Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 127, Issue 1, pp 323–339 | Cite as

Bringing Affect Back in: Measuring and Comparing Subjective Well-Being Across Countries

  • Filip ForsEmail author
  • Joakim Kulin
Article

Abstract

In recent years, researchers and policymakers have paid increasing attention to cross-country comparisons of subjective well-being. Whereas classical theories of quality of life emphasize the central role of affective well-being (i.e., whether a person feels good or bad), previous comparative studies have focused almost exclusively on life satisfaction (i.e., cognitive evaluations of life). This study brings affect into the comparative study of subjective well-being, constructing a new measurement instrument that captures both the affective and cognitive dimensions of subjective well-being. Using European Social Survey data and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, we estimate latent country means for the two dimensions and compare country rankings across the two measures. The results reveal important differences in country rankings depending on whether one focuses on affective well-being or life satisfaction. We identify crucial differences among top-ranking countries and, perhaps even more importantly, considerable differences in rankings among more moderately ranking countries. In a second step, we compare and evaluate the single-item measures commonly used in previous research with the results based on our new measures. We conclude by discussing our results in relation to previous studies, and in terms of their possible implications for future research and for policymakers bent on improving national levels of subjective well-being.

Keywords

Subjective well-being Affective well-being Life satisfaction Quality of life Comparative CFA 

References

  1. Alwin, D. F. (2007). Margins of error: A study of reliability in survey measurement. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyle, M. (1999). Causes and correlates of happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 392–412). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, L., & Russell, J. (1999). The structure of current affect: Controversies and emerging consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentham, J. (1879). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Reprinted in 1948. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Billiet, J. (2003). Cross-cultural equivalence with structural equation modeling. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, & P Ph Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Blore, J. D. (2008). Subjective wellbeing: An assessment of competing theories. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Deakin University, Geelong.Google Scholar
  8. Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  9. Brax, D. (2009). Hedonism as the explanation of value. Doctoral dissertation. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
  10. Brülde, B. (2007). Happiness theories of the good life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 15–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabanac, M. (1992). Pleasure: the common currency. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 155, 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidov, E. (2008). A cross-country and cross-time comparison of the human values measurements with the second round of the European Social Survey. Survey Research Methods, 2(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
  13. Deaton, A. (2010). Income, aging, health and well-being around the world: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. In D. A. Wise (Ed.), Research findings in the economics of aging. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Diener, E., Kahneman, D., Arora, R., Harter, J., & William, T. (2009). Income’s differential influence on judgments of life versus affective well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing wellbeing: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 233–246). New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diener, E., & Tov, W. (2012). National accounts of well-being. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 137–158). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferreira, S., Akay, A., Brereton, F., Cunado, J., Martinsson, P., & Moro, M. (2013). Life satisfaction and air quality in Europe. Ecological Economics, 88, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gamble, A. and Garling, T. (2011). The relationships between life satisfaction, happiness, and current mood. Journal of Happiness Studies 1331–45.Google Scholar
  20. Haybron, D. (2007). Life satisfaction, ethical reflection, and the science of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 99–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Helliwell, John F., Layard, Richard, Sachs, Jeffery (2012). World happiness report. United Nations.Google Scholar
  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008a). Development, freedom, and rising happiness a global perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inglehart, R. F., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008b). Development, freedom, and rising happiness: A global perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. D. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 165–184). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Kahneman, D., & Riis, J. (2005). Living and thinking about it: Two perspectives on life. In F. A. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), The Science of well-being (pp. 285–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). A survey  method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776–1780.Google Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D., Schkade, D. A., Fischler, C., Krueger, A. B., & Krilla, A. (2010). The structure of well-being in two cities: life satisfaction and experienced happiness in Columbus, Ohio and Rennes, France. International Differences in Well-Being, 1(9), 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 375–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kööts-Ausmees, L., Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2012). The relationship between life satisfaction and emotional experience in 21 European countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent variables in sem and macs models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucas, R. E. (2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nettle, D. (2005). Happiness: The science behind your smile. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. OECD. (2011). How’s life?. Measuring Well-Being: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oishi, S. (2010). Culture and well-being: Conceptual and methodological issues. In E. Diener, D. Kahneman, & J. F. Helliwell (Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp. 34–69). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ott, J. (2010). Greater happiness for a greater number: Some non-controversial options for governments. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  40. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. (2007). Can questions travel successfully? In Jowell, et al. (Eds.), Measuring attitudes cross-nationally (pp. 53–79). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 97–123). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one’s life: A judgment model of subjective well-being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwartz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–48). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Emotions across cultures and methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship be-tween personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross- national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., & Spörrle, M. (2011). Be yourself, believe in yourself, and be happy: Self-efficacy as a mediator between personality factors and subjective well-being. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tännsjö, T. (2007). Narrow hedonism. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van de Velde, S., Bracke, P., Levecque, K., & Meuleman, B. (2010). Gender differences in depression in 25 European countries after eliminating measurement bias in the CES-D 8. Social Science Research, 39, 396–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on spring break? The role of predicted, on-line, and remembered experience in future choice. Psychological Science, 14, 520–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations