Current Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00795-0

Links between family cohesion and subjective well-being

in adolescents and early adults: The mediating role of self-concept
clarity and hope
Guangcan Xiang 1,2 & Qingqing Li 1,2 & Xiaoli Du 1,2 & Xinyuan Liu 1,2 & Mingyue Xiao 1,2 & Hong Chen 1,2

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
This study examined the associations among family cohesion (i.e., the extent to which family members are concerned and
committed to the family), self-concept clarity (i.e., having a clear, confident and coherent sense of one’s own identity), hope
(as a general disposition to engage in conscious efforts to obtain goals), and subjective well-being (containing emotional and
cognitive well-being). 2792 adolescents and early adults with an age range of 11–24 years (Mage = 16.45, SD = 2.62, 43.2% boys)
in China completed the Family Environment Scale, the Self-Concept Clarity Scale, the Children’s Hope Scale, the Satisfaction
with Life Scale, and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale. Two serial mediation models revealed that self-concept clarity and
hope independently mediated the effect of family cohesion on subjective well-being. More importantly, family cohesion could
influence subjective well-being through the chain mediating effect of “self-concept clarity–hope”. These findings contribute to a
deeper understanding of the links between these factors and suggest that high level of family cohesion may promote subjective
well-being through the high level of self-concept clarity and hope.

Keywords Family cohesion . Self-concept clarity . Hope . Subjective well-being

Introduction component of well-being generally means life satisfaction,

Well-being is a critical indicator of student mental health,
which is associated with a number of positive outcomes
among students, with research showing it to be associated
with their high quality interpersonal relationship and better
academic achievement (Diener and Chan 2011; Nie et al.
2019; Park 2004). Subjective well-being focuses on the he-
donic aspect of well-being, which is generally considered to
include two related but distinct components: Emotional and
cognitive well-being (Diener 1994; Kong et al. 2015). The
emotional component of well-being refers to the emotional
quality of one’s daily experience, including positive and neg-
ative emotional experience, which makes one’s life happy or
unhappy (Kahneman and Deaton 2010). The cognitive
* Hong Chen
chenhswu@163.com
1
School of Psychology, Southwest University, Tiansheng Road No. 2,
Chongqing 400715, China
2
Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality, Ministry of Education,
Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
which refers to the subjective evaluation of people’s life
(Diener et al. 1985). It is generally believed that a happy
person will have better life satisfaction and positive emotions,
and few negative emotional experiences. Subjective well-
being is closely related to individual development, so it is
necessary to know what factors may affect the development
of one’s subjective well-being.
It is well established that subjective well-being is influ-
enced by internal and external factors. Primary among the
individual-internal factors are self-concept clarity (Lin et al.
2018; Na et al. 2018), hope (Ciarrochi et al. 2015; Yalçın and
Malkoç 2015), self-worth (Miller-Smedema et al. 2010), self-
esteem (Yu et al. 2016), and big five personality (Soto 2015).
Primary among external factors are family environment
(Hamama and Arazi 2012; Schnettler et al. 2015), social sup-
port (Brannan et al. 2013), and attachment with parents and
peers (Li and Zheng 2014; Wei et al. 2011). The present cross-
sectional study of Chinese adolescents and early adults fo-
cused on the associations between family cohesion, self-
concept clarity, hope and subjective well-being. Of particular-
ly interest was whether family cohesion, self-concept clarity
and hope has same relation with one’s emotional well-being
and cognitive well-being.

As the basic unit of an individual’s social system, family
has a specific impact on individual development (Uruk et al.
2007). Family cohesion, which can be defined as the extent to
which family members are concerned and committed to the
family and the degree to which family members are helpful
and supportive of each other (Merkaš and Brajša-Žganec
2011), is one of the key protective factors in the family.
Researchers have investigated family cohesion with wide
range of favorable student psychological outcomes.
Favorable outcomes contain a clear future orientation
(Zheng and Gan 2018), hope (Santos et al. 2015), and well-
being of family members (Lorenzo-Blanco et al. 2016a; Uruk
et al. 2007). Existing research has found that family function-
ing (e.g. family cohesion, family conflict, and family adapta-
tion) was significant related to life satisfaction in both the
parent and youth samples (Zabriskie et al. 2018). In a six-
wave longitudinal study, researchers have found that family
functioning was a key mediator in the links from parent cul-
tural stress to youth emotional well–being and health risk be-
haviors (Lorenzo-Blanco et al. 2016b). In addition, Crsepo
et al. (2011) used a longitudinal approach to examine the
relationships between family rituals, family cohesion, and ad-
olescents’ well-being in 713 adolescent-parent/caregiver
dyads. The results showed that parents’ and adolescents’ fam-
ily cohesion mediated the relationship of family ritual and
adolescents’ well-being. Moreover, the family adaptability
and cohesion were found to be linked to both trauma symp-
toms and psychological well-being (Uruk et al. 2007).
Although there is a clear evidence showing that family cohe-
sion plays an important role in well-being, less is known about
what is the potential mechanism: Whether family cohesion
can affect well-being through some individual variables (e.g.
self-concept clarity, hope), and whether there are some differ-
ences in the influence of family cohesion on cognitive well-
being (life satisfaction) and emotional well-being (positive
and negative affect)?
Self-concept clarity refers to the extent to which the content
of individual self-concept is defined clearly and confidently. It
mainly reflects the internal consistency and stability of indi-
vidual self-concept (Campbell et al. 1996; Crocetti et al.
2016). According to the self theory of well-being, continuous
understanding of self is considered to be a necessary condition
for an individual to obtain happiness. The inconsistency be-
tween the real self and the ideal self will lead to depression,
and reduce the subjective well-being (Duan 1996). Research
indicates that self-concept clarity has an impact on individual
social and psychological functions. People with high self-
concept clarity are related to high self-esteem (Wong et al.
2016), more sense of meaning life (Shin et al. 2016), and
positive emotion (Slotter and Walsh 2017), and people with
low self-concept clarity positively predicted anxiety, depres-
sion and loneliness (Butzer and Kuiper 2006; Richman et al.
2016). In light of such findings, it is not surprising that the
Curr Psychol
clarity of self-concept has been shown to be associated with
individual subjective well-being (Chui and Wong 2016;
Usborne and Taylor 2010).
Hope is a general disposition to engage in conscious efforts
to obtain goals (Snyder 1995) and includes pathway thinking
and agency thinking. The former refers to the ability to create
feasible routes toward goals, and the latter refers to the belief
that one is motivated to initiate or maintain progress towards a
goal (Snyder 1994). According to the goal content theory, the
satisfaction of external material does not improve the individ-
ual subjective well-being (Ryan 2009), while the realization of
such goals as the acquisition of intimate relationship or per-
sonal growth helps to meet the inner needs and obtain happi-
ness (Vansteenkiste et al. 2006). Empirical research shows that
individual’s quality of hope can promote overall well-being
(Magaletta and Oliver 1999). In the longitudinal study, ado-
lescents’ hope is an important psychological character that can
predict their emotional well-being and academic achievement
(Ciarrochi et al. 2007). Therefore, hope can predict the indi-
vidual subjective well-being.
Drawing upon self-verification theory (Stinson et al. 2010),
when people receive feedback that is consistent with their own
opinions, they will experience coherence, but experience in-
coherence when the feedback is inconsistent with their self-
views. Relationships with family members represent a funda-
mental form of social feedback. It has been shown that indi-
viduals may experience greater self-clarity when they were
raised in a warm and caring environment, and lower self-
clarity in a cold and neglectful environment (Streamer and
Seery 2015). Previous research has also suggested that stu-
dents’ self-concept and satisfaction with family tend to be
positively related to family climates characterized as high in
cohesion (Nelson 1984). In some longitudinal studies, the
relationship parents establish with their children and the qual-
ity of communication parents with their kids can influence
adolescents’ self-concept clarity (Frijns and Finkenauer
2009; Van Dijk et al. 2014). Family cohesion represents the
closeness of family members and reflects good family rela-
tions. Therefore, family cohesion may influence adolescents’
self-concept clarity, which in turn contribute to their well-
being.
In addition, Snyder (2002) argues that an environment with
consistency and support is favourable for the development of
hope. Sulimani-Aidan et al. (2017) studied 231 adolescents
and found that there was a significant positive correlation
between positive parent-child relationships (e.g., acceptance,
authority and autonomy) and adolescents’ hope. High quality
parent-child relationship plays an important role in the devel-
opment of individual cognitive structure and can promote the
development of positive qualities such as hope (Aydin et al.
2014; Padilla-Walker et al. 2011). Research has suggested that
people with greater support from others and higher level of
family cohesion reported higher hope (Shin and Jeong 2014).
Curr Psychol
Moreover, according to Snyder’s hope theory, when an indi-
vidual has a variety of ways to achieve a goal, and at the same
time has a high degree of determination and motivation for the
goal, he has a high sense of hope (Snyder 2002). It has been
found that individuals with clear self-definition have strong
sense of goal and set long-term goals related to their own
interests (Fite et al. 2017). Therefore, self-concept clarity
may promote the development of individual hope. In light of
these findings, self-concept clarity and hope may as mediators
of relationship between family cohesion and well-being.
The aim of the present study was to examine potential
protective factors related to subjective well-being. First, we
tested whether family cohesion would predict well-being in
a large sample of 2792 Chinese adolescents and early adults
ranging from 11 to 24 of age. Specifically, we explored cog-
nitive and emotional well-being respectively to reveal the me-
diating role of self-concept clarity and hope in the family
cohesion–subjective well-being relationship. We hypothe-
sized that there would be an indirect path from family cohe-
sion to both emotional and cognitive well-being through self-
concept clarity and hope (respectively). Moreover, based on
the theoretical links outlined above, we also hypothesized that
there would be an indirect path from family cohesion to emo-
tional and cognitive well-being through both self-concept clar-
ity and hope (sequentially) (Fig. 1).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants
The participants were 2792 students selected randomly from
three middle schools and six universities in Zhejiang, Jiangxi,
Hebei, Chongqing, and Sichuan provinces respectively locat-
ed at east, north and southwest China. Included among items
on the overall survey completed by students were items that
asked them to identify their gender (1 = boy, 2 = girl), family’s
residential status (1 = small town, 2 = rural), and their age.
Boys represented 43.2% of the sample (n = 1205), and girls
Fig. 1 Hypothesis model
56.6% (n = 1579), 8 person did not specify gender. The ma-
jority of the students (about 67.73%, n = 1891) lived in rural
areas, with the remainder (about 30.23%, n = 844, 57 missing
data) living in small towns. The age of the students ranged
from 11 to 24 years old (M = 16.45, SD = 2.62).
Procedure
The ethics committee for psychological research at the au-
thor’s institution approved the study. All participants were
informed about the study’s aims and that the results would
be used for research purposes. We obtained the verbal consent
of all participants and teachers, and all participants’ names
were not published in order to protect their privacy. Oral in-
structions on how to fill in the questionnaire were sent to the
students by the research assistant before the test to supplement
the printed instructions on each questionnaire. Then, trained
researchers administered the self-report questionnaire to the
participants during a 45-min class period, and the research
assistants collected the questionnaires. These assistants addi-
tionally conducted the data entry so as to insure that the data
remained anonymous to the researchers.
Measures
Family Cohesion Family cohesion was assessed using the
Family Environment Scale (FES, Moos and Moos 1981).
The 90-item FES consists of 10 subscales that describe the
social environment of the family as perceived by its members.
The family cohesion subscale contains 9 items (e.g., “Our
family members always give each other the greatest help and
support”), all of which are rated on a 2-point scale (1 = yes,
2 = no). The family cohesion score was measured by “(item2–
1) + (item5–1) + (item7–1)-(item1–2)-(item3–2)-(item4–
2)-(item6–2)-(item8–2)-(item9–2)”. The scores below 5
stands for low level family cohesion, 6–8 points meaning
medium level, and more than 9 points standing for high level
of cohesion. The Chinese version of the Family Environment
Scale (FES-CV; Cong et al. 2019; Fei et al. 1991) has a strong
reliability. In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) indicated that the FES-CV was suitable for our sample,

χ2/ df = 8.09, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05, and
SRMR = 0.04. The omega index was 0.80.
Self-Concept Clarity The Self-concept clarity Scale (SCCS),
which has often been used to measure a clear and consistent
self-view (Campbell et al. 1996), contains 12 items. Items
assess SCC using questions such as “My beliefs about myself
often conflict with one another,” “On one day I might have
one opinion of myself and on another day I might have a
different opinion,” “I spend a lot of time wondering about
what kind of person I really am.” Except for items 6 (eg., I
seldom experience conflict between the different aspects of my
personality) and 11 (eg., In general, I have a clear sense of
who I am and what I am), all items are scored in reverse. The
response options were on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 =
complete disagreement and 7 = complete agreement. Higher
scores indicated higher levels of self-concept clarity. Many
Chinese researchers have used this scale (e.g., Liu et al.
2017; Wu et al. 2010), and it has demonstrated strong reliabil-
ity and validity. CFA indicated that the SCCS showed an
acceptable data fit: χ2/ df = 13.28, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90,
RMSEA = 0.07, and SRMR = 0.04. The omega index of
SCCS was 0.83.
Hope The Children’s Hope Scale (CHS), which has often
been used to measure hope (Snyder et al. 1997), is a
two-dimensional index comprising 6 items mainly
intended to measure agency thinking (i.e., “I think I
am doing pretty well,” “I am doing just as well as other
students my age,” “I think the things I have done in the
past will help me in the future”) and pathway thinking
(e.g., “I can think of many ways to get the things in life
that are most important to me,” “When I have a prob-
lem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it,”
“Even when others want to quit, I know that I can find
ways to solve the problem”). The three agency items
interrelate highly with each other, as do the three path-
ways items. This scale is suitable for children (e.g. age
6–13; Snyder et al. 1997) and adolescents (e.g. age 15–
19; Marques et al. 2013; Nie et al. 2019; Valle et al.
2004). The response options were on a six-point Likert
scale (from 1 = none of the time to 6 = all of the time).
Higher scores indicated higher levels of hope. The
Chinese version of the Children’s Hope Scale (Nie
et al. 2019; Zhao and Sun 2011) has a good reliability
and validity. The measurement model showed an accept-
able data fit: χ 2 / df = 18.74, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.94,
RMSEA = 0.08, and SRMR = 0.03. The omega index of
CHS was 0.87.
Subjective Well-Being The cognitive component of well-being
was measured by Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener
et al. 1985). The scale consists of five items to measure overall
Curr Psychol
satisfaction with one’s own life (e.g., “I am satisfied with my
life”), all of which are rated on a 7-point scale (1 = totally
disagree, 7 = totally agree). Items were averaged with higher
scores indicating higher life satisfaction. The omega index of
SWLS was 0.74. The emotional component of well-being was
assessed using Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS, Watson et al. 1988). The PANAS contains 20-item
describing two different affect states (10 positive and 10 neg-
ative words) (e.g., “active,” “afraid”), all of which using 5-
point Likert scale. Positive and negative affect scores were
calculated separately. The emotional well-being score was
computed by subtracting the negative affect score from the
positive affect score, with higher scores indicating higher
levels of emotional well-being. The omega index of PANAS
in the present study was 0.84.
Analytical Methods
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were conducted
to investigate associations among the study variables using
SPSS Version 21. Next, we conducted serial mediation analy-
sis (Hayes and Scharkow 2013), in which we assessed the
indirect effect of family cohesion on cognitive well-being
through self-concept clarity (i.e., the a1-b1 path; Fig.2),
through hope (i.e., the a2-b2 path; Fig.2) and through both
self-concept clarity and hope (i.e., the a1-d-b2 path; Fig.2).
In the same way, we also conducted a serial mediation anal-
ysis in family cohesion and emotional well-being (i.e., the a1-
b1 path; the a2-b2 path; the a1-d-b2 path; Fig. 3). This ap-
proach conducted a bootstrapping analysis with 5000 itera-
tions using PROCESS Macro (Preacher and Hayes 2008),
which repeatedly extracts a certain number of samples from
the research samples, and estimates the specific indirect ef-
fects for one or more mediators with the option of including
control variables (in our case, gender and age). If the confi-
dence interval does not cover zero, the indirect effect is
deemed significant.
Results
Common Methods Bias Analyses
Because the data were collected from questionnaires, common
method deviation might occur. In order to check and test com-
mon method bias, Harman’s single-factor test using confirma-
tory factor analysis was conducted (Ma and Zhang 2020). The
present study conducted factor analysis on all items of FES-
CV, SCCS, CHS, SWLS and PANAS, and extracted a com-
mon factor from these items. The results showed that the in-
terpretation rate of the first factor was 19.59%, less than 40%,
indicating that there was no common method bias in the ques-
tionnaires used in this study.
Curr Psychol
Fig. 2 Serial mediation model
testing self-concept clarity and
hope as mediators between family
cohesion and cognitive well-
being
Correlation Analyses
The obtained associations among variables were almost con-
sistent with past researches (see Table 1). Family cohesion
was positively related to self-concept clarity (r = 0.27,
p < .01), hope (r = 0.25, p < .01), emotional well-being (r =
0.32, p < .01) and cognitive well-being (r = 0.32, p < .01).
Self-concept clarity was positively related to hope (r = 0.33,
p < .01), emotional well-being (r = 0.50, p < .01) and cogni-
tive well-being (r = 0.25, p < .01). Moreover, hope was posi-
tively correlated with emotional well-being (r = 0.55, p < .01)
and cognitive well-being (r = 0.50, p < .01). Finally, emotional
well-being and cognitive well-being were positively correlat-
ed (r = 0.43, p < .01).
Serial Mediation Analyses
In this study, two serial mediation models were established to
examine the mediating effect of self-concept clarity and hope
on family cohesion and subjective well-being. We studied
cognitive well-being and emotional well-being separately
and establish two serial mediation path models.
Cognitive Well-Being For cognitive well-being, the overall re-
gression model predicting cognitive well-being from family
cohesion, self-concept clarity, and hope was significant,
Fig. 3 Serial mediation model
testing self-concept clarity and
hope as mediators between family
cohesion and emotional well-
being
explaining 31% of the variance in cognitive well-being (see
Table 2). As we predicted, there was a significant direct path
from family cohesion to cognitive well-being (direct effect co-
efficient = 0.09, SE = 0.01, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.11]); and there
was a significant indirect path from family cohesion to cogni-
tive well-being through self-concept clarity (indirect effect co-
efficient = 0.01, SE = 0.002, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.02]) and
through hope (indirect effect coefficient = 0.01, SE = 0.002,
95% CI = [0.01, 0.02]). Furthermore, the indirect path from
family cohesion to cognitive well-being through the link
“self-concept clarity–hope” was also significant (indirect effect
coefficient = 0.04, SE = 0.004, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.05]). Finally,
we tested a plausible alternative model, with a reverse order for
hope and self-concept clarity as mediators (i.e., family cohesion
→ hope → self-concept clarity → cognitive well-being). The
result indicated that the indirect effect was not significant (b =
0.001, SE = 0.001). This model was unsupported, because the
relevant 95% CI [−0.001, 0.003] included 0.
Emotional Well-Being In order to test whether the chain me-
diation link of “self-concept clarity–hope” found in the rela-
tionship of family cohesion and cognitive well-being also
existed in the relationship between family cohesion and emo-
tional well-being, the present study conducted a serial media-
tion model among these variables. The overall regression
model predicting emotional well-being from family cohesion,
 Curr Psychol

Table 1 Correlations, means, and standard deviations for all variables both contents of subjective well-being (emotional well-being
included in the mediation models
and cognitive well-being). In addition, the two models indi-
1 2 3 4 5 cated that family cohesion could influence subjective well-
being through the chain mediating effect of “self-concept clar-
Family cohesion – ity–hope”. Taken together, these findings contribute to a
Self-concept clarity .27** – deeper understanding of the links between these factors and
Hope .25** .33** – suggest that family cohesion may influence both emotional
Emotional well-being .32** .50** .55** – well-being and cognitive well-being from the self-concept
Cognitive well-being .32** .25** .50** .43** – clarity and hope.
Mean 7.25 4.12 3.47 0.65 3.95 The association between family cohesion and well-being
SD 2.18 0.97 0.90 0.95 1.05 was confirmed in a large sample of Chinese adolescents and
early adults (N = 2792), which was consistent with the find-
Note: **p < .01
ings of previous literature (Lorenzo-Blanco et al. 2016a;
Zabriskie et al. 2018). Research has showed that family leisure
self-concept clarity, and hope was significant, explaining 44% variables have significant positive relationships with family
of the variance in emotional well-being (see Table 3). As pre- functioning and well-being outcomes (Zabriskie et al. 2018).
dicted, there was a significant direct path from family cohe- However, recent research indicates that if parents show high
sion to emotional well-being (direct effect coefficient = 0.06, levels of media usage and allow a long time usage to their
SE = 0.01, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.07]). And there was significant children, the families show lower levels of flexibility and
indirect paths from family cohesion to emotional well-being higher levels of disengagement than the other families
through self-concept clarity (indirect effect coefficient = 0.04, (Caprì et al. 2019), which would damage to the family func-
SE = 0.003, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.05]) and from family cohesion tion. Open communication with family members can contrib-
to emotional well-being through hope (indirect effect coeffi- ute to family cohesion. Bell et al. (2007) found that as the
cient = 0.03, SE = 0.004, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.04]). Furthermore, adolescent had a low level of communication with their par-
the indirect path from family cohesion to emotional well- ents, their perceptions of family cohesion became decreased.
being through the link “self-concept clarity–hope” was also Therefore, it is very important to emphasize the communica-
significant (indirect effect coefficient = 0.01, SE = 0.002, 95% tion and interaction between family members. When the fam-
CI = [0.01, 0.02]). ily environment is full of clear communication and cohesion,
family members will be more satisfied with their life and ex-
perience more positive emotion in their daily life (Crsepo et al.
2011; Lesher and Bergey 1998; Roman et al. 2015). Taken
General Discussion together, these results suggest that family cohesion is an im-
portant environmental resource for subjective well-being.
The main purpose of the present study was to unravel the link The present study also extends our understanding of how
between family cohesion and well-being and investigate the family cohesion may create a broad developmental protective
mediating role of self-concept clarity and hope in the link. In factor to well-being. Interestingly, self-concept clarity was
two serial mediation models, we found that self-concept clar- found to be one independent mediator of the link between
ity and hope mediated the relationship of family cohesion and family cohesion and subjective well-being. Previous work

Table 2 Regression coefficients and standard errors for the serial mediation model presented in Fig. 2

Consequent

Self-concept clarity Hope Cognitive well-being

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

Family cohesion a1 0.11 0.01 <.001 a2 0.07 0.01 <.001 c’ 0.09 0.01 <.001
Self-concept clarity – – – d 0.25 0.02 <.001 b1 0.09 0.02 <.001
Hope – – – – – – b2 0.52 0.02 <.001
R2 = .11 R2 = .15 R2 = .31
F (3, 2660) = 110.86 F (4, 2659) = 116.26 F (5, 2658) = 243.29
p < .001 p < .001 p < .001
Curr Psychol

Table 3 Regression coefficients and standard errors for the serial mediation model presented in Fig. 3

Consequent

Self-concept clarity Hope Emotional well-being

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

Family cohesion a1 0.12 0.01 <.001 a2 0.07 0.01 <.001 c’ 0.06 0.01 <.001
Self-concept clarity – – – d 0.25 0.02 <.001 b1 0.35 0.02 <.001
Hope – – – – – – b2 0.43 0.02 <.001
R2 = .11 R2 = .11 R2 = .44
F (3, 2621) = 109.44 F (4, 2620) = 117.99 F (5, 2619) = 413.44
p < .001 p < .001 p < .001

has demonstrated that children who live in a warm and caring
family environment can positively predict their self-concept
clarity in the future (Streamer and Seery 2015), which in turn
result in better subjective well-being (Chui and Wong 2016;
Slotter and Walsh 2017). The mediating role of self-concept
clarity is consistent with previous studies in Chinese students
(Liu et al. 2017; Pan et al. 2018), and our study extends their
findings to a more general adolescents and early adults rang-
ing from 11 to 24 of age. In addition, hope has also been
identified as a protective factor in the relationship between
family cohesion and subjective well-being (Shin and Jeong
2014). According to Snyder’s hope theory (Snyder 2002), an
supportive family environment is favourable for the develop-
ment of hope. Research has also suggested that people with
higher level of family cohesion reported higher level of hope,
which in turn contribute to well-being (Ciarrochi et al. 2007;
Shin and Jeong 2014). Briefly speaking, these results are in
accordance with previous studies that emphasized the impor-
tant role of self-concept clarity and hope in the family
cohesion–subjective well-being relationship (Fite et al. 2017;
Snyder 2002; Streamer and Seery 2015); and our results ex-
tend previous studies by revealing that self-concept clarity and
hope may make independent contributions to the family
cohesion–subjective well-being link in a general adolescents
and early adults using the multiple mediation model.
In addition, the present study found that family cohesion
could account for subjective well-being through the chain me-
diating effect of “self-concept clarity–hope”. In other words,
the Chinese adolescents with higher levels of family cohesion
could experience a clearer sense of self-concept, and then had
higher levels of hope than those with lower levels of family
cohesion, and thus contributed to an increase in their subjec-
tive well-being, both for cognitive well-being or emotional
well-being. The finding that self-concept clarity predict hope
is consistent with previous research (Fite et al. 2017), and the
present study further supports the notion that having a clear
sense of personal identity may represent a protective factor
that leads individuals to create feasible routes and to initiate
or maintain progress toward goals (Snyder 2002), which can
in turn contribute to subjective well-being.
Implications
The present study explores the relationships among family
cohesion, hope, self-concept clarity and subjective well-
being in a large sample. To our knowledge, this is the first
time to reveal the chain mediation role of “self-concept clari-
ty–hope” in the relationship between family cohesion and
subjective well-being. Moreover, this study has found that in
the impact path there were no difference in the influence of
family cohesion, self-concept clarity and hope on cognitive
well-being (life satisfaction) and emotional well-being (posi-
tive and negative affect). These findings contribute to a deeper
understanding of the links between these factors; and may
have an important effect on understanding and extending eco-
system theory (ie., family cohesion is positive related to sub-
jective well-being), self-verification theory (ie., family cohe-
sion can influence subjective well-being though the mediating
role of self-concept clarity) and Snyder’ hope theory (ie., hope
was a significant factor in the relationship of family cohesion
and well-being, also in the relationship between self-concept
clarity and well-being).
Limitations and Future Directions
It is important to mention some limitations and future direc-
tions in the present study. First, the cross-sectional design can
not reveal the causal associations among variables. Although
the current study has found that the alternative model of “fam-
ily cohesion → hope → self-concept clarity →cognitive well-
being” does not exist, longitudinal designs are needed to es-
tablish the causal relationship among these variables in future
researches. Second, the data was obtained by self-reports,
which may lack of objectivity to some extent. Future

researchers need to evaluate these variables in behavioral ex-
periments in order to improve the objectivity of research re-
sults. Furthermore, future research should also consider
caregiver-report perceptions of the family cohesion, given that
family cohesion of youth could differ from the parents’ per-
spective of the family environment. Finally, the findings in the
current study were generalized only to the Chinese adoles-
cents and early adults. Subjects from other countries and dif-
ferent cultures should be invited to join the corresponding
research in the future.
Conclusion
In summary, the present study generally extends the findings
from previous studies by suggesting that the adolescents and
early adults with higher levels of family cohesion are more
satisfied with their life and have more positive emotional ex-
periences when compared to the low levels of family cohesion
group of adolescents and young adults in this study.
Additionally, students who experienced more family cohesion
reported greater self-concept clarity and higher levels of hope,
which in turn contributed to subjective well-being.
Interestingly, family cohesion could also account for subjec-
tive well-being through the chain mediating effect of “self-
concept clarity–hope”. Overall, these findings suggest that
family factors (e.g. family cohesion) can influence subjective
well-being through individual factors (e.g. self-concept clari-
ty; hope), revealing possible expansions of models of the de-
velopment of subjective well-being.
All authors contributed to the the final version of the man-
uscript. I would like to thank all the participants in this study.
Funding Information This work was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 31771237), and the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. SWU1709106).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institu-
tional and / or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Aydin, B., Sari, S. V., & Sahin, M. (2014). Parental acceptance/involve-
ment, self-esteem and academic achievement: The role of hope as a
Curr Psychol
mediator. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 3(4), 37–
48. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.321356.
Bell, C. J., Phillips, C. R. Haase, J. E. (2007). 24: Relationship of com-
munication to family adaptability and cohesion in adolescents diag-
nosed with cancel. Journal of Adolescents Health, 40(2), S29. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth, 2006.11.077.
Brannan, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Mohr, C. D., Mortazavi, S., & Stein, N.
(2013). Friends and family: A cross-cultural investigation of social
support and subjective well-being among college students. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17439760.2012.743573.
Butzer, B., & Kuiper, N. A. (2006). Relationships between the frequency
of social comparisons and self-concept clarity, intolerance of uncer-
tainty, anxiety, and depression. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41(1), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.
12.017.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F.,
& Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, per-
sonality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.70.1.141.
Caprì, T., Gugliandolo, M. C., Iannizzotto, G., Nucita, A., & Fabio, R. A.
(2019). The influence of media usage on family functioning.
Current Psychology, 1(23), 1–10.
Chui, W. H., & Wong, M. Y. (2016). Gender differences in happiness and
life satisfaction among adolescents in Hong Kong: Relationships
and self-concept. Social Indicators Research, 125(3), 1035–1051.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0867-z.
Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C., & Davies, F. (2007). The impact of hope,
self-esteem, and attributional style on adolescents’ school grades and
emotional well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.
02.001.
Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., Kashdan, T. B., Heaven, P. C., & Barkus, E.
(2015). Hope and emotional well-being: A six-year study to distin-
guish antecedents, correlates, and consequences. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 10(6), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17439760.2015.1015154.
Cong, E., Wu, Y., Cai, Y., Chen, H., & Xu. (2019). Association of suicidal
ideation with family environment and psychological resilience in
adolescents. Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics, 21(5),
479–484.
Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., Branje, S., Koot, H. M., & Meeus, W. (2016).
Self-concept clarity in adolescents and parents: A six-wave longitu-
dinal and multi-informant study on development and intergenera-
tional transmission. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 580–593. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12181.
Crsepo, C., Kielpikowski, M., Pryor, J., & Jose, P. E. (2011). Family
rituals in New Zealand families: Links to family cohesion and ado-
lescents’ well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(2), 184–
193.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and oppor-
tunities. Social Indicators Research, 31, 103–157. https://doi.org/10.
1007/bf01207052.
Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective
well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology:
Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-
0854.2010.01045.x.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,
49(1), 71–75.
Duan, J. H. (1996). An overview of subjective well-being. Advances in
Psychological Science, 1, 46–51.
Fei, L., Shen, Q., Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Jiang, S., Wang, L., & Wang, X.
(1991). Preliminary evaluation of Chinese version of FACESIIand
Curr Psychol
FES: Comparison of normal families of schizophrenic patients.
Chinese Mental Health Journal, 5(5), 198–202.
Fite, R. E., Lindeman, M. I., Rogers, A. P., Voyles, E., & Durik, A. M.
(2017). Knowing oneself and long-term goal pursuit: Relations
among self-concept clarity, conscientiousness, and grit. Personality
and Individual Differences, 108, 191–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2016.12.008.
Frijns, T., & Finkenauer, C. (2009). Longitudinal associations between
keeping a secret and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(2), 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025408098020.
Hamama, L., & Arazi, Y. (2012). Aggressive behaviour in at-risk chil-
dren: Contribution of subjective well-being and family cohesion.
Child & Family Social Work, 17(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-2011.00779.x.
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of
inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis:
Does method really matter?. Psychological science, 24(10), 1918–
1927. Doi:1177/0956797613480187.
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation
of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493. https://doi.org/10.
1073/pnas.1011492107.
Kong, F., Hu, S., Wang, X., Song, Y., & Liu, J. (2015). Neural correlates
of the happy life: The amplitude of spontaneous low frequency
fluctuations predicts subjective well-being. NeuroImage, 107,
136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.033.
Lesher, E. L., & Bergey, K. J. (1998). Bereaved elderly mothers: Changes
in health, functional activities, family cohesion, and psychological
well-being. International Journal of Aging & Human Development,
26(2), 81–90.
Li, X., & Zheng, X. (2014). Adult attachment orientations and subjective
well-being: Emotional intelligence and self-esteem as moderators.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(8),
1257–1265. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.8.1257.
Lin, S., Liu, D., Liu, W., Hui, Q., Cortina, K. S., & You, X. (2018).
Mediating effects of self-concept clarity on the relationship between
passive social network sites use and subjective well-being. Current
Psychology, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0066-6.
Liu, G., Zhang, D., Pan, Y., Hu, T., He, N., Chen, W., & Wang, Z. (2017).
Self-concept clarity and subjective social status as mediators be-
tween psychological suzhi and social anxiety in Chinese adoles-
cents. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 40–44. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.067.
Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Meca, A., Unger, J. B., Romero, A., Gonzales-
Backen, M., Piña-Watson, B., et al. (2016a). Latino parent accultur-
ation stress: Longitudinal effects on family functioning and youth
emotional and behavioral health. Journal of Family Psychology,
30(8), 966–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000223.
Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Meca, A., Unger, J. B., Romero, A., Szapocznik,
J., Piña-Watson, B., Cano, M. Á., Zamboanga, B. L., Baezconde-
Garbanati, L., Des Rosiers, S. E., Soto, D. W., Villamar, J. A., Lizzi,
K. M., Pattarroyo, M., & Schwartz, S. J. (2016b). Longitudinal
effects of Latino parent cultural stress, depressive symptoms, and
family functioning on youth emotional well-being and health risk
behaviors. Family Process, 56(4), 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1111/
famp.12258.
Ma, Q. Z., & Zhang, Z. J. (2020). Meaning in life and parent-child at-
tachment of high school students: The mediation of peer attachment
and time perspective. Psychological Development and Education,
36(2), 168–174.
Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and
ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-
being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(5), 539–551. https://doi.
org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4679.
Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., & Mitchell, J. (2013). The role of hope,
spirituality and religious practice in adolescents’ life satisfaction:
Longitudinal findings. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 251–
261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9329-3.
Merkaš, M., & Brajša-Žganec, A. (2011). Children with different levels
of hope: Are there differences in their self-esteem, life satisfaction,
social support, and family cohesion? Child Indicators Research,
4(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9105-7.
Miller-Smedema, S., Catalano, D., & Ebener, D. J. (2010). The relation-
ship of coping, self-worth, and subjective well-being: A structural
equation model. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 53(3), 131–
142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355209358272.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family environment scale manual.
Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Na, J., Chan, M. Y., Lodi-Smith, J., & Park, D. C. (2018). Social-class
differences in self-concept clarity and their implications for well-
being. Journal of Health Psychology, 23(7), 951–960. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1359105316643597.
Nelson, G. (1984). The relationship between dimensions of classroom
and family environments and the self-concept, satisfaction, and
achievement of grade 7 and 8 students. Journal of Community
Psychology, 12(3), 276–287.
Nie, Q., Teng, Z., Bear, G. G., Guo, C., Liu, Y., & Zhang, D. (2019). Hope
as mediator between teacher–student relationships and life satisfac-
tion among Chinese adolescents: A between-and within-person ef-
fects analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1–17. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10902-018-0052-6.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Hardy, S. A., & Christensen, K. J. (2011).
Adolescent hope as a mediator between parent-child connectedness
and adolescent outcomes. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(6),
853–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610376249.
Pan, Z., Zhang, D., Hu, T., & Pan, Y. (2018). The relationship between
psychological Suzhi and social anxiety among Chinese adolescents:
The mediating role of self-esteem and sense of security. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 12(1), 50–59. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13034-18-0255-y.
Park, N. (2004). The role of subjective well-being in positive youth de-
velopment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 591(1), 25–39.
Richman, S. B., Pond Jr., R. S., Dewall, C. N., Kumashiro, M., Slotter, E.
B., & Luchies, L. B. (2016). An unclear self leads to poor mental
health: Self-concept confusion mediates the association of loneliness
with depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 35(7),
525–550.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strat-
egies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple medi-
ator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.
org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879.
Roman, N. V., Schenck, C., Ryan, J., Brey, F., Henderson, N., Lukelelo,
N., et al. (2015). Relational aspects of family functioning and family
satisfaction with a sample of families in the western cape. Social
WorkMaatskaplike Werk, 51(1), 303–312.
Ryan, R. (2009). Self determination theory and well being. Social
Psychology, 84(822), 848–849.
Santos, S., Crespo, C., Canavarro, M. C., & Kazak, A. E. (2015). Family
rituals and quality of life in children with cancer and their parents:
The role of family cohesion and hope. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 40(7), 664–671. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsv013.
Schnettler, B., Denegri, M., Miranda, H., Sepúlveda, J., Orellana, L.,
Paiva, G., & Grunert, K. G. (2015). Family support and subjective
well-being: An exploratory study of university students in southern
Chile. Social Indicators Research, 122(3), 833–864. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11205-014-0718-3.
Shin, S. H., & Jeong, G. C. (2014). Influence of satisfaction of university
and family cohesion on perceived entrapment: Moderating effects of

resilience and hope. Journal of the Korea Contents Association,
14(10), 350–360. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2014.14.10.350.
Shin, J. Y., Steger, M. F., & Henry, K. L. (2016). Self-concept clarity’s
role in meaning in life among American college students: A latent
growth approach. Self and Identity, 15(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15298868.2015.1111844.
Slotter, E. B., & Walsh, C. M. (2017). All role transitions are not experi-
enced equally: Associations among self-change, emotional reac-
tions, and self-concept clarity. Self and Identity, 16(5), 531–556.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1280528.
Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing Hope.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(3), 355–360. https://doi.
org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01764.x.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory, rainbows of the mind. Psychological
Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275.
Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from
here. New York: Free Press.
Snyder, C. R., Cheavens, J., & Sympson, S. C. (1997). Hope: An indi-
vidual motive for social commerce. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 1(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1089-2699.1.2.107.
Soto, C. J. (2015). Is happiness good for your personality? Concurrent
and prospective relations of the big five with subjective well-being.
Journal of Personality, 83(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/
e578192014-656.
Stinson, D., Logel, C., Holmes, J. G., Wood, J. V., Forest, A. L., Gaucher,
D., et al. (2010). The regulatory function of self-esteem: Testing the
epistemic and acceptance signaling systems. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 99, 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0020310.
Streamer, L., & Seery, M. D. (2015). Who am I? The interactive effect of
early family experiences and self-esteem in predicting self-clarity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 18–21. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j/paid.2014.12.034.
Sulimani-Aidan, Y., Sivan, Y., & Davidson-Arad, B. (2017). Comparison
of hope and the child-parent relationship of at-risk adolescents at
home and in residential care. Children and Youth Services Review,
76, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.03005.
Uruk, A. C., Sayger, T. V., & Cogdal, P. A. (2007). Examining the influ-
ence of family cohesion and adaptability on trauma symptoms and
psychological well-being. Journal of College Student
Psychotherapy, 22(2), 51–63.
Usborne, E., & Taylor, D. M. (2010). The role of cultural identity clarity
for self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and and subjective well-being.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 883–897. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167210372215.
Curr Psychol
Valle, M. F., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2004). Further evaluation of
the children’s hope scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
22(4), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290402200403.
Van Dijk, M. P., Branje, S., Keijsers, L., Hawk, S. T., Hale III, W. W., &
Meeus, W. (2014). Self-concept clarity across adolescence:
Longitudinal associations with open communication with parents
and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
43(11), 1861–1876.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus ex-
trinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at
the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist,
41(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and val-
idation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54(6), 1063–1070.
Wei, M., Liao, K. Y. H., Ku, T. Y., & Shaffer, P. A. (2011). Attachment,
self-compassion, empathy, and subjective well-being among college
students and community adults. Journal of Personality, 79(1), 191–
221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00677.x.
Wong, A. E., Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2016). Intrinsic dynamics of
state self-esteem: The role of self-concept clarity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 100, 167–172.
Wu, J., Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (2010). Self-concept clarity: A longitu-
dinal study of Hong Kong adolescents. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48(3), 277–282.
Yalçın, I., & Malkoç, A. (2015). The relationship between meaning in life
and subjective well-being: Forgiveness and hope as mediators.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(4), 915–929. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10902-014-9540-5.
Yu, X., Zhou, Z., Fan, G., Yu, Y., & Peng, J. (2016). Collective and
individual self-esteem mediate the effect of self-construals on sub-
jective well-being of undergraduate students in China. Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 11(1), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11482-014-9362-y.
Zabriskie, R. B., Aslan, N., & Williamson, M. (2018). Turkish family life:
A study of family leisure, family functioning, and family satisfac-
tion. Journal of Leisure Research, 49(1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00222216.2018.1425049.
Zhao, B., & Sun, Y. (2011). Reliability and validity of Chinese version of
the Children’s Hope scale. Chinese Mental Health Journal (in
Chinese), 25(6), 454–459.
Zheng, L., & Gan, Y. (2018). Influence of early family cohesion on future
orientation. Journal of Individual Differences, 39, 166–173.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.