IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/31728.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Adjusting for Scale-Use Heterogeneity in Self-Reported Well-Being

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel J. Benjamin
  • Kristen Cooper
  • Ori Heffetz
  • Miles S. Kimball
  • Jiannan Zhou

Abstract

Analyses of self-reported-well-being (SWB) survey data may be confounded if people use response scales differently. We use calibration questions, designed to have the same objective answer across respondents, to measure dimensional (i.e., specific to an SWB dimension) and general (i.e., common across questions) scale-use heterogeneity. In a sample of ~3,350 MTurkers, we find substantial such heterogeneity that is correlated with demographics. We develop a theoretical framework and econometric approaches to quantify and adjust for this heterogeneity. We apply our new estimators in several standard SWB applications. Adjusting for general-scale-use heterogeneity changes results in some cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Jiannan Zhou, 2023. "Adjusting for Scale-Use Heterogeneity in Self-Reported Well-Being," NBER Working Papers 31728, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:31728
    Note: AG EH LS PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w31728.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348.
    2. Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "On the curvature of the reporting function from objective reality to subjective feelings," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 369-372, September.
    3. Andrew E. Clark & Paul Frijters & Michael A. Shields, 2008. "Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 95-144, March.
    4. Robert J. MacCulloch & Rafael Di Tella & Andrew J. Oswald, 2001. "Preferences over Inflation and Unemployment: Evidence from Surveys of Happiness," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 335-341, March.
    5. Loewenstein, George & Ubel, Peter A., 2008. "Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision and experience utility in public policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1795-1810, August.
    6. John F. Helliwell & Christopher P. Barrington‐Leigh, 2010. "Viewpoint: Measuring and understanding subjective well‐being," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 729-753, August.
    7. Levinson, Arik, 2012. "Valuing public goods using happiness data: The case of air quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 869-880.
    8. Aldrich, John H. & McKelvey, Richard D., 1977. "A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 111-130, March.
    9. Schröder, Carsten & Yitzhaki, Shlomo, 2017. "Revisiting the evidence for cardinal treatment of ordinal variables," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 337-358.
    10. Giustinelli, Pamela & Manski, Charles F. & Molinari, Francesca, 2022. "Tail and center rounding of probabilistic expectations in the Health and Retirement Study," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 265-281.
    11. Weijters, Bert & Baumgartner, Hans & Geuens, Maggie, 2016. "The calibrated sigma method: An efficient remedy for between-group differences in response category use on Likert scales," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 944-960.
    12. Richard A. Easterlin, 2012. "Life satisfaction of rich and poor under socialism and capitalism," International Journal of Happiness and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 112-126.
    13. Groseclose, Tim & Levitt, Steven D. & Snyder, James M., 1999. "Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(1), pages 33-50, March.
    14. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen B. Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles Kimball, 2017. "Challenges in Constructing a Survey-Based Well-Being Index," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 81-85, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball, 2023. "From Happiness Data to Economic Conclusions," NBER Working Papers 31727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. O'Donnell, Gus & Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 59-70.
    3. Ferreira, Susana & Moro, Mirko & Welsch, Heinz, 2024. "Using Life Satisfaction and Happiness Data for Environmental Valuation: An Experienced Preference Approach," IZA Discussion Papers 16718, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Georgios Kavetsos & Ichiro Kawachi & Ilias Kyriopoulos & Sotiris Vandoros, 2021. "The effect of the Brexit referendum result on subjective well‐being," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(2), pages 707-731, April.
    5. Odermatt, Reto & Stutzer, Alois, 2017. "Subjective Well-Being and Public Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 11102, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Ekaterina Oparina & Sorawoot Srisuma, 2022. "Analyzing Subjective Well-Being Data with Misclassification," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 730-743, April.
    7. Christopher Mackie & Conal Smith, 2015. "Conceptualizing Subjective Well-Being And Its Many Dimensions – Implications For Data Collection In Official Statistics And For Policy Relevance," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 16(3), pages 335-372, September.
    8. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2015. "Happiness, Equivalent Incomes and Respect for Individual Preferences," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82, pages 1082-1106, December.
    9. Chen, Le-Yu & Oparina, Ekaterina & Powdthavee, Nattavudh & Srisuma, Sorawoot, 2022. "Robust Ranking of Happiness Outcomes: A Median Regression Perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 672-686.
    10. Akay, Alpaslan & Bargain, Olivier & Elsayed, Ahmed, 2018. "Everybody's a Victim? Global Terror, Well-Being and Political Attitudes," Working Papers in Economics 733, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    12. Filiz Gülal & Adam Ayaita, 2020. "The Impact of Minimum Wages on Well-Being: Evidence from a Quasi-experiment in Germany," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(7), pages 2669-2692, October.
    13. Cristina Bernini & Alessandro Tampieri, 2022. "The Mediating Role of Urbanization on the Composition of Happiness," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(3), pages 639-657, June.
    14. Kaiser, Caspar F. & Vendrik, Maarten C.M., 2020. "How Threatening Are Transformations of Happiness Scales to Subjective Wellbeing Research?," IZA Discussion Papers 13905, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Jeffrey R. Bloem & Andrew J. Oswald, 2022. "The Analysis of Human Feelings: A Practical Suggestion for a Robustness Test," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 68(3), pages 689-710, September.
    16. Nicholas Gunby & Tom Coupé, 2023. "Weather-Related Home Damage and Subjective Well-Being," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(2), pages 409-438, February.
    17. Byela Tibesigwa & Martine Visser & Brennan Hodkinson, 2016. "Effects of Objective and Subjective Income Comparisons on Subjective Wellbeing," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(1), pages 361-389, August.
    18. Mona Ahmadiani & Susana Ferreira & Jacqueline Kessler, 2022. "What Makes People Happy? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 2083-2111, June.
    19. Katrin Rehdanz & Welsch Heinz & Daiju Naritaa & Toshihiro Okubod, 2013. "Well-being effects of a major negative externality: The case of Fukushima," Working Papers V-358-13, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2013.
    20. Chen, Le-Yu & Oparina, Ekaterina & Powdthavee, Nattavudh & Srisuma, Sorawoot, 2019. "Have Econometric Analyses of Happiness Data Been Futile? A Simple Truth about Happiness Scales," IZA Discussion Papers 12152, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:31728. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.