Effect Size Strengths in Subjective Well-Being Research

被引:27
|
作者
Geerling, Danielle M. [1 ]
Diener, Ed [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utah, Dept Psychol, 380 S 1530 E,Beh S 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA
[2] Univ Virginia, Charlottesville, VA USA
关键词
Subjective well-being; Effect size of SWB predictors; Life satisfaction; Positive affect; Negative affect; HAPPINESS; INTERVENTIONS; GENDER; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1007/s11482-018-9670-8
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Subjective well-being (SWB) research is characterized by many large samples, which often results in virtually all variables being significantly related to well-being, even if the associations are small. In this article we explore the strengths of associations between various predictors and SWB outcomes. In addition to standard effect-size statistics, we also examined the range of the SWB scale covered in the distribution of the predictor, allowing us to estimate the strength of influence of each variable, independent of variability in the sample. We analyzed just a few variables to illustrate what our approach reveals. Our analyses included a representative sample of both the world and the United States, and our data included three types of SWB (life satisfaction (LS), positive affect (PA), and negative affect (NA)). The largest effect sizes emerged for societal characteristics, such as between-nations differences, as well as personal characteristics, such as perceived social support. Small or very small effect sizes were consistently found for demographic characteristics, such as sex, age, and marital status. Other effect sizes varied by the type of SWB being considered. For example, income resulted in a large effect size for LS, but small to medium effect sizes for PA and NA. We suggest that when scholars report and interpret the associations of predictor variables with SWB, they consider the strengths of their significant associations.
引用
收藏
页码:167 / 185
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Character strengths predict subjective well-being during adolescence
    Gillham, Jane
    Adams-Deutsch, Zoe
    Werner, Jaclyn
    Reivich, Karen
    Coulter-Heindl, Virginia
    Linkins, Mark
    Winder, Breanna
    Peterson, Christopher
    Park, Nansook
    Abenavoli, Rachel
    Contero, Angelica
    Seligman, Martin E. P.
    JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2011, 6 (01) : 31 - 44
  • [22] Subjective Well-Being of Orphans
    Dahlan, Tina Hayati
    Wyandini, Diah Zaleha
    Hasanah, Viena Rusmiati
    ADVANCED SCIENCE LETTERS, 2019, 25 (01) : 216 - 220
  • [23] Psychopathy and subjective well-being
    Love, Ashley B.
    Holder, Mark D.
    PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2014, 66 : 112 - 117
  • [24] Innovativeness and Subjective Well-Being
    Binder, Martin
    SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2013, 111 (02) : 561 - 578
  • [25] INCOME AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING: THE SOCIAL COMPARISONS EFFECT
    Navarro, Maria
    Sanchez, Angeles
    REVISTA DE ECONOMIA MUNDIAL, 2018, (48): : 153 - 178
  • [26] The dynamic effect of disability on work and subjective well-being
    Jones, Melanie
    Mavromaras, Kostas
    Sloane, Peter J.
    Wei, Zhang
    OXFORD ECONOMIC PAPERS-NEW SERIES, 2018, 70 (03): : 635 - 657
  • [27] Does Neurocognition Predict Subjective Well-Being?
    Falzarano, Francesca B.
    Yazdani, Neshat
    Zucchetto, Jillian Minahan
    Siedlecki, Karen L.
    JOURNAL OF HAPPINESS STUDIES, 2022, 23 (08) : 3713 - 3730
  • [28] A bifactor model of subjective well-being: A re-examination of the structure of subjective well-being
    Jovanovic, Veljko
    PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2015, 87 : 45 - 49
  • [29] Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being in Slovakia
    Mrva, Marianna
    SOCIOLOGIA, 2020, 52 (02): : 111 - 131
  • [30] Trust and subjective well-being: The case of Serbia
    Jovanovic, Veljko
    PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2016, 98 : 284 - 288