Researchers are divided between those who consider well-being as a single global construct and those who maintain the need to keep the hedonic and eudaimonic components of well-being separate. Diener et al. proposed two separate scales for measuring well-being: the Flourishing Scale (FS) for eudaimonic well-being and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) for hedonic well-being. The aim of this article is to validate the Italian versions of the FS and SPANE, and to provide support for the usefulness of distinct measures of well-being components. In Study 1, we examined an Italian undergraduate student sample ( n = 684), whereas in Study 2 we considered two samples of unemployed ( n = 282) and healthy control individuals ( n = 426). Through multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, we demonstrated that the Italian FS and SPANE obtained strict measurement invariance across administration methods (paper-and-pencil and Internet) and strong measurement invariance across different groups (unemployed individuals seeking work and a healthy control group). In our data, we found a superior fit for a two-factor model over a one-factor model of well-being, which suggests the utility of separate measures of well-being components. Concurrent validity was verified with other well-being, depression, and anxiety measures. Furthermore, we showed that flourishing is more strongly related to the cognitive component of subjective well-being than hedonic affect. In summary, the Italian FS and SPANE are reliable and valid instruments, and may be beneficial in their applications in future Italian studies on well-being.
Subjective Well-Being From a Just-World Perspective: A Multi-Dimensional Approach in a Student Sample
