IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v17y2016i5d10.1007_s10902-015-9671-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Culture and the Structure of Affect: A Bifactor Modeling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Fang Fang Chen

    (University of Delaware
    University of Hong Kong)

  • Liying Bai

    (Fuzhou University)

  • Jeong Min Lee

    (University of Delaware)

  • Yiming Jing

    (University of Delaware)

Abstract

This paper tested the impact of culture on the basic structure of affect. It examined positive affect and negative affect at three levels of activation in the U.S. and China. It used a well-suited tool, the bifactor model, to separate the common variance shared by all types of affect from the variance unique to each. The findings indicate that the structure of affect is different cross-culturally. In the U.S., the most fundamental dimension is defined by moderate activation of positive affect and negative affect, which is the largely bipolar dimension of pleasure-displeasure, whereas in China, it is defined by moderate activation of positive affect only, which is pleasure. In both cultures, negative affect across levels of activation forms another important dimension. Beyond these basic dimensions, secondary dimensions are also identified in both cultures: high activation positive affect, low activation positive affect, and low activation negative affect. They form relatively weak unique factors, independent of the two basic dimensions, suggesting that they are largely mixtures of the basic dimensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fang Fang Chen & Liying Bai & Jeong Min Lee & Yiming Jing, 2016. "Culture and the Structure of Affect: A Bifactor Modeling Approach," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1801-1824, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:17:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10902-015-9671-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-015-9671-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-015-9671-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10902-015-9671-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fang Chen & Yiming Jing & Adele Hayes & Jeong Lee, 2013. "Two Concepts or Two Approaches? A Bifactor Analysis of Psychological and Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 1033-1068, June.
    2. Arthur A. Stone & Joseph E. Schwartz & Joan E. Broderick & Angus Deaton, 2010. "A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States," Working Papers 1230, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Health and Wellbeing..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ana Blasco-Belled & Radosław Rogoza & Cristina Torrelles-Nadal & Carles Alsinet, 2020. "Emotional Intelligence Structure and Its Relationship with Life Satisfaction and Happiness: New Findings from the Bifactor Model," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 2031-2049, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marta G. Pancheva & Carol D. Ryff & Mario Lucchini, 2021. "An Integrated Look at Well-Being: Topological Clustering of Combinations and Correlates of Hedonia and Eudaimonia," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 2275-2297, June.
    2. De Neve, Jan-Emmanuel & Oswald, Andrew J., 2012. "Estimating the influence of life satisfaction and positive affect on later income using sibling fixed-effects," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51523, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Thi Truong An Hoang & Andreas Knabe, 2021. "Time Use, Unemployment, and Well-Being: An Empirical Analysis Using British Time-Use Data," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 2525-2548, August.
    4. Heather Lacey & Todd Kierstead & Diana Morey, 2012. "De-Biasing the Age-Happiness Bias: Memory Search and Cultural Expectations in Happiness Judgments Across the Lifespan," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 647-658, August.
    5. Andrew E. Clark, 2015. "SWB as a Measure of Individual Well-Being," Working Papers halshs-01134483, HAL.
    6. John F. Helliwell & Haifang Huang & Max B. Norton & Shun Wang, 2019. "Happiness at Different Ages: The Social Context Matters," Springer Books, in: Mariano Rojas (ed.), The Economics of Happiness, chapter 0, pages 455-481, Springer.
    7. Flores, Gabriela & Ingenhaag, Michael & Maurer, Jürgen, 2015. "An anatomy of old-age disability: Time use, affect and experienced utility," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 150-160.
    8. Valentina N. Burkova & Marina L. Butovskaya & Ashley K. Randall & Julija N. Fedenok & Khodabakhsh Ahmadi & Ahmad M. Alghraibeh & Fathil Bakir Mutsher Allami & Fadime Suata Alpaslan & Mohammad Ahmad Ab, 2021. "Predictors of Anxiety in the COVID-19 Pandemic from a Global Perspective: Data from 23 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-23, April.
    9. O'Donnell, Gus & Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 59-70.
    10. Mohamed A. Eltarkawe & Shelly L. Miller, 2018. "The Impact of Industrial Odors on the Subjective Well-Being of Communities in Colorado," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, May.
    11. Biermann, Philipp & Bitzer, Jürgen & Gören, Erkan, 2022. "The relationship between age and subjective well-being: Estimating within and between effects simultaneously," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).
    12. Schwandt, Hannes, 2013. "Unmet Aspirations as an Explanation for the Age U-shape in Human Wellbeing," IZA Discussion Papers 7604, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Stone Arthur A, 2011. "A Rationale for Including a Brief Assessment of Hedonic Well-being in Large-scale Surveys," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Deaton, Angus, 2018. "What do self-reports of wellbeing say about life-cycle theory and policy?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 18-25.
    15. Bedriye Alıcı & Gürcan Seçim, 2020. "The Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Riverside Life Satisfaction Scale–Adult Form," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    16. Hudomiet, Péter & Hurd, Michael D. & Rohwedder, Susann, 2021. "The age profile of life satisfaction after age 65 in the U.S," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 431-442.
    17. Terence C. Cheng & Nattavudh Powdthavee & Andrew J. Oswald, 2017. "Longitudinal Evidence for a Midlife Nadir in Human Well‐being: Results from Four Data Sets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(599), pages 126-142, February.
    18. David G. Blanchflower & Andrew J. Oswald, 2019. "Do Humans Suffer a Psychological Low in Midlife? Two Approaches (With and Without Controls) in Seven Data Sets," Springer Books, in: Mariano Rojas (ed.), The Economics of Happiness, chapter 0, pages 439-453, Springer.
    19. Van Landeghem, Bert, 2012. "A test for the convexity of human well-being over the life cycle: Longitudinal evidence from a 20-year panel," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 571-582.
    20. Junji Kageyama & Kazuma Sato, 2021. "Explaining the U-shaped life satisfaction: dissatisfaction as a driver of behavior," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 179-202, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:17:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10902-015-9671-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.