Social Indicators Research

, Volume 114, Issue 1, pp 139–152 | Cite as

The Impact of Adaptive Preferences on Subjective Indicators: An Analysis of Poverty Indicators

  • Eric CrettazEmail author
  • Christian Suter


Subjective indicators are often criticized since they are thought to be particularly affected by the phenomenon of adaptive preferences and social comparison. For social policy purposes, processes of downward adaptation in disadvantaged individuals are of particular importance, i.e., it is supposed that such people compare themselves with others who are in the same precarious situation or even worse off and, as a result, lower their expectations and adapt their aspirations and preferences to their material and financial constraints. Based on the 2006–2010 waves of the Swiss Household Panel study, this contribution examines whether, and to what degree, indicators of material deprivation, subjective poverty and subjective well-being are affected by such downward adaptations. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that the bias caused by adaptation processes varies considerably among different measures and that, although subjective indicators are indeed often affected by this phenomenon, there are also robust measures, notably Townsend’s deprivation measure, Halleröd’s proportional deprivation index and the subjective well-being measure of general life satisfaction.


Adaptive preferences Downward adaptation Social comparison Subjective indicators Poverty Deprivation Well-being 



The research reported here was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Number 100017_143320).


  1. Boarini, R., & Mira d’Ercole, M. (2006). Measures of material deprivation in OECD Countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Ed. de Minuit.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Crettaz, E. (2011). Fighting working poverty in postindustrial economies: Causes trade-offs and policy solutions. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crettaz, E. (2012). Social indicators and adaptive preferences: What is the impact of income poverty on indicators of material deprivation and on the minimum income question? Swiss Journal of Sociology, 38(3), 421–440.Google Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Napa Scollon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill. Revising the adaption theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 616(4), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of moses abramovitz (pp. 89–125). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gazareth, P., & Suter, C. (2010). Privation et risque d’appauvrissement en Suisse, 1999-2007. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 36(2), 213–234.Google Scholar
  10. Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., et al. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Social Indicators Research, 55(1), 1–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halleröd, B. (1994). A new approach to the direct consensual measurement of poverty. Social Policy Research Centre discussion paper (Vol. 50).Google Scholar
  12. Halleröd, B. (1995). The truly poor: Direct and indirect consensual measurement of poverty in Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy, 5(2), 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halleröd, B. (2006). Sour grapes: Relative deprivation, adaptive preferences and the measurement of poverty. Journal of Social Policy, 35, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaption and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mack, J., & Lansley, S. (1985). Poor britain. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2007). On the multidimensionality of poverty and social exclusion. In J. Micklewright & S. P. Jenkins (Eds.), Poverty and inequality: New directions (pp. 146–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2010). Using non-monetary deprivation indicators to analyze poverty and social exclusion: Lessons from Europe? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD. (2008). Growing unequal? Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  19. Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Sen, A. (1984). Resources, values and development. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Slocum-Gori, S. L., Zumbo, B. D., Michalos, A. C., & Diener, E. (2009). A note on the dimensionality of quality of life scales: An illustration with the satisfaction with life Scale (SWLS). Social Indicators Research, 92(3), 489–496. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9303-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic Performance and social progress.Google Scholar
  23. Suter, C., & Iglesias, K. (2005). Relative deprivation and well-being. In H. Kriesi, P. Farago, M. Kohli, & M. Zarin-Nejadan (Eds.), Contemporary Switzerland. Revisiting the special case (pp. 9–37). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Suter, C., & Paris, D. (2002). Ungleichheit und deprivation: Die schweiz im drei-länder-vergleich. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 28(2), 217–240.Google Scholar
  25. Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2012). Armut in der schweiz: konzepte, resultate und methoden. Ergebnisse auf der basis von SILC 2008 bis 2010. Neuchâtel: SFSO.Google Scholar
  26. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Van Praag, B., Goedhart, T., & Kapteyn, A. (1980). The poverty line—A pilot survey in Europe. Review of Economics and Statistics, 62(3), 461–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for the Understanding of Social Processes (MAPS)University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations