Further Evaluation of the Tripartite Structure of Subjective Well‐Being: Evidence From Longitudinal and Experimental Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Subjective well‐being (SWB; Diener, 1984) comprises three primary components: life satisfaction (LS), positive affect (PA), and negative affect (NA). Multiple competing conceptualizations of the tripartite structure of SWB have been employed, resulting in widespread ambiguity concerning the definition, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis of SWB‐related findings (Busseri & Sadava, 2011). We report two studies evaluating two predominant structural models (as recently identified by Busseri, 2015): a hierarchical model comprising a higher‐order latent SWB factor with LS, PA, and NA as indicators; and a causal systems model specifying unidirectional effects of PA and NA on LS. A longitudinal study ( N = 452; M age = 18.54; 76.5% female) and a lab‐based experiment ( N = 195; M age = 20.42 years; 87.6% female; 81.5% Caucasian) were undertaken. Structural models were evaluated with respect to (a) associations among SWB components across time (three months, three years in Study 1; one week in Study 2) and (b) the impact of manipulating the individual SWB components (Study 2). A hierarchical structural model was supported in both studies; conflicting evidence was found for the causal systems model. A hierarchical model provides a robust conceptualization for the tripartite structure of SWB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it