Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 607–618 | Cite as

Validation of the Social Well-being Scale in a Chinese Sample and Invariance Across Gender

  • Miaoyun Li
  • Dong Yang
  • Cody Ding
  • Feng KongEmail author
Article

Abstract

The goal of present study was to translate and validate the Social Well-being Scale (SWBS) with a Chinese sample, first developed by (Keyes in Social Psychology Quarterly 61(2):121–140, 1998). We examined the internal consistency, convergent validity and the measurement invariance across gender groups. A total of 630 Chinese individuals were recruited for the present study and they completed the SWBS, Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scales, and Satisfaction With Life Scale. Confirmation factor analysis demonstrated that the original five factor structure—(1) social integration, (2) social acceptance, (3) social actualization, (4) social contribution, and (5) social coherence—of social well-being previously found in Western populations were replicated in this sample. Internal consistency was high in all subscales but self-acceptance subscale and convergent validity with positive affect, negative affect and life satisfaction was found. Evidence of measurement invariance across gender groups was obtained. These findings suggested that the Chinese version of SWBS would be useful for assessing social well-being in China.

Keywords

Social well-being Gender invariance Validation Translation 

References

  1. Andrews, F., & Withey, S. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114(1), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng, S., & Chan, A. C. M. (2006). Relationship with others and life satisfaction in later life: Do gender and widowhood make a difference? The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(1), 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cramm, J. M., van Dijk, H. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2013). The importance of neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well being of older adults in the community. Gerontologist, 53(1), 142–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeWall, C. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter. Psychological Science, 20(4), 256–260.Google Scholar
  7. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Dong, Y., Liu, Y., & Ding, C. (2012). A psychometric evaluation of a Brief School Relationship Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(1), 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(3), 378–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner, K. J., & Qualter, P. (2011). Factor structure, measurement invariance and structural invariance of the MSCEIT V2. 0. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 492–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill, P. L., Turiano, N. A., Mroczek, D. K., & Roberts, B. W. (2012). Examining concurrent and longitudinal relations between personality traits and social well-being in adulthood. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Irwing, P. (2012). Sex differences in g: An analysis of the US standardization sample of the WAIS-III. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(2), 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keyes, C. L. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keyes, C. L. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal Consult and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kong, F., Wang, X., & Zhao, J. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness and life satisfaction: The role of core self-evaluations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 577–581.Google Scholar
  20. Kong, F., & Zhao, J. (2013). Affective mediators of the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and life satisfaction in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kong, F., Zhao, J., & You, X. (2012). Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction in Chinese university students: The mediating role of self-esteem and social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(8), 1039–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuppens, P., Realo, A., & Diener, E. (2008). The role of positive and negative emotions in life satisfaction judgment across nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Lou, W. Q., Chi, I., & Mjelde-Mossey, L. A. (2008). Development and validation of a life satisfaction scale for Chinese elders. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 67(2), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martinez-Pecino, R., & Durán, M. (2013). Social communication fears: Factor analysis and gender invariance of the short-form of the personal report of confidence as a speaker in Spain. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(6), 680–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDowell, I., Newell, C., & McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (268th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell, R. E., & Parkins, J. R. (2011). The challenge of developing social indicators for cumulative effects assessment and land use planning. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  30. Norris, J. I. (2007). Happiness comes of age. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (p. 546). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nydegger, R. (2004). Gender and mental health: Incidence and treatment issues. Praeger Guide to the Psychology of Gender, 93–116.Google Scholar
  32. Okun, M. A., & George, L. K. (1984). Physician-and self-ratings of health, neuroticism and subjective well-being among men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(5), 533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinette, J. W., Charles, S. T., Mogle, J. A., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). Neighborhood cohesion and daily well-being: Results from a diary study. Social science & medicine (1982), 96, 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapiro, A., Lee, C. L., & Keyes, M. (2008). Marital status and social well-being: Are the married always better off? Social Indicators Research, 88, 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shmotkin, D. (1990). Subjective well-being as a function of age and gender: A multivariate look for differentiated trends. Social Indicators Research, 23(3), 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stocks, A., April, K. A., & Lynton, N. (2012). Locus of control and subjective well-being—A cross-cultural study. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 10(1), 17–25.Google Scholar
  39. Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 10.Google Scholar
  40. Tesch-Romer, C., Motel-Klingebiel, A., & Tomasik, M. J. (2008). Gender differences in subjective well-being: Comparing societies with respect to gender equality. Social Indictors Research, 85, 329–349. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9133-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of PsychologySouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and LearningBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations