Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being of Healthy High-School Students

Open access


The objective of this study was to analyse the level of subjective well-being (SWB) through five SWB dimensions and compare it between healthy male and healthy female high school students preferring sedentary leisure time activities. The research sample comprised of 90 male high school students (mean age 16.72 ± 1.33) and 126 female high school students (mean age 16.71 ± 1.36) who preferred sedentary types of leisure time activities with self-reported good health status. A standardized The Bern Subjective Well-Being Questionnaire for Adolescents (BFW) was used as a primary research method. We found significantly higher level of positive SWB dimension (U = 4281, p = 0.002, r = 172) and significantly lower level of negative SWB dimension (U = 2835, p = 0.000, r = 424) in the group of male high school students with self-reported good health status in comparison to female high school students. Parents should be involved in the selection of their children's leisure time activities, so it should not have only the sedentary character but also sport leisure time activities, mainly among young girls.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. BENDÍKOVÁ E. & D. NEMČEK 2016. Life satisfaction of healthy people and people with non-communicable diseases: differences between active and inactive individuals. In: Sport Scienc. 9(suppl. 2) pp. 19-23.

  • 2. BIDDLE S.J. I. PETROLINI & N. PEARSON 2014. Interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviours in young people: a review of reviews. In: British Journal of Sports Medicine. 48(3) pp. 182-186.

  • 3. CHEN B. M. VANSTEENKISTE W. BEYERS L. BOONE E.L. DECI J. VAN DER KAAP-DEEDER . . . J. VERSTUYF 2015. Basic psychological need satisfaction need frustration and need strength across four cultures. In: Motivation and Emotion. 39(2) pp. 216–236.

  • 4. DIENER E. 2000. Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. In: The American Psychologist. 55(1) pp. 34–43.

  • 5. DŽUKA J. 1995. Faktorová analýza modifikovanej verzie Bernského dotazníka subjektívnej pohody (BDP). In: Československá psychologie. 39(6) pp. 512-522. ISSN 1804-6436.

  • 6. GRAEF R. M. CSIKSZENTMIHALYI & S.M. GIANINNO 1983. Measuring intrinsic motivation in people’s everyday lives. In: Leisure Studies. 2(2) pp. 155–168.

  • 7. GROB A. R. LÜTHI F.G. KAISER A. FLAMMER A. MACKINNON & A.J. WEARING 1991. Berner Frageboden zum Wohlbefinden Jugendlicher (BFW). In: Diagnostica. 37(1) pp. 66-75.

  • 8. HEADEY B. R. VEENHOVEN & A. WEARING 1991. Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. In: Social indicators research. 24(1) pp. 81–100.

  • 9. KURKOVÁ P. 2016. Physical activity among older people who are deaf and hard of hearing: perceived barriers and facilitators. In: Physical Activity Review. 4 pp. 72-80.

  • 10. KUYKENDALL L. L. BOEMERMAN & Z. ZHU 2018. The importance of leisure for subjective well-being. In: DIENER E. S. OISHI & L. TAY (eds). Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers Salt Lake City.

  • 11. LA PLACA & A. KNIGHT 2014. Well-being: its influence and local impact on public health. In: Public Health. 128(1) pp. 38-42.

  • 12. LARSON R. R. MANNELL & J. ZUZANEK 1986. Daily well-being of older adults with friends and family. In: Psychology and Aging. 1(2) pp. 117-126.

  • 13. LAYARD R. 2006. Happiness: lessons from a new science. Penguin Oxford.

  • 14. MOURATIDIS A. M. VANSTEENKISTE G. SIDERIDIS & W. LENS 2011. Vitality and interest–enjoyment as a function of class-to-class variation in need-supportive teaching and pupils’ autonomous motivation. In: Journal of Educational Psychology. 103(2) pp. 353-366.

  • 15. NEMČEK D. 2016a. Life satisfaction of people with disabilities: a comparison between active and sedentary individuals. In: Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 16(2) pp. 1084-1088.

  • 16. NEMČEK D. 2016b. Quality of life of people with disabilities: differences in satisfaction with indicators and domains between active and inactive individuals. In: Physical Activity Review. 4 pp. 62-71.

  • 17. NEMČEK D. 2016c. Quality of life of people with disabilities from sport participation point of view. In: Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae. 56(2) pp. 77-92.

  • 18. NEMČEK D. 2017a. Self-esteem analyses in people who are deaf or hard of hearing: a comparison between active and inactive individuals. In: Physical Activity Review5 pp. 95-104.

  • 19. NEMČEK D. 2017b. Self-esteem in people with physical disabilities: Differences between active and inactive individuals. In: Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae. 57(1) p. 34-47.

  • 20. NEW ECONOMICS FOUNDATION 2018. National accounts of well-being: bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet. New Economics Foundation Publishing. [online]. Dostupné z:

  • 21. NORMAN G.J. B.A. SCHMID J.F. SALLIS K.J. CALFAS & K. PATRICK 2005. Psychosocial and environmental correlates of adolescent sedentary behaviors. In: Pediatrics. 116(4) pp. 908-16.

  • 22. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION (OECD) 2013. How’s life? 2013: measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing [online]. Dostupné z:

  • 23. PAČESOVÁ P. 2019. Vybrané psychologické aspekty športovania adolescentov a adolescentiek. Bratislava: Slovenská vedecká spoločnosť pre telesnú výchovu a šport. ISBN 978-80-8907-78-2.

  • 24. PAČESOVÁ P. P. ŠMELA & B. ANTALA 2019. Male's level of personal well-being and anxiety trait regarding a sport activity level. In: Sport Mont Journal. 17(2) pp. 59-62.

  • 25. PAČESOVÁ P. P. ŠMELA & S. KRAČEK 2019. Personal well-being as part of the quality of life: Is there a difference in the personal well-being of women and men with higher level of anxiety trait regarding their sport activity? In: Physical Activity Review. 7 pp. 201-208.

  • 26. PAČESOVÁ P. P. ŠMELA S. KRAČEK & L. PLEVKOVÁ 2018. Women’s Well-Being State and Trait Anxiety Regarding their Sport Activity. In: Sport Mont Journal. 16(2) pp. 33-38.

  • 27. PARSONS H. S.H. MACKENZIE S. FILEP & E. BRYMER 2019. Subjective Well-being and Leisure. W. LEAL FILHO et al. (eds.). Good Health and Well-Being Springer: Nature Switzerland AG.

  • 28. PETT M.A. 1997. Nonparametric statistics for health care research: Statistics for small samples and unusual distributions. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

  • 29. RYAN R.M. & E.L. DECI 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation social development and well-being. In: American Psychologist. 55(1) pp. 68-78.

  • 30. SEDENTARY BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH NETWORK 2012. Letter to the Editor: standardized use of the terms ‘sedentary’ and ‘sedentary behaviours’. In: Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism. 37(3) pp. 540-2.

  • 31. STENLING A. & S. TAFVELIN 2014. Transformational leadership and well-being in sports: the mediating role of need satisfaction. In: Journal of Applied Sport Psychology26(2) pp. 182–196.

  • 32. VAN DEN BROECK A. M. VANSTEENKISTE H. DE WITTE B. SOENENS & W. LENS 2010. Capturing autonomy competence and relatedness at work: construction and initial validation of the Work-Related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale. In: Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. 83 pp. 981-1002.

  • 33. VAN SLUIJS E.M.F. A. PAGE Y. OMMUNDSEN & S.J. GRIFFIN 2008. Behavioural and social correlates of sedentary time in young people. In: British Journal of Sports Medicine. 44(10) pp. 747-755.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 31 31 10
PDF Downloads 42 42 9