Next Article in Journal
Comparison Between Water Aerobics and Deep-Water Running on Middle-Aged Adults’ Anthropometric, Hemodynamic and Functional Outcomes
Previous Article in Journal
Athletes’ Knowledge of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction and Their Knowledge of and Engagement with Pelvic Floor Muscle Training: A Scoping Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 22
Issue 1
10.3390/ijerph22010105
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Differential Life Satisfaction in a German Representative Sample

by
Christopher Arnold
* and
Beate Muschalla
Department of Psychotherapy and Diagnostics, Technische Universität Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(1), 105; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010105
Submission received: 19 November 2024 / Revised: 31 December 2024 / Accepted: 10 January 2025 / Published: 14 January 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Life satisfaction includes various aspects, such as satisfaction with work, family, environment, and finances, and is influenced by sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors. This representative study investigates differential life satisfaction in the general population and its associations with sociodemographics. The study used a cross-sectional design with 2522 German participants, collected via face-to-face interviews and three-stage random sampling, assessing satisfaction across 17 life areas with the Differential Life Burden Scale. Overall life satisfaction was high (M = 4.46, scale from 1 to 6). Although globally satisfied, most participants (84.2%) named at least one negative area of life. Politics and environment were perceived as dissatisfying (M = 3.1; M = 3.81, respectively); social contacts and leisure time were evaluated as rather satisfying (M about 5.00). Age, income, and unemployment were associated with life satisfaction. Gender and age were differently associated with life domains: Older people were less satisfied with their health. Younger people were more satisfied with leisure time. Younger were less satisfied with their children than older participants. The German population is generally satisfied with life, though factors like age, unemployment, and income influence the number of negatively perceived life domains. This highlights the importance of evaluating specific life areas in addition to overall life satisfaction for a more comprehensive understanding.

1. Introduction

Critical life events and psychological burdens are a part of life. They are general challenges that everyone has to overcome. Everyday stressful situations and psychological burdens are not the only common situations people experience repeatedly. Even less common critical life events are not unusual and are experienced at one point or another in life [1,2,3]. Whether people react “stressed” when confronted with a problem depends on many factors. One of the decisive factors is the resources the individual has to cope with the problem [4,5,6].
A wide variety of person and situation characteristics have emerged in recent decades that are said to have an influence on life stress and, as a counterpart, life satisfaction. Mainly, characteristics such as employment, gender, age, income, and personality have often been examined in recent decades [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Besides individual characteristics, environmental and socialization aspects, such as cultural and religious context, may impact life satisfaction [14,15]. The influences of the various aspects are not always clear-cut.
The extent of gender differences in life satisfaction has been investigated many times. One large-scale meta-analysis by Batz-Barbarich et al. [16] compiled over one million study participants. Overall, no gender differences were found with regard to either life satisfaction or job satisfaction [16]. In case significant differences are found between women and men, the effects are rather inconsistent or small [8,17,18,19,20]. While different trends can be identified that point in one direction or another, a number of other influencing factors (personality, region, age, etc.) have been identified in the literature that seem to overshadow the pure effect of gender. It is, therefore, questionable whether gender is a major influencing factor.
Age seems to play a role as well, but also rather specific: Younger women report higher life satisfaction than younger men. However, older men report higher life satisfaction than older women [8]. Similarly, the life satisfaction of adolescents has been found to be lower than that of children [21,22]. Many studies assume a U-shaped progression of life satisfaction over the age span [9,23,24]. While life satisfaction decreases in middle age, it increases again around the age of 50 [23]. However, the studies appear to be problematic in terms of generalizability.
Besides basic sociodemographic characteristics, age and gender, some external aspects should be considered when discussing life satisfaction: Life satisfaction can be associated with a person’s economic situation, i.e., in terms of income. Research showed a positive correlation between income and life satisfaction [25,26,27]. It is important to note that the effect of relative income has been emphasized in the past as it is today. It is less important how high the absolute income is, but rather how high the income is in comparison to the respective environment [25,27,28]. Income insecurity can be a direct stressor and is associated with lower life satisfaction [29], but this relationship is also moderated by personality aspects [13,30].
Besides income, another economic aspect can be important for life satisfaction, i.e., the employment situation: unemployment comes along with reduced life satisfaction [7,31,32]. McKee-Ryan et al. [33] made a major contribution with their meta-analysis. It was found that unemployment generally has a negative impact on life satisfaction. A number of secondary factors, such as financial worries and work role centrality, are suspected. In addition, secondary stressors such as worry, uncertainty, and financial, family, and marital problems also play a role. The duration of unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, as well as the current life status, i.e., whether the person has already worked for many years or became unemployed directly after leaving school, appears to influence the relationship between unemployment and life satisfaction [33,34].
Next to these external factors, life satisfaction is influenced by various thinkable individual differences in cognition and personality: Epictetus already discussed people’s cognitive evaluation of life situations in his “Enchiridion” around 2000 years ago. “Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things.” [35] (p. 17). Beginning in the 20th century, more recent research also addressed the topic. According to Lazarus’ transactional stress theory [36], whether stress, distress or no stress perception results after a stressor depends on the person and the environment. Therefore, life domains can be evaluated by the person as a burden or as a resource. Methods of cognitive reframing can be used to improve life satisfaction perception [6,37].
It should be noted that some authors have not only found differences in global life satisfaction but also in different areas of life [38,39,40,41]. The fact that different areas of life are not rated equally positively by different groups may be due, among other reasons, to the different relevance of the areas of life [39]. This shows that in addition to global life satisfaction, differential life satisfaction is also relevant, which is why instruments that take different areas of life such as family, job, health and environment satisfaction into consideration have been published for this purpose [42].
The literature suggests that stress and life satisfaction perception depend very much on the individual and his/her pattern of sociodemographic, personality and environmental characteristics. Similar stressors are assessed differently by different people (according to Lazarus [36]). There are some core characteristics, i.e., age, income, and unemployment, which might influence how stressors are perceived by many persons more generally. Findings on life satisfaction correlates are partly clear but partly contradictory. Not much is known about life satisfaction concerning specific life domains. For this reason, we investigate descriptively how different areas of life are evaluated in a representative sample of the German population.
The research questions are the following:
  • In which way are gender, age, income and employment situation associated with life satisfaction?
  • Are there differences between men and women in their global and domain-specific life satisfaction?
  • Are there differences between age groups in their global and domain-specific life satisfaction?

2. Materials and Methods

The cross-sectional data reported here was collected between March and May 2022. The sample consists of 2522 people from Germany. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with randomly selected people from the general population. The survey was administered by a professional social research company (USUMA GmbH Berlin). The company has many years of experience in the field of population-representative surveys. The sample was drawn using a three-stage process. In the first step, the sample areas were selected by random sampling. The social research company works with a total of 250 sample areas throughout Germany. Ten interviews were conducted in each sample area. In the second step, households in the sample areas were selected at random. This was conducted with the help of an on-site inspection. The third and final step was the selection of the interviewee. The interviewer identified all households and then randomly selected an interviewee. Only one person per household was interviewed. For the last stage, the Kish selection grid method [43] was used. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University Leipzig prior to any data collection.
The interviewers conducting the interviews were specially trained for the scheduled interviews and received fixed work instructions. A total of 193 interviewers conducted the interviews. This results in an average of around 13 interviews per interviewer. Informed consent was obtained from the interviewees in advance.
The interviews were conducted in person on-site. In addition to the assessment of life satisfaction in different life domains (with the DLB scale) [42], sociodemographic data were recorded (date of birth, gender, marital status, nationality, religion, school-leaving qualification, questions on employment, income, mental health, place of residence).

2.1. DLB Scale

The Differential Life Burden Scale (DLB Scale) [42] is a self-assessment questionnaire for negative and positive emotions in relation to various areas of life. The questionnaire consists of 17 items in the areas of partnership/marriage, sexuality, children, parents, friends, neighbors/acquaintances, colleagues, work, leisure, health, finances, residence, environment, homeland, politics, future, and life balance. The questionnaire begins with: “Below you will find a list of important areas of life. Please indicate with a cross which of the following answers most closely matches your feelings when you think of the corresponding area of life. Please do not skip a single line!”. This is followed by the 17 areas of life. Answers can be given on a six-point scale with the levels “very negative”, “negative”, “slightly negative”, “slightly positive”, “positive”, and “very positive”. According to the authors [42], the completion time is very short at approximately 3 min. The DLB scale has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74–0.77) [42]. According to the authors, the calculation of the item intercorrelation showed low to medium-high correlations between the items.

2.2. Statistics

The statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics© (version 27.0.0.0; 64-bit version). All statistical analyses were based on an alpha level of 0.05.

3. Results

Initially, a sample description is provided to facilitate an assessment of its representativeness. A total of N = 2522 study participants were surveyed. Every person in Germany over the age of 15 was eligible to participate in the study. The age of all test subjects was between 16 and 96 years and averaged 49.26 years (SD = 17.655). The gender was 49.7% male, 50.1% female, and 0.2% diverse. A total of 96.4% stated that they had German citizenship. Further demographic data can be found in Table 1.
On average, the investigated participants had already been unemployed 1.02 times in their lives. Currently unemployed were 4% of the sample. Further work-related data and data on income can be found in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.

3.1. Domains of Life with Comparably Low Satisfaction

The frequencies of negative responses show which are the life dimensions with low satisfaction: A minority of people (15.8%) rated none of the listed life domains to any degree negative (“slightly negative”, “negative”, “very negative”). Half of the sample (51.3%) rated 3 or more life domains in any way negative.
However, excluding “slightly negative”, 48.5% rated none of the listed life areas as “negative” or “very negative”. Lastly, 79.6% of participants rated no life domain “very negative”.

3.2. Global Life Satisfaction

Gender, age, income, and current unemployment may be associated with global life satisfaction, both as a stressor and as a resilience factor. These sociodemographics are included in a regression model in order to investigate their influence on life satisfaction: “gender” (male, female), “age” (in years), “income” (low, high), and “currently unemployed” (yes, no). For the variable “gender”, “diverse” was excluded from the study, as the subgroup would have been too small with only four participants.
Results from the regression analysis are reported in Table 4. With a corrected R2 = 0.074, the model has a low goodness-of-fit [44]. The predictors “age”, “income”, and “current unemployment” significantly explained the variance of the criterion “number of negatively rated areas of life”.

3.3. Differential Measurement of Life Satisfaction

The empirical literature indicates that life satisfaction might be influenced by gender and age, not on a global level but on a differential level. For this reason, we examined whether or not there are differences in differential life satisfaction between women and men (Table 5) and between different age groups (Table 6).
Men and women reported satisfaction with most life domains on a similar level. Gender differences were observed in only 3 out of 17 life domains (Table 5). All differences were found for domains associated with the nuclear family: In “partnership” and “sexuality”, male participants reported higher satisfaction levels compared to females. Women were more satisfied with “children” compared to men.
The comparison across age groups revealed significant differences in almost all (15 out of 17) life domains. The direction of these differences varied by the domain (Table 6): Younger and middle-aged people reported that they were more satisfied with work-related areas of life (i.e., “colleagues”, “work”), close acquaintances and family (i.e., “parents”, “friends”) as well as sexuality, health, and their future. In middle to old age, compared to younger people, there is a greater satisfaction level with monetary and materialistic areas of life (i.e., “finances”, “residence”), society-related areas (i.e., “homeland”, “politics”) and one’s own children. With regard to the environment and life balance, a similar assessment was found across all age groups.

4. Discussion

This is one of the first representative studies on the distribution and basic characteristics of differential life satisfaction in a general population. Gender ratio, age, marital status, and educational level largely correspond with the characteristics of the population [45,46,47,48,49]. The presented data can be interpreted as representative data.

4.1. General Life Satisfaction in the General Population

First of all, it should be noted that the representative sample is above average in 16 of 17 life satisfaction areas. The life domains of friends, leisure, homeland, and parents were rated as the four most positive life domains. Habich [50] found similar results even 30 years ago. He examined various areas of life (marriage/partnership, leisure, homeland, etc.) and found that the majority of the German population was satisfied in many areas of life, with satisfaction levels of over 90% in some cases. Globally, most people in Germany are more satisfied than dissatisfied [32,51]. Even despite the negative impact of the pandemic, people in Germany were, on average, satisfied at this time [51].
In contrast, politics and the environment were rated as the most negative areas of life. Politics was the only area of life below the scale mean of 3.5 points and was therefore rated more negatively than positively. This is in line with other research findings: In the study by Habich [50], politics and the environment, together with the area of “public safety”, are also the worst-rated domains of life. The environment also received one of the lowest ratings in Priem et al. [52]. The negative perception of politics fits to present naturalistic investigations: In a survey of 1321 eligible voters in Germany, around half (46%) answered to be “not at all satisfied” to the question “How satisfied are you with the work of the federal government?”. A further 36% were “less satisfied”. Only 16% were “satisfied” and only 1% of participants were “very satisfied” [53]. Thus, most eligible voters are dissatisfied with politics.
Why are people dissatisfied with life domains that are rather “far away” and do not even touch their own day-to-day life (e.g., reports about war in other countries)? An explanation can be cognitively mediated emotions induced by the media reports. Most people in Germany use a wide variety of media on a daily basis [54,55,56]. News is often about problems (climate change, war), presented with emotionality and negative bias. Thus, being dissatisfied with politics and the larger environment could therefore be interpreted as a case of “cognitively mediated suffering”: Without a direct experience of personal suffering (there is no war in one’s own town), a negative attitude is nevertheless developed simply by negatively framed information.
Despite being overall rather satisfied with most life domains, almost all respondents, i.e., around 84.2%, rated at least one area of life as “slightly negative”, “negative”, or “very negative”. The data shows that negative areas of life occur frequently in the general population. Negative events are normal [1,2,3]. It would be rather unusual for someone to have no negative life domain at all.
While it was common for several life domains to be rated “negative” or “slightly negative”, it was exceptional for several life domains to be rated as “very negative”. This is in line with previously published results: McGinty et al. [3] report an average of around 3 to 4 critical life events from people in different countries. Critical life events can occur at any age and in any other group of population subdivisions. These critical life events can be the temporal onset of maladaptive processes and are thus related to the prevalence figures of this study [3]. Similarly, the prevalence figures can also be linked to the results of Hyland et al. [1]. Critical life events, maladaptive processes, and the resulting negative evaluations are not uncommon and are experienced by a large proportion of the population at some point in their lives. However, they are regularly demanding but normal and surmountable (e.g., illness of a family member).
Our findings on a globally satisfied population, with differences in satisfaction in different life domains, fit the results of previous studies on global life satisfaction [7,31,32,57,58,59,60], as well as the domain-specific studies [50,52,61].

4.2. General Life Satisfaction and Sociodemographics

The data from this representative study confirm earlier findings [16,62]. There was no relevant relation between gender and overall life satisfaction, according to the other literature: Gender is not predictive of global life stress [17,18,19,20].
Also, age was rather independent of life satisfaction. Some research results also indicate no correlation between age and life satisfaction [22,63]; some results show a positive correlation [64]. However, life satisfaction and age might not be linearly correlated; there could also be a U-shaped relationship between life satisfaction and age [9,23,24].
Life satisfaction seems to have a positive correlation with income [25,27,28,65]. In the here investigated representative sample, a higher income was associated with fewer negatively rated life domains compared to people with a lower income. However, there may also be a moderator effect of personality here [13,30]. It is unclear to what extent this influence would have changed if relative income would have been examined [25,27,28].
Current unemployment had the greatest association with life dissatisfaction. This corresponds with the current literature [7,31,32,33].

4.3. Specific Life Satisfaction in Different Life Domains

“Partnership/marriage” and “Sexuality” were rated significantly more stressful by women than by men. The area of “children” was rather rated worse by men.
The two areas that were rated significantly worse by women than by men (“partnership/marriage” and “sexuality”) are both areas that are directly related to the partnership. This is in contrast to the other life areas, where women are at least as satisfied as men. Similar results were found for married couples in the meta-analysis by Jackson et al. [66]. The results of our data and the literature suggest that women are more dissatisfied with their own partnership compared to men.
With regard to satisfaction with one’s children, the literature is partly divided. While some studies found no gender differences [67], there are also reports of higher stress experienced by mothers [41,68]. Stress levels may be dependent on external conditions, e.g., there was somewhat higher stress perception in parents during a pandemic (which came along with restrictions such as school closing and homeschooling necessities additional to normal daily duties [40]).
There were significant differences in satisfaction in nearly all life domains between different age groups. Only “environment” and “life balance” were perceived with similar satisfaction over all age groups. The life area “leisure” was rated significantly more satisfying by young people than by middle-aged or older people. The satisfaction with “children” was the opposite: young respondents were significantly less satisfied with their children than middle-aged or older people.
One possible explanation for different levels of satisfaction with different life domains in different age groups is the different relevance of the subject domains [39]. Our data fit this assumption: while “work” is highly relevant in young and middle age, it may no longer be as relevant in older age. On the other hand, satisfaction with “health” was rated significantly lower in the older age group. Illnesses and a reduction in health may occur as a stressor in old age rather than in young age [69].

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

Although the sample is large and representative of the German general population, it is limited in that no statements can be made about children and adolescents younger than 16 years. It can be assumed that life domains are weighted differently in childhood and adolescence.
Furthermore, not all thinkable aspects that might explain variance in life satisfaction have been assessed. Other variables influencing life satisfaction should be examined in further studies, e.g., personality, which is repeatedly regarded in the literature.

5. Conclusions

The data show that the German population is generally satisfied in most life domains. While it is not uncommon to feel slightly negative about some life domains, it was rare to have several very negative life domains. Only very few participants reported more negative than positive life domains.
(Un)employment, income, and age (but not gender) have a relevant impact on global or domain-specific life satisfaction.
The study underlines that global life satisfaction does not capture the overall picture. Differential life satisfaction should be considered in clinical or counseling practice and research by asking for satisfaction in different life domains.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Data collection was administered by B.M. Material preparation and analysis were performed by C.A. The first draft of the manuscript was written by C.A. All further revisions were written and prepared by C.A. and B.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University Leipzig on the 1st February 2022 before any data collection occurred (approval code: 594/21-ek).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study prior to the individual data collection.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on reasonable request by the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

References

  1. Hyland, P.; Karatzias, T.; Shevlin, M.; McElroy, E.; Ben-Ezra, M.; Cloitre, M.; Brewin, C.R. Does requiring trauma exposure affect rates of ICD-11 PTSD and complex PTSD? Implications for DSM-5. Psychol. Trauma 2021, 13, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hyland, P.; Vallières, F.; Cloitre, M.; Ben-Ezra, M.; Karatzias, T.; Olff, M.; Murphy, J.; Shevlin, M. Trauma, PTSD, and complex PTSD in the Republic of Ireland: Prevalence, service use, comorbidity, and risk factors. SPPE 2021, 56, 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. McGinty, G.; Fox, R.; Ben-Ezra, M.; Cloitre, M.; Karatzias, T.; Shevlin, M.; Hyland, P. Sex and age differences in ICD-11 PTSD and complex PTSD: An analysis of four general population samples. Eur. Psychiatry 2021, 64, e66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hobfoll, S.E. The Ecology of Stress; Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Taherkhani, Z.; Kaveh, M.H.; Mani, A.; Ghahremani, L.; Khademi, K. The effect of positive thinking on resilience and life satisfaction of older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 3478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Longhi, S.; Nandi, A.; Bryan, M.; Connolly, S.; Gedikli, C. Life satisfaction and unemployment—The role of gender attitudes and work identity. Scot. J. Polit. Econ. 2024, 71, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Joshanloo, M.; Jovanović, V. The relationship between gender and life satisfaction: Analysis across demographic groups and global regions. Arch. Womens. Ment. Health. 2020, 23, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kageyama, J.; Sato, K. Explaining the U-shaped life satisfaction: Dissatisfaction as a driver of behavior. J. Bioecon. 2021, 23, 179–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gerstorf, D.; Wagner, G.G. Lebenszufriedenheit am Ende des Lebens in Ost-und Westdeutschland: Die DDR Wirft Einen Langen Schatten (No. 320); SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research; Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW): Berlin, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sturm, G.; Walther, A. Lebenszufriedenheit–generationstypisch? Befunde der laufenden BBSR-Umfrage. In Demografische Spuren des Ostdeutschen Transformationsprozesses: 20 Jahre deutsche Einheit, Dezembertagung des Arbeitskreises Städte und Regionen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Demographie (DGD) in Kooperation mit dem Bundesinstitut für Bau, Stadt-und Raumforschung (BBSR) vom 9. bis 10. Dezember 2010 in Berlin; Institut für Bau-, Stadt-und Raumforschung (BBSR) im Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (BBR): Bonn, Germany, 2011; pp. 4–11. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sholihin, M.; Hardivizon, H.; Wanto, D.; Saputra, H. The effect of religiosity on life satisfaction: A meta-analysis. HTS Teol. Stud. 2022, 78, 7172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Proto, E.; Rustichini, A. Life satisfaction, income and personality. J. Econ. Psychol. 2015, 48, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Eirich, G.M. Parental religiosity and children's educational attainment in the United States. In Religion, Work and Inequality; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2012; pp. 153–181. [Google Scholar]
  15. Vermeer, P. The impact of parental religiosity on parenting goals and parenting style: A Dutch perspective. J. Beliefs. Values. 2011, 32, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Batz-Barbarich, C.; Tay, L.; Kuykendall, L.; Cheung, H.K. A meta-analysis of gender differences in subjective well-being: Estimating effect sizes and associations with gender inequality. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 29, 1491–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jarden, R.J.; Joshanloo, M.; Weijers, D.; Sandham, M.H.; Jarden, A.J. Predictors of life satisfaction in New Zealand: Analysis of a national dataset. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bibi, F.; Chaudhry, A.G.; Awan, E.A. Impact of gender, age and culture on life satisfaction. Pak Ass. Anthropol. 2015, 27, 1649–1652. [Google Scholar]
  19. Della Giusta, M.; Jewell, S.L.; Kambhampati, U.S. Gender and life satisfaction in the UK. Fem. Econ. 2011, 17, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Blanchflower, D.G.; Oswald, A.J. Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. J. Public Econ. 2004, 88, 1359–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Piko, B.F. Adolescent life satisfaction: Association with psychological, school-related, religious and socially supportive factors. Children 2023, 10, 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Proctor, C.; Linley, P.A.; Maltby, J.; Port, G. Life satisfaction. Encyc. Adol. 2017, 2, s2165–s2176. [Google Scholar]
  23. Stone, A.A.; Schwartz, J.E.; Broderick, J.E.; Deaton, A. A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 9985–9990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gwozdz, W.; Sousa-Poza, A. Ageing, health and life satisfaction of the oldest old: An analysis for Germany. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 97, 397–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Diener, E.; Sandvik, E.; Seidlitz, L.; Diener, M. The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Soc. Indic. Res. 1993, 28, 195–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Usui, W.M.; Keil, T.J.; Durig, K.R. Socioeconomic comparisons and life satisfaction of elderly adults. J. Gerontol. 1985, 40, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Riddick, C.C. Life satisfaction determinants of older males and females. Leis. Sci. 1985, 7, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rickardsson, J.; Mellander, C. Absolute vs. Relative Income and Life Satisfaction; Royal Institute of Technology: Cesis, Latvia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. Blau, G.; Petrucci, T.; McClendon, J. Correlates of life satisfaction and unemployment stigma and the impact of length of unemployment on a unique unemployed sample. Career Dev. Int. 2013, 18, 257–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Soto, C.J.; Luhmann, M. Who can buy happiness? Personality traits moderate the effects of stable income differences and income fluctuations on life satisfaction. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2013, 4, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Van Suntum, U.; Prinz, A.; Uhde, N. Lebenszufriedenheit und Wohlbefinden in Deutschland: Studie zur Konstruktion eines Lebenszufriedenheitsindikators (No. 259); SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research; Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW): Berlin, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  32. Felbermayr, G.; Battisti, M.; Suchta, J.P. Lebenszufriedenheit und ihre Verteilung in Deutschland: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. ifo Schnelldienst 2017, 70, 19–30. [Google Scholar]
  33. McKee-Ryan, F.; Song, Z.; Wanberg, C.R.; Kinicki, A.J. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Richter, E.P.; Brähler, E.; Stöbel-Richter, Y.; Zenger, M.; Berth, H. The long-lasting impact of unemployment on life satisfaction: Results of a longitudinal study over 20 years in East Germany. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2020, 18, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Epictetus.; Carter, E. Das Enchiridion: Von der Lektion zur Aktion! Legendary Editions: Wellington, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lazarus, R.S. Coping and the process of secondary appraisal: Degree of threat and factors in the stimulus configuration. Psychol. Stress Coping Process 1966, 150, 209. [Google Scholar]
  37. Matten, S.J.; Pausch, M.J. Resilienz. In Depression, Trauma und Ängste: In Management und Öffentlichkeit; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2024; pp. 83–87. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kose, T.; Avcioglu, K. Gender and job satisfaction in OECD countries. Econ. Bus. Lett. 2023, 12, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Joshanloo, M.; Jovanović, V. Similarities and differences in predictors of life satisfaction across age groups: A 150-country study. J. Health Psychol. 2021, 26, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Taubman–Ben-Ari, O.; Ben-Yaakov, O.; Chasson, M. Parenting stress among new parents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Child Abuse Negl. 2021, 117, 105080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Matvienko-Sikar, K.; Murphy, G.; Murphy, M. The role of prenatal, obstetric, and post-partum factors in the parenting stress of mothers and fathers of 9-month old infants. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 39, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Linden, M.; Ritter, K. DLB. Differentieller Lebensbelastungsfragebogen [Verfahrensdokumentation aus PSYNDEX Tests-Nr. 9007493 und Fragebogen]. In Leibniz-Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation (ZPID) (Hrsg.); Elektronisches Testarchiv. ZPID: Trier, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kish, L. A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household. JASA 1949, 44, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  45. Statistisches Bundesamt. Bevölkerung nach Nationalität und Geschlecht. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Tabellen/deutsche-nichtdeutsche-bevoelkerung-nach-geschlecht-deutschland.html (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  46. Statistisches Bundesamt. Lebendgeborene nach Geschlecht. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Geburten/Tabellen/lebendgeborene-geschlecht.html (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  47. Statistisches Bundesamt. Bevölkerung nach Altersgruppen. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Tabellen/bevoelkerung-altersgruppen-deutschland.html (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  48. Statistisches Bundesamt. Bevölkerung nach Familienstand. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Tabellen/familienstand-jahre-5.html (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  49. Statistisches Bundesamt. Bildungsstand: Verteilung der Bevölkerung in Deutschland nach höchstem Schulabschluss im Jahr. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1988/umfrage/bildungsabschluesse-in-deutschland/ (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  50. Habich, R. Zufriedenheit in Lebensbereichen. In Datenreport 1994. Zahlen und Fakten über die Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung: Bonn, Germany, 1994; pp. 428–437. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bittmann, F. How trust makes a difference: The impact of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on life satisfaction in Germany. Appl. Res. Qual. Life. 2022, 17, 1389–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Priem, M.; Kaiser, F.; Schupp, J. Zufriedener denn je-Lebensverhältnisse in Deutschland 30 Jahre nach dem Mauerfall. Informationsdienst Soz. Indik. 2020, 64, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
  53. ARD-DeutschlandTrend. Zufriedenheit mit Kanzler Scholz auf Rekordtief. Available online: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-3410.html (accessed on 13 January 2024).
  54. Breyer-Mayländer, T.; Löffel, M. Erreichbarkeit von Zielgruppen—Informations- und Mediennutzungsverhalten in Deutschland. In Social Media im kommunalen Sektor; Breyer-Mayländer, T., Zerres, C., Eds.; Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  55. Schäfer, M.S.; Bonfadelli, H. Umwelt- und Klimawandelkommunikation. In Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation; Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomberg, M., Schäfer, M., Eds.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  56. Statista. Welche Medien Nutzen Sie, um sich über das Lokale Geschehen zu Informieren? Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/237168/umfrage/mediennutzung-bei-informationen-zum-lokalen-geschehen/. (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  57. Kaspar, R.; Ernst, A.C.; Zank, S. Lebenszufriedenheit und subjektives Wohlbefinden in der Hochaltrigkeit. In Hohes Alter in Deutschland; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 255–287. [Google Scholar]
  58. Entringer, T.M.; Kröger, H.; Schupp, J.; Kühne, S.; Liebig, S.; Goebel, J.; Grabka, M.M.; Graeber, D.; Kroh, M.; Schröder, C.; et al. Psychische Krise Durch COVID-19? Sorgen Sinken, Einsamkeit Steigt, Lebenszufriedenheit Bleibt Stabil (No. 1087); SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research; Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW): Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kroh, M.; Kühne, S.; Kipp, C.; Richter, D. Einkommen, soziale Netzwerke, Lebenszufriedenheit: Lesben, Schwule und Bisexuelle in Deutschland. DIW Wochenber. 2017, 84, 687–698. [Google Scholar]
  60. Weller, I. Lebenszufriedenheit im Europäischen Vergleich; No. FS III 96-402; WZB Discussion Paper; Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB): Berlin, Germany, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kasinger, C.; Tibubos, A.N.; Brähler, E.; Herschbach, P.; Henrich, G.; Krakau, L. Unterschiede in der Zufriedenheit verschiedener Lebensbereiche zwischen Ost-und Westdeutschen in den Jahren 1991, 2006 und 2020. PPmP 2022, 72, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chen, X.; Cai, Z.; He, J.; Fan, X. Gender differences in life satisfaction among children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. J. Happiness Stud. 2020, 21, 2279–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Baird, B.M.; Lucas, R.E.; Donnellan, M.B. Life satisfaction across the lifespan: Findings from two nationally representative panel studies. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 99, 183–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Herschbach, P. Das „Zufriedenheitsparadox” in der Lebensqualitätsforschung. PPmP 2002, 52, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Boes, S.; Winkelmann, R. The effect of income on general life satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 95, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jackson, J.B.; Miller, R.B.; Oka, M.; Henry, R.G. Gender differences in marital satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J. Marriage Fam. 2014, 76, 105–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Epifanio, M.S.; Genna, V.; De Luca, C.; Roccella, M.; La Grutta, S. Paternal and maternal transition to parenthood: The risk of postpartum depression and parenting stress. Pediatr. Rep. 2015, 7, 5872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hildingsson, I.; Thomas, J. Parental stress in mothers and fathers one year after birth. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 2014, 32, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Luo, J.; Mills, K.; le Cessie, S.; Noordam, R.; van Heemst, D. Ageing, age-related diseases and oxidative stress: What to do next? Ageing Res. Rev. 2020, 57, 100982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Sample characteristics of the representative German national sample (N = 2522).
Table 1. Sample characteristics of the representative German national sample (N = 2522).
VariableFrequency in %
Age GroupsFemaleMaleAll
 Under 203.933.4
 20–4027.730.329.1
 40–6038.13637.0
 60–8025.826.125.9
 80–1004.54.64.6
Graduation
 Without a lower secondary school qualification2.32.52.4
 Lower secondary school qualification23.925.424.6
 Secondary school qualification37.229.833.5
 Polytechnic secondary school8.28.78.4
 Technical school qualification (without recog. as univ. of appl. sciences)3.75.14.4
 General or subject-specific higher education entrance qualification12.613.713.1
 Completed university/college degree9.613.511.6
 Other qualification0.40.10.2
 Pupil at a general education school2.11.21.7
Marital status
 Married (living together)42.350.346.2
 Married (living separately)1.51.81.6
 Unmarried26.531.829.2
 Divorced17.910.814.4
 Widowed11.85.38.5
Table 2. Work status of the representative German national sample (N = 2522).
Table 2. Work status of the representative German national sample (N = 2522).
VariableFrequency in %
EmploymentFemaleMaleAll
 Full-time employment 35 h or more34.862.848.7
 Part-time employed 15–34 h20.93.212.1
 Employed hourly4.40.52.4
 Voluntary service/maternity leave1.50.10.8
 Currently unemployed3.54.44.0
 Pensioner/retired/in early retirement24.823.624.2
 Not working, e.g., housewife/househusband3.80.62.2
 In vocational training0.81.61.2
 In-school education (also university, college)5.53.24.3
Unemployment (Group)
 Never51.956.153.8
 Once2019.119.5
 Multiple times28.124.826.4
Employment (Group)
 Employed60.166.563.3
 In school vocational training/voluntary service7.84.96.3
 Currently unemployed3.54.44.0
 Pensioner/retired/in early retirement24.823.624.2
 Not working: e.g., housewife/househusband3.80.62.2
Profession
 Never been employed6.64.35.5
 Self-employed without employees222.0
 Self-employed with up to 5 employees1.12.92.0
 Self-employed with 6–9 employees0.20.50.3
 Self-employed with 10–49 employees0.40.50.4
 Self-employed with 50 or more employees0.200.1
 Independent profession11.71.3
 Simple employees, tasks without authority to issue instructions30618.1
 Intermediate employees24.613.219.0
 Qualified employees20.421.621.0
 Senior executives with signing authority24.73.3
 Public official–elementary service0.60.50.5
 Public official–intermediate service1.42.62.1
 Public official–higher service1.32.51.9
 Public official–senior service0.20.70.5
 Laborers simple work (mainly physical strength)46.35.1
 Laborer difficult work (mainly skill)1.75.43.5
 Skilled worker, foreman, journeyman 2.224.413.2
 Self-employed farmers0.10.20.2
Table 3. Income of the representative German national sample (N = 2522).
Table 3. Income of the representative German national sample (N = 2522).
VariableFrequency in %
Personal income FemaleMaleAll
 No personal income 6.23.14.6
 <500 € 4.51.12.8
 500 -< 650 € 3.71.32.5
 650 -< 750 € 3.10.71.9
 750 -< 900 € 73.15.1
 900 -< 1000 € 62.14.0
 1000 -< 1150 € 7.23.95.6
 1150 -< 1250 € 7.53.75.6
 1250 -< 1500 € 15.410.412.9
 1500 -< 2000 € 19.523.921.7
 2000 -< 2500 € 122317.5
 2500 -< 3500 € 5.61610.8
 3500 -< 5000 € 1.76.44
 ≥5000 € 0.61.30.9
Household income
 <1250 € per month10.18.29.1
 ≥1250 -< 2500 € per month42.135.638.9
 ≥2500 € per month47.856.252.0
Table 4. Multiple linear regression-prediction of the number of negative areas of life.
Table 4. Multiple linear regression-prediction of the number of negative areas of life.
CoefficientsbSEβtp95% CI
LBUB
(Constant)2.582 0.280 9.205 <0.001 2.0323.132
Gender 0.109 0.13 0.017 0.803 0.422 −0.15 0.358
Age 0.013 0.004 0.073 3.596 <0.001 0.006 0.02
Income −1.173 0.177 −0.139 −6.646 <0.001 −1.519 −0.827
Currently unemployed 3.459 0.331 0.214 10.452 <0.001 2.81 4.108
Note. N = 2246; R2 = 0.074; corr. R2 = 0.073; F(4, 2246) = 45.058, p < 0.001.
Table 5. Satisfaction with different domains of life of the representative German national sample (N = 2522).
Table 5. Satisfaction with different domains of life of the representative German national sample (N = 2522).
VariableMaleFemaleAllSig.
M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)
Partnership/Marriage4.64 (1.36)4.46 (1.49) 4.55 (1.43) F(1, 2482) = 10.189, p = 0.001
Sexuality4.53 (1.31)4.23 (1.42) 4.38 (1.37) F(1, 2472) = 29.965, p = <0.001
Children4.6 (1.35)4.81 (1.31) 4.71 (1.33) F(1, 2415) = 14.702, p = <0.001
Parents4.75 (1.14)4.79 (1.15) 4.77 (1.14) F(1, 2457) = 0.686, p = n.s.
Friends5.05 (0.81)5.06 (0.83) 5.06 (0.82) F(1, 2506) = 0.033, p = n.s.
Neighbors/acquaintances4.47 (0.94)4.47 (1) 4.47 (0.97) F(1, 2506) = 0.022, p = n.s.
Colleagues4.5 (0.95)4.52 (1.01) 4.51 (0.98) F(1, 2506) = 0.337, p = n.s.
Work4.5 (1.09)4.48 (1.13) 4.49 (1.11) F(1, 2440) = 0.207, p = n.s.
Leisure5 (0.84)4.97 (0.88) 4.99 (0.86) F(1, 2507) = 1.075, p = n.s.
Health4.68 (1.09)4.6 (1.15) 4.64 (1.12) F(1, 2505) = 3.793, p = n.s.
Finances4.26 (1.19)4.17 (1.22) 4.21 (1.21) F(1, 2505) = 3.922, p = n.s.
Residence 4.76 (1) 4.8 (1.03) 4.78 (1.02) F(1, 2508) = 1.213, p = n.s.
Environment3.84 (1.15)3.79 (1.19) 3.81 (1.17) F(1, 2506) = 1.306, p = n.s.
Homeland4.65 (.99)4.66 (1.04) 4.65 (1.02) F(1, 2504) = 0.096, p = n.s.
Politics 3.15 (1.18) 3.05 (1.19) 3.1 (1.19) F(1, 2497) = 4.689, p = n.s.
Future4.01 (1.18)3.96 (1.22) 3.99 (1.2) F(1, 2507) = 1.268, p = n.s.
Life balance4.5 (1.01)4.46 (1.06) 4.48 (1.03) F(1, 2508) = 0.651, p = n.s.
Note. M: mean value; SD: standard deviation; n.s. = not significant.
Table 6. Satisfaction with different domains of life in different age groups (N = 2522).
Table 6. Satisfaction with different domains of life in different age groups (N = 2522).
VariableYoung (≤30 Years Old)
(N = 456)		Middle (31–60 Years Old)
(N = 1341)		Old (>60 Years Old)
(N = 725)		Sig.Post-Hoc
M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)
Partnership/Marriage4.53 (1.38)4.65 (1.41) 4.38 (1.48) F(2, 2485) = 8.627,
p = <0.001		M vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.274, 95%-CI [0.12, 0.43])
Sexuality4.7 (1.28)4.59 (1.28) 3.79 (1.42) F(2, 2475) = 98.299,
p = <0.001		Y vs. O (p < 0.001, (MDiff = 0.905, 95%-CI [0.71, 1.1])
M vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.793, 95%-CI [0.64, 0.94])
Children4.18 (1.52)4.79 (1.3) 4.85 (1.19) F(2, 2417) = 40.996,
p = <0.001		Y vs. M (p < 0.001, MDiff = −0.617, 95%-CI [−0.79, −0.44])
Y vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = −0.677, 95%-CI [−0.87, −0.48])
Parents5.02 (1)4.78 (1.12) 4.57 (1.24) F(2, 2459) = 21.141,
p = <0.001		Y vs. M (p = 0.001, MDiff = 0.232, 95%-CI [0.08, 0.38])
Y vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.444, 95%-CI [0.28, 0.61])
M vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.213, 95%-CI [0.08, 0.34])
Friends5.32 (0.81)5.04 (0.81) 4.91 (0.8) F(2, 2509) = 37.601,
p = <0.001		Y vs. M (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.28, 95%-CI [0.17, 0.38])
Y vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.417, 95%-CI [0.3, 0.53])
M vs. O (p = 0.001, MDiff = 0.138, 95%-CI [0.05, 0.23])
Neighbors/acquaintances4.41 (1)4.43 (0.97) 4.58 (0.95) F(2, 2509) = 6.48,
p = 0.002		Y vs. O (p = 0.009, MDiff = −0.173, 95%-CI [−0.31, −0.03])
M vs. O (p = 0.004, MDiff = −0.146, 95%-CI [−0.25, −0.04])
Colleagues4.63 (0.93)4.56 (0.95) 4.34 (1.05) F(2, 2421) = 14.535,
p = <0.001		Y vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.285, 95%-CI [0.14, 0.43])
M vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.214, 95%-CI [0.1, 0.33])
Work4.53 (1.11)4.58 (1.08) 4.31 (1.15) F(2, 2443) = 13.314,
p = <0.001		Y vs. O (p = 0.003, MDiff = 0.223, 95%-CI [0.06, 0.39])
M vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.266, 95%-CI [0.14, 0.39])
Leisure 5.11 (0.87) 4.99 (0.87) 4.9 (0.85) F(2, 2510) = 8.518,
p = <0.001		Y vs. M (p = 0.022, MDiff = 0.125, 95%-CI [0.01, 0.24])
Y vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.213, 95%-CI [0.09, 0.34])
Health5.12 (0.98)4.73 (1.04) 4.16 (1.18) F(2, 2508) = 122.008,
p = <0.001		Y vs. M (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.385, 95%-CI [0.25, 0.52])
Y vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.957, 95%-CI [0.8, 1.11])
M vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.572, 95%-CI [0.45, 0.69])
Finances 4.04 (1.36) 4.25 (1.2) 4.26 (1.1) F(2, 2508) = 5.931,
p = 0.003		Y vs. M (p = 0.004, MDiff = −0.209, 95%-CI [−0.37, −0.05])
Y vs. O (p = 0.006, MDiff = −0.223, 95%-CI [−0.4, −0.05])
Residence 4.57 (1.16) 4.8 (1.01) 4.88 (0.92) F(2, 2511) = 14.127,
p = <0.001		Y vs. M (p < 0.001, MDiff = −0.23, 95%-CI [−0.36, −0.1])
Y vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = −0.318, 95%-CI [−0.46, −0.17])
Environment 3.8 (1.26) 3.78 (1.17) 3.88 (1.11) F(2, 2509) = 1.728,
p = n.s.
Homeland 4.6 (1.06) 4.61 (1.03) 4.78 (0.95) F(2, 2506) = 7.657,
p = <0.001		Y vs. O (p = 0.01, MDiff = −0.178, 95%-CI [−0.32, −0.03])
M vs. O (p = 0.001, MDiff = −0.174, 95%-CI [−0.29, −0.06])
Politics 3.05 (1.2) 3.05 (1.18) 3.21 (1.18) F(2, 2500) = 4.702,
p = 0.009		M vs. O (p = 0.01, MDiff = −0.161, 95%-CI [−0.29, −0.03])
Future 4.3 (1.18) 4.01 (1.22) 3.74 (1.14) F(2, 2510) = 32.045,
p = <0.001		Y vs. M (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.295, 95%-CI [0.14, 0.45])
Y vs. O (p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.564, 95%-CI [0.39, 0.73])
M vs. O(p < 0.001, MDiff = 0.269, 95%-CI [0.14, 0.4])
Life balance 4.51 (1.04) 4.48 (1.07) 4.46 (0.96) F(2, 2511) = 0.342,
p = n.s.
Note. M: mean value; SD: standard deviation; n.s. = not significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arnold, C.; Muschalla, B. Differential Life Satisfaction in a German Representative Sample. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010105

AMA Style

Arnold C, Muschalla B. Differential Life Satisfaction in a German Representative Sample. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(1):105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010105

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arnold, Christopher, and Beate Muschalla. 2025. "Differential Life Satisfaction in a German Representative Sample" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 1: 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010105

APA Style

Arnold, C., & Muschalla, B. (2025). Differential Life Satisfaction in a German Representative Sample. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010105

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop