Social Indicators Research

, Volume 5, Issue 1–4, pp 457–474 | Cite as

Subjective evaluation of well-being: Problems and prospects

  • Leslie W. Kennedy
  • Herbert C. Northcott
  • Clifford Kinzel
Articles

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the substantive and methodological pitfalls that arise in the subjective evaluation of well-being. The discussion includes illustrative references to the empirical findings of the 1977 Edmonton Area Study. Issues discussed include (1) specific, domain, and global measures; (2) objective states and subjective perceptions; (3) micro and macro units of analysis; and (4) the problem of cultural relativism. It is concluded that it is not yet possible to delineate a simple set of social indicators for use by policy-makers and social planners. Accurate assessment of social well-being currently requires the study of demographic and objective states together with cognitive and evaluational responses and also requires assessment not only at the global ‘general satisfaction’ level but also at more specific levels of analysis.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S. B.: 1974, ‘Developing measures of perceived life quality: Results from several national studies’, Social Indicators Research 1, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  2. Angrist, S.: 1976, ‘Subjective social indicators for urban areas: How useful for policy?’, Sociological Focus 9, pp. 217–230.Google Scholar
  3. Bunge, M.: 1975, ‘What is a quality of life indicator?’, Social Indicators Research 2, pp. 65–79.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., and Rodgers, W. L.: 1975, The Quality of American Life (Russell Sage, New York).Google Scholar
  5. Consultative Group of Survey Research: 1976, ‘Survey Research’ (Canada Council, Ottawa).Google Scholar
  6. Chapin, F. S.: 1968, ‘Activity systems and urban structure: A working schema’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners XXXIV, pp. 11–19.Google Scholar
  7. Horton, F. E. and Reynolds, D. R.: 1971, ‘Effects of urban spatial structure on individual behaviour’, Economic Geography XLVII, pp. 36–48.Google Scholar
  8. Carp, F. M., Zawadski, R. T., and Shokron, H.: 1976, ‘Dimensions of Urban environmental quality’, Environment and Behaviour 8, pp. 239–264.Google Scholar
  9. McCall, S.: 1975, ‘Quality of life’, Social Indicators Research 2, pp. 229–248.Google Scholar
  10. Merton, R. K. and Nisbet, R.: 1971, Contemporary Social Problems (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York).Google Scholar
  11. Michelson, W.: 1975, ‘Urbanism and ways of living: The changing view of planning researchers’, Ekistics 40/236, pp. 20–26.Google Scholar
  12. Robinson, W. S.: 1961, ‘Ecological correlations and the behaviour of individuals’, in G. A., Theodorson (ed.), Studies in Human Ecology (Row Peterson, Evanston, Ill.), pp. 115–120.Google Scholar
  13. Rodgers, W. L. and Converse, P. E.: 1975, ‘Perceived quality of life’, Social Indicators Research 2, pp. 127–152.Google Scholar
  14. Schneider, M.: 1976, ‘The “Quality of Life” and social indicators research’, Public Administration Review 36, pp. 297–305.Google Scholar
  15. Sheldon, E. B. and Freeman, H. E.: 1970, ‘Notes on social indicators: Promises and potential’, Policy Sciences 1, pp. 97–111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie W. Kennedy
    • 1
  • Herbert C. Northcott
    • 1
  • Clifford Kinzel
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations