Abstract
Purpose
The structure of well-being has been debated for millennia. Dominant conceptualisations, such as the hedonic and eudaimonic models, emphasise different constituents of the well-being construct. Some previous studies have suggested that the underlying structure of well-being may consist of one or a few general well-being factors. We conducted three studies to advance knowledge on the structure of well-being comprising more than 21,500 individuals, including a genetically informative twin sample.
Methods
In Study 1, we used hierarchical exploratory factor analysis to identify well-being factors in a population-based sample of Norwegian adults. In Study 2, we used confirmatory factor analysis to examine the model fit of the identified factor model in an independent sample. In Study 3, we used biometric models to examine genetic and environmental influences on general well-being factors.
Results
We identified six well-being factors which all loaded on a single higher-order factor. This higher-order factor may represent a general “happiness factor”, i.e. an h-factor, akin to the p-factor in psychopathology research. The identified factor model had excellent fit in an independent sample. All well-being factors showed moderate genetic and substantial non-shared environmental influence, with heritability estimates ranging from 26% to 40%. Heritability was highest for the higher-order general happiness factor.
Conclusion
Our findings yield novel insights into the structure of well-being and genetic and environmental influences on general well-being factors, with implications for well-being and mental health research, including genetically informative studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
What is happiness? This question has been asked for millennia and is an important topic in many philosophical and religious traditions. For instance, Aristotle’s writings on eudaimonia represent an early, yet still influential, inquiry into the structure of well-being [1]. Well-being is also an important theme in stoic [2] and Confucian (R. [3] philosophy. These different traditions emphasise different aspects of well-being—yet all are concerned with the question of what well-being encompasses.
The structure of well-being is also a topic of debate in research. Gallagher et al. [4] broadly distinguish between hedonic, eudaimonic, and social well-being models. A prominent example of a hedonic model is the subjective well-being (SWB) model, comprising pleasant affect, (absence of) unpleasant affect, and life satisfaction [5,6,7]. Life satisfaction has also been conceptualised as a core indicator of evaluative well-being [8]. The eudaimonic Psychological Well-being (PWB) model was proposed by Ryff [9]. It includes six components: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, a sense of purpose in life, and personal growth. Both frameworks have spawned much research [6, 10]. Other models emphasise the importance of social aspects of well-being (e.g. see Ref [11].
More recent approaches have attempted to integrate components from theoretically distinct well-being models. For instance, Keyes [12] included aspects of hedonic, eudaimonic, and social well-being in the ‘flourishing mental health’ model. Another recent model included five components: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment (PERMA) [13, 14]. Integrative efforts are supported by studies showing that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are highly correlated (e.g. [15,16,17], even though they are theoretically assumed to capture different aspects of well-being.
Recent years have seen a development towards a hierarchical framework in well-being research, mirroring other areas of psychological science [18]. Several studies have found that a few general factors largely explain variance in well-being items in hierarchical and bifactor models (e.g. see Refs [4, 15, 16, 19,20,21,22] and that models with a single factor may show similarly good or superior fit to the data [23,24,25, 27]. These studies converge to suggest that the underlying structure of well-being may consist of one or a few general well-being factors. Recent studies have also examined well-being structure using a network psychometric approach (e.g. see Refs [28, 29].
Several questions pertaining to a hierarchical framework for well-being remain unresolved. First, there are inconsistencies in the numbers of identified well-being factors across studies. Second, few studies have used items from multiple well-being measures and conceptual frameworks. Third, many studies suffer from small sample sizes and low statistical power. Fourth, most studies have tested pre-defined theoretical models using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Combining CFA with data-driven approaches, such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA), could yield new insights into well-being factors. This has only been done in a small number of studies (e.g. see Ref [17, 20, 30].
Elucidating the structure of general well-being factors could have implications for theoretical models and development. Furthermore, well-being is measured in a myriad of ways [18, 31, 32]. Heterogeneous and unsystematic conceptualisations of well-being pose a challenge for well-being research, as it may limit robustness, replicability, and comparability of findings across studies. Previous work has also highlighted the importance of sound well-being measurement for public policy (e.g. see Ref [33, 34]. Promoting population well-being is a Sustainable Development Goal [35], and evaluating developments in well-being, for instance in response to public policies, requires comprehensive measuring of the construct.
Well-being and life satisfaction are influenced by genetics to a moderate extent, with heritability estimates in the range of 30–40%, which leaves 60–70% of variance in well-being accounted for by environmental influences [36, 37]. A few studies have examined genetic and environmental effects on latent well-being factors and reported higher heritability estimates, such as 48% for a ‘well-being factor’ comprising multiple subfactors [20] and 72% for ‘mental well-being’ comprising emotional, social, and psychological well-being [38]. The genetic correlation (i.e. the genetic overlap) across well-being aspects may also be substantial [20, 39,40,41].
However, few studies have investigated the genetic and environmental architecture of general well-being factors and used items measuring multiple well-being dimensions. Gaining a better understanding of influences on well-being factors could have implications for current understanding of well-being and future studies, such as genomic studies aiming to identify specific genetic variants associated with well-being.
In the current study, we seek to advance knowledge on the structure of well-being using three large samples. The items cover several dimensions, including hedonic, eudaimonic, and social aspects of well-being. Our primary aims are threefold:
-
1.
In Study 1, examine the hierarchical structure of well-being in a large, population-based sample of Norwegian adults (N = 17,417).
-
2.
In Study 2, test the fit of the model identified in Study 1 in an independent sample of Norwegian adults (N = 2125).
-
3.
In Study 3, estimate genetic and environmental influences on well-being factors in a population-based sample of adult twins (N = 1987).
Methods
Participants
We used data from three Norwegian studies. The sample size comprised 21,529 individuals in total.
Quality of life survey 2020
The nationwide Quality of Life Survey 2020 (QoL 2020) was conducted by Statistics Norway in March 2020. A random sample of 40,000 individuals was invited to participate and 17,417 responded (44%). In total, 10% of participants were aged 18–24 years, 31% were 25–44 years, 42% were 45–66 years, and 17% were 67 years and older. 51% of participants identified as female.
Quality of life survey in Hallingdal 2019
The Quality of Life Survey in Hallingdal 2019 (QoL 2019) was conducted by Statistics Norway in Hallingdal in Norway. A sample of 4000 adults was invited to participate and 2125 responded (53%). Data collection was conducted in March and April 2019. The sample was drawn randomly but stratified based on population size within the six individual municipalities. In total, 9% of participants were aged 18–24 years, 29% were 25–44 years, 45% were 45 to 66 years, and 17% were 67 years or older. 53% of participants identified as female.
The Norwegian twin registry sample
The Norwegian Twin Registry comprises several population-based twin panels [42]. We used data from 1987 twins born between 1945 and 1960 who participated in a survey in 2016 (response rate: 64%). The data comprised responses from 528 monozygotic (MZ) female twins, 627 dizygotic (DZ) female twins, 375 MZ male twins, and 457 DZ male twins. In total, data were collected from 708 complete same-sexed twin pairs (i.e. 1416 individuals) and 571 single responders. Zygosity was determined by a questionnaire which has previously been shown to be highly accurate (> 97% correct classifications) [43]. The mean age was 63 years (SD = 4.5). 72% were aged 45 to 66 years and 28% were 67 years or older.
Measures of well-being
We report the 37 items included in Study 1 (EFA) and Study 2 (CFA) in Table 1 (items in Study 3 are reported in the Supplementary Materials). Items originated from several well-established scales, including the Satisfaction with Life Scale [44], The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale [45], The Mastery Scale [46], The Flourishing Scale [47], and international evaluations of well-being [48, 49].
Data analysis
All analyses were conducted in the R Statistical Environment [50].
Study 1: exploratory factor analysis in the quality of life survey 2020
We conducted an EFA following a general approach outlined by Watkins [51]. Factor retention was based on three empirical criteria: Scree test, parallel analysis, and the minimum average partial (MAP) method. Scree tests plot eigenvalues from the correlation matrix to assess the location of any major drops in the graph [52]. Factors extracted after major drops are assumed to mostly represent error variance and are therefore not retained [51]. Parallel analysis compares observed and simulated eigenvalues (based on random data with an equal number of variables and sample size), retaining factors for which observed eigenvalues exceed simulated ones [53]. MAP separates common and unique variance in factor extraction: the lowest value is indicative of the point where all common variance is removed [51, 54]. The correlation matrix was estimated using Spearman correlation (MAP and parallel analysis were repeated using Pearson correlation to ensure robustness).
Squared multiple correlations were used in initial communality estimates. We used the weighted least squares solution for parallel analysis and factor extraction, considering the ordinal nature of the data, and the oblique promax factor rotation method to allow for intercorrelated factors. Factor extraction was repeated using Maximum Likelihood (ML) and ordinary least squares estimation and factor rotation using oblimin, to ensure the robustness of the factor structure. Missing data were treated with pairwise deletion.
We subjected the factor intercorrelation matrix to a new EFA, which can be done in hierarchical factor analysis [51], using the same empirical criteria. In addition, we examined the higher-order factor structure using the Schmid–Leiman transformation. EFA was conducted using the psych package [55].
Study 2: confirmatory factor analysis in the quality of life survey in Hallingdal 2019
Following the EFA, we examined the fit of the factor model identified in Study 1 in an independent sample. We used the diagonally weighted least squares estimator (DWLS), as this outperforms ML for ordinal data [56]. Missing data were treated with listwise deletion. The CFA suffered from some data loss (813 observations), as two relationship satisfaction items were asked a subset of the sample only (participants with a partner and/or children). We examined model fit both with and without these items.
Model fit was assessed using several fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Good model fit was determined by conventional thresholds [57]: CFI > 0.95, TLI > 0.95, RMSEA < .06, and SRMR < .08. The CFA was conducted using the lavaan [58] and semPlot [59] packages.
Study 3: examining genetic and environmental influences on well-being factors in the Norwegian twin registry (1945–1960 cohort)
In Study 3, we first conducted a CFA to test the fit of a hierarchical factor model with multiple first-order factors and a higher-order factor. This CFA used the DWLS estimator and model fit was assessed using similar fit indices as in Study 2. This analysis examined the fit of a model which was broadly similar to the model in Studies 1 and 2 in terms of including first-order factors and a higher-order factor, but the factors comprised partially different items. Optimism was included as a separate component, as it was measured by multiple items. Meaning in life was included as a distinct component, as the inclusion of this item in the “life satisfaction” component led to unreasonable parameter estimates with one communality estimate larger than 1.00 (i.e. a Heywood case). Three items measuring positive affect in daily life comprised a factor we called ‘positive affect’, as opposed to ‘positive activation’.
We examined genetic and environmental influences on the general well-being factors using biometric modelling [60, 61]. In this approach, phenotypic variation is explained by the influences of four components: additive genetic effects (A; correlated 1.0 for MZ twins and .5 for DZ twins), non-additive genetic effects (D; correlated 1.0 for MZ twins and .25 for DZ twins), shared environmental effects (C; correlated 1.0 for both MZ and DZ twins), and non-shared environmental effects (E; uncorrelated for both MZ and DZ twins).
Participants received an index score for each well-being factor based on the items which loaded on the given factor in the CFA in Study 3, if they had responded to more than half of the items in the index. Biometric analyses were conducted using mean scores on these indices as outcome variables. Individual item responses were standardised prior to computing index scores.
Correlational analyses were conducted to assess similarity in index scores across twins. Genetic and environmental influences on well-being components were examined using two multivariate models. The Cholesky model decomposes covariance between the latent A, C, and E variables and allows for estimating genetic and environmental correlations [62]. Multiple Cholesky models were estimated and compared for model fit, including models with A, D, and E effects (ADE); A, C, and E effects (ACE); A and E effects (AE); C and E effects (CE); and E effects only (E). The full ADCE model requires data from additional familial relationships and was therefore not estimated. Finally, we estimated a Common Pathway (CP) model, which assumes that covariation between index scores is explained by a latent well-being factor. The data were residualised on age and sex prior to conducting analyses. Biometric analyses were conducted using the umx [63] and OpenMx [64] packages.
Results
Study 1: exploratory factor analysis in the quality of life survey 2020
Initial analyses indicated that conducting EFA was appropriate. Most item correlations exceeded 0.30 and none exceeded 0.90 (see Supplementary Materials). Based on Bartlett’s [65] test of sphericity, the hypothesis that the correlation matrix was an identity matrix was rejected \(({x}^{2}=414635.90,DF=666)\). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin [66] measure of sampling adequacy was acceptable. The overall value was \(.97\) and values for the measured variables ranged from .94 to 99.
Empirical criteria suggested to retain from 6 (MAP) to 10 (parallel analysis) factors. Factor structures retaining from 6 to 10 factors were assessed for interpretability, meaningfulness, and symptoms of over- or underextraction. The most interpretable solution retained six factors. We called the first factor ‘life satisfaction’, as it comprised items assessing life satisfaction, experiencing life as meaningful, and optimism (Q21, Q22, Q28, Q29, Q1–Q5). The second factor, ‘positive activation’, comprised items assessing experiences of being engaged in and enthusiastic about one’s activities (Q6–Q8, Q31). Items loading on the third component, ‘autonomy’, queried about self-perceived (lack of) control over what happens in life, ability to find solutions, and feelings of hopelessness (Q16–Q20). The fourth factor, ‘well-functioning’, comprised several ‘functional’ aspects of well-being (e.g. cognition, problem-solving). It included items asking about recently having felt optimistic, been able to deal with problems well, been thinking clearly, and having felt close to other people (Q9–Q15). The fifth factor, ‘social’, included items assessing aspects of social relationships (Q26, Q27, Q35–Q37). Items loading on the final component, ‘absence of negative affect’, primarily assessed recently experienced negative affect (Q23–Q25, Q30, Q32–Q34). Standardised factor loadings are reported in Table 2 (empirical criteria and robustness analyses are reported in the Supplementary Materials).
Several variables had complex cross-loadings. Q22, Q28, and Q29 loaded on both the life satisfaction and positive activation factors; Q9 loaded on both the well-functioning and life satisfaction factors; Q10 loaded on both the well-functioning and positive activation factors; Q11 loaded on both the well-functioning and absence of negative affect factors; Q14 loaded on both the well-functioning and the social factors; Q23 loaded on the absence of negative affect, positive activation, social, and life satisfaction factors; Q31 loaded on both the positive activation and well-functioning factors; and Q32 loaded on both the absence of negative affect and well-functioning factors.
All criteria suggested that one higher-order factor could be extracted. We called this ‘the general happiness factor’ (the ‘h-factor’). With one exception, all first-order factors had loadings > .70 on this higher-order factor. The standardised loadings to the higher-order factor were .89 for life satisfaction, .82 for positive activation, .67 for autonomy, .83 for well-functioning, .75 for social, and .72 for absence of negative affect.
Study 2: confirmatory factor analysis in the quality of life survey in Hallingdal 2019
In Study 2, we examined the fit of the factor model identified in Study 1 in an independent sample. The factor structure was pre-defined to be identical with the structure identified in Study 1: individual items loaded on one of six well-being factors, which all loaded on a single higher-order factor. All statistics indicated good model fit: \({\chi }^{2}=1528.732 \left(df=588, p< .001\right), \mathrm{RMSEA}=.035 \left(90\mathrm{\% CI}:.033, .037\right),\mathrm{ SRMR}=.053,\mathrm{ CFI}=.987\) and \(\mathrm{TLI}=.986.\) (see Fig. 1).
Study 3: biometric modelling in the Norwegian twin registry sample
All model fit statistics indicated that the model with a higher-order and multiple first-order factors was a good fit to the data: \({\chi }^{2}=1313.827 \left(df=489, p< .001\right), \mathrm{ RMSEA}=.035 \left(90\mathrm{\% CI}:.033, .038\right),\mathrm{ SRMR}=.053,\mathrm{ CFI}=.976\) and \(\mathrm{TLI}=.974\).
Index score correlations were systematically higher for MZ than DZ co-twins, indicative of genetic influence on all well-being factors (see Table 3). The AE Cholesky model had best fit to the data, indicated both by AIC and RMSEA values (see Table 4). Moderate genetic influence and substantial non-shared environmental influence was observed for all first-order well-being factors, with heritability estimates ranging from .26 to .36 (see Fig. 2; parameter estimates, confidence intervals, and genetic and environmental correlations are reported in the Supplementary Materials).
The AE CP model had worse fit compared with the AE Cholesky model (\(AIC=28001.840; RMSEA= .032, 95\% CI [.027, .036] )\). The heritability of the latent well-being factor estimated in the AE CP model was 40% (see Fig. 3).
Discussion
Across more than 21,500 participants, we identified a well-being structure comprising six first-order factors and one higher-order factor. This model had excellent fit in an independent sample. All well-being factors, including the higher-order happiness factor, showed moderate genetic and substantial non-shared environmental influence.
Our results suggest that the structure of well-being encompasses both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects, which were subsumed in broader factors. The factor model included both well-being facets conceptualised as ‘hedonic’ [7], like the presence of positive and absence of negative affect, and aspects classified as ‘eudaimonic’ [9], such as well-functioning. In addition, social aspects of well-being, emphasised in recent models [11], comprised a first-order factor with a strong loading on the higher-order factor. One previous study found that a best-fitting hierarchical model comprised hedonic, eudaimonic, and social higher-order factors [4].
Our finding of six first-order well-being components is in partial agreement with previous studies which have also identified multiple general well-being factors [4, 15,16,17, 19,20,21,22, 30, 67,68,69,70,71,72]. Specific well-being components identified across studies are likely to vary, in part because well-being may be measured using different items and scales [69], which should be kept in mind when interpreting our findings. Furthermore, some items loaded on more than one factor in our EFA. We note, however, that global fit statistics from the subsequent CFA indicated good model fit.
All first-order factors loaded strongly on a higher-order well-being factor (the h-factor). This corroborates findings from several studies which have found evidence for a general higher-order factor in hierarchical or bifactor models of well-being [4, 19,20,21,22, 26, 27, 30, 67]. The hierarchical model can be interpreted as nested within the bifactor model [51, 73, 74]. Thus, our findings support converging evidence, from studies applying both hierarchical and bifactor models, in identifying one general well-being factor. We note that random measurement error is typically contained at the item level and not present in the higher-order latent factor.
We note that these well-being factors refer to statistical constructs. Theoretical work is needed to better understand what the higher-order well-being factor reflects. One possibility is that it broadly corresponds with ‘overall perceived enjoyment and fulfilment with life’, as proposed by Disabato et al. [18]. A similar higher-order factor has also been theorised to represent a ‘positive orientation’ towards life [40, 75], with one study indicating that positive orientation may reflect a common factor for hedonic and eudaimonic well-being [76]. However, interpreting the general factor is difficult given the multidimensional nature of well-being, and some have noted that the single factor may not actually reflect a positive construct [23].
Our study yields novel findings regarding the genetic and environmental architecture of well-being. All first-order well-being factors showed moderate genetic and substantial non-shared environmental influence. Several heritability estimates are close to previously reported estimates, e.g. we estimate the heritability of life satisfaction to be 27%, compared with 32% in one previous meta-analysis [36]. Heterogeneity in well-being measures likely contributes to variation heritability estimates across studies [36], together with other factors, such as measurement error. Age differences could also be a contributing factor to varying heritability estimates across studies and samples. However, Bartels [36] did not find a substantial effect of age on heritability estimates.
The higher-order factor had a heritability estimated to 40% (in the Common Pathway model), which is close to what has been reported for well-being (36%) and somewhat higher than for life satisfaction (32%) [36]. This estimate is lower than what has been reported for a latent ‘Well-being’ factor (48%) [20] and latent ‘mental well-being’ factor (72%) [38].
Strengths and limitations
Our study has several strengths. We used three large and independent samples to examine the structure of well-being, two of which were population based. Well-being was measured using multiple items from several questionnaires with different well-being conceptualisations. Thirdly, we used both EFA and CFA to examine the factor structure of well-being and its replicability, leveraging both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approaches.
Our study also has several limitations. First, although well-being components were broadly corresponding across studies, the factor structure was modelled with minor differences in the twin sample due to partially different items. However, this model also had good fit to the data, providing further support for a hierarchical well-being model. Second, data were residualised on sex but possible sex differences in genetic and environmental effects were not investigated. Findings have been inconclusive with regards to sex differences in these effects on well-being [36]. Third, our samples consisted only of Norwegian adults. Aspects of well-being which are emphasised vary across cultures [77], leaving the generalisability of the identified well-being structure in our study unclear. Fourth, a theoretical framework for explaining the structure of well-being we identify is lacking. There have been calls for more emphasis on theoretical work alongside factor analysis [78] and in well-being research [79]. Fifth, previous studies have tested the external validity of bifactor models for the p-factor [80]. Our study is limited in that it does not evaluate the external validity of the factor models. Sixth, data collection for QoL 2020 was conducted during the first national lockdown in Norway related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, possibly influencing responses. We note that model identified using EFA had excellent fit in the QoL 2019 survey data, collected before the pandemic outbreak.
Implications
Our findings have implications for understanding the structure of well-being. Firstly, hedonic and eudaimonic well-being were not distinguishable as distinct components but included in broader factors. Thus, models which conceptualise these as separate components may not accurately capture the structure of well-being. Secondly, we identified a higher-order happiness factor, which underlies the structure of well-being. Thirdly, genetic effects on well-being factors, including the higher-order factor, were moderate, with the majority of variance explained by non-shared environmental factors.
Our findings may have multiple implications for future research. Examining the content of the higher-order happiness factor, its correlates, and the structure of genetic and environmental influences on this factor could be a useful aim for future studies. Furthermore, examining general well-being factors in non-Scandinavian cultures is desirable to better understand generalisability and cultural influences on well-being. Future research efforts could use longitudinal data to investigate stability and change in general well-being factors. One previous study found a high degree of stability in a latent well-being factor across six years [71].
Conclusion
We conducted three studies to advance knowledge on the structure of well-being and its genetic and environmental architecture. We identified six first-order well-being factors which all loaded on a higher-order well-being factor. The model had excellent fit in an independent sample. All well-being components were moderately influenced by genes and substantially influenced by non-shared environmental factors. Our findings have implications for understanding the structure of well-being, theories of well-being, and future research efforts.
References
Waterman, A. S. (1990). The relevance of Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia for the psychological study of happiness. Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 10(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091489
Kelly, J. (2021). The philosophy of stoicism: Relevance in today’s healthcare system. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 114(11), 839–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcaa242
Kim, R. (2020). Confucianism and the philosophy of well-being (1st ed.). Routledge.
Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(4), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
Bayliss, D., Olsen, W., & Walthery, P. (2017). Well-being during recession in the UK. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12(2), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9465-8
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological Well-Being Revisited: Advances in the Science and Practice of Eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065
Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539
Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing. 1(1), Article 1. https://www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/15
Seligman, M. (2018). PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 333–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1437466
Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471–482.
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborne, G., & Hurling, R. (2009). Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 878–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.010
Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & Kashdan, T. B. (2019). A hierarchical framework for the measurement of well-being. https://psyarxiv.com/5rhqj
Chen, F. F., Jing, Y., Hayes, A., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Two concepts or two approaches? A bifactor analysis of psychological and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 1033–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9367-x
Gatt, J. M., Burton, K. L. O., Schofield, P. R., Bryant, R. A., & Williams, L. M. (2014). The heritability of mental health and wellbeing defined using COMPAS-W, a new composite measure of wellbeing. Psychiatry Research, 219(1), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.04.033
Goodman, F. R., Disabato, D. J., Kashdan, T. B., & Kauffman, S. B. (2018). Measuring well-being: A comparison of subjective well-being and PERMA. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1388434
Jovanović, V. (2015). Structural validity of the mental health continuum-short form: The bifactor model of emotional, social and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.026
Böhnke, J. R., & Croudace, T. J. (2016). Calibrating well-being, quality of life and common mental disorder items: Psychometric epidemiology in public mental health research. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(2), 162–168. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.165530
Burns, R. A. (2020). Age-related differences in the factor structure of multiple wellbeing indicators in a large multinational european survey. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00077-y
Kim, K., Lehning, A. J., & Sacco, P. (2016). Assessing the factor structure of well-being in older adults: Findings from the national health and aging trends study. Aging & Mental Health, 20(8), 814–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1037245
Longo, Y., Coyne, I., & Joseph, S. (2017). The scales of general well-being (SGWB). Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.005
Longo, Y., Coyne, I., Joseph, S., & Gustavsson, P. (2016). Support for a general factor of well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.082
Giuntoli, L., & Vidotto, G. (2021). Exploring Diener’s multidimensional conceptualization of well-being through network psychometrics. Psychological Reports, 124(2), 896–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120916864
van de Weijer, M. P., Landvreugd, A., Pelt, D. H. M., & Bartels, M. (2021). Connecting the dots: Using a network approach to study the well-being spectrum. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9u6vt
Hides, L., Quinn, C., Stoyanov, S., Cockshaw, W., Mitchell, T., & Kavanagh, D. J. (2016). Is the mental wellbeing of young Australians best represented by a single, multidimensional or bifactor model? Psychiatry Research, 241, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.077
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x
Linton, M.-J., Dieppe, P., & Medina-Lara, A. (2016). Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: Exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open, 6(7), e010641. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010641
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing across europe: application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7
Ruggeri, K., Garcia-Garzon, E., Maguire, Á., Matz, S., & Huppert, F. A. (2020). Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: A multidimensional analysis of 21 countries. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 192. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01423-y
United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.
Bartels, M. (2015). Genetics of wellbeing and its components satisfaction with life, happiness, and quality of life: A review and meta-analysis of heritability studies. Behavior Genetics, 45(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-015-9713-y
Nes, R. B., & Røysamb, E. (2015). The heritability of subjective well-being: Review and meta-analysis. In M. Pluess (Ed.), Genetics of psychological well-being: The role of heritability and genetics in positive psychology (pp. 75–96). Oxford University Press.
Keyes, C. L. M., Myers, J. M., & Kendler, K. S. (2010). The Structure of the genetic and environmental influences on mental well-being. American Journal of Public Health, 100(12), 2379–2384. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.193615
Baselmans, B. M. L., & Bartels, M. (2018). A genetic perspective on the relationship between eudaimonic –and hedonic well-being. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32638-1
Caprara, G. V., Fagnani, C., Alessandri, G., Steca, P., Gigantesco, A., Sforza, L. L. C., & Stazi, M. A. (2009). Human optimal functioning: The genetics of positive orientation towards self, life, and the future. Behavior Genetics, 39(3), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-009-9267-y
Gigantesco, A., Stazi, M. A., Alessandri, G., Medda, E., Tarolla, E., & Fagnani, C. (2011). Psychological well-being (PWB): A natural life outlook? An Italian twin study on heritability of PWB in young adults. Psychological Medicine, 41(12), 2637–2649. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711000663
Nilsen, T. S., Brandt, I., Czajkowski, N., Knudsen, G. P., Magnus, P., Reichborn-Kjennerud, T., Tambs, K., Harris, J. R., & Ørstavik, R. (2016). The Norwegian twin registry. Norsk Epidemiologi, 26(1–2), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.5324/nje.v26i1-2.2012
Harris, J. R., Magnus, P., & Tambs, K. (2006). The Norwegian Institute of public health twin program of research: An update. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9(6), 858–864. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.9.6.858
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19(1), 2–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136319
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., & Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Diener (pp. 247–266). Springer Netherlands.
European Social Survey. (2013). Round 6 module on personal and social wellbeing—final module in template. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round6/questionnaire/ESS6_final_personal_and_social_well_being_module_template.pdf
OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
Watkins, M. W. (2020). A step-by-step guide to exploratory factor analysis with R and RStudio. Routledge.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293557
Revelle, W. (2022). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 2.2.5). Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.
Li, C.-H. (2016). The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 369–387.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Epskamp, S. (2015). semPlot: Unified visualizations of structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(3), 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.937847
Eaves, L. J., Last, K. A., Young, P. A., & Martin, N. G. (1978). Model-fitting approaches to the analysis of human behaviour. Heredity. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1978.101
Jinks, J. L., & Fulker, D. W. (1970). Comparison of the biometrical genetical, MAVA, and classical approaches to the analysis of the human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 73(5), 311–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029135
Neale, M. C., & Maes, H. H. M. (2004). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bates, T. C., Maes, H., & Neale, M. C. (2019). umx: Twin and path-based structural equation modeling in R. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 22(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2019.2
Neale, M. C., Hunter, M. D., Pritikin, J. N., Zahery, M., Brick, T. R., Kirkpatrick, R. M., Estabrook, R., Bates, T. C., Maes, H. H., & Boker, S. M. (2016). OpenMx 2.0: Extended structural equation and statistical modeling. Psychometrika, 81(2), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9435-8
Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
de Bruin, G. P., & du Plessis, G. A. (2015). Bifactor analysis of the mental health continuum—short form (MHC—SF). Psychological Reports, 116(2), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.02.PR0.116k20w6
Franken, K., Lamers, S. M. A., Ten Klooster, P. M., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Westerhof, G. J. (2018). Validation of the mental health continuum-short form and the dual continua model of well-being and psychopathology in an adult mental health setting. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(12), 2187–2202. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22659
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9683-z
Kállay, É., & Rus, C. (2014). Psychometric properties of the 44-item version of Ryff’s psychological well-being scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000163
Kokko, K., Korkalainen, A., Lyyra, A.-L., & Feldt, T. (2013). Structure and continuity of well-being in mid-adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9318-y
Petrillo, G., Capone, V., Caso, D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2015). The mental health continuum-short form (MHC–SF) as a measure of well-being in the Italian context. Social Indicators Research, 121(1), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0629-3
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
Yung, Y.-F., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999). On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika, 64(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294531
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Affective and social self-regulatory efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. European Psychologist, 10(4), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.10.4.275
Oleś, P., & Jankowski, T. (2018). Positive orientation—A common base for hedonistic and eudemonistic happiness? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9508-9
Joshanloo, M., Vliert, E. V. D., & Jose, P. E. (2021). Four fundamental distinctions in conceptions of wellbeing across cultures. In M. L. Kern & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of positive education (pp. 675–703). Palgrave Macmillan.
Fried, E. I. (2020). Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853461
Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303044
Watts, A. L., Poore, H. E., & Waldman, I. D. (2019). Riskier tests of the validity of the bifactor model of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(6), 1285–1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619855035
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the participants of the QoL 2019 and QoL 2020 surveys, and the participants from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health Twin Panel.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Oslo (incl Oslo University Hospital). We acknowledge funding from the Research Council of Norway (Grant Nos. 314843; 288083). NOC was also supported by grant 326350 from the Research Council of Norway.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data analysis was conducted by LDB. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LDB and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The manuscript has been posted as a preprint on PsyArXiv and can be accessed via the following https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mzp3r.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bjørndal, L.D., Nes, R.B., Czajkowski, N. et al. The structure of well-being: a single underlying factor with genetic and environmental influences. Qual Life Res 32, 2805–2816 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03437-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03437-7