Experiential Wellbeing Data from the American Time Use Survey: Comparisons with Other Methods and Analytic Illustrations with Age and Income
- 836 Downloads
There has been a recent upsurge of interest in self-reported measures of wellbeing by official statisticians and by researchers in the social sciences. This paper considers data from a wellbeing supplement to the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), which parsed the previous day into episodes. Respondents provided ratings of five experiential wellbeing adjectives (happiness, stress, tiredness, sadness, and pain) for each of three randomly selected episodes. Because the ATUS wellbeing module has not received very much attention, in this paper we provide the reader with details about the features of these data and our approach to analyzing the data (e.g., weighting considerations), and then illustrate the applicability of these data to current issues. Specifically, we examine the association of age and income with all of the experiential wellbeing adjective in the ATUS. Results from the ATUS wellbeing module were broadly consistent with earlier findings on age, but did not confirm all earlier findings between income and wellbeing. We conclude that the ATUS, with its measurement of time use, specific activities, and hedonic experience in a nationally representative survey, offers a unique opportunity to incorporate time use into the burgeoning field of wellbeing research.
KeywordsDaily measurement Evaluative wellbeing Experiential wellbeing Time use
This work was supported by Grants for the National Institute on Aging and the National Bureau of Economic Research, 5R01AG040629, P01AG05842, and 5R01AG042407.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
AAS and AD are Senior Scientists with the Gallup Organization.
- Baltes, P. B. (2003). Extending longevity: Dignity gain-or dignity drain? MaxPlanck Research, 3, 14–19.Google Scholar
- Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D. A. J., & Smith, A. P. (1992). Psychological stress and the common cold. New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 645–646.Google Scholar
- Forgeard, M. J., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1, 79–106.Google Scholar
- Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1968). Adjustments and reorientation in the course of the life span. In B. L. Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and aging (pp. 77–84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Harter, J. K., & Gurley, V. F. (2008). Measuring health in the United States. APS Observer, 21, 23–26.Google Scholar
- Junghaenel, D. U., Christodoulou, C., Lai, J.-S., & Stone, A. A. (2011). Demographic correlates of fatigue in the US general population: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) initiative. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 71(3), 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Krueger, A., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2009). Measuring the subjective well-being of nations: National accounts of time use and well-being: National time accounting: the currency of life (NBER Working Paper No. c5053). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Luttmer, E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 963–1002.Google Scholar
- O’Donnell, G., Deaton, A., Durand, M., Halpern, D., & Layard, R. (2014). Wellbeing and policy. London: Legatum Limited.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 97–123). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, N. (2012). Why researchers should think “real-time”: A cognitive rationale. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 22–42). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Shelley, K. J. (2005). Developing the American time use survey activity classification system. Monthly Labor Review, 128, 3–15.Google Scholar
- Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP). http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/documents.htm
- Stone, A. A., & Mackie, C. (2014). Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Stone, A. A., & Shiffman, S. (1994). Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 199–202.Google Scholar