SUBJECTIVE
WELL-BEING

Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and
Other Dimensions of Experience

Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework
Arthur A. Stone and Christopher Mackie, Editors

Committee on National Statistics

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                    OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Subjective Well-Being Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and Other Dimensions of Experience Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework Arthur A. Stone and Christopher Mackie, Editors Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, NW  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of E ­ ngineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for ap- propriate balance. This study was supported by Task Order No. N01-OD-42139 between the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of Sciences, and award number 10000592 between the UK Economic and Social Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences. Support for the Committee on National Statistics is provided by a consortium of federal agencies through a grant from the National Science Foundation (award number SES-1024012). Any opinions, findings, conclu- sions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that pro- vided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13:  978-0-309-29446-1 International Standard Book Number-10:  0-309-29446-0 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2013). Subjective Well-Being: Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and Other Dimensions of Experience. Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework. A.A. Stone and C. Mackie, Editors. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad- emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding e ­ ngineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is presi- dent of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti- tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci- ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The C ­ ouncil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework ARTHUR A. STONE (Chair), Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stony Brook University NORMAN M. BRADBURN, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago LAURA L. CARSTENSEN, Department of Psychology, Stanford University EDWARD F. DIENER, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign PAUL H. DOLAN, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science CAROL L. GRAHAM, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, and School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park V. JOSEPH HOTZ, Department of Economics, Duke University DANIEL KAHNEMAN, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University ARIE KAPTEYN, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, and RAND Corporation AMANDA SACKER, Research Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London NORBERT SCHWARZ, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan JUSTIN WOLFERS, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan CHRISTOPHER MACKIE, Study Director ANTHONY S. MANN, Program Coordinator v

OCR for page R1
Committee on National Statistics 2013-2014 LAWRENCE D. BROWN (Chair), Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania JOHN M. ABOWD, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University MARY ELLEN BOCK, Department of Statistics, Purdue University DAVID CARD, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley ALICIA CARRIQUIRY, Department of Statistics, Iowa State University MICHAEL E. CHERNEW, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University JAMES S. HOUSE, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan MICHAEL HOUT, Department of Sociology, New York University SALLIE ANN KELLER, Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech, Arlington, Virginia LISA LYNCH, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University COLM A. O’MUIRCHEARTAIGH, Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago RUTH D. PETERSON, Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State University EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University and Arizona State University HAL STERN, Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Director JACQUELINE R. SOVDE, Program Associate vi

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments This report is the product of contributions from many colleagues, whom we thank for their insights and counsel. The project was sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) of the National Institutes of Health and by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). We thank Richard Suzman and Lis Nielsen at NIA and Paul Boyle, Joy Todd, Ruth Lee, and Margot Walker at ESRC for their leadership in the area of subjective well-being (SWB) measurement and for their guidance and input to the project. The panel also thanks the following individuals who attended the panel’s open meetings and generously presented material to inform our ­ delibera­ions. Angus Deaton (Princeton University) informed the panel t about his analyses of Gallup data and other relevant research; Robert Groves (then director of the U.S. Census Bureau, now provost of George- town University) provided an overview of the potential role of federal sur- veys and statistical programs for advancing the measurement of SWB; and Richard Frank (Harvard University) and Jennifer Madans (National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) out- lined the role of SWB measures in health research and policy and informed the panel about government experiences with them. Paul Allin, Stephen Hicks, Glenn Everett, and Dawn Snape (UK Office for National Statistics) provided overviews of exciting experimental work ongoing in the United Kingdom. Conal Smith, Carrie Exton, and Marco Mira d’Ercole (OECD) kept the panel abreast of their impressive work on the OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, which was being conducted as the panel’s vii

OCR for page R1
viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS work was under way. Somnath Chatterji (World Health Organization) discussed the organization’s ongoing work on SWB as it pertains to health; Rachel Kranz-Kent (Bureau of Labor Statistics) provided an overview and plans for the agency’s American Time Use Survey module on SWB; Michael Wolfson (University of Ottawa; formerly, Statistics Canada) informed the panel about Canada’s experiences in developing and using well-being and quality-of-life measures; Steven Landefeld (Bureau of Economic Analysis) outlined the role of national economic accounts in measuring welfare and their relationship to measures of well-being; Michael Horrigan (Bureau of Labor Statistics) described his agency’s interests in time-use statistics and well-being measures; Hermann Habermann (formerly with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the United Nations Statistical Division, and the U.S. Census Bureau) provided insights into U.S. and international sta- tistical agencies’ perspectives on the measurement of SWB; and Georgios Kavetsos and Laura Kudrna (London School of Economics) summarized their research findings (with panel member Paul Dolan) from analyses of data from the UK Office for National Statistics. The panel could not have conducted its work efficiently without a very capable staff. Constance Citro, director of the Committee on National Statistics, and Robert Hauser, director of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE), provided institutional leadership and substantive contributions during meetings; Kirsten Sampson-Snyder, DBASSE, expertly coordinated the review process; and Robert Katt pro- vided thoughtful and thorough final editing. We also thank program coor- dinator Anthony Mann for his terrific logistical support of our local and overseas meetings. On behalf of the panel, I especially thank the study director, ­ hristopher C Mackie, for his superb oversight of the panel’s activities and his substantive contributions to the panel’s work and this report. He skillfully and intel- ligently organized meetings and helped create a cordial and stimulating environment for conducting the panel’s work. Chris mastered an entirely new domain of knowledge and contributed to the report by his careful and insightful editing of panel members’ preliminary drafts of materials and diligent work on the final draft. And I would like to extend a personal note of gratitude to Chris for his unwavering optimism and good humor throughout this process; it was a delightful experience working with him on this project. Most importantly, I would like to thank panel members for their patience, creativity, hard work, and graciousness when dealing with one another. Psychologists, sociologists, and economists often have different world views, and the panel was exceptionally cordial and considerate of

OCR for page R1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix all viewpoints. The report reflects collective expertise and commitment of all panel members: Norman Bradburn, University of Chicago; Laura Carstensen, Stanford University; Edward Diener, University of Illinois at Urbana-­ hampaign; Paul Dolan, London School of Economics and C ­ olitical Science; Carol Graham, The Brookings Institution and Univer- P sity of ­ aryland, College Park; V. Joseph Hotz, Duke University; Daniel M Kahneman, Princeton University; Arie Kapteyn, Center for Economic and ­ Social Research, University of Southern California and RAND Corpora- tion; Amanda Sacker, University College London; Norbert Schwarz, Uni- versity of Michigan; and Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan. We all benefited from and enjoyed the depth of knowledge the panel members brought—literally—to the table. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that assist the institution in making its reports as sound as possible, and to ensure that the reports meet institu- tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The panel thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Linda M. Bartoshuk, Center for Smell and Taste, University of ­ F ­ lorida; Cynthia M. Beall, Department of Anthropology, Case Western ­ R ­ eserve University; Jennie E. Brand, Department of Sociology and C ­ alifornia Center for Population Research, University of California, Los ­ ngeles; Dora Costa, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of A Technology; Richard A. Easterlin, Department of Economics, University of Southern California; Jim Harter, Workplace Management and Wellbeing, Gallup; Martin Seligman, Department of Psychology, University of Penn- sylvania; Dylan Smith, Center for Medical Humanities, Compassionate Care, and Bioethics, Stony Brook University; Jacqui Smith, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan; Tom W. Smith, NORC at the Uni- versity of Chicago; Frank Stafford, Department of Economics, University ­ of ­ ichigan; Andrew Steptoe, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, M University College London; and Joseph E. Stiglitz, Graduate School of Busi- ness, Columbia University. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its ­ elease. The review of the report was overseen by James S. House, Survey r

OCR for page R1
x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research Center, Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan, and Ronald Brookmeyer, Depart­ ent of Biostatistics, University of California, ­ m Los Angeles. ­ ppointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee, they were A responsible for making certain that the independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the authoring panel and the NRC. Arthur A. Stone, Chair Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 15 1.1 Overview of Subjective Well-Being, 15 1.1.1 Evaluative Well-Being, 16 1.1.2 Experienced Well-Being, 17 1.1.3 Eudaimonic Well-Being, 19 1.2 Study Charge, 20 1.3 Motivation for Study, 21 1.4 Report Audience, Report Structure, 26 2 CONCEPTUALIZING EXPERIENCED (OR HEDONIC) WELL-BEING 29 2.1 Distinctiveness of Experienced and Evaluative Well-Being, 30 2.2 Dimensions of ExWB, 36 2.2.1  Negative and Positive Experiences—Selecting Content for Surveys, 36 2.2.2 Eudaimonia, 40 2.2.3  Other Candidate Emotions and Sensations for Measures of ExWB, 44 xi

OCR for page R1
xii CONTENTS 3 MEASURING EXPERIENCED WELL-BEING 49 3.1 Ecological Momentary Assessment, 49 3.2 Single-Day Measures, 52 3.2.1 End-of-Day Measures, 52 3.2.2 Global-Yesterday Measures, 54 3.2.3 Appropriateness and Reliability of Single-Day Assessments of ExWB, 55 3.3 Reconstructed Activity-Based Measures, 59 3.3.1 Comparing DRM with Momentary Approaches, 61 3.3.2 Time-Use Surveys, 66 4 ADDITIONAL CONCEPTUAL AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES 69 4.1 Cultural Considerations, 69 4.2 Aging and the Positivity Effect, 71 4.3 Sensitivity of ExWB Measures to Changing Conditions, 72 4.4 Adaptation, Response Shift, and the Validity of ExWB Measures, 75 4.5 Survey Contextual Influences, 79 4.6 Question-Order Effects, 81 4.7 Scale Effects, 83 4.8 Survey-Mode Effects, 84 5 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING AND POLICY 87 5.1 What Do SWB Constructs Predict?, 91 5.2 What Questions Can Be Informed by SWB Data: Evaluating Their Uses, 95 5.2.1 The Health Domain, 95 5.2.2 Applications Beyond the Health Domain, 98 6 DATA COLLECTION STRATEGIES 103 6.1 Overall Approach, 103 6.1.1 The Measurement Ideal, 105 6.1.2 Next Steps and Practical Considerations, 109 6.2 How to Leverage and Coordinate Existing Data Sources, 112 6.2.1  SWB in Health Surveys and Other Special- Purpose Surveys, 113 6.2.2 Taking Advantage of ATUS, 116 6.3 Research and Experimentation—The Role of Smaller-Scale Studies, Nonsurvey Data, and New Technologies, 120 REFERENCES 125

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS xiii APPENDIXES A  Experienced Well-Being Questions and Modules from Existing Surveys 137 B  The Subjective Well-Being Module of the American Time Use Survey: Assessment for Its Continuation 153 C  Biographical Sketches of Panel Members 183

OCR for page R1