The Construct and Measurement of Peace of Mind

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that Asian American or Chinese individuals value low-arousal positive affect and a harmonious state of happiness more than European Americans do. However, the affective component of subjective well-being has mostly been defined as the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect. This definition emphasizes the importance of hedonic pleasure but fails to include the affect valued in Chinese culture. The present study developed the construct of peace of mind to describe the affective well-being valued in Chinese culture. Peace of mind was defined as an internal state of peacefulness and harmony. To develop a measure to assess peace of mind, three studies were conducted. Study 1 developed the Peace of Mind Scale (PoM), Study 2 established its validity as an affective well-being measure, and Study 3 found that individuals from Chinese cultures score higher on this scale than those from Western cultures. The results indicate that the PoM has good reliability and validity for measuring affective well-being. The cross-cultural validation also found that Taiwanese individuals scored higher on the PoM than European Americans, which provides further evidence of good construct validity of the PoM.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Chung-Yuan Christian University is one of the general universities in Taiwan. Students are neither required to be members of the religion nor expected to study or practice the tenets of Christianity.

  2. 2.

    The items of the PoM were originally written in Chinese. In order to develop the English version of the PoM for the Study 3, semantic similarity of items was considered to avoid duplicity which can improve the equivalence of translation.

References

  1. Andrews, F. M., & Robinson, J. P. (1991). Measures of subjective well-being. In J. P. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 189–203). North-Holland: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100, 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1984). Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 871–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 119–139). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Diener, E., Suh, E., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 34, 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1998). The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: An exploration of an evolutionary view. Psychological Medicine, 28, 585–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins, E. T., Grant, H., & Shah, J. (1999). Self-regulation and quality of life: Emotional and non-emotional life experiences. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 244–266). New York: Russell Sage foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hu, L., & Bentler, O. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kampfe, N., & Mitte, K. (2009). What you wish is what you get? The meaning of individual variability in desired affect and affective discrepancy. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 409–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kohn, L. (2001). Daoism and Chinese culture. Cambridge: Three Pines Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Problems and promises with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee, Y. T., Yang, H. G., & Wang, M. (2009). Daoist harmony as a Chinese philosophy and psychology. Peace and Conflict Studies, 16, 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liao, L. Y. (2000). The new scale of social desirability responding in Taiwan and psychological process analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

  25. Little, T. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture, self and ways to achieve SWB: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 5, 51–79.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Sources of happiness: A qualitative approach. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mitchell, S. (1988). Tao te ching. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mitchell, D. W. (2002). Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist experience. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Niedenthal, P. M., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2006). Self-conscious emotions. In P. M. Niedenthal, S. Krauth-Gruber, & F. Ric (Eds.), Psychology of emotion (pp. 77–114). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Oishi, S. (2001). Culture and memory for emotional experiences: On-line vs. retrospective judgment of subjective well-being (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 5625.

  32. Okazaki, S. (2000). Asian American and White American differences on affective distress symptoms: Do symptom reports differ across reporting methods? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 603–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peterson, C. (1999). Personal control and well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 288–301). New York: Russell Sage foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: An accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ryff, R. M. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference Chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 1378–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vandenberg, R. (2002). Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wallace, B., & Shapiro, S. L. (2006). Mental balance and well-being: Building bridges between Buddhism and western psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 690–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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, 1063–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Whiteside-Mansell, L., & Corwyn, R. F. (2003). Mean and covariance structures analyses: An examination of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale among adolescents and adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wong, Y. H., & Leung, T. K. (2001). Guanxi: Relationship marketing in a Chinese context. NewYork: Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported in part by a grant of National Science Council, Taiwan (NSC 99-2410-H-033-056).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Chen Lee.

Appendix: The Peace of Mind Scale

Appendix: The Peace of Mind Scale

How often do you feel internal peace and ease in your daily life? Use the following scale to indicate your response.

1 = Not at all

2 = Some of the time

3 = Often

4 = Most of the time

5 = All of the time

____ 1. My mind is free and at ease.

____ 2. I feel content and comfortable with myself in daily life.

____ 3. My lifestyle gives me feelings of peace and stability.

____ 4. I have peace and harmony in my mind.

____ 5. It is difficult for me to feel settled. (–)

____ 6. The way I live brings me feelings of peace and comfort.

____ 7. I feel anxious and uneasy in my mind. (–)

Notes. Items marked (–) should be scored in reverse. The average of the item scores is an overall measure of peace of mind, with high scores indicating greater peace of mind.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, YC., Lin, YC., Huang, CL. et al. The Construct and Measurement of Peace of Mind. J Happiness Stud 14, 571–590 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9343-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Peace of mind
  • Subjective well-being
  • Low-arousal positive affect
  • Chinese culture