The Tripartite Model of Mental Well-Being in Iran: Factorial and Discriminant Validity

  • 154 Accesses

  • 3 Citations


The tripartite model of mental well-being regards well-being as a three-dimensional concept encompassing correlated yet distinct dimensions of hedonic, psychological, and social well-being. This study used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) to evaluate this model in an Iranian sample (N = 1435). It was found that the model was generally consistent with the data, although a few variables did not have strong loadings on their target factors. The ESEM model provided improved fit compared with the CFA model. The results illustrate the methodological advantages of ESEM over traditional CFA in this line of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.


  1. Ahmad, S. F. (2009). The Islamic personality: a sequential model. In A. Haque & Y. Mohamed (Eds.), Psychology of personality: Islamic perspectives (pp. 283–316). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.

  2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438. doi:10.1080/10705510903008204.

  3. Bobowik, M., Basabe, N., & Páez, D. (2015). The bright side of migration: Hedonic, psychological, and social well-being in immigrants in Spain. Social Science Research, 51, 189–204.

  4. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills: Sage.

  5. de Carvalho, J. S., Pereira, N. S., Pinto, A. M., & Marôco, J. (2016). Psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form: a study of Portuguese speaking children/youths. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2141–2154.

  6. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

  7. Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471–482.

  8. Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1049. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x.

  9. Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., & Khan, Z. H. (2007). Theoretical, empirical, and potential ideological dimensions of using Western conceptualizations to measure Muslim religious commitments. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2, 113–131.

  10. Haque, A. (2004). Psychology from Islamic perspective: contributions of early Muslim scholars and challenges to contemporary Muslim psychologists. Journal of Religion and Health, 43(4), 357–377.

  11. Heene, M., Bollmann, S., & Bühner, M. (2014). Much ado about nothing, or much to do about something? Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 245–249.

  12. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.

  13. Huq, M. (2009). The heart and personality development. In A. Haque & Y. Mohamed (Eds.), Psychology of personality: Islamic perspectives (pp. 159–181). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.

  14. Joshanloo, M. (2013). Mental well-being in Iran: the importance of comprehensive well-being in understanding the linkages of personality and values. In C. L. Keyes (Ed.), Mental well-being: international contributions to the study of subjective well-being and positive mental health (pp. 177–207). New York: Springer.

  15. Joshanloo, M. (2016a). A new look at the factor structure of the MHC-SF in Iran and the United States using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 701–713.

  16. Joshanloo, M. (2016b). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2023–2036.

  17. Joshanloo, M. (2017a). Factor structure and criterion validity of original and short versions of the negative and positive affect scale (NAPAS). Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 233–237.

  18. Joshanloo, M. (2017b). Islamic conceptions of well-being. In R. Estes & J. Sirgy (Eds.), The pursuit of human well-being: the untold global history (pp. 109–131). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

  19. Joshanloo, M., & Bakhshi, A. (2016). The factor structure and measurement invariance of positive and negative affect across gender and cultural groups: a study in Iran and the USA. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 265–272.

  20. Joshanloo, M., Bobowik, M., & Basabe, N. (2016). Distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Unpublished manuscript.

  21. Joshanloo, M., Capone, V., Petrillo, G., & Caso, D. (2017). Discriminant validity of hedonic, social, and psychological well-being in two Italian samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 23–27.

  22. Joshanloo, M., & Ghaedi, G. H. (2009). Value priorities as predictors of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 294–298.

  23. Joshanloo, M., & Lamers, S. M. A. (2016). Reinvestigation of the factor structure of the MHC-SF in the Netherlands: contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 8–12.

  24. Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2006). Examining the factor structure of the Keyes’s comprehensive scale of well-being. Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 9, 35–51 (in Persian).

  25. Joshanloo, M., Wissing, M. P., Khumalo, I. P., & Lamers, S. (2013). Measurement invariance of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) across three cultural groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 755–759.

  26. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233. doi:10.1080/17439760802303044.

  27. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140. doi:10.2307/2787065.

  28. Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). The subjective well-being of America’s youth: toward a comprehensive assessment. Adolescent & Family Health, 4(1), 3–11.

  29. Keyes, C. L., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197–201. doi:10.1080/17439760902844228.

  30. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

  31. Legatum Institute. (2012). The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index: Methodology and technical appendix. Retrieved from:

  32. Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 85–110. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.

  33. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

  34. Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 212–220.

  35. Rosellini, A. J., & Brown, T. A. (2011). The NEO five-factor inventory: latent structure and relationships with dimensions of anxiety and depressive disorders in a large clinical sample. Assessment, 18(1), 27–38.

  36. 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(1), 141–166.

  37. 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. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069.

  38. Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28.

  39. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. doi:10.1177/0011000006286345.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Mohsen Joshanloo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the conventional ethical standards applied in psychological research.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joshanloo, M., Niknam, S. The Tripartite Model of Mental Well-Being in Iran: Factorial and Discriminant Validity. Curr Psychol 38, 128–133 (2019).

Download citation


  • Tripartite model
  • Well-being
  • Hedonic
  • Eudaimonic
  • Social
  • ESEM