Questions related to Subjective Well-being
I would like to join or initiate a network with this goal in mind. I cannot fathom why, especially in view of the documented psychological impact of COVID-19, hardly any secondary or tertiary institutions, in the US and abroad, are requiring these subjects to be taught. Some universities and high schools in the US, UK and Australia are offering courses on psychogical wellbeing AKA "happiness" as electives, but the content is often scientifically shallow and not integrated with student services.
to conduct the research at Master level i need a scale/instrument to measure Subjective Well-being in organization. how can i get a scale which has open access?
Good day! I wanted to ask for advice on how to measure Subjective Well-Being?
According to articles by Diener, Subjective Well-Being can be measured by 3 of his scales (Satsifaction with Life Scale [SWLS], Scale of Positive and Negative Experience [SPANE] and Flourishing Scale)?
I've seen previous studies combine both SWLS and SPANE, but the analysis was not explained clearly on how SWB was scored and measured. So may I know how it was scored? Do you just add their total scores and average them, or do you do any form of analysis to get a factor score (e.g. Confirmatory, Exploratory, etc.)?
I'm asking because I'm currently doing my master's thesis on SWB. Hoping for some responses. Thank you :)
Heart Rate Variability is a well known and useful concept in Biomedical Engineering and Medical Sciences. Breath Rate is a lesser researched field and a newer measure Breath-Rate Variability is introduced recently to quantify meditation effect.
It is gaining attention of researchers as BRV has a number of novel applications. What could they be.
We are looking for some one who can help with writting the introduction in the field of personality, social psychology, and well-being. If you are interested, please leave your email address here.
I'm working with life satisfaction as my dependent variable and some other independent variables that measure purchasing power (consumption, income and specific expenditures). To take into account the diminishig marginal returns of this last variables (following the literature) I transformed them in terms of their natural logarithm. However, now I want to compare the size of the coefficients of specific expenditures with the ones of consumption and income. Specifically, I would like some procedure which allows me to interpret the result like this: 1 unit of resources directed to a type of expenditure (say culture) is more/less effective to improve life satisfaction in comparison with the effect that this same unit would have under the category of income. If I just do this with withouth the natural logarithm (that is, expressed in dolars) the coefficients change in counterintuitive ways, so I would prefer to avoid this.
I was thinking about using beta coefficients, but I don't know if it makes sense to standarize an already logarithmic coefficient.
I have reported life satisfaction as my dependent variable and many independent variables of different kinds. Of them, one is the area in which the individual lives (urban/rural) and other is the access to public provided water service. When the area variable is included in the model, the second variable is non significant. However, when it is excluded, the public service gains enough significance for a 95% level of confidence. The two variables are moderately and negatively correlated (r= -0.45).
What possible explanations do you see for this phenomenom?
I'm studying the determinants of subjectve well being in my country and I have reported satisfaction with life as my dependent variable and almost 40 independent variables. I ran multicolinearity tests and I dind't find values bigger than 5 (in fact, just two variables had a VIF above 2). Also, my N=22 000, so I dont expect to have an overfitted model. Actually, at thet beggining, all was going well: the variables maintained their signficance and the values of their coefficients when I added or deleted some variables to test the robustness of the model and the adjusted R squared increased with the inclusion of more variables.
However, I finally included some variables that measure the satisfaction with specific life domains (family, work, profession, community, etc.) and there is when the problem started: my adjusted R squared tripled and the significance and even the signs of some variables changed dramatically, in some cases, in a counterintuitive way. I also tested multicolinearity and the correlation of these variables with the other estimators and I didn't find this to be a problem.
The literature says that it is very likely that there are endogeneity problems between satisfaction with life domains and satisfaction with life since it is not too much the objective life conditions that affect life satisfaction but the propensity to self-report satisfaction. Can this be the cause of my problem? If so, how?
PD: I'm not trying to demonstrate causality.
I'm investigating the determinants of subjective well being in my country and I have a well endowed database in which I found a lot of environmental, psicosocial and political variables (+ the common ones) that are theory-related to my dependent variable (subjective well-being). In this context, do you find any trouble about including them all (almost 35, and that already deleting the ones that measure the same concept) in one single model (using the adjusted R2)?
I am writing a paper on the determinants of happiness of different generations (Gen X and Gen Y) in Russia. What I want to achieve is too see whether the previously found determinants (such as income, relative income, marriage, children, employment, religion, computer/phone availability, health, gender, place of living), have different significance for different generations.
I am using the RLMS-HSE for this purpose (data on all years), which measures subjective well-being from 1 to 5 (1 - fully satisfied, 5 - not satisfied).
At first, I wanted to do the following:
Divide the data into 2 groups: first group with data on generation X being 25-30 years old, second group with data on generation Y being 25-30 years old (thus, to compare generations at the same age). Then run 2 separate regressions (ordered logit) in the form of:
SWB = income + relative income + marriage + children + employment + religion + computer/phone availability + health + gender + place of living
However, my advisor recommended me to run just 1 regression on the whole data set with interaction terms to separate the effects of age and generation:
SWB = income + income*age + income*year of birth + [the same for all variables mentioned above] + age + year of birth
I followed his advice, but the results were very poor, as almost every variable (including the non-interactive ones) was insignificant. When I run this regression without the interaction terms, the coefficients are significant. Thus, there clearly is some problem with the second model.
Can someone help me with the right regression construction? If the first approach is correct, should there be some modifications?
Hello, I am in the starting blocks to write my bachelor thesis. The thesis is supposed to be an empirical study, concerning heart rate variability and well-being and if HRV it might be a reliable measurement for (subjective) well-being. What I want with this discussion is to get input from you, what do you know about the two topics?
Thanks for your help!
I am looking for reliable and valid physiological, i.e. bio-metrical, measures, in order to (objectively) assess the situational personal importance of interview questions (or even questionnaire items). What physiological reactions would imply a high personal importance and emotional charge?
Thank you for your time,
I'm looking for a short form locus of control scale but am not having much luck. If anyone has any suggestions for a LOC scale that's under 20 questions, I'd really appreciate it!
If context matters, its for a project investigating the links between personality, subjective well-being and mental health.
I am working on a project linking parental homeownership to happiness score of their children and trying to figure out economic reasons whether to treat parental homeownership as endogenous or exogenous in my empirical model.
I have seen a number of studies on individual homeownership and their happiness score not treating homeownership as endogenous but some studies on parental homeownership and academic achievement of their children treating parental homeownership as endogenous. However, they just say that parents who own homes might be different in their characteristics and also in the way they raise their children. I still feel there needs to be more explanation to this if to treat as endogenous. Or should I just treat it as exogenous?
how can I tell if the results are either positive or negative? I understand you get two scores, one from the PA and the other from NA but if I'm only interested in the NA, how can i tell from the score on NA that it is infact negative?
Looking for thoughts into this idea.
Can parents owning house influence how their children subjectively view their life satisfaction or rate their happiness index. Does it have an impact? If yes, then what mechanism can be there to argue this point.
I am currently doing a research. As i read, Subjective well being has 2 aspect, cognitive and affective.
But which one of the two is more important? Or are they equally important?
I would be really glad if there will be a source too.
We welcome MPH students in Sweden and outside Sweden using SAGE, SAGE-INDEPTH, SAGE-HIV WOPS, or any data sets to engage on this project - add yourself as a contributor, and contribute to the discussions here. Use this as a portal to ask questions, raise issues with data and analyses, and engage with other data users.
Hi all, I am currently doing a dissertation project on whether education affects what kind of prison sentence a person is awarded. I am looking at both life without parole, and the death penalty. I am controlling for race, as this has been known to sway the results, this is categorized into black, white and other. Education is categorized by US grade, from 0 -25 (PhD). I need to know how to run this through SPSS and how to write it up in my results section. Can anyone help me? i have uploaded the excel sheet with the data.
I am planning to do a paper on Forgiveness relationship with Subjective Well Being, moderated by Religiosity.
I can use one scale for forgiveness, and one scale for Religiosity. But since SWB requires 2 scales (planning to use SWLS and SPANE), what stats analysis should I use. I can't sum SWLS and SPANE for a single value, as that would not be appropriate.
I am preparing a pre-/post test experiment for which I have an important question. I plan to do an intervention study that focusses on enhancing the independent psychological variables "mindfulness", "personal values awareness", "intrinsic values orientation" and "autonomy (self-concordance) of goals" of individuals. I plan to analyze how this intervention affects the dependant variables "goal engagement", "goal attainment", "subjective well-being", "psychological well-being" and certain health conditions like "depression", "anxiety" of the participants.
My specific question is, am I able to see how each of the independent variables contributes to each of the dependent variables. E.G. how "personal values" as one specific variable that was manipulated has affected each of the dependent variables. Or is it not possible to measure the causlities of each of the manipulated variables, because I manipulate 4 at a time? For me as a researcher it would be interesting to show causalities through my intervention and not only correlations.
It would be awesome to get some answers, as I am new to the methodoloy of experiments.
Traditionally time use is measured by filling out a survey. This is very costly. It seems this is why time use surveys are carried out very rarely.
Given all the technology that is currently available, are there no more modern ways of measuring time use (through telephones with GPS for example)?
The empirical data gathered in Yonkers from a sample of 57 individual men and women across race, ethnic, social stratification and age suggest educated women fall in love often at 75% of the time while educated men fall often in love at 16.6 % o the time (Comparison Between Subjective Well-being Versus Self-Actualization, Psychology Club of York College).
We are considering to use the Cantril Ladder (Cantril, 1965) to assess subjective well-being / satisfaction with life with a single item. The Cantril ladder has been used in numerous studies among various populations and in different settings and is considered to be a valid and reliable measure of subjective well-being. Does anyone know of any studies using this questionnaire in people with mild intellectual disability?
I am searching for literature (papers or books) on the thesis that welfare paternalism (that is, the infringement on the freedom of choice of a person aimed at improving his or her welfare) is self-defeating when the person does not understand why his/her freedom of choice ought to be restricted. The welfare of the person will be reduced because of his/her non-understanding. Conversely, if the person understands why there ought to exist restrictive constraints on his/her freedom of choice, he/she will accept these restrictive constraints, an acceptation which is better for his/her welfare.
For example, at a collective-political level, citizens would no longer – or, at least, would much less – suffer from the restrictive constraints upon democracy if they understood why constraints are needed to restrict the freedom of choice of temporary majorities. Constraints which are understood are better – for people's welfare – than constraints which are not understood.
Do you know any author, in economic or political theory, developing this thesis on the link between welfare paternalism and the comprehension of the constraints on freedom of choice?
Many thanks for your comments.
Dear all, I´m searching for studies that deal with mediators of coping with MS and outcomes such as adherence to DMT, subjective well-being and quality of life, etc., ... I´m especially interested in health psychology approaches. Thank you very much in advance!
I am going to conduct an ESM study, in which I intend to ask participants how happy they feel at the moment several times per day during two or three weeks, and what they are doing, in order to link an activity to a mean level of happiness for instance. (not unlike what researchers are doing with DRM studies)
I want it to be as simple as possible for the participants, so my intention is to only ask one single question about their happiness at the moment (and a question about what they are doing). Searching through the litterature about happiness and subjective well being (SWB), I have found quite a lot of different measures, but most are complete surveys with multiple questions (which I want to avoid) or deal with overall life satisfaction ("overall, how happy are you with your life?").
So far, I haven't found a valid and reliable single question that would measure SWB. I am well aware that, since there are several dimensions to it, it is more rigorous to ask multiple questions, but once again, I really want it to be as simple as possible.
What question should I ask ? Something like : "How happy are you feeling right now?" ?
And the study will be conducted with French participants by the way, so if someone here knows of a french formulation that works well, that would be very helpful (as you can imagine, it is much harder to find established measures in French than in English).
Will be used pre and post intervention on elderly residents in a retirement home
Why most people have positive affect balance (more positive affect than negative affect) most of the time?
First variant of the answer to this question: people have positive affect balance because most of the people have more successes than failures, more «income» than «expenses» most of the time (positive affect balance is a function of good performance).
Second variant of the answer to this question: people have positive affect balance because good performance is a function of positive affect balance (humans were selected for positivity offset in their evolutionary past, and positivity offset determines positive affect balance, which determines good performance).
A) Which answer do you like more? First__; Second__.
B) Which version of the answer is more relevant as a base for the research the problem today, in your opinion? First__; Second__.
C) What dependence is stronger, in your opinion: 1) performance as a function of affect balance or 2) affect balance as a function of performance? 1) __; 2) __.
D) Your comment: ……………….
A curvilinear theory suggests that the relationship between religiosity and death anxiety is curvilinear. That is, both high and low scorers on religiousness report lower levels of death anxiety. Only those who are moderately religious report higher levels of death anxiety. There are three rival theories. What is the best way to atest the theory?
I found some researchers used Positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS) + The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) to measure one's SWB.
Can I use Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) + the neuroticism part (8 questions) in The Big Five Inventory (BFI) + The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) instead?
literature related links between these “Independent variables” and the Dependent variable (student happiness)
What would that include and how can it be developed in academic settings?
It can be argued that well-being capabilities are with the scope of mandated human rights and should be included in curriculum.
I´m starting on a paper addressing happiness vs. loneliness relation within a city region? Does anyone know good references for this from the empirical happiness study? Or even better would be ones operating in an urban environment
Is there anyone working on the SHARE data, who could share some experience on dealing with the different scales of life satisfaction used in the survey?
In WAVE 1 there is a 4-point scale (1= Very satisfied; 2 = Somewhat satisfied; 3 = Somewhat dissatisfied; 4 = Very dissatisfied).
In WAVES 2,4 and 5 they switched to the commonly known 11-point scale ("On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means completely dissatisfied and 10 means completely satisfied, how satisfied are you with your life?")
When looking at the development of life satisfaction over time - how can I compare the results? How can I transform them to get comparable data? Any literature or concrete advice would be very helpful!
Studies examining the relation between income and subjective well-being have revealed a clear association between log-transformed income and life evaluation. However, it's not clear to me if it is appropriate for me to use log income when my subjects reported their income in a certain category:
These categories are discrete and not linear- some are much larger than the others. Would log work here?
I am searching for national versions of Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-14, Keyes) and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule 20-item version for measuring general affect (PANAS Watson & Tellegen). We plan to use them in our new study and it would be a great help to have it all.
I would require versions in: Italian, Dutch, Estonian, Latvian, Hungarian, Malay, Russian (for MHC only), Romanian, German (for MHC), Serbian, Czech, Slovak, Japanese, Korean, Portugal.
BBC report says scientists have developed a mathematical equation that can predict momentary delight. They found that participants were happiest when they performed better than expected during a risk-reward task.
"We can look at past decisions and outcomes and predict exactly how happy you will say you are at any point in time," said lead author Dr Robb Rutledge from University College London.
What is your opinion about this research? Now that we have an equation which can we use it in survey research to replace a Likert scale for such questions? Any further comments will help. Thanks.
Robb B. Rutledge, Nikolina Skandali, Peter Dayan, and Raymond J. Dolan - A computational and neural model of momentary subjective well-being, August 4, 2014, doi:10.1073/pnas.1407535111
I plan to investigate between parents' well-being of disabled children and children's well-being with disability. I need to know whether there is a short-version of child's well-being scale perceived by parents for disabled children between 6-13 years old. Researchers who are experienced in this topic, please share our thoughts.
I use the PWI-adults version from Cummins to measure parents' well-being with disabled child. However, I will also measure the disabled child's well-being using different questionnaire. Is it possible?
Based on most persons responses the general consensus is that I should measure PA, NA and SWLS independently. What confuses me, is how can I then speak of person's overall Subjective Well-Being score.
The research questions which I wanted to look at were:
1) Is there a difference between males and females’ levels of subjective well-being?
2) Is there a difference among participants’ ages and their levels of subjective well-being?
3) Is there a difference among participants’ perceived economic status(High, Middle & low) and their levels of subjective well-being?
4) Is there a relationship between the Big 5 personality traits(extroversion, etc) and participants’ levels of subjective well-being?
Are these research questions still feasible? If I test the scales independently (PA, NA, SWLS) would the format of my research questions change and what tests would I have to use to obtain this information?
PA, NA, SWLS are all interval variables (produces a raw score), Age is also an interval variable along with my BFI scores. The only nominal data is sex and perceived economic status (high, middle and low).
I am currently conducting research on the correlates of SWB: with Big five traits, and demographic variables (age, sex, and perceived economic status). I have collected data for SWB using the PANAS and SWLS. From my understanding, these two scales do not provide a total SWB score, but rather three separate scores. Therefore, I would have to run my statistical tests on all three dimensions (NA, PA, & SWLS) if i want to examine SWB. Is this correct?
I am looking forward to your replies and would love to engage anyone who is knowledgeable in this area, as I have so many questions about the data I have collected and what I can do with it.