen attention to structural-level supports that would enable one’s work experience in the arts and humanities to be more fully flourishing.

Arts and Humanities Engagement in Leisure

One of the most common ways people engage with the arts and humanities is through leisure. Both arts and humanities professionals and non-professionals enjoy the arts and humanities as part of their time outside of work. In the extant literature, the arts and humanities have been conceptualized as both casual and serious leisure activities (McCarthy, Ondaatje, & Zakaras, 2001; Stebbins, 2017).

Arts and humanities engagement as leisure appears to be the most intuitive way to think about its association with flourishing. Recognizing the importance of leisure in people’s lives, several theoretical and empirical perspectives have suggested leisure as a pathway to well-being. For example, leisure has been suggested as an important target for enhancing the subjective well-being of individuals through psychological mechanisms such as detachment-recovery, autonomy, mastery, meaning, and affiliation (Newman, Tay, & Diener, 2014). Moreover, scholars in Positive Leisure Science argue that leisure can promote positive development in adolescents and can be an important source of well-being for older adults (Freiere, 2018). Hence, engagement in arts and humanities leisure activities during these specific developmental stages will be important areas of focus in future research.

Arts and Humanities Engagement in Health

In difficult times, people often turn to the arts and humanities. Engaging with the arts and humanities can be a way of coping and a healthy practice for individuals. For instance, research indicates that people engage with music to relieve stress (Labbé, Schmidt, Babin, & Pharr, 2007) and turn to religion to make meaning out of their lives in the aftermath of trauma (Park, 2005). Furthermore, in a recent longitudinal study with a nationally representative sample, reading a book has been found to predict longevity with a 20 percent survival advantage over reading periodicals, indicating that arts and humanities engagement can potentially extend our lives (Bavishi, Slade, & Levy, 2016). The therapeutic effect of the arts, particularly with clinical populations, has also been well documented in the literature with an array of arts-based interventions (Leckey, 2011). Thus, engaging with the arts and humanities as a way to induce health-related flourishing outcomes is an exciting area of research which will have practical implications on improving the lives of people across diverse contexts.

Summary

Engagement with the arts and humanities commonly occurs in life domains such as education, work, leisure, and health, which could potentially lead to the flourishing of individuals and societies when certain conditions are met. Now we turn our attention to the variety of possible moderating factors in different contexts that could determine this pathway.

A Working Contextual Model of Arts and Humanities and Human Flourishing

Life domains are only part of the picture when considering the multiple contexts that impact the flourishing of individuals in engagement with the arts and humanities. In the following sections, key personal, immediate, and broader contextual factors that can potentially moderate the pathway between arts and humanities engagement and flourishing are suggested in the form of a working contextual model (see Figure 4.1 for a visual representation, and Table 4.1 for a list of factors by level of context). It is of note that the model does not include the detailed conceptual components of arts and humanities engagement and human flourishing, as these are beyond the scope of this chapter, and I refer readers to other references (see Shim, Tay, Ward, & Pawelski, 2019; Tay et al., 2018).

Figure 4.1. A working contextual model of arts and humanities engagement and human flourishing.

Table 4.1 Possible Moderating Factors in Arts and Humanities Engagement and Human Flourishing by Level of Context

Level of Context	Possible Moderating Factors
Personal characteristics	Personality Interests Capacities/skills Personal values Age/development stage Gender/sexuality Race/ethnicity Socioeconomic status/social class Residential area
Immediate social environment	Social support Institutional/organizational support Community resources
Broader cultural context	Cultural values Economic situation Political climate Technical advancements
Time	Duration of engagement Timing of significant events

Theoretical Framework

Inspired by the multicultural perspective from counseling psychology (Neville & Mobley, 2001), the working contextual model is largely informed by Bronfenbrenner’s Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model of his ecological systems theory. This theoretical model views a person’s development through the complex, reciprocal interaction between a person’s characteristics and their immediate and remote contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). Applying this perspective to the phenomenon of an individual’s flourishing through the engagement with the arts and humanities can shed light on the complex processes of how diverse individuals interact with their immediate and broader sociocultural environments across time.

Three Level of Contexts and Possible Moderating Factors

In this section, the three levels of contexts outlined in the model (i.e., personal characteristics, immediate social environment, and broader cultural contexts) and affiliated moderating factors will be explored based on existing empirical research and the gaps in the literature.

Personal characteristics

Who flourishes through engagement with the arts and humanities? The first layer of the model, personal characteristics, reflects the individual qualities that likely generate systematic variance across people who engage with the arts and humanities in various life domains. The personal characteristics in the working contextual model currently include demographics and social identities such as age/developmental stage, gender/sexuality, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status/social class, and individual differences such as personality, capacities/skills, interests, and personal values.

Age/developmental stage.

Age is one of the most examined demographic factors in arts and humanities engagement. Arts participation is known to typically rise through the twenties and thirties, peaks during the forties, declines gradually as people age, and significantly drops in the seventies (Stern, 2011). This trend of decline in older adulthood has been attributed to the lack of time and/or opportunity, and constraints in mobility (McManus & Furnham, 2006). A cross-sectional empirical study with a large data set showed that young people listen to music significantly more and in a wider variety of contexts than their older counterparts; and musical preferences correspond with developmental changes such as psychosocial development and auditory perception (Bonneville-Roussy, Rentfrow, Xu, & Potter, 2013). While arts and humanities engagement decreases with age in general, for those who do engage in later life, there appears to be significant cognitive and health benefits (Castora-Binkley, Noelker, Prohaska, & Satariano, 2010; Marshall, 2015). While previous research demonstrates that age has a statistically significant relationship with arts and humanities engagement, it is also known that this relationship is fairly weak when compared to other demographic factors such as gender and educational attainment (Stern, 2011). On that account, we now turn our attention to other demographic factors that may more strongly moderate the relationship between arts and humanities engagement and flourishing.

Gender/sexuality.

Previous research suggests that there may be some gender differences in the degree and forms of the arts and humanities in which people engage. In a population-based study in the United Kingdom, females were significantly more likely to engage in the arts than males (Davies, Knuiman, & Rosenberg, 2016). In another study from the UK, while biological sex and gender had no relationship to engagement in aesthetic activity, women were reported to be more interested in literature and performing arts, while men were more likely to have interest in cinema (McManus & Furnham, 2006). Beyond these descriptive differences, a significant gender gap also exists in arts and humanities employment conditions. Tenured male faculty in the arts consistently outweigh tenured female faculty (Garber et al., 2007), and male humanities graduates tend to earn more than their female counterparts (American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2018). Areas for future research include how gender nonconforming individuals and other sexual minorities may experience flourishing through arts and humanities engagement. It would be critical to consider how implicit and explicit gendered stereotypes in representations of arts and humanities (e.g., Keifer-Boyd, 2003) may impact the flourishing of those who do not conform with traditional gender and sexual categories.

Race/ethnicity.

Differences across racial and ethnic groups in arts and humanities engagement have been mostly investigated through national survey data. According to a national survey in the United States, Whites and Asians reported having more arts learning experiences than Blacks and Hispanics, and while race/ethnicity was not a strong predictor in attending arts events, it significantly predicted differences in arts creation activities (Welch Jr. & Kim, 2010). Cross-cultural research has also been conducted on topics such as creativity (Lubart, 2010) and artistic development (Toku, 2001). How these differences in arts and humanities engagement impact the flourishing of these various racial and ethnic groups, however, is largely unknown. Furthermore, issues of racial inequality in powerful forms of arts and humanities engagement such as cultural production have been raised by other scholars (e.g., Hesmondhalgh & Saha, 2013). Empirical evidence on this topic, however, remains sparse. Therefore, research that investigates the role race and ethnicity plays in individuals’ flourishing through the engagement with the arts and humanities is much needed.

Socioeconomic status/social class.

Socioeconomic status (SES) and social class are regarded as one of the most impactful determinants of discrepancies in arts and humanities engagement. National survey data indicate that receiving childhood or adult arts education is a significant predictor of attendance at arts events, and that people who have a history of taking arts lessons are 32 percent more likely to participate in arts creation activities (Novak-Leonard, & Brown, 2011). On the flipside, individuals with low income and educational attainment were more likely to engage in the arts and humanities via broadcasts and recordings than attendance at arts events (Novak-Leonard & Brown, 2011). Furthermore, parental social status was also associated with the degree of engagement with aesthetic activity, but not with aesthetic attitudes (McManus & Furnham, 2006). Together, these findings reflect that these differences are based on available resources, regardless of interest or attitudes toward the arts and humanities. In order for individuals of lower SES to thrive through the arts and humanities, it will be important to enhance access to diverse forms of arts and humanities, which will allow more room for flourishing.

Residential area.

Closely linked with socioeconomic status and social class, the area where an individual resides may also have an influence on their flourishing through arts and humanities engagement. People in metropolitan areas are generally more likely to participate in the arts than those in suburban and rural areas (Novak-Leonard & Brown, 2011), as metropolitan areas may provide more opportunities for individuals to be exposed to a variety of arts and humanities engagements.

Personality.

Are certain personality characteristics more associated with arts and humanities engagement? In a recent systematic review which examined Big Five personality traits among students of different academic majors, students of arts and humanities consistently scored high on Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, and low on Conscientiousness (Vedel, 2016). In addition, Vedel (2016) concluded that these personality traits are likely to be preexisting rather than a result from socialization of the major. Supporting this interpretation, an empirical study which examined the degree of aesthetic activity in general undergraduate students showed that students who engaged in more aesthetic activities have similar personality patterns to those of students of arts and humanities described in the preceding study (McManus & Furnham, 2006). These findings indicate that certain personality traits, such as high Openness to Experience and low Conscientiousness, predict engagement with the arts and humanities in both professional and nonprofessional domains. In addition, research on the association between these personality traits and general well-being outcomes may provide further indication of who might flourish through arts and humanities engagement.

Capacities and skills.

Whether one has a certain level of capacity and skill in the arts and humanities may also impact the link between arts and humanities engagement and flourishing. According to Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, individuals differ on the types and combination of intelligences they exhibit (Gardner, 2011). Among these multiple intelligences are linguistic, musical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic capacities, which are relevant to the arts and humanities (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). Individuals with higher capacities in these areas may have higher creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2011), which may lead to other flourishing outcomes. On the other hand, people who have lower capacities and skills in the arts and humanities may feel overwhelmed with complex forms of arts and humanities engagement and may flourish in simpler forms. For instance, an experimental study with experts and novices found that experts found abstract images interesting, while novices found them confusing (Silvia, 2013). Accordingly, individuals may choose to engage in certain modes of engagement depending on their capacity and skill level to flourish.

Interests.

An individual difference that has been widely studied predicting arts and humanities majors and professions are interests. In Holland’s (1959) theory of vocational choice, the Artistic type indicates vocational preferences in arts-related occupations. Recently, a more nuanced empirical model of vocational interest dimensions found that vocational interests in the arts tend to group under the Creative Expression dimension, and the humanities with the People dimension (Su, Tay, Liao, Zhang, & Rounds, 2019). People who have an interest in these dimensions may be more inclined to choose to pursue arts and humanities–related careers and to enjoy them more intrinsically. Having an intrinsic motivation in engaging in a certain goal or activity is a hallmark indicator of well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000) consequently, the level of intrinsic interest in arts and humanities could potentially differentiate the flourishing outcomes of individuals who engage in the arts and humanities.

Personal values.

An individual difference that has not received much attention yet, but has the potential to moderate the pathway between arts and humanities engagement and flourishing, is a personal value toward the arts and humanities. Prior research indicates that people differ significantly in types of activities they value (Oishi, Diener, Suh & Lucas, 1999), and the degree to which people are able to participate in valued activities influences their well-being (Cantor & Sanderson, 2003). Therefore, how significant the arts and humanities are to an individual may influence their engagement and the subsequent flourishing outcomes. These personal values may be further cultivated and shaped by parental influence, education, and broader societal values, which will be described in the next two levels of contexts.

Immediate social environments

Individuals operate within their immediate social environments when engaging in the arts and humanities. Although there is less empirical evidence available regarding the direct effect of these contexts on arts and humanities engagement, several environmental factors may be worth investigating.

Social support.

Receiving support from others is one of the strongest predictors of engagement in life domains of arts and humanities such as education (Wang & Eccles, 2012), work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008), leisure (Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993), and coping with stress (Thoits, 1995). Moreover, social support has also been found to be a significant predictor and moderator of health and well-being outcomes in various populations across many studies (e.g., Chu, Saucier, & Hafner, 2010; Siedlecki, Salthouse, Oishi, & Jeswani, 2014). Initial evidence that social support can enhance one’s well-being in arts and humanities engagement across diverse populations is emerging. In a cross-cultural study on the impact of social music listening on young people’s social and emotional well-being, it was found that music rituals with peer groups had an impact on youth’s emotional well-being across cultures, while those with family were linked with better emotional well-being in collectivist cultures (Boer & Abubakar, 2014). In addition to the sources of social support, different types of social support, such as emotional, instrumental, and informational support (Östberg & Lennartsson, 2007), should also be considered in how these may further support the experience of flourishing through arts and humanities engagement.

Institutional/organizational support and community resources.

The institution, organization, and community to which the individual belongs also matter in the experience of flourishing through arts and humanities engagement. Structural support from schools, universities, workplaces, and community resources will likely increase the likelihood of flourishing. On the contrary, when these support and resources are insufficient, the individual may experience barriers in flourishing despite their high motivation in engaging with the arts and humanities. As an example, a project investigating the impact of cultural engagement on social well-being found that cultural resources are distributed unequally across neighborhoods (University of Pennsylvania Social Impact of the Arts Project and Reinvestment Fund, 2017). The support from institutions, organizations, and communities may also impact group-level flourishing beyond individual-level flourishing through arts and humanities engagement, which is an area for future research.

Broader cultural contexts

The immediate social environments of the individual are embedded in larger cultural contexts such as cultural values, economic situation, political climate, and technological advancements. While the arts and humanities are ubiquitous in all cultures, the value posed on the arts and humanities may differ across cultures. In a culture where the arts and humanities are undervalued, the individual might experience more barriers in receiving structural support that may be required for them to fully flourish in their engagement with the arts and humanities. In addition, the economic situation and political climate of the broader society may further impact people’s engagement with the arts and humanities by either restraining or facilitating public engagement with the arts and humanities. Finally, the development of technology may offer new ways to engage with the arts and humanities. Digital media-based production and consumption of the arts and humanities are already widespread in our society, and future advancements in technology such as virtual reality may open up new opportunities for flourishing through the engagement with the arts and humanities that were not accessible traditionally. These broader contexts may be invisible but strong forces that impact the flourishing of individuals and societies in their engagement with arts and humanities.

Time

In addition to the multiple layers of spatial contexts, time is a critical moderating factor that should not be neglected. While a single encounter with a painting or book may not change a person’s life, a lifelong engagement may have enduring flourishing effects on an individual’s life (Ryff, 2019). Thus, the duration of engagement with a specific domain of arts and humanities may not only enhance development in the area but also offer more opportunities for flourishing. Another dimension of time that should be considered is the timing of an arts and humanities–related event in people’s lives. When experienced at the right moment, even a single interaction with the arts and humanities could be transformative in one’s flourishing. Therefore, the role of time should be accounted for in assessing how differential flourishing outcomes may be derived from momentary experience and long-term engagement, and the timing of engagement with the arts and humanities.

Summary and Some Caveats for Future Research

The working contextual model of arts and humanities and human flourishing draws from ecological and multicultural perspectives and empirical studies in the literature to show how the study of arts and humanities engagement and flourishing could be put into context. The individuals engaging in the arts and humanities will vary in their experience of flourishing by the interaction between their personal characteristics, immediate social environment, and the broader cultural context. There are a number of areas for future research that researchers could consider for a more sophisticated understanding of the pathways between arts and humanities and human flourishing.

There are a few caveats for using this working contextual model for future research. First, it is important to know that the possible moderating factors included in this contextual model are suggestive factors based on previous research and theory, and not those that are fully supported by empirical research. Thus, researchers may use this list (see Table 4.1) to generate new research questions and hypotheses to be tested through empirical investigation. Second, it is important for the researcher to keep in mind that these various factors and contexts possibly interact with each other (as indicated through the arrows in Figure 4.1) and may not independently affect the relationship between arts and humanities engagement and flourishing. Third, different factors may more significantly impact certain populations in particular settings; thus researchers are encouraged to selectively consider these factors in their examination based on theory and observation. Finally, the factors listed here are not an exhaustive list of possible moderating factors, and other contextual factors such as (dis)ability status, language, and religiosity/spirituality should be further examined as a moderator.

Conclusion

As noted in its title, the contextual model presented here is a work in progress. The significance of this contextual model may only be enlivened by researchers who utilize this model to guide their empirical research to assess the suggested hypothetical links. A contextual view on the arts and humanities engagement as a pathway to flourishing can work against a simplistic view that engaging with the arts and humanities leads to human flourishing in all circumstances. People of diverse backgrounds engage in the arts and humanities in various ways in their unique contexts, with some leading to flourishing outcomes and some unfortunately not. Researchers can contribute to uncovering the specific conditions that enable the pathway to human flourishing through arts and humanities engagement by actively considering the various contextual factors in their research.

Acknowledgements

This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton Religion Trust. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton Religion Trust.

References

American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2018). Humanities indicators. https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/workforce

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

Bavishi, A., Slade, M. D., & Levy, B. R. (2016). A chapter a day: Association of book reading with longevity. Social Science & Medicine, 164, 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.014

Bleakley, A. (2015). Medical humanities and medical education: How the medical humanities can shape better doctors. Routledge.

Boer, D., & Abubakar, A. (2014). Music listening in families and peer groups: Benefits for young people’s social cohesion and emotional well-being across four cultures. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 392. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00392

Bonneville-Roussy, A., Rentfrow, P. J., Xu, M. K., & Potter, J. (2013). Music through the ages: Trends in musical engagement and preferences from adolescence through middle adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033770

Bowen, D. H., & Kisida, B. (2019). Investigating causal effects of arts education experiences: Experimental evidence from Houston’s Arts Access Initiative. https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs1676/f/documents/Investigating%20Causal%20Effects%20of%20Arts%20Education%20Experiences%20Final_0.pdf

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Lüscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619–647). American Psychological Association.

Cantor, N., & Sanderson, C. A. (2003). Life task participation and well-being: The importance of taking part in daily life. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwartz (Eds.), Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 230–243). Russell Sage Foundation.

Castora-Binkley, M., Noelker, L., Prohaska, T., & Satariano, W. (2010). Impact of arts participation on health outcomes for older adults. Journal of Aging, Humanities, and the Arts, 4, 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325614.2010.533396

Chu, P. S., Saucier, D. A., & Hafner, E. (2010). Meta-analysis of the relationships between social support and well-being in children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(6), 624–645. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.6.624

Coleman, D., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1993). Leisure and health: The role of social support and self-determination. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1993.11969913

Crawford, P., Brown, B., Baker, C., Tischler, V., & Abrams, B. (2015). Health humanities. In Health Humanities (pp. 1–19). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Davies, C., Knuiman, M., & Rosenberg, M. (2016). The art of being mentally healthy: A study to quantify the relationship between recreational arts engagement and mental well-being in the general population. BMC Public Health, 16, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2672-7

Delle Fave, A., & Kocjan, G. Z. (2016). Well-being in the arts and crafts sector. In L. G. Oades, M. F., Steger, A. Dell Fave, J. Passmore (Eds.) The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and Strengths-Based Approaches at Work. (pp. 508–526). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118977620.ch26

Freire, T. (2018). Leisure and positive psychology: Contributions to optimal human functioning. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1374445

Garber, E., Sandell, R., Stankiewicz, M. A., Risner, D., Collins, G., Zimmerman, E., … & Springgay, S. (2007). Gender equity in visual arts and dance education. In S. S. Klien, B. Richardson, D. A. Grayson, L. H. Fox, C. Kramarae, … & C.A. Dwyer (Eds.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (pp. 359–380). Routledge.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018008004

Hesmondhalgh, D., & Saha, A. (2013). Race, ethnicity, and cultural production. Popular Communication, 11, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2013.810068

Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2001). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows. Arts Education Policy Review, 102(5), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910109600008

Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(1), 35–45 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040767

Keifer-Boyd, K. (2003). A pedagogy to expose and critique gendered cultural stereotypes embedded in art interpretations. Studies in Art Education, 44, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2003.11651748

Labbé, E., Schmidt, N., Babin, J., & Pharr, M. (2007). Coping with stress: The effectiveness of different types of music. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 32, 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-007-9043-9

Leckey, J. (2011). The therapeutic effectiveness of creative activities on mental well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 18, 501–509 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01693.x.

Lubart, T. (2010). Cross-cultural perspectives on creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 265–278). Cambridge University Press.

Marshall, L. (2015). Thinking differently about aging: Changing attitudes through the humanities. The Gerontologist, 55, 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu069

McCarthy, K. F., Ondaatje, E. H., & Zakaras, L. (2001). Guide to the literature on participation in the arts. (Report No. DRU-2308-WRDF). RAND. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2006/DRU2308.pdf

McManus, I. C., & Furnham, A. (2006). Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences of education, background, and personality on interest and involvement in the arts. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 555–587. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X101088

National Endowment for the Arts (2011). Artists and arts workers in the United States. https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/105.pdf

Neville, H. A., & Mobley, M. (2001). Social identities in contexts: An ecological model of multicultural counseling psychology processes. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000001294001

Newman, D. B., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Leisure and subjective well-being: A model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9435-x

Novak-Leonard, J. L., & Brown, A. S. (2011). Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation: Based on the 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (Report No. 54). National Endowment for the Arts. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED516882.pdf

Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator in subjective well‐being. Journal of Personality, 67, 157–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00051

Östberg, V., & Lennartsson, C. (2007). Getting by with a little help: The importance of various types of social support for health problems. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 35(2), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14034940600813032

Park, C. L. (2005). Religion as a meaning-making framework in coping with life stress. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 707–729 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x.

Pippins, T., Belfield, C. R., & Bailey, T. (2019). Humanities and liberal arts education across America’s colleges: How much is there?https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/humanities-liberal-arts-education-how-much.pdf

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68

Ryff, C. D. (2019, January). Linking education in the arts and humanities to life-long well-being and health. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. https://mellon.org/news-blog/articles/linking-education-arts-and-humanities-life-long-well-being-and-health/

Shim, Y., Tay, L., Ward, M., & Pawelski, J. O. (2019). Arts and humanities engagement: An integrative conceptual framework for psychological research. Review of General Psychology, 23(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/108926801983284

Siedlecki, K. L., Salthouse, T. A., Oishi, S., & Jeswani, S. (2014). The relationship between social support and subjective well-being across age. Social Indicators Research, 117, 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0361-4

Silvia, P. J. (2013). Interested experts, confused novices: Art expertise and the knowledge emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.1.f

Skatova, A., & Ferguson, E. (2014). Why do different people choose different university degrees? Motivation and the choice of degree. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01244

Stebbins, R. A. (2017). Serious leisure: A perspective for our time. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129167

Stern, M. J. (2011). Age and arts participation: A case against demographic destiny (Report No. 53). National Endowments for the Arts. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=siap_arts_participation

Su, R., Tay, L., Liao, H. Y., Zhang, Q., & Rounds, J. (2019). Toward a dimensional model of vocational interests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 690–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000373

Tay, L., Pawelski, J. O., & Keith, M. G. (2018). The role of the arts and humanities in human flourishing: A conceptual model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1279207

Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Extra Issue, 53–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626957

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020952

Toku, M. (2001). Cross-cultural analysis of artistic development: Drawing by Japanese and US children. Visual Arts Research, 27(1), 46–59. www.jstor.org/stable/20716021

University of Pennsylvania Social Impact of the Arts Project and Reinvestment Fund. (2017). Culture and social wellbeing in New York City: Highlights of a two-year research project. https://repository.upenn.edu/siap_culture_nyc/2

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). Arts and design occupations. Occupational Outlook Handbook. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/home.htm

Vedel, A. (2016). Big Five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.011

Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83, 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x

Welch Jr., V. & Kim, Y. (2010). Race/ethnicity and arts participation: Findings from the survey of public participation in the arts. National Endowment for the Arts. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519762.pdf