Two Concepts or Two Approaches? A Bifactor Analysis of Psychological and Subjective Well-Being

Abstract

Researchers often debate about whether there is a meaningful differentiation between psychological well-being and subjective well-being. One view argues that psychological and subjective well-being are distinct dimensions, whereas another view proposes that they are different perspectives on the same general construct and thus are more similar than different. The purpose of this investigation was to examine these two competing views by using a statistical approach, the bifactor model, that allows for an examination of the common variance shared by the two types of well-being and the unique variance specific to each. In one college sample and one nationally representative sample, the bifactor model revealed a strong general factor, which captures the common ground shared by the measures of psychological well-being and subjective well-being. The bifactor model also revealed four specific factors of psychological well-being and three specific factors of subjective well-being, after partialling out the general well-being factor. We further examined the relations of the specific factors of psychological and subjective well-being to external measures. The specific factors demonstrated incremental predictive power, independent of the general well-being factor. These results suggest that psychological well-being and subjective well-being are strongly related at the general construct level, but their individual components are distinct once their overlap with the general construct of well-being is partialled out. The findings thus indicate that both perspectives have merit, depending on the level of analysis.

Support for a general factor of well-being

“…Nevertheless, taken together, the findings are consistent in showing that indicators of well-being seem to reflect a single general dimension, more than a distinction between positive feeling and positive functioning (e.g. Chen et al, 2013;de Bruin & Du Plessis, 2015;Gallagher et al, 2009;Jovanovic, 2015).…”

“…Thus, in a bifactor model each indicator is allowed to load both on a general factor and on a specific factor. In several studies a bifactor model fit well-being data better than a higherorder model (Chen, Jing, Hayes & Lee, 2013;Jovanovic, 2015) with the general factor explaining most of the variance in well-being indicators (Chen et al, 2013;de Bruin & Du Plessis, 2015;Jovanovic, 2015). These findings suggest that indicators of wellbeing (e.g.…”

A Review of Leadership Styles and Employee's Well-being in Different Types of Organizations

“…These evaluations include people's emotional reactions to particular events, moods, and judgments of their life satisfaction, fulfillment, and satisfaction with domains such as family and work [14]. Chen et al found that the results from the bifactor model study of well-being confirmed that Psychological Well-Being and Subjective Well-Being were two related constructs [15]. This finding provided support for the notion that PWB and SWB were conceptually related to constructing.…”

Relational motivation and well‐being: A cross‐cultural comparison

“…A person's well-being can be defined in a variety of ways, but these variations in definition appear to fall into one of two categories: hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (also known as subjective and psychological wellbeing, respectively; see Chen, Jing, Hayes, & Lee, 2013). The following section defines these forms of well-being, and proposes the ways in which PARs, RARs, and culture relate to them.…”