CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 96

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychological flourishing: Validation of the French version of the Flourishing Scale and exploration of its relationships with personality traits

Villieux, Arnaud, Sovet, Laurent, Jung, Sung-Cheol, Guilbert, Laure·2016·Personality and Individual Differences
DOI 10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.027
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.027

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Ashton, 2001, A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality, European Journal of Personality, 15, 327, 10.1002/per.417 · DOI
  2. Blais, 1989, The satisfaction scale: French–Canadian Validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, 210, 10.1037/h0079854 · DOI
  3. DeNeve, 1998, The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being, Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197, 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197 · DOI
  4. Diener, 1984, Subjective well-being, Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542, 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Diener, 1985, The Satisfaction with Life Scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71, 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Diener, 1999, Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress, Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276, 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Henderson, 2012, Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to more comprehensively understand wellbeing and pathways to wellbeing, International Journal of Wellbeing, 2, 196, 10.5502/ijw.v2i3.3 · DOI
  8. Hu, 1999, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Huppert, 2013, Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being, Social Indicators Research, 110, 837, 10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Kokko, 2013, Associations between personality traits and psychological well-being across time in middle adulthood, Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 748, 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.07.002 · DOI
  11. Lamers, 2012, Differential relationships in the association of the Big Five personality traits with positive mental health and psychopathology, Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 517, 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.05.012 · DOI
  12. Larsen, 1985, An evaluation of subjective well-being measures, Social Indicators Research, 17, 1, 10.1007/BF00354108 · DOI
  13. Lucas, 1996, Discriminant validity of well-being measures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616, 10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616 · DOI
  14. McCrae, 1991, Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227, 10.1177/014616729101700217 · DOI
  15. Myers, 1995, Who is happy?, Psychological Science, 6, 10, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00298.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Plaisant, 2010, Validation through factorial analysis of the French Big Five Inventory (BFI-Fr). Convergent analysis with NEO-PI-R, Annales Médico-Psychologiques, 168, 97, 10.1016/j.amp.2009.09.003 · DOI
  17. Quevedo, 2010, Well-being and personality: Facet-level analyses, Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 206, 10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.030 · DOI
  18. Ryan, 2001, To be happy or to be self‐fulfilled: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being, Vol. 52, 141
  19. Ryff, 1989, Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069, 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ryff, 2000, Biopsychosocial challenges of the new millennium, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 69, 170, 10.1159/000012390 · DOI
  21. Silva, 2013, Validation of the Flourishing Scale and Scale of Positive and Negative Experience in Portugal, Social Indicators Research, 110, 469, 10.1007/s11205-011-9938-y · DOI
  22. Steel, 2008, Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being, Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138, 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Sumi, 2014, Reliability and validity of Japanese versions of the Flourishing Scale and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience, Social Indicators Research, 118, 601, 10.1007/s11205-013-0432-6 · DOI
  24. Watson, 1988, Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063, 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 96

Metadata

Authors
Villieux, A., Sovet, L., Jung, S.-C., & Guilbert, L.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
88
Pages
1-5
ISSN
0191-8869
DOI
10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.027
Cited by
96
References
8
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review