{"title":"答案量表导向对生活满意度测量的影响","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> < 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":"{\"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> < 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}","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}
The Impact of Answer Scale Orientation on the Measurement of Life Satisfaction
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.
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?