Self-report measures of global well-being are thought to reflect the overall quality of people’s lives. However, several scholars have argued that people rely on heuristics, such as current mood, when reporting their global well-being. Experiential well-being measures, such as the day reconstruction method (DRM), have been proposed as an alternative technique to obtain a potentially more accurate assessment of well-being. Across two multimethod, short-term longitudinal studies, we compared the psychometric properties of global self-reports and short-form DRM-based assessments of well-being. We evaluated their stability across one month, tested their convergent validity using self–informant agreement, and evaluated correlations with personality traits. Results indicated that global measures of well-being were more stable than DRM-based experiential measures. Self–informant agreement was also either equal across global and DRM measures or higher for global measures. Correlations with personality were similar across approaches. These findings suggest that DRM and global measures of well-being have similar psychometric properties when used to provide an overall assessment of a person’s typical level of subjective well-being.
AnusicI.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2012). Dependability of personality, life satisfaction, and affect in short-term longitudinal data. Journal of Personality, 80, 33-58.
3.
AnusicI.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2017). The validity of the day reconstruction method in the German Socio-Economic Panel Study. Social Indicators Research, 130, 213-232.
4.
AnusicI.SchimmackU. (2016). Stability and change of personality traits, self-esteem, and well-being: Introducing the meta-analytic stability and change model of retest correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 766-781.
5.
BylsmaL. M.CroonM. A.VingerhoetsA. J. J. M.RottenbergJ. (2011). When and for whom does crying improve mood? A daily diary study of 1004 crying episodes. Journal of Research in Personality, 4, 385-392.
6.
CampbellA. (1981). The sense of well-being in America. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
7.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
8.
ChmielewskiM.WatsonD. (2009). What is being assessed and why it matters: The impact of transient error on trait research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 186-202.
9.
ConnellyB. S.OnesD. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092-1122.
DienerE. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43.
12.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
13.
DienerE.LarsenR. J. (1984). Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580-592.
14.
DienerE.LucasR.SchimmackU.HelliwellJ. (2009). Well-being for public policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
DienerE.SuhE. M.LucasR. E.SmithH. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.
16.
DienerE.TayL. (2014). Review of the day reconstruction method (DRM). Social Indicators Research, 116, 255-267.
17.
DockrayS.GrantN.StoneA. A.KahnemanD.WardleJ.SteptoeA. (2010). A comparison of affect ratings obtained with ecological momentary assessment and the day reconstruction method. Social Indicators Research, 99, 269-283.
18.
EidM.DienerE. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65, 245-277.
19.
GoldbergL. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
20.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.
21.
HellerD.WatsonD.IliesR. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574-600.
22.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
23.
HudsonN. W.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2017a). Comparing the temporal stability and criterion-related validity of experiential and self-reported global measures of well-being. Manuscript submitted for publication.
24.
HudsonN. W.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2017b). Day-to-day affect is surprisingly stable: A 2-year longitudinal study of well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 45-54.
25.
HudsonN. W.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2017c). Are we happier with others? An investigation of the links between spending time with others and subjective well-being. Manuscript submitted for publication.
26.
JohnsonJ. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78-89.
27.
KahnemanD. (1999). Objective happiness. In KahnemanD.DienerE.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3-25). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
28.
KahnemanD.KruegerA. B.SchkadeD. A.SchwarzN.StoneA. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 3, 1776-1780.
29.
KennyD. A.ZautraA. (2001). The trait-state models for longitudinal data. In CollinsL. M.SayerA. G. (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 243-263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
30.
KruegerA. B.SchkadeD. A. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1833-1845.
31.
LucasR. E. (2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 75-79.
32.
LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2007). How stable is happiness? Using the STARTS model to estimate the stability of life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1091-1098.
33.
LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2012). Estimating the reliability of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from four national panel studies. Social Indicators Research, 105, 323-331.
34.
OishiS.KurtzJ. L.MiaoF. F.ParkJ.WhitchurchE. (2011). The role of familiarity in daily well-being: Developmental and cultural variation. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1750-1756.
RobinsonM. D.CloreG. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934-960.
37.
RushtonJ. P.BrainerdC. J.PressleyM. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18-38.
SchimmackU.OishiS. (2005). The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 395-406.
40.
SchimmackU.RadhakrishnanP.OishiS.DzokotoV.AhadiS. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582-593.
41.
SchneiderL.SchimmackU. (2009). Self-informant agreement in well-being ratings: A meta-analysis. Social Indicators Research, 94, 363-376.
42.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.
43.
SchwarzN.StrackF. (1991). Evaluating one’s life: A judgment model of subjective well-being. In StrackF.ArgyleM.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27-47). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
44.
SchwarzN.StrackF. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In KahnemanD.DienerE.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61-84). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
45.
SchwarzN.StrackF.KommerD.WagnerD. (1987). Soccer, rooms and the quality of your life: Mood effects on judgments of satisfaction with life in general and with specific life-domains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 69-79.
46.
ShiffmanS.StoneA. A.HuffordM. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1-32.
47.
SteeleP. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138-161.
TayL.ChanD.DienerE. (2014). The metrics of societal happiness. Social Indicators Research, 117, 577-600.
51.
University of Michigan. (2014). Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Guide/documents.aspx
WagnerG. G.FrickJ. R.SchuppJ. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP): Scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127, 139-169.
55.
YapS. C. Y.WortmanJ.AnusicI.BakerS. G.SchererL. D.DonnellanM. B.LucasR. E. (2017). The effect of mood on judgments of subjective well-being: Nine tests of the judgment model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(6), 939. doi:10.1037/pspp0000115
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
