Born to be happy? The etiology of subjective well-being - PubMed (original) (raw)
Born to be happy? The etiology of subjective well-being
Meike Bartels et al. Behav Genet. 2009 Nov.
Abstract
Subjective Wellbeing (SWB) can be assessed with distinct measures that have been hypothesized to represent different domains of SWB. The current study assessed SWB with four different measures in a genetically informative sample of adolescent twins and their siblings aged 13-28 years (N = 5,024 subjects from 2,157 families). Multivariate genetic modeling was applied to the data to explore the etiology of individual differences in SWB measures and the association among them. Developmental trends and sex differences were examined for mean levels and the variance-covariance structure. Mean SWB levels were equal in men and women. A small negative effect of age on mean levels of SWB was found. Individual differences in SWB were accounted for by additive and non-additive genetic influences, and non-shared environment. The broad-sense heritabilities were estimated between 40 and 50%. The clustering of the four different measures (quality of life in general, satisfaction with life, quality of life at present, and subjective happiness) was explained by an underlying additive genetic factor and an underlying non-additive genetic factor. The effect of these latent genetic factors on the phenotypes was not moderated by either age or sex.
Figures
Fig. 1
The moderator model. Squares represent measured variables, and circles represent latent, unobserved factors. The triangle represents the mean. The additive genetic, non-additive genetic and nonshared environmental value is a linear function of the moderator M 1 and M 2, for A represented by the equation a + βx M 1 + βy M 2, where β_x_ and β_y_ are the unknown parameters to be estimated from the data, representing the magnitude of the sex and age effects
Fig. 2
Cholesky Decomposition for the four measures of SWB for a single person Squares represent measured variables, and circles represent latent, unobserved factors. A represents additive genetic effects, and E is unique environment. Their influence on the phenotype is given by path coefficients a and e. For sake of clarity, the D component is left out of the picture. QLg = Quality of Life in General; SAT = Satisfaction with life; QLp = Quality of life at present; HAP = Subjective Happiness
Fig. 3
The correlated two factor model for the four measures of SWB for a single person. Squares represent measured variables, and circles represent latent, unobserved factors. A1 and A2 represent the two underlying correlated latent factors. As1 to As4 represent measure specific additive genetic effects. E is unique environment. Their influence on the phenotype is given by path coefficients a and e. For sake of clarity, the D component is left out of the picture, but could also be represented as a correlated factor model. QLg = Quality of Life in General; SAT = Satisfaction with life; QLp = Quality of life at present; HAP = Subjective Happiness
Fig. 4
The Common Pathway model for the four measures of SWB for a single person. Squares represent measured variables, and circles represent latent, unobserved factors. The bigger circle with ‘SWB; in the middle represents the latent ‘phenotypic factor. A, D, and E represent the Additive genetic, dominant genetic, and nonshared environmental influences on this latent factors. Their influence on the phenotypic latent factor is given by path coefficients a, d, and e. Residual variance is depicted with the measurement specific latent factors (As, Ds, and Es). QLg = Quality of Life in General; SAT = Satisfaction with life; QLp = Quality of life at present; HAP = Subjective Happiness
Fig. 5
The Independent Pathway model for the four measures of SWB for a single person. Squares represent measured variables, and circles represent latent, unobserved factors. A1 represent the underlying latent additive genetic factors. As1 to As4 represent measure specific additive genetic effects. E is unique environment. Their influence on the phenotype is given by path coefficients a and e. For sake of clarity, the D component is left out of the picture, but could also be represented as an independent pathway model. QLg = Quality of Life in General; SAT = Satisfaction with life; QLp = Quality of life at present; HAP = Subjective Happiness
Fig. 6
The best fitting model, with an independent pathway specification for both A and D, and a cholesky decomposition for E. The only significant residual variance is found for dominant genetic influences on QLg,and HAP. Unstandardized path coefficients are depicted in the figure
Similar articles
- Happiness and health: environmental and genetic contributions to the relationship between subjective well-being, perceived health, and somatic illness.
Røysamb E, Tambs K, Reichborn-Kjennerud T, Neale MC, Harris JR. Røysamb E, et al. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Dec;85(6):1136-46. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1136. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003. PMID: 14674819 - Genetic and environmental influences on optimism and its relationship to mental and self-rated health: a study of aging twins.
Mosing MA, Zietsch BP, Shekar SN, Wright MJ, Martin NG. Mosing MA, et al. Behav Genet. 2009 Nov;39(6):597-604. doi: 10.1007/s10519-009-9287-7. Epub 2009 Jul 18. Behav Genet. 2009. PMID: 19618259 - Exploring the association between well-being and psychopathology in adolescents.
Bartels M, Cacioppo JT, van Beijsterveldt TC, Boomsma DI. Bartels M, et al. Behav Genet. 2013 May;43(3):177-90. doi: 10.1007/s10519-013-9589-7. Epub 2013 Mar 8. Behav Genet. 2013. PMID: 23471543 Free PMC article. - Molecular genetics and subjective well-being.
Rietveld CA, Cesarini D, Benjamin DJ, Koellinger PD, De Neve JE, Tiemeier H, Johannesson M, Magnusson PK, Pedersen NL, Krueger RF, Bartels M. Rietveld CA, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 11;110(24):9692-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222171110. Epub 2013 May 24. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013. PMID: 23708117 Free PMC article. - Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life.
Diener E, Oishi S, Lucas RE. Diener E, et al. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:403-25. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056. Epub 2002 Jun 10. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003. PMID: 12172000 Review.
Cited by
- Bias in Gene-by-Environment Interaction Effects with Sum Scores; An Application to Well-being Phenotypes.
Pelt DHM, Schwabe I, Bartels M. Pelt DHM, et al. Behav Genet. 2023 Jul;53(4):359-373. doi: 10.1007/s10519-023-10137-y. Epub 2023 Mar 1. Behav Genet. 2023. PMID: 36856918 Free PMC article. - Employee well-being and innovativeness: A multi-level conceptual framework based on citation network analysis and data mining techniques.
Elsamani Y, Mejia C, Kajikawa Y. Elsamani Y, et al. PLoS One. 2023 Jan 6;18(1):e0280005. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280005. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 36608048 Free PMC article. Review. - A Re-evaluation of Candidate Gene Studies for Well-Being in Light of Genome-Wide Evidence.
van de Weijer MP, Pelt DHM, de Vries LP, Baselmans BML, Bartels M. van de Weijer MP, et al. J Happiness Stud. 2022;23(6):3031-3053. doi: 10.1007/s10902-022-00538-x. Epub 2022 May 17. J Happiness Stud. 2022. PMID: 35949913 Free PMC article. - Shared genetic architectures of subjective well-being in East Asian and European ancestry populations.
Kim S, Kim K, Hwang MY, Ko H, Jung SH, Shim I, Cha S, Lee H, Kim B, Yoon J, Ha TH, Kim DK, Kim J, Park WY, Okbay A, Kim BJ, Kim YJ, Myung W, Won HH. Kim S, et al. Nat Hum Behav. 2022 Jul;6(7):1014-1026. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01343-5. Epub 2022 May 19. Nat Hum Behav. 2022. PMID: 35589828 - Predictors of Life Satisfaction in New Zealand: Analysis of a National Dataset.
Jarden RJ, Joshanloo M, Weijers D, Sandham MH, Jarden AJ. Jarden RJ, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 5;19(9):5612. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095612. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35565016 Free PMC article.
References
- Andrews FM, Withey SB. Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum Press; 1976.
- Biddle SJH, Ekkekakis P. Physical active lifestyles and well-being. In: Huppert FA, Baylis N, Keverne B, editors. The science of well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 141–168.
- Blanchflower DG, Oswald AJ. Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. J Public Econ. 2004;88:1359–1386. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00168-8. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources