Is Sexual Well-Being Part of Subjective Well-Being? An Empirical Analysis of Belgian (Flemish) Survey Data Using an Extended Well-Being Scale

Abstract

Most conventionally used subjective well-being scales do not include any measurement of sexual well-being, despite the fact that most available research and theories indicate that sexuality is to be considered an important and integral part of human well-being. This article proposes a five-item subjective well-being scale that includes sexual well-being. A representative pilot survey in Belgium (n = 2,080) indicated that item non-response on the sexual item was limited. The new scale is strongly one-dimensional and internally coherent. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that including sexual well-being allows for a better understanding of subjective well-being, highlighting the importance of age and having a partner, and the interaction between both variables. This article concludes that the positive impact of having a partner on subjective well-being significantly increases with age. It is argued that sexual well-being should be included in subjective well-being measurements that are routinely being used in population surveys.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Flemish (Belgian) Institute for Science and Innovation as part of the project on “Social Cohesion Indicators in Flanders.”

Notes

¹The Flemish region consists of the five northern provinces of Belgium, which are almost exclusively Dutch-speaking. The five southern provinces belong to the Walloon region. Brussels constitutes a region on its own: the “Brussels Capital Region.”

²In the last decade, response rates for survey research have tended to erode in a number of European countries, including Belgium. The 2009 PartiRep election study in Flanders (with a comparable design as this survey) registered a response rate of 48% (cfr. www.partirep.eu).

³The scale also included an item on satisfaction with one's professional life, but this item led to an unacceptably high level of item non-response, especially among pensioners and persons without a paid job. For this reason, that item was not included in the final analysis.

Note. N = 2,080. Subjective well-being scores are based on a 0–10 scale. Entries are mean scores per group.

Source: Social Cohesion Indicators in the Flemish Region 2009.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Note. N = 2,080. Table shows principal component analysis of the subjective well-being scales (without [four-item scale] and with [five-item scale] sexual well-being).

Source: Social Cohesion Indicators in the Flemish Region 2009.

Note. N = 2,080 (total missing = 198). Table shows principal component analysis of the subjective well-being scales, across four age groups.

Source: Social Cohesion Indicators in the Flemish Region 2009.

Note. N = 2,080 (missing and excluded = 442). Entries are the result of an ordinary least squares regression. Dependent variable = four- and five-item version of the subjective well-being scale.

Source: Social Cohesion Indicators in the Flemish Region 2009.

⁴The construction of the model is built on the current literature on subjective well-being, and we included the major variables that in earlier research were assumed to be or have been shown to be related to subjective well-being. Our goal was not to develop either a comprehensive or a parsimonious model to explain subjective well-being. In the latter case, the obvious nonsignificant models should have been removed from the model reported in Table 4. Removing these variables, however, had no effect at all on the variables that were of interest, and which are strongly significant. To have a full coverage, we therefore left these nonsignificant variables in the reported model. To ensure full comparability between both models, we only included the respondents that provided a full answer on the five-item scale and also for the analysis on the four-item scale.