Subjective Well-being

From Wikiprogress.org

About

Many definitions of well-being and child well-being exist. In a broad sense, well-being refers to the quality of people's lives. Two of the most common ways to measure well-being are through the use of available social indicators, objective measures, such as income, poverty, infants mortality rates or educational attainment and the use of subjective social indicators. Subjective measures of well-being reflect what people say about their lives. Conventionally, the quality of life has been measured indirectly, using proxies. Subjective indicators are based on individuals self-reports on whether they feel happy, satisfied, content and fulfilled in their day-to-day lives. If applied and interpreted carefully, they can play an important role in complementing quality of life measures based on objective proxies. Subjective indicators provide the kind of direct measure of outcomes that is increasingly seen as a desirable way to evaluate and determine policy.^[1]

According to Ed Diener, an American psychologist, subjective well-being is multidimensional and includes positive and negative emotions (e.g. the frequency, duration and intensity of joy, pleasure, happiness but also anger, guilt, fear, depression, sadness), the global life satisfcation but also satisfaction with different aspects of one's life (partnership, income, friends).^[2] 

Definition

No universal definition of (subjective) well-being exists. However, some of the most well-known researchers in the field offer the following definition:

"Well-being, which we define as people's positive evaluations of their lives, includes positive emotions, engagement, satisfaction and meaning." (Diener and Seligman, 2004).^[3]

"Subjective well-being is a broad category of phenomena that includes people's emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfaction. Each of the specific constructs need to be understood in their own rights, yet the components often correlate substantially [...]."  (Diener, Suh, Luca and Smith, 1999) ^[4]

Kahnemann et Riis (2005) consider subjective well-being as being a hybrid concept with two components, which can be labeled "experienced well-being" and "evaluated well-being". Both components are subjective and refer to a time of reference. The first component is the time series data on momentary affective states. The second component includes global subjective evaluations of one's life. In many instances, these two components can be expected to be highly correlated with each other. However, they are not always. The determinants and consequences of happiness are often treated as unitary but they should be measured separately. ^[5]

Why does subjective well-being matter?

In general, people's own perspectives of the quality of their lives can play an important part in building up a picture of the well-being of the population. They are complementary to social indicators with the advantage of tapping into aspects of life difficult to measure by a social indicator based approach.

In particular, one can argue that subjective well-being and its measurement matters for the following reasons:

First, it can be argued that the subjective well-being of the population, and of specific sub-groups and individuals within it, should be a fundamental concern of any society. Economic prosperity does have a link with well-being, but alternative measures of progress are needed to capture why, from some point on, increases in wealth are not matched by increasing subjective well-being. Furthermore, there are substantial variations in average subjective well-being between nations^[6] that can be explored.

Second, the study of subjective well-being can be useful in illuminating the aspects and factors that matter in people's lives. Some important aspects, such as the importance of family relationships, the quality of relationships with friends and a sense of autonomy or self-control over one's life cannot be measured satisfactorily through social indicators.

Third, there is evidence that low subjective well-being can be a precursor to other issues and problems in people's lives.^[7]

Some policy makers argue that subjective well-being cannot be influenced by changes in policy.^[8]

Arguments against measuring subjective well-being

It has been argued that subjective well-being is not something that can be influenced by changes in policy.^[9] However, subjective well-being can identify factors that are typically important in the lives of people and create knowledge on the extent and ways in which low subjective well-being can lead to further negative outcomes.^[10] It is yet too early to say if there is a role for public policy in increasing subjective well-being and what that role might be.

Use of subjective indicators

• Subjective indicators can give an overall picture of how a population or a group within the population are faring, as for example in relation to socioeconomic events (recession, ...).
• Subjective indicators can be used to highlight groups and individuals experiencing low well-being. This in turn, can inform decisions about service delivery and priorities.
• Subjective indicators could be used to evaluate the impact of policy or service-level decisions.^[11]

Paul Dolan, Richard Layard and Robert Metcalfe (2011) recommend the choice of one of the three borad types of subjective well-being measures (SWB) in accordance with the policy purpose. In particular, they recommend a routine collection of columns 1 and 2 and that at least column 1 is collected in all government surveys. Policy appraisal needs to include more detailed measures.

Figure replicated from Dolan, Layard, Metcalfe (2011), Measuring Subjective Wellbeing for Public Policy: Recommendations on Measures, p.3. ^[12]

Important results from subjective well-being research

Subjective well-being and comparisons

People's satisfaction with their lives or specific aspects of it, such as income, depend on how it compares to sum nor. Sum norm depends on two things: what other people get, and what you are used yourself to getting. We will thus never by satisfied because there is always someone who earns more, has nicer kids or a bigger car. Such a race for status have in some instances even negative effects on society or the environment (externalities). ^[13]

Subjective well-being and adaptation

The research on subjective well-being encountered the puzzle that most life circumstances have a relatively small and short-lived effects on reported life satisfaction. An extreme example, which is also one of the often-cited observations in the literature, is that long-term paraplegics do not report themselves as very unhappy,nor do lottery winners report themselves as particularly happy ^[14]. Some changes in circumstances have more than transitory effects: for example, the effects of unemployment and chronic pain do not seem to attenuate fully with time.^[15]

Subjective well-being and externally induced preferences

Our preferences are not formed independently from our environment. Quite the contrary because multidisciplinary research found that advertisements and other external influences creates new desires and needs. Such new unsatisfied needs make people feel poorer and even less unsatisfied.^[16]

Dimensions of subjective well-being

The European Social Survey in 2006 and the new economics foundation used the following questions in their questionnaires assessing dimensions of well-being.

This table has been replicated from the "A guide to measuring children's well-being".^[17]

Measuring subjective well-being

Measuring subjective well-being is possible through two different approaches that might be combined. On the one hand, overall life satisfaction or happiness are measured to provide an indication of the overall subjective well-being. Overall well-being is typically measured through a number of questions or statements, where survey participants indicate their agreement on a point scale. Typical statements include: 'My life is going well', 'I wish I had a different kind of life', 'I have what I want in life' .^[18] On the other hand, a domain-based approach to well-being can be taken.Here, the subjective well-being is thought of in relation to particular aspects or domains of life - such as satisfaction with school, work or personal relationships. The underlying idea of this domain-based approach to well-being is that people make judgments on their satisfcation with various aspects of their lives, and  that their overall well-being consists of a summary of these judgements. Domain-specific results of subjective satisfaction allow exploring the extent to which well-being in particular domains contributes to a person's sense of overall well-being. Such research can indicate aspects of people's lives that matter, in their personal view, more or less for their well-being. Additionally, there might be a variation in the importance of different domains among various demographic groups (age, gender) and other groups.

The two approaches are often used together to explore the relative importance of different domains in overall subjective  well-being.

Methodologies to measure subjective well-being

The measurement of subjective well-being has to deal with the relability of the measurements for the same set of individuals over time. Otherwise, not life satisfaction or well-being is captured but rather current feelings and emotions. These are also called "transient mood effects" that can be caused by minor event before filling out the questionnaire. ^[19] The most direct approach to the measurement of the "experienced utility" (in the economists' jargon) would avoid effects of judgment and of memory as much as possible. 

One of the most well-known researcher in well-being measurement is Daniel Kahnemann. He considers very important to make the distinction between the "experienced well-being" and the "evaluated well-being". Measures of the experienced well-being consists of a data series of momentary affective states during the reference period. In contrast, measures of evaluated well-being are global subjective evaluations of one's life during the same period but retrospectively (about a time in the past).^[20]

Most commonly, standard life satisfaction questions, as presented above, are used to asses individuals' perspective on their lives. Research generally assumes that questions about global satisfaction with life bring about more cognitively reflected answers while questions about happiness are mor affective and reflect the current emotional state of the questioned person.^[21]

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)^[22] is another commonly used global satisfaction measure. In contrast to the single question measures it consists of the average of five related items, each of which is rated on a 7-point scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7). The items are: “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”; “The conditions of my life are excellent”; “I am satisfied with my life”; “So far I have gotten the important things I want in life”; and “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing”. SWLS has proven more reliable than single item questions because it is the sum of multiple items which reduces aggregation errors.^[23]

The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM), developed by Kahnemann, Krueger, Schkade and  Schwarz in 2004, requires participants to think about the preceding day, break it up into episodes, and describe each episode by selecting from several menus. The DRM involves memory, but is its designed to increase the accuracy of emotional recall by inducing retrieval of the specifics of successive episodes. The DRM also provides data on time-use.^[24]

The most ideal way of measurement is the Experience Sampling Method or Ecological Momentary Assessment (ESM), in which participants are promted at irregular intervals to record their current circumstances and feelings. Participants carry a handheld computer that prompts them several times during the course of the day (or days) to answer a set of questions immediately. This method minimizes the role of memory and interpretation, but it is expensive and, in large samples, difficult to implement.^[25]

Validity and reliability of subjective well-being measurement

The standards of empirical social science research are guaranteed with the use of subjective indicators.^[26] The most important proof for the validity and reliability and therefore quality of the methodology is that the answers to subjective questions tend to correlate strongly with other indicators of quality of life (e.g. frquency of smiling, evaluation of a person's satisfaction through family and friends, number of positive emotions). More recent evidence from neuroscience confirm that answers to questions on subjective well-being coincide with measured neurological activities.^[27][28]

Surveys

World Values Survey (WVS)

United States

General Social Survey (GSS)

Paper and Reports

Center for Global Development (CGD) essay on subjective well-being (June 2011). This CGD essay examines how we can, or should, use the results of happiness studies to drive policy advice. It advocates for taking considerable caution in the use of subjective well-being (SWB) polls for policymaking, because of the difficulty of interpreting SWB evidence with regard to SWB-maximising policy and given that SWB might not be what policy-makers want to maximise.

See also

The Good Childhood Index

Child Subjective Well-being

Human Well-Being

Happiness

References

1. ↑ New Economics Foundation (2009), “A guide to measuring children’s well-being. Backing the Future: Practical Guide 2”, London, 16 September. Available at: http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/media/94477/action_for_children_a_guide_to_measuring_childrens_well_being.pdf
2. ↑ Diener, E./Suh, E./Oishi, Sh. (1997), "Recent Findings on Subjective WellBeing",Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, available on June, 20, 2011 at: http://www.filozofija.lv/research/Ed_Diener_Recent_Findings_on_Subjective_Well-Being.doc
3. ↑ Diener, E. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004).Toward an economy of well-being. Psychol. Sa. Public Interest 5 (1), 1-31. Cited as in: Kahneman D., & Riis J. (2005). “Living, and thinking about it: Two perspectives on life”. In F.A. Huppert, N. Baylis & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 285-304). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/Publications/Living_DK_JR_2005.pdf
4. ↑ Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R.E., and Smith, H.L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 125 (2),276-302. Available at: http://dipeco.economia.unimib.it/persone/stanca/ec/diener_suh_lucas_smith.pdf
5. ↑ Kahneman D., & Riis J. (2005). Living, and thinking about it: Two perspectives on life. In F.A. Huppert, N. Baylis & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 285-304). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/Publications/Living_DK_JR_2005.pdf
6. ↑ Diener E (2000) ‘Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index’ American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43. Available at: http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~broberts/Diener%202000.pdf
7. ↑ The Children's Society (2010), "Developing an index of children's subjective well-being in England", London, October. Available at: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/research_docs/Developing%20an%20Index%20of%20Children%27s%20Subjective%20Well-being%20in%20England.pdf
8. ↑ The Children's Society (2010), "Developing an index of children's subjective well-being in England", London, October. Available at: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/research_docs/Developing%20an%20Index%20of%20Children%27s%20Subjective%20Well-being%20in%20England.pdf
9. ↑ OECD (2009) Doing Better for Children. Paris: OECD.
10. ↑ The Children's Society (2010), "Developing an index of children's subjective well-being in England", London, October. Available at: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/research_docs/Developing%20an%20Index%20of%20Children%27s%20Subjective%20Well-being%20in%20England.pdf
11. ↑ New Economics Foundation (2009), “A guide to measuring children’s well-being. Backing the Future: Practical Guide 2”, London, 16 September. Available at: http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/media/94477/action_for_children_a_guide_to_measuring_childrens_well_being.pdf
12. ↑ Dolan, P., Layard, R. and Metcalfe, R. (2011), "Measuring Subjective Wellbeing for Public Policy: Recommendations on Measures", special Paper No. 23, Center for Economic Performance, Marche. Available at: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp23.pdf
13. ↑ Layard, Richard (2006), “Happiness: Lessons from a new Sciences”, Penguin. Information used comes from: Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2009), “Wissenschaftliche Bestandesaufnahme der Forschung zu “Wohlbefinden von Eltern und Kindern”, Monitor Familienforschung, Beiträge aus Forschung, Statistik und Familienpolitik, 19, Berlin, September .Available at (in German language): http://www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Broschuerenstelle/Pdf-Anlagen/Monitor-Familienforschung-Ausgabe-19,property=pdf,bereich=bmfsfj,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf
14. ↑ Brickman, Philip, Dan Coates and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman. 1978. “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36:8, pp. 917–27. As cited in: Krueger, Alain & Schkade, David A. (2007) The Reliability of Subjective Well-Bing Measures”. Draft, Available at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/seminars/adp/pdfs/2007_krueger.pdf
15. ↑ Lucas Richard, Andrew Clark, Yannis Georgellis and Edward Diener. 2004. “Unemployment Alters the Set Point for Life Satisfaction.” Psychological Science. 15:1, pp. 8–13. As cited in: Krueger, Alain & Schkade, David A. (2007) The Reliability of Subjective Well-Bing Measures”. Draft, Available at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/seminars/adp/pdfs/2007_krueger.pdf
16. ↑ Layard, Richard (2006), “Happiness: Lessons from a new Sciences”, Penguin. Information used comes from: Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2009), “Wissenschaftliche Bestandesaufnahme der Forschung zu “Wohlbefinden von Eltern und Kindern”, Monitor Familienforschung, Beiträge aus Forschung, Statistik und Familienpolitik, 19, Berlin, September .Available at (in German language): http://www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Broschuerenstelle/Pdf-Anlagen/Monitor-Familienforschung-Ausgabe-19,property=pdf,bereich=bmfsfj,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf
17. ↑ New Economics Foundation (2009), “A guide to measuring children’s well-being. Backing the Future: Practical Guide 2”, London, 16 September. Available at: http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/media/94477/action_for_children_a_guide_to_measuring_childrens_well_being.pdf
18. ↑ The Children's Society (2010), "Developing an index of children's subjective well-being in England", London, October. Available at: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/research_docs/Developing%20an%20Index%20of%20Children%27s%20Subjective%20Well-being%20in%20England.pdf
19. ↑ Krueger, Alain & Schkade, David A. (2007) The Reliability of Subjective Well-Bing Measures”. Draft, Available at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/seminars/adp/pdfs/2007_krueger.pdf
20. ↑ Kahneman D., & Riis J. (2005). Living, and thinking about it: Two perspectives on life. In F.A. Huppert, N. Baylis & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 285-304). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/Publications/Living_DK_JR_2005.pdf
21. ↑ Diener, E./Suh, E./Lucas, R. E./Smith, H. (1999) “Subjective WellBeing: Three Decades of Progress”, Psychological Bulletin, S. 276–302. Available at: http://dipeco.economia.unimib.it/persone/stanca/ec/diener_suh_lucas_smith.pdf
22. ↑ Diener, E., RA Emmons, RJ Larsen, S Griffin. 1985. “The Satisfaction With Life Scale.”Available at: http://www.unt.edu/rss/SWLS.pdf
23. ↑ Krueger, Alain & Schkade, David A. (2007) The Reliability of Subjective Well-Bing Measures”. Draft, Available at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/seminars/adp/pdfs/2007_krueger.pdf
24. ↑ Kahneman, D., Krueger, A., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N. and Stone, A. 2004. “A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM).” Science, 306, 1776-1780. Available at: http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/drm_documentation_july_2004.pdf
25. ↑ Krueger, Alain & Schkade, David A. (2007) The Reliability of Subjective Well-Bing Measures”. Draft, Available at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/seminars/adp/pdfs/2007_krueger.pdf
26. ↑ Diener, E./Suh, E./Lucas, R. E./Smith, H. (1999) “Subjective WellBeing: Three Decades of Progress”, Psychological Bulletin, S. 276–302. Available at: http://dipeco.economia.unimib.it/persone/stanca/ec/diener_suh_lucas_smith.pdf
27. ↑ Kahneman, D./Krueger, A. B. (2006), Developments in the Measurement of Subjective WellBeing, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Jg. 20, H. 1, S. 3–24. Available at: http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/PDF%20of%20Kahneman%20Krueger%20paper.pdf, 2006.
28. ↑ Urry, H./Nitschke, J./Dolski, I./Jackson, D./Dalton, K./Mueler, C./Rosenkranz, M./Ryff, C./ Singer, B./Davidson, E. (2004), “Making a Life Worth Living, Psychological Science, Jg. 15, H. 6, S. 367–72”. Available at: http://www.cnbc.pt/jpmatos/12.%20Urry.pdf.