The Role of Flourishing in Relationship between Positive and Negative Life Events and Affective Well-Being
- 100 Downloads
In past research differing effects of life events on well-being are observed. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between frequency and importance of positive and negative life events and affective well-being, and to explore the role of flourishing in moderating this relationship in the general population. The study comprised data from convenience sample of adult Internet users (N = 5031) who in on-line survey rated the positive and negative affect over the last month, level of flourishing, reported the occurrence of 28 positive and 28 negative life events and rated the importance of each event happened in previous year. While controlling for socio-demographic variables, results showed that frequencies of both positive and negative events were associated with positive affect. However, only frequency and importance of negative events were associated with negative affect. Flourishing moderated the effect of importance of both positive and negative events on negative affect. People higher in flourishing showed trend of decreased negative affect with increased importance of negative life events, as well as with increased importance of positive life events. Findings are discussed within Fredrickson’s broaden and build theory, people who flourish might be more resourceful in coping with perceived higher impact of negative life events while important positive events could help in building personal resources.
KeywordsAffective well-being Flourishing Positive life events Negative life events
We thank the participants for their cooperation during the survey.
This work has been fully supported by Croatian Science Foundation under the project „Croatian longitudinal study on well-being” (IP-2014-09-4398).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.
- Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. A. (2013). Psychological wellbeing and the diathesis-stress hypothesis model: The role of psychological functioning and quality of relations in promoting subjective well-being in a life events study. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2019). Well-being interventions to improve societies. In Sachs, J., Layard, R., & Helliwell (Eds.) Global happiness policy report 2019: Global Happiness Council.Google Scholar
- Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2013). The social context of well-being. In B. S. Frey & A. Stutzer (Eds.), Recent developments in the economics of happiness. (pp. 309–320). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
- Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Mao, Y., Roberts, S., Pagliaro, S., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2016). Optimal experience and optimal identity: A multinational study of the associations between flow and social identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Pavot, W. (2008). The assessments of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 124–140). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Pieterse, M. E., Drossaert, C. C., Westerhof, G. J., de Graaf, R., ten Have, M., Walburg, J. A., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2016). What factors are associated with flourishing? Results from a large representative national sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1351–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Selya, A. S., Rose, J. S., Dierker, L. C., Hedeker, D., & Mermelstein, R. J. (2012). A practical guide to calculating Cohen’s f2, a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.Google Scholar
- Wright, T. A. (2005). The role of “happiness” in organizational organizational research: Past, present and future directions. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being, 4, 221–264. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.Google Scholar