STRUCTURAL HIERARCHY OF WELL-BEING Janek Musek University of Ljubljana SLOVENIA 2008 OPATIJA

Outline Underlying theoretical models Problem and hypotheses Method Results of multivariate analyses Hierarchical structure of WB WB and personality General discussion Concluding remarks

Underlying theoretical models Well-being (WB) is the central concept in positive psychology Related to the concepts as happiness, life satisfaction, meaning of life, positive and negative emotionality, optimism, hope, flow, good life and others Is a crucial component of the quality of life (more than sociological or economic components of quality of life) Three theoretical positions in conceptualizing WB Hedonic model (subjective emotional well-being, SEWB; Diener, 2000 among others) Eudaimonic model (psychological well-being, PWB; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) Self-determination model (SD; Deci & Ryan, 2000)

Hedonic model The structure of SEWB (Lucas, Diener & Suh, 1996) Cognitive Satisfaction of life Affective/emotional Positive affect Negative affect

Eudaimonic model The structure of PWB Self-acceptance Mastery of environment Personal growth Positive relatedness Life purpose Autonomy

Self-determination model Attempting to integrate hedonic and eudaimonic position Emphasizes the role of basic needs satisfaction Autonomy Competence Relatedness

Problem and hypotheses All three models insist in multidimensionality However, the evidence of a strong common factor in all models is overwhelming (Kozma, 1996; Lucas, Diener & Suh, 1996; Abbott et al., 2006; Hauser & Springer, 2003; Springer & Hauser, 2006a,b; Ryff & Singer, 2006) Therefore we need to clarify the question of the structure of WB According to this, I proposed a hypothetical hierarchical model of WB A definite strong common dimension is hypothesized at the apex of the structure (general factor of well-being, gWB) Additionally we may expect a number of dimensions on the next level(s) of the structural hierarchy, possibly related to the hedonic, eudaimonic and self-determination components Finally we may expect the substantial relations of gWB and other dimensions in the model with other important psychological variables (personality dimensions, self-esteem and others)

Method Design Sample(s) Apparatus Data analyses Multivariate N=914 (250 men, 664 women; age 16 to 81 years; mean age 34,114; SD 10,89) BPNS fulfilled only subsample with N=301 (120 men, 181 women; age 16 to 73 years, mean age 36,95, SD 10,37) Apparatus SWLS (Satisfaction with Life Scale; Diener, 1985) PANAS (The Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) PWBS, short version (Psychological Well-being Scale; Ryff, 1989, 1995; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) BPNS (Basic Psychological Needs Scale; Gagne, 2003) BFI (Big Five Inventory: John & Srivastava, 1999) A number of other variables including other crucial variables of positive psychology (happiness, optimism, hope, flow…), self-esteem, coping, personal hardiness, burnout and so on (results not being mentioned here) All Slovenian translated versions with solid (acceptable to very good) psychometric characteristics Data analyses Multivariate analyses including testing SEM models Analyzed source data: 12 scales (SWLS, PA, NA, 6 of PWBS, 3 of BPNS) and 71 items (5 SWLS, 10 PA, 10 NA, 25 PWBS, 21 BPNS) respectively

Results and discussion Interscale correlations Factorizability and factor extraction criteria Exploratory analyses Confirmatory analyses Hierarchical structural model derived from analyses Main connections with personality dimensions including higher order personality factors

Interscale correlations All scales correlate significantly and most correlations are quite substantial Similar results for interitem correlations (being omitted here for the sake of sparing space and time)

Factorizability The criteria (KMO, Bartlett’s test of sphericity) suggested very good factorizability for both scales and item solutions For both data sources, the general factor solution is strongly supported (Cronbach Alpha = 0,922 (0,960 for item data); McDonald Omega coefficient = 0,818 (0,686 for item data); Schmid Leiman transformation; factor fit coefficients) Consequently, acceleration factor suggested one-factor solution for both scale and items data Other extraction criteria suggested one-factor solution (scree and parallel tests) and two-factor solution (Kaiser criterion) for scale data and two-, three-, and five-factor (scree test), seven-factor solution (parallel test, optimal coordinates) and 16-factor-solution (Kaiser criterion) for item data Thus I have chosen 1- and 2-factor solution for scale level data and 1-, 2-, 3-, and 7-factor solution for item level data; consequently we may speak of General factor (1), broad factors (2-3), first-orders (7) Among several factor and other multivariate analyses, I will focus here mainly on ML solutions

Exploratory factor analyses Factor loadings for WB scales (one- and two-factor solutions – PC, PA, ML algorithm) Correlations of item-level factors with WB scales (one-, two-, three- and seven-factor solution, ML)

Exploratory factor analyses (cont.) Correlations between higher orders of scale and item data High correlations between corresponding dimensions (for instance g-factors from scale and item data /,995/; similar, only slightly lower for corresponding broad factors) Still very substantial (and practically the same) association between non-corresponding broad factors (,67 for scale data and -,66 for item data)

“Colors” of WB dimensions How the dimensions are “colored”: how are they connected with SEWB, PsWB and SD generals? The differences between correlations are small, there is some prevalence in each category of WB for obtained dimensions (both on scale and item level)

Confirmatory factor analyses A number of CFAs, including one-factor, hierarchical and bifactor solutions Example: one-factor solution for 12 WB scales (gFW=gWB) Theoretical reasons for modifications: Item similarities (in formulation, social desirable content, evaluative semantic meaning…) Similar item formulation characteristics (PA and NA in PANAS): one-worth adjectives Social desirability and evaluative semantic meaning influencing the responses to items and scales

Structural hierarchy of WB gWB bfEUD bfHED bfPE bfNE bfSAT MAUT PE PLESS GRO NE REL SAT facets items

Higher order factors of WB and personality Correlations between H-O factors of both domains

Conclusions Dimensions of WB based on three theoretical perspectives (SEWB, PWB, self-determination WB) are substantially correlated Multivariate analyses of these dimensions suggest the existence of a definite structural hierarchy of WB At the apex of the hierarchy, there is a strong general factor of WB (accounting for more than 50% of the variance of 12 WB scales); therefore, the most known and mostly used measures of WB are quite redundant At the next levels we can find two to three broad factors of WB resembling the known higher-order dimensions of SEWB and PB and representing also the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic WB About 7 further dimensions with distinct psychological meaning (first orders of WB scale items) are located on the next hierarchical level Lower levels of the hierarchy are represented by facets and items of first order dimensions All higher-order dimensions of WB are remarkably correlated with the higher order dimensions of personality (Big Five, Big Two and Big One) The correlation between gWB and the Big One (gFP) is especially impressive Practical consequences In methodology: great redundancy of WB measures Caution in interpreting (sub)scales Very broad predictive power of gWB

References Musek, J., Avsec, A. (2002). Pozitivna psihologija: Subjektivni (emocionalni) blagor in zadovoljstvo z življenjem. Anthropos, 2002, 1-3, str. 41-68. (z obsežnim seznamom literature) Musek, J., Avsec, A. (2005). Psihološke in kognitivne študije osebnosti. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete. Str. 173-195. Musek, J. (2005). Psihološke dimenzije osebnosti. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Str. 101-130. Musek, J. (1999). Psihološki modeli in teorije osebnosti. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Str. 257-276. Rushton, J. P., Bons, T. A., & Hur, Y. M. (2008). The genetics and evolution of the General factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, In Press. March 3, 2008. Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233.

Additional Abbott RA, Ploubidis GB, Huppert FA, Kuh D, Wadsworth MEJ, Croudace TJ (2006), “ Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being items in a UK birth cohort sample of women” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 4:76 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942. Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199-223. Kozma, A. (1996). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to an understanding of subjective well-being. World Conference on Quality of Life, University of Northen British Columbia, Prince George, Canada. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Ryff CD, Singer BH. Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research. 2006;35:1102–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.01.002. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y. in Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325-339. Springer KW, Hauser RM, Freese J. Bad news indeed for Ryff's six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research. 2006;35:1119–30. Springer KW, Hauser RM: An assessment of the construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being: method, mode and measurement effects. Social Science Research 2006, 35(4):1079-1110. Tafarodi, R. W. in Swann, W. B., Jr. (2001). Two-dimensional self-esteem: Theory and measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 653-673.