Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Positive and negative aspects of well-being:

Common and specific predictors
Evangelos C. Karademas *

Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Gallos, 74100 Rethimnon, Greece

Received 22 July 2006; received in revised form 6 November 2006; accepted 29 November 2006
Available online 23 January 2007

Abstract

Positive and negative aspects of psychological well-being are two related but also independent con-
structs. However, a question emerges: are all well-being-related variables indifferently associated with both
positive and negative well-being? According to our hypothesis, certain factors are common predictors of
both aspects, whereas other factors are specific predictors of each aspect. ‘Common predictors’ are defined
as the factors directly related to both positive and negative well-being. ‘Specific factors’ are defined as the
factors related to only one aspect of well-being. Specific predictors may also be associated with the other
aspect, but this is taking place through the interaction of well-being aspects or through other related vari-
ables. Neuroticism, optimism, self-efficacy, stress and coping were tested as possible predictors. Two hun-
dred and one individuals participated (mean age = 41.57 years). A latent variable structural equation model
was used to test our assumption. In accordance with our hypotheses, optimism and emotion-focused coping
were identified as common predictors. Self-efficacy and positive approach were identified as specific predic-
tors of positive well-being, whereas neuroticism and stress as specific predictors of negative well-being.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Positive and negative well-being; Common and specific predictors; Neuroticism; Optimism; Self-efficacy;
Stress; Coping

*
Tel.: +30 28310 77532; fax: +30 28310 77578.
E-mail address: karademas@psy.soc.uoc.gr

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.031
278 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287

1. Introduction

As stated by Ryan and Deci (2001), well-being refers to optimal psychological functioning.
Despite the difficulty to assess ‘optimal functioning’ in an accurate way, purpose, mastery, strong
relationships and self-acceptance (a ‘eudaimonic’ view; e.g., Ryff, 1989), as well as life satisfaction,
positive and negative mood and psychological symptoms (a ‘hedonic’ view of well-being; e.g., Die-
ner, 2000) are the most frequent ways of assessing well-being. However, there is evidence suggest-
ing that the presence of a positive state is more than not having or reporting negative mood or
symptoms (Clark & Watson, 1991). Recently, for example, Huppert and Whittington (2003)
showed that there is a degree of independence between positive and negative well-being.
According to our point of view, ‘positive’ psychological well-being could be defined as the cog-
nitive and affective reactions to the perception of adequate personal characteristics and achieve-
ments, efficient interaction with the world and social integration, and positive progress in time.
‘Negative’ well-being could be defined as the cognitive and affective response to perceived defi-
cit(s) in the aforementioned areas. Accordingly, positive well-being includes components such
as life satisfaction, positive mood and energy (Argyle & Crossland, 1987; Diener, 2000; Watson
& Tellegen, 1985), whereas negative well-being includes components such as distress and negative
mood, symptoms and hyperarousal (Clark & Watson, 1991; Diener, 2000).
However, a question emerges. Are all variables related to well-being indifferently associated
with both aspects of it? Provided that there is a degree of independence between positive and neg-
ative well-being, it is expected that there are certain predictors which are specific for positive well-
being, as well as other predictors specific for negative well-being. The examination of this issue is
important for both theoretical and practical reasons. It will help in clarifying the associations be-
tween well-being and related factors, in explaining the role of each factor, as well as in improving
the interventions for a better well-being (a distant but relevant effect).
Our assumption is that certain factors function in such a way that links them directly to both
negative and positive well-being (‘common’ predictors). On the other hand, there are some factors
directly related to only one aspect of well-being (‘specific’ predictors). In most cases, existing re-
search has shown that a factor negatively related to one aspect, is concurrently positively related
to the other aspect. This might be expected, given the association between positive and negative
well-being. However, the question remains. Theory can help us give an answer to that issue, while
the joint examination of positive and negative aspects of well-being could provide a plainer picture
of well-being and relevant predictors.
The present study is part of a broader research effort, which examines the association between
several variables and psychological well-being. This study aims to identify predictors common to
negative and positive aspects of well-being, as well as predictors that are specific for each aspect.
Stress-related factors (i.e., optimism, self-efficacy, life stress, coping) and a personality factor, that
is neuroticism, will be tested as possible predictors of both aspects. These factors are among those
more frequently studied and more strongly associated with well-being (Diener, Suh, Lucas, &
Smith, 1999). Therefore, they can stand as fine examples for testing our hypothesis.
One of the most frequent and significant predictors of well-being, according to numerous studies
(e.g., Gutiérrez, Jiménez, Hernández, & Puente, 2005), is personality. McCrae (2002) estimated that
20–25% of the well-being variance is accounted for by personality. A personality trait strongly re-
lated to well-being is neuroticism. DeNeve and Cooper (1998) confirm that neuroticism is the single
 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287 279

most important personality trait related to life satisfaction and mood. Eid and Diener (2004), Hayes
and Joseph (2003), and Vittersø and Nilsen (2002) found that neuroticism is far more important
compared to other traits, as far as subjective well-being is concerned. There is also a strong associ-
ation between high neuroticism and negative affect, lack of positive affect, and anxiety (de Beurs
et al., 2005). Further, high neuroticism appears to be a broad vulnerability factor for many psycho-
logical problems and disorders (e.g., Kahn, Jacobson, Gardner, Prescott, & Kendler, 2005). The
above-mentioned studies have shown that neuroticism is related to both positive and negative
well-being. However, there is data suggesting that neuroticism reflects nothing more than just a
mean level of distress over a protracted period of time (Ormel, Rosmalen, & Farmer, 2004). Thus,
we assume that neuroticism is directly associated with negative well-being rather than with positive.
Well-being is also significantly related to optimism and self-efficacy expectations. Many studies
have shown that optimism significantly predicts several facets of well-being, positive and negative
(Eid & Diener, 2004; Leung, Moneta, & McBride-Chang, 2005; Smith, Young, & Lee, 2004).
Optimism is negatively related to depressive symptomatology (Shnek, Irvine, Stewart, & Abbey,
2001), and positively to functioning and affective state in patients suffering from various medical
conditions (e.g., Carver et al., 2005). Recently, Giltay, Geleijnse, Zitman, Hoekstra, and Schouten
(2004) provided evidence for a protective relationship between dispositional optimism and all-
cause mortality in old age.
Besides optimism, self-efficacy expectations are strongly related to positive and negative well-
being, too. As in optimism, there is mounting evidence that high self-efficacy is associated with
high levels of positive well-being (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Lent et al., 2005). On the contrary, lower
self-efficacy is related to more symptoms of anxiety and depression (Kashdan & Roberts, 2004). A
recent study across five countries revealed that general self-efficacy is strongly associated with var-
ious variables. The highest positive relationships were identified with optimism, self-regulation
and self-esteem, whereas the highest negative associations were noticed with depression and anx-
iety (Luszczynska, Gutiérrez-Doña, & Schwarzer, 2005). We believe that self-efficacy is a specific
predictor of positive well-being, whilst optimism is a common predictor. The first reflects a per-
sonal sense of competence (Bandura, 1997), which is more related to positive well-being. The lat-
ter reflects an overall evaluation of the environment – person interaction (Carver & Scheier, 1998),
which takes into consideration most personal factors. Therefore, we assume that optimism repre-
sents a common predictor of well-being aspects.
Regarding coping, higher levels of wellness are positively related to problem-focused or positive
reappraisal strategies (e.g., Myaskovsky et al., 2005; Smith, 2003). Problem-focused coping and
positive reappraisal help in the maintenance or enhancement of a more positive outlook of life
and, thus, lead to higher positive well-being. On the other hand, emotion-focused coping, such
as denial and avoidance, is usually negatively associated with positive conditions, while it inter-
feres with a sense of control over the situation, with fullness or satisfaction with self (e.g., Feldner,
Zvolensky, & Leen-Feldner, 2004; Martin & Dahlen, 2005; Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). There-
fore, emotion-focused coping is probably linked to both well-being aspects.
Finally, there is a voluminous literature demonstrating the deleterious effects of stress on well-
being (e.g., Dohrenwend, 2000; Kaplan, 1996; Segerstrom & Miller, 2004). We assume that
demanding or stressful situations act as a common predictor of positive and negative aspects of
well-being, leading to increased symptoms and distress, as well as to decreased positive emotions
and satisfaction.
280 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287

In summary, and according to our hypotheses, optimism, stress and emotion-focused coping
(i.e., wishful thinking and avoidance) represent common predictors of positive and negative psy-
chological well-being. Self-efficacy, problem-solving and positive reappraisal coping strategies are
specific for positive well-being, whereas neuroticism forms a specific predictor of negative well-
being.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Two hundred and forty-nine (249) individuals working in four insurance companies were
invited to participate in the study. First, they were administered a set of questionnaires regarding
neuroticism, optimism, self-efficacy, stress and coping. Almost thirty days later they were admin-
istered a second set of questionnaires regarding well-being. Participants were asked to put the
completed questionnaires in a box placed near the entrance of each company. Thirty-six persons
failed to return both sets of questionnaires, whereas 12 more were excluded due to missing data.
Two hundred and one (201) individuals were finally included in the study (56.7% females and
43.3% males). Their average age was 41.57 years (SD = 10.18) ranging from 19 to 62 years. Eigh-
teen (9.0%) had finished elementary school, 96 (47.7%) had finished high school, and 86 (42.8%)
were holders of a university degree. Forty-one (20.4%) were single, 145 (72.1%) were living with
their family or someone else, and 15 (7.5%) were divorced or widowed.

2.2. Measures

According to our definition, life satisfaction, positive mood and energy were used as indicators
of positive well-being. They were measured by three relevant subscales of the revised Oxford Hap-
piness Inventory (Hills & Argyle, 2001), as adapted in Greek (Karademas & Kalantzi-Azizi,
2005). These subscales were satisfaction with life (9 items, e.g., life is very good; Cronbach
a = .89), wellness and vitality (9 items, e.g., I feel very energetic; I feel very healthy; Cronbach
a = .87), and positive affect (4 items, e.g., I laugh a lot, I often feel happy; Cronbach a = .79).
Respondents were asked to rate items across a four point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (does
not apply) to 4 (applies a lot). They were asked to reply having in mind their condition during the
few past days.
Distress, unpleasant symptoms and hyperarousal, as indicators of negative well-being, were
measured by two scales of the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire – MASQ (Watson,
Clark, Weber, & Assenheimer, 1995; Watson et al., 1995). These scales were general distress
(38 items; Cronbach a = .96), and anxiety (17 items; Cronbach a = .89). The general distress scale
includes items regarding anxious and depressive mood, and distress, as well as regarding symp-
toms, such as insomnia, restlessness and irritability. The anxiety scale includes symptoms of ten-
sion and physiological arousal. Respondents indicated to what extent they had experienced
symptoms (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) during the week before.
Neuroticism was measured by the well-known 22-item relevant scale of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire, as adapted in Greek by Demetriou (1986) (Cronbach a = .78).
 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287 281

General self-efficacy expectations were measured by a relevant questionnaire (Karademas,

2006), which consists of two factors. The first factor, ‘resilience self-efficacy expectations’, assesses
the ability to bear the negative consequences of a stressful situation (7 items, e.g., ‘‘capable of
bearing the negative consequences of a problem’’, ‘‘remain calm when dealing with a problem’’,
Cronbach a = .90). The second factor, ‘problem-solving self-efficacy’, assesses the ability to deal
effectively with and resolve a stressful situation (6 items, e.g., ‘‘capable of planning action’’, ‘‘capa-
ble of thinking alternative solutions’’, Cronbach a = .79). Participants were asked to rate items
across a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Higher scores in each scale indi-
cate higher self-efficacy expectations.
Optimism was assessed by the Personal Optimism Scale from the Questionnaire for the Assess-
ment of Personal Optimism and Social Optimism-Extended (POSO-E) by Schweizer and Koch
(2001). The scale consists of 8 items (e.g., ‘‘I often feel that nothing nice will happen’’, ‘‘I face
my future in an optimistic way’’, Cronbach a = .70). Participants rated items across a Likert-type
scale (1 = not agree to 4 = agree a lot).
Life stress was measured by asking participants to rate the overall stress they experienced from
eight possible sources (partner, family, personal life, occupation, finance, close persons’ health,
social relationships, and living conditions) during the past weeks. Participants rated the degree
to which each source caused stress across a four point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (no stress
at all) to 4 (great stress) (Cronbach a = .69).
Coping strategies were measured by the revised Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman, Lazarus,
Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986), as adapted to a Greek population (Karademas,
1998). The Greek adaptation consists of five broad factors: positive approach that reflects positive
reappraisal and problem-solving efforts (11 items, e.g., changed or grew as a person in a good way,
I made a plan of action and followed it; Cronbach a = .74); seeking social support (4 items, e.g., I
asked a relative or friend I respect for advice; Cronbach a = .78); wishful thinking (8 items, e.g.,
wished that I could change what had happened or how I felt, hoped a miracle would happen;
Cronbach a = .77); avoidance/distancing (9 items, e.g., tried to forget the whole thing, went on
as if nothing had happened; Cronbach a = .81); confrontive coping (4 items, e.g., stood my
ground and fought for what I wanted; Cronbach a = .60). Participants were asked to rate items
across a four-point Likert-type scale (0 = does not apply/not used, 3 = used a great deal). They
were asked to assess how frequently they used each item in dealing with the difficulties they
met during the past weeks.

3. Results

Means, standard deviations, and the correlation matrix between all variables are presented in
Table 1. The correlations between positive and negative well-being measures were significant but
modest, ranging from .24 to .40. The highest correlation was noticed between satisfaction with
life and general distress. Using the median value as a cut-off point, 18.6% of the total sample
reported both low satisfaction and distress, 31.9% reported low distress/high satisfaction and
34.6% reported the opposite, whereas 14.4% reported high satisfaction/high distress levels.
To examine our hypothesis a latent variable structural equation model was tested employing
LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). This method was preferred since it allows for simulta-
 282
E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of the variables
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
1. Neuroticism 1.00
2. Life stress .35** 1.00
3. Optimism .36** .16* 1.00
4. Resilience .51** .07 .34** 1.00
self-efficacy
5. Problem-solving .45** .25** .24** .44** 1.00
self-efficacy
6. Positive approach .11 .02 .10 .22** .26** 1.00
7. Seeking social .06 .15* .01 .10 .11 .23** 1.00
support
8. Wishful thinking .35** .11 .15* .21** .07 .31** .13 1.00
9. Avoidance/ .04 .16* .13 .20** .08 .36** .33** .37** 1.00
distancing
10. Confrontive .10 .16* .12 .14* .14 .19** .37** .01 .42** 1.00
coping
11. Satisfaction .26** .26** .42** .07 .27** .17* .22** .04 .38** .25** 1.00
with life
12. Vitality .30** .15* .40** .09 .35** .24** .10 .01 .36** .26** .75** 1.00
13. Positive affect .14 .11 .36** .19* .26** .22** .05 .10 .19** .20** .62** .60** 1.00
14. General distress .52** .42** .38** .24** .26* .01 .22** .33** .25** .16* .40** .35** .24** 1.00
15. Anxiety .41** .29** .35** .20** .17* .01 .10 .29** .24** .13 .34** .31** .24** .57** 1.00
Mean 10.59 7.88 24.07 22.27 18.35 23.45 7.99 11.52 15.83 6.57 25.38 29.25 11.24 34.55 8.12
Standard deviation 4.29 4.74 3.84 4.62 2.73 4.78 2.82 4.80 5.33 2.50 5.22 5.60 2.43 22.46 6.20
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.
 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287 283

Neuroticism

.09 General distress .31

Life stress .83

.05
Negative well-being
-.06
Optimism .68
.04 Anxiety .53

Avoidance -.35
.06
Satisfaction with life .27
-.09
Wishful thinking .86
.06
.88 .23
Positive well-being Vitality

Problem solving self-efficacy .08 .69

.06 .52
Positive affect

Positive approach

Fig. 1. Path analysis between neuroticism, stress-related variables, and well-being, and b-coefficients. Note: Only
significant paths are presented. R2negative well-being ¼ :60, R2positive well-being ¼ :62.

neous estimation of covariance between latent and observed variables, as well as of the pathways
between them. A positive well-being latent variable was defined by three observed measures, sat-
isfaction with life, vitality and positive affect. A negative well-being latent construct was defined
by the general distress and the anxiety sub-scales. We also assumed that positive well-being is pre-
dicted by problem-solving self-efficacy, positive approach coping, optimism, the two emotion-fo-
cused strategies (wishful thinking and avoidance), and stress. Negative well-being was assumed to
be predicted by wishful thinking and avoidance, optimism, life stress, and neuroticism. Resilience
self-efficacy, seeking social support and confrontive coping strategies were not included in the
model due to their low correlations with the well-being measures.
The model provided a good fit to the data (v2 = 27.84, d.f. = 27, p = .42, AGFI = .93, CFI =
1.00, RMSEA = .012). Fig. 1 displays the standardized estimates of the model. Non-significant
estimates are not presented. According to this path model, avoidance and optimism predicted
both positive and negative well-being. Additionally, positive approach, wishful thinking and
self-efficacy predicted positive well-being, whereas neuroticism and life stress predicted negative
well-being.

4. Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the role of certain variables as predictors of
the positive and the negative aspect of psychological well-being. Recent studies suggest that there
is a degree of independence between positive and negative well-being (e.g., Clark & Watson, 1991;
284 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287

Huppert & Whittington, 2003). The moderate correlations between the two aspects of well-being
that we found in the present study provide further such evidence. In other words, it is more rea-
sonable to describe well-being as a ‘two continua construct’ than as a single continuum, ranging
from healthiness to malfunction and disorder. As a consequence, it was expected that some factors
are common predictors of both positive and negative well-being, whereas others are specific pre-
dictors of only one aspect of well-being.
Our hypothesis that certain factors directly predict both aspects of well-being (common predic-
tors), whereas other factors predict only one aspect (specific predictors), was generally supported
by the data of this study. The ‘‘specificity’’ of some variables by no means suggests that they are
not related to each other or to the other well-being aspect. Specific predictors may be associated
with the other aspect, but this is taking place through the interaction of well-being aspects or
through other related factors. ‘Specificity’ also indicates that each psychological factor, despite
its association with other factors, has a different function and plays a discriminate role in well-
being.
Emotion-focused coping and optimism were identified as common predictors. Optimism pre-
dicted positive well-being in a positive way, and negative well-being in a negative way. Optimism
reflects an evaluation of the future as nice and fruitful, and it is based on positive appraisals about
the interaction between self and the environment (Karademas, 2006). In this way, it is associated
with fewer symptoms and a more positive evaluation of life. Regarding emotion-focused coping,
avoidance was related to both aspects of well-being, while wishful thinking was associated only
with positive well-being. The association between emotion-focused coping and well-being is rec-
ognized (e.g., Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). The positive relation of wishful thinking to positive
well-being was, however, unexpected. Possibly, small amounts of wishful thinking in the encoun-
ter of a stressful situation guard the sense of control and wellness, especially when problem-fo-
cused coping is more or less inappropriate (Lazarus, 1999).
On the other hand, problem-solving self-efficacy and the positive approach coping strategy,
which reflects both positive reappraisal and problem solving efforts, were identified as specific pre-
dictors of positive well-being. Neuroticism was identified as specific predictor of negative well-
being. The relations of self-efficacy and positive approach to well-being are well established
(e.g., Myaskovsky et al., 2005). It seems that self-efficacy, as a representation of a capable self,
helps persons to emphasize the positive aspects of life and adopt a more problem-solving ap-
proach to adversities. A perception of a capable self and a positive approach to difficulties can
lead to a constructive outlook of life and, thus, to happiness. On the other side, the relation of
neuroticism to negative well-being is also well known (e.g., Eid & Diener, 2004; Hayes & Joseph,
2003). Still, one should be cautious about the nature of this relationship. For example, Cox,
McWilliams, Enns, and Clara (2004), among others, suggest that neuroticism may be related to
symptoms because of the shared variance with psychiatric history and current emotional distress.
Therefore, associations of neuroticism with mental health may be tautological.
Finally, life stress was related to negative well-being, as expected, but not to positive. We as-
sumed that a stressful situation could not only increase symptoms, but also decrease positive
well-being. The latter was not supported by the data. It is plausible that stress does not impact
positive well-being directly, but it rather causes anxiety and worry, which in turn impede positive
well-being. In summary and as assumed, neuroticism was a specific predictor of negative well-
being, self-efficacy and positive approach were specific predictors of positive well-being, while
 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287 285

optimism and avoidance were common predictors. Contrary to our hypotheses, stress and wishful
thinking were not identified as common predictors but as specific for negative and positive well-
being, respectively.
Our study is faced with certain limitations: it is reliant on self-reported data, does not include
many other possible predictors of positive and negative well-being, and the interval time between
the assessment of predictors and the assessment of well-being was short. Also, we did not examine
the interaction between personal factors and the environment. Thus, our data are rather prelimin-
ary. A larger scale study with a prospective methodology, or the use of meta-analytic techniques
would provide us with more robust results regarding well-being aspects and associated factors.
Yet, this study was aiming more to bring forward a question than providing an exact answer.
We believe that the implications of this study are significant. A closer look at psychological
well-being revealed that, apart from common predictors, different aspects are also predicted by
different factors. The examination of the role that each factor plays will permit a better appreci-
ation of the nature and development of well-being, as well as of the factors that lead to better well-
being. Moreover, the results of this study indicate that the use of specific strategies and techniques
for enhancing the factors associated with positive well-being, as well as for dealing with the factors
related to negative well-being, such as those identified in this study, may probably result in more
effective interventions.

References

Argyle, M., & Crossland, J. (1987). The dimensions of positive emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26,
127–137.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman and Co.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., Smith, R. G., Antoni, M. H., Petronis, V. M., Weiss, S., & Derhagopian, R. P. (2005). Optimistic
personality and psychosocial well-being during treatment predict psychosocial well-being among long-term survivors
of breast cancer. Health Psychology, 24, 508–516.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). General affective dispositions in physical and psychological health. In C. R. Snyder
& D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 221–245). New York:
Pergamon.
Cox, B., McWilliams, L. A., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2004). Broad and specific personality dimensions associated
with major depression in a nationally representative sample. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 45, 246–253.
de Beurs, E., Comijs, H., Twisk, J. W. R., Sonnenberg, C., Beekman, A. T. F., & Deeg, D. (2005). Stability and change
of emotional functioning in late life: modelling of vulnerability profiles. Journal of Affective Disorders, 84, 53–62.
Demetriou, E. (1986). The Eysenck personality questionnaire: adaptation to the Greek population. Encephalos, 23,
41–54.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective
well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: the science of happiness, and a proposal for a national index. American
Psychologist, 55, 34–43.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
Dohrenwend, B. P. (2000). The role of adversity and stress in psychopathology: some evidence and its implications for
theory and research. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 1–19.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: situational variability and long-term stability.
Social Indicators Research, 65, 245–277.
286 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287

Feldner, M. T., Zvolensky, M. J., & Leen-Feldner, E. W. (2004). A critical review of the empirical literature on coping
and panic disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 123–148.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful
encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
992–1003.
Giltay, E. J., Geleijnse, J. M., Zitman, F. G., Hoekstra, T., & Schouten, E. G. (2004). Dispositional optimism and all-
cause and cardiovascular mortality in a prospective cohort of elderly Dutch men and women. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 61, 1126–1135.
Gutiérrez, J. L. G., Jiménez, B. M., Hernández, E. G., & Puente, C. P. (2005). Personality and well-being: big five
correlates and demographic variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1561–1569.
Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 723–727.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31, 1357–1364.
Huppert, F. A., & Whittington, J. E. (2003). Evidence for the independence of positive and negative well-being:
implications for quality of life assessment. British Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 107–122.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kahn, A. A., Jacobson, K. C., Gardner, C. O., Prescott, C. A., & Kendler, K. S. (2005). Personality and comorbidity of
common psychiatric disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 190–196.
Kaplan, H. B. (1996). Psychosocial stress. Perspectives on structure, theory, life-course, and methods. New York:
Academic Press.
Karademas, E. C. (1998). The adaptation of ways of coping questionnaire in the Greek language. Psychology, The
Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 5, 260–273.
Karademas, E. C. (2006). Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: the mediating role of optimism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 40, 1281–1290.
Karademas, E. C., & Kalantzi-Azizi, A. (2005). Subjective well-being, and personal and socio-demographic variables.
Psychology, The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 12, 506–523.
Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2004). Social anxiety’s impact on affect, curiosity, and social self-efficacy during a
high self-focus social threat situation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28, 119–141.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotions: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Lent, R. W., Singley, D., Sheu, H., Gainor, K. A., Brenner, B. R., Treistman, D., et al. (2005). Social cognitive
predictors of domain and life satisfaction: exploring the theoretical precursors of subjective well-being. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52, 429–442.
Leung, B. W., Moneta, G. B., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Think positively and feel positively: optimism and life
satisfaction in late life. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 61, 335–365.
Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in various domains of human
functioning: evidence from five countries. Interpersonal Journal of Psychology, 40, 80–89.
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2005). Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of depression, anxiety, stress and
anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1249–1260.
McCrae, R. R. (2002). The maturation of personality psychology: adult personality development and psychological
well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 307–317.
Myaskovsky, L., Dew, M. A., Switzer, G. E., McNulty, M. L., DiMartini, A. F., & McGurry, K. R. (2005). Quality of
life and coping strategies among lung transplant candidates and their family caregivers. Social Science and Medicine,
60, 2321–2332.
Ormel, J., Rosmalen, J., & Farmer, A. (2004). Neuroticism: a non-informative marker of vulnerability to
psychopathology. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39, 906–912.
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.
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, 1069–1081.
 E.C. Karademas / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 277–287 287

Schweizer, K., & Koch, W. (2001). The assessment of components of optimism by POSO-E. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31, 563–574.
Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the human immune-system: a meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 601–630.
Shnek, Z. M., Irvine, J., Stewart, D., & Abbey, S. (2001). Psychological factors and depressive symptoms in ischemic
heart disease. Health Psychology, 20, 141–145.
Smith, D. C. (2003). Problem solving as an element of development well-being. In B. H. Bornstein & L. Davidson
(Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 312–330). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, N., Young, A., & Lee, C. (2004). Optimism, health-related hardiness and well-being among older Australian
women. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 741–752.
Vittersø, J., & Nilsen, F. (2002). The conceptual and relational structure of subjective well-being, neuroticism, and
extraversion: once again, neuroticism is the important predictor of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 57, 89–118.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Weber, K., & Assenheimer, J. S. (1995). Testing a tripartite model. 2. Exploring the symptom
structure of anxiety and depression in student, adult, and patient samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104,
15–25.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S., Strauss, M. E., & McCormick, R. A. (1995). Testing a
tripartite model. 1. Evaluating the convergent and discriminant validity of anxiety and depression symptom scales.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 3–14.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235.
Zeidner, M., & Saklofske, D. (1996). Adaptive and maladaptive coping. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook
of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 505–531). New York: Wiley.