Cited by 57Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionPsychometric Methodologies and TestingQuality of Life Measurement

The Cantril Ladder elicits thoughts about power and wealth

Open access
Nilsson, August Håkan, Eichstaedt, Johannes C., Lomas, Tim, Schwartz, Andrew, Kjell, Oscar·2024·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The Cantril Ladder is among the most widely administered subjective well-being measures; every year, it is collected in 140+ countries in the Gallup World Poll and reported in the World Happiness Report . The measure asks respondents to evaluate their lives on a ladder from worst (bottom) to best (top). Prior work found Cantril Ladder scores sensitive to social comparison and to reflect one’s relative position in the income distribution. To understand this, we explored how respondents interpret the Cantril Ladder. We analyzed word responses from 1581 UK adults and tested the impact of the (a) ladder imagery, (b) scale anchors of worst to best possible life, and c) bottom to top . Using three language analysis techniques (dictionary, topic, and word embeddings), we found that the Cantril Ladder framing emphasizes power and wealth over broader well-being and relationship concepts in comparison to the other study conditions. Further, altering the framings increased preferred scale levels from 8.4 to 8.9 (Cohen’s d = 0.36). Introducing harmony as an anchor yielded the strongest divergence from the Cantril Ladder, reducing mentions of power and wealth topics the most (Cohen’s d = −0.76). Our findings refine the understanding of historical Cantril Ladder data and may help guide the future evolution of well-being metrics and guidelines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-024-52939-y

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [19]OED Online [Internet]. Best, Adj., n.1, and Adv. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/18180. Accessed 6 June 2023 (Oxford University Press, 2023).
  2. [54]Pennebaker, J., Francis, M. & Booth, R. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC2001. Vol. 71 (2001).
  3. [59]Kjell ONE Kjell K Garcia D Sikström S Semantic measures: Using natural language processing to measure, differentiate, and describe psychological constructs Psychol. Methods. 2019 24 92 115 10.1037/met0000191 29963879 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nilsson, A. H., Eichstaedt, J. C., Lomas, T., Schwartz, A., & Kjell, O.
Affiliations
  • OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Nilsson, August Håkan
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-02-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
2642-2642
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391448012
Cited by
57
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
26.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 AA028032/AA)
  • The Swedish Research Counsil (2019-06305)
  • Lund University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Quality of Life Measurement
Keywords
Cantril Ladder, subjective well-being, social comparison, wealth and power, word embeddings, topic modeling, dictionary analysis, scale interpretation
MeSH terms
Social Comparison, Happiness, Income

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.

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