Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 128–133 | Cite as

The Tripartite Model of Mental Well-Being in Iran: Factorial and Discriminant Validity

  • Mohsen JoshanlooEmail author
  • Shirin Niknam


The tripartite model of mental well-being regards well-being as a three-dimensional concept encompassing correlated yet distinct dimensions of hedonic, psychological, and social well-being. This study used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) to evaluate this model in an Iranian sample (N = 1435). It was found that the model was generally consistent with the data, although a few variables did not have strong loadings on their target factors. The ESEM model provided improved fit compared with the CFA model. The results illustrate the methodological advantages of ESEM over traditional CFA in this line of research.


Tripartite model Well-being Hedonic Eudaimonic Social ESEM 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the conventional ethical standards applied in psychological research.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Ahmad, S. F. (2009). The Islamic personality: a sequential model. In A. Haque & Y. Mohamed (Eds.), Psychology of personality: Islamic perspectives (pp. 283–316). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.Google Scholar
  2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobowik, M., Basabe, N., & Páez, D. (2015). The bright side of migration: Hedonic, psychological, and social well-being in immigrants in Spain. Social Science Research, 51, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. de Carvalho, J. S., Pereira, N. S., Pinto, A. M., & Marôco, J. (2016). Psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form: a study of Portuguese speaking children/youths. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2141–2154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1049. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., & Khan, Z. H. (2007). Theoretical, empirical, and potential ideological dimensions of using Western conceptualizations to measure Muslim religious commitments. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haque, A. (2004). Psychology from Islamic perspective: contributions of early Muslim scholars and challenges to contemporary Muslim psychologists. Journal of Religion and Health, 43(4), 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heene, M., Bollmann, S., & Bühner, M. (2014). Much ado about nothing, or much to do about something? Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huq, M. (2009). The heart and personality development. In A. Haque & Y. Mohamed (Eds.), Psychology of personality: Islamic perspectives (pp. 159–181). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.Google Scholar
  14. Joshanloo, M. (2013). Mental well-being in Iran: the importance of comprehensive well-being in understanding the linkages of personality and values. In C. L. Keyes (Ed.), Mental well-being: international contributions to the study of subjective well-being and positive mental health (pp. 177–207). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joshanloo, M. (2016a). A new look at the factor structure of the MHC-SF in Iran and the United States using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 701–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joshanloo, M. (2016b). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2023–2036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshanloo, M. (2017a). Factor structure and criterion validity of original and short versions of the negative and positive affect scale (NAPAS). Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joshanloo, M. (2017b). Islamic conceptions of well-being. In R. Estes & J. Sirgy (Eds.), The pursuit of human well-being: the untold global history (pp. 109–131). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joshanloo, M., & Bakhshi, A. (2016). The factor structure and measurement invariance of positive and negative affect across gender and cultural groups: a study in Iran and the USA. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joshanloo, M., Bobowik, M., & Basabe, N. (2016). Distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  21. Joshanloo, M., Capone, V., Petrillo, G., & Caso, D. (2017). Discriminant validity of hedonic, social, and psychological well-being in two Italian samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joshanloo, M., & Ghaedi, G. H. (2009). Value priorities as predictors of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 294–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joshanloo, M., & Lamers, S. M. A. (2016). Reinvestigation of the factor structure of the MHC-SF in the Netherlands: contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2006). Examining the factor structure of the Keyes’s comprehensive scale of well-being. Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 9, 35–51 (in Persian).Google Scholar
  25. Joshanloo, M., Wissing, M. P., Khumalo, I. P., & Lamers, S. (2013). Measurement invariance of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) across three cultural groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 755–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233. doi: 10.1080/17439760802303044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140. doi: 10.2307/2787065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). The subjective well-being of America’s youth: toward a comprehensive assessment. Adolescent & Family Health, 4(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  29. Keyes, C. L., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197–201. doi: 10.1080/17439760902844228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Legatum Institute. (2012). The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index: Methodology and technical appendix. Retrieved from:
  32. Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 85–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosellini, A. J., & Brown, T. A. (2011). The NEO five-factor inventory: latent structure and relationships with dimensions of anxiety and depressive disorders in a large clinical sample. Assessment, 18(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. doi: 10.1177/0011000006286345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKeimyung UniversityDaeguSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyElmo-Farhang UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations