Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 523–534 | Cite as

Psychological Mechanism of Subjective Well-Being: A Stable Trait or Situational Variability

  • Zhihua Li
  • Xiayun Yin
  • Sha Jiang
  • Mengcheng Wang
  • Taisheng CaiEmail author
Article

Abstract

In order to explore the stability and variation of the indicators of subjective well-being (SWB), the classic Latent State-Trait (LST), Trait-State-Occasion (TSO), and Indicator-Specific Trait (IT) models were employed to evaluate the stability and variability of life satisfaction, positive emotions, and negative emotions. The study was conducted based on a 1-year and three-wave longitudinal study with a sample of 360 college students. The results show the suitability of the IT model. The consistency coefficients (CO) of all variables are significantly higher than occasion-specificity coefficients (OSpe) in this model, indicating that stability is a remarkable feature of SWB. Moreover, the consistency coefficients of positive affection and negative affection are much higher than that of life satisfaction, suggesting that the positive and negative emotions of individuals are more stable than life satisfaction.

Keywords

Subjective well-being Stability Variation Latent state-trait model 

References

  1. Angner, E. (2010). The influence of personality and life events on subjective well-being from a life span perspective. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(3), 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartels, M., & Boomsma, D. I. (2009). Born to be happy? The etiology of subjective well-being. Behavior Genetics, 39(6), 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnefon, J. F., Vautier, S., & Eid, M. (2007). Modeling individual differences in contrapositive reasoning with continuous latent state and trait variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1403–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradburn, N., & Caplovitz, D. (1965). Reports of happiness. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  5. Bruce, H., & Alexander, W. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 731–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multi-model inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, P., Van Hoeck, D., Weiss, N., & Kostin, M. (1971). Happiness or life-satisfaction of the malformed. In Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  8. 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), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(2), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davern, M. T., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. A. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective-cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(4), 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1105–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (2009). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. Assessing well-being (pp. 213–231).Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65(3), 245–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraley, R. C., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Patterns of continuity: A dynamic model for conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological constructs across the life course. Psychological Review, 112(1), 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: Stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geiser, C., & Lockhart, G. (2012). A comparison of four approaches to account for method effects in latent state–trait analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hertzog, C., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1987). Beyond autoregressive models:Some implications of the trait-state distinction for the structural modeling of developmental change. Child Development, 58, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New-York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. LaGrange, B., & Cole, D. A. (2008). An expansion of the trait-state-occasion model: Accounting for shared method variance. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(2), 241–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2008). Subjective well-being. Handbook of emotions (pp. 471–484).Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56(3), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16(4), 347–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being:The role of autonomy competence, and relatedness. Personnality and social psychology bulletin, 26(4), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schimmack, U., Krause, P., Wagner, G. G., & Schupp, J. (2010). Stability and change of well being: An experimentally enhanced latent state-trait-error analysis. Social Indicators Research, 95(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state–trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13(5), 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strack, F., Argyle, M., & Schwarz, N. (2007). Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhihua Li
    • 1
  • Xiayun Yin
    • 2
  • Sha Jiang
    • 3
  • Mengcheng Wang
    • 4
  • Taisheng Cai
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Medical Psychological Institute, Second Xiangya HospitalCentral South UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Institute of EducationHunan University of Science and TechnologyXiangtanPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Oriental Institute of Science and TechnologyHunan Agricultural UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Center for Psychology and Brain ScienceGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations