Counting Happiness from the Individual Level to the Group Level

Beja, Edsel; Yap, David B

doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0165-y

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I argue that the above scale design obtained evaluations that were not only cardinal but also intra- and interpersonally comparable (Beja, 2015; Beja & Yap, 2013). Conceptually, W i ( x ) ≡ W i ( y ) even if x ≠ y but ϵ Q , where W was the evaluation of an individual, x and y were the objects of interest, and Q was the set of items with similar attributes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Negative Correlation Between Maximizing Attitude and School Domain Satisfaction

Beja

2018

The American Economist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study uses a projection method to identify maximizing and satisficing individuals in a sample of college students from the Philippines. The study defines a maximizing individual as one who sketches a full glass that is filled up to the brim and a satisficing individual as one who sketches a full glass that is filled below the brim. The study also uses data on school domain satisfaction of the college students. The analysis finds that individuals who maximize also experience lower school domain satisfaction. JEL Classifications: I31, C91

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Negative Correlation Between Maximizing Attitude and School Domain Satisfaction

Beja

2018

The American Economist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most panels of students only cover a single time interval, see for example Williams and Smith, (2017), Rubin, Evans and Wilkinson (2016), Denovan and Macaskill (2017), Friedlander et al (2007) and (Duffy et al, 2020). Studies covering four waves are fewer in number: Beja and Yap, (2013), Yu, et al, (2018), andShek (2017) and the 11 wave Australian study by Cvetkovski et al, (2017) appears unique. New Zealand studies (of graduates) include Winter et al (2021) and (of selected disciplines) Leahy et al (2010).…”

Section: The Panel Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Well-being and ill-being on campus

Morrison,

Liu,

Zeng

2023

Intnl. J. Wellbeing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enquiries into the low mental health of university students are exposing the relative merits of competing theoretical and empirical models. The debate is important because the models used to characterise the problem imply alternative causations, consequences, and possible interventions. The purpose of our study is to highlight the value of recognising the presence of both well-being and ill-being within individual students (the dual continua model) as opposed to viewing their well-being and ill-being as opposite ends of a single continuum of mental health (the bipolar model). Using a baseline survey completed by 1,581 first year undergraduate students who enrolled in a New Zealand university at the beginning of 2019, we document the inverse correlation between their scores on the WHO-5 measure of psychological well-being and the PHQ-9 measure of psychological distress or ill-being. Contrary to the assumption of the bipolar model we find their inverse correlation is not strong and that many students are located off the diagonal, some reporting both high well-being and high ill-being over the two-week reference period and many more recording low scores on both screening instruments. We represent this heterogeneity in terms of six clusters of students based on a latent profile analysis of their two scores. We also find that students’ well-being and ill-being respond differently to variations in their physical and financial health both in cross-section and over time, confirming that well-being and ill-being can also be functionally independent. The results are important both diagnostically and in terms of the interventions they suggest.

show abstract

“…I do not see any problem if someone wishes to develop a happiness query or a satisfaction query using existing surveys as starting point-I ventured into this area before (Beja 2015b(Beja , 2019Beja and Yap 2013). The issue that I would like to point out here is that the labels "completely unhappy and dissatisfied" and "completely/perfectly happy and satisfied" that Palanca-Tan (2021: p. 954; emphasis mine) introduced in her November 2019 survey in Koronadal are unusual because the norm in happiness research is to use separate queries for happiness and satisfaction.…”

Section: Happiness Survey Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%