Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 423–442 | Cite as

Happiness Studies and the Problem of Interpersonal Comparisons of Satisfaction: Two Histories, Three Approaches

Research Paper

Abstract

An old methodological obstacle confronts the use of Life Satisfaction surveys in Happiness Studies: a problem that economists recognize by the name of (the impossibility of) interpersonal comparisons of satisfaction/utility. But the recent implementation of insights from happiness studies into policy making transforms an originally theoretical obstacle into a real-world problematic, providing substantial motivation for engaging with this issue. Just this problem is highlighted by recent critics of happiness surveys. This paper locates the problem currently facing happiness studies at the intersection of two traditions or two histories: that of economic methodology and that of psychological methodology. Three dominant approaches to the issue revealed through these histories are identified: ‘the skeptical approach’, ‘the pragmatic approach’, and ‘the ethical-normative approach’. The paper works to bring together the two disciplinary histories and evaluate the three approaches in order to frame a suitable interpretation of inter-personal comparisons in happiness studies. The implications of this are twofold: it contributes to the legitimation of happiness studies, suggesting an answer to its critics, while, at the same time casting the status of its building blocks under a different light.

Keywords

Interpersonal comparisons Life satisfaction Methodology Happiness Utility Psychology Economics 

References

  1. Adler, M. D. (2012). Happiness surveys and public policy: What’s the use. Duke LJ, 62, 1509.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, M. D. (2014). Extended preferences and interpersonal comparisons: A new account. Economics and Philosophy, 30(02), 123–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angner, E. (2009a). Subjective measurement of well-being: Philosophical perspective. In H. Kincaid & D. Ross (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of economics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Angner, E. (2009b). The politics of happiness: Subjective vs. economic measures as measures of social well-being. In L. Bortolotti (Ed.), Philosophy and happiness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Angner, E. (2011). The evolution of eupathics: The historical roots of subjective measures of well-being. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1), 4–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audi, R. (Ed.). (2015). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bock, R. D., & Lieberman, M. (1970). Fitting a response model forn dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35(2), 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bond, T., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Borsboom, D. (2008). Latent variable theory. Measurement, 6, 25–53.Google Scholar
  11. Borsboom, D., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2004). Why psychometrics is not pathological a comment on Michell. Theory and Psychology, 14(1), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broome, J. (1991). Utility. Economics and Philosophy, 7(01), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2004). Neuroeconomics: Why economics needs brains. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 555–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang, H., & Cartwright, N. (2013). Measurement. In M. Curd & S. Psillos (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 411–420). Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Colman, A. M. (2008). Oxford dictionary of psychology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, J. (1992). The interpretation of interpersonal utility comparisons: Positive, normative or descriptive. Journal of Income Distribution, 1(1), 73–90.Google Scholar
  18. Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31(2), 103–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diener, E. (2009). Well-being for public policy. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diener, E. D., & Seligman Martin, E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  23. Duncan, G. (2013). Should happiness-maximization be the goal of government? The exploration of happiness (pp. 303–320). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1877). New and old methods of ethics. London: James Parker and Co.Google Scholar
  25. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1879). The Hedonical calculus. Mind, 4, 15.Google Scholar
  26. Fleurbaey, M., & Blanchet, D. (2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring welfare and assessing sustainability. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fleurbaey, M., & Hammond, P. J. (2004). Interpersonally comparable utility. In S. Barbera, P. J. Hammond & C. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of utility theory (pp. 1179–1285). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2009). Should national happiness be maximized. In A. K. Dutt & B. Radcliff (Eds.), Happiness economics and politics: Towards a multi-disciplinary approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2012). The use of happiness research for public policy. Social Choice and Welfare, 38(4), 659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fumagalli, R. (2013). The futile search for true utility. Economics and Philosophy, 29(03), 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hammond, P. J. (1991). Interpersonal comparisons of utility: Why and how they are and should be made. In J. Elster & J. E. Roemer (Eds.), Interpersonal comparisons of well-being (pp. 200–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hands, D. W. (2009). Effective tension in Robbins’ economic methodology. Economica, 76(s1), 831–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hands, D. W. (2012). The positive-normative dichotomy and economics. In U. Maki (Ed.), Philosophy of Economics (pp. 219–240). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  34. Harsanyi, J. C. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. The Journal of Political Economy, 63(4), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harsanyi, J. C. (1982). Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. In A. Sen, B. Williams, & B. A. O. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond (pp. 39–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hausman, D. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Preference satisfaction and welfare economics. Economics and Philosophy, 25(01), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Isbell, J. R. (1959). Absolute Games. Contributions to the Theory of Games, 4, 357–396.Google Scholar
  38. Jevons, W. S. (1888). Theory of political economy (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, L. V., & Thissen, D. (2007). A history and overview of psychometrics. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics (Vol. 26). Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.Google Scholar
  40. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). Toward national well-being accounts. American Economic Review, 94(2), 429–434.Google Scholar
  43. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–405.Google Scholar
  44. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krantz, D. H. (1991). From indices to mappings: The representational approach to measurement. In D. R. Brown & J. E. K. Smith (Eds.), Frontiers of mathematical psychology (pp. 1–52). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Layard, R. (2005). Lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  47. Layard, R. (2006). Happiness and public policy: A challenge to the profession. The Economic Journal, 116(510), c24–c33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Little, I. M. D. (1950). A critique of welfare economics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  50. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maul, A. (2013). On the ontology of psychological attributes. Theory and Psychology, 23(6), 752–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McCloskey, D. (2012). Happyism: The creepy new economics of pleasure. The New Republic, 243.10, 16–23.Google Scholar
  53. Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88(3), 355–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept (Vol. 53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ng, Y. K. (1975). Bentham or Bergson? Finite sensibility, utility functions and social welfare functions. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(4), 545–569.Google Scholar
  56. Ng, Y. K. (1982). Beyond Pareto optimality: The necessity of interpersonal cardinal utilities in distributional judgements and social choice. Journal of Economics, 42(3), 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ng, Y. K. (1996). Happiness surveys: Some comparability issues and an exploratory survey based on just perceivable increments. Social Indicators Research, 38(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New-York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  59. O’Connor, B. P., Crawford, M. R., & Holder, M. D. (2015). An item response theory analysis of the subjective happiness scale. Social Indicators Research, 124(1), 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Oishi, S. (2006). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: An IRT analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Oswald, A. J. (1997). Happiness and economic performance. The Economic Journal, 107(445), 1815–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Denmarks Paedagogiske Institut, Copenhagen. Republished in 1980 by the University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. Proceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability (pp. 321–333). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  64. Rasch, G. (1966). An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rasch, G. (1977). On specific objectivity: An attempt at formalizing the request for generality and validity of scientific statements. In M. Blegvad (Ed.), The Danish Yearbook of Philosophy. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  66. Reise, S. P., Ainsworth, A. T., & Haviland, M. G. (2005). Item response theory fundamentals, applications, and promise in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robbins, L. (1934). An essay on the nature and significance of economic sciene. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
  68. Robbins, L. (1997). Interpersonal comparisons of utility: A comment (pp. 199–204). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Rosenbaum, E. F. (1995). Interpersonal comparisons of utility: Positive, normative or value-laden? Journal of Economic Methodology, 2(2), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement.Google Scholar
  71. Schick, F. (1971). Beyond utilitarianism. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(20), 657–666.Google Scholar
  72. Sen, A. (1979). Interpersonal comparisons of welfare. In M. J. Boskin (Ed.), Economics and human welfare: Essays in honor of tibor scitovsky (pp. 183–201). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  73. Simon, J. L. (1974). Interpersonal welfare comparisons can be made and used for redistribution decisions. Kyklos, 27(1), 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.Google Scholar
  75. Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The reliability and validity of tests. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.Google Scholar
  76. Veenhoven, R. (2010). Greater happiness for a greater number. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(5), 605–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Waldner, I. (1972). The empirical meaningfulness of interpersonal utility comparisons. The Journal of Philosophy, 69, 87–103.Google Scholar
  78. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Validity: Foundational issues and statistical methodology. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics (Vol. 26). Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations