Does Time Fly When You are Having Fun? A Day Reconstruction Method Analysis
- 891 Downloads
Duration-based measures of happiness from retrospectively constructed daily diaries are gaining in popularity in population-based studies of the hedonic experience. Yet experimental evidence suggests that perceptions of duration—how long an event lasts—are influenced by individuals’ emotional experiences during the event. An important remaining question is whether observational measures of duration outside the laboratory setting, where the events under study are engaged in voluntarily, may be similarly affected, and if so, for which emotions are duration biases a potential concern. This study assesses how duration and emotions co-vary using retrospective, 24-h diaries from a national sample of older couples. Data are from the Disability and Use of Time supplement to the nationally representative U.S. Panel Study of Income Dynamics. We find that experienced wellbeing (positive, negative emotion) and activity duration are inversely associated. Specific positive emotions (happy, calm) are not associated with duration, but all measures of negative wellbeing considered here (frustrated, worried, sad, tired, and pain) have positive correlations (ranging from 0.04 to 0.08; p < .05). However, only frustration remains correlated with duration after controlling for respondent, activity and day-related characteristics (0.06, p < .01). The correlation translates into a potentially upward biased estimate of duration of up to 10 min (20 %) for very frustrating activities. We conclude that estimates of time spent feeling happy yesterday generated from diary data are unlikely to be biased but more research is needed on the link between duration estimation and feelings of frustration.
KeywordsSubjective well being Day reconstruction method Measurement Older adults Activity duration Time use
This research was funded by the U.S. National Institute of Health’s National Institute on Aging, P01 AG029409. The views expressed are those of the authors alone and do not represent their employers or funding agency.
- Block, R. A. (1990). Models of psychological time. In R. A. Block (Ed.), Cognitive models of psychological time (pp. 1–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). American time use survey user’s guide: Understanding ATUS 2003–2009. http://www.bls.gov/tus/atususersguide.pdf. Accessed 9April, 2012.
- Freedman, V. A., & Cornman, J. C. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics’ supplement on Disability and Use of Time (DUST) user guide: Release 2009.1. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
- Freedman, V. A., Stafford, F. P., Schwarz, N., Conrad, F. G., & Cornman, J. C. (2012). Disability, participation, and subjective wellbeing among older couples. Social Science & Medicine, 74(4), 588–596.Google Scholar
- Gould, W., Pitblado, J., & Poiv, B. (2010). Maximum likelihood estimation with Stata (4th ed.). Texas: Stata Press.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, N., Kahneman, D., & Xu, J. (2009). Global and episodic reports of hedonic experience. In R. Belli, D. Alwin, & F. Stafford (Eds.), Using calendar and diary methods in life events research (pp. 157–174). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Weathers, R. (2005). A guide to disability statistics from the American community survey. Ithaca, NY: Employment and Disability Institute, Cornell University.Google Scholar