Abstract
The primary objective of this research is to develop an integrative framework for distinguishing and classifying well-being variables. Towards this end, rigorous data-descriptive methods are used to examine the centrality of well-being variables and to explore the underlying dimensions along which these variables differ. The study uses 14 well-being variables as postulated in the tripartite model of mental well-being, including variables from 3 clusters of hedonic, psychological and social well-being. Samples from Korea, Canada, Iran and the USA are used. Centrality is conceptualized and examined under a latent variable framework. Multidimensional scaling is used to examine the underlying dimensions in the structure of well-being variables. Results show that self-acceptance, environmental mastery and purpose in life are the most central variables, whereas the most peripheral variables are autonomy, social actualization and social coherence. Multidimensional scaling uncovered 2 dimensions underlying the well-being variables: “hedonic versus eudaimonic” and “personal versus social”, facilitating a dimensional understanding of well-being. The results contribute to building a consensus in the field of well-being to advance knowledge while avoiding reductionism. The findings have implications for creating, refining and broadening well-being theories, clarifying some of the conceptual and empirical confusions in the field, selecting well-being variables for different research purposes, develo** new well-being scales and constructing well-being interventions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bilsky, W., Janik, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structural organization of human values: Evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 759–776.
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. Springer.
Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. F., & Mair, P. (2013). Applied multidimensional scaling. Springer.
Bringmann, L. F., Elmer, T., Epskamp, S., Krause, R. W., Schoch, D., Wichers, M., Wigman, J. T. W., & Snippe, E. (2019). What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(8), 892–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000446
Büyükkurt, B. K., & Büyükkurt, M. D. (1990). Robustness and small-sample properties of the estimators of probabilistic multidimensional scaling (PROSCAL). Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 139–149.
Carlquist, E., Ulleberg, P., Delle Fave, A., Nafstad, H. E., & Blakar, R. M. (2016). Everyday Understandings of Happiness, Good Life and Satisfaction: Three Different Facets of Well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12(2), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9472-9
Chan, C. H. Y., Chan, T. H. Y., Leung, P. P. Y., Brenner, M. J., Wong, V. P. Y., Leung, E. K. T., & Chan, C. L. W. (2014). Rethinking well-being in terms of affliction and equanimity: Development of a holistic well-being scale. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 23(3–4), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2014.932550
Cicognani, E. (2014). Social well-being. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6193–6197). Springer, Netherlands.
Clark, A. E., & Senik, C. (2011). Is happiness different from flourishing? Cross-country evidence from the ESS. Revue D’économie Politique, 121, 17–34.
Commandeur, J. J. F. and Heiser, W. J. (1993). Mathematical derivations in the proximity scaling (PROXSCAL) of symmetric data matrices (Tech. Rep. No. RR-93–03). Leiden, The Netherlands: Department of Data Theory, Leiden University.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023059
Davison, M. L., & Sireci, S. G. (2000). Multidimensional scaling. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 325–349). American Psychological Association.
Delle Fave, A. (2014). Eudaimonic and hedonic happiness. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1999–2004). Springer, Netherlands.
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.
Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Wissing, M. P., Araujo, U., Castro Solano, A., Freire, T., & Soosai-Nathan, L. (2016). Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00030
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 403–425.
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
Feldman, F. (2008). Whole life satisfaction concepts of happiness. Theoria, 74, 219–238.
Gelfand, M., Duan, L., & Pinkley, R. (2005). When, where and how: The use of multidimensional scaling methods in the study of negotiation and social conflict. International Negotiation, 10(1), 79–96.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis. W. B. Saunders Co.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., Ryan, R. M., Saunders, S., Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The Structure of Goal Contents Across 15 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 800–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.800
Hallquist, M. N., Wright, A. G. C., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2019). Problems with Centrality Measures in Psychopathology Symptom Networks: Why Network Psychometrics Cannot Escape Psychometric Theory. Multivariate Behavioral Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1640103
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2009). Acceptance and commitment therapy. American Psychological Association.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
Holowchak, M. A. (2004). Happiness and Greek ethical thought. Continuum.
Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 62–90. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v4i1.4
Hooley, J. M., Butcher, J. N., Nock, M., & Mineka, S. (2017). Abnormal psychology (17th ed.). . Pearson.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.
Hout, M. C., Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2013). Multidimensional scaling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(1), 93–103.
Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations: Theoretical considerations and research findings. In E. J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 215–231). Springer.
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. Guilford Press.
Joshanloo, M. (2017). 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.
Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475–493.
Joshanloo, M. (2016). 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.
Joshanloo, M. (2018). Longitudinal associations between subjective and psychological well-being in Japan: A four-year cross-lagged panel study. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 289–292.
Joshanloo, M. (2019a). Investigating the relationships between subjective well-being and psychological well-being over two decades. Emotion, 19(1), 183–187.
Joshanloo, M. (2019b). Factor structure and measurement invariance of the MHC-SF in the USA. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 521–525.
Joshanloo, M. (2019c). Structural and discriminant validity of the tripartite model of mental well-being: Differential relationships with the Big Five traits. Journal of Mental Health, 28(2), 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2017.1370633
Joshanloo, M. (2020). The structure of the MHC-SF in a large American sample: contributions of multidimensional scaling. Journal of Mental Health, 29(2), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2018.1466044
Joshanloo, M., & Jovanović, V. (2018). Similarities and differences in predictors of life satisfaction across age groups: A 150-country study. Journal of Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318819054
Joshanloo, M., & Weijers, D. (2019). A two-dimensional conceptual framework for understanding mental well-being. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0214045. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214045
Joshanloo, M., Jovanović, V., & Park, J. (2021). Differential relationships of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being with self-control and long-term orientation. Japanese Psychological Research, 63(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12276
Joshanloo, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Park, J. (2018). Directionality of the relationship between social well-being and subjective well-being: Evidence from a 20-year longitudinal study. Quality of Life Research, 27(8), 2137–2145.
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2013). Promoting and protecting positive mental health: Early and often throughout the lifespan. In C. L. M. Keyes (Ed.), Mental well-being: International contributions to the study of positive mental health (pp. 3–28). Springer, Netherlands.
Keyes, C. L. M., & Shapiro, A. D. (2004). Social well-being in the United States: A descriptive epidemiology. In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & R. C. Kessler (Eds.), How healthy are we?A national study of well-being at midlife (pp. 350–372). Univ. of Chicago Press.
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.
Kim, M. S., Kim, H. W., & Cha, K. H. (2001). Analyses on the construct of psychological well-being (PWB) of Korean male and female adults. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 15(2), 19–39.
Klar, M., & Kasser, T. (2009). Some benefits of being an activist: Measuring activism and its role in psychological well-being. Political Psychology, 30, 755–777.
Krauss, S. W., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (2013). A new approach to religious orientation: the commitment-reflectivity circumplex. Rodopi.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Sage.
Larson, J. S. (1993). The measurement of social well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28(3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01079022
Lee, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-C., Huang, C.-L., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2012). The construct and measurement of peace of mind. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(2), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9343-5
Legatum Institute. (2017). The 2017 Legatum Prosperity Index. https://prosperitysite.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/3515/1187/1128/Legatum_Prosperity_Index_2017.pdf
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. Crown.
Martela, F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2019). Clarifying the concept of well-being: Psychological need satisfaction as the common core connecting eudaimonic and subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019880886
Mroczek, D. K., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1333–1349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1333
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159–168.
Ng, V., Tay, L., & Kuykendall, L. (2018). The development and validation of a measure of character: The CIVIC. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 346–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1291850
Pett, M. A., Lackey. N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis. Thousand. Oaks, CA: Sage.
Posner, J., Russell, J. A., & Peterson, B. S. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 715–734.
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.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D. (2016). Beautiful Ideas and the scientific enterprise: Sources of intellectual vitality in research on eudaimonic well-being. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 95–107). Springer.
Ryff, C. D., Almeida, D., Ayanian, J., Binkley, N., Carr, D. S., Coe, C., . . . Williams, D. (2017). Midlife in the United States (MIDUS Refresher), 2011–2014. Retrieved from www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/36532/summary
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Positive balance: a hierarchical perspective of positive mental health. Quality of Life Research, 28(7), 1921–1930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02145-5
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
VanderWeele, T. J., Trudel-Fitzgerald, C., Allin, P., Farrelly, C., Fletcher, G., Frederick, D. E., Hall, J., Helliwell, J. F., Kim, E. S., Lauinger, W. A., Lee, M. T., Lyubomirsky, S., Margolis, S., McNeely, E., Messer, N., Tay, L., Viswanath, V., Węziak-Białowolska, D., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2020). Current recommendations on the selection of measures for well-being. Preventive Medicine, 133, 106004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106004
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
Vittersø, J. (2016). The most important idea in the world: An introduction. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 1–24). Springer International Publishing.
Vittersø, J., & Søholt, Y. (2011). Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal growth goes with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.584548
Waterman, A. S. (2013). Eudaimonia: Contrasting two conceptions of happiness: Hedonia and eudaimonia. In J. Parks (Ed.), Activities for teaching positive psychology: A guide for instructors (pp. 29–34). American Psychological Association.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Bede Agocha, V., & Brent Donnellan, M. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61.
World Health Organization. (2001). Basic documents (43rd ed.). . World Health Organization.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
The studies were conducted in compliance with all ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from participants.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Joshanloo, M. Centrality and Dimensionality of 14 Indicators of Mental Well-Being in Four Countries: Develo** an Integrative Framework to Guide Theorizing and Measurement. Soc Indic Res 158, 727–750 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02723-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02723-6