Abstract
AbstractThe dual continua model assumes that psychological distress and mental well-being are two related, yet distinct dimensions of mental health. Previous studies did convincingly show the distinctiveness of these two dimensions using mainly cross-sectional research. Despite the importance to distinguish between- and within-person associations in psychological theories, to date, no study specifically distinguished between- and within-person associations for the relationship between distress and well-being. Therefore, the objective of this study was to validate whether the dual continua model actually holds when examined within individuals. Intensive longitudinal data were collected through experience sampling. The sample included 25 university students (mean age = 23.50 years, 56% female), who completed a baseline questionnaire as well as momentary measures of psychological distress and mental well-being three times per day for two weeks. 1,014 timepoints were analyzed using multilevel models and person-mean centering was applied to distinguish between- and within person associations. A significant moderate negative between-person association was found for the relationship between psychological distress and mental well-being (β = −.363, marginal R2 = 0.15, p < .001). The within-person association was also significant and similar in magnitude (β = −.432, marginal R2 = 0.18, p < .001) at the group level. Individual within-person associations between distress and well-being varied substantially, but were negative for almost all participants. This study is an important step towards validating the applicability and universality of this widely used model. The current findings provide preliminary evidence that the dual continua model does not only hold between people, but also on the level it is actually used for, namely within individual people.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference78 articles.
1. Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. The Guilford Press.
2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
3. Collins, L. M. (2006). Analysis of longitudinal data: The integration of theoretical model, temporal design, and statistical model. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190146
4. Conner, T. S., & Lehman, B. J. (2012). Getting started: Launching a study in daily life. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 89–107). The Guilford Press.
5. Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献