Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 106, Issue 1, pp 109–116 | Cite as

Revisiting the Structure of Subjective Well-Being in Middle-Aged Adults

  • Magda ChmielEmail author
  • Martin Brunner
  • Romain Martin
  • Daniela Schalke
Article

Abstract

Subjective well-being is a broad, multifaceted construct comprising general satisfaction with life, satisfaction with life domains (health, family, people, free time, self, housing, work, and finances), positive affect, and negative affect. Drawing on representative data from middle-aged adults (N = 738), the authors used three different structural models to analyze the interrelationships among these facets of subjective well-being. In a top-down model, a single factor representing global subjective well-being explained the correlations found among the more specific facets of subjective well-being and exerted the strongest influence on general satisfaction with life, satisfaction with health, and satisfaction with finances. In a bottom-up model, satisfaction with the latter two domains had the strongest effect on global subjective well-being. The authors discuss the implications of their findings for research on subjective well-being.

Keywords

Subjective well-being Satisfaction with life Positive affect Negative affect Bottom-up model Top-down model 

References

  1. Bollen, K. A., & Davis, W. R. (2009). Causal indicator models: Identification, estimation, and testing. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 498–522. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed. ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assesment, 49(1), 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahrenberg, J., Myrtek, M., Schumacher, J., & Brähler, E. (2000). Fragebogen zur Lebenszufriedenheit. Handanweisung [Satisfaction with life questionnaire. Manual]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  8. Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1050. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Weari, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24(1), 81–100. doi: 10.1007/BF00292652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Lance, C. E., Mallard, A. G., & Michalos, A. C. (1995). Tests of the causal directions of global—Life facet satisfaction relationships. Social Indicators Research, 34(1), 69–92. doi: 10.1007/BF01078968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lance, C. E., & Sloan, C. E. (1993). Relationships between overall and life facet satisfaction: A multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) study. Social Indicators Research, 30(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1007/BF01080329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leonardi, F., Spazzafumo, L., Marcellini, F., & Gagliardi, C. (1999). The top-down/bottom-up controversy from a constructionist approach. A method for measuring top-down effects applied to a sample of older people. Social Indicators Research, 48(2), 189–218. doi: 10.1023/A:1006977717925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  17. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152. doi: 10.1080/17439760701756946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Scherpenzeel, A., & Saris, W. (1996). Causal direction in a model of life satisfaction: The top-down/bottom-up controversy. Social Indicators Research, 38(2), 161–180. doi: 10.1007/BF00300457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magda Chmiel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Brunner
    • 1
  • Romain Martin
    • 1
  • Daniela Schalke
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Center for Educational Measurement and Applied Cognitive Science (EMACS)University of LuxembourgWalferdangeLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations