IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ariqol/v15y2020i1d10.1007_s11482-018-9670-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect Size Strengths in Subjective Well-Being Research

Author

Listed:
  • Danielle M. Geerling

    (University of Utah)

  • Ed Diener

    (University of Utah
    University of Virginia)

Abstract

Subjective well-being (SWB) research is characterized by many large samples, which often results in virtually all variables being significantly related to well-being, even if the associations are small. In this article we explore the strengths of associations between various predictors and SWB outcomes. In addition to standard effect-size statistics, we also examined the range of the SWB scale covered in the distribution of the predictor, allowing us to estimate the strength of influence of each variable, independent of variability in the sample. We analyzed just a few variables to illustrate what our approach reveals. Our analyses included a representative sample of both the world and the United States, and our data included three types of SWB (life satisfaction (LS), positive affect (PA), and negative affect (NA)). The largest effect sizes emerged for societal characteristics, such as between-nations differences, as well as personal characteristics, such as perceived social support. Small or very small effect sizes were consistently found for demographic characteristics, such as sex, age, and marital status. Other effect sizes varied by the type of SWB being considered. For example, income resulted in a large effect size for LS, but small to medium effect sizes for PA and NA. We suggest that when scholars report and interpret the associations of predictor variables with SWB, they consider the strengths of their significant associations.

Suggested Citation

  • Danielle M. Geerling & Ed Diener, 2020. "Effect Size Strengths in Subjective Well-Being Research," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(1), pages 167-185, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ariqol:v:15:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11482-018-9670-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11482-018-9670-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11482-018-9670-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11482-018-9670-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joar Vittersø & Fredrik Nilsen, 2002. "The Conceptual and Relational Structure of Subjective Well-Being, Neuroticism, and Extraversion: Once Again, Neuroticism Is the Important Predictor of Happiness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 89-118, January.
    2. John F. Helliwell & Aneta Bonikowska & Hugh Shiplett, 2016. "Migration as a Test of the Happiness Set Point Hypothesis: Evidence from Immigration to Canada," NBER Working Papers 22601, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Leonie Manthey & Viktor Vehreschild & Karl-Heinz Renner, 2016. "Effectiveness of Two Cognitive Interventions Promoting Happiness with Video-Based Online Instructions," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 319-339, February.
    4. Ulrich Schimmack & Jürgen Schupp & Gert Wagner, 2008. "The Influence of Environment and Personality on the Affective and Cognitive Component of Subjective Well-being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 41-60, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Blanchflower & Alex Bryson, 2024. "The Gender Well-Being Gap," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 1-45, July.
    2. David Bartram & Leonardo Salvatore Alaimo & Eileen Avery & Anthony Bardo & Enrico Di Bella & Martin Binder & Ferdi Botha & Sandra Fachelli & Andrea Gatto & Jintao Lu & Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn & Angeles S, 2024. "Towards the Next Fifty Years of Social Indicators Research: Some Guidance for Authors," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Svenja Damberg & Lena Frömbling, 2022. "“Furry tales”: pet ownership’s influence on subjective well-being during Covid-19 times," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3645-3664, October.
    4. Wen Fan & Yue Qian, 2023. "State Contexts, Job Insecurity, and Subjective Well-being in the Time of COVID-19," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 2039-2059, August.
    5. Marta Dziechciarz–Duda, 2023. "Income Expectations in Sustainability of Subjective Perception of Households’ Wellbeing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Catherine Tulloch & Nerilee Hing & Matthew Browne & Matthew Rockloff & Margo Hilbrecht, 2022. "Parental Gambling and the Health and Wellbeing of Children Derived From Two Nationally Representative Cohorts of Australian Children," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(5), pages 3049-3068, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Proto, Eugenio & Rustichini, Aldo, 2012. "Life Satisfaction, Household Income and Personality Traits," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 86, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    2. Paul Schumann & Lars Kuchinke, 2020. "Do(n’t) Worry, It’s Temporary: The Effects of Fixed-Term Employment on Affective Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(7), pages 2557-2582, October.
    3. Andrew E. Clark, 2015. "SWB as a Measure of Individual Well-Being," Working Papers halshs-01134483, HAL.
    4. Adrian Tomyn & Robert Cummins & Jacolyn Norrish, 2015. "The Subjective Wellbeing of ‘At-Risk’ Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australian Adolescents," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 813-837, August.
    5. Proto, Eugenio & Rustichini, Aldo, 2015. "Life satisfaction, income and personality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 17-32.
    6. Pillai N., Vijayamohanan & B. P., Asalatha, 2013. "Objectivizing the Subjective: Measuring Subjective Wellbeing," MPRA Paper 45005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Pilar Sanjuán & María Ávila, 2019. "The Mediating Role of Coping Strategies on the Relationships Between Goal Motives and Affective and Cognitive Components of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1057-1070, April.
    8. Michael Weinhardt & Jürgen Schupp, 2011. "Multi-Itemskalen im SOEP Jugendfragebogen," Data Documentation 60, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    9. Adrian Tomyn & Robert Cummins, 2011. "Subjective Wellbeing and Homeostatically Protected Mood: Theory Validation With Adolescents," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 897-914, October.
    10. Pillai N., Vijayamohanan & B. P., Asalatha, 2012. "Women Empowerment: An Epistemic Quest," MPRA Paper 43859, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Zafer Büyükkeçeci & Mine Kühn & Siri E. Håberg & Cecilia H. Ramlau-Hansen & Mikko Myrskylä, 2024. "Subjective biology: how perceived fecundity influences relationship satisfaction and stability," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2024-012, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    12. Thomas Siedler & Jürgen Schupp & C. Katharina Spiess & Gert G. Wagner, 2008. "The German Socio-Economic Panel as Reference Data Set," RatSWD Working Papers 48, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    13. Walther, Lena & Fuchs, Lukas M. & Schupp, Jürgen & Scheve, Christian von, 2020. "Living Conditions and the Mental Health and Well-being of Refugees : Evidence from a Large-Scale German Survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 22, pages 903-913.
    14. Sumit S. Deole & Yue Huang, 2024. "Suffering and prejudice: do negative emotions predict immigration concerns?," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 1-39, June.
    15. Marcel Erlinghagen & Christoph Kern & Petra Stein, 2019. "Internal Migration, Social Stratification and Dynamic Effects on Subjective Well Being," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1046, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    16. Rashida Haq & Uzma Zia, 2013. "Multidimensional Wellbeing: An Index of Quality of Life in a Developing Economy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 997-1012, December.
    17. Tahira Jibeen, 2014. "Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being: Moderating Role of Optimism in University Employees," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 157-172, August.
    18. Jürgen Schupp, 2014. "40 Jahre Sozialberichterstattung und Lebensqualitätsforschung in Deutschland: Rückblick und Perspektiven," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 680, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    19. Eugenio Proto & Aldo Rustichini, 2012. "Life Satisfaction, Household Income and Personality Theory," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 453, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    20. Andreas Knabe & Ronnie Schöb & Joachim Weimann, 2016. "Partnership, Gender, and the Well-Being Cost of Unemployment," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 1255-1275, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ariqol:v:15:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11482-018-9670-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.