The ABC of happiness: Validation of the tridimensional model of subjective well-being (affect, cognition, and behavior) using Bifactor Polytomous Multidimensional Item Response Theory

Abstract

BackgroundHappiness is often conceptualized as subjective well-being, which comprises people's evaluations of emotional experiences (i.e., the affective dimension: positive and negative feelings and emotions) and judgements of a self-imposed ideal (i.e., the cognitive dimension: life satisfaction). Recent research has established these two dimensions as primary parts of a higher order factor. However, theoretical, conceptual, and empirical work suggest that people's evaluations of harmony in their life (i.e., the sense of balance and capacity to behave and adapt with both acceptance and flexibility to inter- and intrapersonal circumstances) constitutes a third dimension (i.e., the behavioral dimension). This tridemensional conceptualization of subjective well-being has recently been verified using Unidimensional Item Response Theory (UIRT) and Classical Test Theory (CTT). Here, we use a recently developed and more robust approach that combines these two methods (i.e., Multidimensional Item Response Theory, MIRT) to simultaneously address the complex interactions and multidimensionality behind how people feel, think, and behave in relation to happiness in their life. MethodA total of 435 participants (197 males and 238 females) with an age mean of 44.84 (sd = 13.36) responded to the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (10 positive affect items, 10 negative affect items), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (five items), and the Harmony in life Scale (five items). We used Bifactor-Graded Response MIRT for the main analyses. ResultAt the general level, each of the 30 items had a strong capacity to discriminate between respondents across all three dimensions of subjective well-being. The investigation of different parameters (e.g., marginal slopes, ECV, IECV) strongly reflected the multidimensionality of subjective well-being at the item, the scale, and the model level. Indeed, subjective well-being could explain 64 % of the common variance in the whole model. Moreover, most of the items measuring positive affect (8/10) and life satisfaction (4/5) and all the items measuring harmony in life (5/5) accounted for a larger amount of variance of subjective well-being compared to that of their respective individual dimensions. The negative affect items, however, measured its own individual concept to a lager extent rather than subjective well-being. Thus, suggesting that the experience of negative affect is a more independent dimension within the whole subjective well-being model. We also found that specific items (e.g., “Alert”, “Distressed”, “Irritable”, “I am satisfied with my life”) were the recurrent exceptions in our results. Last but not the least, experiencing high levels in one dimension seems to compensate for low levels in the others and vice versa. ConclusionAs expected, the three subjective well-being dimensions do not work separately. Interestingly, the order and magnitude of the effect by each dimension on subjective well-being mirror how people define happiness in their life: first as harmony, second as satisfaction, third as positive emotions, and fourth, albeit to a much lesser degree, as negative emotions. Ergo, we argue that subjective well-being functions as a complex biopsychosocial adaptive system mirroring our attitude towards life in these three dimensions (A: affective dimension; B: behavioral dimension; C: cognitive dimension). Ergo, researchers and practitioners need to take in to account all three to fully understand, measure, and promote people's experience of the happy life. Moreover, our results also suggest that negative affect, especially regarding high activation unpleasant emotions, need considerable changes and further analyses if it is going to be included as a construct within the affective dimension of a general subjective well-being factor.