Developing a Comprehensive and One-Dimensional Subjective Well-Being Measurement: Evidence from a Belgian Pilot Survey

Transcription

1 Developing a Comprehensive and One-Dimensional Subjective Well-Being Measurement: Evidence from a Belgian Pilot Survey Marc Hooghe 1 1 University of Leuven (Belgium), Marc.Hooghe@soc.kuleuven.be Abstract During recent years, various instruments have been proposed to arrive at a comprehensive study of quality of life assessments. Both for methodological as for theoretical reasons, we claim that single item measurements should not be used in this respect. In this paper we propose a five-item subjective well-being scale, covering various domains of life. A representative pilot survey in Belgium (n=2,080) indicates that the new scale is strongly one-dimensional and internally coherent. A multivariate analysis demonstrates the importance of education, age and having a partner to understand levels of subjective well-being. We argue that this five-item scale could be adopted in future population surveys on subjective well-being. Keywords: Subjective well-being, scale construction, Belgium 1. Introduction In recent years, academic interest in the topic of subjective well-being has surged (Camfield & Skevington, 2008; Diener, 2009; Helliwell & Barrington-Leigh, 2010; Krueger & Schkade, 2008). In this stream of the academic literature, the intention is to develop reliable survey scales that allow scholars and policymakers to assess in a comprehensive manner the self-perceived quality of life of individuals (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006). Subjective well-being measurements are now routinely used, both to compare entire nations (Diener, Diener & Diener, 1995; Diener, Oishi & Lucas, 2003) as to investigate the quality of life of specific subgroups within the population (Morgan et al., 2010). The development of reliable subjective well-being scales also has a strong political and social relevance, as political systems increasingly recognize that one-sided material developmental goals have to be supplemented with more comprehensive quality of life goals and monitoring instruments (e.g., Bok, 2010; Council of Europe, 2008). If well-being measurements indeed will be used more frequently as a monitoring tool in the development of evidence-based policies, the operationalisation of the measurement scales therefore could have strong consequences, as political systems will have the tendency to focus their efforts on the indicators that are included in the evaluative measurements (Dolan & White, 2007). 1

2 Despite the increasing attention to the development of well-being indicators, it is striking to note that there is not a consensus yet on the best way to measure subjective well-being in population surveys. Subjective well-being can be measured, either with a single item, or by using a validated scale (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006). The easiest form is a singleitem question, that is phrased as: All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays? Within social-psychological research, however, it is a standard rule of thumb that validated and balanced scales should be preferred over single items, as this latter method is prone to various forms of measurement error (Streiner & Norman, 2008). Therefore, increasingly subjective well-being scales, composed of different related items are preferred. Either, these items probe into various dimensions of subjective well-being, or they list various domains of life, asking respondents how satisfied they are with these life domains. 2. Methods The current analysis is based on the results of a representative population survey in the Flemish region of Belgium. The Social Cohesion Indicators in the Flemish Region (or SCIF survey) was conducted by an inter-university consortium in 2009, with the explicit goal to develop and monitor social cohesion in the country. Respondents between the ages of 18 to 85 were randomly sampled by using the official population register of the country. Given the number of questions, and the technical complexity of them, the survey was conducted in a face-to-face manner, in the homes of the respondents, by trained professional interviewers (Groves et al., 2009). The survey was conducted in accordance with the current legal and ethical norms in the country. According to the definition worked out by the American Associations for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the survey reached a response rate of 54 per cent, which is in line with earlier comparable studies in the country. Subsequent analysis showed that the sample was representative for the population of the Flemish region with regard to gender, region and age (Hooghe, Vanhoutte & Bircan, 2009). 3. Measures The questionnaire included a conventional subjective well-being scale. Respondents were asked to indicate all things considered, how satisfied they are with five domains in their life: health, leisure, family life, sexual life and social life. For each of these items they could answer on a zero (very discontented) to ten (very content) scale. First we will assess the internal validity of the new scale, by means of an exploratory principal component analysis, and subsequently we will empirically assess whether the scale can be used in multivariate analysis. 4. Results Descriptives. The results show that respondents are most satisfied with their family life, and the mean score on this item is 8.24 (Table 1). Satisfaction with one s social life is also quite high with an average of It can be observed that men on average reported 2

3 slightly higher well-being scores than women, although differences tend to remain limited. Especially for the sexual item, gender differences are minimal. While respondents in the 35 to 49 age group are characterized by low scores on the leisure item, older respondents have lower scores on the health and sexuality items. In general, highly educated respondents are much more satisfied with their life than those with lower educational credentials. Table 1. Subjective Well-Being Indicators in Belgium Family Social Health Sexual Leisure Life Life Life All Gender: - Women - Men * * Age: ** Education - Lower - Lower Sec. -Higher Sec -Higher Ed. Valid answers (missing values) (41) * ** (18) * * * (7) (169) Subjective Well-Being scores (0-10 scale). Entries are mean scores per group. Source: SCIF 2009 (total n= 2,080). Sign. on ANOVA test: : p<.001; **:p<.01; *:p<.05. (11) ** Scale characteristics. In order to ascertain whether the item actually can be added in a valid manner to the scale, we conducted an exploratory principal component analysis. This will allow us to decide whether the sexual item loads on the latent concept subjective well-being. First (Table 2), we conduct a principal component analysis on the four item scale. The analysis resulted in only one factor with an Eigenvalue above 1. The scale indeed proves to be internally coherent and one-dimensional. A Cronbach s α of.70 is quite satisfactory in this respect. The highest factor loadings go to the contentment with one s social and family life, which would indicate that relational elements are clearly of paramount importance for general well-being. Health scores lower with a factor loading of

4 Table 2. Factor Solution Subjective Well-Being Four Item Scale Five Item Five Item, for Subgroups Scale Women Men Health Leisure Family Social Sexual n.a Eigen Value Explained % % % % Variance Cronbach s α Principal component analysis of the subjective well-being scales (without and with sexual well-being). Source: SCIF 2009,total n=2,080. Subsequently we add the sexual item, and it can be observed that it loads strongly on the subjective well-being scale, with a factor loading of.731. The factor loadings of the other items do not change all that much, except for leisure time, that is rendered less central. Apparently some of the variation that is attributed to leisure in the absence of a question on sexuality is now attributed more specifically to sexual satisfaction, as indeed it can be assumed that sexual behavior too is a form of leisure activity. The result of the inclusion is that the internal coherence of the scale is strengthened, with a rise in Cronbach s α from.70 to.75. The factor solution basically is the same for women as for men. The Cronbach s α of.78 recorded among women is indeed quite impressive, compared to the.69 documented among men. Basically this means that for women subjective well-being is more a onedimensional assessment, while for men the relation between various life domains is somewhat weaker. While it has to be noted that this analysis remained limited to an exploratory principal component analysis, the current analysis does not suggest any problems with the validity of our measurement. Factor equivalence. A counter-argument could be of course that subjective well-being does not mean the same for all age groups. This however, proves not to be the case (Table 3). In the analysis reported in Table 3, we repeat the principal component analysis that was already reported in Table 2, for every age group separately. As can be observed, characteristics of the scale are equivalent across age groups. In general, factor loadings seem to increase somewhat with age but the factor structure of the scale does not change in a substantial manner. The scale proves to be most strongly one-dimensional among the 50 to 64 age segment, to decrease somewhat in the 65+ age group. For our research question, the main finding is that the factor loadings for the sexual item remain quite high for the entire 35 to 64 age group. 4

5 Table 3. Equivalence Across Age Groups of the Five Item Scale Health Leisure Family Social Sexual Eigen Value Explained % % % % Variance Cronbach s α N Principal component analysis of the subjective well-being scales, according to four age groups. Source: SCIF 2009,total n=2,080 (total missing: 198) 5. Multivariate analysis If we want to test whether this is a valid measurement of subjective well-being, the most important question is to know whether this scale leads to meaningful results if we use it as a dependent variable in a real-life analysis. More specifically we expect subjective well-being to be associated with age, gender, relation status, a feeling of optimism, generalized trust and the time spent on television (see e.g., Clark & Oswald, 1994; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Dolan, Peasgood & White, 2008; Hooghe & Vanhoutte, 2011; Lucas, Diener & Suh, 1996; Tesch-Romer, Motel-Klingebiel & Tomasik, 2008). Previous research has indicated that each of these variables is significantly related to subjective well-being. For age, we assume a curvilinear relation with the highest levels for the youngest and oldest age groups. Earlier research has provided evidence that those with a partner (whether in marriage or in another form of relation), and those with an optimistic outlook on life tend to be happier. Optimism, generalized trust and feelings of unsafety (fear of crime) were all measured using valid multi-item attitudinal scales. Within the literature it is assumed that the number of children has no, or a limited negative effect on subjective well-being. Finally, we also include information on the number of hours routinely spent on watching television in a week, since it can be assumed that especially those who are dissatisfied with their daily lives, will resort to this kind of leisure activity. We only deviate from the classic regression design by allowing for an interaction effect between having a partner and age, as a preliminary analysis suggested that the effect of having a partner is not equivalent for all age groups. The characteristics of the independent variables are listed in the Appendix. 5

6 Table 4. Explaining Subjective Well-Being B.(S.E.) β p Cte.172 (.135).204 Gender (.046) Age (.002) Education (.017) Income.000 (.000) Partner (.145) Children (.022) Memberships.031 (.013) Religious Practice (.033) Optimism.284 (.028) Generalized Trust.109 (.028) Unsafety.009 (.010) Television time.000 (.015) Interaction Age*Partner.012 (.003) Adj. r2.187 Valid n 1634 Entries are the result of an ordinary least squares regression. Dependent variable: Five Item Subjective Well-Being scale. Source: SCIF 2009, total n=2080. Missing and excluded: 442. The analysis reported in Table 4 shows that having a partner and being optimistic and trusting have the strongest impact on the respondent s level of subjective well-being. We do observe a strong interaction effect between having a partner and age. While having a partner in general has a positive effect on subjective well-being, this effect becomes much stronger with age. The interaction effect between age and having a quite partner clearly is significant and meaningful (Figure 1). Figure 1. Age Distribution of the Well-Being Scales According to Partner Status11 With partner Without Partner 8,2 7,8 7,4 7 6,6 Five Item Scale 8,2 7,8 7,4 7 6,6 6, , Average scores on the subjective well-being scale (0-10) for six different age groups. Source: SCIF 2009, total n=2080. Age groups: 1: 18-29; 2:30-39; 3:40-49; 4:50-59; 5:60-69; 6:70+. 6

7 6. Discussion In this article we have constructed a valid measurement scale for subjective well-being. The five items included in the scale are, on the one hand sufficient to arrive at a comprehensive measurement of the phenomenon we want to investigate, while on the other hand, the scale remains sufficiently limited to be able to be used in general population surveys. We based our claim on an analysis of recent Belgian survey data. Since this study remained limited to one country, we can of course not make the claim that our findings could be generalized. On the other hand, however, there is no obvious reason to assume that Belgium would be a very specific case. In cross-cultural surveys, the country tends to occupy a middle position in Western Europe. This is the case for subjective well-being: scores tend to be high in the country, and they are clearly higher than in the countries of Southern Europe like Italy, Spain or Greece. On the other hand, subjective well-being in Belgium is lower than in the Scandinavian countries that obtain the highest scores in the world (Helliwell, 2003). Given these considerations, there is no aepparent reason to assume that Belgium would offer a highly exceptional case, although it has to be kept in mind that the current data remain limited to a single country, and therefore any findings from the present study should be investigated also in other cultural contexts. While previous research has stated that subjective well-being follows a U shape across the life cycle, the current analysis shows clearly this is only the case for those without a partner. For those who do have a partner (wether in marriage or not), the subjective wellbeing scale remains stable at a quite high level. The current analysis therefore demonstrates quite clearly that having a partner is a key element of subjective well-being for most people, but that these effects are concentrated among the middle age group. 7

8 References Bok, D. (2010). The politics of happiness. What government can learn from the new research on well-being. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104, Council of Europe (2008). Well-being for all. Concepts and tools for social cohesion. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Diener, E. (Ed.). (2009). The science of well-being. New York: Springer. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57, Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, Diener, E., Oishi, S. & Lucas, R. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective wellbeing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, Dolan, P., & White, M. (2007). How can measures of subjective well-being be used to inform public policy? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, Helliwell, J. (2003). How's life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Economic Modelling, 20, Helliwell, J., & Barrington-Leigh, C. (2010). Measuring and understanding subjective well-being. Canadian Journal of Economics, 43, Hooghe, M., & Vanhoutte, B. (2011). Subjective well-being and social capital in Belgian communities. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), Hooghe, M., Vanhoutte, B., & Bircan, T. (2009). Technical report of the SCIF Survey. Leuven: Centre for Citizenship and Democracy. Kahneman, D., & A. Krueger (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, Krueger, A., & Schkade, D. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92, Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,

9 APPENDIX: Variables used in the analysis Mean S.D. Gender 1=Female Age Range: Education Level 1-6 range: Low to University Income In /month Partner Yes = Number of Count children at home Membership of voluntary Associations Religious Practice Optimism Ethnocentrism Generalized Trust Unsafety Hours Televison Subjective Well- Being Count: Are you member of any voluntary associations? How often do you attend religious services? 1= never, 7= daily Five Item Scale. Strongest Item: I expect that things will turn out well for me. Eigenvalue: 2.38; Explained Variance: %. Cronbach s α:.72 Three Item Scale. Strongest Item: It is bad for Belgian economy that people from other countries come to live here. Eigenvalue: 1.96; Explained Variance: %. Cronbach s α:.74. Three Item Scale. Strongest Item: Do you think that most people can be trust or do you think you cannot be to careful?. Eigenvalue: 2.01; Explained Variance: %. Cronbach s α:.75 Four Item Scale. Strongest Item: Does it happen that you do not open the door for strangers because you feel it is not safe?. Eigenvalue: 2.29; Explained Variance: %. Cronbach s α:.75. How many hours do you watch television on a regular day? How satisfied are you with the following elements of your life 1) your health, 2) your leisure time; 3) your family life; 4) your social life; 5) your sexual life