Measurement of Subjective Wellbeing: Recent Developments and Remaining Challenges

1. Measurement of Subjective Wellbeing: Recent Developments and Remaining Challenges Arthur A. Stone, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Director, USC Dornsife Center for Self-Report Science University of Southern California

2. Overview • Focus on Subjective Wellbeing • Progress over the last five years • Interplay among the professions • Commissions and panels • National and commercial survey • This is a selective review • Remaining challenges

3. My Perspective • NAS Subjective Wellbeing Panel • OECD, WHO meetings NIA Roybal Center at Princeton University

4. Professional Contributions • Psychologists • Assessment techniques • Psychometrics • Real-time assessment • Construct validity • Cognitive models of self-reports • Use of experimental data • Health expertise • Economists • Causal pathways • Mathematical modeling • Use of large-scale, observational data • Policy relevance • Governmental influence

5. What is Subjective Wellbeing? • Wikipedia: “…refers to how people experience the quality of their lives and includes both emotional reactions and cognitive judgments.” • World Health Organizations’ definition of Health • “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” • Three aspects • Eudemonic • Life satisfaction or evaluative • Hedonic or affective (subdivisions: + and - ) • “Happiness” is confusing • Either life satisfaction or hedonic WB

6. Wellbeingvs. SubjectiveWellbeing

7. PROGRESS

8. The Commission onthe Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

9. The Commission onthe Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

10. The Commission onthe Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

11. Sarkozy, Executive Summary In effect, statistical indicators are important for designing and assessing policies aiming at advancing the progress of society, as well as for assessing and influencing the functioning of economic markets. ….. there often seems to be a marked distance between standard measures of important socio economic variables like economic growth, inflation, unemployment, etc. and widespread perceptions. In some countries, this gap has undermined confidence in official statistics…. Another key message, and unifying theme of the report, is that the time is ripe for our measurement system to shift emphasis from measuring economic production to measuring people’s well-being.

12. Stiglitz, Part 2 – OECD • “High-Level Expert Group on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Well-Being” • Theme 1: Income and Wealth Inequality (coordinator: T. Piketty) • Theme 2: Multidimensional and Global Inequalities (coordinators J. Stiglitz and F. Bourguignon) • Theme 3: Multidimensional Subjective Well-Being (coordinators A. Stone and A. Krueger) • Theme 4: Sustainability (coordinators J-P. Fitoussi and M. Durand)

13. Gallup Organization’s polls • Corporate leader in SWB research • Two major polls include SWB • World Poll • Daily Poll, January 2008 • Structure of Gallup SWB assessment • Life evaluation: Cantril Ladder • Hedonic Wellbeing • “Global Yesterday” approach • Did you experience a lot of _____ yesterday? • Happiness; Stress; Sadness; Tiredness; Anger • Gallup-Healthways Wellbeing Index

14. OECD’s Guidelines Part of OECD’s “Better Life” Initiative Published in 2013 Prepared by Conal Smith and Carrie Exton Used expert consultation

15. OECD’s Guidelines

16. OECD’s Guidelines

17. OECD’s Guidelines Highlights • Standardizing WB measurement • Commonalities among surveys • Advancement due to large-scale • ONS split-sample – on advice of academics and OECD • Push for methodologic studies • And publication of findings • Cultural response bias • Latin American paradox

18. US National Academy of Sciences “Panel of measuring Subjective Wellbeing in a policy-relevant, national accounting framework”

19. US National Academy of Sciences “Panel of measuring Subjective Wellbeing in a policy-relevant, national accounting framework”

20. US National Academy of Sciences “Panel of measuring Subjective Wellbeing in a policy-relevant, national accounting framework” CONCLUSION 2.3: Both positive and negative emotions must be accounted for in experienced well-being measurement, as research shows that they do not simply move in an inverse way. For example, an activity may produce both negative and positive feelings in a person, or certain individuals may be predisposed to experience both positives and negatives more strongly. Therefore, assessments of ExWBshould include both positive and negative dimensions in order for meaningful inferences to be drawn. Experienced Wellbeing: addition of related Suffering states such as pain.

21. US National Academy of Sciences “Panel of measuring Subjective Wellbeing in a policy-relevant, national accounting framework” CONCLUSION 3.6: Capturing the time-use and activity details of survey respondents enhances the policy relevance of ExWB measures by embedding information about relationships between emotional states and specific activities of daily life. And strongly advocated for continuation of ATUS Wellbeing Module.

22. US National Academy of Sciences “Panel of measuring Subjective Wellbeing in a policy-relevant, national accounting framework” RECOMMENDATION 4.3: Given the potential magnitude of survey modeand contextual effects (as shown in findings related to work by the UK Office for National Statistics and elsewhere), research on the magnitude of these effects and methods for mitigating them should be a priority for statistical agencies during the process of experimentationand testing of new SWB modules.

23. US National Academy of Sciences “Panel of measuring Subjective Wellbeing in a policy-relevant, national accounting framework” CONCLUSION 5.1: ExWB data are most relevant and valuable for informing specific, targeted policy questions, as opposed to general monitoring purposes. At this time, the panel is skeptical about the usefulness of an aggregate measure intended to track some average of an entire population.

24. US National Academy of Sciences “Panel of measuring Subjective Wellbeing in a policy-relevant, national accounting framework” CONCLUSION 5.2: To make well-informed policy decisions, data are needed on both ExWB and evaluative well-being. Considering only one or the other could lead to a distorted conception of the relationship between SWB and the issues it is capable of informing, a truncated basis for predicting peoples’ behavior and choices, and ultimately compromised policy prescriptions.

25. Legatum InstituteCommission on Wellbeing and Policy • Lord Gus O’Donnell, Chair • Angus Deaton, Princeton • Martine Durand, OECD • David Halpern, Behavioral Insights Unit, UK • Richard Layard, LSE “…we should measure wellbeing more often and do so comprehensively…. This would help governments improve policies, companies raise productivity, and people live more satisfying lives.”

26. Other important developments • UK’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) recent surveys • December 2011; 4,000 Adults • Annual Population Survey: 80,000 Adults • World Happiness Report • Research-supported surveys including Wellbeing assessments, for example the family Health Retirement Surveys (HRS), SHARE • Many additional within-country surveys

27. CHALLENGES

28. Challenge I: Adaptation Our ability to become adjust and become accustomed to negative or novel situations Apparent evidence of SWB changes in even extreme circumstances, eg, paraplegia Scale recalibration vs. True change But adaptation may be different according to the type of wellbeing And trade-offs even in the face of apparent adaptation Implications for policy: Sen’s concern about “Happy peasants”

29. Challenge I: Adaptation From the NAS Report: CONCLUSION 4.1: The evidence with regard to adaptation suggests that it cannot be characterized as a process that occurs uniformly; people adapt differently to different events and life changes, in some part due to norms and expectations. Ideally, question structures should be designed to allow researchers to decompose changes in response scores into scale recalibration (or other measurement errors) and true quality-of-life change components.

30. Challenge I: Adaptation • Some progress • “Side by side” comparisons • Loewenstein & Ubel • Isolate “shifts” in wellbeing in particular domains • If all domains move, then scale recalibration • If targeted domain only moves, then true adaptation • Mixed scenarios

31. Challenge II: Assessing Pre-existing Group Differences For investigating differences upon countries, naturally-formed demographic groups (age, sex, race) Non-randomized groups Concept of Scale Elasticity from taste research, based either on physiology (number of taste buds) or prior experience (prior extreme pain) If groups use scales differently, group comparisons will be biased

32. Challenge II: Assessing Pre-existing Group Differences • Some evidence: Americans use scale extremes relative to the French • New approaches to the solve the problem • Vignettes to standardize reporting involving detailed descriptions of scale points • Adjustments • Solomon; Kapteyn • Trade-off approaches involving hypothetical choices among wellbeing alternatives • Benjamin; Dolan • New metrics – U-index from time use/WB data

33. Summary There are very good reasons to assess and track wellbeing and subjective wellbeing Much progress has been made and the notion of including wellbeing is certainly more approachable than it was five years ago Nevertheless, concerns remain and serious attention must be paid to them