Social Indicators Research

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 7–32 | Cite as

National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur?

  • Ed Diener
  • Eunkook M. Suh
  • Heidi Smith
  • Liang Shao


There are marked variations between nations in reported subjective well-being (SWB), but the explanations for this diversity have not been fully explored. It is possible that the differences are entirely due to true variability in SWB, but it is also reasonable that the differences may be due to factors related to self-report measurement such as variation across nations in whether it is desirable to say one is happy. At a substantive level, there might be differences in the norms governing the experience of emotion such that cultural differences in SWB are due to affective regulation. Pacific Rim countries (e.g., Japan, the People's Republic of China, and S. Korea) appear to have lower SWB than their material circumstances warrant, and the U.S.A. has higher SWB than is predicted based on its income per person. The genesis of these differences was explored by comparing students in S. Korea, Japan, and the People's Republic of China to students in the U.S.A., and it was concluded that: (1) The Pacific Rim subjects score lower on both happiness and life satisfaction in both absolute terms and when income is controlled, (2) There probably is not a general negative response set in the Pacific Rim which causes lower SWB, as evidenced by the fact that the Asians express dissatisfaction in some areas (e.g., education and self) but not in other areas (e.g., social relationships), (3) Artifacts are not causing the lower reported SWB, (4) The general suppression of mood in the Pacific Rim is unlikely to be the cause of SWB differences, but Chinese students do appear to avoid negative affect, (5) SWB is no less important and salient in Japan and S. Korea, but does appear to be a less central concern in China, and (6) There are different patterns of well-being depending on whether life satisfaction or hedonic balance are considered.


Cultural Difference Mark Variation Substantive Level Affective Regulation National Difference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, F. M. and S. B. Withey: 1976, Social Indicators of Well-being: America's Perception of Life Quality (Plenum Press, New York).Google Scholar
  2. Bradburn, N. M.: 1969, The Structure of Psychological Well-being (Aldine, Chicago).Google Scholar
  3. Diener, E.: 1984, ‘Subjective well-being’, Psychological Bulletin 95, pp. 542–575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Diener, E.: 1994, ‘Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities’, Social Indicators Research 31, pp. 103–157.Google Scholar
  5. Diener, E. and C. Diener: 1993, Most people in the United States are happy and satisfied, manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. Diener, E. and M. Diener: 1993, Relation of Self-Esteem, Financial Satisfaction, Friendship Satisfaction, and Family Satisfaction to Life Satisfaction: A Cross-Cultural Analysis across 31 Countries, manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  7. Diener, E., M. Diener and C. Diener: 1993, Factors Predicting the Subjective Well-Being of Nations, manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  8. Diener, E., R. A. Emmons, R. J. Larsen and S. Griffin: 1985, ‘The Satisfaction With Life Scale’, Journal of Personality Assessment 49, pp. 71–75.Google Scholar
  9. Diener, E. and F. Fujita: 1994, ‘Methodological pitfalls and solutions in satisfaction research’, in A. C. Samli and M. J. Sirgy (eds.), New Dimensions in Marketing/Quality-Of Life Interface. Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  10. Diener, E., R. A. Emmons, R. J. Larsen and S. Griffin: 1985, ‘The Satisfaction With Life Scale’, Journal of Personality Assessment 49, pp. 71–75.Google Scholar
  11. Diener, E., E. Sandvik, L. Seidlitz and M. Diener: 1993, ‘The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute?’, Social Indicators Research 28, pp. 195–223.Google Scholar
  12. Easterlin, R. A.: 1974, ‘Does economic growth improve the human lot: Some empirical evidence’, in P. A. David and W. R. Levin (eds.), Nation and Households in Economic Growth (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA), pp. 98–125.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, M. and C. Saarni: 1985, The Socialization of Emotions (Plenum Press, New York).Google Scholar
  14. Michalos, A. C.: 1991, Global Report on Student Well-being (Springer-Verlag, New York).Google Scholar
  15. Ouweneel, P. and R. Veenhoven: 1991, ‘Cross-national differences in happiness: Cultural bias or societal quality?’, in N. Bleichrodt and P. J. D. Drenth (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Cross-cultural Psychology (Swets and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam), pp. 168–184.Google Scholar
  16. Pavot, W. and E. Diener: 1993, ‘Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale’, Psychological Assessment 5, pp. 164–172.Google Scholar
  17. Sandvik, E., E. Diener and L. Seidlitz: 1993, ‘Subjective well-being: The convergence and stability of self-report and nonself-report measures’, Journal of Personality 61, pp. 317–342.Google Scholar
  18. Seidlitz, L. and E. Diener: 1993, ‘Memory for positive versus negative life events: Theories for the differences between happy and unhappy persons’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, pp. 654–664.Google Scholar
  19. Shao, L.: 1993, Multilanguage comparability of Life Satisfaction and Happiness Measures in Mainland Chinese and American Students, unpublished masters thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  20. Veenhoven, R.: 1991, ‘Is happiness relative?’, Social Indicators research 24, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
  21. Veenhoven, R.: 1993, Happiness in Nations (Risbo, Rotterdam).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ed Diener
    • 1
  • Eunkook M. Suh
    • 1
  • Heidi Smith
    • 1
  • Liang Shao
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of IlliniosChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations