Social Indicators Research

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 569–580 | Cite as

Subjective Well-Being Structure: Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a Teachers’ Portuguese Sample

  • Isabel Albuquerque
  • Margarida Pedroso de Lima
  • Cláudia Figueiredo
  • Marcela Matos
Article

Abstract

Authors consider that subjective well-being is a theoretical construct that includes three components: life satisfaction, positive affect and negative affect. Despite the numerous studies already conducted, divergences remain concerning how to conceptualize these components within a global structure of subjective well-being. This study aims to examine the dimensionality of the subjective well-being construct. A set of self-report questionnaires was used to assess life satisfaction, positive and negative affect in 397 teachers of primary and high schools. A model of a tripartite structure was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis. The results corroborate the premise that subjective well-being is a multidimensional construct that incorporates three components: life satisfaction, positive affect and negative affect. Our findings reinforce the viewpoint that these three components are moderately correlated and relatively independent and also strengthen the need for a complete SWB assessment that includes adequate measures of all three components.

Keywords

Subjective well-being structure Satisfaction with life Positive affect Negative affect Confirmatory factor analysis 

References

  1. Albuquerque, I. (2006). O florescimento dos professores: Projectos pessoais, bem-estar subjectivo e satisfação profissional. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Coimbra, Coimbra.Google Scholar
  2. Albuquerque, I., Lima, M. P., Matos, M., & Figueiredo, C. (in press). Neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness and subjective well-being: What hides behind global analyses? Social Indicators Research.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of quality of life. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  4. Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Lu, L. (1995). Testing for stress and happiness: The role of social cognitive factors. In C. D. Spielberg & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and emotion (Vol. 15, pp. 173–187). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., Mooney, C. H., & Near, J. P. (2005). The subjective well-being construct: A test of its convergent, discriminate, and factorial validity. Social Indicators Research, 74, 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neurological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billings, D. W., Folkman, S., Acree, M., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Coping and physical health during caregiving: The roles of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer, M. B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 3–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Busseri, M. A., Sadava, S. W., & Decourville, N. (2007). A hybrid model for research on subjective well-being: Examining common-and component specific sources of variance in life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect. Social Indicators Research, 83, 413–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cacciopo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T., Poehlmann, K. M., & Ito, T. A. (2000). The psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 173–191). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  12. Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day, C., Fried, R. L., Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., Kempler, T., & College, G. (2000). “What’s everybody so excited about?”: The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31, 103–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2005). Subjective well-being: The Science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 63–73). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Diener, E., Scollon, C. K., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Positivity and the construction of life satisfaction judgments: Global happiness is not the sum of its parts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diener, E., & Suh, M. E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Tree decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65, 245–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eid, M., & Larsen, R. J. (Eds.). (2008). The Science of Subjective Well-Being. London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gabinete de Estatística e Planeamento da Educação (2010). Perfil do Docente 2008/09. Lisboa: Gabinete de Estatística e Planeamento da Educação.Google Scholar
  30. Galinha, I. C., & Pais-Ribeiro, J. L. (2008). The structure and stability of subjective well-being: A structure equation modelling analysis. Applied Research Quality Life, 3, 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwartz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 702–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lane, R. D., Reiman, E. M., Ahern, G. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (1997). Neuroanatomical correlates of pleasant and unpleasant emotion. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1437–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCullough, G., Huebner, E. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). Life events, self-concept and adolescents’ positive subjective well-being. Psychology in Schools, 37, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2001). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  38. Pavot, W. (2008). The assessment of subjective well-being. Success and shortfalls. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 124–141). London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Potter, P., Zautra, A., & Reich, J. (2000). Stressful events and information processing dispositions moderate the relationship between positive and negative affect: Implications for pain patients. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Russel, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schimmack, U. (2006). The structure of subjective well-being: Personality, affect, life satisfaction, and domain satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  44. Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 97–123). London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schimmack, U., & Oishi, S. (2005). The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental process and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  47. Simões, A. (1992). Ulterior validação de uma escala de satisfação com a vida (SWLS). Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia, XXVI(3), 503–515.Google Scholar
  48. Simões, A. (1993). São os homens mais agressivos que as mulheres? Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia, XXVII, 387–404.Google Scholar
  49. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Costa, Jr., & Paul, T. (2003). Factorial and construct validity of the Italian Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tuccitto, D. E., Giacobbi, P. R., Jr., & Leite, W. L. (2010). The internal structure of positive and negative affect. A confirmatory factor analysis of the PANAS. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Eck, M., Nicolson, N. A., Berkhof, J., & Sulon, J. (1996). The effects of stress, traits, mood states and stressful daily events on salivary cortisol levels. Biological Psychology, 43, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht: The Riedel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabel Albuquerque
    • 1
  • Margarida Pedroso de Lima
    • 1
  • Cláudia Figueiredo
    • 1
  • Marcela Matos
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology and Educational SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Cognitive and Behavioral Research Centre (CINEICC)University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations