Longitudinal Associations Between Life Events, Hope, Life Satisfaction, Happiness, and Depressive Symptoms

Although wellbeing remains moderately stable over long periods of time (Buecker et al., 2023; Ehrhardt et al., 2000; Fujita & Diener, 2005; Hudson et al., 2017; Pavot & Diener, 1993; Schimmack & Oishi, 2005), contextual factors such as significant life events have been found to induce short-term fluctuations in subjective wellbeing (Lucas & Donnellan, 2007; Luhmann et al., 2012). Subjective wellbeing is a multi-dimensional construct that comprises three distinct, yet related, dimensions of satisfaction with life, positive affect, and negative affect (Diener, 1984; Ryan & Deci, 2001). The cognitive aspect of subjective wellbeing refers to satisfaction with life, which is characterised as a judgment process of events, while affective dimensions of subjective wellbeing refer to positive and negative affect which are characterised as experiences of emotional and mood states (Diener, 1984). Individuals with high subjective wellbeing are frequently characterised as those who experience more positive affect and satisfaction with life, and low negative affect (Diener, 1984).

Earlier research has documented substantial empirical evidence establishing the role of subjective wellbeing in predicting a variety of positive psychosocial and physical health outcomes, such as extended longevity and better psychological functioning (Diener & Chan, 2011; Yildirim, 2019). Happy individuals reported better outcomes across various life domains, including better social relationships with others, physical health, adaptive coping strategies, involvement in prosocial behaviours in social contexts, creativity, and problem-solving skills (Arslan, 2025; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Yıldırım, 2021; Yıldırım & Maltby, 2021). Furthermore, psychological resources like hope were found to increase subjective wellbeing, which in turn leads to a better ability to deal with stressful events, including an increased recovery process for people who experience stressful life events and mental health challenges (Werner, 2012). Moreover, higher subjective wellbeing was found to reduce symptoms of depression (de Vasconcelos et al., 2020) and traumatic situations (Veronese et al., 2017). This evidence provides a premise for us to examine the association of life events with subjective wellbeing, depressive symptoms, and other psychological resources such as hope.

Hope refers to one’s perceived capacity and ability to attain a desired goal with a healthy motivational state (Snyder, 2000). Snyder’s hope theory (Snyder et al., 1991) posits that the motivational state is provided by a sense of pathways and agency, which are two interrelated, yet distinct, constructs. While pathways represent a person’s perceived ability and skills to generate routes or paths toward attaining a desired goal, agency refers to a person’s motivation to commence or retain the pathways toward the predetermined goals. Hope is also characterised as an effective process of psychological resources that support people to be psychologically resilient and to manage adversities effectively (Fredrickson et al., 2003). Individuals who have high levels of hope are usually characterized by optimistic outlooks and positive attitudes toward the future (Alarcon et al., 2013; Gallagher et al., 2020). Hopeful individuals expect positive outcomes by holding optimistic attitudes of mind, even in the face of adversity (Yıldırım & Güler, 2021).

Hope is a stable psychological trait that can protect people psychologically against stressful events (Gallagher et al., 2021; Long et al., 2020; Valle et al., 2006). Research has indicated that hope is positively associated with satisfaction with life and acts as a buffer against the effects of unpleasant and stressful life events (Yıldırım & Arslan, 2020). Hope is related to better quality of life, health outcomes, and daily functioning (Belen et al., 2020; Luthans et al., 2010) and lower symptoms of depression (Waynor et al., 2012). Additionally, a high level of hope is linked with greater levels of satisfaction with life and positive affect, and a lesser level of negative affect (Muyan-Yılık, & Demir, 2019). Hopeful individuals show better determination in pursuing their goals, which in turn results in better subjective wellbeing (Snyder, 2000) and less illbeing, including depression and anxiety (Arnau et al., 2007). Furthermore, higher levels of hope may lead to better outcomes in the face of serious health conditions such as cancer (Novakov & Popovic-Petrovic, 2017; Rajandram et al., 2011) and life-threatening situations (Gallagher et al., 2020).

Although hope is often studied as a moderator buffering the impact of stressors (e.g., Slezackova et al., 2024; Yao et al., 2023), this study examines it as a mediator to uncover the psychological processes through which life events influence mental health outcomes. Specifically, we focus on how negative and positive life events shape hope levels over time, which in turn affect life satisfaction, happiness, and depressive symptoms. Snyder’s (2002) hope approach posits that hope is not merely a passive buffer but an active motivational system through which individuals reinterpret past experiences to cultivate future-oriented pathways. By modelling hope as a mediator, we aim to reveal its dynamic role in translating life events into changes in wellbeing. Therefore, the current research aims to gain a deeper understanding of the role that hope plays in mediating the relationship between depression and life events.

We used four waves of data from the International Wellbeing Study (explained below and at www.wellbeingstudy.com) to examine the relationships between life events and depression through mediating roles of hope, satisfaction with life, and subjective happiness. To that end, we hypothesized that:

Participants in the current study included 851 individuals from the International Wellbeing Study (IWS: www.wellbeingstudy.com). These individuals came from 48 countries and completed each of five consecutive waves of the IWB from 2009 to 2013; each wave was collected 3 months apart over one year. We included data from life events Time 1 (negative & positive), hope Time 2, satisfaction with life Time 3, subjective happiness Time 3, and depressive symptoms Time 4. Participants were predominantly female (84%) with an average age of 37.3 (SD = 14.9) and the majority completed the survey in English (68%): the next largest cohorts were Hungarian (12%), Slovenian (8%), Czech (4%), Spanish (3%), with the remainder under 2% (Russian, German, Portuguese, Slovak, French, Norwegian, Finish, Chines, Italian, Dutch).

The IWS survey battery consisted of 19 questionnaires (217 items in total) and was completed in 29 min on average. The current study uses six of the 19 questionnaires from the IWS; each of these six are described below. A full list of the IWS survey battery and a copy of the survey questions in each language is available on the IWS website (or from the authors). Regarding translations, measures were translated by a native speaker of that language who had a degree in psychology or higher (most translators were Masters or doctoral students in psychology familiar with psychometrics). Upon translation, scales were cross-checked by an independent second translator and areas of disagreement identified and resolved between the two translators. Where translations were already available in the literature of the IWS scales, these were used. Full sampling and methodological details can be found elsewhere (Disabato et al. 2017; Sheldon et al., 2015).

The following measures were used for analysis: (1) Positive Events Scale, Negative Events Scale, (2) Adult Hope Scale, (3) ‘present life satisfaction’ subscale of the Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale, (4) Subjective Happiness Scale, and (5) Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. These measures are now briefly described, and as indicated below, and all measures had adequate reliability. Descriptive statistics for the main study variables are reported in Table 1 in the results section.

We utilized a two-step process to examine the longitudinal associations between the variables in the current study. Descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation) and correlation analysis were established before testing the proposed mediation models. Skewness and kurtosis values were used to interpret the assumption of normality for the measures in the study using their decision points (the scores < |2| = acceptable; George & Mallery, 2020) and are reported below in Table 1. Pearson correlation analysis was then utilized to evaluate relationships between life events T1 (negative & positive), hope T2, satisfaction with life T3, subjective happiness T3, and depressive symptoms T4, with traditional effect sizes: 0.10-0.29 = small, 0.30-0.49 = moderate, and ≥ 0.50 = large (Cohen, 1988).

We secondly conducted a multiple mediation model to examine whether hope, satisfaction with life, and subjective happiness mediated the association of both positive and negative life events with depressive symptoms. The PROCESS macro v4.0 (Model 81) was utilized to examine the effect of mediators in the association between life events and depressive symptom (Hayes, 2018). We tested the models separately to better isolate and interpret the unique effects of each type of life event on the outcomes. Furthermore, the bootstrap approach with 5000 resamples (the 95% confidence intervals) was established to interpret the significance of indirect effects (Hayes, 2018; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). We also interpreted the R² value for the mediation models in terms of effect sizes, with 0.01 indicating a small effect, 0.09 representing a medium effect, and 0.26 reflecting a large effect (Wall Emerson, 2023). All study analyses were carried out using SPSS v25 for Windows.

Descriptive statistics revealed that skewness and kurtosis values ranged from − 0.87 to 1.59 (skewness and kurtosis scores < |2|), indicating that the measures of the study were relatively normally distributed, as displayed in Table 1 below.

Additionally, the findings of the correlation analysis (Table 2 below) indicated that negative life events had significant and negative correlations with hope, subjective happiness, and satisfaction with life. Negative life events were also significantly positively correlated with depressive symptoms. Positive life events showed a medium-strength association with hope (r = 0.29), approximately double the magnitude of negative life events’ association with hope (r = −0.14).

There were significant and positive correlations between hope, subjective happiness, and satisfaction with life. Hope demonstrated particularly strong relationships with wellbeing outcomes (ranging from r =  0.49–0.60), suggesting it may be a more robust predictor of positive functioning than life events themselves. Moreover, positive life events had significant and positive associations with hope, subjective happiness, and satisfaction with life. There was a significant and negative correlation between positive life events and depressive symptoms. Specifically, negative life events demonstrated a stronger association with depressive symptoms (r = 0.26) than positive life events (r = − 0.16).

We performed a multi-mediation model to examine the proposed models using PROCESS macro v4.0 (Model 81). We first tested whether negative life events longitudinally predicted depressive symptoms through hope, satisfaction with life, and subjective happiness. Findings from the analyses showed that negative life events T1 significantly and negatively predicted hope T2 (β = –0.14, p < 0.001), satisfaction with life T3 (β= –0.16, p < 0.001), and subjective happiness T3 (β = –0.14, p < 0.001). Satisfaction with life T3 (β = 0.47, p < 0.001) and subjective happiness T3 (β = 0.54, p < 0.001) were also significantly predicted by hope. Negative life events explained 2% of the variance in hope, negative life events and hope accounted for 27% of the variance in satisfaction with life and 33% of the variance in subjective happiness, as seen in Table 3.

These results indicate that hope longitudinally mediates the association of negative life events with subjective happiness and satisfaction with life. Further, depressive symptoms T4 were significantly predicted by negative life events T1 (β = 0.16, p < 0.001), hope T2 (β= –0.14, p < 0.001), satisfaction with life T3 (β= –0.18, p < 0.001), and subjective happiness T3 (β= –0.23, p < 0.001); they explained 28% of the variance in depressive symptoms, as seen in Table 3; Fig. 1. Overall, negative life events showed statistically significant effects on mediators, accounting for small variance in hope. In contrast, hope demonstrated substantially larger effects on wellbeing outcomes, with the mediation model explaining considerable variance in life satisfaction and subjective happiness. The total indirect effect (β = 0.11, 95% CI [0.08, 0.14]) suggests that while each individual pathway may be small in magnitude, their cumulative impact represents a clinically meaningful mechanism through which negative life events influence depressive symptoms. This demonstrates how multiple pathways can collectively create significant mediation.

We then tested whether positive life events longitudinally predicted depressive symptoms through hope, satisfaction with life, and subjective happiness. The results of the study indicated that positive life events T1 significantly and positively predicted hope T2 (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), satisfaction with life T3 (β = 0.11, p < 0.001), and subjective happiness T3 (β = 0.10, p < 0.001). Satisfaction with life T3 (β = 0.46, p < 0.001) and subjective happiness T3 (β = 0.53, p < 0.001) were also significantly predicted by hope. Positive life events explained 8% of the variance in hope, positive life events and hope accounted for 32% of the variance in satisfaction with life and 25% of the variance in subjective happiness, as seen in Table 4; Fig. 2.

The model results suggest that hope longitudinally mediates the relationship of positive life events with subjective happiness and satisfaction with life. In addition, depressive symptoms T4 were not significantly predicted by positive life events T1 (β= –0.01, p =.727) yet hope T2 (β= –0.14, p < 0.001), satisfaction with life T3 (β= –0.20, p < 0.001), and subjective happiness T3 (β= –0.24, p < 0.001) significantly predicted depressive symptoms. They together explained 25% of the variance in depressive symptoms, as seen in Table 4 above. Positive life events longitudinally impact depressive symptoms through hope, subjective happiness, and satisfaction with life among adults, as shown in Table 5 below.

Overall, positive life events demonstrated statistically significant effects on mediators, accounting for moderate variance in hope. In contrast to negative events, hope served as a stronger conduit for positive experiences, with the mediation model explaining substantial variance in life satisfaction and subjective happiness. The total indirect effect (β = − 0.15, 95% CI [-0.19, − 0.11]) reveals that while individual pathways were modest, their collective impact represents a clinically significant mechanism by which positive events reduce depressive symptoms - a pattern entirely mediated through hope given the non-significant direct path. This differential mediation highlights hope’s unique role as an accelerator of positive experiences’ mental health benefits.

The outcomes of the mediation model support the fourth hypothesis made in the study. Findings revealed that hope mediated the relationship between both positive and negative life events and subjective wellbeing. These findings suggest that the level of subjective happiness and life satisfaction individuals experience following positive or negative life events can be predicted indirectly through their levels of hope. Findings are consistent with previous research on the mediating role of hope (Rustøen et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2016) and supports the theoretical assumption that hope may be a personal resource and protective factor for significant life events that occur in individuals’ lives. These findings have practical implications for clinicians and practitioners to utilise programs and interventions that increase hope (e.g., HOPE-IN - Rustøen et al., 2011; Mindfulness Hope Therapy - Thornton et al., 2014). Preventative interventions focusing on the enhancement of hope have shown that it is an effective way to mitigate the negative effects of psychological distress and stressors, and can improve psychotherapy outcomes (Kwon et al., 2015). Although much of the literature on hope is concerned with improving negative wellbeing outcomes such as psychological distress and depression, the findings of the current study suggest that hope-based interventions could enhance personal strengths and overall life functioning as well (Kwon et al., 2015).

The final hypothesis which predicted that measures of subjective wellbeing (i.e., subjective happiness & satisfaction with life) would mediate the relationship between significant life events and depressive symptoms, as well as the relationship between hope and depressive symptoms, was supported. It is well known that significant life events have a considerable impact on mental health and depression. As expected, negative life events can have detrimental impacts on an individuals’ physical health, mental health, and wellbeing (Denissen et al., 2019; Faust et al., 2021; Frijters et al., 2023; Gungor et al., 2021; Ji et al., 2021), whereas positive life events seem to have the opposite effect and can protect against future depressive symptoms (Castanho et al., 2021; Panaite et al., 2021). Similarly, hope has been found to have a direct negative effect on depression within the literature (Smithson et al., 2022; Visser et al., 2012). The mediating mechanisms found within this study build upon these findings and suggest that higher levels of subjective happiness and life satisfaction may act as additional psychological resources for individuals to draw upon during periods of positive and negative changes within their lives. Thus, subjective wellbeing and life satisfaction can act as both protective factors against adverse events and psychological distress, and also promoting factors for wellbeing and mental health (Liu et al., 2023).

The first hypothesis regarding both the direct and indirect effect of negative life events on depressive symptoms was supported, and findings align with previous research examining life events as a predictor of life satisfaction and wellbeing. Consistent with past work (Gungor et al., 2021; Ji et al., 2021; Lan et al., 2019; Marum et al., 2013), the current study found that negative life events negatively predicted future wellbeing. Specifically, negative life events were found to be a strong predictor of future depressive symptoms and decreased subjective happiness, life satisfaction, and hope. These findings support the notion that negative life events such as divorce, unemployment, and the onset of disability require individuals to adjust daily lives, and thus, pose a significant risk factor for depression (Kendler et al., 1999; Lucas, 2005).

The current study also found evidence to suggest that the nature of the major life events impact wellbeing differently. Negative life events were correlated with higher levels of depressive symptoms to a greater extent (0.26) than positive life events were correlated with reduced depressive symptoms (-0.16), which aligns with findings from Marum et al. (2013). This may be because the magnitude of the initial hedonic reaction and rate of adaptation to the life events varies between positive and negative life events (Luhmann et al., 2012). Furthermore, although positive life events were found to predict future hope, life satisfaction and subjective happiness in the current study, no direct relationship was found with depressive symptoms. Instead, positive life events were indirectly associated with depressive symptoms through hope, subjective happiness, and satisfaction with life. While these findings differed from previous work by Castanho et al. (2021) and Panaite et al. (2021) who found positive life events to directly result in lower depressive mood and better long-term wellbeing outcomes among those with depression, they still suggest that positive life events may act as a buffer for depressive symptoms in the long term, such that positive life events may reduce depressive symptoms through protective factors including hope, subjective happiness, and satisfaction with life. Thus, these findings have practical implications in terms of providing an avenue to develop future therapies and strategies that alleviate the effect of depressive symptoms through interventions that increase hope (see Hernandez & Overholser, 2021 for hope-based interventions review).

Next, as hypothesised, a direct relationship was found where hope predicted increased future satisfaction with life and subjective wellbeing and decreased depressive symptoms. These findings align with previous literature on hope (Gallagher et al., 2021; Long et al., 2020; Yıldırım & Arslan, 2022). For instance, hope has been found to moderate the effects of negative life events on depressive symptoms (Visser et al., 2012). Furthermore, mothers with chronic physical conditions exhibited less distress when they had higher levels of hope than those who had low levels of hope (Horton & Wallander, 2001). Hope also acted as a moderator between rumination and suicidal ideation (Tucker et al., 2013), as well as weakening the relationship between avoidant coping and psychological distress (Glass et al., 2009). Overall, hope has consistently been found to reduce the negative effect of stress for individuals. This may be because of the mechanisms outlined in hope theory (Snyder et al., 1991; Visser et al., 2012). Maintaining hope during negative life events and times of stress may promote the perception that such negative events or situations may be challenges to be overcome (i.e., agency; Snyder et al., 1991). As a result, there may be greater motivation and self-confidence to address such stressors and the ability to visualise an avenue to goal achievement (i.e., pathways; Snyder et al., 1991). This in turn may then reduce the distress that is experienced due to negative life events and thereby decrease depressive symptoms.

Supporting the third hypothesis, subjective wellbeing measured through satisfaction with life and subjective happiness were also found to predict depressive symptoms in the current study. Specifically higher levels of subjective happiness and satisfaction with life resulted in lower depressive symptoms at Time 4. These findings align with past research as there is a clear and consistent relationship between subjective wellbeing and depression within the literature (Freire & Ferreira, 2020; Milić et al., 2019; Pompili et al., 2015; Wood & Joseph, 2010). This may be because happier individuals have different cognitive processes in how they respond to negative life events, such that they perceive and interpret life events in more positive ways than unhappy individuals (Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998). Happier individuals therefore respond to negative life events in a more positive and adaptive manner, thereby leading to lower psychological distress and higher life satisfaction (Pompili et al., 2015). These findings imply that subjective happiness and life satisfaction may have a protective role on depressive symptoms. Thus, developing novel happiness-focused mental health approaches towards the prevention and treatment of depression may reduce the psychological distress individuals feel following negative life events (Seo et al., 2018).

There are several limitations within the present study. First, findings regarding negative and positive life events were asked retrospectively which may result in recall bias, as participants in the current study were asked to recall significant life events that occurred to them in the past three months. It is possible that having participants answer questions regarding past events, particularly negative events, may cause individuals to misremember or misrepresent these events and the effect it had on their wellbeing. Thus, this could mean that biases may be present in the findings of this study. However, the longitudinal design and the multiple waves of measurement in the current study is a strength of the study design, and may somewhat reduce the effect of the recall bias. Also, although the inclusion of participants from diverse countries is a notable strength of this study, it also raises the potential issue of measurement invariance across different countries or cultural contexts. This remains a methodological consideration that future research should address to ensure cross-cultural comparability.

Second, while the sample size for the current study was quite large, it was predominantly drawn from Western nations that were largely Caucasian. Furthermore, participants seemed to be middle to upper class as the study required access to an online computer and the ability to complete a survey several times over the year. Additionally, approximately 80% of the sample were female. Thus, it is unknown whether findings from the study can be generalized to non-Western nations, meaning that further research on the effect of life events on wellbeing and illbeing in diverse samples is needed to corroborate findings.

Future research should also be designed to help draw more definitive conclusions about the causal relationship between significant life events, hope, subjective wellbeing, and depression. Developing and implementing hope-centred interventions to support individuals who have experienced negative life events to improve their wellbeing and mental health would be the next logical step from this study, and would be a way to practically apply the current study findings in practice. Furthermore, a diary study that examined the more immediate effect of negative and positive life events on mental health and the role of hope and subjective wellbeing on this relationship could help to corroborate the findings of the current study by limiting the effect of recall bias on findings.