↓ Skip to main content

Factor structure of the happiness-increasing strategies scales (H-ISS): activities and coping strategies in relation to positive and negative affect

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factor structure of the happiness-increasing strategies scales (H-ISS): activities and coping strategies in relation to positive and negative affect
Published in
PeerJ, July 2015
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Al Nima, Danilo Garcia

Abstract

Background. Previous research (Tkach & Lyubomirsky, 2006) shows that there are eight general happiness-increasing strategies: social affiliation, partying, mental control, goal pursuit, passive leisure, active leisure, religion, and direct attempts. The present study investigates the factor structure of the happiness-increasing strategies scales (H-ISS) and their relationship to positive and negative affect. Method. The present study used participants' (N = 1,050 and age mean = 34.21 sd = 12.73) responses to the H-ISS in structural equation modeling analyses. Affect was measured using the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule. Results. After small modifications we obtained a good model that contains the original eight factors/scales. Moreover, we found that women tend to use social affiliation, mental control, passive leisure, religion, and direct attempts more than men, while men preferred to engage in partying and clubbing more than women. The H-ISS explained significantly the variance of positive affect (R (2) = .41) and the variance of negative affect (R (2) = .27). Conclusions. Our study is an addition to previous research showing that the factor structure of the happiness-increasing strategies is valid and reliable. However, due to the model fitting issues that arise in the present study, we give some suggestions for improving the instrument.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Lecturer 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 41%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,713,620
of 24,677,985 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#7,901
of 14,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,279
of 268,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#162
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,677,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.