Support for a general factor of well-being
Well-being is typically defined as positive feeling (e.g. happiness), positive functioning (e.g. competence, meaning) or a combination of the two. Recent evidence indicates that well-being indicators belonging to different categories can be explained by single “general” factor of well-being (e.g. Jo...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/32767/ |
| _version_ | 1848794484837449728 |
|---|---|
| author | Longo, Ylieno Coyne, Iain Joseph, Stephen Gustavsson, Petter |
| author_facet | Longo, Ylieno Coyne, Iain Joseph, Stephen Gustavsson, Petter |
| author_sort | Longo, Ylieno |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Well-being is typically defined as positive feeling (e.g. happiness), positive functioning (e.g. competence, meaning) or a combination of the two. Recent evidence indicates that well-being indicators belonging to different categories can be explained by single “general” factor of well-being (e.g. Jovanovic, 2015). We further test this hypothesis using a recent well-being scale, which includes indicators of positive feeling and positive functioning (Huppert & So, 2013). While the authors of the scale originally identified a two-factor structure, in view of recent evidence, we hypothesize that the two-factor solution may be due to a method effect of different items being measured with different rating scales. In study 1, we use data from the European Social Survey round 3 (n = 41,461) and find that two factors have poor discriminant validity and, after using a bifactor model to account for different rating scales, only the general factor is reliable. In study 2, we eliminate method effects by using the same rating scale across items, recruit a new sample (n = 507), and find that a one-factor model fits the data well. The results support the hypothesis that well-being indicators, typically categorized as “positive feeling” and “positive functioning,” reflect a single general factor. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:16:56Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-32767 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:16:56Z |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-327672020-05-04T17:46:58Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/32767/ Support for a general factor of well-being Longo, Ylieno Coyne, Iain Joseph, Stephen Gustavsson, Petter Well-being is typically defined as positive feeling (e.g. happiness), positive functioning (e.g. competence, meaning) or a combination of the two. Recent evidence indicates that well-being indicators belonging to different categories can be explained by single “general” factor of well-being (e.g. Jovanovic, 2015). We further test this hypothesis using a recent well-being scale, which includes indicators of positive feeling and positive functioning (Huppert & So, 2013). While the authors of the scale originally identified a two-factor structure, in view of recent evidence, we hypothesize that the two-factor solution may be due to a method effect of different items being measured with different rating scales. In study 1, we use data from the European Social Survey round 3 (n = 41,461) and find that two factors have poor discriminant validity and, after using a bifactor model to account for different rating scales, only the general factor is reliable. In study 2, we eliminate method effects by using the same rating scale across items, recruit a new sample (n = 507), and find that a one-factor model fits the data well. The results support the hypothesis that well-being indicators, typically categorized as “positive feeling” and “positive functioning,” reflect a single general factor. Elsevier 2016-04-12 Article PeerReviewed Longo, Ylieno, Coyne, Iain, Joseph, Stephen and Gustavsson, Petter (2016) Support for a general factor of well-being. Personality and Individual Differences . ISSN 0191-8869 Structure of well-being; flourishing; factor analysis; unidimensionality; positive feeling; positive functioning; hedonic well-being; eudaimonic well-being http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916302367 doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.082 doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.082 |
| spellingShingle | Structure of well-being; flourishing; factor analysis; unidimensionality; positive feeling; positive functioning; hedonic well-being; eudaimonic well-being Longo, Ylieno Coyne, Iain Joseph, Stephen Gustavsson, Petter Support for a general factor of well-being |
| title | Support for a general factor of well-being |
| title_full | Support for a general factor of well-being |
| title_fullStr | Support for a general factor of well-being |
| title_full_unstemmed | Support for a general factor of well-being |
| title_short | Support for a general factor of well-being |
| title_sort | support for a general factor of well-being |
| topic | Structure of well-being; flourishing; factor analysis; unidimensionality; positive feeling; positive functioning; hedonic well-being; eudaimonic well-being |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/32767/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/32767/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/32767/ |