{"title":"Measuring Happiness and Life Satisfaction amongst Swedish Citizens: an Inquiry into Semantic Equivalence in Comparative Survey Research","authors":"Sofia Axelsson, Stefan Dahlberg","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00827-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A consistent empirical finding is that Scandinavian countries by international standards score steadily high in terms of subjectively reported levels of happiness and life satisfaction. Intrigued by previous findings in Denmark (Lolle and Goul Anderson in Metode Og Forskningsdesign 1:95–119, 2013, in Journal of Happiness Studies 6:1–14)), this paper confirms that this is partly due to language effects. In this paper, Sweden serves as a case study that, similar to the Danish study, seeks to determine whether it is possible to establish semantic equivalence between translated survey items. By using randomized experiments on a representative sample of Swedish citizens with fluent skills in English, we test the effects of different designs in question wordings and response scale labels implemented by international surveys. The results reveal significant differences in answers on happiness. While the mean differences are very small, the distribution of answers is substantial enough to confirm a strong semantic threshold between the English term <i>happy</i> the Swedish term <i>lycklig</i>. Hence, it requires something more to be “very happy” in Swedish than in English. Notably, language appears to have a lesser impact on the distribution of responses across language groups when using a numbered response scale with endpoint labels, indicating that a particular question design either mitigates or intensifies translational effects. Happiness, it is concluded, is not easily translated and survey practitioners should bear this caveat in mind when operationalizing the concept across countries and cultures.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","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/s10902-024-00827-7","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
A consistent empirical finding is that Scandinavian countries by international standards score steadily high in terms of subjectively reported levels of happiness and life satisfaction. Intrigued by previous findings in Denmark (Lolle and Goul Anderson in Metode Og Forskningsdesign 1:95–119, 2013, in Journal of Happiness Studies 6:1–14)), this paper confirms that this is partly due to language effects. In this paper, Sweden serves as a case study that, similar to the Danish study, seeks to determine whether it is possible to establish semantic equivalence between translated survey items. By using randomized experiments on a representative sample of Swedish citizens with fluent skills in English, we test the effects of different designs in question wordings and response scale labels implemented by international surveys. The results reveal significant differences in answers on happiness. While the mean differences are very small, the distribution of answers is substantial enough to confirm a strong semantic threshold between the English term happy the Swedish term lycklig. Hence, it requires something more to be “very happy” in Swedish than in English. Notably, language appears to have a lesser impact on the distribution of responses across language groups when using a numbered response scale with endpoint labels, indicating that a particular question design either mitigates or intensifies translational effects. Happiness, it is concluded, is not easily translated and survey practitioners should bear this caveat in mind when operationalizing the concept across countries and cultures.
一个一致的经验性发现是,按照国际标准,斯堪的纳维亚国家在主观报告的幸福感和生活满意度方面得分一直很高。本文对丹麦之前的研究结果(Lolle and Goul Anderson in Metode Og Forskningsdesign 1:95-119, 2013, in Journal of Happiness Studies 6:1-14)感到好奇,并证实这部分是由于语言效应造成的。在本文中,瑞典作为一个案例研究,与丹麦的研究类似,试图确定是否有可能在翻译的调查项目之间建立语义等同。通过对英语流利的瑞典公民代表性样本进行随机实验,我们测试了国际调查在问题措辞和回答量表标签方面的不同设计所产生的影响。结果显示,关于幸福感的答案存在明显差异。虽然平均差异非常小,但答案的分布足以证实英语中的幸福一词与瑞典语中的lycklig一词之间存在很强的语义门槛。因此,瑞典语中的 "非常幸福 "比英语中的 "非常幸福 "需要更多的东西。值得注意的是,在使用带有终点标签的数字回答量表时,语言对不同语言组答案分布的影响似乎较小,这表明特定的问题设计可以减轻或加强翻译效应。结论是,幸福不易翻译,调查从业者在跨国家和跨文化操作幸福概念时应牢记这一点。
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?