244
L. S. Alaimo and P. Conigliaro
of psychology in general, and in particular to positive psychology (Seligman
and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Indeed, the latter identifies two macro-dimensions
of SWB: (1) the hedonic one (related to pleasure, personal satisfaction, positive
emotions and sensations); (2) the eudaimonic one (related to the realization of
the self and the development of authentic human nature). The statistical surveys
in order to measure subjective aspects of quality of life often use tools borrowed
from psychometry, psychology, medicine, social psychology or sociology. These
usually assume the form of scales (verbal, numerical, continuous) 2 . They can detect
conditions, perceptions, relational aspects, attitudes, behaviours.
The OECD guidelines (OECD 2013) identify three main dimensions in the
assessment of SWB. According to these guidelines, none of the three dimensions
should be neglected in analyzing SWB.
The first one is the evaluative (or cognitive) dimension, concerning the conscious
assessment of satisfaction for life or for some specific aspects of it. Individuals
assess their satisfaction through a process of implicit comparison with expectations
and with a condition deemed suitable or desirable. As A. C. Michalos (1985)
argues, the standards of reference include comparisons with one’s own needs,
past conditions, aspirations, and the results achieved by other people considered
to be nearer and more significant. The “measurement” of satisfaction for life has a
consolidated tradition in social surveys and uses tools that easily allow statistical
processing. They usually consist on questions such as: “ . . . how satisfied are you
with your life on the whole?”. The answers consist in a numerical or verbal scale.
According to some authors, a 7-level scale should be more precise and reliable, but
many surveys adopt a scale [0–10], supposed to be more familiar to the respondents,
especially in those countries like Italy that use this scale of assessment at school
(Macrì 2017). However, even if such references are easy to perceive, interpretative
distortion can still occur. Some studies have shown that people tend to avoid extreme
responses, especially if the scales have a wide range, and they focus on medium-high
responses, if there are no central responses.
Some reports adopt satisfaction for life as a measure of happiness. But in most
cases, this condition is considered an expression of the hedonic dimension or as an
emotional state (“affect” in the OECD guidelines). The definition of the emotional
dimension of SWB has significant interpretative discrepancies, because the concept
presents aspects of polyvalence and polysemy. Analyzing the data we must always
carefully observe the structure of the questions and answers. Furthermore, an
important aspect concerns whether we attribute to the emotional dimension the role
of determinant or effect of well-being. In the first case, the researchers believe that
the emotional state is mainly caused by individual temperament. In the second case,
the emotional state is considered as an expression of SWB and assumes the role of
its indicator. However, it may happen to meet studies that treat the same object with
both functions (e.g. see Eurostat 2015 and 2016).
2 e.g. the attitude scales (Likert, Thurstone), social distance scale (Bogardus), semantic differential
scales (Osgood).
L. S. Alaimo and P. Conigliaro
of psychology in general, and in particular to positive psychology (Seligman
and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Indeed, the latter identifies two macro-dimensions
of SWB: (1) the hedonic one (related to pleasure, personal satisfaction, positive
emotions and sensations); (2) the eudaimonic one (related to the realization of
the self and the development of authentic human nature). The statistical surveys
in order to measure subjective aspects of quality of life often use tools borrowed
from psychometry, psychology, medicine, social psychology or sociology. These
usually assume the form of scales (verbal, numerical, continuous) 2 . They can detect
conditions, perceptions, relational aspects, attitudes, behaviours.
The OECD guidelines (OECD 2013) identify three main dimensions in the
assessment of SWB. According to these guidelines, none of the three dimensions
should be neglected in analyzing SWB.
The first one is the evaluative (or cognitive) dimension, concerning the conscious
assessment of satisfaction for life or for some specific aspects of it. Individuals
assess their satisfaction through a process of implicit comparison with expectations
and with a condition deemed suitable or desirable. As A. C. Michalos (1985)
argues, the standards of reference include comparisons with one’s own needs,
past conditions, aspirations, and the results achieved by other people considered
to be nearer and more significant. The “measurement” of satisfaction for life has a
consolidated tradition in social surveys and uses tools that easily allow statistical
processing. They usually consist on questions such as: “ . . . how satisfied are you
with your life on the whole?”. The answers consist in a numerical or verbal scale.
According to some authors, a 7-level scale should be more precise and reliable, but
many surveys adopt a scale [0–10], supposed to be more familiar to the respondents,
especially in those countries like Italy that use this scale of assessment at school
(Macrì 2017). However, even if such references are easy to perceive, interpretative
distortion can still occur. Some studies have shown that people tend to avoid extreme
responses, especially if the scales have a wide range, and they focus on medium-high
responses, if there are no central responses.
Some reports adopt satisfaction for life as a measure of happiness. But in most
cases, this condition is considered an expression of the hedonic dimension or as an
emotional state (“affect” in the OECD guidelines). The definition of the emotional
dimension of SWB has significant interpretative discrepancies, because the concept
presents aspects of polyvalence and polysemy. Analyzing the data we must always
carefully observe the structure of the questions and answers. Furthermore, an
important aspect concerns whether we attribute to the emotional dimension the role
of determinant or effect of well-being. In the first case, the researchers believe that
the emotional state is mainly caused by individual temperament. In the second case,
the emotional state is considered as an expression of SWB and assumes the role of
its indicator. However, it may happen to meet studies that treat the same object with
both functions (e.g. see Eurostat 2015 and 2016).
2 e.g. the attitude scales (Likert, Thurstone), social distance scale (Bogardus), semantic differential
scales (Osgood).