Structural and discriminant validity of the tripartite model of mental well-being: differential relationships with the big five traits

References

• Anglim J, Grant S. (2016). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over the Big 5. J Happiness Stud, 17, 59–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov T, Muthen B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Eq Model, 16, 397–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov T, Muthén B, Morin AJ. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances comments on Stromeyer et al. J Manage, 41, 1561–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobowik M, Basabe N, Paez D. (2015). The bright side of migration: Hedonic, psychological, and social well-being in immigrants in Spain. Soc Sci Res, 51, 189–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown TA. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press
   Google Scholar
• Brown TA, Moore MT. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press, 361–79
   Google Scholar
• Browne MW, Cudeck R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, eds. Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 136–62.
   Google Scholar
• de Carvalho JS, Pereira NS, Pinto AM, Marôco J. (2016). Psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form: A study of Portuguese speaking children/youths. J Child Fam Stud, 25, 2141–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Disabato DJ, Goodman FR, Kashdan TB, et al. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychol Assess, 28, 471–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher MW, Lopez SJ, Preacher KJ. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. J Pers, 77, 1025–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M. (2016a). A new look at the factor structure of the MHC-SF in Iran and the United States using exploratory structural equation modeling. J Clin Psychol, 72, 701–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M. (2016b). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. J Happiness Stud, 17, 2023–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M. (2017). Factor structure and criterion validity of original and short versions of the Negative and Positive Affect Scale (NAPAS). Personal Individ Diff, 105, 233–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M, Bakhshi A. (2016). The factor structure and measurement invariance of positive and negative affect across gender and cultural groups: A study in Iran and the USA. Eur J Psychol Assess, 32, 265–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M, Bobowik M, Basabe N. (2016). Factor structure of mental well-being: Contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personal Individ Diff, 102, 107–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M, Jose PE, Kielpikowski M. (2017). The value of exploratory structural equation modeling in identifying factor overlap in the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF): A study with a New Zealand sample. J Happiness Stud, 8, 1061–74.
   Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M, Lamers SMA. (2016). Reinvestigation of the factor structure of the MHC-SF in the Netherlands: Contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personal Individ Diff, 97, 8–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M, Nosratabadi M. (2009). Levels of mental health continuum and personality traits. Soc Indic Res, 90, 211–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshanloo M, Rastegar P, Bakhshi A. (2012). The Big Five personality domains as predictors of social wellbeing in Iranian university students. J Soc Person Relation, 29, 639–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashdan TB, Biswas-Diener R, King LA. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. J Positive Psychol, 3, 219–33.
   Google Scholar
• Keyes CLM. (1998). Social well-being. Soc Psychol Quart, 61, 121–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keyes CLM. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. J Health Soc Behav, 43, 207–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keyes CL, Shmotkin D, Ryff CD. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. J Pers Soc Psychol, 82, 1007–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linley PA, Maltby J, Wood AM, et al. (2009). Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personal Individ Diff, 47, 878–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas RE, Diener E. (2015). Personality and subjective well-being: Current issues and controversies. In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Cooper ML, Larsen RJ, eds. APA handbook of personality and social psychology, vol. 4. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 577–99.
   Google Scholar
• MacCallum RC. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychol Bull, 100, 107–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh HW, Morin AJS, Parker PD, Kaur G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 10, 85–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae RR. (2011). Personality traits and the potential of positive psychology. In: Sheldon KM, Kashdan TB, Steger MF, eds. Designing positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 193–206.
   Google Scholar
• McCrae RR, Costa PT. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 17, 227–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mroczek DK, Kolarz CM. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. J Personal Soc Psychol, 75, 1333–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan RM, Deci ED. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol, 52, 141–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryff CD, Almeida D, Ayanian J, Binkley N, et al. (2016). National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS 3), 2013–2014. ICPSR36346-v4. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36346.v4
   Google Scholar
• Ryff CD. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. J Personal Soc Psychol, 57, 1069–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmutte PS, Ryff CD. (1997). Personality and well-being: Reexamining methods and meanings. J Pers Soc Psychol, 73, 549–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steel P, Schmidt J, Shultz J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychol Bull, 134, 138–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vittersø J. (2016). The most important idea in the world: An introduction. In: Vittersø J, ed. Handbook of eudaimonic well-being. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Ward SJ, King LA. (2016). Socrates’ dissatisfaction, a happiness arms race, and the trouble with eudaimonic well-being. In: Vittersø J, ed. Handbook of eudaimonic well-being. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 523–30.
   Google Scholar
• Waterman AS. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective. J Positive Psychol, 3, 234–52.
   Google Scholar
• West SG, Taylor AB, Wu W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 209–31.
   Google Scholar
• Weston R, Gore PA. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns Psychol, 34, 719–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimprich D, Allemand M, Lachman ME. (2012). Factorial structure and age-related psychometrics of the MIDUS personality adjective items across the life span. Psychol Assessment, 24, 173–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar