A Dialogue-Based Approach to Subjective Well-Being: Co-Interpreting the Meaning of Daily Experiences

  • Qiumeng QiEmail author
  • Hirofumi Minami
Regular Article


Different from statistically analyzed self-reports of Subjective Well-Being (SWB), we explored how dialogue engenders the meaning of SWB as constituted through an individual’s daily experiences. A revised Day Reconstruction Method (DRM; Kahneman et al. 2004) was used to describe the participants’ previous day episodically, followed by a semi-structured life world interview (Kvale 1996) for the explication through dialogue of those episodes. The results of qualitative analyses on the structure and contents of the discourse of the DRM and interviews with three participants highlighted the following: 1) the participants construed the meaning of daily experiences by organizing and weighting them in individualized ways; 2) the meaning of daily episodes emerged and was clarified in the process of collaborative dialogue in the interview as well as in the analyses, and was vividly expressed in particular protocol sequences; and 3) Kelly’s (1955) notion of Personal Construct is applicable to make sense of individualized narratives as a form of Well-Being. We concluded that the subjectivity of SWB does not merely imply the first-person authority in charge of the evaluation in the questionnaires, but rather is understood as a construct that reveals the personal meaning of one’s daily experiences. The emergent quality of this process is crucial for understanding the nature of subjectivity in SWB.


Dialogue Subjective well-being Daily experiences Meaning construction 



We would like to thank Jaan Valsiner and Tania Zittoun for their constructive comments on a previous version of the manuscript, as well as Sascha Monhoff, whose editorial comments were of great help.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Alexandrova, A. (2005). Subjective well-being and Kahneman’s ‘objective happiness’. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. S. (1991). Self-making and world-making. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 25(1), 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2014). Review of the day reconstruction method (DRM). Social Indicators Research, 116(1), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finkelstein, D. H. (2003). Expression and the inner. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fransella, F. (1995). George Kelly. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Hasegawa, Y. (2010). Adjustment of time allocation and daily emotional experience during the transition to the role of a working mother. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 81(2), 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspective, 20, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., Kruege, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method (DRM). Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  19. Kelly, G. (1963). The theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  20. Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience sampling method. New Directions for Methodology of Social and. Behavioral Science, 15, 41–56.Google Scholar
  23. Little, B. (2000). Persons, contexts, and personal projects: Assumptive themes of a methodological transactionalism. In S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto, & H. Minami (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavior research: Underlying assumptions, research problems and methodologies (pp. 79–88). New York: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schiff, B. (2012). The function of narrative: Toward a narrative psychology of meaning. Narrative Works: Issues, Investigations, & Interventions, 2(1), 33–47.Google Scholar
  25. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Building human strength: Psychology’s forgotten mission. APA monitor, 29(1).Google Scholar
  28. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tindall, C. (2011). The repertory grid and its possibilities. In: P. Banister, G. Bunn, E, Burman, J. Daniels, P. Duckett, D. Goodley, R. Lawthom, I. Parker, K. Runswick-Cole, J. Sismith, S. Smailes, C. Tindall, & P. Whelan (Eds.), Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide (pp.100–115). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  31. Wapner, S., Demick, J., Yamamoto, T., & Minami, H. (2000). Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavior research: Underlying assumptions, research problems and methodologies. New York: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Human-Environment StudiesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations