- freely available
Information 2019, 10(10), 301; https://doi.org/10.3390/info10100301
2.1. Components of Subjective Well-Being
2.1.1. Affective (Hedonic) Dimension of SWB.
- Psychological well-being: Psychological well-being is an individuals’ belief that there will be positive outcomes to events or circumstances  (p. 497). Research has shown that people who have positive psychological well-being are healthier generally . Beliefs such as feeling secure about the future, being hopeful, being positive, being enthusiastic have been shown to promote people’s psychological well-being [24,26]. Therefore, we hypothesize that a persuasive intervention designed to promote such believes in individuals will likely impact their psychological well-being and consequently their overall health and well-being. The psychological well-being scale developed by Ryff called Scales of Psychological Well-being (SPWB) has been used by some researchers to assess people’s psychological well-being . The scale is composed of six sub-scales in accordance with the six factors of positive functioning, namely: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, positive relationship and self-acceptance . However, the scale has been found to be statistically unreliable . The Bradburn scale of psychological well-being is another scale that has been used to assess people’s psychological well-being . The scale is made up of two components: The Positive Affect component and the Negative Affect component. Each component is associated with 5 items used in assessing it, participant answers “Yes” or “No” to the items which ask whether they have had certain feelings in the past few weeks. The “No” score is subtracted from the “Yes” score to create a positive/negative affect difference score. Also, the psychological well-being scale developed by Diener et al.  has been widely used by researchers to assess people’s psychological well-being. The psychological well-being scale developed by Diener et al.  consists of 12 items. Each is measured using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “1 = Strongly disagree” to “5 = Strongly agree”. A response of 5 to an item indicates a high psychological well-being, and 1 indicates low psychological well-being. This study employs the psychological well-being scale developed by Diener et al.  which has been widely employed by researchers. A sample item includes: “I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me”.
- Emotional well-being: Emotional well-being is defined as a feeling of relaxation and stress freeness . It has been shown that emotionally healthy people have more stable mental health, thus, are healthier generally . Activities that make people experience serenity, support, and company have been shown to promote people’s sense of emotional well-being [23,28]. Hence, a persuasive intervention designed to promote such activities will likely impact people’s emotional well-being and thus their overall health and well-being. Researchers have used the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) developed by researchers at the Universities of Warwick and Edinburgh to assess people’s emotional well-being . WEMWBS is a 14-item scale, the scale is scored by summing responses to each item measured using a “5” point Likert scale. Also, the emotional well-being scale developed by Diener et al.  has been widely used by researchers to measure the emotional well-being of individuals. Therefore, in this study, we employ the emotional well-being scale developed by Diener et al. . The scale consists of 16 items, each item in the scale is measured using a Likert scale ranging from “1 = Strongly disagree” to “5 = Strongly agree”. A sample item includes: “I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me”.
- Social well-being: Social well-being refers to an individual’s interaction and relationship with others. . Research has shown that the more social ties people have, the better their health . For example, being married, having children, and social ties with formal organizations such as religious organizations can instill a sense of responsibility and concern for others that can lead one to engage in behaviors that protect the health of others as well as their own health. Thus, health interventions that provide opportunities for people to interact and work together with other people, share and compare the information with others, provide support and companionship to others may promote their social well-being and hence their overall health and wellbeing. Some researchers have used the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) to assess the Affective dimension of Subjective well-being . However, the social well-being scale developed by Huppert et al.  has been widely used by researchers to measure this component of SWB. Hence, we employ this scale to assess the social well-being of participants in this study. The scale consists of 16 items; each item is measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Strongly disagree” to “5 = Strongly agree”. A sample item includes: “I see myself as a part of my society”.
2.1.2. Cognitive (Eudemonic) Dimension of Subjective Well-Being
- Satisfaction with life: Satisfaction with Life is defined as people’s personal judgment about their life. Specifically, it deals with people’s belief that at least their life measures up favorably against their expectations or how a person feels about their life as a whole, over a long period of time [33,34]. Studies have shown that satisfaction with life influences health-related quality of life (HRQOL) . For example, people who are satisfied with their life are less likely to involve themselves in excessive alcohol drinking, excessive eating or smoking. Meanwhile, these unhealthy behaviors can easily be adopted by people who feel their needs are not met to deal with the stress. Activities such as setting and achieving goals, attaining status, gaining respect, have been shown to promote people’s Satisfaction with life [34,35]. Therefore, health interventions that provide opportunities for people to engage in such activities may promote their satisfaction with life and therefore their overall health and wellbeing. The Satisfaction with life scale developed by Diener et al.  has been widely used by researchers to measure this component of SWB. Therefore, in this study, we employ the Satisfaction with life scale developed by Diener et al.  to assess our participants ‘satisfaction with life. The scale consists of 5 items; each item is measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Strongly disagree” to “5 = Strongly agree”. A sample item includes: “So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life”.
- Happiness: Happiness is defined as the momentary feeling of intense joy or a positive state of emotion at a single point in time . It has been shown that happy people are healthier . Activities such as expressing gratitude, acts of kindness, savoring, optimism, committing to one’s goals have been shown to promote people’s feelings of happiness. A persuasive intervention designed to increase an individual’s overall happiness may likely impact on their health and well-being. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of many happiness scales. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ) developed by Peter Hill  is a popular happiness scale used by researchers. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire consists of 29 items measured on a 6-point Likert scale. Scores for this scale is calculated by summing the score for each item and dividing by 29, final scores are then interpreted. For example, if a participant selects “1” for all the items on the scale, the final happiness score of the individual will be “1”. “1” is interpreted as “not happy”. Another happiness scale is the Authentic Happiness Inventory (AHI) developed by Slain . AHI consist of 24-item groups; each group contains five statements from which an individual chooses which statements best describe their feelings. The final happiness score is then interpreted on a scale of “1” to “5”, with 5 being the highest in terms of happiness. One of the most widely used happiness scale is the one developed by Lyubomirsky and Lepper . The scale consists of 4 items, each item is measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Very unhappy” to “5 = Very happy”. A sample item includes: “If you were to consider your life in general these days, how happy would you say you are”. This study employs the Happiness scale developed by Lyubomirsky and Lepper . See Appendix A for all the scales used in this study.
2.2. Related Work
3. Materials and Methods
3.2. Data Sampling
3.3. Data Analysis
3.4. Validation of Study Instrument
4.1. Differences in the Latent Means Across Gender Groups
4.2. Differences in the Latent Means Across Age Groups
5.1. Relationship between Gender and SWB Components
5.2. Relationship between Age and SWB Components
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being Measurement Instrument
- Personality traitsOn a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree), to what extent do you agree with the following statements.I see myself as someone who:
- is reserved.
- is generally trusting.
- tends to be lazy.
- is relaxed, handles stress well.
- has few artistic interests.
- is outgoing, sociable.
- tends to find fault with others.
- does a thorough job.
- gets nervous easily.
- has an active imagination.
- Social well-being scaleOn a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) to what extent do you agree with the following statement.
- I have close contact with my direct neighbors.
- I think it’s important to be a member of an association.
- I’m content with my social position.
- I’m content with the relation to my neighbors.
- People in my neighborhood handle each other in a positive manner.
- I see myself as a part of society.
- I gladly have contact with other people via social media (Facebook, e-mail).
- There are enough people with who I feel strongly connected.
- I gladly help other people if they need my help.
- I’m content with the composition of the population in my neighborhood.
- I feel accepted in my neighborhood.
- I trust in the people in my surrounding.
- I gladly participate in activities in my neighborhood.
- My work situation contributes to my well-being.
- I gladly spent time with online gaming with other people.
- I’m content with my surrounding.
- Psychological well-being scaleOn a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) to what extent do you agree with the following statement.
- I lead a purposeful and meaningful life.
- I am engaged and interested in my daily activities.
- I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me.
- I am a good person and live a good life.
- My material life (income, housing, etc.) is sufficient for my need
- I am satisfied with my religious or spiritual life.
- I am optimistic about the future.
- I have no addictions, such as to alcohol, illicit drugs, or gambling
- People respect me.
- I have been feeling optimistic about the future.
- I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others.
- I generally trust others and feel part of my community.
- Emotional well-being scaleOn a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) to what extent do you agree with the following statement.
- I have been feeling useful.
- I have been dealing with problems well.
- I have been thinking clearly.
- I have been feeling close to other people.
- I have been feeling confident.
- My social relationships are supportive and rewarding
- I have been interested in new things.
- I have not been feeling depressed.
- I have not been feeling sad.
- I have not been feeling afraid.
- I have been feeling contented.
- I have been feeling positive.
- I have been feeling joyful.
- I have been feeling cheerful.
- I have been able to make up my own mind about things.
- I have been feeling loved.
- Happiness scaleOn a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Very unhappy to 5 = Very happy), please circle one number that corresponds to your response to each question.
- These days, how happy or unhappy would you say you are?
- Compared to most of your peers, you consider yourself?
- Some people are generally happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on, getting the most out of everything. To what extent does this characteristic describe you?
- Some people are generally not happy, although they are not depressed, they never seem as happy as they might be. To what extent does this characteristic describe you?
- Please, list things that make you happy (you can list up to 10).
- please, list things that make you unhappy (you can list up to 10).
- Satisfaction with life scaleOn a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) to what extent do you agree with the following statements.
- In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
- The conditions of my life are excellent.
- I am satisfied with my life.
- So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life.
- If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
- All things considered; I am satisfied with my life these days.
- Please, list things that gives you satisfaction in life (you can list up to 10 things).
- Please, list things that makes you unsatisfied with life (you can list up to 10 things).
- Fuhrer, M.J. Subjective Well-Being: Implications for Medical Rehabilitation Outcomes and Models of Disablement. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1994, 73, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thieme, A.; Wallace, J.; Meyer, T.D.; Olivier, P. Designing for mental wellbeing. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference, Lincoln, UK, 13–17 July 2015; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Brey, P.B. Design for the Value of Human Well-Being. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 365–382. [Google Scholar]
- Desmet, P.M.; Pohlmeyer, A.E.; Forlizzi, J. Special issue editorial: Design for subjective well-being. Int. J. Des. 2013, 7, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
- Dolan, S.; Robert, M. Measuring subjective wellbeing: Recommendation on measures for use by national governments. J. Soc. Pol. 2012, 2, 409–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hoorn, A.; Castriota, S. A short introduction to subjective well-being: Its measurement, correlates and policy uses. In Proceedings of the International Conference: Is Happiness Measurable and What Do Those Measures Mean for Policy, Rome, Italy, 2–3 April 2007; pp. 2–7. [Google Scholar]
- Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K.; Loving, T.J.; Stowell, J.R.; Malarkey, W.B.; Lemeshow, S.; Dickinson, S.L.; Glaser, R. Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and wound healing. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2015, 62, 1377–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Department of Health. Our Health and Wellbeing Today. 2010; No. 3; p. 68. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/215911/dh_122238.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2019). [Google Scholar]
- Orji, F.A.; Oyibo, K.; Orji, R.; Greer, J.; Vassileva, J. Personalization of Persuasive Technology in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, Larnaca, Cyprus, 9–12 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Abdullahi, A.M.; Orji, R.; Nwokeji, J.C. Personalizing Persuasive Educational Technologies to Learners’ Cognitive Ability. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), San Jose, CA, USA, 3–6 October 2018; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Abdullahi, A.M.; Oyibo, K.; Orji, R. The influence of cognitive ability on the susceptibility to persuasive strategies. In Proceedings of the Personalization in Persuasive Technology Workshop, Persuasive Technology 2018, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 17 April 2018; pp. 22–33. [Google Scholar]
- Abdullahi, A.M.; Orji, R.; Oyibo, K. Personalizing Persuasive Technologies: Do Gender and Age Affect Susceptibility to Persuasive Strategies? In Proceedings of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, Singapore, 8–11 July 2018; pp. 329–334. [Google Scholar]
- Ndulue, C.; Rita, O. STD PONG: A Personalized Persuasive Game for Risky Sexual Behavior Change in Africa. In Proceedings of the Personalization in Persuasive Technology Workshop, Persuasive Technology 2018, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 17 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Orji, R.; Oyibo, K.; Lomotey, R.K.; Orji, F.A. Socially driven persuasive health intervention design: Competition, social comparison, and cooperation. Health Inform. J. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orji, R.; Mandryk, R.L. Gender, Age, and Responsiveness to Cialdini’s Persuasion Strategies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Chicago, IL, USA, 3–5 June 2015; pp. 147–159. [Google Scholar]
- Orji, R.O.; Vassileva, J.; Mandryk, R.L. Modeling gender differences in healthy eating determinants for persuasive intervention design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Sydney, Australia, 3–5 April 2013; pp. 161–173. [Google Scholar]
- Orji, R. Exploring the persuasiveness of behavior change support strategies and possible gender differences. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Behavior Change Support Systems, Padua, Italy, 22 May 2014; Volume 1153, pp. 41–57. [Google Scholar]
- Orji, R.; Mandryk, R.L.; Vassileva, J. Gender and persuasive technology: Examining the persuasiveness of persuasive strategies by gender groups. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (PERSUASIVE 2014), Padova, Italy, 21–23 May 2014; pp. 48–52. [Google Scholar]
- Ha, S.E.; Kim, S. Personality and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from South Korea. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 111, 341–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Biswas-Diener, R. Will Money Increase Subjective Well-Being? Soc. Indic. Res. 2002, 57, 119–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, J.; Murthy, P.; Philip, M.; Mehrotra, S.; Thennarasu, K.; John, J.P.; Girish, N.; Thippeswamy, V.; Isaac, M. Socio-demographic Correlates of Subjective Well-being in Urban India. Soc. Indic. Res. 2011, 101, 419–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Oishi, S.; Lucas, R.E. Personality, Culture, and Subjective Well-Being: Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003, 54, 403–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamberlain, K. The Structure of Subjective Well-Being. Soc. Indic. Res. 1988, 20, 581–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Compton, W.C. Towards a tripartite factor structure of mental health: Subjective well-being, personal growth and religiosity. J. Psychol. 2001, 135, 486–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harris, M.; Magy, M.; Don, M. The Relationship between Psychological Well-Being and Perceived Wellness in Graduate-Level Counseling Students. High. Learn. Res. Commun. 2006, 34, 14–31. [Google Scholar]
- Van Dierendonck, D.; Díaz, D.; Rodríguez-Carvajal, R.; Blanco, A.; Moreno-Jiménez, B. Ryff’s six-factor model of psychological well-being, a Spanish exploration. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 87, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being. 2005. Available online: https://centerofinquiry.org/uncategorized/ryff-scales-of-psychological-well-being (accessed on 12 September 2019).
- Diener, E.; Robert, B.-D. Happiness: Unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological Wealth; Wiley/Blackwell: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Positive Emotions and Well-Being. Available online: www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/between-cultures/201611/positive-emotions-and-wellbeing (accessed on 24 October 2018).
- Stewart-Brown, S.; Mohammed, K.J. Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 141–166. [Google Scholar]
- Huppert, F.A.; Marks, N.; Clark, A.; Siegrist, J.; Stutzer, A.; Vittersø, J.; Wahrendorf, M. Measuring Well-being across Europe: Description of the ESS Well-being Module and Preliminary Findings. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 91, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umberson, D.; Montez, J.K. Social Relationship and Health: A flashpoint for health policy. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2010, 51, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.D.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. J. Pers. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prasoon, R.; Chaturvedi, K.R. Life satisfaction: A literature review. Res. J. Manag. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2016, 1, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
- Strine, T.W.; Chapman, D.P.; Balluz, L.S.; Moriarty, D.G.; Mokdad, A.H. The associations between life satisfaction and health-related quality of life, chronic illness, and health behaviors among U.S. community-dwelling adults. J. Community Health 2008, 33, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyubomirsky, S.; Lepper, H.S. A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc. Indic. Res. 1999, 46, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyubomirsky, S.; King, L.; Diener, E. The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? Psychol. Bull. 2005, 131, 803–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Argyle, M.; Hills, P. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ): A compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2002, 33, 1073–1082. [Google Scholar]
- Şanlı, E.; Çelik, S.B.; Gençoğlu, C. Validity and Reliability of the Authentic Happiness Scale’, Khazar. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2019, 22, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez, J.L.G.; Jiménez, B.M.; Hernández, E.G.; Pcn, C. Personality and subjective well-being: Big five correlates and demographic variables. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2005, 38, 1561–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ronald, I. Gender, Aging, and Subjective Well-Being. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 2002, 43, 391–408. [Google Scholar]
- Deaton, A. Income, aging, health and wellbeing around the world: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2007, 22, 53–72. [Google Scholar]
- Shmotkin, D. Subjective well-being as a function of age and gender: A multivariate look for differentiated trends. Soc. Indic. Res. 1990, 23, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bălţătescu, S. Gender and Age Differences in Subjective Well-being: Romania 1990–2005. In Gender, Lifespan and Quality of Life; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 99–114. [Google Scholar]
- Giusta, M.D.; Jewell, S.L.; Kambhampati, U.S. Gender and Life Satisfaction in the UK. Fem. Econ. 2011, 17, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, K.H.; Zumbo, B.D. Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Testing Measurement Invariance in Mixed Item Format Data. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2008, 7, 471–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oinas-kukkonen, H.; Harjumaa, M. Persuasive Systems design: Key Issues Process Model and System Features. Commun. Assoc. inf. Syst. 2009, 24, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huebner, E.S.; Suldo, S.M.; Smith, L.C.; McKnight, C.G. Life satisfaction in children and youth: Empirical foundations and implications for school psychologists. Psychol. Sch. 2014, 41, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denrele, A. Men Do Suffer from Emotional Abuse. Vanguard News 2015, 12, 5–6. [Google Scholar]
- Goldschmidt, O.T.; Weller, L. Talking Emotions: Gender Difference in a Variety of conventional Context. Symb. Interact. 2000, 23, 117–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carstensen, L.L.; Fung, H.H.; Charles, S.T. Socioemotional Selectivity Theory and the Regulation of Emotion in the Second Half of Life. Motiv. Emot. 2016, 27, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taneva, S. What is psychological well-being and how it changes throughout the employment cycle? In Work, Health and Sustainability: Building Citizenship; UnicampBFCM: Campinas, Brazil, 2016; pp. 83–90. [Google Scholar]
- Gutiérrez, M.; Tomás, J.M.; Galiana, L.; Sancho, P.; Cebrià, M.A. Predicting life satisfaction of the Angolan elderly: A structural model. Aging Ment. Health 2013, 17, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Social Media and Happiness: The Unfortunate Truth. 2015. Available online: www.kulraj.org (accessed on 2 February 2019).
- Life Potentials: Types of Happiness in Psychology. 2014. Available online: www.theworldcounts.com (accessed on 2 February 2019).
- Faisal, H.G.; Sutan, R.; Elnajeh, M.; Abdalqader, M.A.; Baobaid, M. The importance of social participation and networking among elderly people: Short review. J. Manag. Sci. 2017, 15, 99–107. [Google Scholar]
|Criterion||N = 732|
|Gender||Male (52%), Female (48%)|
|Age||21% (16–24), 19% (25–34), 17% (35–44), 13% (45–54), 13% (55–64), 11% (65–74), and 6% (75+)|
|Criterion||N = 278|
|Gender||Male (59%), Female (41%)|
|Age||57% (16–24), 41% (over 65 years)|
|Components of SWB||PWB||EWB||SoWB||SWL||H|
|Components of SWB||Latent Mean, φ (phi)|
|Latent Mean, φ (phi)|
|Satisfaction with Life||4.3||1.2||3.1||<0.001|
|Components of SWB||Latent Mean, φ (phi)|
|Latent mean, φ (phi)|
|Satisfaction with Life||3.9||1.7||2.2||<0.001|
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).