IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v22y2021i5d10.1007_s10902-020-00324-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment of Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Lianne P. Vries

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
    Amsterdam University Medical Centres)

  • Bart M. L. Baselmans

    (The University of Queensland)

  • Meike Bartels

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
    Amsterdam University Medical Centres)

Abstract

Feelings of well-being and happiness fluctuate over time and contexts. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies can capture fluctuations in momentary behavior, and experiences by assessing these multiple times per day. Traditionally, EMA was performed using pen and paper. Recently, due to technological advances EMA studies can be conducted more easily with smartphones, a device ubiquitous in our society. The goal of this review was to evaluate the literature on smartphone-based EMA in well-being research in healthy subjects. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Searching PubMed and Web of Science, we identified 53 studies using smartphone-based EMA of well-being. Studies were heterogeneous in designs, context, and measures. The average study duration was 12.8 days, with well-being assessed 2–12 times per day. Half of the studies included objective data (e.g. location). Only 47.2% reported compliance, indicating a mean of 71.6%. Well-being fluctuated daily and weekly, with higher well-being in evenings and weekends. These fluctuations disappeared when location and activity were accounted for. On average, being in nature and physical activity relates to higher well-being. Working relates to lower well-being, but workplace and company do influence well-being. The important advantages of using smartphones instead of other devices to collect EMAs are the easier data collection and flexible designs. Smartphone-based EMA reach far larger maximum sample sizes and more easily add objective data to their designs than palm-top/PDA studies. Smartphone-based EMA research is feasible to gain insight in well-being fluctuations and its determinants and offers the opportunity for parallel objective data collection. Most studies currently focus on group comparisons, while studies on individual differences in well-being patterns and fluctuations are lacking. We provide recommendations for future smartphone-based EMA research regarding measures, objective data and analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Lianne P. Vries & Bart M. L. Baselmans & Meike Bartels, 2021. "Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment of Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 2361-2408, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:22:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10902-020-00324-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-020-00324-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-020-00324-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10902-020-00324-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Geiger, Ben Baumberg & MacKerron, George, 2016. "Can alcohol make you happy? A subjective wellbeing approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 184-191.
    3. Doherty, Sean T. & Lemieux, Christopher J. & Canally, Culum, 2014. "Tracking human activity and well-being in natural environments using wearable sensors and experience sampling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-92.
    4. Michael Eid & Ed Diener, 2004. "Global Judgments of Subjective Well-Being: Situational Variability and Long-Term Stability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 245-277, February.
    5. Kai Ludwigs & Richard Lucas & Martijn Burger & Ruut Veenhoven & Lidia Arends, 2018. "How Does More Attention to Subjective Well-Being Affect Subjective Well-Being?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(4), pages 1055-1080, December.
    6. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi & Jeremy Hunter, 2003. "Happiness in Everyday Life: The Uses of Experience Sampling," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 185-199, June.
    7. Zhihua Li & Xiayun Yin & Sha Jiang & Mengcheng Wang & Taisheng Cai, 2014. "Psychological Mechanism of Subjective Well-Being: A Stable Trait or Situational Variability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 523-534, September.
    8. Martijn Hendriks & Kai Ludwigs & Ruut Veenhoven, 2016. "Why are Locals Happier than Internal Migrants? The Role of Daily Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 481-508, January.
    9. Magnus Johannesson & David I. Laibson & Sarah E. Medland & Michelle N. Meyer & Joseph K. Pickrell & Tõnu Esko & Robert F. Krueger & Jonathan P. Beauchamp & Philipp D. Koellinger & Daniel J. Benjamin &, 2016. "Genetic variants associated with subjective well-being, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism identified through genome-wide analyses," Post-Print hal-02017373, HAL.
    10. Mohsen Joshanloo, 2016. "Revisiting the Empirical Distinction Between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Aspects of Well-Being Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 2023-2036, October.
    11. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    12. Samantha Dockray & Nina Grant & Arthur Stone & Daniel Kahneman & Jane Wardle & Andrew Steptoe, 2010. "A Comparison of Affect Ratings Obtained with Ecological Momentary Assessment and the Day Reconstruction Method," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 99(2), pages 269-283, November.
    13. Anne Gadermann & Bruno Zumbo, 2007. "Investigating the Intra-Individual Variability and Trajectories of Subjective Well-being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 1-33, March.
    14. Sonja Lyubomirsky & Heidi Lepper, 1999. "A Measure of Subjective Happiness: Preliminary Reliability and Construct Validation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 137-155, February.
    15. Peter Greenspoon & Donald Saklofske, 2001. "Toward an Integration of Subjective Well-Being and Psychopathology," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 81-108, April.
    16. Christie Scollon & Chu Kim-Prieto & Ed Diener, 2003. "Experience Sampling: Promises and Pitfalls, Strengths and Weaknesses," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-34, March.
    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. Elisa Mancinelli & Giulia Bassi & Silvia Gabrielli & Silvia Salcuni, 2022. "The Efficacy of Digital Cognitive–Behavioral Interventions in Supporting the Psychological Adjustment and Sleep Quality of Pregnant Women with Sub-Clinical Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Marianne van Woerkom & Mihai Constantin & Mayke Janssens & Jennifer Reijnders & Nele Jacobs & Johan Lataster, 2022. "Networks of happiness: applying a Network Approach to Well-Being in the General Population," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 3215-3231, October.

    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. Louis Tay & David Chan & Ed Diener, 2014. "The Metrics of Societal Happiness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 577-600, June.
    2. Diane Pelly, 2022. "Worker well-being and quit intentions: is measuring job satisfaction enough?," Working Papers 202204, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    3. Gamze Dane & Aloys Borgers & Tao Feng, 2019. "Subjective Immediate Experiences during Large-Scale Cultural Events in Cities: A Geotagging Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Hideaki Sakawa & Fumio Ohtake & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2015. "Activity, Time, and Subjective Happiness: An analysis Based on an Hourly Web survey," ISER Discussion Paper 0926, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    5. Kai Ludwigs & Richard Lucas & Martijn Burger & Ruut Veenhoven & Lidia Arends, 2018. "How Does More Attention to Subjective Well-Being Affect Subjective Well-Being?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(4), pages 1055-1080, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Ed Diener & Louis Tay, 2014. "Review of the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 255-267, March.
    8. Arie Kapteyn & Jinkook Lee & Caroline Tassot & Hana Vonkova & Gema Zamarro, 2015. "Dimensions of Subjective Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 625-660, September.
    9. Romina Boarini & Margherita Comola & Femke Keulenaer & Robert Manchin & Conal Smith, 2013. "Can Governments Boost People’s Sense of Well-Being? The Impact of Selected Labour Market and Health Policies on Life Satisfaction," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 105-120, October.
    10. Flores, Gabriela & Ingenhaag, Michael & Maurer, Jürgen, 2015. "An anatomy of old-age disability: Time use, affect and experienced utility," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 150-160.
    11. Claudia Menne-Lothmann & Wolfgang Viechtbauer & Petra Höhn & Zuzana Kasanova & Simone P Haller & Marjan Drukker & Jim van Os & Marieke Wichers & Jennifer Y F Lau, 2014. "How to Boost Positive Interpretations? A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, June.
    12. Mikko Inkinen & Kirsti Lonka & Kai Hakkarainen & Hanni Muukkonen & Topi Litmanen & Katariina Salmela-Aro, 2014. "The Interface Between Core Affects and the Challenge–Skill Relationship," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 891-913, August.
    13. Akay, Alpaslan & Martinsson, Peter, 2009. "Sundays Are Blue: Aren’t They? The Day-of-the-Week Effect on Subjective Well-Being and Socio-Economic Status," IZA Discussion Papers 4563, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Heller-Sahlgren, Gabriel, 2018. "Smart but unhappy: Independent-school competition and the wellbeing-efficiency trade-off in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 66-81.
    15. Pascarn R. Dickinson & Philip S. Morrison, 2022. "Aversion to Local Wellbeing Inequality is Moderated by Social Engagement and Sense of Community," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 907-926, February.
    16. Gregor Gonza & Anže Burger, 2017. "Subjective Well-Being During the 2008 Economic Crisis: Identification of Mediating and Moderating Factors," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1763-1797, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Lou, Yunfei & Taylor, Emily P. & Di Folco, Simona, 2018. "Resilience and resilience factors in children in residential care: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 83-92.
    19. Francisco Caballero & Marta Miret & Beatriz Olaya & Jaime Perales & Ruy López-Ridaura & Josep Haro & Somnath Chatterji & José Ayuso-Mateos, 2014. "Evaluation of Affect in Mexico and Spain: Psychometric Properties and Usefulness of an Abbreviated Version of the Day Reconstruction Method," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 915-935, August.
    20. George-Laurentiu Serban-Oprescu & Silvia Dedu & Anca-Teodora Serban-Oprescu, 2019. "An Integrative Approach to Assess Subjective Well-Being. A Case Study on Romanian University Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-27, March.

    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:22:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10902-020-00324-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.