Advertisement

The Structure of Subjective Well-Being in Nine Western Societies

  • Frank M. Andrews
  • Ronald F. Inglehart
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 26)

Abstract

The structure of subjective well-being is analyzed by multidimensional mapping of evaluations of life concerns. For example, one finds that evaluations of Income are close to (i.e., relatively strongly related to) evaluations of Standard of living, but remote from (weakly related to) evaluations of Health. These structures show how evaluations of life components fit together and hence illuminate the psychological meaning of life quality. They can be useful for determining the breadth of coverage and degree of redundancy of social indicators of perceived well-being. Analyzed here are data from representative sample surveys in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, and the United States (each N ≈ 1000). Eleven life concerns are considered, including Income, Housing, Job, Health, Leisure, Neighborhood, Transportation, and Relations with other people. It is found that structures in all of these countries have a basic similarity and that the European countries tend to be more similar to one another than they are to USA. These results suggest that comparative research on subjective well-being is feasible within this group of nations.

Keywords

Social Indicator Basic Similarity European Data European Survey American Respondent 
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. Abrams, M. ‘Subjective social indicators’. Social Trends, No. 4. London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. Allardt, E. ‘Dimensions of welfare in a comparative Scandinavian study’. Research Reports No. 9. Helsinki, Research Group for Comparative Sociology, University of Helsinki, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S. B. Social Indicators of Well-being: Americans’ Perceptions of Life Quality. New York, Plenum, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., and Rodgers, W. L. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. Computer Support Group of the Center for Political Studies. SPACES: Program Writeup. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, June 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Development Academy of the Philippines. Measuring the Quality of Life: Philippine Social Indicators. Manila, Development Academy of the Philippines, 1975.Google Scholar
  7. Guttman, L. ‘A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points’. Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 469–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall, J. ‘Subjective measures of quality of life in Britain: 1971 to 1975; Some developments and trends’. Social Trends, No. 7. London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. Inglehart, R. F. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. Levy, S. ‘Use of the mapping sentence for coordinating theory and research: A cross cultural example’. Quality and Quantity, 1976, 10, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lingoes, J. C. and Borg, I. ‘Procrustean individual difference scaling’. Journal of Marketing Research, 1976, 13, 406–407.Google Scholar
  12. Lingoes, J. C., Guttman, L., and Roskam, E. E. Geometric Representations of Relational Data. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Mathesis Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. Lingoes, J. C. and Roskam, E. ‘A mathematical and empirical study of two multidemensional scaling algorithms’. Psychometric Monographs, 1973, 38.Google Scholar
  14. Lingoes, J. C. and Schönemann, P. H. ‘Alternative measures of fit for the Schönemann-Carrol matrix fitting algorithm’. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 423–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neel, J. V., Rothhammer, F., and Lingoes, J. C. ‘The genetic structure of a tribal population, the Yanomamo Indians. X. Agreement between representations of village distances based on different sets of characteristics’’. American Journal of Human Genetics, 1974, 26, 281–303.Google Scholar
  16. Rabier, J. R. Satisfaction et Insatisfaction Quant aux Conditions de Vie dans les Pays Membres de la Communaute Europeene. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities, 1974.Google Scholar
  17. Riffault, H. and Rabier, J. R. The perception of poverty in Europe. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. Roskam, E. and Lingoes, J. C. ‘MINISSA-I: A FORTRAN IV (G) program for the smallest space analysis of square symmetric matrices’. Behavioral Science, 1970, 15, 204–205.Google Scholar
  19. Schönemann, P. H. and Carroll, R. M. ‘Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion’. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shepard, R. M., Romney, A. K., and Nerlove, S. B. Multidimensional Scaling. New York, Seminar Press, 1972.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank M. Andrews
    • 1
  • Ronald F. Inglehart
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations