IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v17y2016i6d10.1007_s10902-015-9710-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Most People Happy? Exploring the Meaning of Subjective Well-Being Ratings

Author

Listed:
  • I. Ponocny

    () (MODUL University Vienna)

  • Ch. Weismayer

    (MODUL University Vienna)

  • B. Stross

    (MODUL University Vienna)

  • S. G. Dressler

    (MODUL University Vienna)

Abstract

Abstract The claim that most people are happy and satisfied, assuming that high self-ratings on numerical scales indicate good lives, is cross-checked against extensive verbal reports in a large-scale mixed-methods validation study. For a sample of 500 qualitative interviews conducted in Austria, the usual 10-point-scale self-ratings of life satisfaction and happiness were linked to the content of respondents’ actual narrations. Additionally, the narrated well-being was classified according to an alternative evaluation scheme by external raters. The results show that many persons report substantial restrictions to their hedonic experience in spite of high or even very high ratings, and that the narrated well-being evaluation is much more critical than the self-rating. Therefore it is argued that a naïve interpretation of high self-rating values as top life experience systematically ignores negative aspects of life. The claimed predominance of happiness should be substantially reformulated. In particular, more attention should be drawn to resilient satisfaction in the presence of substantial psychological burden, and to the non-negligible group of highly positive life satisfaction ratings which lack evidence of corresponding hedonic experience in the life narratives.

Suggested Citation

  • I. Ponocny & Ch. Weismayer & B. Stross & S. G. Dressler, 2016. "Are Most People Happy? Exploring the Meaning of Subjective Well-Being Ratings," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 2635-2653, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:17:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s10902-015-9710-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-015-9710-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-015-9710-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    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. repec:cup:apsrev:v:97:y:2003:i:04:p:567-583_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2008. "Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 39(1 (Spring), pages 1-102.
    3. repec:cup:apsrev:v:98:y:2004:i:01:p:191-207_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Robert Cummins & Helen Nistico, 2002. "Maintaining Life Satisfaction: The Role of Positive Cognitive Bias," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 37-69, March.
    5. Krueger, Alan B. & Schkade, David A., 2008. "The reliability of subjective well-being measures," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1833-1845, August.
    6. Robert Cummins, 2003. "Normative Life Satisfaction: Measurement Issues and a Homeostatic Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 225-256, November.
    7. Randy Larsen & Ed Diener & Robert Emmons, 1985. "An evaluation of subjective well-being measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Adrian Tomyn & Robert Cummins, 2011. "Subjective Wellbeing and Homeostatically Protected Mood: Theory Validation With Adolescents," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 897-914, October.
    9. Chu Kim-Prieto & Ed Diener & Maya Tamir & Christie Scollon & Marissa Diener, 2005. "Integrating The Diverse Definitions of Happiness: A Time-Sequential Framework of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 261-300, September.
    10. Alkire, Sabina & Foster, James, 2011. "Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 476-487.
    11. Ed Diener & Ronald Inglehart & Louis Tay, 2013. "Theory and Validity of Life Satisfaction Scales," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 112(3), pages 497-527, July.
    12. Ruut Veenhoven, 1991. "Is happiness relative?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-34, February.
    13. Mariano Rojas, 2005. "A Conceptual-Referent Theory of Happiness: Heterogeneity and its Consequences," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 261-294, November.
    14. Robert Biswas-Diener & Joar Vittersø & Ed Diener, 2005. "Most People are Pretty Happy, but There is Cultural Variation: The Inughuit, The Amish, and The Maasai," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 205-226, September.
    15. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    16. Ruut Veenhoven, 1995. "World Database of Happiness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 299-313, March.
    17. Oswald, Andrew J. & Wu, Stephen, 2010. "Objective Confirmation of Subjective Measures of Human Well-being: Evidence from the USA," IZA Discussion Papers 4695, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    18. Alex Michalos & P. Maurine Kahlke, 2010. "Stability and Sensitivity in Perceived Quality of Life Measures: Some Panel Results," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 403-434, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:aes:amfeco:v:46:y:2017:i:19:p:822 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:spr:jhappi:v:17:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s10902-015-9710-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.