Published
2026-01-15
Section
Research Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Masood Badri, Mugheer Alkhaili, Hamad Aldhaheri, Guang Yang, Muna Albahar, Asma Al Rashdi, Maryam Alzaabi, Saad Yaaqeib, Alanoud Alsawai

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.
Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.
Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.
This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.
By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:
- Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
- Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
- Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
- Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

Copyright Statement
1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.
2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.
3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.
About Licence
Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.
This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.
Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.
How to Cite
The Age-Well-Being Paradox in the Public Sector: A Generational Analysis of Life Satisfaction Among Government Employees in Abu Dhabi
Masood Badri
Professor United Arab Emirates University, and Advisor to the Chairman (DCD), Department of Community Development (DCD) (PO Box 30039) , Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Mugheer Alkhaili
Department of Community Development, Chairman, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Hamad Aldhaheri
Department of Community Development, Vice Chairman, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Guang Yang
Department of Community Development, Chief Research Specialist, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Muna Albahar
Professor- United Arab Emirates University, Department of Community Development, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Asma Alrashdi
Department of Community Development, Chief Research Specialist, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Maryam Alzaabi
Department of Community Development, Chief Research Specialist, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Saad Yaaqeib
Associate Professor – Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Alanoud Alsawai
University of Bath, Department of Public Policy and Research. UK.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i1.4004
Keywords: Life satisfaction; well-being determinants; career stages; government employees; Abu Dhabi
Abstract
Purpose - This study examines how well-being determinants shape life satisfaction across career stages among government employees in Abu Dhabi. By analysing separate regression models for different age groups, the study identifies shifts in key predictors over time.
Methods - Using data from 51,638 government employees, multiple regression analysis assessed the impact of economic stability, job experiences, social relationships, and health factors on life satisfaction. The analysis was conducted separately for each age category.
Results - Findings reveal age-specific shifts in well-being determinants. Income and job satisfaction are key in early career stages, while work-life balance and family satisfaction become more relevant in mid-career. Later stages emphasize subjective health, emotional well-being, and social ties, with job-related factors declining in significance. The predictive power of the model increases with age, suggesting greater stability in well-being determinants over time.
Conclusions and implications - The study calls for age-targeted workplace policies. Early-career employees benefit from financial and career support, mid-career workers from work-life balance initiatives, and older employees from retirement planning and health programs. Life satisfaction evolves with career stages, requiring tailored well-being strategies. Policymakers and organizations can enhance workforce well-being by addressing the changing priorities of employees over time.
Limitations & Future Research - The cross-sectional nature of the study limits causal inference, as differences observed between age groups may reflect cohort effects rather than true age-related changes. For instance, older employees may report higher life satisfaction not because of aging per se but due to generational differences in work values, economic security, or social expectations. Future longitudinal research is therefore needed to disentangle age, period, and cohort influences on well-being and to trace how life satisfaction evolves as individuals progress through their careers.
References
[1]. 1.Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34
[2]. 2.Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786971
[3]. 3.Blanchflower, D. G. (2021). Is happiness U-shaped everywhere? Age and subjective well-being in 145 countries. Journal of Population Economics, 34, 575–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00797-z
[4]. 4.Carstensen, L. L., Turan, B., Scheibe, S., Ram, N., Ersner-Hershfield, H., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2011). Emotional experience improves with age: Evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling. Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021285
[5]. 5.Kang, H., & Kim, H. (2022). Ageism and psychological well-being among older adults: A systematic review. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/23337214221087023
[6]. 6.Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioural sciences. Cambridge University Press.
[7]. 7.Hansen, T., & Blekesaune, M. (2022). The age and well-being “paradox”: A longitudinal and multidimensional reconsideration. European Journal of Ageing, 19(4), 1277–1286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-022-00709-y
[8]. 8.De Neve, J. E., & Oswald, A. J. (2012). Estimating the influence of life satisfaction and positive affect on later income using sibling fixed effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(49), 19953–19958. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211437109
[9]. 9.Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2014). Psychological research on retirement. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115131
[10]. 10.Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0
[11]. 11.Bajrami, L. (2024). Generation Z’s perspective on work-life balance: Case of Kosovo [Master’s thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology]. RIT Scholar Works. https://repository.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12975&context=theses
[12]. 12.Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.1.95
[13]. 13.Soren, A., & Ryff, C. D. (2023). Meaningful work, well-being, and health: Enacting a eudaimonic vision. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(16), 6570. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20166570
[14]. 14.Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379625
[15]. 15.Hasan, T., Jawaad, M., & Butt, I. (2021). The influence of person–job fit, work–life balance, and work conditions on organizational commitment: Investigating the mediation of job satisfaction in the private sector of the emerging market. Sustainability, 13(12), 6622. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126622
[16]. 16.Badri, M., Alkhaili, M., Aldhaheri, H., Yang, G., & Yaaqeib, S. (2024). Exploring life satisfaction determinants among older adults with disabilities in Abu Dhabi: A hierarchical regression approach. International Journal of Geriatrics and Gerontology, 8, 186. https://doi.org/10.29011/2577-0748.100086
[17]. 17.Choi, Y. K., Joshanloo, M., Lee, J. H., Lee, H. S., Lee, H. P., & Song, J. (2023). Understanding key predictors of life satisfaction in a nationally representative sample of Koreans. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(18), 6745. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20186745
[18]. 18.Ryu, S., & Fan, L. (2023). The relationship between financial worries and psychological distress among U.S. adults. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 44(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-022-09820-9
[19]. 19.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
[20]. 20.Ruggeri, K., Garcia-Garzon, E., Maguire, Á., Matz, S., & Huppert, F. A. (2020). Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: A multidimensional analysis of 21 countries. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18, 192. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01423-y
[21]. 21.Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
[22]. 22.Zhenjing, G., Chupradit, S., Ku, K. Y., Nassani, A. A., & Haffar, M. (2022). Impact of employees' workplace environment on employees' performance: A multi-mediation model. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 890400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.890400
[23]. 23.Badri, M. A., Alkhaili, M., Aldhaheri, H., Yang, G., Albahar, M., & Alrashdi, A. (2022). Exploring the reciprocal relationships between happiness and life satisfaction of working adults: Evidence from Abu Dhabi. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3575. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063575
[24]. 24.Kaan Namal, M., Tufan, C., Sani Mert, I., & Arun, K. (2024). Decent work, employee satisfaction, and the mediating role of social courage in reducing turnover. SAGE Open, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241242060
[25]. 25.Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(4), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6
[26]. 26.Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539
[27]. 27.Cohen, C., Pignata, S., Bezak, E., Tie, M., & Childs, J. (2023). Workplace interventions to improve well-being and reduce burnout for nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 13(6), e071203. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203
[28]. 28.Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435–1446. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1522
[29]. 29.Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1_suppl), S54–S66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383501
[30]. 30.Carstensen, L. L. (1999). Selective social interaction in adulthood: The socioemotional selectivity theory. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165
[31]. 31.Carstensen, L. L. (2021). Socioemotional selectivity theory: The role of perceived endings in human motivation. The Gerontologist, 61(8), 1188–1196. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab116






