The Impact of Answer Scale Orientation on the Measurement of Life Satisfaction

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00798-9
Fabienne Wöhner, Axel Franzen
{"title":"The Impact of Answer Scale Orientation on the Measurement of Life Satisfaction","authors":"Fabienne Wöhner, Axel Franzen","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00798-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In national and international surveys, life satisfaction is often measured by a single item. However, there is a lot of debate in survey research about whether rating scales should be ordered in an ascending order (from negative to positive) or a descending order (from positive to negative). We investigate the effect of scale orientation by randomly assigning both versions in an online survey (<i>N</i> = 3,138). The average reported life satisfaction is 0.7 points lower when the descending version of an 11-point scale is used, as compared to the ascending scale (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). We further test the construct validity by correlating each version of the response scales with other measures related to life satisfaction (e.g. happiness, depressive mood, and physical health). Generally speaking, the correlations of the ascending scale are significantly stronger as compared to the descending scale, indicating higher validity. Moreover, we investigate the impact of horizontal versus vertical presentations of the 11-point life satisfaction answer scale. Our results indicate that there are no statistically significant differences between horizontally and vertically presented response scales. We conclude that the order of response scales should be chosen carefully, as it affects the measurement of life satisfaction. Overall, our results suggest using an ascending life satisfaction scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00798-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In national and international surveys, life satisfaction is often measured by a single item. However, there is a lot of debate in survey research about whether rating scales should be ordered in an ascending order (from negative to positive) or a descending order (from positive to negative). We investigate the effect of scale orientation by randomly assigning both versions in an online survey (N = 3,138). The average reported life satisfaction is 0.7 points lower when the descending version of an 11-point scale is used, as compared to the ascending scale (p < 0.001). We further test the construct validity by correlating each version of the response scales with other measures related to life satisfaction (e.g. happiness, depressive mood, and physical health). Generally speaking, the correlations of the ascending scale are significantly stronger as compared to the descending scale, indicating higher validity. Moreover, we investigate the impact of horizontal versus vertical presentations of the 11-point life satisfaction answer scale. Our results indicate that there are no statistically significant differences between horizontally and vertically presented response scales. We conclude that the order of response scales should be chosen carefully, as it affects the measurement of life satisfaction. Overall, our results suggest using an ascending life satisfaction scale.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
答案量表导向对生活满意度测量的影响
在国内和国际调查中,生活满意度通常用一个项目来衡量。然而,在调查研究中,关于评分量表应按升序(从负面到正面)还是降序(从正面到负面)排列的争论很多。我们通过在一项在线调查(N = 3,138)中随机分配两种版本的量表来研究量表取向的影响。与升序量表相比,当使用 11 分量表的降序版本时,报告的平均生活满意度要低 0.7 分(p <0.001)。我们通过将各版本的反应量表与其他与生活满意度相关的测量指标(如幸福感、抑郁情绪和身体健康)进行相关性分析,进一步检验了构建效度。一般来说,升序量表的相关性明显强于降序量表,这表明其有效性更高。此外,我们还研究了 11 点生活满意度答案量表的横向和纵向呈现方式的影响。结果表明,横向和纵向呈现的答题量表在统计上没有显著差异。我们的结论是,应谨慎选择答卷的顺序,因为它会影响生活满意度的测量。总体而言,我们的结果建议使用升序生活满意度量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
6.50%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?
期刊最新文献
Within- and Between-Person Effects of Savoring Ability and Well-Being in Older Adults: A Longitudinal Study Awe Influences Prosocial Behavior and Subjective Well-Being Through the Quiet Ego The Effect of Light on Wellbeing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Income Fluctuations and Subjective Well-being: The Mediating Effects of Occupational Switching and Remittances Thriving and Striving Around the World: A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Relationship Between Achievement Goals and Flourishing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1