Psychological Well Being

Transcription

1 A Cross-Cultural Validation of the Six-Factor Model of Psychological Well-Being Hye Eun Lee, University of Hawai i at Mānoa Emiko Taniguchi, University of Texas at Austin Abstract Ryff (1989) suggested a multidimensional model of PWB, which comprises of six psychological dimensions. Each dimensions of PWB deals with different challenges individuals face in an effort to function optimally. These dimensions include Self-Acceptance, Positive Relations with Others, Environmental Mastery, Autonomy, Purpose in Life, and Personal Growth. While the scale of PWB has been widely used in the West (Ryff, 1989; Schmutte & Ryff, 1997), it has not been extensively used outside of the Euro-American countries. Only limited amount of studies have used the scale of PWB in non-western contexts, and these studies showed mixed results regarding the usefulness of the scale in non-western countries. While some of these studies have shown an acceptable level of reliability and factorial validity (e.g., Kitamura et al., 2004; Fernandes, Vasconcelos-Raposo, & Teixeira, 2010), other studies showed lower reliability (e.g., Kim, Kim, Cha, & Lim, 2007) and brought the six dimensional structure into question (e.g., Ingersoll-Dayton, Saengtienchai, Kespichayawattana, & Aungsuroch, 2007). One possible explanation is that the original scale of PWB was based on Euro-American cultural roots, which views ideal self as autonomous and independent (Christopher, 1999). Thus, the conceptualization of selfhood is not well suited for collectivist cultures that emphasize different values, such as relationship harmony with others (Lu & Shih, 1997). In response to the need for a culturally valid PWB for various countries, this study aims to validate Ryff s (1989) scale of PWB across cultures. The scale, which is a broad-based self-report measure originally developed in the United States, is consisted of 42 items that are designed to measure 6 distinct dimensions of wellness. Using data collected in the United States (N= 502) and Korea (N= 518), the six-factor model was tested. The findings of this study have methodological implications for cross-cultural research on PSB. Keywords: cross-cultural research, psychological well-being Hye Eun (Kate) Lee (PhD, Michigan State University) is an associate professor in the Department of Communicology, University of Hawai i at Mānoa and Emiko Taniguchi (MA, University of Hawaii at Manoa) is a PhD student in the Department of Communication Studies, University of Texas at Austin. 1

2 Introduction The study of well-being comes from two broad philosophical perspectives: one dealing with happiness (hedonic well being) and one dealing with actualization of human potential (eudaimonic well being; for a review, see Ryan & Deci, 2001). Psychological well-being (PWB) reflects the eudaimonin perspective of well-being. Specifically, the construct of PWB refers to perceived self-actualization and optimal functioning of one s life (Ryff, 1989). Ryff (1989) suggested a multidimensional model of PWB, which comprises of six psychological dimensions. Each dimension deals with different challenges individuals face in an effort to function optimally (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002; Ryff, 1989a; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). These dimensions include Self-Acceptance, Positive Relations With Others, Environmental Mastery, Autonomy, Purpose in Life, and Personal Growth. Ryff and Keyes (1995) provided the definition of these six dimensions. Self- Acceptance refers to feeling positive about oneself and the past, even when one is aware of his or her own shortcomings. Positive Relations with Others centers on developing and maintaining warm, satisfying and trusting interpersonal relationships. Environmental Mastery involves a sense of mastery and competence in managing the environment so as to meet personal needs, desires, and values. Autonomy is defined as a sense of self-determination and being able to resist social pressure to think and behave in certain ways. Purpose in Life refers to a sense of meaning of life and directedness. Lastly, Personal Growth centers on a sense of improvement and development in self over time, and making the most of one s talent and capacities. While the scale of PWB has been widely used in the West (e.g., Ryff, 1989a; Schmutte & Ryff, 1997), it has not been extensively used outside of the Euro-American countries. Only limited amount of studies have used the scale of PWB in non-western contexts, and these studies showed mixed results regarding the usefulness of the scale in non-western countries. Although some studies have shown an acceptable level of reliability (e.g., Kitamura et al., 2004) and factorial validity in Asian countries Fernandes, Vasconcelos-Raposo, & Teixeira, 2010), other studies showed lower reliability (e.g., Kim, Kim, Cha, & Lim, 2007) and brought the six dimensions of the structure into question (e.g., Ingersoll- Dayton, Saengtienchai, Kespichayawattana, & Aungsuroch, 2007). Many studies attempted to measure PWB in the past, there have been some theoretical and methodological issues with many of these. First, six dimensions of the construct are theoretically distinct, however many studies did not differentiate them (e.g., Costanzo, Ryff, & Singer, 2009; Springer & Hauser, 2006). Moreover, even when six dimensions were measured, studies have reported no factor analyses (e.g. Kafka & Kofma, 2002). Table 1 shows reliability of each dimension and Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) results from the studies measured PSW. CFA for multidimensionality should be examined to evaluate how an underlying construct influences the responses on a number of measured variables and to validate the factors that are responsible for a set of observed responses (Kline, 2005). The original scale of PWB was based on Euro-American cultural roots, which views ideal self as autonomous and independent (Christopher, 1999). Thus, the conceptualization of selfhood is not well suited for collectivist cultures that emphasize different values, such as relationship harmony with others (Lu & Shih, 1997). In response to the need for a culturally valid PWB for various countries, this study aims to validate Ryff s (1989) scale of PWB between the U.S. and Korea. Further, the study shows the relationships between six dimensions of PWB and related variables to test convergent and discriminant validity of the construct. Although one single study cannot fully assess it, construct validity of the PWB measure would be evaluated this way (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). 2

3 Method Participants Of 1020 undergraduate participants, 502 Americans (age M = 21.13, SD = 4.50, 60.1% female) were recruited at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in the U.S. and 518 Koreans (age M = 22.35, SD = 2.15, 62.6% female) were recruited at Hallym University in Korea. The ethnicities of American participants were 48% Asian, 22% Caucasian, 20.8% multiethnic and 9.8% others. Korean participants were all ethnically and culturally Korean. All of the participants were asked to complete an online survey. Measures The questionnaire was produced in both English and Korean. The English version of the questionnaire was created first, and it was translated into Korean using the back-translation method to ensure equivalence in meaning. Participants in the study completed the questionnaire in their native languages. All measures used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) except friendship. Correlations among the variables, reliabilities of the variables and mean and standard deviation of each variable are presented in Table 2. Psychological Well-Being (PWB). PWB was measured with Ryff s (1989) scale. The scale had 42 items that are designed to measure 6 distinct dimensions of wellness. The reliabilities (Cronbach s α) ranged from.71 to.88 for Americans and.61 to.88 for Koreans. The correlations among six dimensions ranged from -.54 to.58 in the U. S. and -.38 to.40 in Korea. Appendix shows the items for each dimension. Koreans Autonomy (M = 3.04, SD = 0.52) was lower than that of Americans (M = 3.37, SD = 0.61), t (1016) = 9.15, p<.001, r 2 =.08. Koreans Environmental mastery (M = 3.36, SD = 0.57) was lower than that of Americans (M = 3.54, SD = 0.63), t (1016) = 4.64, p<.001, r 2 =.02. Koreans Personal growth (M = 3.93, SD = 0.64) was not significantly different from that of Americans (M = 3.94, SD = 0.66), t (1015) = 0.14, p =.889, r 2 =0. Koreans Positive relations with others (M = 3.62, SD = 0.69) was not significantly different from that of Americans (M = 3.55, SD = 0.81), t (1016) = -1.38, p =.169, r 2 =0. Koreans Purpose in life (M = 2.23, SD = 0.73) was higher than that of Americans (M = 2.07, SD = 0.75), t (1016) = 9.15, p<.001, r 2 =.08. Lastly, Koreans Self-acceptance (M = 3.37, SD = 0.79) was not significantly different from that of Americans (M = 3.42, SD = 0.90), t (1016) = 0.95, p =.345, r 2 = 0. Self-Esteem (SE). Ten items of Rosenberg s Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) were used. An example item is On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. Koreans SE (M = 3.29, SD = 0.45) was lower than that of Americans (M = 3.52, SD = 0.54), t (1015) = 7.53, p<.001, r 2 =.05. Perceived Social Connectedness (SC). Eight items from the Social Connectedness Scale (Lee & Robbins, 1995) were used. An example item is I feel disconnected from the world around me (recoded). Koreans SC (M = 3.87, SD = 0.79) was not significantly different from that of Americans (M = 3.86, SD = 0.92), t (1016) = -0.25, p =.802, r 2 = 0. Friendship (F). Based on Kraut et al. s (2002) measurement, participants were asked to name five closest friends and to indicate the extent to which she/he feel close to each friend on a 100 feeling thermometer. Koreans F (M = 83.25, SD = 11.52) was higher than that of Americans (M = 80.84, SD = 14.11), t (964) = -2.91, p<.01, r 2 =.01. Life Satisfaction (LS). Life satisfaction (LS) scale developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen and Griffin (1985). An example item is In most ways my life is close to my ideal. Koreans LS (M = 3.06, SD = 0.74) was lower than that of Americans (M = 3.49, SD = 0.88), t (997) = 8.27, p<.001, r 2 =.06. 3

4 Results Six-factor model of PWB When using AMOS, the CFA results for multidimensionality of six factors were not acceptable with the original 42 items (see Table 3), so CFAs were repeatedly conducted to find items consistent with multidimensionality and parallelism. The model generating applications are reasonable (Jöreskog, 1993) when the initial model does not fit the data and is modified based on theoretical sense and reasonable statistical correspondence to the data. After 16 items were removed, the results showed acceptable multidimensionality. Three to six items were used for each dimension. See Appendix to see which item was excluded for the analyses. CFA results for the revised models in Table 3 showed that 26 items measuring PWB were consistent with a six-factor structure for both cultures. The six-factor model showed acceptable fit (χ2/df = 3.82, p <.01, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] =.86, comparative fit index [CFI] =.90, root-meansquare error of approximation [RMSEA] =.08 for Americans; χ2/df = 3.05, p <.01, GFI=.88, CFI=.90, RMSEA=.06 for Koreans), which is significantly better than the baseline (one-factor) model (χ2/df = 17.49, p <.01, GFI =.69, CFI =.38, RMSEA =.18 for Americans; χ2/df = 14.09, p <.01, GFI =.72, CFI =.32, RMSEA =.16 for Koreans), χ2 difference (15) = , p <.001 for Americans and χ2 difference (15) = , p <.001 for Koreans. Relationships with related variables Because checking correlations with related variables (convergent validity) and no-correlations with unrelated variables (descriminant validity) is a way to test construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), we correlated the PWB measures with other variables. First, SE was significantly related to all six dimensions of PWB both in the U.S. and Korea. SE was positively related to Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Personal growth, Positive relations with others and Self-acceptance (for Americans, r =.34 to 74; for Koreans, r =.26 to 54) whereas it was negatively related to Purpose in life for Americans (r = -.54) as well as Koreans (r = -.27). Self-acceptance has the strongest relationship with SE both in the U.S. (r =.74) and Korea (r =.56). The relationships with SC were similar with ones with SE. SC was significantly associated with six dimensions of PSW both in the U.S. and Korea. SC was positively related to Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Personal growth, Positive relations with others and Self-acceptance (for Americans, r =.32 to.72; for Koreans, r =.21 to.61) whereas it was negatively related to Purpose in life for Americans (r = -.49) as well as Koreans (r = -.37). Positive relations with others has the strongest relationship with SC both in the U.S. (r =.72) and Korea (r =.61). F was significantly related to all six dimensions of PWB in the U.S. whereas it was associated with all except Personal growth in Korea. For Americans, F is a positive factor to all dimensions (r =.12 to.44) except Purpose in life (r = -.17). For Koreans, F is a positive factor to Autonomy, Environmental mastery, positive relations with others and self-acceptance (r =.20 to.38) but a negative one to Purpose in life (r = -.13). Like SC, Positive relations with others has the strongest relationship with F both in the U.S. (r =.44) and Korea (r =.38). Finally, LS was positively related to all dimensions (r =.12 to.50) except Purpose in life (r = -.23) in the U.S. LS was positively related to four dimensions in Korea. They were Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Positive relations with others and Self-acceptance (r =.23 to.44). LS was not significantly related to Personal growth (r =.03) nor Purpose in life (r = -.09) in Korea. LS has a strongest relationship with Environmental mastery both in the U.S. (r =.44) and Korea (r =.38). 4

5 Discussion This research provided measures of six dimensions of PWB with acceptable reliabilities and a six-factor structure both in the U.S. and Korea. Since Ryff (1989) first introduced PWB as a multidimensional construct, it has been theoretically and/or empirically used to explain people s happiness and quality life. Compared to other PWB studies, the current study theoretically differentiated six unique dimensions of PWB and successfully measured them with three to six items each. It is hoped that more valid PWB research can be conducted with these measurements in the future. 5

6 Table 1. Articles Reporting a Measure or Measures of Psychological Well-being Article Participants Scale Reliability CFA Ryff (1989) N = 321 Well-educated Ryff s six dimension scale (1989) The test-retest (over 6- week) reliabilities with a subsample of respondents (n = 117):.81 to.88 Cronbach s α:.86 to.93 Zika & (a) Mental Health Inventory (Viet & Cronbach s α:.81 to.96 Chamberlain, (1992) Ware, 1983) (b) Life 3 (Andrew & Withey, Cronbach s α: ): general life satisfaction (c) Affectometor 2 (Kammann & Flett, 1983): positive and negative affect Cronbach s α:.95 Ryff & Keys (1995) Schmutte & Ryff (1997) Hills & Argyle (2001) Kafka & Kofma (2002) Ingersoll-Dayton et al., (2004) N = 1,108, Mean age = 45.6 N= 215, Mean age = 53.7 n= 277 mean age = 21.3 College students (Canada) Ryff s six dimension scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.33 to item from the Ryff s scale (1989) The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ; Hills & Argyle, 2002) 9 constructs with 29 items found problem in six-dimension structure, according to Fernandes et al. (2010). Kafka & Kofma found that the factorial validity is not unambiguous (van Dierendonck, 2005). Cronbach s α: 0.82 to 0.90 Cronbach s α =.91 (Thailand) Ryff s scale (1989) 6

7 Kitamura et al. (2004) van Dierendonck (2005) Vleioras & Bosm (2005) Springer & Hauser (2006) Arnold et al., (2007) (Japan) Ryff s scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.45 to.83 Study 1 N = 233, mean age = 22 college students It seems that they found problem in six-dimension structure, according to Fernandes et al. (2010). 14-items from Ryff s scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.77 to.90 (Greece) Ryff s scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.77 to.86 Study 1 N = 233 mean age = 22 college students Study 2 n = 420 mean age = 31 (the Netherlands) Study 2 n = 420 mean age = 31 (the Netherlands) Cancer survivors (n = 398) Comparison group (n = 796) Study 2 n = 420 mean age = 31 (the Netherlands) Cancer survivors (n = 398) Comparison group (n = 796) 3-item from the Ryff s scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.17 to.68 9-items from the Ryff s scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.61 to.77 3-item from the Ryff s scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.24 to.60 Wave 1: 18-item version from the Ryff s scale (1989) Wave 2: 42-item version from the Ryff s scale (1989) Positive Affective Well-Being scale (Hess, Kelloway, and Francis, 2005) Cronbach s α: Cronbach s α: Cronbach s α =.97 7

8 6 items from General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1972; Mullarkey, Wall, Warr, Clegg, & Stride, 1999). Cronbach s α =.89 Kim et al. (2007) (Korea) Ryff s scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.62 to.85 van Dierendonck et al. (2008) Costanzo, Ryff, & Singer (2009) Fernandes, Vasconcelos- Raposo, & Teixeira, (2010) Stone et al. (2010) N = 592 (Spain) N = 327 (Columbia) Mean age = 30 Study 1 N = 233, mean age = 22 college students Study 2 n = 420, mean age = 31 (Dutch) (Portugal) Shortened version proposed by van Dierendonck (2004; 39 items in total.) Cronbach s α: item from the Ryff s scale (1989) Cronbach s α:.65 to items from the Ryff s scale (1989) (a) Global well-being with one question. (b) Hedonic well-being with 6 positive and negative adjectives Cronbach s α: Acceptable fit indices 8

9 Table 2. Reliabilities, Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations and Range of Variables. The U.S. A EM PG PR P S SE SC F LS PWB Autonomy (A) (.73) Environmental.35** (.71) mastery (EM) Personal growth (PG).34**.27** (.73) Positive relations with.35**.50**.30** (.75) others (PR) Purpose in life (P) -.35** -.35** -.54** -.43** (.72) Self-acceptance (S).49**.48**.35**.58* -.40** (.88) Self-esteem (SE).52**.55**.34**.60** -.47**.74** (.86) Social connectedness.32**.43**.34**.72** -.49**.53**.62** (.95) (SC) Friendship (F).14**.25**.12**.44** -.17**.28**.27**.35** (.84) Life satisfaction (LS).26**.53**.12**.52** -.23**.50*.59**.51**.31** (.88) Korea PWB Autonomy (A) (.61) Environmental.30** (.68) mastery (EM) Personal growth (PG).22**.22** (.71) Positive relations with.27**.39**.31** (.73) others (PR) Purpose in life (P) -.13** -.22** -.38** -.26** (.64) Self-acceptance (S).30**.40**.22**.38** -.27** (.88) Self-esteem (SM).33**.54**.26**.41** ** (.84) Social connectedness.21**.39**.27**.61** -.37**.40**.43** (.93) (SC) Friendship (F).20**.20**.09.38** -.13**.21**.27**.30** (.82) Life satisfaction (LS).23**.44**.03.34** **.61**.34**.28** (.80) The U.S. Korea M SD Range M SD Range Notes. Reliabilities are reported in parentheses on the diagonal. *** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05 9

10 Table 3. CFA Results for Multidimensionality χ 2 df χ 2 /df χ 2 diff df diff GFI CFI RMSEA IFI TLI Americans Baseline (one-factor) ** Six-factor ** Revised Six-factor ** ** Koreans Baseline (one-factor) ** Six-factor ** Revised Six-factor ** ** Notes. GFI = goodness of fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index. *** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05 10

11 Reference Christopher, J. C. (1999). Situating psychological well-being: Exploring the cultural roots of its theory and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, Costanzo, E. Ryff, C.,& Singer, B. (2009). Psychosocial adjustment among cancer survivors: Findings from a national survey of health and well-being. Health Psychology, 28, Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, Fernandes, H. M., Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., & Teixeira, C. M. (2010). Preliminary Analysis of the Psychometric Properties of Ryff s Scales of Psychological Well-Being in Portuguese Adolescents. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Saengtienchai, C., Kespichayawattana, J., & Aungsuroch, Y. (2004). Measuring Psychological Well-Being: Insights from Thai Elders. The Gerontologist, 44, Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp ). Newbury, CA: Sage. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, Kitamura, T., Kishida, Y., Gatayama, R., Matsuoka, T., Miura, S., & Yamabe, K. (2004). Ryff s psychological well-being inventory: Factorial structure and life history correlates among Japanese university students. Psychological Reports, 94, Kim, M.S., Kim, H. W., Cha, K, H., Lim, J. (2007). What makes Koreans Happy? : Exploratin on the structure of happy life among Korean adults. Social Indicators Research, 82, Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgegson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, Lee, R. & Robbins, S. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and the social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, Lu, L. & Shih, J. B. (1997). Sources of happiness: A qualitative approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 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, 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, Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, Ryff, C. D., Keyes, C. L. M., & Hughes, D. L. (2003). Status inequalities, perceived discrimination, and eudaimonic wellbeing: Do the challenges of minority life hone purpose and growth? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, Schmutte, P. S., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: Reexamining methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, Vleioras, G., & Bosma, H. A. (2005). Are identity styles important for psychological well-being? Journal of Adolescence, 28(3),

12 Appendix. Measurement Items. Autonomy (W1-W7) 1. My decisions are not usually influenced by what everyone else is doing. 2. I have confidence in my opinions even if they are contrary to the general consensus. 3. I tend to worry about what other people think of me.* 4. I often change my mind about decisions if my friends or family disagree.* 5. I am not afraid to voice my opinions, even when they are in opposition to the opinions of most people. 6. Being happy with myself is more important to me than having others approve of me. 7. It s difficult for me to voice my opinions on controversial matters.* Environmental mastery (W8-W14) 8. I am good at juggling my time so that I can fit everything in that needs to get done. 9. I often feel overwhelmed by my responsibilities.* 10. I am quite good at managing the many responsibilities of my daily life 11. I do not fit very well with the people and community around me.* 12. I have difficulty arranging my life in a way that is satisfying to me.* 13. I have been able to create a lifestyle for myself that is much to my liking. 14. I generally do a good job of taking care of my personal finances and affairs. Personal growth (W15-W21) 15. I am not interested in activities that will expand my horizons.* 16. I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time. 17. When I think about it, I haven t really improved much as a person over the years.* 18. I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how I think about myself and the world. 19. I don t want to try new ways of doing things my life is fine the way it is.* 20. I do not enjoy being in new situations that require me to change my old familiar ways of doing things.* 21. There is truth to the saying you can t teach an old dog new tricks.* Positive relations (W22-W28) 22. I don t have many people who want to listen when I need to talk.* 23. I enjoy personal and mutual conversations with family members and friends. 24. I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns.* 25. It seems to me that most other people have more friends than I do.* 26. People would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others. 27. Most people see me as loving and affectionate. 28. I know I can trust my friends, and they know they can trust me. Purpose in life (W29-W35) 29. I enjoy making plans for the future and working to make them a reality. 30. My daily activities often seem trivial and unimportant to me.* 31. I am an active person in carrying out the plans I set for myself. 32. I tend to focus on the present, because the future nearly always brings me problems.* 33. I don t have a good sense of what it is I m trying to accomplish in life.* 34. I sometimes feel as if I ve done all there is to do in life.* 35. I used to set goals for myself, but that now seems like a waste of time.* 12

13 Self-Acceptance(W36-W42) 36. I feel like many of the people I know have gotten more out of life than I have.* 37. In general, I feel confident and positive about myself. 38. When I compare myself to friends and acquaintances, it makes me feel good about who I am. 39. My attitude about myself is probably not as positive as most people feel about themselves.* 40. I made some mistakes in the past, but I feel that all in all everything has worked out for the best. 41. The past had its ups and downs, but in general, I wouldn t want to change it. 42. In many ways, I feel disappointed about my achievements in life.* Notes. * recoded item omitted from the final analyses 13