Life Satisfaction and Demographic Factors

This assignment analyzes a study investigating the connection between life satisfaction and demographic factors like gender and marital status. The study involved 506 participants, with females representing the majority. Findings indicate that both gender and marital status significantly influence life satisfaction and quality of life. Notably, marital status appears to have a more diverse impact on quality of life compared to gender.

A concept analysis of quality of life
Student Name:
University
31st January 2018
1

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Methodology....................................................................................................................................3
Sampling......................................................................................................................................3
Design..........................................................................................................................................3
Results..............................................................................................................................................3
Descriptive Statistics....................................................................................................................3
Summary statistics for age.......................................................................................................4
Reliability.....................................................................................................................................6
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)................................................................................................10
Discussion and conclusion.............................................................................................................14
2

Abstract
In this study we aimed to understand the relationship between life satisfaction scores of
participants and their demographic characteristics. A total of 506 participants took part in the
study where majority were found to be the female participants. The average age of the
respondents was found to be 33.2 with a median age of 30 years old. The most frequent age
(mode) was 19 years while the youngest and the oldest participants were aged 86 and 18 years
old. Results showed that there is no significant difference in the positive affect totals for the
different marital status. However, it was established that the marital status of the individuals
significantly affect their negative affect, satisfaction with life, extraversion scores,
conscientiousness scores, emotional stability scores and perceived stress scale total (p-values <
0.05). Marital status had more diverse impact of the quality life as compared to the gender issues.
Introduction
This research sought to analyze the life satisfaction scores of participants sampled in a study. A
total of 506 participants took part in the study. Different measures of life satisfaction were used.
The scores measured included: Ten-Item Personality Inventory-(TIPI), Positive and Negative
affect (PANAS) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS).
Methodology
Sampling
A simple random sampling was employed to select individuals into the study. A total of 506
participants were included in the study.
3

Design
A cross-sectional study was done to understand the relationship between different measures of
quality of life and the participants’ demographic characteristics. Some of the demographic
characteristics in the study included; marital status, gender of the respondent.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
We present the descriptive statistics of the data set used. We begin by looking at the frequency
distribution for the variable “Gender”. As can be seen, majority of the participants (57.2%, n =
214) we females while 42.8% (n = 286) were male respondents.
Sex
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
male 214 42.3 42.8 42.8
female 286 56.5 57.2 100.0
Total 500 98.8 100.0
Missing -99 6 1.2
Total 506 100.0
Summary statistics for age
The average age of the respondents was found to be 33.2 with a median age of 30 years old. The
most frequent age (mode) was 19 years while the youngest and the oldest participants were aged
86 and 18 years old.
Statistics
Age
N Valid 502
Missing 4
Mean 33.20
4

Median 30.00
Mode 19
Std. Deviation 12.828
Variance 164.549
Range 68
Minimum 18
Maximum 86
Statistics
Hours worked
per week
Number of
children
N Valid 502 504
Missing 4 2
Mean 3.04 .56
Median 4.00 .00
Mode 4 0
Std. Deviation 1.682 .822
Variance 2.829 .676
Range 5 3
Minimum 0 0
Maximum 5 3
Hours worked per week
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0 70 13.8 13.9 13.9
1-10 37 7.3 7.4 21.3
11-20 62 12.3 12.4 33.7
21-30 76 15.0 15.1 48.8
31-40 150 29.6 29.9 78.7
41+ 107 21.1 21.3 100.0
Total 502 99.2 100.0
Missing -99 4 .8
Total 506 100.0
5

Number of children
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0 314 62.1 62.3 62.3
1-2 112 22.1 22.2 84.5
3-4 63 12.5 12.5 97.0
5+ 15 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 504 99.6 100.0
Missing -99 2 .4
Total 506 100.0
6

Reliability
From the table below, it can see that the value of Cronbach's alpha is 0.726, this value indicates
an acceptable level of internal consistency for our scale with the 20 items for the PANAS.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
N of Items
.726 .728 20
The Item-Total Statistics table presents the "Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted" in the final
column, as shown below:
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
PANAS interested 51.04 71.863 .236 .333 .720
PANAS distressed 52.12 69.577 .267 .437 .718
PANAS excited 51.47 71.477 .246 .324 .719
PANAS upset 52.51 70.461 .261 .487 .718
PANAS strong 51.32 72.128 .191 .333 .724
PANAS guilty 52.85 70.567 .279 .428 .717
PANAS scared 52.82 69.244 .360 .517 .710
PANAS hostile 52.93 69.932 .317 .320 .713
PANAS enthusiastic 51.26 69.818 .326 .529 .713
PANAS proud 51.36 71.355 .213 .318 .723
PANAS irritable 51.96 69.732 .282 .322 .717
PANAS alert 51.25 71.765 .232 .368 .720
PANAS ashamed 53.15 70.268 .370 .466 .710
PANAS inspired 51.55 68.746 .373 .363 .708
PANAS nervous 52.13 67.858 .362 .443 .709
PANAS determined 51.01 69.923 .353 .420 .711
PANAS attentive 51.21 72.631 .198 .396 .723
PANAS jittery 52.58 68.262 .371 .428 .708
PANAS active 51.18 71.757 .191 .304 .725
7

PANAS afraid 52.83 68.865 .391 .549 .707
In this column we have the values of the Cronbach's alpha and its value suppose an item is
deleted from the scale (Leon, Hyre , Ompad, DeSalvo , & Muntner , 2007). As can be seen,
removal of any item would make the value of the Cronbach's alpha to be lower. Based on this, it
would needless to delete any item.
Next, we look at the reliability for the SWLS. We can see that Cronbach's alpha is 0.817, which
indicates a high level of internal consistency for our scale with the five items.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
N of Items
.817 .824 5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
SWLS close to ideal 18.24 25.350 .711 .550 .750
SWLS conditions excellent 18.02 27.054 .624 .445 .777
SWLS sat with life 17.91 25.734 .740 .599 .744
SWLS got important 17.89 27.547 .573 .361 .792
SWLS change nothing 18.74 27.749 .436 .193 .839
From the Item-Total Statistics, as can be seen, removal of any item would make the value of the
Cronbach's alpha to be lower (Wieland, Durach, & Kembro, 2017). Based on this, it would
needless to delete any item.
For the TIPI, the Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.633, this value indicates a questionable internal
consistency for the 10 items (Bonett, 2003).
8

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.633 .639 10
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
TIPI - extraverted 44.05 52.563 .420 .386 .580
TIPI - critical 44.56 58.798 .178 .133 .636
TIPI - dependable 43.46 57.257 .326 .179 .604
TIPI - anxious 44.46 51.943 .420 .296 .579
TIPI - open 43.29 57.495 .354 .215 .600
TIPI - reserved 44.78 56.808 .225 .290 .627
TIPI - sympathetic 43.26 58.003 .295 .147 .610
TIPI - disorganised 43.89 55.514 .273 .146 .615
TIPI - calm 43.90 54.630 .392 .327 .589
TIPI - conventional 43.77 60.027 .158 .082 .638
For the PSS, the Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.698. Again this value indicates questionable consistency
for the 4 items (Zinbarg & Revelle, 2006).
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.698 .701 4
Item-Total Statistics
9

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
PSS unable control 7.67 5.682 .419 .209 .674
PSS handle problems 7.99 5.717 .470 .289 .643
PSS going your way 7.71 5.638 .526 .325 .611
PSS diff piling up 7.81 4.924 .527 .290 .606
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Positive affect total Between Groups 163.146 5 32.629 .704 .621
Within Groups 22020.451 475 46.359
Total 22183.597 480
Negative affect total Between Groups 633.924 5 126.785 2.346 .040
Within Groups 25507.925 472 54.042
Total 26141.849 477
Satisfaction with life
total
Between Groups 959.075 5 191.815 4.996 .000
Within Groups 18888.532 492 38.391
Total 19847.606 497
Extraversion Scores Between Groups 28.634 5 5.727 2.252 .048
Within Groups 1240.894 488 2.543
Total 1269.528 493
Agreeableness
Scores
Between Groups 16.475 5 3.295 2.099 .064
Within Groups 766.106 488 1.570
Total 782.581 493
Conscientiousness
Scores
Between Groups 40.417 5 8.083 4.473 .001
Within Groups 887.333 491 1.807
Total 927.749 496
Emotional Stability
Scores
Between Groups 28.061 5 5.612 2.558 .027
Within Groups 1079.379 492 2.194
Total 1107.440 497
Openness to
Experiences Scores
Between Groups 10.200 5 2.040 1.443 .207
Within Groups 695.540 492 1.414
Total 705.739 497
10

Perceived stress
scale total
Between Groups 113.514 5 22.703 2.614 .024
Within Groups 4220.996 486 8.685
Total 4334.510 491
The above table compares the different scores with regard to the marital status of the respondents
(Moore & McCabe, 2003). As can be seen, there is no significant difference in the positive affect
totals for the different marital status. However, it was established that the marital status of the
individuals significantly affect their negative affect, satisfaction with life, extraversion scores,
conscientiousness scores, emotional stability scores and perceived stress scale total (p-values <
0.05).
Group Statistics
Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Positive affect total male 207 34.54 6.699 .466
female 269 33.35 6.798 .415
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differen
ce
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Positive affect
total
Equal variances
assumed
.000 .986 1.914 474 .056 1.195 .625 -.032 2.423
Equal variances
not assumed
1.917 446.387 .056 1.195 .623 -.030 2.421
Next, we conducted an independent t-test to check whether there is significant difference in the
positive affect total scores for the male and the female respondents. As ca be seen, the positive
11

affect for the male (M = 34.54, SD = 6.70) is not significantly different from the positive affect
for the females (M = 33.35, SD = 6.80).
Group Statistics
Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Negative affect total male 204 20.53 7.302 .511
female 269 20.94 7.331 .447
Satisfaction with life total male 211 22.43 6.229 .429
female 282 22.83 6.366 .379
Extraversion Scores male 211 4.3081 1.54839 .10660
female 278 4.4874 1.64460 .09864
Agreeableness Scores male 211 4.6825 1.24255 .08554
female 278 5.0612 1.24370 .07459
Conscientiousness Scores male 212 4.9976 1.36171 .09352
female 280 5.2214 1.36031 .08129
Emotional Stability Scores male 212 4.8632 1.38464 .09510
female 281 4.4359 1.53570 .09161
Openness to Experiences
Scores
male 212 5.3113 1.21005 .08311
female 281 5.2562 1.17724 .07023
Perceived stress scale total male 210 10.33 2.998 .207
female 277 10.52 2.910 .175
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differen
ce
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Negative affect
total
Equal variances
assumed
.025 .873 -.611 471 .542 -.415 .679 -1.750 .920
Equal variances
not assumed
-.611 438.070 .542 -.415 .679 -1.750 .920
12

Satisfaction with
life total
Equal variances
assumed
.220 .639 -.694 491 .488 -.399 .574 -1.527 .730
Equal variances
not assumed
-.696 457.623 .487 -.399 .572 -1.523 .726
Extraversion
Scores
Equal variances
assumed
.735 .392 -1.225 487 .221 -.17935 .14644 -.46708 .10837
Equal variances
not assumed
-1.235 465.083 .217 -.17935 .14523 -.46474 .10604
Agreeableness
Scores
Equal variances
assumed
.045 .832 -3.336 487 .001 -.37869 .11351 -.60172 -.15566
Equal variances
not assumed
-3.337 452.456 .001 -.37869 .11350 -.60173 -.15564
Conscientiousnes
s Scores
Equal variances
assumed
.114 .736 -1.806 490 .071 -.22379 .12390 -.46722 .01965
Equal variances
not assumed
-1.806 454.208 .072 -.22379 .12392 -.46731 .01973
Emotional Stability
Scores
Equal variances
assumed
2.415 .121 3.189 491 .002 .42726 .13397 .16404 .69049
Equal variances
not assumed
3.236 475.652 .001 .42726 .13205 .16780 .68673
Openness to
Experiences
Scores
Equal variances
assumed
.478 .490 .508 491 .611 .05509 .10839 -.15787 .26805
Equal variances
not assumed
.506 447.847 .613 .05509 .10881 -.15874 .26893
Perceived stress
scale total
Equal variances
assumed
.012 .914 -.691 485 .490 -.187 .270 -.717 .344
Equal variances
not assumed
-.689 443.020 .491 -.187 .271 -.719 .346
Results showed that there was a significant difference in the scores of agreeableness and
emotional stability scores for the male and the female respondents (p-values < 0.05). However,
all the other scores showed that no significant differences for the male and the females (p-value >
0.05).
13

Discussion and conclusion
This study sought to identify the relationship between the different life satisfaction scores with
the demographic characteristics. A sample of 506 participants took part in the study where
majority were found to be the female participants. Results showed that the different demographic
characteristics such as gender and marital status have significant impact on the quality of life and
even the life satisfaction scores. However, we realized that marital status had more diverse
impact of the quality life as compared to the gender issues. That is, for instance, the quality of
life scores for the married people is significantly different across the other group of people e.g.
the single, the divorced or the widowed.
14

References
Bonett, D. G. (2003). Sample size requirements for comparing two alpha reliability coefficients.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(1), 72–74.
Bonett, D. G. (n.d.). Varying coefficient meta-analytic methods for alpha reliability.
Psychological Methods, 15, 368–385.
Derrick, B., Toher, D., & White, P. (2017). How to compare the means of two samples that
include paired observations and independent observations.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. (2003). Personality, Culture, and Subjective Well-Being:
Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations Of Life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–
425.
Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability
what they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66,
930–944.
Hughes, A. A., & Kendall, P. C. (2014). Psychometric Properties of the Positive and Negative
Affect Scale for Children (PANAS-C) in Children with Anxiety Disorders. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 40(3), 343–352.
Leon, K. A., Hyre , A. D., Ompad, D., DeSalvo , K. B., & Muntner , P. (2007). Perceived stress
among a workforce 6 months following hurricane Katrina. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42(12), 1005–1011.
Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (2003). Introduction to the Practice of Statistics.
Riice, J. A. (2006). Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis.
15

Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form
of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 38(2), 227–242.
Wieland, A., Durach, C. F., & Kembro, J. (2017). Statistical and judgmental criteria for scale
purification, Supply Chain Management. An International Journal, 22(4).
Zinbarg, R. Y., & Revelle, W. M. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a universe of indicators
that all have an attribute in common: A comparison of estimators for alpha. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 30, 121-144.
16