Veljko Jovanović, Maksim Rudnev, Christ Billy Aryanto, Beatrice Adriana Balgiu, Corrado Caudek, Jesus Alfonso D. Datu, Tharina Guse, Theodoros Kyriazos, Louise Lambert, Krishna Kumar Mishra, Rogelio Puente-Díaz, Sean P. M. Rice, Kamlesh Singh, Katsunori Sumi, Kwok Kit Tong, Saad Yaaqeib, Murat Yıldırım, Gaja Zager Kocjan, Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska
{"title":"A Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Diener’s Tripartite Model of Subjective Well-Being Across 16 Countries","authors":"Veljko Jovanović, Maksim Rudnev, Christ Billy Aryanto, Beatrice Adriana Balgiu, Corrado Caudek, Jesus Alfonso D. Datu, Tharina Guse, Theodoros Kyriazos, Louise Lambert, Krishna Kumar Mishra, Rogelio Puente-Díaz, Sean P. M. Rice, Kamlesh Singh, Katsunori Sumi, Kwok Kit Tong, Saad Yaaqeib, Murat Yıldırım, Gaja Zager Kocjan, Magdalena Żemojtel-Piotrowska","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00781-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Subjective well-being (SWB) is a multidimensional construct with three components (i.e., life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) comprising the tripartite model. Yet, despite numerous studies in the field of SWB, the cross-cultural validity of the tripartite structure is still largely unknown. The present study evaluated competing models of SWB’s structure across 16 countries (<i>N</i> = 8860 undergraduate students; age range = 18–29 years; 63.6% female) and examined its measurement invariance using both exact and approximate approaches. The exploratory structural equation model (ESEM) of tripartite SWB that allowed small cross-loadings provided the best fit to the data in the majority of countries, and it demonstrated a high level of approximate invariance, which allows for a comparison of means across countries. A bifactor model with an omitted Positive Affect factor also fit well in all samples making the measurement of the general SWB possible; however, it was less robust for cross-cultural comparisons. The correlations between the three latent SWB factors were consistent across most countries, with a few meaningful exceptions. We conclude that ESEM model represents the tripartite structure of SWB robustly both within and across countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00781-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Subjective well-being (SWB) is a multidimensional construct with three components (i.e., life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) comprising the tripartite model. Yet, despite numerous studies in the field of SWB, the cross-cultural validity of the tripartite structure is still largely unknown. The present study evaluated competing models of SWB’s structure across 16 countries (N = 8860 undergraduate students; age range = 18–29 years; 63.6% female) and examined its measurement invariance using both exact and approximate approaches. The exploratory structural equation model (ESEM) of tripartite SWB that allowed small cross-loadings provided the best fit to the data in the majority of countries, and it demonstrated a high level of approximate invariance, which allows for a comparison of means across countries. A bifactor model with an omitted Positive Affect factor also fit well in all samples making the measurement of the general SWB possible; however, it was less robust for cross-cultural comparisons. The correlations between the three latent SWB factors were consistent across most countries, with a few meaningful exceptions. We conclude that ESEM model represents the tripartite structure of SWB robustly both within and across countries.
期刊介绍:
The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work.
The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields.
The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments.
The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes.
Central Questions include, but are not limited to:
Conceptualization:
What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being?
How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life?
Operationalization and Measurement:
Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life?
How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain?
What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions?
Prevalence and causality
Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings?
How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)?
What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions?
Evaluation:
What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress?
Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers?
Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health?
Interdisciplinary studies:
How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines?
Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research?
What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?