The DOI matches its Crossref record; 127 of the 133 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 11 of the 56 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Governments around the world are now beginning to seriously consider the use of measures of subjective wellbeing (SWB) – ratings of thoughts and feelings about life – for monitoring progress and for informing and appraising public policy. The mental state account of wellbeing upon which SWB measures are based can provide useful additional information about who is doing well and badly in life when compared to that provided by the objective list and preference satisfaction accounts. It may be particularly useful when deciding how best to allocate scarce resources, where it is desirable to express the benefits of intervention in a single metric that can be compared to the costs of intervention. There are three main concepts of SWB in the literature – evaluation (life satisfaction), experience (momentary mood) and eudemonia (purpose) – and policy-makers should seek to measure all three, at least for the purposes of monitoring progress. There are some major challenges to the use of SWB measures. Two related and well-rehearsed issues are the effects of expectations and adaptation on ratings. The degree to which we should allow wellbeing to vary according to expectations and adaptation are vexing moral problems but information on SWB can highlight what difference allowing for these considerations would have in practice (e.g. in informing prioiritisation decisions), which can then be fed into the normative debate. There are also questions about precisely what attention shoul…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
17 No full text of the sources · 12 Own interpretation · 8 Sources not found · 5 Partly supported · 4 Supported · 4 Not checked yet · 2 Own method · 1 Supported so far · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The evidence from the literature assessing the link between income and SWB is that this relationship is positive and modest (Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008), although there are some differences depending on what measure of SWB is used (Kahneman and Deaton, 2010), and whether other people's income is included in the assessment (Luttmer, 2005;Layard et al., 2010).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Accounts of wellbeing
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008 source
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports positive well-being–income gradients centered around 0.4 across multiple datasets, consistent with the claim’s characterization of a positive, modest association. The paper describes these as correlations, not established causal effects. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“It is possible to estimate monetary values for non-market goods from SWB data by estimating the amount of income that has exactly the same effect on SWB as the non-market good (Dolan et al., 2011).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Uses of the accounts
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dolan et al., 2011
Section 2, “SWB, Cardinal Utility, and Income Compensations,” says monetary values can be estimated from the marginal rate of substitution between income and a good, and defines the value as the income required to hold utility constant without that good. The Conclusion likewise describes income compensation that holds well-being constant when the good changes. This supports the citing sentence’s description of the method. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Frick et al. (2006) show that respondents in the German Socio-Economic Panel have a tendency to move away from the endpoints of response scales over time.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Some challenges
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Frick et al. (2006) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (pp. 25, 30) say that SOEP respondents were more likely to choose the highest life-satisfaction categories in early waves, and the authors report a narrowing difference over time. That supports movement away from the high end of one satisfaction scale, but not a general tendency to move away from both endpoints of response scales. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“DRM data on affect have generally found weak associations between SWB and these events (Kahneman et al., 2004;Knabe et al., 2010).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Experience measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman et al., 2004 source
- Partly supportedcites Knabe et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (p. 27) reports that this DRM study found no significant difference in day-to-day experienced well-being between employed and unemployed people, despite a difference in life satisfaction. That supports a weak association for unemployment, but the paper does not establish that DRM studies have generally found weak associations with the unspecified events in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“There are some differences between life satisfaction and the ladder of life, notably in relation to income (Helliwell, 2008).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Measuring SWB
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Helliwell, 2008 source
Section 5, “Comparison of National-Level World Values and Gallup Results” (page not supplied), compares WVS life satisfaction with the Gallup ladder measure and says income is more important to the Gallup measure. It also notes that the reason for the difference remains uncertain. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our choice of account of wellbeing could clearly have important implications for who we think of as doing well or badly in life.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Accounts of wellbeing
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Life satisfaction has also been shown to differ across countries in ways that can also be explained by differences in freedoms, social capital and trust (Halpern, 2010).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Measuring SWB
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halpern, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Indeed, the health economics literature is now showing that different quality of life weights would be derived from SWB data than from using more standard preference-based methods (Dolan and Kahneman, 2008;Dolan et al., forthcoming).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Uses of the accounts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dolan and Kahneman, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Dolan et al., forthcoming
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Of course, none of these issues would matter much in practical terms if the different accounts produced similar results -but they often do not.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Accounts of wellbeing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peasgood, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are domains of policy that largely have a non-market consequence, and where SWB can potentially have a real impact on policy, especially as compared to preference satisfaction that focusses principally on changes in income.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Uses of the accounts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“More specifically, SWB could be used to make a strong case for unemployment programmes given the significant reduction in SWB associated with any periods of unemployment (Clark et al., 2004;Clark, 2010).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Uses of the accounts
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Clark et al., 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) report that life satisfaction fell by more than half a point, on average, during the reaction phase of unemployment. But the Method (page unavailable) limits the study to people who experienced one unemployment episode and then remained employed; it does not establish a significant reduction in all measures of SWB for any period of unemployment. The case for unemployment programmes is the citing authors’ policy inference, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not matchedcites Clark, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“although there are some differences depending on what measure of SWB is used (Kahneman and Deaton, 2010), and whether other people's income is included in the assessment (Luttmer, 2005;Layard et al., 2010).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Accounts of wellbeing
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kahneman and Deaton, 2010 source
The Discussion states that income relates differently to the two measures of subjective well-being: emotional well-being levels off at high income, while life evaluation does not. The clause about other people's income is attributed to different citations, not to Kahneman and Deaton. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Luttmer, 2005 source
- Supportedcites Layard et al., 2010 source
The Abstract says comparator income has a negative effect on happiness in the US and on life satisfaction in West Germany. The ‘Individual data 1972–now’ section likewise reports that adding comparator income changes the estimated income relationship. The separate point about differences between SWB measures is attributed to Kahneman and Deaton, not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Expected gains in SWB could be computed for different policy areas and this information could be used to decide which forms of spending will lead to the largest increases in SWB relative to their costs (Dolan and Metcalfe, 2008).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Uses of the accounts
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dolan and Metcalfe, 2008Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion (section 6; page unavailable) says SWB could generate monetary values for public policy and help inform the allocation of scarce resources. It does not describe computing expected SWB gains across different policy areas or ranking spending by SWB gain relative to cost; it also says the valuation method needs more research. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In a comparison of 'eudemonic' measures and evaluations of life satisfaction and happiness, Ryff and Keyes (1995) found that self-acceptance and environmental mastery were associated with evaluations but that positive relations with others, purpose in life, personal growth and autonomy were less well correlated.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Experience measures
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ryff and Keyes, 1995 source
The Correlations With Other Measures section (p. 5) reports the strongest associations with happiness and life satisfaction for Self-Acceptance and Environmental Mastery, with weaker associations for the other four dimensions. The Discussion (p. 6) likewise describes the remaining four dimensions as having mixed or weak relationships with those measures. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Work on the Gallup Poll by Diener et al. (2010) and Kahneman and Deaton (2010) shows that income is more highly correlated with ladder of life responses than with feelings, which are themselves more highly correlated with health than the ladder.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Experience measures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Diener et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Kahneman and Deaton, 2010 source
The Discussion says income is more strongly related to life satisfaction than to happiness, and the Results show that life evaluation continues to rise with income after emotional well-being levels off. The Results also state that physical illness and headaches have relatively larger adverse associations with emotional well-being than with life evaluation. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“There are three accounts of wellbeing (Parfit, 1984;Sumner, 1996) that meet the three conditions (i) objective lists; (ii) preference satisfaction; and (iii) mental states (or SWB).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Accounts of wellbeing
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parfit, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Sumner, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Following Parfit (1984), there are three main accounts of wellbeing -objective lists, preference satisfaction and mental states (or subjective wellbeing) -and all three are important for public policy.”
- Also stated in: § Accounts of wellbeing · plain
“There are three accounts of wellbeing (Parfit, 1984;Sumner, 1996) that meet the three conditions (i) objective lists; (ii) preference satisfaction; and (iii) mental states (or SWB).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parfit, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Sumner, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Accounts of wellbeing · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“SWB can also be used for assessing the consequences of cigarette taxation (Gruber and Mullainatha, 2005), air pollution (Luechinger, 2009), flooding (Luechinger and Rasacky, 2009) and the risk of terrorism (Metcalfe et al., 2011).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Uses of the accounts
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, some measures might be more or less amenable to change by individuals and policy-makers, thus impacting upon debates about agency in and over SWB (see Cooper and Lousada, 2005;Ryan and Sapp, 2007;Taylor, 2011).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Introduction
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“There are three main concepts of SWB in the literature -evaluation (life satisfaction), experience (momentary mood) and eudemonia (purpose) -and policy-makers should seek to measure all three, at least for the purposes of monitoring progress.”
- Also stated in: § Measuring SWB · plain
“Here we distinguish between three broad categories of measure: (i) evaluation; (ii) experience; and (iii) 'eudemonic'.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kahneman and Riis, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Dolan et al., 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Waldron, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Measuring SWB · plain
In the paper
“Life satisfaction has been shown to be correlated with income (both absolute and relative), employment status, marital status, health, personal characteristics (age, gender, and personality) and major life events (see Dolan et al. (2008) for a recent review).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Measuring SWB
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dolan et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Peasgood (2008) used the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) to examine objective wellbeing, preference satisfaction and SWB scores for the same individuals.She shows that there is a dramatic difference between the accounts for those with children, people who commute long distances, those with a degree and between men and women.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Accounts of wellbeing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peasgood, 2008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may be particularly useful when deciding how best to allocate scarce resources, where it is desirable to express the benefits of intervention in a single metric that can be compared to the costs of intervention.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Different approaches to measurement could have significant consequences for inferences drawn from SWB data.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Monitoring SWB could be important in ensuring that other changes that affect society do not reduce overall wellbeing.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Uses of the accounts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mental state account of wellbeing upon which SWB measures are based can provide useful additional information about who is doing well and badly in life when compared to that provided by the objective list and preference satisfaction accounts.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There has not been a thorough comparison of the three measures of SWB due to no large-scale longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional survey containing all the measures.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Experience measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Some conditions, like unemployment it seems, continue to draw attention to them and continue to affect SWB long after the event (Lucas et al., 2003;Lucas, 2005).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Some challenges
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some of these surveys use a scale running from completely dissatisfied to completely satisfied, and they do not make clear where on the scale dissatisfied stops and satisfied starts.This makes it difficult to interpret the scores.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Recommendations and conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Some surveys use a scale running from completely dissatisfied to completely satisfied and do not make clear where on the scale dissatisfied stops and satisfied starts.
In the paper
“For life satisfaction, it appears that unemployment is very bad, marriage is pretty good at least to start with, children have no effect, retirement is pretty good at least to start, but there is considerable heterogeneity (Calvo et al., 2007).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Experience measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Calvo et al., 2007
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The relationship between earlier and later responses can be seen as an issue of scaling and salience: if later responses are influenced by earlier ones, then the earlier ones are salient at the time of the later assessment (as shown in the study by Dolan and Metcalfe, 2010).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Some challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dolan and Metcalfe, 2010 source
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Evaluations and experience-based measures may sometimes produce similar results (Blanchflower, 2009), but often they do not.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Experience measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Blanchflower, 2009 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There is some evidence, however, that positive and negative affect are somewhat independent of one another and should therefore be measured separately (Diener and Emmons, 1984).”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Experience measures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Diener and Emmons, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, time spent with children is relatively more rewarding than pleasurable, and time spent watching televisions is relatively more pleasurable than rewarding.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Experience measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White and Dolan, 2009 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But information on all three accounts of wellbeing can illuminate what difference expectations and adaptation make in practice and such information can be fed into the normative debate.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Some challenges
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice, what counts as a good life is going to be dynamic too.”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Some challenges
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is an urgent need to consider how best to measure SWB in large samples.
“This paper and its motivation derives directly from the urgent need to consider how best to measure SWB in large samples.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is a need for a fuller consideration of, and conceptual clarity about, how SWB should be measured for policy purposes.
“but there is a need for a fuller consideration of, and conceptual clarity about, how SWB should be measured for policy purposes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Using happiness or life satisfaction yields very similar results, in terms of the impact of key variables.
“Using happiness or life satisfaction yields very similar results, in terms of the impact of key variables.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some surveys use a scale running from completely dissatisfied to completely satisfied and do not make clear where on the scale dissatisfied stops and satisfied starts.
“Some of these surveys use a scale running from completely dissatisfied to completely satisfied, and they do not make clear where on the scale dissatisfied stops and satisfied starts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The experience measures generally calibrate the scales from 'not at all'.
“the experience measures generally calibrate the scales from 'not at all'.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The BHPS does not ask about satisfaction with mental wellbeing and with the wellbeing of your children.
“The BHPS does not ask about satisfaction with mental wellbeing and with the wellbeing of your children, which are obvious omissions from the BHPS domains.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Both mental wellbeing and the wellbeing of your children are potentially important determinants of wellbeing.
“Both of these domains are potentially important determinants of wellbeing (as distinct, in the case of children, from simply knowing whether someone has children or not).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Mental health measures are most likely to only pick up the negative side of the domain.
“It is important to ask about general mental wellbeing and not mental health, since the latter is most likely to only pick up the negative side of the domain.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Expectations and adaptation feed directly into scaling effects.
“Expectations and adaptation feed directly into scaling effects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The GSOEP, WVS and Defra surveys use a 0-10 scale.
“The GSOEP, WVS and Defra surveys use a 0-10 scale.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are no general questions about purpose and meaning in life.
“There are no general questions about purpose and meaning in life and so we have based our recommendations on a suggestion by Felicia Huppert.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Recommendations and conclusion
“(iii) Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Recommendations and conclusion
“3. Overall, how worried did you feel yesterday?”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > Some challenges
“According to Kahneman and Thaler (2005), a main reason for adaptation is attention”
§ Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments > References
“66. Kahneman, D. and Thaler, R. H. (2006), 'Anomalies: utility maximization and experienced utility'”
Citations
Cites
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
Sen, A. K. (2009) · doi:10.1007/978-1-137-28787-8_94 · Cited by 15,887
Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.
Ryff, C. D. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 · Cited by 14,847
The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.69.4.719 · Cited by 10,285
Church, J. A. (2001) · Journal of Government Information · doi:10.1016/s1352-0237(01)00307-0 · Cited by 9,208
Well-being : the foundations of hedonic psychology
Kahneman, D. J., Diener, E. F., & Schwarz, N. (1999) · Cited by 7,472
The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 · Cited by 7,143
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
de Champs, E. (2017) · HAL · Cited by 6,669
Ecological momentary assessment
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415 · Cited by 6,454
Parfit, D. (1986) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/019824908x.001.0001 · Cited by 5,803
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 2007, Social trends
- Parfit, 1984, Reasons and Persons
- Blanchflower, 2009, National Time Accounting and Subjective Well-Being
- Kahneman, 2005, The Science of Wellbeing: Integrating Neurobiology, Psychology, and Social Science
- Donovan, 2002, Life Satisfaction: The State of Knowledge and Implications for Government
- Cantril, 1965, The Patterns of Human Concern
- Dolan, 2006, Review of Research on the Influences on Personal Wellbeing and Application to Policy
- Treasury, 2010, Budget 2010
- 2004, What Drives Satisfaction with Local Government?
- 2008, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Advances in subjective well-being research
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6 · Cited by 2,003
Happiness is greater in natural environments
MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010 · Cited by 899
“Dolan and Metcalfe (2012) provide a useful summary, distinguishing three broad accounts: objective lists, in which wellbeing is the fulfilment of a fixed set of material, psychological and social needs, identified exogenously; preference satisfaction, the standard economic view, in which wellbeing consists in the free…”
BackgroundCurry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., Van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S., McAlaney, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014 · Cited by 528
“Subjective well-being – including happiness, life-satisfaction and positive a ff ect – refers to a range positively valenced psychological states (Dolan & Metcalfe, 2012; OECD, 2013).”
What works for wellbeing? A systematic review of wellbeing outcomes for music and singing in adults.
Daykin, N., Mansfield, L., Meads, C., Julier, G., Tomlinson, A., Payne, A., Grigsby Duffy, L., Lane, J., D’Innocenzo, G., Burnett, A., et al. (2018) · Perspectives in Public Health · doi:10.1177/1757913917740391 · Cited by 348
“Healthy older adults Seven studies with healthy adults were divided between music listening (3), singing (3) and music making (1).”
BackgroundSelf-citationImpacts of festivals and events on residents’ well-being
Yolal, M., Gürsoy, D., Uysal, M., Kim, H. L., & Karacaoğlu, S. (2016) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2016.07.008 · Cited by 324
Metadata
- Authors
- DOLAN, P., & METCALFE, R.
- Affiliations
- London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Social Policy
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-01-12
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 409-427
- ISSN
- 0047-2794 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7823
- OpenAlex
- W2146619620
- Semantic Scholar
- 4c6230065b5e9a5dd3be6b341c78161441bc9682
- Cited by
- 404
- References
- 133
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 27.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- orcid.org
- Locations
- Journal of Social Policy (publishedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Quality of Life Measurement
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- subjective well-being, well-being measurement, life satisfaction, momentary mood, eudaimonia, public policy monitoring, resource allocation, cost-benefit analysis, adaptation, questionnaire development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
