· web viewsupervisor: prof. robert a. cummins. campus: burwood. word count: 4997 “i, the...

Subjective Wellbeing: An appraisal of the role of HPMood,

Approach-Avoidant Control, Extraversion and Neuroticism.

By

Trish Ayers

B.App.Sc. (Psychology)

B.App.Sc. (Physiotherapy)

B.S.W.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Applied Science Psychology Honours

School of Psychology, Faculty of Health

Deakin University

24th October 2011

Student Number: 700138551

Supervisor: Prof. Robert A. Cummins

Campus: Burwood

Word Count: 4997

“I, the undersigned, declare that this Empirical Report is under the specified word limit,

and that it comprises original work and writing by me, and that due acknowledgement has

been made to all other material used.

Signed Trish Ayers Dated 24/10/11

Deakin University School of Psychology Honours Candidate Certificate

I am the author of the thesis entitled

“Subjective Wellbeing:

An appraisal of the role of HPMood,

Approach-Avoidant Control, Extraversion and Neuroticism.”

Submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Applied Science (Honours) and I agree to grant the Honours Coordinator of the School of Psychology permission to make this thesis available for consultation, loan, or photocopying, in whole or in part.

Signed _________________________ Date: 24/10/11

Deakin University School of Psychology Ethics Summary StatementProject Number: (ID 2006-266)

Project Title: Subjective Wellbeing: An appraisal of the role of HPMood,

Approach-Avoidant Control, Extraversion and Neuroticism.

.We the undersigned declare that the above named research project has been completed as described in the Application for Ethics Approval and in accordance with the ethics guidelines of Deakin University.

Researcher’s Name: Ms. Trish Ayers

Researcher’s SignatureDate 24/10/11

Supervisor’s Name: Professor Robert Cummins

Supervisor’s Signature ______________________ Date __________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... VLIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................................................... VII

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................... IX

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................... 1

SUBJECTIVE WELLBEING......................................................................................................................... 2SWB HOMEOSTASIS.......................................................................................................................................................2SET-POINTS.....................................................................................................................................................................2

HPMOOD....................................................................................................................................................... 3

PERCEIVED CONTROL.............................................................................................................................. 3TWO-PROCESS MODEL...................................................................................................................................................3FUNCTION OF PERCEIVED CONTROL...........................................................................................................................4HPMOOD, APPROACH-AVOIDANT CONTROL AND SWB........................................................................................4

PERSONALITY............................................................................................................................................. 5

HYPOTHESES............................................................................................................................................... 5HYPOTHESIS 1:...............................................................................................................................................................6HYPOTHESIS 2: ..............................................................................................................................................................6HYPOTHESIS 3: ..............................................................................................................................................................6

METHOD....................................................................................................................................................... 7PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 7MATERIALS......................................................................................................................................................................7

Subjective Wellbeing.............................................................................................................................................. 7Personality.................................................................................................................................................................. 8Approach-Avoidant Control................................................................................................................................ 8HPMood........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................................................................................9

RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 9PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................................9

Descriptives.............................................................................................................................................................. 10FACTOR ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................................................................12

PWI.............................................................................................................................................................................. 12Extraversion-Neuroticism................................................................................................................................. 12HPMood..................................................................................................................................................................... 13

HYPOTHESIS 1:............................................................................................................................................................13HYPOTHESIS 2: ........................................................................................................................................................... 16HYPOTHESIS 3: ........................................................................................................................................................... 20

DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................................. 25APPROACH-AVOIDANT SCALE...................................................................................................................................25APPROACH-AVOIDANT CONTROL AND SWB.........................................................................................................25EXTRAVERSION-NEUROTICISM AND SWB..............................................................................................................26LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 27FUTURE RESEARCH......................................................................................................................................................27CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................................27

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................. 28

APPENDICIES............................................................................................................................................ 32APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS..................................................................33APPENDIX B ARC21 AND DEMOGRAPHICS............................................................................................................35APPENDIX C ETHICS AND PARTICIPANTS DOCUMENTS.........................................................................................36APPENDIX D FACTOR ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................37

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:

Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for variables Personal

Well Being Index, Approach Control, Global Life Satisfaction, Neuroticism,

Homeostatically Protected Mood, Extraversion and Avoidant

Control……………………………………………………………………………………………………..11

Table 2:

Factor Loading from Principal Components Factor Analysis for Two-factor

Solution for the Approach-Avoidant Dimensions of Control………………………...15

Table 3.

Mediation Analysis Summary for the effect of Mediator HPMood on the

Relationship between Approach Control and SWB………………………………….…..17

Table 4.


Relationship between Approach Control and GLS……………………………………….18

Table 5.


Relationship between Avoidant Control and SWB ……………………………………...19

Table 6.


Relationship between Avoidant Control and GLS………………………………….….....20

Table 7.

Mediation Analysis Summary for effect of Mediator HPMood on the

Relationship between Extraversion and SWB…………………………………………......21

Table 8.


Relationship between Extraversion and GLS…………………………………………..…..22

Table 9.


Relationship between Neuroticism and SWB………………………………………….......23

Table 10.


Relationship between Neuroticism and GLS…………………………………………….....24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.

Unmediated and mediated models, variables including the mediator, are

regressed against each other………………………………………………………..……………16

ABSTRACT

This study concerns the composition of Subjective Wellbeing (SWB). While the

Personality factors of Extraversion and Neuroticism have been proposed as the main

predictors of SWB, this study investigates whether Homeostatically Protected Mood

(HPMood) is the dominant component of SWB. It also predicts that the relationship

between perceived control and SWB will be fully mediated by HPMood. Participants were

the first 1000 returned written questionnaire responses from the June 2011, Australian

Research Council (ARC) 21 survey. This survey sampled Australians nationally. Age

range of participants was from 21 to 96 years and there were 467 males and 532 females.

Mediation analyses confirmed that HPMood is either a full mediator or a very strong

partial mediator of the relationship between Extraversion, Neuroticism, perceived control

and two measures of SWB. These results replicate previous research with HPMood

emerging as the main constituent of SWB rather than personality. They also extend

previous research by demonstrating that HPMood is causal in the relationship between

Approach-Avoidant Control and SWB.

1

SUBJECTIVE WELLBEING

Subjective Wellbeing (SWB) has been described as a reflection of the way people

perceive and evaluate life. It encompasses emotional reactions to life events, mood and

judgment concerning satisfaction with life domains (Diener, Oishi & Lucas, 2003). SWB

has also been described as a product of cognitive evaluations of life experience embedded

in an affective background (Davern & Cummins, 2006).

An important characteristic of SWB is the normality of individuals feeling positive

about themselves (Cummins, 2010). This positive element of the SWB of Australians has

been measured in 24 surveys since 2001 via the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index (AUWI)

using the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) (International Wellbeing Group, 2006). All

results are standardized on a scale of 0 to 100, and the mean scores for SWB is 75 points

with a standard deviation of 0.8 points (Cummins, in press). This normally positive value

of SWB is associated with a number of psychological mechanisms that operate to hold

levels of SWB constant.

SWB homeostasis

One psychological mechanism, proposed as supporting the positive maintenance of

SWB, is homeostasis (Cummins, 2010). In this conception, genetically prewired

neurological and psychological processes actively control SWB. These processes are

thought to preserve a comprehensive and abstract positive sense of wellbeing, measured by

responses to the single question “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole”.

Responses reveal a deep stable positive mood that is the core of SWB (Cummins, in press).

It is proposed that it is this sense of positive mood that homeostasis seeks to preserve.

Set-points

A further psychological mechanism supporting positive SWB is the proposal that

each person has a genetically determined SWB set-point and in the absence of significant

life events, people tend to maintain a relatively stable level of SWB (Headley & Wearing,

1989).

2

When an individual experiences a major life event their SWB can be temporarily

disturbed. According to the Dynamic Equilibrium Model, there is a propensity to regain

their previous stable SWB level over time (Headley & Wearing, 1989). The range of set-

points within large normative samples is from 60 – 90 points, having a mean of 75

(Cummins, in press). This SWB homeostatic mechanism aims to keep SWB within each

individual’s set-point range and hence poses the question as to the composition of SWB.

HPMOOD

There has been significant debate in the literature as to the actual structure of SWB.

The current controversy is the claim by Diener, Scollon, and Lucas (2004) that SWB is

mainly a cognitive construct. However, recent research by Blore, Stokes, Mellor, Firth and

Cummins (2011); Davern, Cummins and Stokes (2007), tips the balance towards affect, in

the form of a deep stable positive mood, which has been named Homeostatically Protected

Mood (HPMood) by Cummins (2010). HPMood has been described by Cummins (in

press) as comprising a blend of hedonic and arousal values. This study will further explore

SWB, by considering the relationship between HPMood, and Perceived Control.

PERCEIVED CONTROL

The literature suggests that successful control in any form is positively related to

SWB (Ferguson & Goodwin, 2010; Heckhausen, Wrosch & Schulz, 2010). Indeed,

perceptions of control have been related to positive outcomes such as health, success and

adjustment across the lifespan (Skinner, 1996). Perceived control has been categorised as a

two-process model (Rothbaum, Weisz & Snyder, 1982).

Two-process model

This two-process model of control comprises primary control, encompassing

actions taken to alter the world so that it fits with individual needs. Secondary control is

where the individual fits in with the world, employing strategies such as expecting to fail

and withdrawing (Rothbaum et al. 1982). Both control processes are intertwined and if

these control processes fail, relinquished control when the person feels unable to exert

primary or secondary control and gives up, is utilised (Rothbaum et al. 1982).

3

An intertwining of these control processes has been suggested as a means of coping

with stressful situations (Cousins, 2002). Perceived control, comprising these connected

control processes, may function to impact on individual SWB

Function of perceived control

Perceived control has been proposed as a psychological mechanism supporting the

positive maintenance of SWB (Cummins & Nistico, 2002). SWB Homeostasis can be

assisted by positive cognitive biases (PCBs) that relate to the self. People attribute success

to internal, stable, universal causes and failure to external unstable and particular causes

(Cummins & Nistico, 2002). PCB’s of control thus act as a buffer against adverse

psychological effects from hostile events (Cummins & Nistico, 2002) and assists the

maintenance of SWB.

A new categorization of perceived control; Approach-Avoidant Control has been

developed by Cousins (2002). This categorization is a useful approach representing a more

relevant construct than primary and secondary control (Rothbaum et al. 1982) or problem-

emotion-focused coping (Folkman, 1984). The main issue is whether an individual

believes that they can address the problem or if they can avoid it (Cousins, 2002).

The rationale for Cousin’s approach was that an exploratory factor analysis

concerning perceived control containing the constructs primary, secondary and

relinquished control produced a two-factor structure. The first factor, Approach Control

reflected items where the problem was addressed. The second factor Avoidant Control,

reflected items where the problem was avoided (Cousins, 2002). This factors structure

showed no statistical differentiation between primary, secondary and relinquished control

items. Indeed, Cousins has refined the composition of perceived control, into clearer

dimensions. Consequently, the relationship between Approach-Avoidant Control,

HPMood and SWB is considered.

HPMood, Approach-Avoidant Control and SWB

HPMood has been implicated in recent research as the essence of SWB (Cummins,

2010). Successful control in any form is related to SWB (Heckhausen et al. 2010). This

study extends current research by exploring the connection between SWB, Approach-

4

Avoidant Control and HPMood. This study tests the proposition that HPMood fully

mediates the connection between SWB and Approach-Avoidant Control and furthermore

considers the literature concerning SWB and personality.

PERSONALITY

Personality has been conceptualised as a five-factor model (Costa & McCrae,

1998). Investigation has consistently shown that two-personality factors Extraversion and

Neuroticism are related to SWB. Extraversion, where individuals are sociable, self-

confident warm, optimistic, and exhilaration seeking (Costa &McCrae, 1980), influences

SWB by positive emotion and lowered threshold for activating positive effect (Diener &

Eid, 2006). Secondly, Neuroticism, where individuals have the tendency to experience

negative, distressing emotions and posses associated behavior and cognitive traits such as,

fearfulness and irritability (Costa & McCrae, 1987) and is inversely related to SWB

(Diener & Ryan, 2009).

Diener has focused on personality as the main predictor of SWB (Diener et al.

2003; Diener, 1984; Diener & Lucas, 1999). However, recent research (Davern et al. 2007,

Blore et al. 2011) has challenged this proposing that the dominant predictor of SWB is

HPMood (Cummins, 2010).

This study further investigates the relationship between Extraversion, Neuroticism,

HPMood and SWB

HYPOTHESES

This study explores the relationship between HPMood, SWB and Approach-

Avoidant Control and investigates whether HPMood fully mediates the relationship. The

study also reconsiders the proposition that personality is the main predictor of SWB and

proposes instead, that HPMood is the prime constituent of SWB.

5

The following hypotheses are proposed:-

Hypothesis 1:

That the factorial structure of the Approach-Avoidant Control Scale will be confirmed

The Perceived Control questionnaire (Cousins, 2002) is unique in conceptualising

perceived control as either Approach or Avoidant. However, the structure of the scale rests

on a single study. This will be tested using the same items identified by Cousins (2002)

and an additional experimentally introduced item. An exploratory factor analysis will

determine whether the two factors found by Cousins can be replicated.

Hypothesis 2:

The relationship between both Approach-Avoidant Control and SWB be fully mediated by HPMood

The literature suggests that successful control in any form is positively related to

SWB (Ferguson & Goodwin, 2010; Heckhausen et al. 2010). Perceived control has been

found to operate as a PCB in maintaining SWB (Cummins & Nistaco, 2002). HPMood has

been proposed as the dominant constituent of SWB (Cummins, 2010). This study proposes

that HPMood fully mediates the relationship between Approach-Avoidant Control and

SWB.

Hypothesis 3:

The relationship between Extraversion-Neuroticism and SWB will be fully mediated by HPMood.

There is extensive literature positively relating trait Extraversion and negatively

relating trait Neuroticism to SWB (Costa & McCrae, 1980, Diener, 1996). These findings,

however, do not account for mood as a contributing factor. Recent research by Blore et al.

(2011), Davern et al. (2007) has found that HPMood mediates the relationships between

Extraversion-Neuroticism and SWB. This study tests whether HPMood fully mediates the

relationship between Extraversion-Neuroticism and SWB.

6

METHOD

Participants

The data used for the analysis came from the AUWI. This project comprises an

ongoing research program measuring the subjective wellbeing of Australians through a

partnership between Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University, and

Australian Unity.

This survey consisted of 2,198 Australians representative of the adult population

aged 18 and over. Participants were originally randomly selected from telephone numbers

within geographical areas representative of population distribution. On completion of

telephone interviews, these participants had consented to joining the ongoing longitudinal

wellbeing research project for periodical survey via written questionnaires. The sample for

this study comprised the ARC21st survey conducted in June 2011. The first 1000 responses

were included. There were 467 male and 532 females age range 21 to 96 years, mean of

59.98 (SD = 14.57). Refer to demographic information (Appendix A, Table A1). The

overall response was 62.6%.

Materials

Subjective Wellbeing

The AUWI included two measures of SWB. The first is the global evaluation of life

satisfaction, (GLS), “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole”. (Appendix B, B1,

item 1). This item is rated on an 11-point scale ranging from (0), no satisfaction at all, to

(10), completely satisfied. This item was selected on the basis of an earlier study

(Cummins, Eckersley, Pallant, Van Vugt & Misajon, 2003), which suggested that the

mood core of SWB is reflected most accurately by an abstract question around personal

satisfaction.

Another measure of SWB the PWI (Appendix B, B1, items 2-9), assessed SWB

using the aggregate of seven domains of satisfaction. The mean of these domains

comprises a measure of SWB. Participants responded indicating level of satisfaction on an

11-point-scale from (0) no satisfaction at all to (10), completely satisfied. The scale has

7

high internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha between .70 and .85 (International

Wellbeing Group, 2006). The test-retest reliability over a one to two-week period has

demonstrated an intra-class correlation coefficient of .84 (Cummins & Lau, 2005).

Cronbach’s alpha for the PWI for the current study was .86.

Personality

The personality dimensions Extraversion and Neuroticism utilised in this study

were measured using 24 items; 12 measuring each dimension. Items were taken from the

NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992) (Appendix B, B1, items

68–91). These two personality dimensions are the most strongly related to SWB (Davern,

2004). Participants responded indicating level of agreement on an 11point scale from (0),

do not agree at all, to (10) agree completely. The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was

designed as a brief form of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. The NEO-FFI has an

estimated adequate test-retest reliability over 12 weeks, N = .79, E = .79. (N = 208), p <.

001 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In the current sample Cronbach’s alpha for Extraversion and

Neuroticism were .81 and .87 respectively.

Approach-Avoidant Control

A Coping with Life Scale containing 12 items was used to measure the concept of

Approach-Avoidant Control. (Appendix B, B1, items 48 – 59). Eleven of these items were

derived from a Perceived Control Questionnaire, which conceptualised control as

Approach or Avoidant (Cousins, 2002). Six items, which had the strongest loading on the

Approach factor, were selected. Only five items loaded on to the Avoidant factor, all were

selected. An additional item was sourced from the Coping Response Inventory (Moos,

1993) to have equal number of questions representing each dimension. Participants

responded indicating level of agreement on an 11-point scale from (0), do not agree at all

to (10), completely agree. This new scale requires replication. Cronbach’s alpha for

Approach-Avoidant Control in this study was .87 and .76 respectively.

HPMood

The scale to measure HPMood comprised three items (Appendix B, B1, items 4,

19, 36). These items were selected as suggested by Cummins (2010). The instructions for

8

answering the items on the HPMood scale used in this study were: “Thinking about my life

in general I feel”… Responses measuring HPMood included, alert, happy, contented.

Participants responded on an 11-point scale indicating level of agreement from (0), do not

agree at all to (10), completely agree. Cronbach’s alpha was .82 in this study.

Procedure

Ethics approval was gained from Deakin University Human Research Ethics

Committee (Appendix C, C1) Potential respondents received a package containing a

covering letter (Appendix C, C2) a plain language statement, (Appendix C, C3) the ARC

21 questionnaire (Appendix B, B1), demographic information sheet (Appendix B, B2) and

a reply paid envelope. These packages were mailed to participants from a private company

(Salmat) where participant information is confidentially stored. Completed questionnaires

were returned to Deakin University. Information from the questionnaires was

professionally transcribed, observing participant confidentially.

RESULTS

Preliminary data analysis

All analyses in this study were performed using SPSS version18.0. Means, standard

deviations and response scores have been converted to a standard 0-100 scale. When a

score is rated on a 0 to 10 scale, the conversion is calculated through the formula x = score

to be converted, multiplied by 100 and divided by the number of scale points minus 1

(Cummins, 1995). The conversion assists the reader to understand scores and comparisons

with other data. The PWI variable showed a number of participants scoring 100. These

results were deleted to avoid the inclusion of socially acquiescent responses.

All assumptions of parametric statistics were met. The sample size of 1000 was

greater than the criterion of a minimum of 5 respondents per variable outlined by

Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). A missing data analysis showed that all variables, except

Extraversion, Neuroticism and HPMood, had less than 5% missing cases. Missing data

were not replaced, rather all cases were retained and cases were excluded pairwise from

the analysis. This way of managing missing data is strongly recommended by Pallant

9

(2011).

Outliers were determined as values further than 3.3 standard deviations from the

mean. Neuroticism was the only variable showing outliers, containing three, uni-variate

outliers. There were no multivariate outliers. Analyses run with and without these three

outliers found negligible differences in degree of variance, so sample integrity was

maintained and outliers retained.

Descriptives

Descriptive information, including means, standard deviations and bi-variate

correlations for each of the variables, were calculated. These are shown in Table 1.

1

Table 1:

Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and bivariate correlations for variables Personal Well Being Index (PWI), Approach Control,

Global Life Satisfaction (GLS), Neuroticism, Homeostatically Protected Mood (HPMood), Extraversion and Avoidant Control, N=1000.

SWB Approach GLS Neuroticism. HPMood Extraversion. Avoidant

SWB .40** .77** -.46** .76** .43** .09**

Approach .32** -.34** .52** .39** .14**

GLS -.43** .76** .37** .10**

Neuroticism -.51** -.39** .06

HPMood .50** .14**

Extraversion .06

Avoidant

M 74.75 70.49 75.69 35.30 71.90 57.41 44.81

SD 14.17 15.94 17.19 17.44 17.47 13.36 19.15

**Correlations significant at p < 0.01 levels, (2-tailed)

1

The individual mean scores for SWB and GLS in the current sample closely

approximate the group mean scores of 75.17 which has been measured by the PWI in a

combined data set from 24 independent Australian surveys, conducted between 2001 to

2010, (Cummins, in press). Interestingly HPMood has a mean of 71.90, which is relatively

close to the mean measures of SWB and GLS.

Factor Analysis

PWI

A principal components (PCA) analysis was undertaken to confirm the factor

structure of the PWI (Appendix D, Table D1). Data were suitable for factor analysis as all

coefficients from the correlation matrix were .3 and above (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) = .88, exceeding the minimum value of .6 (Kaiser, 1974)

and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance (Bartlett, 1954), supporting

the factorability of the correlation matrix. Analysis, with direct Oblimin rotation with

Kaiser Normalisation, revealed the emergence of one factor explaining 55.62% of the

variance.

Extraversion-Neuroticism

The combined Extraversion and Neuroticism scores were subjected to PCA. Prior

to performing the PCA it was determined that many coefficients were .3 and above. The

KMO = .91 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical significance supporting the

factorability of the correlation matrix. There were 24 items in the analysis, 12 representing

Extraversion and 12 representing Neuroticism.

A forced two-factor solution showed that one item from the Neuroticism scale, “I

rarely feel lonely”, had to be removed as it loaded equally on to both of the factors. A

second analysis with this item omitted, revealed two clean factors, Neuroticism accounting

for 29.15% and Extraversion, explaining 12.60% of the variance; total variance explained

41.75% (Appendix D, Table D2). The factors are weakly negatively correlated, r= -.312.

1

HPMood

Data were suitable for factor analysis as all coefficients from the correlation matrix

were above .5. The KMO = .68 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical

significance supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix. Analysis revealed the

emergence of one component accounting for 74.66% of the variance (Appendix D, Table

D3).

Hypothesis 1:

That the factorial structure of the Approach-Avoidant Control scale will be confirmed

To confirm the factorial structure of the Approach-Avoidant Control scale Cousins,

(2002) the 12 items of the scale were subjected to a (PCA). Inspection of the correlation

matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above indicating suitability for

PCA. The KMO = .85 exceeding the recommended value of .6 and Bartlett’s test of

sphericity reached statistical significance supporting the factorability of the correlation

matrix.

PCA revealed the presence of three components with eigenvectors exceeding 1,

explaining 31.93%, 20.90%, and 8.67% of the variance respectively. An inspection of the

scree plot revealed a clear break after the second component. There were only two items in

the third component, items 54 and 59 (See Appendix B, B1). Item 59 was the

experimentally added item. It was decided to delete it in order to improve a two-factor

solution. Item 54, loaded moderately on to component 2, at .69 and weakly on to

component 3, at .35.

A further PCA was run with item 59 deleted and a two-factor solution was revealed

explaining 34.58% and 22.39% of variance respectively. The results showed the

components were independent (r = .11). To aid in the interpretation of these two

components, an Oblimin rotation with Kaiser normalisation was performed. The rotated

solution revealed the presence of a simple structure, with both components showing a

number of strong loadings and all items now loading substantially on to only one the two

components. The internal consistency was high for Component 1, Approach Control (α=.

87). Internal consistency was moderate for Component 2, Avoidant Control (α=. 76). The

1

interpretation of the two components was consistent with previous research by Cousins,

(2002). Items measuring Approach Control loading strongly onto component 1 and items

measuring Avoidant Control loading strongly onto component 2. The results of this

analysis support the use of Approach and Avoidant components as separate scales. Results

of the factor analysis are displayed in Table 2.

1

Table 2:

Factor Loading from Principal Components Factor Analysis for Two-factor Solution for

the Approach-Avoidant Dimensions of Control

Questionnaire Items Approach

Control

(N = 950)

AvoidantControl

(N = 948)

50. I look for different ways to achieve the goal .830

51. I put lots of time into overcoming it .798

48. I work hard to overcome it .774

56. I learn the skills to overcome it .749

53. I work out what caused it .748

58. I make an effort to make good things happen .743

55. I tell myself it doesn’t matter .802

52. I relax and don’t think about it .794

54. I realise I didn’t need to control it anyway .675

49. I ignore it by thinking about other things .653

57. I don’t feel disappointed because I knew it might

happen

.618

Correlation between each factor .11Percent of variance explained 34.58 22.39Cronbach’s Alpha . 87 .76

1

Statistical analyses for hypotheses 2 and 3

For testing Hypothesis 2 and 3, a mediation analysis has been used. Following

Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines, four steps were tested using multiple regression

equations:

Steps 1, 2 and 3 regressed each variable against one another to establish a

significant association. These are X - Y path c (unmediated model), X – M path a, and M -

Y path b, as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Unmediated and mediated models, variables including the mediator, are

regressed against each other.

X c Y (Kenny, 2011)

Step 4 tests for mediation (path c') as shown in figure 1, by regressing X on Y after

controlling for the mediator M. Full mediation occurs when variable X no longer affects Y

so path c’ is zero. Partial mediation is determined when the path from X to Y is

significantly reduced.

Hypothesis 2:

The relationship between Approach-Avoidant Control with SWB will be fully mediated by

HPMood

Separate mediation analyses were conducted for both dimensions of control

comprising SWB and GLS.

Mediation 1. Approach Control, HPMood and SWB. This tested whether HPMood

mediated the relationship between Approach Control and SWB. The results are shown in

Table 3.

1

Table 3.

Mediation Analysis Summary for the effect of Mediator HPMood on the Relationship

between Approach Control and SWB

B SE B β

Testing Step 1 path c

SWB

Predictor Approach Control .355 .027 .399**

R2 =. 159 Adj. R2 =. 158

Testing Step 2 path a

HPMood


R2=. 270 Adj. R2 =. 269

Testing Step 3& 4, path b and c’

SWB

Mediator HPMood (b) .618 .021 . 762**

Mediation (c’) .003 .023 .003

R2 =. 583 Adj. R2 =. 582

** p < .001

These results indicated that Approach Control and SWB were fully mediated by

HPMood, Sobel’s test (Z = 15.59, p < 0.000). The amount of variance accounted for by the

mediation model increased from 15.9% to 58.3%. HPMood accounted for 42.4% of the

variance in SWB above and beyond that accounted for by Approach Control. When

HPMood was introduced into the mediation, it totally saturated the predictive relationship

between Approach Control and scores on SWB.

Mediation 2. Approach Control, HPMood and GLS. This tested whether HPMood

mediated the relationship between Approach Control and GLS. The results are shown in

Table 4.

1

Table 4.

Mediation Analysis Summary for the effect of Mediator HPMood on the Relationshipbetween Approach Control and GLS

B SE B β


GLS


R2 =. 103 Adj. R2 =. 102


HPMood

Predictor Approach Control .570 .031 .520*

R2=. 270 Adj. R2 =. 269

Testing Step 3 & 4 path b and c’

GLS

Mediator HPMood (b) .796 .025 .809**

Mediation (c’) -.108 .028

R2= .580

-.100**

Adj. R2 =. 579

** p < .001

Results indicated that Approach Control and GLS were partially mediated by

HPMood, Sobel’s test (Z = 15.59, p < 0.000). The amount of variance accounted for by the


variance in GLS above and beyond that accounted for by Approach Control. When

HPMood was introduced into the mediation, the predictive relationship of Approach

Control on scores of GLS was weakened.

Mediation 3. Avoidant Control, HPMood and SWB. This tested whether HPMood

mediated the relationship between Avoidant Control and SWB. The results are shown in

Table 5.

1

Table 5.

Mediation Analysis Summary for the effect of Mediator HPMood on the Relationshipbetween Avoidant Control and SWB

B SE B β


SWB

Predictor Avoidant Control .069 .024 .093*

R2 =. 009 Adj. R2 =. 008


HPMood

Predictor Avoidant Control .129 .030 .141**

R2= .020 Adj. R2 =. 019


SWB


Mediation (c’) -.011 .016 -.015

R2 =. 583 Adj. R2 =. 582

* p < .01, ** p < .001.

Results indicated that Avoidant Control and SWB were fully mediated by

HPMood, Sobel’s test (Z =4.27, p < .000). The amount of variance accounted for by the


variance in SWB above and beyond that accounted for by Avoidant Control. When

HPMood was introduced into the mediation, it totally saturated the predictive relationship

between Avoidant Control and scores on SWB.

Mediation 4. Avoidant Control, HPMood and GLS. This tested whether HPMood

mediated the relationship between Avoidant Control and GLS. The results are shown in

Table 6.

1

Table 6.


between Avoidant Control and GLS.

B SE B β


GLS

Predictor Avoidant Control .091 .029 .101*

R2 =. 010 Adj. R2 =. 009


HPMood

Predictor Avoidant Control .129 .030 .141**

R2= .020 Adj. R2 =. 019


GLS


Mediation (c’) -.005 .020 -.006

R2 =. 573 Adj. R2 =. 572

* p < .01, ** p < .001.

Results indicated that Avoidant Control and GLS were fully mediated by HPMood,

Sobel’s test (Z = 4.27, p < .000). The amount of variance accounted for by the mediation

model increased from 1.0% to 57.3%. HPMood accounted for 56.3% of the variance in

GLS above and beyond that accounted for by Avoidant Control. When HPMood was

introduced into the mediation equation, it totally saturated the predictive relationship

between Avoidant Control and scores on GLS.

Hypothesis 3:

The relationship between Extraversion, Neuroticism, and SWB will be fully mediated by

HPMood.

Separate mediation analyses were conducted for both dimensions of personality,

Extraversion and Neuroticism, each comprising SWB and GLS.

Mediation 5. Extraversion, HPMood and SWB. This tested whether HPMood

2

mediated the relationship between Extraversion and SWB. The results are shown in

Table 7.

Table 7.

Mediation Analysis Summary for effect of Mediator HPMood on the Relationship

between Extraversion and SWB.

B SE B β


SWB

Predictor Extraversion .453 .034 .427**

R2 =. 183 Adj. R2 =. 182


HPMood


R2 =. 253 Adj. R2 =. 252


SWB


Mediation (c’) .062 .029 .058*

R2 =. 586 Adj. R2 =. 585

** p < .001, * p<.05

Results indicated that Extraversion and SWB were partially mediated by HPMood,

Sobel’s test (Z = 13.79, p < 0.000). The amount of variance accounted for by the mediation

model increased from 18.3% to 58.6%. HPMood accounted for 40.3% of the variance in

SWB above and beyond that accounted for by Extraversion. When HPMood was

introduced into the mediation equation, the predictive ability of Extraversion on scores of

SWB was weakened.

Mediation 6. Extraversion, HPMood and GLS. This tested whether HPMood

mediated the relationship between Extraversion and GLS. The results are shown in Table

8.

2

Table 8. Mediation Analysis Summary for effect of Mediator HPMood on the Relationship

between Extraversion and GLS

B SE B β


GLS


R2 =. 134 Adj. R2 =. 133


HPMood


R2 =. 253 Adj. R2 =. 252

Testing Step 3 path b and c’

GLS


Mediation (c’) -.024 .035 -.019

R2 =. 573 Adj. R2 =. 572

** p < .001

Results indicated that Extraversion and GLS were fully mediated by HPMood,

Sobel’s test (Z = 13.90, p < 0.000). The amount of variance accounted for by the


variance in GLS above and beyond that accounted for by Extraversion. When HPMood

was introduced into the mediation equation, it totally saturated the predictive relationship

between Extraversion and scores on GLS.

Mediation 7. Neuroticism, HPMood and SWB. This tested whether HPMood

mediated the relationship between Neuroticism and SWB. The results are shown in

Table 9.

2

Table 9.


between Neuroticism and SWB

B SE B β


SWB

Predictor Neuroticism -.374 .025 -.460**

R2 =. 212 Adj. R2 =. 211


HPMood


R2 =. 257 Adj. R2 =. 256


SWB


Mediation (c’) -.080 .021 -.099**

R2 =. 590 Adj. R2 =. 589

** p < .001

Results indicated that Neuroticism and SWBs were partially mediated by HPMood,

Sobel’s test (Z = -14.43, p < 0.000). The amount of variance accounted for by the


variance in SWB above and beyond that accounted for by Neuroticism. When HPMood

was introduced into the mediation it weakened the predictive ability of Neuroticism on

scores of SWB.

Mediation 8. Neuroticism, HPMood and GLS. This tested whether HPMood

mediated the relationship between Neuroticism and GLS. The results are shown in

Table 10.

2

Table 10.

Mediation Analysis Summary for effect of Mediator HPMood on the Relationship

between Neuroticism and GLS

B SE B β


GLS


R2 =. 185 Adj. R2 =. 184


HPMood


R2 =. 257 Adj. R2 =. 256


GLS


Mediation (c’) -.062 .026 -.063*

R2 =. 576 Adj. R2 =. 575

** p < .001, * p < .05.

Results indicated that Neuroticism and GLS were partially mediated by HPMood,

Sobel’s test (Z = -14.41, p < 0.000). The amount of variance accounted for by the


variance in GLS above and beyond that accounted for by Neuroticism. When HPMood was

introduced into the mediation it weakened the predictive ability of Neuroticism on scores

of GLS.

2

DISCUSSION

Prior to hypothesis testing, the factorial structure of a new scale, the Approach-

Avoidant Control scale, was examined. This scale was then used in a mediation analysis to

investigate whether; HPMood fully mediates the relationship between Approach-Avoidant

dimensions of control and two measures of SWB. Furthermore, this study considers via an

additional mediation analysis, whether HPMood fully mediates the relationship between

personality factors Extraversion and Neuroticism and two measure of SWB.

Approach-Avoidant Scale

The first hypothesis was confirmed with the dimensions Approach-Avoidant

Control emerging as two clear factors. This occurred after deletion of an additional item,

which had been experimentally added to the original Cousins (2002) scale. Whereas items

loading on the Approach scale described an active attempt to cope, in contrast, items

loading on to the Avoidant scale involved passive acceptance, however, the additional item

described an active attempt to avoid the problem. It therefore did not fit into Cousins

Approach-Avoidant factor structure. The Cronbach’s alpha of .87 Approach Control

and .76 Avoidant Control confirmed the reliability of these two scales.

Approach-Avoidant Control and SWB

The second hypothesis was generally supported. Full mediation occurred between

both forms of control & SWB, and between Avoidant control and GLS. Very strong partial

mediation was found between Approach Control and GLS.

This finding indicated that the shared variance between SWB and Approach-

Avoidant dimensions of control was comprised of HPMood. Approach-Avoidant Control

systems could be viewed as adhering to basic properties of self-regulation, that is, the

tendency to approach desired objects and situations and the tendency to avoid dangerous

objects and situations (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). Hence it is possible that, as

HPMood has been considered as perfusing all abstract cognitive processes (Cummins,

2010), and HPMood generally fully mediates the relationship between Approach-Avoidant

Control and SWB, HPMood could also perfuse Approach-Avoidant Control responses.

2

This proposal adds an additional perspective to the work of (Cummins & Nistico,

2002), which ascertains that perceived control acts as PCBs in the maintenance of SWB. In

the current study perceived control has been conceptualised as Approach-Avoidant

dimensions of control. Findings that the relationship between Approach Control and SWB

measured by the PWI, and Avoidant Control and both measures of SWB, were fully

mediated by HPMood, could imply that Approach Control could be deemed to have only a

very minor independent contribution to SWB, and Avoidant Control, no independent

contribution to SWB. This finding could imply that PCBs of control, that have been

thought to be a buffer against adverse psychological affects from hostile events, are under

the direct influence of HPMood. These findings highlight the major contribution of

HPMood to SWB and concur with recent findings implicating HPMood as a major

constituent of SWB (Blore et al. 2011; Cummins, 2010; Davern et al. 2007)

Extraversion-Neuroticism and SWB

The third hypothesis was partially supported. Full mediation occurred between

Extraversion and GLS. However very strong partial mediation also occurred between

Extraversion and the PWI measure of SWB and Neuroticism and both measures of SWB.

Neuroticism and Extraversion have been related to two elements of SWB,

negative and positive affect (Steel, Schmidt & Shultz, 2008). The findings in this study

are contrary to the view that personality is a major determinant of SWB (Diener & Eid,

2006; Diener et al. 1999; Diener, 1984) and support the findings from recent research

implicating HPMood as the dominant predictor of SWB (Davern, 2004; Davern et al.

2007, Blore et al. 2011; Cummins, 2010).

Extraversion has been related to SWB through the feeling of positive emotions and

having a lower threshold for activating positive affect (Diener & Eid, 2006). It is

interesting that Extraversion still had a minor independent contribution to SWB. The PWI

contains a cognitive evaluation in relationship to individuals’ assessment of life domains,

whereas GLS is a more affective construct. Considering both the contribution of

Extraversion and HPMood to SWB, it could be that this contribution of Extraversion is

emanating from the effect of the perfusion of personality by HPMood (Cummins, 20101),

so that the effect of Extraversion is actually an effect of HPMood.

2

The relationship between both measures of SWB and Neuroticism were very

strongly partially mediated by HPMood. Just as HPMood perfuses personality (Cummins,

2010) via Extraversion, so it also perfuses Neuroticism. The current sample experiences a

low level of Neuroticism and thus it makes sense that HPMood as a positive construct

laced with happiness, contentment and alertness, will decrease the predictive inverse

relationship between Neuroticism and SWB when it is entered onto the mediation

equation. It would be interesting to observe the effects of HPMood in a sample where

Neuroticism levels are high.

Limitations

Of the major limitations in this study, was the possibility of other mediators

impacting the relationship between the mediator HPMood and the outcome SWB. This

limitation could be addressed using the entire sample, applying structural equation

modeling and inserting any further variables of interest into the equation.

Future research

The sample in this study was the first 1000 respondents, mean age of 60. Further

research could run these analyses with the entire sample and compare findings throughout

the lifespan.

Conclusion

The factor structure of the new Approach-Avoidant Control scale was confirmed.

The mediating role of HPMood in relation to the Approach-Avoidant Control Scale and

Extraversion-Neuroticism and SWB was confirmed, with HPMood accounting for a large

proportion of the variance in SWB in all mediations. These findings are contrary to the

view that personality is an important contributor to SWB; indeed these findings endorse

HPMood as the preferred major contributor to SWB.

2

REFERENCES

Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bartlett, M.S. (1954). A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various χ2 Approximations.

Journal of Royal Statistical Society 16, (2), 296-298.

Blore, J. D., Stokes, M. A., Mellor, D. A., Firth, L., Cummins, R. A. (2011). Comparing

Multiple Discrepancies Theory to Affective Models of Subjective Wellbeing,

Social Indicators Research, 100, 1-16.

Carver, C.S., Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and Coping. Annual review of

Psychology, 61, 679-704.

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of Extroversion and Neuroticism on

subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social


Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, Somatic Complaints, and Disease: Is

the Bark Worse than the Bite? Journal of Personality, 55, 299-316.

Costa, P.T., Jr., McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (1998). The Five-factor theory of personality in Handbook of

personality: theory and research O. John, R Robins & L. Pervin (pp159-181) New

York: Guildford Press.

Cousins, R. (2002). Predicting subjective quality of life: The contributions of personality

and perceived control. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne,

Australia.

Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for subjective well-being. Social

Indicators Research, 35, 179-200.

2

Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and

depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1-17.

Cummins, R. A. (in press 2012). Positive Psychology and Subjective Wellbeing

Homeostasis: A critical examination of congruence. In D. Moraitou, & A. Efklides

(Eds.), Quality of Life: A Positive Psychology Perspective. New York: Springer.

Cummins, R.A. & Lau, A.L.D. (2005). Quality of life measurement. In: R. Norman & D.

Currow (Eds.), Supportive care of the urology patient (pp. 5-23). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Cummins, R.A., Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive

cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37-69.

Cummins, R.A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a

national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social

Indicators Research, 64, 159-190.

Davern, M. (2004). Subjective well-being as an affective construct. Unpublished Doctoral

Thesis. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.

Davern, M. T., Cummins, R. A. (2006). Is life dissatisfaction the opposite of life

satisfaction? Journal of Psychology, 58, 1-7.

Davern, M. T., Cummins, R. A., Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective-

cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 429-449. doi: 10.1007/s10902-

007-9066

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.

Diener, E. (1996). Traits are powerful, but are not enough: Lessons from subjective

wellbeing. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 389-399.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective wellbeing:

Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403-

426.

Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective wellbeing. In D. Kahneman,

E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic

2

psychology, (pp. 213-229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective wellbeing:

Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403-

426.

Diener, E., Ryan, K., (2009). Subjective well-being a general overview. South African

Journal of Psychology, 39(4), pp. 391-406.

Diener, E., Scollon, C N., Lucas, R. E. (2004). The evolving concept of subjective well-

being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and

Gerontology, 15, 187–219.

Eid, & E. Diener (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of multi-method measurement in psychology,

(pp. 457–463). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ferguson, S. J., Goodwin, A. D. (2010). Optimism and well-being in older adults: The

mediating role of social support and perceived control. International Journal of

Aging and Human Development, 71, 43-68.

Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.

Headley, B., Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being:

Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social


Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span

development. Psychological Review, 117, 32-60.

International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index Manual., Melbourne:

Deakin University. Retrieved from

http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/pwi-a-

english.pdf

Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-6.

Kenny, D.A. (2011). Mediation. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual, A step by step guide to data analysis using the

3

http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm

http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/pwi-a-english.pdf

http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/pwi-a-english.pdf

SPSS program 4th Edition, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Snyder, S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A

two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social


Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social


Steel P, Schmidt J, Shultz J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and

subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–61.

Tabachnick B., Fidell L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics 5th edn Boston:

Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

3

APPENDICIES

3

Appendix A Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Table A 1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N =999)

N %

Gender

Male 467 46.7

Female 532 53.2

Age

20-29 years 25 2.5

30-39 years 67 6.7

40-49 years 149 14.9

50-59 years 219 21.9

60-69 years 263 26.3

70-79 years 184 18.4

80-89 years 88 8.8

90-99 years 4 0.4

Location

Northern Territory 12 1.2

New South Wales 323 32.3

Victoria 250 25

Queensland 191 19.1

South Australia 87 8.7

Western Australia 105 10.5

Tasmania 29 29.5

Who lives with you

Live alone 220 22

Live with partner 680 68

Live with one or more children 295 29.5

Live with one or both parents 29 2.9

Live with 1 or more adults not partner /parent 64 6.4

3

N %

Married 626 62.6

Separated 26 2.6

Divorced 85 8.5

Widowed 103 10.3

Full time work status

Full time paid employment 294 29.4

Full time retired 395 39.5

Semi-retired 93 93

Full time volunteer 2 .2

Full time home or family care 64 6.4

Full time study 11 1.1

Unemployed 28 2.8

Part time work

Part time volunteer 166 16.6

Part time volunteer

Part time volunteer 211 21.1

Part time study

Part time study 41 4.1

Casually employed

Casually employed 68 6.8

Annual Gross Income

Less than 15,000 72 7.2

15,000 – 30,000 225 22.5

31,000-60,000 - 220 22.0

61,000-100,000 204 20.4

101,000-150,000 154 15.4

151,000--250,000 73 7.3

251,000-500,000 7 0.7

More than 500,000 3 0.3

3

Appendix B ARC21 and Demographics

B 1. Australian Research Council21, Questionnaire for participants comprising items 1 to 95. Refer attachment 1

B 2. Demographic questionnaire for participants. Refer attachment 2

3

Appendix C Ethics and participants documents

C 1. Ethics Approval Deakin University Ethics Committee. Refer attachment 3

C 2. Covering letter for respondents. Refer attachment 4

C 3. Plain language statement. Refer attachment 5

3

Appendix D Factor Analysis

Table D 1

Factor Loading from Principal Components Factor Analysis for the PWI measure of SWB (N = 962)

Questionnaire Items PWI

4. Achievements in life .813

8. Future security .800

2. Standard of living .794

6. How safe you feel .730

5. Personal relationships .712

7. Part of community .698

3. Health .659

Percent of variance explained 55.62

Cronbach’s Alpha . 86

3

Table D 2

Factor Loading from Principal Components Factor Analysis for Two-factor solution for the Extraversion Neuroticism Dimensions of Personality

Questionnaire Items Neuroticism

(N = 885)

Extraversion

(N = 817)

76. I often feel tense or jittery .762

72. When I am under a great deal of stress

sometimes I feel like I am going to pieces

.738

78. Sometimes I feel completely worthless .717

84. I often get discouraged and feel like giving up .713

70. I often feel inferior to others .696

88. I often feel helpless and want someone else to

solve my problems

.689

68. I am a worrier .661

90. At times I have been so ashamed that I just

wanted to hide

.645

82. I often get angry at the way people treat me .625

80. I rarely feel fearful or anxious (Rffi13 ANX) .515

86. I am seldom sad or depressed (Rffi19DEP) .365

83. I am a cheerful high-spirited person .734

77. I like to be where the action is .711

69. I like to have a lot of people around me .691

75. I really enjoy talking to people .649

81. I often feel as if I’m bursting with energy .642

85. I am a cheerful optimist -.359 .615

87. My life is fast-paced .605

I laugh easily .574

3

Questionnaire Items Neuroticism

(N = 885)

Extraversion

(N = 817)

73. I am very light-hearted .556

89. I am a very active person .528

Correlation between each factor -.321

Percent of variance explained 29.15 12.60

Cronbach’s Alpha .87 .81

3

Table D 3

Factor Loading from Principal Components Factor Analysis for the HPMood measure (N

= 923)

Questionnaire Items HPMood

36. Thinking about my life in general I feel

contented

.899

19. Thinking about my life in general I feel happy .898

40. Thinking about my life in general I feel alert .791

Percent of variance explained 74.66

Cronbach’s Alpha .82

4

· web viewsupervisor: prof. robert a. cummins. campus: burwood. word count: 4997 “i, the...

Documents