Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189
DOI 10.1007/s11136-008-9426-2
The relative contributions of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
health, and social relationships to life satisfaction in the United
States
Steven D. Barger Æ Carrie J. Donoho Æ
Heidi A. Wayment
Accepted: 17 November 2008 / Published online: 12 December 2008

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in life satis-
faction and the relative contributions of socioeconomic
status (SES; education, income, employment status, wealth),
health, and social relationships (social ties, emotional sup-
port) to well-being within and across racial/ethnic groups.
Methods In two cross-sectional, representative samples of
U.S. adults (the 2001 National Health Interview Survey and
the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System;
combined n [ 350,000), we compared life satisfaction
across Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks. We also evaluated
the extent to which SES, health, and social relationships
‘explained’ racial/ethnic group differences and compared
the magnitude of variation explained by life satisfaction
determinants across and within these groups.
Results Relative to Whites, both Blacks and Hispanics
were less likely to be very satisfied. Blacks were somewhat
more likely to report being dissatisfied. These differences
were reduced or eliminated with adjustment for SES,
health, and social relationships. Together, SES and health
explained 12–15% of the variation in life satisfaction,
whereas social relationships explained an additional 10–
12% of the variance.
Conclusions Racial/ethnic life satisfaction disparities
exist for Blacks and Hispanics, and these differences are
largest when comparing those reporting being ‘satisfied’ to
‘very satisfied’ versus ‘dissatisfied’ to ‘satisfied.’ SES,
health, and social relationships were consistently associated
S. D. Barger (&)
C. J. Donoho
H. A. Wayment
Department of Psychology, Northern Arizona University, P.O.
Box 15106, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
e-mail: steven.barger@nau.edu
with life satisfaction, with emotional support having the
strongest association with life satisfaction.
Keywords Quality of life
Health status disparities

Hispanics
Blacks
Social support
Socioeconomic status
Introduction
Subjective well-being is a lynchpin of population health.
For example, the World Health Organization (WHO)
defines well-being as an integral part of health [1] and the
number one public health priority in the United States
(U.S.) is to increase the number and quality of years of life
[2]. Thus, subjective well-being is a critical component of
psychological and health assessments, and a rigorous
understanding of well-being determinants is a precondition
for policy interventions to promote health and well-being
[3, 4].
Well-being surveillance at the population level is essen-
tial to more precisely identify levels of health status in the
U.S., as well as to monitor the conditions contributing to or
detracting from one’s well-being [5]. Despite a maturing
literature regarding this dimension of life quality, studies of
nationally representative samples are urgently needed
because much well-being research is conducted in ‘‘…small,
accidental samples of respondents’’ [4]. One undesirable
consequence of convenience sampling is the paucity of work
on well-being among minorities, particularly Hispanics. In
2006, there were an estimated 44.3 million Hispanics in the
U.S., comprising 14.8% of the population [6], yet, the well-
being literature provides almost no data regarding this largest
U.S. minority population. The evaluation of Hispanic
well-being is essential to improve U.S. public health efforts
to identify and reduce health and well-being disparities [2],
123
180
i.e., unnecessary, avoidable, and unjust health differences
[7], and to accurately characterize well-being determinants
for policy decisions [3]. We use life satisfaction as an inte-
grative measure of well-being. Both constructs encompass
pleasure, engagement, and other positive emotions [4]. Life
satisfaction is also considered as a marker of quality of life in
Healthy People 2010 [2].
Well-being predictors
Health status, as denoted by perceived health and physical
disability, is an important predictor of well-being [8, 9]. To
better understand the contribution of health to well-being,
it is important to compare the relative contribution of
health when simultaneously considering other well-being
correlates, such as income, education, and unemployment.
Although studies have addressed the relative importance of
life satisfaction predictors among racial/ethnic groups [9,
10], we are aware of none that have done so with repre-
sentative samples that include Hispanics. Relative
comparisons of life satisfaction predictors help to prioritize
research resources. Further, representative multi-ethnic
within-country samples can more precisely test hypotheses
that cultural factors moderate well-being [4]. We, there-
fore, compared the relative predictive strength of health
and socioeconomic status (SES) variables for life satis-
faction across diverse White, Black, and Hispanic
population-based samples.
Social relationships are also important determinants of
life satisfaction [4, 11, 12], and forming and maintaining
social relationships are theorized to be a fundamental
human motive [13]. Social relationships are central to
theoretical models of SES [14], and adequate testing of
these models requires the assessment of a variety of social
relationship markers. One established social relationship
indicator, marital status, is a robust life satisfaction corre-
late [8]. However, qualitative and quantitative markers of
social relationships, such as emotional support and social
integration (‘‘…active engagement in a wide range of
social activities or relationships’’ [15]) are theoretically
important, but have received less attention in the context of
life satisfaction [10, 16]. Emotional support and social
integration should be potent predictors of well-being
because they are theorized to buffer stressful experiences
and to promote positive psychological states, respectively
[15]. Simultaneously modeling marital status, emotional
support, and social integration will help clarify the poten-
tial mechanisms through which being married confers
greater well-being. Finally, variation in the predictive
strength of social relationships across racial/ethnic groups
may determine whether the benefits of social relationships
vary across sociocultural contexts [17].
123
Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189
To address these gaps in the literature, we sought to
advance our understanding of well-being by evaluating
markers of important life satisfaction domains across two
very large, nationally representative samples of non-His-
panic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic U.S.
residents. Specifically, the present study: (1) evaluated
racial/ethnic disparities in life satisfaction; (2) partitioned
the relative contribution of health, SES, and social rela-
tionships to these disparities; and (3) compared the relative
strength of association among life satisfaction predictors,
both within and across racial/ethnic groups.
Methods
Data sources
We analyzed two U.S. population-based public health
surveys, the 2001 National Health Interview Survey
(NHIS) and the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System (BRFSS). Although the focus of these surveys was
not life satisfaction, a life satisfaction assessment was
available for these years. Informed consent was obtained
from all participants.
National Health Interview Survey
The NHIS is the primary U.S. health surveillance instrument
for a broad range of health conditions [18]. The survey uses
stratified, multistage cluster sampling to obtain a probability
sample of U.S. households in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia [19]. Households are contacted and randomly
chosen adults are interviewed in person in their residence
using computer-assisted interviewing technology. Black and
Hispanic participants are oversampled to provide reliable
estimates for these populations. The 2001 survey included
33,326 adult respondents (73.8% conditional response rate;
[20]). Of those respondents, 32,121 participants described
themselves as Hispanic (n = 5,615; 29.4% interviewed in
Spanish), non-Hispanic Black (n = 4,622), or non-Hispanic
White (n = 21,884). Life satisfaction data were missing
for 1.6, 2.4, and 1.8% of these groups, respectively
(n = 31,537). Missing values on covariates in fully adjusted
multivariate models reduced the sample to 92.7% of those
with life satisfaction data (final n = 29,243).
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
The BRFSS is an annual telephone survey of over 350,000
adults (18? years of age) in the 50 United States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and Guam. It is a population-based stratified probability
sample that provides the primary source of information on
Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189
health-related behaviors in the U.S. [21]. The median
cooperation rate across the 50 states in 2007 was 72% [22].
Of the 430,912 participants, 403,137 described themselves
as Hispanic (n = 31,310; 41.1% interviewed in Spanish),
non-Hispanic Black (n = 33,216), or non-Hispanic White
(n = 338,611). Life satisfaction data were missing for 6.7,
7.1, and 4.0% of these groups, respectively, leaving
385,163 participants (95.5% of the three racial/ethnic
groups). Missing data on covariates in fully adjusted mul-
tivariate models reduced the sample to 85.4% of those with
life satisfaction data (final n = 329,004).
Census-based weights for respondents were calculated
to adjust for nonresponse and to ensure representativeness.
Our analyses incorporated the weights, sample strata, and
clusters, and, therefore, estimate parameters for the adult
civilian, non-institutionalized population of the United
States [20]. We used Stata 10.0 (Stata Corp., College
Station, TX) for all of the analyses.
Measures
There are modest differences in item wording across sur-
veys and, generally, the BRFSS has a less comprehensive
set of health, social ties, and SES variables (e.g., fewer
chronic disease indicators, no measures of wealth or social
contacts). Nonetheless, similar associations across samples
and variable definitions increase generalizability and pro-
vide greater confidence in the associations. Items available
only in one survey are identified in brackets.
Life satisfaction
In both surveys, life satisfaction was measured with the
question ‘‘In general, how satisfied are you with your life?’’
The response options included very satisfied, satisfied,
dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. Because the very dissat-
isfied category was reported by 1% of participants in both
samples, we combined it with the dissatisfied category.
Demographic variables
Gender and age (dummy codes for six age categories) were
used as covariates. The respondents reported a racial cat-
egory (e.g., White, Black/African American) and whether
or not they were of Hispanic ethnicity [23]. Participants
were categorized into non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic
Black, and Hispanic (henceforth referred to as White,
Black, or Hispanic, respectively). Racial and ethnic clas-
sifications encompass a number of social categories related
to ancestral origins, language, history, and customs [24],
but the present classification structure reflects the minimum
administrative standards of the U.S. Government [23].
181
Socioeconomic status
Socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed by education
(dummy variables representing \high school; high school
graduate or equivalent; some college; college graduate;
postgraduate degree [NHIS]), household income ([ or
\$20,000 per year [NHIS]; eight categories ranging from
\$10,000 to [$75,000 per year [BRFSS]), employment
status, and wealth. Employment was represented by
dummy codes representing retired, unemployed, and never
worked [NHIS] versus working (the referent group in both
surveys). The BRFSS analyses included dummy categories
for student, homemaker, and unable to work. Wealth was
coded dichotomously (own home vs. rent/other [NHIS]).
Health status
Health was assessed by the presence or absence of any
reported disability (‘‘Are you limited in any way in any
activities because of physical, mental, or emotional prob-
lems?’’ [BRFSS]; any limitations reported for physical
activities, such as carrying groceries, grasping small
objects, walking a quarter of a mile, etc. [NHIS]). Partic-
ipants rated their health as poor, fair, good, very good, or
excellent. Finally, we created a summary measure of
reported chronic disease diagnoses (hypertension, diabetes,
heart attacks, coronary heart disease, cancer [NHIS], and
other heart disease [NHIS], summed and grouped into
none, 1, or 2 or more).
Social relationships
These resources were assessed by marital status (married/
cohabiting or not), emotional support (How often do you
get the social and emotional support you need? Would you
say always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never?), and
social integration. Social integration [NHIS only] was the
sum of six questions covering the 2-week prevalence of
contacts with friends or relatives over the phone or in
person, as well as whether they attended a group social
activity or a religious service. Although they are not perfect
indicators, these social relationship markers capture ele-
ments of the general human motive to have stable, lasting,
and positive social interactions with others [13].
Analytic strategy
We evaluated well-being disparities by comparing levels of
life satisfaction for White, Hispanic, and Black participants.
Next, we examined, in turn, the relative contributions of
SES, health status, and social relationships to racial/ethnic
disparities in life satisfaction. This strategy characterizes
the relative importance of these domains for life satisfaction
123
182
and addresses possible mediating factors for between-group
variation in life satisfaction.
We then repeated these multivariate analyses within
each of the three racial/ethnic groups using ordinary least
squares regression. We report R2 effect size estimates to
characterize the variance in life satisfaction accounted for
by the blocks of SES, health, and social relationship vari-
ables. Variance was estimated with Taylor series
linearization [25] to accommodate the clustered sampling
design.
Results
An overview of the demographic characteristics for each
sample is presented in Table 1.
Life satisfaction in the U.S. by race/ethnicity
Whites had higher life satisfaction relative to Blacks and
Hispanics (see Fig. 1). This pattern was largely explained
by racial/ethnic differences in the very satisfied and satis-
fied categories, with a greater proportion of Whites in the
very satisfied category. Within-group life satisfaction was
consistent across the two surveys (Fig. 1).
To characterize the extent of poor life satisfaction across
racial/ethnic groups, we used the person-level weights in
the BRFSS to estimate the number of adults in the U.S. who
are dissatisfied with their lives. We estimate that, in 2007,
1.6 million Blacks (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–
1.8 million), 7.7 million Whites (95% CI 7.4–7.9 million),
and 1.6 million Hispanics (95% CI 1.5–1.8 million) were
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their lives.
Racial/ethnic disparities in life satisfaction
To contextualize the regression analyses, correlations
among the key predictor variables are presented in Table 2.
These estimates reveal independence among predictors and
moderately higher life satisfaction–income correlations
than that reported previously (r = 0.22–0.25 vs. 0.13) [26].
Racial/ethnic disparities were evaluated using two sets
of regressions, each including a binary variable; one vari-
able compared Hispanics with Whites, the other Blacks
with Whites. To more precisely characterize patterns of
disparities, we compared dissatisfied and very satisfied
ratings with the satisfied category using multinomial logit
models. Our measure of association was the exponentiated
regression coefficient or odds ratio (OR), which reflects
differences in the likelihood of being in a particular life
satisfaction category. For example, when comparing the
likelihood of being dissatisfied (relative to satisfied), a ratio
of 1.0 would reflect no group differences, whereas a ratio
123
Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189
of 1.33 would reflect a 33% greater likelihood of being
dissatisfied, presuming that the confidence intervals did not
include 1.0. Odds are on a log scale, where the distance
from 1.0 to 2.0 is the same as from 0.5 to 1.0. Below, we
report NHIS and BRFSS ORs, respectively, with 95% CIs
in brackets.
Relative to Whites, Blacks were more likely to be dis-
satisfied (OR = 1.31 [1.22, 1.52] and 1.33 [1.20, 1.47])
and less likely to be very satisfied (OR = 0.68 [0.63, 0.74]
and 0.65 [0.61, 0.68]). Black/White differences in dissat-
isfaction were eliminated with SES adjustment
(OR = 0.92 [0.78, 1.09]) and 0.90 [0.81, 1.01]). For very
satisfied, Black/White differences persisted following
adjustment for SES, health, and social relationships
covariates in the NHIS but not the BRFSS (OR = 0.87
[0.79, 0.96] and 0.99 [0.92, 1.05]).
Hispanics were equally likely to report being dissatisfied
relative to Whites (OR = 1.0 [0.86, 1.16] and 0.88 [0.78,
1.0]), but were less likely to report being very satisfied
(OR = 0.80 [0.74, 0.86] and 0.69 [0.65, 0.73]). A pattern of
lower odds of being dissatisfied for Hispanics was observed
with adjustment for SES (OR = 0.72 [0.60, 0.86] and 0.66
[0.57, 0.77]) and this Hispanic advantage persisted after
adjusting for all covariates, although the confidence inter-
vals approached 1.0 in the NHIS (OR = 0.82 [0.68, 1.00]).
Comparing the odds for very satisfied versus satisfied, SES
covariates removed Hispanic/White differences in both
samples (OR = 1.09 [1.00, 1.18] and 1.02 [0.95, 1.09]), a
pattern which persisted, except in BRFSS analyses that
included health (OR = 1.11 [1.03, 1.19]) and, additionally,
social relationship covariates (OR = 1.16 [1.07, 1.25]).
Thus, moderate Black/White differences in life satisfaction
were observed, but were attenuated after adjustment for
potential confounders. Smaller initial Hispanic/White life
satisfaction differences were observed and were eliminated
or reversed in multivariate models.
The relative contributions of SES, health status, and
social relationships
Across all participants, SES indicators accounted for 6–9%
of the variance in life satisfaction judgments. Adding
health variables to these equations increased the explained
variance to 12–15%. Adding social relationship variables
substantially increased the explained variance to up to 24–
25% of the variance across both samples (see Table 3).
Magnitude and consistency of individual life
satisfaction predictors
In general, the largest life satisfaction predictors were
unemployment, disability, self-rated health, and the three
social relationship markers. These patterns were consistent
Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189 183

Table 1 Percentages and means for the sociodemographic characteristics of the 2001 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the 2007
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

2001 National Health Interview Survey 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
White Black Hispanic Total White Black Hispanic Total
(n = 21,884) (n = 4,622) (n = 5,615) (n = 32,121) (n = 338,611) (n = 33,216) (n = 31,310) (n = 403,137)

Age
18–24 11.8 16.3 19.0 13.2 9.5 12.9 16.8 11.0
25–34 16.3 20.8 24.8 17.8 15.9 20.1 27.1 18.1
35–44 21.2 23.3 23.4 21.7 19.4 22.1 23.3 20.3
45–54 19.6 17.9 15.1 18.9 20.0 18.6 15.1 19.1
55–64 12.8 10.0 8.5 12.0 15.6 13.4 9.1 14.3
C65 18.2 11.7 9.2 16.4 19.5 12.9 8.5 17.1
Gender
Female 51.9 55.5 50.8 52.2 52.0 54.0 49.6 51.8
Male 48.1 44.4 49.2 47.8 48.0 46.0 50.4 48.2
Education
\High school 12.7 24.3 43.7 17.6 6.8 13.5 32.3 11.5
High school or GED 30.4 30.3 23.1 29.6 28.6 33.9 29.4 29.3
Some college 30.0 30.4 21.3 29.1 27.1 28.9 20.3 26.2
College graduate 17.2 10.0 7.2 15.2 37.3 23.3 17.1 32.7
(or higher)a
Postgraduatea 8.9 3.9 2.4 7.6 – – – –
Missing 0.8 1.1 2.3 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.3
Annual income (US $)
\$10,000 – – – – 2.4 7.6 9.6 4.1
$10,000–15,000 – – – – 3.0 6.2 9.1 4.3
$15,000–19,999 – – – – 4.4 9.2 11.2 6.0
\$20,000b 15.6 29.2 28.1 18.7 – – – –
$20,000–24,999 – – – – 6.2 9.4 11.8 7.4
[$20,000b 78.5 63.9 65.7 75.3 – – – –
$25,000–34,999 – – – – 9.2 13.0 12.7 10.2
$35,000–49,999 – – – – 13.6 13.6 11.9 13.4
$50,000–74,999 – – – – 16.9 12.2 8.8 15.1
C$75,000 – – – – 31.9 14.9 12.3 27.1
Missing 5.9 6.9 6.2 6.0 12.5 13.9 12.4 12.6
Own home
Yes 76.4 49.2 49.3 29.7 – – – –
No 23.6 50.8 50.7 70.3 – – – –
Employment status
Employed 66.4 63.8 67.0 66.2 60.9 57.6 61.4 60.6
Retired 16.7 9.8 6.9 14.7 18.7 13.6 7.4 16.4
Never worked 2.8 6.0 10.7 4.1 – – – –
Unemployed 13.9 19.9 15.0 14.8 3.8 8.8 6.1 4.7
Student – – – – 3.8 5.9 5.1 4.2
Homemaker – – – – 8.0 3.6 13.6 8.4
Unable to work – – – – 4.5 9.8 5.5 5.2
Missing 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.5
Self-rated health
Poor 2.8 4.7 3.4 3.1 4.1 5.7 5.2 4.4
Fair 8.1 13.1 9.4 8.8 9.6 15.4 22.3 12.3

123
184 Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189

Table 1 continued
2001 National Health Interview Survey 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
White Black Hispanic Total White Black Hispanic Total
(n = 21,884) (n = 4,622) (n = 5,615) (n = 32,121) (n = 338,611) (n = 33,216) (n = 31,310) (n = 403,137)

Good 23.6 27.6 26.8 24.5 28.3 34.6 35.7 30.2

Very good 33.2 27.4 31.5 32.3 36.0 26.4 20.3 32.5
Excellent 32.1 27.0 28.8 31.1 21.6 17.3 16.1 20.3
Missing 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4
Disability
No 64.2 68.1 78.1 66.3 78.7 79.3 84.2 79.6
Yes 35.4 31.5 21.7 33.4 19.7 18.3 12.5 18.4
Missing 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.6 2.5 3.3 2.0
Chronic diseases
0 63.9 62.8 75.4 65.0 66.2 58.6 73.2 66.5
1 22.7 23.7 16.5 22.1 23.0 26.7 18.4 22.7
C2 13.4 13.5 8.1 12.9 10.8 14.7 8.5 10.8
Marital status
Married/cohabitating 66.4 45.1 64.3 63.7 67.6 56.7 64.4 64.5
Other 33.5 54.9 35.7 36.3 32.1 42.8 35.3 35.2
Missing – – – – 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3
Social relationships Mean (SE)

Social ties 4.53 (0.012) 4.64 (0.029) 4.42 (0.029) 4.53 (0.011) – – – –
Emotional support 4.24 (0.008) 4.16 (0.018) 4.19 (0.019) 4.23 (0.007) 4.24 (0.003) 3.98 (0.015) 3.92 (0.019) 4.17 (0.004)
Life satisfaction 1.40 (0.005) 1.28 (0.011) 1.34 (0.010) 1.38 (0.045) 1.42 (0.002) 1.28 (0.007) 1.33 (0.007) 1.39 (0.002)
a
College graduate and above was a combined category in the BRFSS
b
Income was coded as greater than or less than US $20,000 in the NHIS
– denotes an item not included in the survey. SE = standard error. All standard errors for demographic variables were less than or equal to 0.02.
The variable percentages may not sum exactly to 100 due to rounding

Fig. 1 Life satisfaction by race/

ethnicity: United States, 2001 2001 NHIS N = 31,537 2007 BRFSS N = 385,163
and 2007. NHIS = National
Health Interview Survey;

.6
.6

Dissatisfied
BRFSS = Behavioral Risk Satisfied
Very satisfied .56 .56 .56
Factor Surveillance System. The .54
proportions may not sum to 1.0
.49 .48 .47
due to rounding .46
.4
.4

.40
Proportion

.38
Proportion

.36 .36
.2
.2

.08 .08
.06 .06 .05 .05
0
0

White Hispanic Black White Hispanic Black

across both surveys and within each racial/ethnic group bivariate analyses, but persisted in explaining [8% of the
(see Fig. 2). Emotional support had the largest association variance in fully adjusted models. Despite this consistency
of any predictor. It accounted for 15% of the variance in in the full sample, there were appreciable racial/ethnic

123
Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189 185

Table 2 Population-based correlations among life satisfaction, sociodemographic, health, and social relationship variables
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

1. Life satisfaction – 0.00 0.15 0.25 –0.15 – -0.20 0.31 -0.09 0.18 0.39
2. Male 0.01 – 0.00 0.08 -0.03 – -0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 -0.02
3. Education 0.16 0.02 – 0.49 -0.14 – -0.07 0.29 -0.11 0.12 0.16
a
4. Family income 0.22 0.07 0.39 – -0.26 – -0.19 0.37 -0.18 0.35 0.22
5. Unemployed -0.14 -0.15 -0.15 -0.24 – – 0.12 -0.12 0.05 -0.13 -0.09
6. Own home 0.14 0.00 0.11 0.40 -0.06 – – – – – –
7. Disability -0.18 -0.10 -0.13 -0.16 0.22 0.05 – -0.39 0.27 -0.07 -0.12
8. Self-rated health 0.29 0.04 0.28 0.29 -0.26 0.05 -0.43 – -0.39 0.09 0.21
9. Chronic diseases -0.09 -0.01 -0.12 -0.14 0.16 0.08 0.36 -0.43 – -0.03 -0.06
10. Married 0.18 0.06 0.09 0.36 -0.05 0.24 -0.03 0.05 0.00 – 0.13
11. Emotional support 0.39 0.01 0.08 0.14 -0.07 0.10 -0.13 0.16 -0.04 0.12 –
12. Frequency of social contacts 0.25 -0.08 0.19 0.15 -0.08 0.08 -0.14 0.21 -0.09 0.06 0.22
Estimates are based upon Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White participants in the 2001 National Health Interview Survey
(NHIS: below diagonal) and the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS: above diagonal). Sample sizes range from 20,071–
32,121 in the NHIS to 333,350–403,137 in the BRFSS. Unemployment compares currently employed to unemployed, but not retired, students,
etc. Unemployed correlations are based upon 20,071–25,295 (NHIS) and 217,403–380,229 (BRFSS) observations. Social contacts and home
ownership were not assessed in the BRFSS
a
The NHIS variable was last year’s family income in 11 levels ranging from $0–$4,999 to C$75,000 (n = 24,078). This measure was not used
in the primary analyses because a substantial number of participants (23.5%) did not report income in these graded categories. The correlation
with the binary family income variable was smaller (r = 0.15)

Table 3 Multivariate estimates of variance (R2) in life satisfaction accounted for by racial/ethnic disparities, socioeconomic status (SES), health
status, and social relationships by national health survey
Age and gender ?SES ?Health ?Social relationships Emotional support omitted
NHIS BRFSS NHIS BRFSS NHIS BRFSS NHIS BRFSS NHIS BRFSS

Overall 0.2 0.2 6.2 9.1 12.7 14.8 25.5 24.5 17.5 15.9
Disparitiesa
Hispanic vs. White 0.3 0.5 6.2 9.0 13.1 15.0 26.0 24.9 17.8 15.0
Black vs. White 0.6 0.8 6.6 10.0 13.1 15.9 26.5 26.6 18.0 15.7
Within groups
White 0.1 0.2 6.6 10.0 13.5 16.0 27.1 27.4 18.4 17.3
Black 0.6 0.6 4.6 7.8 9.0 12.7 21.4 20.7 14.0 13.2
Hispanic 0.8 0.1 4.7 4.5 10.8 9.4 19.3 15.7 14.3 13.2
NHIS = National Health Interview Survey (n = 29,243 in fully adjusted models). BRFSS = Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
(n = 329,004 in fully adjusted models). The baseline model included age and gender, while subsequent models added, in turn, socioeconomic
status (SES; education, income, home ownership [NHIS only], employment status), health status (functional limitations, self-rated health, and
diagnosed chronic diseases), and social ties (marital status, emotional support, and frequency of social contacts [NHIS only])
a
Disparities analyses compare only Black/White or Hispanic/White participants using a binary race/ethnicity variable

differences in explanatory power for emotional support
(approximately 9–10, 7, and 2.5–5% of the variance
explained for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, respectively;
Table 3). Similar gaps in explained variance were observed
for the fully adjusted regressions, in which 27, 21, and 16–
19% of the variance was explained for Whites, Blacks, and
Hispanics, respectively. Across racial/ethnic groups and
surveys, the incremental increase in explained variance for
marital status was 0.3–1.2% (median = 0.7%) when added
to models containing the social relationship variables.
Discussion
This study evaluated racial/ethnic disparities in life satis-
faction, and explored the relative contributions of SES,

123
186 Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189

Fig. 2 Partial regression 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

coefficients for life satisfaction All Participants Hispanics Whites Blacks
predictors by race/ethnicity and
U.S. public health survey Male
High school
Some college
College grad
Income
Unemployed
Homemaker
Student
Retired
Unable to work
Disability
Chronic diseases
Self-rated health
Married
Emotional support

-.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2

a) Regression Coefficient (b)

2001 National Health Interview Survey

All Participants Hispanics Whites Blacks

Male
Own home
High school
Some college
College grad
> College
>20K income
Retired
Unemployed
Never worked
Disability
Chronic diseases
Self-rated health
Married
Emotional support
Social contacts

-.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2

b) Regression Coefficient (b)

health status, and social relationships to life satisfaction
among two very large, diverse probability samples of U.S.
adults. This is the first major evaluation of Hispanic life
satisfaction in the U.S. and is the largest U.S. population-
based life satisfaction study to date. We found that Blacks
and Hispanics have lower life satisfaction than Whites, but
controlling for SES and health status attenuated these dif-
ferences for Blacks and eliminated them for Hispanics. We
also found a modest Hispanic benefit for being very sat-
isfied in multivariable models. Statistical control aside,
these data clearly show that disparities exist for the two
largest racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., and falsify claims
that ‘‘…knowing someone’s race or ethnic group … gives
little clue to the person’s psychological well-being’’ [27]
(for more evidence of racial well-being disparities, see [9,
28, 29]). This study addresses a central goal of U.S. health
policy [2] by identifying well-being disparities and by
identifying plausible health and economic mechanisms
through which these disparities may be reduced. Further,
this information provides a foundation for improving
quality of life, a major priority for both U.S. and interna-
tional health policy.
The relative importance of life satisfaction predictors
varied across self-reported race and ethnicity, accounting
for the least variance among Hispanics, with increased
explanatory power for Blacks and still more so for
Whites. These differences became particularly marked for
Hispanics in models lacking measures of wealth and
social integration. The consistently higher explained life
satisfaction variance among Whites could represent sub-
stantive cultural variation in the types of support relevant
to well-being judgments [30] or reflect methodological
variance, e.g., differential measurement error and/or
interactions of ethnicity with other predictors. Disentan-
gling these possibilities is an important direction for
future research.

123
Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189
Although these racial/ethnic differences in well-being
and its correlates are consistent with cultural moderation
hypotheses [4], we had no direct culture measures and it is
perilous to conflate ethnicity with culture [31]. In addition,
our use of one ‘‘Hispanic’’ category likely masks variation
in well-being across Hispanic national origin groups, var-
iation which has been documented for SES markers and
health risk [32]. Even though we statistically controlled for
differences in education, income, employment status, and
wealth, racial/ethnic imbalances in SES may persist [33].
Thus, disparities may reflect residual SES confounding
rather than inadequate well-being models or unmeasured
well-being correlates.
The robust association of life satisfaction with social
relationships provides strong support for theories empha-
sizing social ties [13–15]. The independent association of
both functional (emotional support) and structural (num-
ber of social contacts) social relationships replicates
previous work [10] and is consistent with studies showing
the broader health relevance of these two dimensions [34,
35]. Moreover, these aspects of the social environment are
potentially modifiable, revealing intervention targets (as
well as resources to protect) when considering clinical or
policy interventions [3]. The potency of social relation-
ship predictors supports theoretical models of SES that
emphasize active participation in society and social
engagement as the ultimate resources conferred by high
social status [36]. Relative to income or education, the
social relationship markers in this study are more proxi-
mal indicators of this participatory capacity, and, thus,
from this perspective, one would expect a stronger life
satisfaction association for variables more directly
assessing this resource. This interpretation is consistent
with longitudinal studies showing that social contacts are
substantially more important to life satisfaction than
increases in income [16].
Prior reviews emphasizing marriage as a key life satis-
faction predictor have not considered the joint effects of
other types of social ties [37, 38]. Our analyses confirm the
importance of marital status, yet, suggest a subordinate role
for this condition. Relative to being married, reporting
emotional support accounted for roughly eight times more
variance in life satisfaction, a pattern seen in research using
depressed mood as an outcome [39]. The weak bivariate
association between marital status and emotional support
undermines the argument that being married confers social
support, whereas the positive correlation between marital
status and education, income, and home ownership suggest
alternative mechanisms for the higher well-being enjoyed
by those who are married. Continued attention to the joint
contributions of multiple well-being indicators will clarify
their relative importance and the potential mechanisms
through which they influence well-being.
187
Our health variables were strongly and consistently
associated with life satisfaction in both samples, but which
is more important to well-being, subjective or objective
health measures [37]? On the one hand, we found that
reported chronic disease diagnoses were weakly related to
life satisfaction relative to other health reports. However,
the putatively less objective disability and self-rated health
reports tap substantive health dimensions. For example,
self-reported disabilities [40] and global health appraisals
[41] predict mortality, and the latter health-related quality
of life judgment exhibits discriminant validity from nega-
tive moods [42]. Chronic diseases were, in fact, associated
with poorer well-being in our data, but that association was
eliminated or substantially reduced when controlling for
disability and subjective health appraisals (data not shown).
Thus, the well-being impact of ill health is better captured
by reported disability and global self-rated health.
This study has a number of strengths. We presented
timely, population-based life satisfaction estimates for
Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks using two different repre-
sentative samples of U.S. adults. These surveys utilized
rigorous sampling procedures and multiple assessment
methods, i.e., both telephone and in-home computer-
assisted interviews. The combined sample size in this
report is commensurate with the sum of participants in all
U.S. life satisfaction literature to date, and the Hispanic and
Black participants in our study each exceeded the total
sample for 33 years of aggregated data from the U.S.
General Social Survey [9]. This study, thus, directly and
decisively addresses population well-being [5]. In addition,
we incorporated multiple markers of SES, health, and
social relationships, and provided the first population-based
analysis of well-being among Hispanics, a group that is
estimated to comprise 15.5% of the population by 2010 [6].
We also partitioned the importance, in explained variance
terms, of marital status relative to emotional support, and
provided evidence prioritizing the relative importance of
theoretically important life satisfaction predictors within
and across racial/ethnic groups. These analyses help con-
textualize the relative influence of life satisfaction
determinants and provide a common metric for comparison
with other studies.
Despite these strengths, a number of cautions are appro-
priate. We measured life satisfaction with a single item
assessed at one point in time. Including more sophisticated
life satisfaction assessments obtained on multiple occasions
is desirable. There are still unrepresented minority popula-
tions that deserve research attention, and space constraints
precluded the examination of happiness and sadness,
dimensions that capture somewhat independent aspects of
well-being [43]. Contextual factors, such as neighborhood
quality, receive less research attention but also predict well-
being [44], as do moods [45], personality [46], and major life
123
188
events [11]. Most important, our cross-sectional design
cannot determine whether the observed associations are
causal. In fact, existing evidence reveals a fascinating con-
coction of reciprocal influence among the variables
considered here. For example, social integration predicts and
results from well-being [16]; slightly lower life satisfaction
has been observed among people who will divorce [47];
people in poor health are more likely to become unemployed
[48]; and continuous employment can preserve psychologi-
cal health, even among those with initially poorer health (at
least among men [49]). Only by evaluating the prevalence of
various health and socioeconomic conditions in combination
with the effect sizes for each possible bidirectional associa-
tion can we begin to address the relative importance of these
pathways and their suitability for modification [11].
Conclusions
These data provide an inclusive picture of life satisfaction
in the U.S., revealing reliable racial/ethnic disparities and
suggesting order for the relative importance of a number of
life satisfaction correlates. Having emotional support, a
job, good health, no disabilities, diverse social networks,
and a spouse are all strong and independent predictors of
being satisfied with life. These patterns are particularly
compelling given their consistency across two nationally
representative samples and racial/ethnic groups. Our study
informs health policy decision-making and provides a
foundation for exploring psychological factors that may be
selected or impaired by conditions such as disability,
unemployment, or social isolation [50]. We hope that our
work clarifies the relative importance of well-being deter-
minants [3] in order to improve individual and population
health in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Acknowledgments The views expressed in this paper are the
authors and neither those of the National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) nor the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
We are grateful to the NCHS, the CDC, and the survey participants
for making this study possible.
References
1. World Health Organization. (2005). Promoting mental health:
Concepts, emerging evidence, practice. World Health Organiza-
tion, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse in
collaboration with the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation
and the University of Melbourne.
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy
People 2010: Understanding and improving health (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
3. Kindig, D. A., Asada, Y., & Booske, B. (2008). A population
health framework for setting national and state health goals.
123
Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189
Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 2081–2083.
doi:10.1001/jama.299.17.2081.
4. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward
an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 5, 1–31.
5. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. The science of happi-
ness and a proposal for a national index. The American
Psychologist, 55, 34–43. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34.
6. U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Hispanics in the United States.
Available online at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/soc
demo/hispanic/hispanic_pop_presentation.html.
7. Whitehead, M. (1992). The concepts and principles of equity and
health. International Journal of Health Services, 22, 429–445.
doi:10.2190/986L-LHQ6-2VTE-YRRN.
8. Easterlin, R. A. (2003). Explaining happiness. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
100, 11176–11183. doi:10.1073/pnas.1633144100.
9. Yang, Y. (2008). Social inequalities in happiness in the United
States, 1972 to 2004: An age-period-cohort analysis. American
Sociological Review, 73, 204–226.
10. Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., Hardison, C. B., & Riley, A.
(2001). Informal social support networks and subjective well-
being among African Americans. The Journal of Black Psy-
chology, 27, 439–463. doi:10.1177/0095798401027004004.
11. Ballas, D., & Dorling, D. (2007). Measuring the impact of major
life events upon happiness. International Journal of Epidemiol-
ogy, 36, 1244–1252. doi:10.1093/ije/dym182.
12. Bishop, A. J., Martin, P., & Poon, L. (2006). Happiness and
congruence in older adulthood: A structural model of life satis-
faction. Aging & Mental Health, 10, 445–453.
13. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.117.3.497.
14. Oakes, J. M., & Rossi, P. H. (2003). The measurement of SES in
health research: current practice and steps toward a new
approach. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 769–784. doi:10.1016/
S0277-9536(02)00073-4.
15. Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. The American
Psychologist, 59, 676–684. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676.
16. Powdthavee, N. (2008). Putting a price tag on friends, relatives
and neighbours: Using surveys of life satisfaction to value social
relationships. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1459–1480. doi:
10.1016/j.socec.2007.04.004.
17. Uchino, B. N. (2004). Pathways linking social support to health
outcomes. In B. N. Uchino (Ed.), Social support and physical
health: Understanding the health consequences of our relation-
ships (pp. 109–144). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18. National Center for Health Statistics (2008). National Health
Interview Survey (description). Available online at: http://www.
cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhis/hisdesc.htm.
19. National Center for Health Statistics. (2003). National Health
Interview Survey. Data file documentation, National Health
Interview Survey, 2001 (machine readable data file and docu-
mentation). Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health
Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
20. National Center for Health Statistics. (2003). 2001 National
Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Public use data release. NHIS
Survey description. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for
Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Health risks
in the United States: Behavioral risk factor surveillance system
(At a glance). Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/
publications/aag/pdf/brfss.pdf.
22. Centers for Disease Control, Prevention. (2008). 2007 Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Summary data quality
Qual Life Res (2009) 18:179–189
report. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
23. Office of Management and Budget. (1997). Recommendations
from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and
Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget
Concerning Changes to the Standards for the Classification of
Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Federal Register, 62,
36873–36946.
24. National Research Council. (2004). Understanding racial and
ethnic differences in health in late life: A research agenda.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
25. Korn, E. L., & Graubard, B. I. (1999). Analysis of health surveys.
New York: Wiley.
26. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The
relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative
or absolute? Social Indicators Research, 28, 195–223. doi:
10.1007/BF01079018.
27. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological
Science, 6, 10–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00298.x.
28. Thomas, M. E., & Holmes, B. J. (1992). Determinants of satis-
faction for Blacks and Whites. The Sociological Quarterly, 33,
459–472. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1992.tb00385.x.
29. Thomas, M. E., & Hughes, M. (1986). The continuing signifi-
cance of race: A study of race, class, and quality of life in
America, 1972–1985. American Sociological Review, 51, 830–
841. doi:10.2307/2095370.
30. Dressler, W. W., & Bindon, J. R. (2000). The health conse-
quences of cultural consonance: Cultural dimensions of lifestyle,
social support, and arterial blood pressure in an African American
community. American Anthropologist, 102, 244–260. doi:
10.1525/aa.2000.102.2.244.
31. Hunt, L. M., Schneider, S., & Comer, B. (2004). Should
‘‘acculturation’’ be a variable in health research? A critical review
of research on US Hispanics. Social Science & Medicine, 59,
973–986. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.12.009.
32. Barger, S. D., & Gallo, L. C. (2008). Ability of ethnic self-
Identification to partition modifiable health risk among US resi-
dents of Mexican ancestry. American Journal of Public Health,
98, 1971–1978. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.122754.
33. Kaufman, J. S., Cooper, R. S., & McGee, D. L. (1997). Socio-
economic status and health in Blacks and Whites: The problem of
residual confounding and the resiliency of race. Epidemiology
(Cambridge, Mass.), 8, 621–628. doi:10.1097/00001648-1997
10000-00002.
34. Eng, P. M., Rimm, E. B., Fitzmaurice, G., & Kawachi, I. (2002).
Social ties and change in social ties in relation to subsequent total
and cause-specific mortality and coronary heart disease incidence
in men. American Journal of Epidemiology, 155, 700–709. doi:
10.1093/aje/155.8.700.
35. Krumholz, H. M., Butler, J., Miller, J., Vaccarino, V., Williams,
C. S., Mendes de Leon, C. F., et al. (1998). Prognostic importance
of emotional support for elderly patients hospitalized with heart
failure. Circulation, 97, 958–964.
189
36. Marmot, M. (2004). The status syndrome: How social standing
affects our health and longevity. New York: Times Books.
37. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new
positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfill-
ment. New York: Free Press.
38. Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy
people. The American Psychologist, 55, 56–67. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.55.1.56.
39. Ross, C. E. (1995). Reconceptualizing marital status as a con-
tinuum of social attachment. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
57, 129–140. doi:10.2307/353822.
40. Reuben, D. B., Rubenstein, L. V., Hirsch, S. H., & Hays, R. D.
(1992). Value of functional status as a predictor of mortality:
results of a prospective study. The American Journal of Medicine,
93, 663–669. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(92)90200-U.
41. Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and
mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–37. doi:10.2307/2955359.
42. Barger, S. D., Burke, S. M., & Limbert, M. J. (2007). Do induced
moods really influence health perceptions? Health Psychology,
26, 85–95. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.1.85.
43. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999).
Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.
44. Subramanian, S. V., Kim, D., & Kawachi, I. (2005). Covariation
in the socioeconomic determinants of self rated health and hap-
piness: A multivariate multilevel analysis of individuals and
communities in the USA. Journal of Epidemiology and Com-
munity Health, 59, 664–669. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.025742.
45. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and
judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of
affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45, 513–523. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513.
46. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship
between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 138–161. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138.
47. Lucas, R. E. (2005). Time does not heal all wounds: A longitu-
dinal study of reaction and adaptation to divorce. Psychological
Science, 16, 945–950. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01642.x.
48. Jusot, F., Khlat, M., Rochereau, T., & Serme, C. (2008). Job loss
from poor health, smoking and obesity: A national prospective
survey in France. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 62, 332–337. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.060772.
49. Cable, N., Sacker, A., & Bartley, M. (2008). The effect of
employment on psychological health in mid-adulthood: findings
from the 1970 British Cohort Study. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 62, e10. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.063776.
50. Ryff, C. D., Keyes, C. L. M., & Hughes, D. L. (2004). Psycho-
logical well-being in MIDUS: Profiles of ethnic/racial diversity
and life-course uniformity. In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & R. C.
Kessler (Eds.), How healthy are we? A national study of well-
being at midlife (pp. 398–424). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
123