IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v124y2015i1p317-317.html

Erratum to: Dimensions of Subjective Well-Being

Author

Listed:
  • Arie Kapteyn

  • Jinkook Lee

  • Caroline Tassot

  • Hana Vonkova

  • Gema Zamarro

Abstract

We use two waves of a population based survey (the RAND American Life Panel) to investigate the relations between various evaluative and experienced well-being measures based on the English Longitudinal Study of Aging, the Gallup Wellbeing Index, and a 12-item hedonic well-being module of the Health and Retirement Study. In a randomized set-up we administered several versions of the survey with different response scales. Using factor analysis, we find that all evaluative measures load on the same factor, but the positive and negative experienced affect measures load on different factors. We find evidence of an effect of response scales on both the estimated number of underlying factors and their relations with demographics. We conclude that finer response scales allowing more nuanced answers offer more reliability. The relation of evaluative and experienced measures with demographics are very different; perhaps the most striking aspect is the lack of a consistent relation of experienced well-being measures with income, while evaluative well-being is strongly positively related with income. Copyright The Author(s) 2015
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Arie Kapteyn & Jinkook Lee & Caroline Tassot & Hana Vonkova & Gema Zamarro, 2015. "Erratum to: Dimensions of Subjective Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 317-317, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:124:y:2015:i:1:p:317-317
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-014-0771-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11205-014-0771-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-014-0771-y?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 look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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:spr:soinre:v:124:y:2015:i:1:p:317-317. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.