Social Indicators Research

, Volume 130, Issue 1, pp 213–232 | Cite as

The Validity of the Day Reconstruction Method in the German Socio-economic Panel Study

  • Ivana Anusic
  • Richard E. Lucas
  • M. Brent Donnellan
Article

Abstract

The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) is a useful tool for evaluating short-term changes in emotional experiences over a variety of daily situations. However, traditional method of collecting DRM data can be time-intensive for both researchers and participants. In this paper we provide evidence that a random-sampling approach to DRM assessment can provide useful data that are largely consistent with previous research that used the full version of the DRM. In a nationally representative sample of 2303 people, we demonstrate that (1) there is variability in emotional ratings of episodes that replicates what has been found in prior studies, (2) correlations with global measures are typically small in magnitude (<0.30), (3) correlations with personality are for the most part negligible, (4) correlations with global ratings of domain satisfaction are higher for domain-relevant situations, and (5) parents report more positive affect while providing care for their children when compared to other activities, and this effect can account for the observed differences in emotional experiences of parents and non-parents.

Keywords

Day Reconstruction Method Subjective well-being Validity Measurement Affect Parenting 

References

  1. Anusic, I., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2015). Comparing the reliability and validity of global self-report measures of subjective well-being to day reconstruction measures. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Oerlemans, W., & Sonnentag, S. (2013). Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Leeka, J. (1989). Diurnal variation in the positive affects. Motivation and Emotion, 13, 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larsen, R. E. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2014). Review of the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM). Social Indicators Research, 116, 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dockray, S., Grant, N., Stone, A. A., Kahneman, D., Wardle, J., & Steptoe, A. (2010). A comparison of affect ratings obtained with ecological momentary assessment and the Day Reconstruction Method. Social Indicators Research, 99, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the Big Five across the life span: Evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23, 558–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goubert, L., Crombez, G., & Van Damme, S. (2004). The role of neuroticism, pain catastrophizing and pain-related fear in vigilance to pain: A structural equations approach. Pain, 107, 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray, J. A. (1987). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. In S. M. Stahl & S. D. Iversen (Eds.), Cognitive neurochemistry (pp. 171–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hahn, E., & Gottschling, J. (2012). Short measurement of personality: Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The Day Reconstruction Method. Science, 306, 1776–1780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McNamee, P., & Mendolia, S. (2014). The effect of chronic pain on life satisfaction: Evidence from Australian data. Social Science and Medicine, 121, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miret, M., Caballero, F. F., Mathur, A., Naidoo, N., Kowal, P., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., & Chatterji, S. (2012). Validation of a measure of subjective well-being: An abbreviated version of the day reconstruction method. PLOS ONE, 7, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelson, S. K., Kushlev, K., English, T., Dunn, E. W., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). In defense of parenthood: Children are associated with more joy than misery. Psychological Science, 24, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oerlemans, W. G. M., Bakker, A. B., & Veenhoven, R. (2011). Finding the key to happy aging: A day reconstruction study of happiness. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 66B, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oishi, S., Kurtz, J. L., Miao, F. F., Park, J., & Whitchurch, E. (2011). The role of familiarity in daily well-being: Developmental and cultural variation. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1750–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 677–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Richter, D., & Schupp, J. (2012). SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP-IS): Description, structure, and documentation. Retrieved from http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.407141.de/diw_sp0463.pdf.
  26. Robinson, M. E., & Riley, J. L. (1998). The role of emotion in pain. In R. J. Gatchel & D. C. Turk (Eds.), Psychosocial factors in pain (pp. 74–89). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Samuel, H. (2009). Nicolas Sarkozy wants to measure economic success in ‘happiness’. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6189530/Nicolas-Sarkozy-wants-to-measure-economic-success-in-happiness.html.
  28. Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Retrieved from http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf.
  30. Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Schwarz, N., Schkade, D., Krueger, A., & Kahneman, D. (2006). A population approach to the study of emotion: Diurnal rhythms of a working day examined with the Day Reconstruction Method. Emotion, 6, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stratton, A. (2010). Happiness index to gauge Britain’s national mood. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/14/happiness-index-britain-national-mood.
  32. Tadic, M., Oerlemans, W. G. M., Bakker, A. B., & Veenhoven, R. (2013). Daily activities and happiness later in life: The role of work status. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1507–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tay, L., Chan, D., & Diener, E. (2014). The metrics of societal happiness. Social Indicators Research, 117, 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. University of Waterloo (2011). CIW releases Canada’s first-ever index to measure national wellbeing. Retrieved from http://uwaterloo.ca/applied-health-sciences/news/ciw-releases-wellbeing-index.
  36. Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP): Scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127, 139–169.Google Scholar
  37. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivana Anusic
    • 1
  • Richard E. Lucas
    • 1
  • M. Brent Donnellan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations