Social Indicators Research

, Volume 98, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Environmental Influences on Well-Being: A Dyadic Latent Panel Analysis of Spousal Similarity

  • Ulrich SchimmackEmail author
  • Richard E. Lucas


This article uses dyadic latent panel analysis (DLPA) to examine environmental influences on well-being. DLPA requires longitudinal dyadic data. It decomposes the observed variance of both members of a dyad into a trait, state, and an error component. Furthermore, state variance is decomposed into initial and new state variance. Total observed similarity between members of a dyad is decomposed into trait similarity, initial state similarity, new state similarity, and error similarity. Dyadic similarity in new state variance reveals that both members of a dyad change in the same direction, which is a strong indication of environmental effects. DLPA is used to examine environmental influences on life satisfaction and domain satisfaction based on 22 annual assessments of married couples in the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (N’s = 607–740). The results show high similarity in new state variance for life satisfaction and objectively identical domains (household income, housing), and less similarity for objectively less similar domains (recreation, health). This finding provides strong evidence for environmental influences on well-being. In addition, the results show high trait similarity. The implications of the latter finding for interpretation of behavioral genetics studies of well-being are discussed.


Well being Satisfaction Environment Longitudinal Dyadic Couples Spouses Heritability 



We would like to thank Jennifer Tackett, Kelly L. Klump, Lindon Eaves, and Shigehiro Oishi, and Ivana Anusic for helpful comments. The preparation of this article was supported by a standard research grant of the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council awarded to the first author.


  1. Alley, T. R. (1993). The developmental stability of facial attractiveness: New longitudinal data and a review. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(2), 265–278.Google Scholar
  2. Bookwala, J., & Schulz, R. (1996). Spousal similarity in subjective well-being: The cardiovascular health study. Psychology and Aging, 11(4), 582–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casas, F., Coenders, G., Cummins, R. A., Gonzalez, M., Figuer, C., & Malo, S. (2008). Does subjective well-being show a relationship between parents and their children? Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(2), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caspi, A., Herbener, E., & Ozer, D. (1992). Shared experiences and the similarity of personalities: A longitudinal study of married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, D. A., Martin, N. C., & Steiger, J. H. (2005). Empirical and conceptual problems with longitudinal trait-state models: Introducing a trait-state-occasion model. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eaves, L. J., Fulker, D. W., & Heath, A. C. (1989). The effects of social homogamy and cultural inheritance on the covariances of twins and their parents: A LISREL model. Behavior Genetics. Special Issue: Twin methodology using LISREL, 19(1), 113–122.Google Scholar
  11. Ehrhardt, J. J., Saris, W. E., & Veenhoven, R. (2000). Stability of life-satisfaction over time: Analysis of change in ranks in a national population. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(2), 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: Stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24(1), 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heath, A. C., & Eaves, L. J. (1985). Resolving the effects of phenotype and social background on mate selection. Behavior Genetics, 15(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heise, D. R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in test–retest correlation. American Sociological Review, 34(1), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82(6), 887–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (1995). The trait state error model for multiwave data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(1), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15(1), 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). How stable is happiness? Using the STARTS model to estimate the stability of life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(5), 1091–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCartney, K., Harris, M. J., & Bernieri, F. (1990). Growing up and growing apart: A developmental meta-analysis of twin studies. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 226–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (Fourth Edition ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  26. Neale, M. C., & Cardon, L. R. (1992). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. NATO ASI Series D: Behavioural and Social Sciences, 67(496).Google Scholar
  27. Nes, R. B., Roysamb, E., Tambs, K., Harris, J. R., & Reichborn-Kjennerud, T. (2006). Subjective well-being: Genetic and environmental contributions to stability and change. Psychological Medicine, 36(7), 1033–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ormel, J., & Rijsdijk, F. V. (2000). Continuing change in neuroticism during adulthood: Structural modelling of a 16-year, 5-wave community study. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ormel, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1991). Stability and change in psychological distress and their relationship with self-esteem and locus of control: A dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reynolds, C. A., Baker, L. A., & Pedersen, N. L. (1996). Models of spouse similarity: Applications to fluid ability measured in twins and their spouses. Behavior Genetics, 26(2), 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. McGraw Hill series in social psychology (p. 286). New York, NY, UK: Mcgraw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  32. Roysamb, E., Harris, J. R., Magnus, P., Vitterso, J., & Tambs, K. (2002). Subjective well-being: Sex-specific effects of genetic and environmental factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rudinger, G., & Rietz, C. (1998). The neglected time dimension? Introducing a real longitudinal model: Testing latent growth curves, stability, and reliability as time-bound processes. Methods of Psychological Research. Special Issue: Analysis of longitudinal data, 3(2), 109–130.Google Scholar
  34. Saris, W. E., Van Wijk, T., & Scherpenzeel, A. (1998). Validity and reliability of subjective social indicators—the effect of different measures of association. Social Indicators Research, 45(1–3), 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
  36. Schilling, O. (2006). Development of life satisfaction in old age: Another view on the “Paradox”. Social Indicators Research, 75(2), 241–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schimmack, U. (2009). Well-being: Measuring wellbeing in the SOEP. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 129, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2003). Predictive validity of explicit and implicit self-esteem for subjective well being. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schimmack, U., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). Marriage matters: Spousal similarity in life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 127, 1–7.Google Scholar
  40. Schimmack, U., & Oishi, S. (2005). The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schimmack, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2008). The influence of environment and personality on the affective and cognitive component of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 89, 41–60.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneider, L., & Schimmack, U. (2009). Self-informant agreement in well-being ratings: A meta-analysis. Social Indicators Research. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9440-y.
  44. Silventoinen, K., Kaprio, J., Lahelma, E., Viken, R. J., & Rose, R. J. (2003). Assortative mating by body height and BMI: Finnish twins and their spouses. American Journal of Human Biology, 15(5), 620–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spotts, E. L., Neiderhiser, J. M., Towers, H., Hansson, K., Lichtenstein, P., Cederblad, M., et al. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on marital relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stubbe, J. H., Posthuma, D., Boomsma, D. I., & De Geus, E. J. C. (2005). Heritability of life satisfaction in adults: A twin-family study. Psychological Medicine, 35(11), 1581–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sumner, L. W. (1996). Welfare, happiness, and ethics. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
  49. Tambs, K., & Moum, T. (1992). No large convergence during marriage for health, lifestyle, and personality in a large sample of Norwegian spouses. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 54(4), 957–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  51. Tesser, A. (1993). The importance of heritability in psychological research: The case of attitudes. Psychological Review, 100(1), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tower, R. B., & Kasl, S. V. (1996). Depressive symptoms across older spouses: Longitudinal influences. Psychology and Aging, 11(4), 683–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Tests of the theory that a better society does not make people any happier. Social Indicators Research, 32(2), 101–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2006). Enhancing the power of household panel studies—the case of the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). DIW data documentation no. 13.Google Scholar
  55. Walker, S. S., & Schimmack, U. (2008). Validity of a happiness implicit association test as a measure of subjective well being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2), 490–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weiss, A., Bates, T. C., & Luciano, M. (2008). Happiness is a personal(ity) thing—The genetics of personality and well-being in a representative sample. Psychological Science, 19(3), 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zebrowitz, L. A., Olson, K., & Hoffman, K. (1993). Stability of babyfaceness and attractiveness across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Toronto, Mississauga (UTM)MississaugaCanada
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations