Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Centrality and Dimensionality of 14 Indicators of Mental Well-Being in Four Countries: Developing an Integrative Framework to Guide Theorizing and Measurement

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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, developing new well-being scales and constructing well-being interventions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. F., & Mair, P. (2013). Applied multidimensional scaling. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. E., & Senik, C. (2011). Is happiness different from flourishing? Cross-country evidence from the ESS. Revue D’économie Politique, 121, 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, F. (2008). Whole life satisfaction concepts of happiness. Theoria, 74, 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis. W. B. Saunders Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2009). Acceptance and commitment therapy. American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holowchak, M. A. (2004). Happiness and Greek ethical thought. Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooley, J. M., Butcher, J. N., Nock, M., & Mineka, S. (2017). Abnormal psychology (17th ed.). . Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hout, M. C., Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2013). Multidimensional scaling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(1), 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M. (2019a). Investigating the relationships between subjective well-being and psychological well-being over two decades. Emotion, 19(1), 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshanloo, M. (2019b). Factor structure and measurement invariance of the MHC-SF in the USA. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 521–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, S. W., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (2013). A new approach to religious orientation: the commitment-reflectivity circumplex. Rodopi.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. S. (1993). The measurement of social well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28(3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01079022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2001). Basic documents (43rd ed.). . World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeol Boulevard, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu, 42601, South Korea

    Mohsen Joshanloo

Authors
  1. Mohsen Joshanloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Joshanloo.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joshanloo, M. Centrality and Dimensionality of 14 Indicators of Mental Well-Being in Four Countries: Developing an Integrative Framework to Guide Theorizing and Measurement. Soc Indic Res 158, 727–750 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02723-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02723-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation