Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 126, Issue 2, pp 893–919 | Cite as

The Harmony in Life Scale Complements the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Expanding the Conceptualization of the Cognitive Component of Subjective Well-Being

  • O. N. E. KjellEmail author
  • D. Daukantaitė
  • K. Hefferon
  • S. Sikström
Article

Abstract

Conceptually, the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al. in J Pers Assess 49(1):71–75, 1985) emphasizes evaluations comparing actual and expected life circumstances. Contrastingly we developed the Harmony in Life Scale (HILS) emphasizing psychological balance and flexibility in life. Study 1 (476 participants) developed the HILS. In Study 2 participants (N = 787, T1; N = 545, T2) answered well-being related questionnaires and generated words/texts related to HIL/SWL. The HILS yields satisfactory statistical properties, correlates as expected to well-being related scales, whilst HIL/SWL form a two-factor model. Hierarchical regressions reveal that HILS explains considerably more unique variance than SWLS in most included measures. Quantitative semantic analyses (employing latent semantic analyses) on words related to HIL/SWL reveal that they differ significantly in their semantic content. Word frequency analyses show that harmony significantly relate to peace, balance, etc. and satisfaction with job, money, etc. The HILS demonstrates validity, reliability, and uniqueness complementing the SWLS in forming a more holistic understanding of subjective well-being.

Keywords

Harmony in life Satisfaction with life Happiness Subjective well-being Sustainable well-being Latent semantic analyses 

References

  1. Abdallah, S., Michaelson, J., Shah, S., Stoll, L., & Marks, N. (2012). The Happy Planer Index—2012 report: A Global index of sustainable well-being. London: nef (the new economics foundation).Google Scholar
  2. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvidsson, D., Sikstrom, S., & Werbart, A. (2011). Changes in self and object representations following psychotherapy measured by a theory-free, computational, semantic space method. Psychotherapy Research, 21(4), 430–446. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2011.577824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191–206. doi: 10.1177/1073191104268029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, D. A., & Mo, Y. (2014). Harmony in the world 2013: The ideal and the reality. Social Indicators Research,. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0439-z.Google Scholar
  7. Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2013). The assessment of mindfulness with self-report measures: Existing scales and open issues. Mindfulness, 4(3), 191–202. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0110-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), 6(1), 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Christopher, J. C. (1999). Situating psychological well-being: Exploring the cultural roots of its theory and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77(2), 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. doi: 10.1037/h0047358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General Psychology, 15(2), 138–157. doi: 10.1037/a0023059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197. doi: 10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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(2), 185–207. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9632-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.95.3.542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112(3), 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Lucas, R. E. (2009). The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of ed Diener (pp. 67–100). Social Indicators Research Series, Vol. 39. Dordrecht and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Garcia, D., Al Nima, A., & Kjell, O. N. E. (2014). The affective profiles, psychological well-being, and harmony: environmental mastery and self-acceptance predict the sense of a harmonious life. Peerj, 2, e259–e259. doi: 10.7717/peerj.259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garcia, D., & Sikström, S. (2013). Quantifying the semantic representations of adolescents’ memories of positive and negative life events. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(4), 1309–1323. doi: 10.1007/s10902-012-9385-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29(2), 253–274. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00838.x.Google Scholar
  23. Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(400), 1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2004). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation for everyday life. London: Piatkus Books.Google Scholar
  25. Kals, E., & Maes, J. (2002). Sustainable development and emotions. In P. Schmuck & P. W. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 97–122). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(4), 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kesebir, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness empirical answers to philosophical questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 117–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00069.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kjell, O. N. E. (2011). Sustainable well-being: A potential synergy between sustainability and well-being research. Review of General Psychology, 15(3), 255–266. doi: 10.1037/a0024603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302–317. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.10.4.302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common. Computer software. http://quantpsy.org
  32. Li, C. (2006). The confucian ideal of harmony. Philosophy East and West, 56(4), 583–603. doi: 10.1353/pew.2006.0055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li, C. (2008a). The ideal of harmony in ancient chinese and greek philosophy. Dao, 7(1), 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li, C. (2008b). The philosophy of harmony in classical confucianism. Philosophy Compass, 3(3), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (2nd ed.). Sydney: Psychology Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morling, B., & Evered, S. (2006). Secondary control reviewed and defined. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 269–296. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morling, B., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Defining and measuring harmony control. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(4), 379–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisfying to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oropesa, R. S. (1995). Consumer possessions, consumer passions, and subjective well-being. Sociological Forum, 10(2), 215–244. doi: 10.1007/bf02095959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119:aid-jclp2270380118>3.0.co;2-i.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using mechanical turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 213–220. doi: 10.1177/2167702612469015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sinclair, S. J., Siefert, C. J., Slavin-Mulford, J. M., Stein, M. B., Renna, M., & Blais, M. A. (2012). Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. adults. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 35(3), 259–279. doi: 10.1177/0163278711424282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tatarkiewicz, W. (1976). Analysis of happiness. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  50. Teasdale, J. D., & Chaskalson, M. (2011a). How does mindfulness transform suffering? I: The nature and origins of dukkha. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 89–102. doi: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Teasdale, J. D., & Chaskalson, M. (2011b). How does mindfulness transform suffering? II: The transformation of dukkha. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 103–124. doi: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. N. E. Kjell
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. Daukantaitė
    • 1
  • K. Hefferon
    • 2
  • S. Sikström
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of East LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations