Objective Confirmation of Subjective Measures of Human Well-Being: Evidence from the U.S.A

A huge research literature, across the behavioral and social sciences, uses information on individuals' subjective well-being. These are responses to questions--asked by survey interviewers or medical personnel--such as, "How happy do you feel on a scale from 1 to 4?" Yet there is lit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 2010-01, Vol.327 (5965), p.576-579
Main Authors: Oswald, Andrew J, Wu, Stephen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Cultures and civilizations
Economics
Female
Happiness
Health Surveys
Humans
Income
Lifestyles. Everyday life
Male
Models, Economic
Personal Satisfaction
Psychological tests
Qualitative research
Quality of Life
Regression Analysis
Socioeconomic Factors
Sociology
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A huge research literature, across the behavioral and social sciences, uses information on individuals' subjective well-being. These are responses to questions--asked by survey interviewers or medical personnel--such as, "How happy do you feel on a scale from 1 to 4?" Yet there is little scientific evidence that such data are meaningful. This study examines a 2005-2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System random sample of 1.3 million U.S. citizens. Life satisfaction in each U.S. state is measured. Across America, people's answers trace out the same pattern of quality of life as previously estimated, from solely nonsubjective data, in one branch of economics (so-called "compensating differentials" neoclassical theory, originally from Adam Smith). There is a state-by-state match (r = 0.6, P < 0.001) between subjective and objective well-being. This result has some potential to help to unify disciplines.
ISSN:0036-8075
1095-9203
DOI:10.1126/science.1180606