Suchergebnisse

"Subjective indicators have been proven to possess predictive power for a large array of social and economic outcomes. However, most of these measures face serious psychometric shortcomings, namely that the items used are not psychometrically investigated. Further, for the assessment of one and the same construct various different item phrasing and response formats are used in different surveys. In the present paper several recommendations are made to increase the quality and by that also the acceptance and usage of subjective indicators. These include to develop more ultra-short but multi-item measures for subjective indicators. Further, surveys should try to use the same form of measurement, i.e. the same item phrasings and the same response scales. In terms of psychometric properties it is recommended to investigate reliability and validity of the indicators in as much depth as possible. In addition suggestions are made how to investigate the respondent's judgmental process for the subjective indicators' measures which allows to obtain a clearer picture of how the item is understood by the respondent and on which cues he bases his judgment." [author's abstract]

There are many qualms about subjective indicators, and some people believe that social policy should better not use them. This paper consists of a review of these objections. It is argued that policy makers need subjective indicators for the following reasons: 1. Social policy is never limited to merely material matters; it is also aimed at matters of mentality. These substantially subjective goals require subjective indicators. 2. Progress in material goals can not always be measured objectively. Subjective measurement often is better. 3. Inclusive measurement is problematic with objective substance. Current sum scores make little sense. Using subjective satisfaction better indicates comprehensive quality of life. 4. Objective indicators do little to inform policy makers about public preferences. Since the political process also does not reflect public preferences too well, policy makers need additional information from opinion polls. 5. Policy makers have to distinguish between 'wants' and 'needs'. Needs are not observable as such, but their gratification materialises in the length and happiness of peoples' lives. This final output criterion requires assessment of subjective appreciation of life as a whole.

"There are many qualms about subjective indicators, and some people believe that social policy should better not use them. This paper consists of a review of these objections. It is argued that policy makers need subjective indicators for the following reasons: 1. Social policy is never limited to merely material mattersit is also aimed at matters of mentality. These substantially subjective goals require subjective indicators. 2. Progress in material goals can not always be measured objectively. Subjective measurement often is better. 3. Inclusive measurement is problematic with objective substance. Current sum scores make little sense. Using subjective satisfaction better indicates comprehensive quality of life. 4. Objective indicators do little to inform policy makers about public preferences. Since the political process also does not reflect public preferences too well, policy makers need additional information from opinion polls. 5. Policy makers have to distinguish between 'wants' and 'needs'. Needs are not observable as such, but their gratification materialises in the length and happiness of peoples' lives. This final output criterion requires assessment of subjective appreciation of life as a whole." (author's abstract)

An examination of ways in which the use of subjective measures of public service satisfaction can redirect distributional research from the question of who gets how much, to the more policy-relevant question of who gets how much of what is needed. In each of 15 northern cities in 1968, blacks & white Rs (175 of each) were asked to evaluate their neighborhood services. An approach to the use of subjective indicators in providing more valid & meaningful measures in distributional research is suggested. 2 Tables. Modified HA.

ABSTRACTThis article uses data from 15 U.S. cities to explore the ways in which the use of subjective measures of service satisfaction can redirect distributional research from the question of who gets how much to the more policy‐relevant question of who gets how much of what is needed. It suggests a useful approach to the use of subjective indicators to provide more valid and meaningful measures in distributional research.

N/A

Urban areas are major consumers of environmental resources and thus often place unsustainable demands on natural resources. As half of the world's population (55%) lives in urban areas, the environmental degradation produced by cities threatens the health and quality of life of a fair share of the world's population. For these reasons, progress towards sustainable urban development must be monitored and measured through suitable indicators. With reference to the assessment of air quality as a specific dimension of environmental quality in urban areas, existing studies have introduced various methodologies that mostly focus on objective measures (typically, exposure to outdoor air pollutants) while neglecting measures based on individual perceptions. Our goal is to contribute to filling this gap. To this end, we explore the relationship between objective and subjective measures of urban air quality in European countries. While the objective indicator is based on concentrations of PM2.5, our subjective indicator is reconstructed from individual perceptions collected through the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) sample survey. Finally, through a cluster analysis, we classify the countries into homogeneous groups based on the values of these indicators. Our analysis reveals several differences in the country rankings according to the two indicators. For one group of countries, both approaches converge, thus leading to more definitive conclusions. For other countries, the mismatch between the two indicators suggests that either approach alone is not able to capture the full picture on air quality in urban environments.

This article analyses a series of negotiations on how to measure welfare and quality of life in Sweden beyond economic indicators. It departs from a 2015 Government Official Report that advanced a strong recommendation to measure only 'objective indicators' of quality of life, rather than relying on what is referred to as 'subjective indicators' such as life satisfaction and happiness. The assertion of strictly 'objective' indicators falls back on a sociological perspective developed in the 1970s, which conceived of welfare as being measurable as 'levels of living', a framework that came to be called 'the Scandinavian model of welfare research'. However, in the mid-2000s, objective indicators were challenged scientifically by the emerging field of happiness studies, which also found political advocates in Sweden who argued that subjective indicators should become an integral part of measuring welfare. This tension between 'subjective' and 'objective' measurements resulted in a controversy between several actors about what should count as a valuable measurement of welfare. As a consequence, we argue that the creation of such value meters is closely intertwined with how welfare is defined, and by what measures welfare should be carried through. ; Samproduktionen av samhällsvetenskap och samhälle: exemplet lyckoforskning

A society, fuelled by trust and cooperation, should rank highly on life satisfaction and happiness. Traditional measures of well-being, however, largely overlook these factors, and rely mostly on economic data. In the paper, "The well-being of nations: linking together trust, cooperation and democracy", William Tov, a social science professor at Singapore Management University (SMU), discusses the social implications of well-being for individuals and society at large.

Much research found that economic inequality - the dispersion of incomes distribution among individuals in a society - affects subjective well-being (SWB). As a meta-analysis has shown, the association between economic inequality, commonly measured by the Gini index, and individuals' SWB is weak and not significant. Psychosocial research suggests that the situational perception, rather than objective reality, has a greater impact on individuals. Our aim was to investigate whether and how objective and subjective measures of economic inequality affect the subjective individuals' well-being, both in its affective and cognitive components. A representative Italian sample (N = 1446, 51% women; average age = 42.42 years, SD = 12.87) answered an online survey. Multilevel regressions detected a negative and significant effect of the inequality perception on well-being. In contrast, the Gini index showed no effect. Two psychological mechanisms explain the association between perceived inequality and well-being: Perceived anger toward inequality and individuals' economic vulnerability. The parallel mediation models showed that the effect of perceived inequality is conveyed by cognitive (economic vulnerability) and emotional (anger) processing of inequality. Findings also highlighted the role of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.