Measures of Subjective Well-Being

Andrews, Frank M.; Robinson, John P.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50007-1

Cited by 388 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The life satisfaction measure was an adaptation of Cantril's (1965) Self-Anchoring Scale, and it asked respondents to "rate their life overall these days" on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 ϭ worst possible life overall and 10 ϭ the best possible life overall. Variants of Cantril's measure have been used extensively in numerous studies worldwide, usually providing satisfactory psychometric properties (Andrews & Robinson, 1991). The affect measure asked respondents to indicate how much of the time during the past 30 days they felt six types of negative and six types of positive indicators of affect, on a scale ranging from none of the time (1) to all of the time (5).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions.

Keyes¹,

Shmotkin²,

Ryff³

2002

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

2,363

1,426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjective well-being (SWB) is evaluation of life in terms of satisfaction and balance between positive and negative affect; psychological well-being (PWB) entails perception of engagement with existential challenges of life. The authors hypothesized that these research streams are conceptually related but empirically distinct and that combinations of them relate differentially to sociodemographics and personality. Data are from a national sample of 3,032 Americans aged 25-74. Factor analyses confirmed the related-but-distinct status of SWB and PWB. The probability of optimal well-being (high SWB and PWB) increased as age, education, extraversion, and conscientiousness increased and as neuroticism decreased. Compared with adults with higher SWB than PWB, adults with higher PWB than SWB were younger, had more education, and showed more openness to experience.Research on well-being has flourished in recent decades (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999), with increasing recognition of the different streams of inquiry guiding this broad domain. Ryan and Deci's (2001) integrative review organized the field of well-being into two broad traditions: one dealing with happiness (hedonic well-being), and one dealing with human potential (eudaimonic well-being; Ryan & Deci, 2001; see also Waterman, 1993). In the present study, we draw and extend these distinctions, which we refer to as traditions of research on subjective well-being (SWB) and psychological well-being (PWB). We use these terms to underscore the fact that studies of SWB have repeatedly included not only affective indicators of happiness (hedonic well-being) but also cognitive assessments of life satisfaction. In addition, some aspects of PWB (e.g., personal growth, purpose in life) but not others (e.g., positive relations with others, self-acceptance) reflect the self-fulfillment meanings of eudaimonic well-being. As described below, SWB and PWB are also the overarching phrases most frequently used in studies that constitute these traditions, both of which are fundamentally concerned with subjective accounts of well-being.Our specific empirical aims are to examine whether indicators of SWB and PWB constitute taxonomically distinct reflections of well-being in a national sample of U.S. adults. Although both approaches assess well-being, they address different features of what it means to be well: SWB involves more global evaluations of affect and life quality, whereas PWB examines perceived thriving vis-à-vis the existential challenges of life (e.g., pursuing meaningful goals, growing and developing as a person, establishing quality ties to others). We further test the hypothesis that these distinct varieties of well-being are contoured by the broad categories of sociodemographic and personality factors. Specifically, we investigate the role of location in the life course (i.e., age) and position in the socioeconomic hierarchy (e.g., educational status) as well as personality traits in accounting for different profiles of well-...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions.

Keyes¹,

Shmotkin²,

Ryff³

2002

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

2,363

1,426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…24 This score showed a considerable variation when measurements were made twice within 2 weeks in patients with CLBP. 16 Patients rated their overall function by the Global Back Disability question, answered only at the 1-year follow-up visit.…”

Section: Registered Medical Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized Clinical Trial of Lumbar Instrumented Fusion and Cognitive Intervention and Exercises in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain and Disc Degeneration

Brox

Sorensen

Friis

et al. 2003

Spine

529

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design. Single blind randomized study. Objectives. To compare the effectiveness of lumbar instrumented fusion with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration.Summary of Background Data. To the authors' best knowledge, only one randomized study has evaluated the effectiveness of lumbar fusion. The Swedish Lumbar Spine Study reported that lumbar fusion was better than continuing physiotherapy and care by the family physician.Patients and Methods. Sixty-four patients aged 25-60 years with low back pain lasting longer than 1 year and evidence of disc degeneration at L4 -L5 and/or L5-S1 at radiographic examination were randomized to either lumbar fusion with posterior transpedicular screws and postoperative physiotherapy, or cognitive intervention and exercises. The cognitive intervention consisted of a lecture to give the patient an understanding that ordinary physical activity would not harm the disc and a recommendation to use the back and bend it. This was reinforced by three daily physical exercise sessions for 3 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index.Results. At the 1-year follow-up visit, 97% of the patients, including 6 patients who had either not attended treatment or changed groups, were examined. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly reduced from 41 to 26 after surgery, compared with 42 to 30 after cognitive intervention and exercises. The mean difference between groups was 2.3 (Ϫ6.7 to 11.4) (P ϭ 0.33). Improvements inback pain, use of analgesics, emotional distress, life satisfaction, and return to work were not different. Fearavoidance beliefs and fingertip-floor distance were reduced more after nonoperative treatment, and lower limb pain was reduced more after surgery. The success rateaccording to an independent observer was 70% after surgery and 76% after cognitive intervention and exercises. The early complication rate in the surgical group was 18%.Conclusion. The main outcome measure showed equal improvement in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration randomized to cognitive intervention and exercises, or lumbar fusion. Lumbar fusion rates have increased greatly over the past 20 years, but the rates vary from country to country. 1 Fusion rates appear to vary markedly among individual surgeons, among small and large geographic regions in the nation, and between the United States and England. 2 Surgical investigations and interventions account for as much as one third of the health care costs for spinal disorders, but the scientific evidence for most procedures is still unclear. 3 The effect of using instruments, such as pedicle screws and cages, compared with pure osseous fusion has been compared in six randomized studies. 3 Only one of these studies reported a higher success rate in the instrumented group, but this was not a strictly randomized study, and the surgeon evaluated the outcome himself. The 1997 Volvo Award Winner concluded that lumbar posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw...

show abstract

“…For the Global Satisfaction item, we selected the item used in the Eurobarometer: "On the whole, how satisfied are you with your life?". We opted for a seven-point scale in order to discriminate minor differences in the levels of Subjective Wellbeing, from: (1) "Extremely Unhappy/Dissatisfied"; to (7) "Extremely Happy/Satisfied" (Andrews & Robinson, 1991). Global Happiness and Global Satisfaction are considered two different measures of Global SWB.…”

Section: Global Subjective Wellbeingmentioning

confidence: 99%