Social Indicators Research

, Volume 98, Issue 3, pp 403–434 | Cite as

Stability and Sensitivity in Perceived Quality of Life Measures: Some Panel Results

  • Alex C. MichalosEmail author
  • P. Maurine Kahlke


The aim of this study was to test a fundamental assumption concerning 27 of the most frequently used measures to assess aspects of the quality of people’s lives, e.g., measures concerning happiness, satisfaction with life as a whole, with the quality of one’s life, with domains of life (job, marriage, friendships), and with perceived gaps between what one has compared to what one wants, what one’s neighbor has and so on. The assumption is that such measures are sensitive to changes in the circumstances of one’s life measured by self-perceptions of change and by self-assessments of the net balance of salient positive and negative events one has experienced in some specified period of time. A total of 462 residents of British Columbia distributed across 3 different panels completed mailed-out questionnaires at 3 points in time in 2005, 06 and 07. Among other things, we found that measuring year-by-year changes in respondents’ life circumstances by reports of their own perception and experienced life events, on average the values of the 27 variables changed in ways that were consistent with respondents’ reported changes in 49.7% of the cases examined. The success rate of the assumption using self-perceptions of change (61.7%) was much higher than the success rate using a net balance of experienced events (37.3%).


Quality of life Happiness Life satisfaction Stability of measures Sensitivity of measures Job satisfaction Marital satisfaction Multiple discrepancies theory 


  1. Atkinson, T. (1982). The stability and validity of quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research, 10(2), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory (pp. 287–305). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of american life: Perceptions, evaluations, satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Cantril, H. (1965). The patterns of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. F. (2009). Well-being for public policy. Onxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eels, L. W. (1985). The effect of role change on physical health, mental health and general life-satisfaction: A panel analysis [dissertation]. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
  9. Ehrhardt, J. J., Saris, W. E., & Veenhoven, R. (2000). Stability of life-satisfaction over time: Analysis of change in ranks in a national population. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(2), 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. J. (1989). Personality, life events and subjective well-being: Towards a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. J. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  12. Landua, D. (1992). Satisfaction changes. Social Indicators Research, 26(3), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lavallee, L. F., Hatch, P. M., Michalos, A. C., & McKinley, T. (2007). Development of the contentment with life assessment scale (CLAS): Using daily life experiences to verify levels of self-reported life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 83(2), 201–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lucas, R. E. (2005). Time does not heal all wounds: A longitudinal study of reaction and adaptation to divorce. Psychological Science, 16(12), 945–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15(1), 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 13, 347–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michalos, A. C. (1991a). Global report on student well-being, vol. 1: Life satisfaction and happiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Michalos, A. C. (1991b). Global report on student well-being, vol. 2: Family, friends, living partner and self-esteem. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Michalos, A. C. (1993a). Global report on student well-being, vol. 3: Employment, finances, housing and transportation. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Michalos, A. C. (1993b). Global report on student well-being, vol. 4: Religion, education, recreation and health. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Michalos, A. C. (Ed.). (2005). Citation classics from social indicators research: The most cited articles edited and introduced by Alex C. Michalos. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Michalos, A. C. (2008). Education, happiness and wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 87(3), 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michalos, A. C., & Kahlke, P. M. (2008). Impact of arts-related activities on the perceived quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 89(2), 193–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Social Indicators Research, 32(2), 101–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts OfficeBrandon UniversityBrandonCanada
  2. 2.ColdstreamCanada

Personalised recommendations