A bifactor model of subjective well-being: A re-examination of the structure of subjective well-being

a r t i c l e i n f o The present research has aimed to extend the previous research on the structure of subjective well-being (SWB) by applying the bifactor model. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) were administered to two large samples of Serbian young adults (N 1 = 1669, N 2 = 1522). The bifactor model of SWB with one general and three specific factors (life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) provided the best fit to the data and outperformed the original three-factor model and the higher-factor model in both samples. The results supported the multidimensional nature of SWB, with a strong general factor underlying the SWLS and PANAS. Bifactor modeling has shown that SWLS and PANAS reflect both common and specific variance in SWB, with about half of the reliable variance in life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect being independent of the general factor. The present findings imply that researchers should be careful when interpreting SWLS and PANAS scores and that general SWB factor should be taken into account. Implications for scale scoring and interpretation, and theoretical conceptualization of SWB are discussed. Subjective well-being (SWB) has become one of the most exciting and challenging topics in social sciences in recent years. SWB is most commonly defined as " a person's cognitive and affective evaluations of his or her life " (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2002, p. 63), comprising three distinct components: life satisfaction (LS), positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) (Diener, 1984). The tripartite structure of SWB has been rarely questioned and the distinction between SWB components has been widely adopted as a fundamental premise of SWB research (Schimmack, 2008). Despite enormous progress in this field, we argue that several fundamental issues regarding SWB are yet to be resolved and that the key questions involving the conceptual basis and structure of SWB still remain unanswered. These issues have been summarized by Busseri and Sadava (2011), who provided a superb overview of crucial problems concerning the structure and conceptualization of SWB. It was excellently noted by these authors that even the fundamental question regarding the conceptual status of SWB (i.e., is SWB a psychological construct or merely a name for research area) is yet to be resolved. The term SWB has been used inconsistently in the literature, thus creating confusion concerning its conceptual status. SWB …