Soc Indic Res (2008) 89:473–485 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9244-5

The Wellbeing of the Self’s Personality: A Structural Analysis Shlomit Levy Æ Clara Sabbagh

Accepted: 11 February 2008 / Published online: 7 March 2008
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Leaning on the formal faceted definition of wellbeing (Levy and Guttman (1975) Social Indicators Research, 2, 361–388), a mapping sentence is provided for defining the universe of observations of the wellbeing of the self-expanding on personality aspects. The structure of the interrelationships among the variables of the expanded conceptualization of self’s personality is examined by the use of the SSA technique. The sample consists of 176 adult residents (20 years of age and over) from all parts of the city of Jerusalem, Israel. Results further verify the circular structure (radex) of personal wellbeing. The state of wellbeing-versus- wellbeing in the sense of possession of resources partition the space into two concentric belts, while the life domains of wellbeing play a polarizing role in partitioning the space into wedglike regions emanating from a common origin. Self’s personality domains-versus-self’s social environment domains serve as a rationale for the circular order. The expanded conceptualization of personal wellbeing enhance the earlier conceptualization of the 1975 study and makes possible the development of the theory of the structure of the wellbeing of the self in a systematic cumulative fashion. Keywords

Wellbeing
Facet theory
Personality
Self

1 Introduction: Definition of Wellbeing Kurt Levin’s seminal ‘‘life space’’ theory suggests that behavior derives from interaction of the person and his/her environment. Specifically, people perceive objectively defined S. Levy (&) Institute for Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel e-mail: [email protected] C. Sabbagh Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel Haifa 31905, Israel e-mail: [email protected]

123

474

S. Levy, C. Sabbagh

environment in a psychologically subjective form. In the current study we examine this psychological and complex response with respect to wellbeing (Campbell 1976; Diener and Lucas 1999; Michalos 1991). Accordingly, a definition of the concept of wellbeing must refer to its multivariate nature on the one hand (for this matter see also Diener and Fujita 1995; Kim-Prieto et al. 2005; Veenhoven 2000), and to the commonality that holds its various aspects together on the other hand. Most attempts at a definition of wellbeing relate mostly to its common meaning in the sense of life satisfaction (Abrams 1973; Andrews 1974; Diener 1994; Hall 1973; Veenhoven 1991) or to realization of people’s ‘universal highest order goals’ (i.e., substantive needs) of physical and social wellbeing. Facet theory, however, suggests defining social concepts by their universe of observations, referring both to the multivariate contents and to the commonality of these contents as expressed in the extent of satisfaction. We adopt the faceted definition of wellbeing first suggested by Levy and Guttman (1975) that reads as follows:

Mapping Sentence 1: Faceted definition of ‘‘Wellbeing’’ ‘‘An 8 item belongs9to the universe of well-being items if and only if its domain asks for a
 < cognitive = level affective assessment of of the state of a social group in some life area, treatment : ; instrumental 8 9 < very satisfactory = according to the normative criterion of the and the range is ordered from to : ; very unsatisfactory respondent for that area of life.’’ (Levy and Guttman 1975, p. 364).

This definition specifies the psychological response in terms of the self’s (or any social group’s) satisfaction (see also Veenhoven 2000) with a situation (or treatment thereof) in a variety of life domains (e.g., family, health, economy, religion etc.) that are assessed in different behavioral modalities, i.e., cognitive, affective and instrumental (see also discussion in Andrews 1974; Andrews and McKennell 1980; Andrews and Withey 1976; Bradburn 1969; Campbell 1976; Kim-Prieto et al. 2005; Wilkening 1982). For the purpose of theory construction and research design, it has been found useful to define concepts through the universe of items with which the theory is concerned (Guttman 1982). Moreover, this definitional framework also serves as a guide for item construction. The above definition implies that the universe of wellbeing items is a subuniverse of attitudinal items. This proposition is supported by Guttman’s definition of the universe of attitudinal items that reads as follows (Guttman 1973):

Mapping Sentence 2: Guttman’s faceted definition of ‘‘Attitude’’ ‘‘An 8 about behavior 9 in a 8 item belongs9to the universe of attitude items if and only if its domain asks < very positive = < cognitive = towards modality toward an object, and its range is ordered from to affective : ; : ; very negative instrumental that object.’’ (Guttman 1973, p. 36; Levy 1985, p. 65).

123

The Wellbeing of the Self’s Personality

475

The wellbeing items are classified according to the modality facet and fulfill the condition of having a range ordered from positive to negative towards an object. Therefore they automatically belong to the universe of attitude items (see discussion in Levy and Guttman 1975, p. 369). This concept of wellbeing as an attitude is also stated by different authors such as Andrews and Mckennel (1980, p. 127) who claim that ‘‘measures of perceived (‘subjective’) wellbeing... are fundamentally measures of attitudes.’’ Similarly, Veenhoven (1991, p. 2) suggests in his discussion on the concept of happiness that we can speak of happiness as an ‘‘attitude towards one’s life’’. However, these authors do not offer any systematic examination of their proposition, as suggested by Levy and Guttman (1975). Levy and Guttman (1975) distinguished between primary (inner) and secondary (outer) environment regarding self wellbeing. Similarly, Veenhoven (2000, p. 5) also distinguishes between ‘external’ (environment) and ‘internal’ (individual) qualities of life. In our current study we focus on the perceptual structure of wellbeing of self with emphasis on aspects of personality. By doing so, we go beyond earlier studies on wellbeing that are mainly concerned with the social-environment of self.

2 The Facets of Self’s Personality Wellbeing The universe of the observations of the self’s personality wellbeing can be defined by means of at least three content facets. A facet is one way of classifying the research contents. Facet A distinguishes between (a1) the self’s state of wellbeing (e.g., satisfaction with self, happiness, feeling valued as a person) and (a2) the self’s wellbeing regarding the possession of resources (e.g., traits, talents, physical appearance, assertiveness, income and residence) (see also Diener and Fujita 1995) Facet B is the modality facet. It classifies the state of wellbeing and self’s possession of resources according to three modalities: (b1) cognitive, (b2) affective, and (b3) instrumental. For instance, ‘satisfied with self or with the situation of self’ are cognitive states of wellbeing, while ‘happiness’ is an affective state of wellbeing (Diener, 1994; Myers and Diener 1995; Veenhoven 1991). ‘Satisfaction with talents, traits or education’ are cognitive resources that individuals possess, while ‘satisfaction with appearance, physical aptitudes, income or residence’ are instrumental resources, partly in the sense of extrovert behavior (Campbell et al. 1976; Ostrom 1969). It is worth noting that whereas the cognitive and affective modalities of wellbeing have been distinguished and widely examined (Andrews and McKennell 1980; Diener et al. 2003; Kim-Prieto et al. 2005; Veenhoven 2000) the instrumental modality has not. Facet C is the life domains facet of self’s wellbeing. It suggests that objective conditions are perceived and evaluated to determine satisfaction with regard to different life domains (Andrews and Withey 1976; Campbell et al. 1976; Levy and Guttman 1975; Veenhoven 2000). We distinguished between four vast life domains. Two domains (c1 and c2) pertain to interpersonal and intrapersonal attributes of self-personality. The third domain (c3) pertains to self’s social environment and the fourth domain (c4) refers to global wellbeing. These domains are specified in the following: (c1) Interpersonal domain refers to the extent that individuals feel accepted and are effectively involved with others (Wilkening 1982). This domain distinguishes between

123

476

S. Levy, C. Sabbagh

the relation of others towards the self and relation of the self towards others. Relation of the self toward others can be understood as an aspect of the self’s personal competence in the sense of having control over one’s life rather than being controlled by others; i.e., it refers to a ‘‘sense of personal efficacy, indicating the individual’s perceived ability to deal with his or her environment in a satisfying way’’ (Wilkening 1982, p. 431). For example, ‘ability to influence others’, ‘initiative in contact with others’ etc. (c2) Intrapersonal (personal) domain refers to attributes such as character traits, talents, physical aptitudes and attractiveness (see also the term of ‘life-ability of the person’ in Veenhoven 2000, p. 6, 11). (c3) The self’s social environment includes domains such as education, work, income, family, leisure etc. (Levy 1976; Levy and Guttman 1975, 1989; Veenhoven 2000). (c4) ‘On the whole’ (or global life satisfaction) is not related to any specific domain, namely ‘‘happiness’’ or ‘‘satisfaction with situation’’. The centrality of such general assessments was already observed in earlier studies on different issues (Cohen et al. 2005; Cohen et al. 2003; Donald 1985). A tool apt to integrate the above content facets of the self-personality wellbeing into a simultaneous definitional framework is the mapping sentence introduced by Louis Guttman (1954a, 1991; see also Levy 1985, 2005) to be discussed below.

3 The Mapping Sentence A simultaneous definition of wellbeing items is made possible by the use of a mapping sentence (see below). Each of the three facets described above appears in the mapping sentence as a set of elements listed in bracketed columnar form. The name of each facet (in italics face) may appear right before or after its list of elements, depending on the verbal structure of the sentence. Verbal connectives are added to the facets to make the mapping readable in ordinary language (Guttman and Levy 1991; Levy 1985, 2005). As discussed above, wellbeing items have a common range, namely the level of satisfaction. This common range is expressed in the range facet (Facet R) after the arrow in the mapping sentence. In this study the answer categories for most of the variables are ordered explicitly from ‘very satisfactory’ to ‘very unsatisfactory’. Furthermore the wellbeing items share a common object, namely the personal self. Hence as stated above wellbeing items are attitudinal. The mapping sentence also designates the population being researched, symbolized by the (X) facet. Thus the definitional framework expressed by the mapping sentence serves as a guide for actual item construction. Accordingly each respondent (x) has one and only one response in the range (R) for each question defined by three elements, one from each of the three content facets (ABC). Since the items’ construction in the current study focuses on the personality aspects of self, the operationalization of life domain (Facet C) mainly included items that pertain to interpersonal (c1) and personal competence (c2). The vast social environment domain, which in this case relates only to primary environment, is composed of several sub-environment domains which are represented by one or two items. This allows us to examine more comprehensively the structural interrelations between the personal competence aspects of the self and the more environmental ones.

123

The Wellbeing of the Self’s Personality

477

Mapping Sentence 3: The mapping sentence for the observations on self’s personality wellbeing

Facet A 1. state of The extent of satisfaction of respondent (x) with the

2. resources for

his/her personal well-being of a

Facet C 1. interpersonal

self to others others to self

2. personal competence

character traits talents

Facet B

physical traits

1. cognitive 3. social environment

2. affective modality in

education work

3. instrumental

life domain

income residence family leisure

4. on the whole

Range very satisfactory to

with respect to the personal-self.

very unsatisfactory

4 Method 4.1 Sample and Procedure The data are part of a comprehensive study on wellbeing that was undertaken in 1995 in the framework of a graduate research seminar in the School of Social Work at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The sample consists of 176 adults (20 years and over, adequately distributed across age groups), all Jerusalem residents. The sample included 84 (48%) men and 92 (52%) women. Data collection took place in Spring 1995. Respondents were interviewed face-to-face at their home, by means of a structured closed questionnaire that was constructed according to the above mapping sentence. The interviews lasted about 20 min.

123

478

S. Levy, C. Sabbagh

4.2 Analysis In order to arrive at an understanding of the perceptual structure of the wellbeing of the self-personality, we employed the technique of Smallest Space Analysis (SSA), better termed Similarity Structure Analysis (Borg and Lingoes 1987; Guttman 1968; Lingoes 1968). The SSA technique, introduced by Guttman (1968), is an intrinsic geometrical technique for analysing multivariate data which emphasizes regions in the space of variables rather than the coordinate system. In this technique each variable is treated as a point in a Euclidean space in such a way that the higher the correlation between two variables, the closer they are in the space. The space used is of the smallest dimensionality that allows such an inverse relationship between all the pairs of observed correlations and the observed geometric distances. Only the relative sizes of coefficients and the relative distances are of concern. The HUDAP (Hebrew University Data Analysis Package) software was used for data analysis.

5 Results To study the perceptual structure of the self’s personality wellbeing, intercorrelations were calculated among 23 items. These are displayed in a 23 9 23 matrix in Table 1. The particular coefficient used is Guttman’s weak monotonicity coefficient denoted by l2 (see Guttman 1986; Levy 2005; Raveh 1989). Inspection of the intercorrelations reveals that all the coefficients are positive or zero, ranging from l2 = .00 to l2 = .91. The main part of the theory, however, concerns the relative sizes of the coefficients. Our general hypothesis is that the domain facets of the definitional system will help indicate which items should be more highly intercorrelated and which should be less intercorrelated. Specifically, we hypothesized a correspondence between the elements of the three domain facets and the regions of the SSA. Furthermore, the several facets should play certain roles that gives this correspondence a circular structure interpretation, namely, a radex (Guttman 1954b). The SSA of the present data expanding on personalized aspects of self, confirms this hypothesis (Fig. 1). 5.1 The Radex Theory of Self’s Personality Wellbeing The hypothesis of a radex on the basis of the definitional system requires that the content facets play two roles: modulating and polarizing. Two facets play a modulating role (A and B). The dichotomous Facet A—state versus resources—corresponds to distance from the origin of the SSA space and divides the space into two concentric belts. The state of well being occupies the innermost circle while the resources are spreading towards the periphery. This partition indicates that the smaller the circle, the larger the average correlation among items, because the size of correlation is related inversely to distance (Sabbagh et al. 1994). The innermost circle (marked by the solid line), that constitutes the state of the personality’s well being, includes variables such as ‘satisfied with one’s self,’ ‘satisfied with the situation’ ‘happiness’ or ‘feeling that one is a person of value’. The resources possessed for the self’s wellbeing are located in the outer circle, spreading towards the periphery. Thus, respondents’ evaluations regarding the state of personality’s wellbeing are closer to each other (or generalized), whereas their evaluation pertaining to possession of resources for wellbeing is more differentiated. The modality facet (Facet B) distinguishes between cognitive-affective resources (e.g., talents and character traits) and

123

6

7

8

9

10

11

Good family life

Satisf. housing

Satisf. health

Satisf. appearance

Satisf. phys. aptitude

Satisf. your talents

29

16

17

18

Satisf. with your traits

Satisf. influence others

Satisf. w. assertiveness

45

51

20

21

22

23

Satisf. friends respect

Satisf. initiat. w. people

Satisf. people trust you

Feel person of value

55

43

47

46

Satisf. connect. w. friends 19

41

45

69

14

15

Satisf. leisure time

30

51

48

35

51

37

63

76

58

64

68

Satisf. education

12

5

Sufficient income

13

4

Satisf. with work

Satisf. clarity opinions

3

Satisf. with self

Satisf. utilize talents

2

Happiness

91

2

72

68

3

57

44

62

57

54

42

57

59

69

48

43

56

40

39

53

38

38

80

44

69

58

69

64

4

69

48

57

48

40

54

51

78

61

61

71

72

80

45

44

45

33

56

13

29

13

44

58

5

47

43

48

32

36

36

44

41

32

59

42

65

49

27

38

41

38

53

56

53

56

80

76

6

13

12

22

32

22

9

20

6

46

27

0

34

13

17

19

30

67

55

67

38

33

38

63

7

56

50

58

64

58

48

52

53

70

53

42

44

57

11

52

54

40

54

30

41

45

38

37

8

43

37

20

42

32

19

38

38

42

33

35

19

36

15

29

79

29

52

19

38

44

53

51

9

57

36

41

53

54

51

56

46

47

46

46

44

47

58

70

58

15

11

17

27

45

39

35

10

64

42

46

61

43

30

54

51

47

25

36

60

55

52

55

47

36

57

13

49

80

40

48

11

32

13

31

16

40

20

28

13

50

26

26

46

68

46

60

44

19

44

34

65

72

56

51

12

70

60

58

58

57

62

56

74

53

65

69

44

69

26

36

46

35

42

0

42

71

43

30

13

47

18

54

37

47

51

46

60

30

39

50

39

65

26

25

46

33

53

27

59

61

48

45

14

70

42

67

56

44

68

65

77

42

54

42

30

53

50

47

47

42

70

46

32

61

69

69

15

39

29

36

39

39

42

57

51

46

51

77

60

74

13

51

46

38

53

6

41

78

59

45

16

47

34

57

65

76

38

62

72

62

57

65

46

56

28

54

56

38

52

20

44

51

57

41

17

77

67

66

70

54

72

80

72

38

42

68

51

62

20

30

51

19

48

9

36

54

42

29

18

69

65

74

72

59

45

59

54

76

39

44

47

57

40

43

54

32

58

22

36

40

54

46

19

58

38

60

55

76

55

72

70

65

39

56

37

58

16

61

53

42

64

32

32

48

57

51

20

41

51

73

68

73

60

74

66

57

36

67

54

58

31

46

41

20

58

22

48

57

62

47

21

76

86

56

86

51

38

65

67

34

29

42

18

60

13

42

36

37

50

12

43

48

44

43

22

50

65

50

76

41

58

69

77

47

39

70

47

70

32

64

57

43

56

13

47

69

57

55

23

65 100

56 100

68 100

76 100

45 100

80 100

72 100

46 100

54 100

50 100

44 100

68 100

52 100

70 100

79 100

40 100

55 100

56 100

29 100

58 100

72 100

91 100

1 100

Satisf. situation

1

Table 1 Monotonicity coefficients (l2) among wellbeing items (decimal points omitted)

The Wellbeing of the Self’s Personality 479

123

Fig. 1 The radex of the wellbeing of self’s personality

480

123

S. Levy, C. Sabbagh

The Wellbeing of the Self’s Personality

481

instrumental resources (e.g., residence and income). This partition applies only to the belt of resources (marked by the broken line) since the belt of state of well being (the innermost circle) is only of the cognitive-affective modality. As hypothesized, the unordered life domain facet (Facet C) plays a polarizing role in partitioning the space into wedgelike regions (marked by solid lines), one for each life domain, all stemming from a common origin. Self’s personality versus Self’s social environment serve as a rationale of the circular oder. The domains that pertain to self’s personality are located at the right of the circle while those pertaining to self’s social environment are to its left. Specifically, going clockwise, the right-upper section of the circle is the interpersonal region that can be partitioned into two sub-regions (marked by a dotted line). One sub-region includes items that refer to the relation of others to the self, such as respected or trusted by friends. The other sub-region includes items that refer to the relation of the self to others, such as having influence on others, initiative taken with others and assertiveness. This subregion which, as suggested above, relates to interpersonal competence, borders on the region of personal competence attributes of the self (located in the right-lower region). This region can also be partitioned into three clear sub-regions (marked by dotted lines). One subregion includes items that relate to ‘traits and opinions’, and a ‘feeling of being a valued person’. Another includes more cognitive attributes such as ‘talents or abilities.’ The third subregion relates to physical traits of the personality such as ‘attractiveness,’ ‘physical aptitudes’ and ‘health’. Hence, the regions, which are located on the right side of the circle, refer to personal or intimate features of the self’s personality. In contrast, the other large area––namely the left part of the circle––includes several life domains (subregions marked by dotted lines) that refer to the self’s social-primary environment. Moving from the lower-left to the upper part of the circle are located the domains of education, work, income, residence, family, and leisure which leads back to the interpersonal region. Items that do not relate to a specific life domain (i.e., happiness and general satisfaction with life) are located in the inner circle because they relate to the state of wellbeing.

6 Discussion The current study adopted the formal definition of wellbeing first suggested by Levy and Guttman (1975). Expanding on this definition, it specifies a framework for conceptualzing the universe of wellbeing that emphasizes the distinction between the personality and the social environment of the self. This aspect of wellbeing goes beyond existing research which stresses the self’s primary and secondary social environment (e.g., work, family, education or economy). In other words, we assumed that the addition of the personality aspects of wellbeing do not challenge earlier conceptualizations of wellbeing but rather enhance them (Diener and Lucas 1999). Since we refer only to the self’s wellbeing, we expected a radex structure with the facets playing two roles: polarizing (life domains) and modulating (state vs resources facet and the modality facet). Findings in this study corroborated the radex hypothesis. The life domains facet specified a circular order of the SSA space by partitioning it into wedglike regions all stemming from a common origin. This partition was obtained in earlier studies on the structure of wellbeing in different countries (see for example Bilsky 2003; Bilsky and Wetzels 1993; Cohen 2000; Levy 1976, 1990; Levy and Guttman 1975, 1989). A similar radex was first obtained in Israel (Levy and Guttman 1975). However at that time the common origin was not fully surrounded by empirical points. Almost all the points

123

482

S. Levy, C. Sabbagh

were located at the upper left section of the origin, while the right region remained empty, as shown in Fig. 2 below (which is a redraw of Fig. 3 in Levy and Guttman 1975). Inspection of the life domains investigated in 1975 shows that they all belong to the Self’s social environment, such as income, education, leisure, residence and family. Almost no questions were asked about domains of self’s personality and the data themselves act as if they recognize the fact that some content is missing, by leaving one part of the circular structure empty. In the current study this part of the circle is employed by the variables relating to the domains of self’s personality. Hence the issue of self’s personality, first incorporated here by means of systematic building on the earlier study, contributes to the development of the theory on the structure of personal wellbeing in a cumulative fashion. The partioning of the SSA space splits the circular structure into two clearly distinct parts: One part of the circular structure includes all the domains referring to the intimate, more personal aspects of self (personal and interpersonal competence) while the other part includes all the self’s social-environment domains. Thus, now there is at least a general

Fig. 2 Radex of personal wellbeing (1975). Re-drawn from SIR 2, (1975), S. Levy and L. Guttman ‘‘On the multivariate structure of wellbeing’’, pp. 361–388

123

The Wellbeing of the Self’s Personality

483

rationale for the circular order of the wellbeing domains: inner intimate domains vis-a`-vis outer domains. A distinction between the inner aspects and outer aspects of the self’s wellbeing was found also by Campbell et al. (1976), though these aspects were represented only by different social environmental domains including secondary environment. This distinction, which was obtained in different countries at different points of time, contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the self’s wellbeing and its interaction with the social environment (primary or secondary). The state vs resources’ facet plays a modulating role that partitioned the SSA into two concentric belts. The innermost circle constitutes the state of personality’s wellbeing (e.g., ‘happiness’ or ‘feeling that one is a person of value’). The resources possessed for the self’s wellbeing are located in the outer circle, spreading towards the periphery. This distinction replicates earlier findings for wellbeing in Israel and the USA (Levy 1976). The rationale for this facet to play a modulating role comes in part from the fact that it is a stem facet that modifies directly the name of the range. In other words, the range of the mapping sentence refers back directly to facet A since what is being assessed from ‘satisfactory’ to ‘unsatisfactory’, is the self’s personality state or the self’s possesion of resources for wellbeing. This facet plays a modulating role also because it shares a common origin with the polarizing facet (life domains, Facet C). The modality facet further distinguishes between cognitive-affective resources (e.g., talents and character traits), and instrumental resources (e.g., residence and income). In the center of the inner circle of the state of wellbeing lies the assessment of the respondents’ feeling of happiness.’ It is of interest to ask which items are more closely correlated with happiness? Technically, since happiness is located at the center of the inner circle, it correlates moderately or highly with all other items (monotonicity coefficients range between .40 and .91). It is worth noting that for any other variables which are not closely located to the origin of the radex, there is at least one other variable which is farther from it than the central ones. For instance, satisfaction with income has a zero correlation with satisfaction of clarity of one’s opinions. Happiness is closest to variables relating to the state of wellbeing whether they refer to the inner (personality) or the outer (social-primary environment) aspects of wellbeing. Among the inner (personality) items, the feeling of happiness is most closely correlated with the ‘feeling of being a person of value’ and ‘satisfaction with one’s self’. Regarding the outer aspects (social-primary environment), assessment of happiness is most closely correlated with satisfaction with family life, work and leisure. Moreover, in this study as in the earlier one (Levy and Guttman 1975), it was found that the items least related to happiness are instrumental resources, such as income, residence or physical aptitudes. In other words, the feeling of wellbeing in physical instrumental aspects of life can not predict happiness as well as personality and interpersonal aspects of wellbeing. However, for specific populations such as the retired, it is worth noting that the instrumental resource ‘‘sufficient income’’ is more strongly related to happiness. For the retired, ‘‘sufficient income’’ is in the vecinity of the innermost circle of the wellbeing space, together with the personal and interpersonal aspects of wellbeing (Guttman et al. 1970). In sum, the current study expands earlier studies on wellbeing and shows how the basic structure underlying wellbeing is replicated again and again across countries, subpopulations and research instruments. Furthermore, it contributes to the systematic development of theory on the structure of personal wellbeing in a cumulative fashion made possible by the use of facets. Thus, the use of facet theory facilitates the understanding of basic lawfulness in human behavior. Concerned about progress in the future we would like to

123

484

S. Levy, C. Sabbagh

conclude by citing from one the earliest studies on the structure of wellbeing (using also SSA), conducted in the United States by Campbell et al. (1976, p. 72): ‘‘The radiation of the map… from a central core. seems so basic to the structure of human life that it is hard to imagine that it would not be characteristic of any segment of the population, or for that matter, populations outside the United States.’’ It seems though that not much progress has been done in this direction of searching for cumulative lawfulness in human behavior. References Abrams, M. (1973). Subjective social indicators. Social Trends (HMSO), 4, 35–50. Andrews, F. M. (1974). Social indicators of perceived life quality. Social Indicators Research, 1, 279–299. Andrews, F. M., & McKennell, A. C. (1980). Measures of self-reported wellbeing: Their affective, cognitive and other components. Social Indicators Research, 8, 127–155. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of perceived wellbeing. New York: Plenum Press. Bilsky, W. (2003). Fear of crime, personal safety and wellbeing: A common frame of reference. In M. Vanderhallen, G. Vervaeke, P. J. Van Kopen, & J. Goethals (Eds.), Much to do about crime (pp. 37– 55). Brussel: Politeia. Bilsky, W., & Wetzels, P. (1993). Wellbeing, feelings of personal safety and fear of crime: Towards a conceptual integration. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth International Facet Theoy Conference, Prague. Borg, I., & Lingoes, J. C. (1987). Multidimensional similarity structure analysis. New York: Springer. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological wellbeing. Chicago: Aldine. Campbell, A. (1976). Subjective measures of wellbeing. American Psychologist, 31, 117–124. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Cohen, E. H. (2000). A facet theory approach to examining overall and life satisfaction relationships. Social Indicators Research, 51, 223–237. Cohen, A., Grizim, H., & Levy, S. (2005). The structure of feminine self-concept of pre-adolescent religious girls in Israel. In W. Bilsky & D. Elizur (Eds.), Facet theory: Design, analysis and application (pp. 103–110). Rome, Italy. Cohen, A., Sonne, J., & Zvilna, K. (2003). Dimensions of stress: Smallest space analysis of the stress appraisal measure. In S. Levy & D. Elizur (Eds.), Facet theory: Towards cumulative social science (pp. 339–345). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Center for Educational Development. Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective wellbeing: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31, 103–157. Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Resources, personal strivings, and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 275–286. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective wellbeing. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Schwartz (Eds.), Wellbeing: The foundations of hedonic 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, 59, 229–259. Donald, I. (1985). The cylindrex of place evaluation. In D. Canter (Ed.), Facet theory: Approaches to social research (pp. 173–204). New York: Springer Verlag. Guttman, L. (1954a). An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 395–404. Guttman, L. (1954b). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Guttman, L. (1968). A general non-metric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469–506. Guttman, L. (1973). The history of the institute. In H. Gratch (Ed.), Twenty-five years of social research in Israel (pp. 11–38). Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press. Guttman, L. (1982). What is not what in theory construction. In R. M. Hauser, D. Mechanic, & A. Haller (Eds.), Social structure and behavior (pp. 331–348). New York: Academic Press. Guttman, L. (1986). Coefficients of polytonicity and monotonicity, Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 80–87). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

123

The Wellbeing of the Self’s Personality

485

Guttman, L. (1991). The language of science. In Memoriam: Chapters from an unfinished textbook on facet theory. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Guttman, L., & Levy, S. (1991). Two structural laws for intelligence tests. Intelligence, 15, 79–103. Guttman, L., Levy, S., & Mann, K. J. (1970). Adjustment to retirement. Jerusalem: IIASR (Hebrew). Hall, J. (1973). Measuring the quality of life using sample surveys. In G. J. Stober, & D. Schumacher (Eds.), Technology assessment and quality of life (pp. 93–101). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Tamir, M., Scollon, C., & Diener, M. (2005). Integrating the diverse definitions of happiness: A time-sequential framework of subjective wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 261–300. Levy, S. (1976). Use of mapping sentence for coordinating theory and research: A cross-cultural example. Quantity and Quality, 10, 117–125. Levy, S. (1985). Lawful roles of facets in social theories. In D. Canter (Ed.), Facet theory: Approaches to social research. (pp. 59–96). New York: Springer Verlag. Levy, S. (1990). The mapping sentence in cumulative theory construction: Wellbeing as an example. In J. J. Hox & J. de Jong-Gierveld (Eds.), Operationalization and research strategy (pp. 155–177). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Levy, S. (2005). Guttman, Louis, Encyclopedia of social measurement (Vol. 2, pp. 175–188). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Levy, S., & Guttman, L. (1975). On the multivariate structure of wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 2, 361–388. Levy, S., & Guttman, L. (1989). The conical structure of adjustive behavior. Social Indicators Research, 21, 455–479. Lingoes, J. C. (1968). The multivariate analysis of qualitative data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 3, 61–94. Michalos, A. C. (1991). Global report on student wellbeing. New York: Springer Verlag. Myers, P., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19. Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 12–30. Raveh, A. (1989). A nonmetric approach to linear discriminant analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 176–183. Sabbagh, C., Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (1994). The structure of social justice judgments: A facet approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(3), 244–261. Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1–34. Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life: Ordering concepts and measures of good life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 1–39. Wilkening, E. A. (1982). Subjective indicators and quality of life. In R. M. Hauser, D. Mechanic, & A. Haller (Eds.), Social structure and behavior (pp. 429–441). New York: Academic Press.

123