Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 225–256 | Cite as

Normative Life Satisfaction: Measurement Issues and a Homeostatic Model

  • Robert A. Cummins
Article

Abstract

Previous studies have established that, when life satisfaction is measured over a range from 0 to 100 the mean scores of Western populations average 75 ± 2.5. The consistency of these data has given rise to the idea that life satisfaction may be held under homeostatic control. This paper further investigates this hypothesis by examining the distribution of data within populations. It also examines these data with a view to elucidating various methodological issues regarding life satisfaction measurement. In terms of the methodological issues it is concluded that measurement is best achieved using bi-directional Likert scales with at least 11 choice points. It is also determined that the life satisfaction of Western populations did not change over the decade 1980–1990, and that data derived from college students cannot be validly employed as proxy general population data. In terms of data distribution, it is calculated that the normal range of life satisfaction within Western populations lies within the range 40 to 100. The consistency of this non-normal distribution is argued to be further evidence that life satisfaction is held under homestatic control, and a descriptive model is proposed.

Keywords

General Population College Student Life Satisfaction Likert Scale Data Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Andrews, F. M.: 1984, 'Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach', Public Opinion Quarterly 48, pp. 409–442.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, F. M.: 1991, 'Stability and change in levels and structure of subjective well-being: USA 1972 and 1988', Social Indicators Research 25, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, F. M. and R. Crandall: 1976, 'The validity of measures of self-reported well-being', Social Indicators Research 3, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, F. M. and A. C. McKennel: 1980, 'Measures of self-reported well-being: Their affective, cognitive, and other components', Social Indicators Research 8, pp. 127–155.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, F. M. and J. P. Robinson: 1991, 'Measures of subjective well-being', in J. P. Robinson and L. S. Wrightsman (eds.),Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (Academic Press, New York), pp. 61–114.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, F. M. and S. B. Withey: 1976, Social Indicators of Well-being: Americans' Perceptions of Life Quality (Plenum Press, New York).Google Scholar
  7. Becker, E.: 1968, The Structure of Evil (Braziller, New York).Google Scholar
  8. Bortner, R. W. and D. F. Hultsch: 1970, 'A multivariate analysis of correlates of life satisfaction in adulthood', Journal of Gerontology 25, pp. 41–47.Google Scholar
  9. Brief, A. P., A. H. Butcher, J. M. George and K. E. Link: 1993, 'Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories of subjective well-being: The case of health', Journal of Personality and Social Pyschology 64, pp. 646–654.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, A., P. E. Converse and W. L. Rodgers: 1976, The Quality of American Life (Russell Sage Foundation, New York).Google Scholar
  11. Chang, L.: 1994, 'A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity', Applied Psychological Measurement 18, pp. 205–216.Google Scholar
  12. Cummins, R. A.: 1995, 'On the trail of the gold standard for subjective well-being', Social Indicators Research 35, pp. 179–200.Google Scholar
  13. Cummins, R. A.: 1997, The Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale-Intellectual/Cognitive Disability (ComQol-I5), 5th edition (School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne).Google Scholar
  14. Cummins, R. A.: 1998, 'The second approximation to an international standard for life satisfaction', Social Indicators Research 43, pp. 307–334.Google Scholar
  15. Cummins, R. A.: 2000, 'Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model', Social Indicators Research 52, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
  16. Cummins, R. A. and E. Gullone: 2000, 'Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement', Proceedings, Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (National University of Singapore, Singapore), pp. 74–93.Google Scholar
  17. Cummins, R. A. and H. Nistico: 2002, 'Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias', Journal of Happiness Studies 3, pp. 37–69.Google Scholar
  18. Cummins, R. A., E. Gullone and A. L. D. Lau: 2002a, 'A model of subjective well being homeostasis: The role of personality', in E. Gullone and R. A. Cummins (eds.) (Kluwer, Dordrecht) (in press).Google Scholar
  19. Cummins, R. A., R. Eckersley, J. Pallant, J. van Vugt and R. Misajon: 2002b, 'Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index', Social Indicators Research (in press).Google Scholar
  20. Diefenbach, M. A., N. D. Weinstein and J. O'Reilly: 1993, 'Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility', Health Education Research 8, pp. 181–192.Google Scholar
  21. Diener, E. and M. Diener: 1995, 'Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, pp. 653–663.Google Scholar
  22. Haavio-Mannila, E.: 1971, 'Satisfaction with family, work, leisure and life among men and women', Human Relations 24, pp. 585–601.Google Scholar
  23. Helzel, M. F., J. G. Goodale, R. C. Joyner and R. J. Burke: 1973, 'Development of a quality of working life questionnaire: Item discrimination study', in A. H. Portigal (ed.), Measuring the Quality of Working Life (Department of Labor, Ottawa), pp. 47–62, 207.Google Scholar
  24. Jaeschke, R. and G. H. Guyatt: 1990, 'How to develop and validate a new quality of life instrument', in B. Spilker (ed.), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials (Raven Press, New York), pp. 47–57.Google Scholar
  25. Lance, C. E. and C. E. Sloan: 1993, 'Relationships between overall and life facet satisfaction: A Multitrait Multimethod (MTMM) Study', Social Indicators Research 30, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  26. Lissitz, R. W. and S. B. Green: 1975, 'Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach', Journal of Applied Psychology 60, pp. 10–13.Google Scholar
  27. Lo, S. K.: 1997, Personal communication.Google Scholar
  28. Mastekaasa, A.: 1992, 'Marriage and psychological well-being: Some evidence on selection into marriage', Journal of Marriage and the Family 54, pp. 901–911.Google Scholar
  29. Mastekaasa, A.: 1994, 'Martial status, distress, and well-being: An international comparison', Journal of Comparative Family Studies 25, pp. 183–205.Google Scholar
  30. Near, J. P. and P. L. Rechner: 1993, 'Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: An historical view of differences among West European countries', Social Indicators Research 29, pp. 109–121.Google Scholar
  31. Nieves, C. C., R. A. Charter and M. J. Aspinall: 1991, 'Relationships between effective coping and perceived quality of life in spinal cord injured patients', Rehabilitation Nursing 16, pp. 129–132.Google Scholar
  32. Palmore, E. and C. Luikart: 1972, 'Health and social factors related to life satisfaction', Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 13, pp. 68–80.Google Scholar
  33. Rapley, M. and L. Hopgood: 1997, 'Quality of life in a community-based service in rural Australia', Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 22, pp. 125–141.Google Scholar
  34. Rodgers,W.: 1982, 'Trends in reported happiness within demographically defined subgroups, 1957-78', Social Forces 60, pp. 826–842.Google Scholar
  35. Saris, W. E. and A. Scherpenzeel: 1995, 'Correction for measurement error in life satisfaction research', in W. E. Saris and A. Munnich (eds.), The Multitrait-Multimethod Approach to Evaluate Measurement Instruments (Eotvos University Press, Budapest), pp. 243–267.Google Scholar
  36. Saris, W. E., Van Wijk, T. and A. Scherpenzeel: 1998, 'Validity and reliability of subjective social indicators: The effect of different measures of association', Social Indicators Research 45, pp. 173–199.Google Scholar
  37. Scherpenzeel, A.: 1995, 'Meta-analysis of a European comparative study', in W. E. Saris and A. Munnich (eds.), The Multitrait-Multimethod Approach to Evaluate Measurement Instruments (Eotvos University Press, Budapest), pp. 225–242.Google Scholar
  38. Snyder, E. E. and E. A. Spreitzer: 1974, 'Involvement in sport and psychological well-being', International Journal of Sport Psychology 5, pp. 28–39.Google Scholar
  39. Spitze, G., J. R. Logan, G. Joseph and E. Lee: 1994, 'Middle generation roles and the well-being of men and women', Journal of Gerontology 49, pp. S107–116.Google Scholar
  40. Veenhoven, R.: 1993, Happiness in Nations (University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Cummins
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyDeakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations