Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 571–590 | Cite as

The Construct and Measurement of Peace of Mind

  • Yi-Chen Lee
  • Yi-Cheng Lin
  • Chin-Lan Huang
  • Barbara L. Fredrickson
Research Paper

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that Asian American or Chinese individuals value low-arousal positive affect and a harmonious state of happiness more than European Americans do. However, the affective component of subjective well-being has mostly been defined as the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect. This definition emphasizes the importance of hedonic pleasure but fails to include the affect valued in Chinese culture. The present study developed the construct of peace of mind to describe the affective well-being valued in Chinese culture. Peace of mind was defined as an internal state of peacefulness and harmony. To develop a measure to assess peace of mind, three studies were conducted. Study 1 developed the Peace of Mind Scale (PoM), Study 2 established its validity as an affective well-being measure, and Study 3 found that individuals from Chinese cultures score higher on this scale than those from Western cultures. The results indicate that the PoM has good reliability and validity for measuring affective well-being. The cross-cultural validation also found that Taiwanese individuals scored higher on the PoM than European Americans, which provides further evidence of good construct validity of the PoM.

Keywords

Peace of mind Subjective well-being Low-arousal positive affect Chinese culture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported in part by a grant of National Science Council, Taiwan (NSC 99-2410-H-033-056).

References

  1. Andrews, F. M., & Robinson, J. P. (1991). Measures of subjective well-being. In J. P. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 189–203). North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  5. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1984). Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 871–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 119–139). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25–41.Google Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Suh, E., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 34, 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1998). The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: An exploration of an evolutionary view. Psychological Medicine, 28, 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgins, E. T., Grant, H., & Shah, J. (1999). Self-regulation and quality of life: Emotional and non-emotional life experiences. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 244–266). New York: Russell Sage foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Hu, L., & Bentler, O. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kampfe, N., & Mitte, K. (2009). What you wish is what you get? The meaning of individual variability in desired affect and affective discrepancy. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kohn, L. (2001). Daoism and Chinese culture. Cambridge: Three Pines Press.Google Scholar
  22. Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Problems and promises with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, Y. T., Yang, H. G., & Wang, M. (2009). Daoist harmony as a Chinese philosophy and psychology. Peace and Conflict Studies, 16, 68–71.Google Scholar
  24. Liao, L. Y. (2000). The new scale of social desirability responding in Taiwan and psychological process analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  25. Little, T. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture, self and ways to achieve SWB: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 5, 51–79.Google Scholar
  27. Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Sources of happiness: A qualitative approach. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell, S. (1988). Tao te ching. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, D. W. (2002). Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist experience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Niedenthal, P. M., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2006). Self-conscious emotions. In P. M. Niedenthal, S. Krauth-Gruber, & F. Ric (Eds.), Psychology of emotion (pp. 77–114). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  31. Oishi, S. (2001). Culture and memory for emotional experiences: On-line vs. retrospective judgment of subjective well-being (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 5625.Google Scholar
  32. Okazaki, S. (2000). Asian American and White American differences on affective distress symptoms: Do symptom reports differ across reporting methods? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 603–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson, C. (1999). Personal control and well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 288–301). New York: Russell Sage foundation.Google Scholar
  34. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: An accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryff, R. M. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference Chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  42. Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 1378–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vandenberg, R. (2002). Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wallace, B., & Shapiro, S. L. (2006). Mental balance and well-being: Building bridges between Buddhism and western psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 690–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Whiteside-Mansell, L., & Corwyn, R. F. (2003). Mean and covariance structures analyses: An examination of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale among adolescents and adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wong, Y. H., & Leung, T. K. (2001). Guanxi: Relationship marketing in a Chinese context. NewYork: Haworth Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi-Chen Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yi-Cheng Lin
    • 3
  • Chin-Lan Huang
    • 4
  • Barbara L. Fredrickson
    • 5
  1. 1.National Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyChung Yuan Christian UniversityChungliTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations