International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology

Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

Assessing the impact of Self Esteem & Optimism on Subjective Well-Being: A

moderation model
*Abhishek Singhal, Research Scholar, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal
**Dr. Priyanka Nema, Assistant Professor, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal
***Dr. Bhanu Priya – Assistant Professor, ITM University, Gwalior (Corresponding Author)

Abstract:
The study aims to show impact of Self-esteem, Mastery and Optimism on Subjective Well-being (SWB).
Standard measures for Self-esteem, Mastery and Optimism are being used. The results showed a clear
significant and positive correlation of Self Esteem, Mastery and Optimism on Subjective Well-being. A
step-wise regression model is created to examine the impact of all the independent factors (Self-esteem,
Mastery and Optimism) on dependent factor (Subjective well-being). Finally, optimism as a moderator
between relationship of self-esteem and SWB is examined. The result shows that optimism indeed
moderates the impact of self-esteem on SWB. Results are discussed in the end of the study with
implications and future directions of the study.
Keywords: Subjective Well-Being, Self-Esteem, Optimism, Mastery, Happiness, Life Satisfaction, Positive
Emotions, Negative Emotions

Introduction
Health psychologists have always linked positive thinking with Life Satisfaction (Snyder, 2007).The
benefits of positive thinking have been acknowledged by people for a long time now (e.g., Cousins, 1977;
Peale, 1952). Life satisfaction comes from multiple factors. Three major factors for well-being in life are
Self Esteem, Mastery and Optimism. Research has also demonstrated, over last 50 years, that high Self
Esteem, Mastery and Optimism increases well-being. Self Esteem is termed as overall self-evaluation of
abilities of an individual (Rosenberg, 1965). Optimism is termed as attitude or mood related to future
expectations especially social or marital future (Tiger, 1979). Mastery is the ability to handle highly
complex situations a person lives in (Ryff, 1981). Perception of greater maturity and a better grasp of
reality are important aspects of mastery.
Measures of Self Esteem, Mastery and Optimism are global measures. These three factors impact Well-
Being majorly. Study of self-esteem and optimism on well-being has been done in past also. This study
includes mastery in this combination. Our study evaluates the effect of these three variables on SWB.
The objective of our study was to examine the impact of self-esteem, mastery and optimism on SWB in
Indian context.We set out to collect data from employees of IT industry in India.
Literature Review
Subjective Well-Being
Wilson (1967) theorized that there is not much progress is made in happiness theories beyond the ancient
Greek philosophers. Hence, Wilson set out to examine the correlates of happiness. He proposed that
human needs are universal and are based on circumstances.And when these needs are fulfilled then the
person will be happy. After this, Wilson’s findings were elaborated by researchers in the field of “Quality
of life”. This had a major impact on SWB research. They tried to determine how income, marriage and

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3363

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

other demographic factors influence SWB (e.g., Campbell et al. 1976; Andrews &Withey 1976; Bradburn
1969). Another influence on SWB research came from researchers in mental health. These researchers
wanted to move beyond ideas of depression and stress. They wanted to include life satisfaction and
happiness under mental-health studies (e.g. Jahoda 1958). After this, a major influence on SWB research
came from personality research. These studies focus on how are personalities of happy and unhappy
people are different from each other (e.g.,Wessman & Ricks 1966). Finally, influence on SWB research
came from cognitive and social psychologists who have worked on concepts of adaptation and social
standards’ influence on well-being (for instance see, Parducci 1995; Brickman & Campbell 1971). Hence
there is no single unified scheme to study SWB though various attempts are being pursued (e.g., Diener &
Lucas 2000). There are various ways to measure SWB. For emotional components survey measures are
used. These examine feelings of joy and content (e.g., “In general how happy are you?”). For cognitive
component of SWB life satisfaction surveys are used.
Based on Wilson’s views a popular model of well-being is founded.This is known as bottom-up model.
According to bottom-up theory there are external events, situations and demographics which are major
predictor of well-being. In support of this, various types of pleasures have been linked to well-being.
Daily experience events, which are pleasurable, are related to positive emotions. Experience of events,
which are undesirable, is related to negative emotions (Stallings, Dunham, Gatz, Baker, &Bengtson,
1997). But the effect size for these external and objective variables is found to be very small. Less than
20% of the variance in SWB is explained by demographic factors like age, sex, Income and education
(Andrews and Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse & Rodgers, 1976).In contrast to bottom up theories
there are Top-Down models. These models assume that personality-based processes explain the major
impact on well-being (Schyns, 2001). Hence, a happy person will see aspects of his life in a more positive
light than they are in reality.
Measuring Subjective Well-Being
There is high value placed on individual’s own opinion is SWB research. Hence it is assumed that self-
reports are the best standard for measuring SWB. There are reasons to be skeptical on these types of
measurements. We should not use self-report measures just because its face validity is strong. Participant
may not want to share information of their true happiness in the surveys. There are biases like acquiesces
bias which also impact true variance that comes out of self-reported measures. According to some
theories, cognitive capacityof people are very low for reporting their experiences accurately (Robinson
&Clore, 2002; Schwarz &Strack, 1999).
There are researches which show that self-reports scales are reliable and valid. For examples, in one
study, measures of well-being showed high reliability whether assessed using test-retest correlation or
inter-item correlation (Diener, Suh, Lucas, &Smith, 1999). Validity of self-report measures is also
supported by various evidences. Different well-being measures of same construct correlate strongly with
each other than with measures of different constructs (Lucas et al., 1996). Also measures like informant
reports and expert ratings, which are non-self-report measures, correlate well with self-report measures
(for e.g. see Lucas et.al. 1996; Diener et.al. 1993).
Life events and circumstances also impact self-report measures.With significant life events, well-being
measures tend to change (Lucas, 2005). Individuals living in disadvantaged circumstances report lower
well-being than those living in better circumstances. In a research in Calcutta slums life satisfaction
scores of slum dwellers were much lower than individuals of affluent circumstances (Biswas-Diener and
Diener, 2001). Similarly, individuals with disabilities scored lower in well-being scores than individuals
without injuries (Lucas, 2007). Hence life circumstances do impact the well-being measures. It’s
remarkable to find that life satisfaction measure predicts relevant behavior and outcomes. In a 20 years’

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3364

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

longitudinal study of Finnish twins it is found that life satisfaction predicts depression and suicide
(Koivumaa-Honkanen, Kaprio, Honkanen, Vinamaki, &Koskenvuo, 2004). Additionally, domain
satisfaction (e.g. Job satisfaction) also predicts behavior. For instance, measures of job satisfaction predict
absenteeism and job changing (Frijters, 2000). Hence those who are dissatisfied with their jobs, stay away
from these jobs and tend to leave these jobs. Overall, people who claim to be unsatisfied are found to do
things which are expected by unsatisfied people to be done . Researchers have also challenged the validity
of self-report measures. Its argued that contextual factors like questions word setting, question order or
instructions influence well-being judgements (Strack, Martin, and Schwarz (1988). But there are other
studies which show that contextual factors impact on well-being measures is very small (for e.g.
Schimmack and Oishi, 2005).
Self Esteem:
Self- Esteem is self-evaluation of abilities of an individual (Rosenberg, 1965). What people think of
themselves constitutes self-esteem. Further, Korman (1970, 1966) included need satisfaction component
in self-esteem. Accordingly, self-esteem relates to competence and capability for need satisfaction. These
definitions are basically cognitive definitions of self-esteem. Pelham and Swann (1989) included affective
component to self-esteem. Individuals who have high self-esteem like themselves a lot. They like what
they are. Rosenberg Scale (1965) corroborates this affective component. Statements in scale like “I am
satisfied with myself” and “I am a person of worth” are evaluating affective component.A combination of
other factors (eg. physical, Social, moral and academic self) are related to self-esteem and may also
develop self-esteem (Shavelson, Hubner& Stanton, 1976). There is also some limited research pertaining
to organization-based conceptualizationof the self-esteem.On the surface, happiness appears to be linked
with self-esteem. In daily life, individuals who are happy feel good about themselves and people lacking
self-respect feel unhappy about them. Based on part research, happiness and self-esteem have a high
correlation between them e.g. r=.58 (Schimmack et al., 2004). This relationship is not perfect and a lot of
variance between these two variables remains unexplained. Happiness and self-esteem are also said to be
synonymous by few researchers. They have used self-esteem as index of global happiness (Ryff, 1989).
Infact some are of view are these two concepts cannot be separated. Ryff (1989) concludes that self-
acceptance is one of the most recurrent criteria for well-being. Among cultural research there are findings
that people from individualistic cultures don’t even make a distinction between how happy a person is
and his self-esteem i.e. they don’t differentiate between happiness in their life and satisfaction with
themselves (Lucas et. al., 1996).

Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE)

It has stated about self-esteem that it constitutes individual’s belief as being significant in organization.
He also believes as being worthy and capable (Pierce et.al. 1989). Employee perception that ‘I count in
here’ creates their OBSE. People with high OBSE believe that, via their roles in organization, they are
able to satisfy their needs (Korman 1966, 1970, 1971, 1976). There are changes in OBSE with more
experience in job. It changes from outer level recognition of self to inner level self-concept; to unstable
feelings &self-concept to stable self-concept (Campbell, 1990). Hence, there is more stable OBSE with
increasing job experience (Pierce et al., 1989). High OBSE employees relate to statements like ‘I make a
difference around here’ and ‘I am an important part of this place’ (OBSE Scale; Pierce et al., 1989).

Optimism:
Optimism is termed as attitude or mood related to future expectations especially social or marital future
(Tiger, 1979).The effects of positive thinking are more than just feeling better, (Taylor, 1989; Taylor
&Brown, 1988). The actions of people during adversity and what people do is also defined by
optimism.The action of a person is mostly determined by expectations about the consequences that

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3365

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

actions entails. Various theories of motivation are being based on expectancies (e.g., Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, Bandura, 1986; Rotter, 1954 ;). Continuous striving for outcomes depends if
people believe the outcome to be realizable.If outcome is distant and progress is slow, people will start
disengaging themselves from the objective and will withdraw the effort. Hence between endeavor towards
outcome and giving up the effort, expectancies act as a determinant. Positive effect is being experienced
when goals are realized as attainable.

Mastery:
The concept of mastery is credited to Phillips (1961). It consists of progression through five stages. These
are 1) Isolation, 2) dependency, 3) autonomy, 4) cooperation and 5) independence. The concept went
unnoticed until Ryff (1989) reintroduced it as environmental mastery. Ryff (1989) defined it as “ability to
control one’s life and environment around”. Mastery is related to life satisfaction in middle of difficult
times (Windle and Woods, 2004). It is also found to be predictor of confidence in students (September,
2001). Mastery and Self-esteem are also found be related in various studies. According to Bandura (1977)
self-esteem is acquired through competence and a sense of control. Self-Worth is derived through
competence in domains which are valued by both others and oneself (Harter, 1993). Hence concept of
personal control or mastery is closely linked with self-esteem theoretically (e.g. Taylor and Brown, 1988).

Mastery is concerned with how much an individual has control of his life. These kinds of individuals
follow norms and are decision makers. Introspection is hallmark of these people. These people focus a lot
in maintaining both the inner world and the outer world. Mastery is the ability to handle highly complex
situations a person lives. Mastery includes mature perception, grasp on reality and using self as an
instrument to strive towards goals. This is also known as self-utilization.Mastery has some of the
traitslike: Self Awareness, Selectivity, Manipulation of environment, problem solving cognitive strategies
and impulse life control. Prestige and expertise is used for control of social environment. Individuals high
on mastery do this by creating norms and rules. An environment master looks himself as in command of
situation. He is more of a driver than being driven.In them, there is experience of restructuring.New
information is being continuously processed in context of past learning (Neugarten 1968).

Conceptual Model
To accomplish the study a conceptual model has been proposed on the basis of three standard measures
i.e. self-esteem, mastery and optimism as independent variables and dependent variable of
SubjectiveWell-Being.This is depicted as model in Figure No. 1.

Self-Esteem
Subjective
Mastery
Well-Being
Optimism

Figure No.1: Proposed Conceptual Model

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3366

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

Hypotheses
H1a: Self Esteem positively and significantly impacts subjective wellbeing
H1b: Mastery positively and significantly impacts subjective wellbeing
H1c: Optimism positively and significantly impacts subjective wellbeing
H02. Optimism moderates relationship between self-esteem and subjective wellbeing.

Methodology
This paper aims to study the combined impact of self-esteem, mastery and optimism on well-being of the
employees of IT sector in India. In this study we have adopted well developed and universally accepted
scales proposed by the researchers. To assess the self-esteem we have adopted a 10-item (5 negatively
and 5 positively worded) self-esteem scale proposed by Rosenberg, (1989). Next, to assess the mastery,
the authors have adopted the seven itemsscale of Pearlin and Schooler (1978). This scale evaluates the
extent of a person’s feeling about his/her mastery over the outcomes of the life. Further, the scale which
has been adopted is to assess the optimism is life orientation test. It is 6-item scale with 3 positively
phrased and 3 negatively phrased item. Revised Life-Orientation Test (LOT-R) was developed by Scheier
and Carver (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994).For well-being PANAS scale is used which has 5- 12
positively and negatively worded items.1 is rated totally disagree and 5 is rated totally agree. Life
Satisfaction is measured by 5 item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al„ 1985). In this
study, the data on the items of these three well accepted scales from 356 people. Out of this 160 were
males and 196 were females. A correlation Analysis is done to access the strength of relationship between
variables. Finally, to examine the impact of Self-esteem, Mastery and Optimism on Well-Being
regression analysis is done.
Results and Discussion
In this study we have adopted three measures from three different well accepted scales and as per the aim
of the study we have to check the combined impact all these three measures on a dependent variable i.e.
well-being. For the sake of the same, we have checked the pearson correlation for all three measures with
Positive Emotions and Life Satisfaction. And further we have also checked the correlation of all the three
independent variables with the dependent variable SWB.

Table 5: Results of Correlation analysis

Correlation Results
Subjective Life
Net Positive Emotions
Well-Being Satisfaction
Self Esteem 0.598* 0.45* 0.55*
Mastery 0.584* 0.43* 0.54*
Optimism 0.535* 0.43* 0.47*
N 356 356 356
*Significant at p<.05
~Not Significant

Table 6: Results of Regression analysis

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3367

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

Regression Results
Subjective Life
Net Positive Emotions
Well-Being Satisfaction
Self Esteem 0.35* 0.2* 0.31*
Mastery 0.34* 0.18* 0.29*
Optimism 0.28* 0.18* 0.23*
N 356 356 356
*Significant at p<.05
~Not Significant

Table 5 shows each of the correlations where Pearson’s Bivariate correlation wasused.The correlation
between Mastery and Subjective Well-Being of 0.598, p < 0.001, with r=.35. The correlation between
Mastery and Subjective Well-Being was found to be 0.584, p <0.001 with r=.34. The correlation of .535,
p < 0.001, was found between subjective well-being and optimism accepting the hypothesis r=.28. In this
sample, relationship between SWB and self-esteem, a sense of Mastery, and optimism is found to be
positive and significant. Hence, Hypotheses (H1a, H1b, and H1c) stands accepted.

Now to assess to impact of self-esteem, Mastery and optimism on SWB a model has been proposed
shown in Figure No. 1. To check the model fit, a step wise regression analysis has been applied on all the
four variables shown in Table No.7. Significance of the model is checked by ANOVA shown in Table
No. 7.

Table 7: Results of Step Wise Regression Analysis

Step Wise Regression Table
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Constant 16.77 -12.419 -19.527 -19.832

Age 0.052 .020 .050 .035
Gender -0.169 -.887 -1.308 -1.052

Self Esteem .906* .591 .526

Mastery .521* .501
Optimism .250*
N 356 356 356 356
R2 0.007 0.36 0.416 0.479
Adjusted R2 0.001 0.354 0.41 0.472
Notes : *p-value<0.05

It is found that variables of self-esteem, mastery, and optimism among university students, did relate
positively to subjective well-being. Multiple regression analysis with self-esteem, Mastery, and optimism
was used to address this hypothesis. The standardized Betas and the significance levels of the variables
self-esteem, Mastery, and optimism are found in Table 7.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3368

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

The three variables self-esteem, mastery and optimism accounted for 47.9 % of subjective well-being
variance. The difference between R square and adjusted R square is also very small. This states the
sturdiness of the result. With this result it can be stated that Self-Esteem impacts well-being the most and
the three variables together explains for roughly 48% of variance in SWB. Optimism moderates the
relationship between self-esteem and that of SWB. To examine the impact of optimism on the relationship
between self-esteem and SWB a model has been proposed shown in Figure No. 5 .To check the model fit,
moderation analysis has been applied shown in Table No.8. Significance of the model is also checked to
confirm the interaction effect.

Self Esteem

H02 Subjective
Optimism

Well-Being

Figure No. 5: Summarized Hypothesis – Moderation Effect

Optimism was found to moderate the impact of Self Esteem on Subjective Well Being. The moderation
model came out to be significant. The details of moderation effect are found in Table 8.
Table 8: Results of Moderation Analysis
Moderation Table

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Constant 16.77 -12.49 -15.45

Age 0.052 0.02 -0.003
Female (Gender) -0.169 -0.889 -0.479

Self Esteem 0.908 0.666* 0.562

Optimism 0.534 0.364
Self Esteem X Optimism 0.005*

N 356 356 356

R2 0.007 0.362 0.38 0.418
2
Adjusted R 0.001 0.356 0.37 0.41
Notes : *p-value<0.05

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3369

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

Model 4 is the Moderation model. This final model contains unstandardized Betas of 0.56 for self-esteem
(p < 0.01) 0.364 for optimism (p = 0.01). Comparing adjusted R2from models 2, 3 and 4 underscores that
optimism importantly contributes to explaining subjective well-being. The adjusted R2 increases to 41%
in the Moderation Model No.4 from 36% of Model No. 2. This is a significant increase and this explains
the importance of the hypothesis (H2) proposed.

Conclusion and Limitations

The results of the study conclude that self-esteem, mastery and optimism which we have considered in
this study are moderately affecting the subjective well-being. These results are verified both through
correlation and step-wise regression analysis. Optimism was found to moderate the impact of Self Esteem
on Subjective Well Being, as the moderation model under study came out to be significant.This study
does not take into account the work variables like Job Engagement etc. into consideration due to
limitation of scope and time. So, to get the better results, the future studies can be done including Work
variables like Job Engagement and Organization Support. Social relationships have consistently predicted
well-being (e.g., Diener and Seligman 2002). This indicates a need for study of personal, work and social
variables together in study of well-being for future researchers. In this study we can conclude that all the
variables; Self-Esteem, Mastery, work engagement and Optimism, when taken into account together, have
a significant impact on well-being. Optimism is found to moderate the relationship between self-esteem
and subjective well-being.

References

1. Andrews, F. M., &Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum
Press.
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4. Becker‐Lausen, E., Sanders, B. and Chinsky, J.M. (1995), Mediation of abusive childhood
experieces: Depression, Dissociation, and Negative Life Outcomes. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry
5. Brickman, P. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Adaptation Level Theory, edAppley MH.
6. Brockner, J. 1988. Self-esteem at work: Theory, research, and practice. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
7. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life:
Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation.
8. Campbell, J. D. 1990. Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,59: 538–549.
9. Carver, C. S., &Scheier, M. F. (1990a). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A
control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19-35.
10. Carver, C. S., &Scheier, M. F. (1990b). Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. In
integrated theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6: 593–613.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3370

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

11. Coopersmith, S. 1967. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.

12. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542- 575.
13. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. Handbook of emotions, 2,
325-337.
14. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81–84.
15. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and
subjective well-being: Relative or absolute?. Social indicators research, 28(3), 195-223.
16. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades
of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
17. E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of
social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-52). New York: Guilford Press.
18. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 185-
209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Frijters, P. (2000). Do individuals try to maximise general satisfaction? Journal of Economic
Psychology, 21, 281–304.
20. Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health.
21. Koivumaa-Honkanen, H. Kaprio, J., Honkanen, R., Vinamaki, H., &Koskenvuo, M. (2004). Life
satisfaction and depression in a 15-year follow-up of healthy adults. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidennology, 39(12), 994–999.
22. Korman, A. K. 1966. Self-esteem variable in vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
50: 479–486.
23. Korman, A. K. 1970. Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
54: 31–41.
24. Korman, A. K. 1971. Organizational achievement, aggression and creativity: Some suggestions
toward an
25. Korman, A. K. 1976. Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of
Management Review, 1: 50–63.
26. Lucas, R. E. (2005). Time does not heal all wounds: A longitudinal study of reaction and
adaptation to divorce. Psychological Science, 16, 945–950.
27. Lucas, R. E. (2007). Long-term disability has lasting effects on subjective well-being: Evidence
from two nationally representative panel studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 717–730.
28. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 71(3), 616.
29. Myers, D. G., &Diener, E. (1995). Who Is Happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10–19.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3371

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

30. Neugarten, B. L. (1968). The awareness of middle age. In B. L. Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and
aging (pp. 93-98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its
applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. 1989. From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources
and structure ofglobal self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 672–680.
33. Phillips, R.H.: 1961, ‘Environmental mastery and personality development’, Archives of General
Psychiatry 5, pp. 146–150.
34. Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. 1989. Organization-based self-
esteem: Construct definition measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32:
622–648.
35. Robinson, M. D., &Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of
emotional self-report. Psychological bulletin, 128(6), 934.
36. Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
37. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
38. Ryff, C.D. and C.L.M. Keyes: 1995, ‘The structure of psychological well-being revisited’,
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 69, pp. 719–727.
39. Ryff, C.D.: 1989, ‘Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being’, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 57, pp.1069–1081.
40. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
41. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life
Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063-1078.
42. Schimmack, U., &Oishi, S. (2005). The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible
information on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3),
395–406.
43. Schwarz, N., &Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and
their methodological implications. Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology, 7, 61-84.
44. Schyns, P. (2001). Income and satisfaction in Russia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(2), 173–
204.
45. Seligman M.E.P., Csikszentmihalyi M. (2014) Positive Psychology: An Introduction. In: Flow
and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Springer, Dordrecht
46. September, A.N., M. McCarrey, A. Baranowsky, C. Parent and D. Schindler: 2001, ‘The relation
between well-being, imposter feelings, and gender role orientation among Canadian university
students’, Journal of Social Psychology 141, pp. 218– 232.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3372

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 11s, (2020), pp. 3363-3373

47. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J.,&Stanton, G. C. 1976. Self-concept: Validation of construct

interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46: 407–441.
48. Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical
explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
49. Stallings, M. C., Dunham, C. C., Gatz, M., Baker, L. A., &Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Relationships
among life events and psychological well-being: More evidence for a two-factor theory of well-
being. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 16(1), 104-119.
50. Strack, E., Martin, L. L., & Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: Social
determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social
Psychology,18, 429–442.
51. Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York:
Basic Books.
52. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective
on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
53. Weiner, B. (1982). The emotional consequences of causal ascriptions. In M. S. Clark & S. T.
54. Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and personality.
55. Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294-306
56. Windle, G., & Woods, R. T. (2004). Variations in subjective wellbeing: The mediating role of a
psychological resource. Ageing & Society, 24(4), 583-602.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 3373

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC