Table 2.

Regression Models Predicting Well-Being at Wave 1

Hedonic Well-Being
	Model 1a				Model 2a
	B	SE	p	95% CI	B	SE	p	95% CI
Intercept	0.092	0.014	<.001	(0.066, 0.119)	−0.161	0.043	<.001	(−0.245, −0.077)
M1 PPR	0.322	0.014	<.001	(0.294, 0.350)	0.126	0.012	<.001	(0.103, 0.149)
M1 EWB					0.292	0.013	<.001	(0.266, 0.318)
M1 Age					0.004	0.001	<.001	(0.003, 0.006)
Gendera					0.009	0.021	.673	(−0.033, 0.051)
M1 Extraversion					0.119	0.011	<.001	(0.097, 0.141)
M1 Neuroticism					−0.333	0.012	<.001	(−0.356, −0.310)
M1 PFamR					0.075	0.013	<.001	(0.051, 0.100)
M1 PFriR					0.005	0.012	.654	(−0.018, 0.029)
Adjusted R2			.110				.491
Eudaimonic Well-Being
	Model 1b				Model 2b
	B	SE	p	95% CI	B	SE	P	95% CI
Intercept	0.081	0.014	<.001	(0.053, 0.109)	0.447	0.047	<.001	(0.355, 0.539)
M1 PPR	0.311	0.015	<.001	(0.282, 0.340)	0.088	0.013	<.001	(0.062, 0.113)
M1 HWB					0.356	0.016	<.001	(0.325, 0.388)
M1 Age					−0.008	0.001	<.001	(−0.009, −0.006)
Gendera					−0.100	0.024	<.001	(−0.146, −0.053)
M1 Extraversion					0.139	0.013	<.001	(0.114, 0.164)
M1 Neuroticism					−0.202	0.014	<.001	(−0.229, −0.174)
M1 PFamR					0.079	0.014	<.001	(0.052, 0.106)
M1 PFriR					0.122	0.013	<.001	(0.095, 0.148)
Adjusted R2			.093				.434

Note. M1 = MIDUS I; HWB = Hedonic well-being; EWB = Eudaimonic well-being; PPR = Perceived partner responsiveness; PFamR = Perceived family responsiveness (excluding spouse); PFriR = Perceived friend responsiveness. All continuous variables were standardized before being entered into the models. For continuous variables, higher scores reflect higher standing on the variable. N = 4,167 in all models.

^a0 = male, 1 = female