Findings on Happiness and FARMING

World Database of Happiness

Correlational Findings on Happiness and FARMING
Subject Code: F04

© on data collection: Ruut Veenhoven, Erasmus University Rotterdam

Classification of Findings
Subject Code Description Nr of Studies
on this Subject
F04FARMING0
F04aaFarming career2
F04abCurrent involvement in farming3
F04ab01Being a farmer2
F04ab02Being wife of a farmer1
F04ab03Time spend to farming5
F04acCurrent characteristics of the farm6
F04ac01Size of farm4
F04ac02Specialization of farm5
F04ac03Economic success of farm3
F04adAttitudes to farming6
F04ad01Concern about farming3
F04ad02Satisfaction with farming2
F04ab04Self reliance24
 
Appendices
Appendix 1Happiness measures used 
Appendix 2Statistics used 
Appendix 3About the World Database of Happiness 
Appendix 4Further Findings in the World Database of Happiness 
Appendix 5Related Subjects 

Cite as:    Veenhoven, R.: Findings on Happiness and FARMING
World Database of Happiness, Collection of Correlational Findings
Internet: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_cor/top_sub.php?code=F04
Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2017, Netherlands

Correlational finding on Happiness and Farming career
Subject code: F04aa

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelFarm experiences
Page in Source 358
Our classificationFarming career, code F04aa
Operationalization
Childhood farm experiences
4 great deal
3 some
2 not very much
1 none

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=+.02 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Farming career
Subject code: F04aa

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelFarm experience
Page in Source 192
Our classificationFarming career, code F04aa
Operationalization
Childhood farm experience
4. great deal
3. some
2. Not very much
1. None
Observed distributionin percentages: Male: 1:34, 2:22; 3:19; 4:24; Female: 1:20; 2:25; 3:24; 4:30.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-ar=+ ns
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.06 ns
-high Homestead Production   r=+.02 ns
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.02 ns

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.10 ns
-high Homestead Production   r=+.07 ns
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.02 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current involvement in farming
Subject code: F04ab

StudyAtkinson (1979): study CA 1977
TitleTrends in Life Satisfaction among Canadians, 1968-1977.
SourceInstitute for Research on Public Policy, 1979, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
URLHTTP://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_bib/freetexts/atkinson_th_1979.pdf
Public18+ aged, general public, Canada, 1977
SampleProbability stratified sample
Non-Response33%
Respondents N =3289

Correlate
Author's labelOccupation
Page in Source 13
Our classificationCurrent involvement in farming, code F04ab
Operationalization
a: professional/manager
b: white collar
c: skilled labour
d: unskilled labour
e: farm

1= specific occupation
0= all

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-br=+.04 ns
Professional/ manager
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-brpc=+.02 ns
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-br=.00 ns
White collar work
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-brpc=.00 ns
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-br=+.03 ns
Skilled labour
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-brpc=+.04 ns
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-br=-.06 p < .05
Unskilled labour
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-brpc=-.05 ns
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-br=+.03 ns
Farmer
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-brpc=+.03 ns


rpc's controled for income


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current involvement in farming
Subject code: F04ab

StudyAtkinson (1979): study CA 1974
TitleTrends in Life Satisfaction among Canadians, 1968-1977.
SourceInstitute for Research on Public Policy, 1979, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
URLHTTP://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_bib/freetexts/atkinson_th_1979.pdf
Public18+ aged, general public, Canada, 1974
SampleProbability simple random sample
Non-Response
Respondents N =1234

Correlate
Author's labelOccupation
Our classificationCurrent involvement in farming, code F04ab
Operationalization
a: professional/manager
b: white collar
c: skilled labour
d: unskilled labour
e: farm

1= specific occupation
0= all

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-dr=+.03 ns
Professional/ manager
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-drpc=+.01 ns
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-dr=+.06 p < .05
White collar work
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-drpc=+.08 p < .01
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-dr=-.01 ns
Skilled labour
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-drpc=-.02 ns
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-dr=-.07 p < .05
Unskilled labour
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-drpc=-.06 p < .05
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-dr=-.03 ns
Farmer
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-drpc=-.03 ns

rpc's controled for: Income


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current involvement in farming
Subject code: F04ab

StudyAtkinson (1979): study CA 1968
TitleTrends in Life Satisfaction among Canadians, 1968-1977.
SourceInstitute for Research on Public Policy, 1979, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
URLHTTP://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_bib/freetexts/atkinson_th_1979.pdf
Public18+ aged, general public, Canada, 1968
SampleProbability sample (unspecified)
Non-Response?
Respondents N =2734

Correlate
Author's labelOccupation
Page in Source 13
Our classificationCurrent involvement in farming, code F04ab
Operationalization
a: professional/manager
b: white collar
c: skilled labour
d: unskilled labour
e: farm

1= specific occupation
0= all

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-ar=+.10
Profesional/manager
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-arpc=+.04
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-ar=+00
White collar
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-arpc=-.03
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-ar=+.01
Skilled labour
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-arpc=+.00
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-ar=-.05
Unskilled labour
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-arpc=-.03
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-ar=-.02
Farm
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-arpc=-.01


Correlational finding on Happiness and Being a farmer
Subject code: F04ab01

StudyBöhnke & Kohler (2008): study ZZ EU 27 2003
TitleWell-Being and Inequality.
SourceWZB Discussion Paper no. SP I 2008-201, 2008, Berlin, Germany
URLhttps://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2008/i08-201.pdf
Public18+ aged, general public, EU 27 and Turkey, 2003
SampleMixed samples
Non-Response
Respondents N =18600

Correlate
Author's labelSocial class
Page in Source 24
Our classificationBeing a farmer, code F04ab01
Operationalization
0 = Upper white collar (reference)
b = Lower white collar
c = Self employed
d = Skilled worker
e = Non skilled worker
f = Farmer
g = Other

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-b
LOWER WHITE COLLAR (vs Upperwhite collar)
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.29 p < .05
No controls
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.12 p < .05
B controlled for
-gender
-age
-type of community
-income
-employment
-education
-housing
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.09 p < .05
B additionally controlled for
-marital status
-contacts with friends/neighbours
-voluntary work
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.07 ns
B additionally controlled for
-church attendance
-internet use
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.05 ns
B additionally controlled for
-long term illness and health satisfaction
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-b
SELF EMPLOYED (vs Upper white collar)
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.22 p < .05
No controls
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.11 ns
B controlled for
-gender
-age
-type of community
-income
-employment
-education
-housing
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.10 ns
B additionally controlled for
-marital status
-contacts with friends/neighbours
-voluntary work
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.08 ns
B additionally controlled for
-church attendance
-internet use
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.06 ns
B additionally controlled for
-long term illness and health satisfaction
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-b
SKILLED WORKERS (vs Upper White Collar)
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.72 p < .05
No controls
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.32 p < .05
B controlled for
-gender
-age
-type of community
-income
-employment
-education
-housing
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.28 p < .05
B additionally controlled for
-marital status
-contacts with friends/neighbours
-voluntary work
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.24 p < .05
B additionally controlled for
-church attendance
-internet use
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.17 p < .05
B additionally controlled for
-long term illness and health satisfaction
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-b
FARMERS (vs Upper white collar)
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.61 p < .05
No controls
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.18 ns
B controlled for
-gender
-age
-type of community
-income
-employment
-education
-housing
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.18 ns
B additionally controlled for
-marital status
-contacts with friends/neighbours
-voluntary work
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.19 ns
B additionally controlled for
-church attendance
-internet use
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.05 ns
B additionally controlled for
-long term illness and health satisfaction
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-b
NON-SKILLED WORKERS
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.94 p < .05
No controls
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.43 p < .05
B controlled for
-gender
-age
-type of community
-income
-employment
-education
-housing
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.37 p < .05
B additionally controlled for
-marital status
-contacts with friends/neighbours
-voluntary work
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.32 p < .05
B additionally controlled for
-church attendance
-internet use
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb=-.20 p < .05
B additionally controlled for
-long term illness and health satisfaction


Correlational finding on Happiness and Being a farmer
Subject code: F04ab01

StudyKilpatrick & Cantril (1960): study US 1955
TitleSelf-Anchoring Scaling: A Measure of Individuals' Unique Reality Worlds.
SourceJournal of Individual Psychology, 1960, Vol. 16, 158 - 173
PublicAdults, general public, USA, 195?
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response
Respondents N =100

Correlate
Author's labelCategories of adult Americans
Page in Source 164
Our classificationBeing a farmer, code F04ab01
Operationalization
a Negroes
b Immigrants
c Farmers
d Junior executives
e College teachers

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-c-sq-l-11-cDM=
Negroes              M=4,9
Immigrants           M=7,0
Farmers              M=7,3 
Junior executives    M=7,6
College teachers     M=7,7


Correlational finding on Happiness and Being wife of a farmer
Subject code: F04ab02

StudyHaugen & Blekesaune (2005): study NO 1995
TitleFarm and Off-farm Work and Life Satisfaction among Norwegian Farm Women.
SourceSociologia Ruralis, 2005, Vol. 45, 71 - 83
PublicFarm women, Norway, 1995
SampleProbability sample (unspecified)
Non-Response
Respondents N =928

Correlate
Author's labelLabour categories
Page in Source 74, 81, 82
Our classificationBeing wife of a farmer, code F04ab02
Operationalization
a Working on farm 
b Working off farm
c Working on and off-farm
d Housewives
Observed distributiona = 28 %, b = 31 %, c = 25 %, d = 16 %.
Remarks
The housewives group is a mixture of those who give 
priority to their present care responsibilities, those 
who might have health problems which prevent them from 
being active, and also those women who unintentionally 
are under-employed)

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bDM=
          
a On farm       M = 7,9  SD = 1,6  
b Off farm      M = 8,3  SD = 1,4  
c Working on 
  and off-farm  M = 8,1  SD = 1,8 
d Housewives    M = 8,0  SD = 1,6
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bF=4,26 p < .01
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb= ns
B controlled for Health problems
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bF=1,91


Correlational finding on Happiness and Time spend to farming
Subject code: F04ab03

StudyHaugen & Blekesaune (2005): study NO 1995
TitleFarm and Off-farm Work and Life Satisfaction among Norwegian Farm Women.
SourceSociologia Ruralis, 2005, Vol. 45, 71 - 83
PublicFarm women, Norway, 1995
SampleProbability sample (unspecified)
Non-Response
Respondents N =928

Correlate
Author's labelLabour categories
Page in Source 74, 81, 82
Our classificationTime spend to farming, code F04ab03
Operationalization
a Working on farm 
b Working off farm
c Working on and off-farm
d Housewives
Observed distributiona = 28 %, b = 31 %, c = 25 %, d = 16 %.
Remarks
The housewives group is a mixture of those who give 
priority to their present care responsibilities, those 
who might have health problems which prevent them from 
being active, and also those women who unintentionally 
are under-employed)

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bDM=
          
a On farm       M = 7,9  SD = 1,6  
b Off farm      M = 8,3  SD = 1,4  
c Working on 
  and off-farm  M = 8,1  SD = 1,8 
d Housewives    M = 8,0  SD = 1,6
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bF=4,26 p < .01
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bb= ns
B controlled for Health problems
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bF=1,91


Correlational finding on Happiness and Time spend to farming
Subject code: F04ab03

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelWife's work status
Page in Source 150,156
Our classificationTime spend to farming, code F04ab03
Operationalization
Single closed question on wife's work off the farm, 
rated on a 3-point scale:
1: does not work off the farm
2: works part-time
3: works full time.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.06 ns
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.06 ns
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.04 ns
ß controlled for: gross farm sales, percent farm 
income, total family income, off-farm work days, 
land operated, growth plans, commitment to 
farming, economic constraints, self-definition, 
age, and education.
When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=+.08
-medium  ß=+.05
-large   ß=+.00


Correlational finding on Happiness and Time spend to farming
Subject code: F04ab03

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelCombined off-farm employment status
Page in Source 154,156
Our classificationTime spend to farming, code F04ab03
Operationalization
Closed questions on: 
a:  'Husband's off-farm workdays' (rated on a 6-point 
scale ranging from   'none' to '200 or more') 
b  'Wife's work on the farm' (rated on a   3-point 
scale: 1. did not work off   the farm / 2. worked 
part-time / 3. worked full ime).

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aDM=+/-
- husband employed off-farm   Mt' = 6.8
- wife employed off-farm      Mt' = 6.1
- both employed off-farm      Mt' = 6.6
- neither employed off-farm   Mt' = 6.5
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aR²=.10
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.18 p < .01
ß controlled for: 
- gross farm sales
- percent farm income
- total family income
- off-farm work days
- land operated
- growth plans
- commitment to farming
- economic constraints
- self-definition
- age
- education

When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=+.23
-medium  ß=+.19
-large   ß=+.03


Correlational finding on Happiness and Time spend to farming
Subject code: F04ab03

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelPercent farm income
Page in Source 150/156
Our classificationTime spend to farming, code F04ab03
Operationalization
Single closed question: "What percen-
tage of your total family income was from farming?" 
Rated on a 5-point scale ranging from '0 to 19 percent' 
to ' 80 to 100 percent'.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.08 p < .05
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.08 p < .05
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.12 p < .05
ß controlled for:gross farm sales, land operated, 
total family income, off-farm work days, wife's 
work status, growth plans, commitment to farming, 
economic constraints, self-definition, age, and 
education.
When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=+.08
-medium  ß=+.16
-large   ß=+.02 
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.12 p < .05
ß controlled for: gross farm sales, land operated, 
total family income, off-farm work days, wife's 
work status, growth plans, commitment to farming, 
economic constraints, self-definition, age, and 
education.
When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=+.08
-medium  ß=+.16
-large   ß=+.02 


Correlational finding on Happiness and Time spend to farming
Subject code: F04ab03

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelOff-farm workdays
Page in Source 150/156
Our classificationTime spend to farming, code F04ab03
Operationalization
Single closed question rated on a 6-point  scale 
ranging from 'none' to '200 days or more'

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.07 ns
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.18 p < .01
ß controlled for:gross farm sales, percent farm 
income, total family income, land operated, wife's 
work status, growth plans, commitment to farming, 
economic constraints, self-definition, age, and 
education.
When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=+.23
-medium  ß=+.19
-large   ß=+.03 
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.18 p < .01
ß controlled for:- gross farm sales
- income
- percent farm income
- land operated_
- off-farm work days
- wife's work status
- growth plans
- commitment to farming
- economic constraints
- self-definition
- age
- education

-small   ß=+.23
-medium  ß=+.19
-large   ß=+.03


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyBrinkerhoff & Jacob (1986): study ZZ Anglo-America 1983
TitleQuality of Life in an Alternative Lifestyle: The Smallholding Movement.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1986, Vol. 18, 153 - 173
DOIDOI:10.1007/BF00317546
Public'Back to the land' mini-farmers, West USA and Canada,198?
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response44 %
Respondents N =510

Correlate
Author's labelFamily skill index
Page in Source 164
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Respondents were asked to rate themselves or their 
spouses from "very good" to "not at all good" on eight 
back-to-the-land skills: 
-carpentry
-plumbing
-car repairs
-electrical work
-gardening
-sewing
-spinning
-veterinary skills
Observed distributionranges from 8-32

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-HL-u-sq-v-4-ar=+.16 p < .001


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyBrinkerhoff & Jacob (1987): study ZZ Anglo-America 1983
TitleQuasi-Religious Meaning Systems, Official Religion and Quality of Life in an Alternative Lifestyle: A Survey from the Back-to-the-Land Movement.
SourceJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1987, Vol. 26, 63 - 80
URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1385841
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, West USA and Canada,1984
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response33.8%
Respondents N =554

Correlate
Author's labelTechnological self-reliance
Page in Source table 4
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Respondents were presented with a list of 25 
alternative technologies (gardens, windmills, 
greenhouses etc.)
They were asked, whether they employed the particular 
practises,and then requested to note the effectiveness 
of the technologies in terms of 'providing your family 
with independence or self-reliance'.
Observed distributionRange: 1-100
Error EstimatesCronbach's alfa: .72

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-HL-u-sq-v-4-ar=+.24 p < .001


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyBrinkerhoff & Jacob (1987): study ZZ Anglo-America 1983
TitleQuasi-Religious Meaning Systems, Official Religion and Quality of Life in an Alternative Lifestyle: A Survey from the Back-to-the-Land Movement.
SourceJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1987, Vol. 26, 63 - 80
URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1385841
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, West USA and Canada,1984
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response33.8%
Respondents N =554

Correlate
Author's labelSelf reliance
Page in Source table 4
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Self report on ingle question:
'What percentage of food your family eats do you 
estimate is produced on your property?'

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-HL-u-sq-v-4-ar=+.19 p < .001


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelTechnological Self-Reliance Index
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Respondents were presented with 25 soft-technologies 
and asked whether they possessed or used the 
technologies, for example:
   - garden
   - goats
   - greenhouse
   - composting toilets
   - photo voltaic
they were asked to which degree the technologies 
provided their family with self-reliance or 
independence (on a four-point-scale from 1 "not at all 
effective" to 4 "very effective"

TSR is calculated by multiplying each technology 
possessed by the efficiency rating claimed for the 
particular technology
theoretical range from 0 - 100
Observed distributionRange 0 - 72, Mean 20, Average item possession 6,8, Median item possession 6,0, Mean effectiveness rating 2,9

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=+.22 p < .005
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=+.11 ns
Beta controlled for
- homestead food production


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelHomestead food production
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
percentage of a family's food that the respondents 
reported was produced on ther mini-homesteads
Observed distributionMedian score 30%, Mean 35,96

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=+.27 p < .005
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=+.25 p < .005
Beta controlled for:
- technological self reliance
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=+.00 ns
Beta additionally controlled for:
- mindfulness
- relationships
- discrepancy between selfrated importance of 
ecological sensitivity and the actual use of 
technology
- time for self
- discrepancy between the selfrated importance of 
homestead food production and actual percentage of 
homestead food production
- age


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelHomestead production
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Selfreport on importance of:
- growing your own food
- cutting energy consumption
- growing/eating organic food

Rated importance: 
4 (very)
3 (quite)
2 (not too)
1 (not at all)
Observed distributionMean 9,77, SD 1,73, N=550

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=+.00 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelDiscrepancy: TSR-CA gap
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between the actual use of technology and 
the selfrated importance of country ascetism

TSR: Selfreport on which degree the technologies 
provided their family with self-reliance or 
independence
Respondents were presented with 25 soft-technologies 
and asked whether they possessed or used the 
technologies, for example:
   - garden
   - goats
   - greenhouse
   - composting toilets
   - photo voltaic
Rated 1 (not at all effective) to 4 (very effective)
TSR is calculated by multiplying each technology 
possessed by the efficiency rating claimed for the 
particular technology
theoretical range from 0 - 100

CA: Selfreport on degree of country asceticism
Items include importance of:
- having a gas or electric clothes dryer
- having an indoor tilet or bathroom
- living in a modern house
- having electricity in your home
- having a microwave oven
Rated 1 (very important) to 4 (not at all important)

GAP: The value scales and performance indexes were 
dichotomized at their empirical midpoints (medians) and 
then cross-tabulated with each other. The survey 
respondents then fell into one of four categories: (1) 
low values/low performance (“no gap”), (2) high 
values/low performance (“gap”), (3) low values/high 
performance (“gap”), and (4) high values/high 
performance (“no gap”). These gaps (or absence of gaps) 
are calculated for both performance indicators (TSR 
Index and HFP) and for each of the three value scales 
(Country Asceticism, Homestead Production and 
Ecological Sensitivity). 
The first step to the comparability of the variables is 
to normalize each indicator and then place the 
respondents’ scores along a normalized distribution as 
t-scores with means of 50 and standard deviations of 
10. With respondents possessing comparable scores for 
each of the key indicators which constitute the 
values-performance discrepancies, a “gap score” for 
each value-performance pair was calculated by 
subtracting normalized performance scores from 
normalized value scores.
To faciliate interpretation they just used a subsample 
with values higher than the median for Technological 
Self-Reliance Index (TSR), Country Ascetisism (CA), 
Homestead Production (HP) and Ecological Sensitivity 
(ES) for further analysis

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=-.10 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelDiscrepancy: TSR-HP gap
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between the actual use of technology and 
the selfrated importance of homestead production

TSR: Selfreport on which degree the technologies 
provided their family with self-reliance or 
independence
Respondents were presented with 25 soft-technologies 
and asked whether they possessed or used the 
technologies, for example:
   - garden
   - goats
   - greenhouse
   - composting toilets
   - photo voltaic
Rated 1 (not at all effective) to 4 (very effective)
TSR is calculated by multiplying each technology 
possessed by the efficiency rating claimed for the 
particular technology
theoretical range from 0 - 100

HP: Selfreport on the importance of homestead 
production:
- growing your own food
- cutting energy consumption
- growing/eating organic food
Rated 1 (very important) to 4 (not at all important)

GAP: The value scales and performance indexes were 
dichotomized at their empirical midpoints (medians) and 
then cross-tabulated with each other. The survey 
respondents then fell into one of four categories: (1) 
low values/low performance (“no gap”), (2) high 
values/low performance (“gap”), (3) low values/high 
performance (“gap”), and (4) high values/high 
performance (“no gap”). These gaps (or absence of gaps) 
are calculated for both performance indicators (TSR 
Index and HFP) and for each of the three value scales 
(Country Asceticism, Homestead Production and 
Ecological Sensitivity). 
The first step to the comparability of the variables is 
to normalize each indicator and then place the 
respondents’ scores along a normalized distribution as 
t-scores with means of 50 and standard deviations of 
10. With respondents possessing comparable scores for 
each of the key indicators which constitute the 
values-performance discrepancies, a “gap score” for 
each value-performance pair was calculated by 
subtracting normalized performance scores from 
normalized value scores.
To faciliate interpretation they just used a subsample 
with values higher than the median for Technological 
Self-Reliance Index (TSR), Country Ascetisism (CA), 
Homestead Production (HP) and Ecological Sensitivity 
(ES) for further analysis

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=-.21 p < .005
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=-.04 ns
Beta controlled for
- gap: importance of homestead food production / 
actual homestead food production
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual use of technology
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual homestead food production
- gap: importance of cultural ascetism / actual 
homestead food production


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelDiscrepancy: TSR-ES gap
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between the actual use of technology and 
the selfrated importance of ecological sensitivity

TSR: Selfreport on which degree the technologies 
provided their family with self-reliance or 
independence
Respondents were presented with 25 soft-technologies 
and asked whether they possessed or used the 
technologies, for example:
   - garden
   - goats
   - greenhouse
   - composting toilets
   - photo voltaic
Rated 1 (not at all effective) to 4 (very effective)
TSR is calculated by multiplying each technology 
possessed by the efficiency rating claimed for the 
particular technology
theoretical range from 0 - 100

ES:  Selfreport on importance of:
- the expanion of wilderness areas
- preserving old growth forests
- providing habitat for endangered species
- recycling newspapers
- reducing personal energy consumption
Rated 1 (very important) to 4 (not at all important)

GAP: The value scales and performance indexes were 
dichotomized at their empirical midpoints (medians) and 
then cross-tabulated with each other. The survey 
respondents then fell into one of four categories: (1) 
low values/low performance (“no gap”), (2) high 
values/low performance (“gap”), (3) low values/high 
performance (“gap”), and (4) high values/high 
performance (“no gap”). These gaps (or absence of gaps) 
are calculated for both performance indicators (TSR 
Index and HFP) and for each of the three value scales 
(Country Asceticism, Homestead Production and 
Ecological Sensitivity). 
The first step to the comparability of the variables is 
to normalize each indicator and then place the 
respondents’ scores along a normalized distribution as 
t-scores with means of 50 and standard deviations of 
10. With respondents possessing comparable scores for 
each of the key indicators which constitute the 
values-performance discrepancies, a “gap score” for 
each value-performance pair was calculated by 
subtracting normalized performance scores from 
normalized value scores.
To faciliate interpretation they just used a subsample 
with values higher than the median for Technological 
Self-Reliance Index (TSR), Country Ascetisism (CA), 
Homestead Production (HP) and Ecological Sensitivity 
(ES) for further analysis

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=+.24 p < .005
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=-.16 p < .05
Beta controlled for
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
homestead food production
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual homestead food production
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
technology use
- gap: importance of cultural asceticism / actual 
homestead food production
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=-.16 p < .05
Beta controlled for
- mindfulness
- relationships
- time for self
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
homestead food production
- age
- homestead food production


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelDiscrepancy: HFP-CA gap
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between the actual homestead food 
production and the selfrated importance of country 
ascetism

HFP:percentage of a family's food that the respondents 
reported was produced on ther mini-homesteads

CA: Selfreport on degree of country asceticism
Items include importance of:
- having a gas or electric clothes dryer
- having an indoor tilet or bathroom
- living in a modern house
- having electricity in your home
- having a microwave oven
Rated 1 (very important) to 4 (not at all important)

GAP: The value scales and performance indexes were 
dichotomized at their empirical midpoints (medians) and 
then cross-tabulated with each other. The survey 
respondents then fell into one of four categories: (1) 
low values/low performance (“no gap”), (2) high 
values/low performance (“gap”), (3) low values/high 
performance (“gap”), and (4) high values/high 
performance (“no gap”). These gaps (or absence of gaps) 
are calculated for both performance indicators (TSR 
Index and HFP) and for each of the three value scales 
(Country Asceticism, Homestead Production and 
Ecological Sensitivity). 
The first step to the comparability of the variables is 
to normalize each indicator and then place the 
respondents’ scores along a normalized distribution as 
t-scores with means of 50 and standard deviations of 
10. With respondents possessing comparable scores for 
each of the key indicators which constitute the 
values-performance discrepancies, a “gap score” for 
each value-performance pair was calculated by 
subtracting normalized performance scores from 
normalized value scores.
To faciliate interpretation they just used a subsample 
with values higher than the median for Technological 
Self-Reliance Index (TSR), Country Ascetisism (CA), 
Homestead Production (HP) and Ecological Sensitivity 
(ES) for further analysis

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=-.13 p < .05
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=-.01 p < .05
Beta controlled for
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
homestead food production
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual use of technology
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual homestead food production
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
use of technology


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelDiscrepancy: HFP-HP gap
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between the actual homestead food 
production and the selfrated importance of homestead 
production

HFP: percentage of a family's food that the respondents 
reported was produced on ther mini-homesteads

HP: Selfreport on the importance of homestead 
production:
- growing your own food
- cutting energy consumption
- growing/eating organic food
Rated 1 (very important) to 4 (not at all important)

GAP: The value scales and performance indexes were 
dichotomized at their empirical midpoints (medians) and 
then cross-tabulated with each other. The survey 
respondents then fell into one of four categories: (1) 
low values/low performance (“no gap”), (2) high 
values/low performance (“gap”), (3) low values/high 
performance (“gap”), and (4) high values/high 
performance (“no gap”). These gaps (or absence of gaps) 
are calculated for both performance indicators (TSR 
Index and HFP) and for each of the three value scales 
(Country Asceticism, Homestead Production and 
Ecological Sensitivity). 
The first step to the comparability of the variables is 
to normalize each indicator and then place the 
respondents’ scores along a normalized distribution as 
t-scores with means of 50 and standard deviations of 
10. With respondents possessing comparable scores for 
each of the key indicators which constitute the 
values-performance discrepancies, a “gap score” for 
each value-performance pair was calculated by 
subtracting normalized performance scores from 
normalized value scores.
To faciliate interpretation they just used a subsample 
with values higher than the median for Technological 
Self-Reliance Index (TSR), Country Ascetisism (CA), 
Homestead Production (HP) and Ecological Sensitivity 
(ES) for further analysis

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=-.25 p < .005
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=-.20 p < .005
Beta controlled for
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual use of technology
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual homestead food production
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
use of technology
- gap: importance of cultural asceticism / actual 
use of homestead food production
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=-.14 p < .05
Beta controlled for
- mindfulness
- relationships
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual use of technology
- time for self
- age
- homestead food production


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelDiscrepancy: HFP-ES gap
Page in Source 358
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between the actual homestead food 
production and the selfrated importance ecological 
sensitivity

HFP: percentage of a family's food that the respondents 
reported was produced on ther mini-homesteads

ES: Selfreport on Ecological Sensitivity, rated 
importance of:
- the expanion of wilderness areas
- preserving old growth forests
- providing habitat for endangered species
- recycling newspapers
- reducing personal energy consumption
Rated 1 (very important) to 4 (not at all important)


GAP: The value scales and performance indexes were 
dichotomized at their empirical midpoints (medians) and 
then cross-tabulated with each other. The survey 
respondents then fell into one of four categories: (1) 
low values/low performance (“no gap”), (2) high 
values/low performance (“gap”), (3) low values/high 
performance (“gap”), and (4) high values/high 
performance (“no gap”). These gaps (or absence of gaps) 
are calculated for both performance indicators (TSR 
Index and HFP) and for each of the three value scales 
(Country Asceticism, Homestead Production and 
Ecological Sensitivity). 
The first step to the comparability of the variables is 
to normalize each indicator and then place the 
respondents’ scores along a normalized distribution as 
t-scores with means of 50 and standard deviations of 
10. With respondents possessing comparable scores for 
each of the key indicators which constitute the 
values-performance discrepancies, a “gap score” for 
each value-performance pair was calculated by 
subtracting normalized performance scores from 
normalized value scores.
To faciliate interpretation they just used a subsample 
with values higher than the median for Technological 
Self-Reliance Index (TSR), Country Ascetisism (CA), 
Homestead Production (HP) and Ecological Sensitivity 
(ES) for further analysis

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=-.28 p < .005
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=-.05 ns
Beta controlled for
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
homestead food production
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual use of technology
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
use of technology
- gap: importance of cultual ascetiscism / actual 
homestead food production


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelRealized homestead production
Page in Source 187
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between valued and achieved homestead 
production

VALUE of Homestead Production(HPF)
Reported importance of 1.growing own food, 2.wearing 
clothes, made in your own home, 3.growing, eating 
organic food.
 
PERFORMANCE: Technological Self
Reliance(TSR)
Index calculated by multiplying tools or technology, 
possessed by a respondent by the efficiency rating 
claimed for the particular technology, resulting in the 
sum of the efficiency rating for each of the 25 tools.
The tools are: 1.garden, 2. greenhouse, 3.root cellar, 
4.fish pond, 5. solar heat, 6.pigs, 7.wood lot, 8.wood 
stove heat, 9.wood stove cooking, 10.composting privy, 
11.hydro-electric system, 12.graywater(waste water) 
13.solar water heater, 14.chickens, 15.goats, 16.beef 
cattle, 17.milk cow(s) 18.sheep, 19.wind power, 
20.weeder geese, 21.bees, 22.fruit trees, 23.butcher 
larger anaimals, 24.photo voltaic power, 45.work 
horses.
Efficiency is evaluated by asking the respondents about 
the effectiveness of the tool items of 'providing your 
family with independence or self-reliance from a one 
(not at all effective) to four(very effective point 
sequence. The TSR index-scores have a theoretical range 
between 0-100

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and performance indexes 
at their respective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a. No gap, low values-low TSR
b. gap,    high values-low TSR 
c. gap,    low values-high TSR
d. no gap, high values-high TSR.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-aDM=+
a. M=3.21
b. M=3.17
c. M=3.28
d. M=3.37

b-c difference not significant


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelRealized Ecological Sensitivity
Page in Source 187
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancies between valued and achieved ecological 
sensitivity

VALUE of Ecological Sensitivity (VES)
Reported importance of: the expansion of wlderness 
area, 2. Preserving old growth forests, 3.providing 
habitat for endangered species, 4.recycling newspapers, 
5.reducing personal energy consumption.

PERFORMANCE : Technological Self
Reliance(TSR)
Index calculated by multiplying tools or technology, 
possessed by a respondent by the efficiency rating 
claimed for the particular technology, resulting in the 
sum of the efficiency rating for each of the 25 tools.
The tools are: 1.garden, 2. greenhouse, 3.root cellar, 
4.fish pond, 5. solar heat, 6.pigs, 7.wood lot, 8.wood 
stove heat, 9.wood stove cooking, 10.composting privy, 
11.hydro-electric system, 12.graywater(waste water) 
13.solar water heater, 14.chickens, 15.goats, 16.beef 
cattle, 17.milk cow(s) 18.sheep, 19.wind power, 
20.weeder geese, 21.bees, 22.fruit trees, 23.butcher 
larger anaimals, 24.photo voltaic power, 45.work 
horses.
Efficiency is evaluated by asking the respondents about 
the effectiveness of the tool items of 'providing your 
family with independence or self-reliance from a one 
(not at all effective) to four(very effective point 
sequence. The TSR index-scores have a theoretical range 
between 0-100

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and performance indexes 
at their respective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a. No gap, low values-low TSR
b. gap,    high values-low TSR 
c. gap,    low values-high TSR
d. no gap, high values-high TSR.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-aDM=+
a. M=3.20
b. M=3.16
c. M=3.34
d. M=3.36

b-c difference not significant


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelRealized Homestead Production
Page in Source 188
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between valued and achieved Homestead 
Production.

VALUE of homestead production
Reported importance of: 1.growing own food, 2.wearing 
clothes, made in your own home, 3.growing/eating 
organic food.

PERFORMANCE
Percentage of a family's food, that the respondents 
claimed was produced for their smallholding. The 
Homestaed Food Production(HFP) index has a range 
between 0 and 100 per cent.

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and the performance 
indexes at their repective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a.No gap low values-low HFP
b.gap    high values-low HFP
c.gap    low values-high HFP
d.no gap high values-high HFP
Observed distributionHFP M=35.96 Med=30.0

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-a
a.M=3.15
b.M=3.13
c.M=3.31
d.M=3.43

b-c difference not significant


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelTechnical Self Reliance
Page in Source 192
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Index calculated by multiplying tools or technology, 
possessed by a respondent by the efficiency rating 
claimed for the particular technology, resulting in the 
sum of the efficiency rating for each of the 25 tools.

The tools are: 1.garden, 2. greenhouse, 3.root cellar, 
4.fish pond, 5. solar heat, 6.pigs, 7.wood lot, 8.wood 
stove heat, 9.wood stove cooking, 10.composting privy, 
11.hydro-electric system, 12.graywater(waste water) 
13.solar water heater, 14.chickens, 15.goats, 16.beef 
cattle, 17.milk cow(s) 18.sheep, 19.wind power, 
20.weeder geese, 21.bees, 22.fruit trees, 23.butcher 
larger anaimals, 24.photo voltaic power, 45.work 
horses.

Efficiency is evaluated by asking the respondents about 
the effectiveness of the tool items of 'providing your 
family with independence or self-reliance from a one 
(not at all effective) to four(very effective point 
sequence. 
The TSR index-scores have a theoretical range between 
0-100
Remarks
Named technological Self Rliance (TSR)

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-ar=+.05
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.26 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=+.27 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.18 p<.005

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.32 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=+.32 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.22 p<.005


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelHomestead food production
Page in Source 192
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Percentage of a family's food, that the respondents 
claimed was produced for their smallholding. The 
Homestaed Food Production index has a range between 0 
and 100 per cent.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-ar=+ p < .005
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.29 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=+.33 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.30 p<.005

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.25 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=+.31 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.29 p<.005


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelTSR -country asceticism gap
Page in Source 192
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between Technical Self Reliance(TSR) and 
Country Asceticism(CA)

TECHNOLOGICAL SELF RELIANCE (TSR) Calculated by 
multiplying tools or technology, possessed by a
respondent by the efficiency rating claimed for the 
particular technology, resulting in the sum of the 
efficiency rating for each of the 25 tools.
The tools are: 1.garden, 2. greenhouse, 3.root cellar, 
4.fish pond, 5. solar heat, 6.pigs, 7.wood lot, 8.wood 
stove heat, 9.wood stove cooking, 10.composting privy, 
11.hydro-electric system, 12.graywater(waste water) 
13.solar water heater, 14.chickens, 15.goats, 16.beef 
cattle, 17.milk cow(s) 18.sheep, 19.wind power, 
20.weeder geese, 21.bees, 22.fruit trees, 23.butcher 
larger anaimals, 24.photo voltaic power, 45.work 
horses.
Efficiency is evaluated by asking the respondents about 
the effectiveness of the tool items of 'providing your 
family with independence or self-reliance from a one 
(not at all effective) to four(very effective point 
sequence. The TSR index-scores have a theoretical range 
betwee 0-100

COUNTRY ASCETISM(CA)
Reported importance of not having: 1.a gas or electric 
clothes dryer; 2.an indoor toilet or bathroom; 3 not 
living in a modern house; 4. electricity in your home; 
a microwave oven.

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and performance indexes 
at their respective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a. No gap, low CA-low TSR
b. gap,    high CA-low TSR 
c. gap,    low CA-high TSR
d. no gap, high CA-high TSR.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-a
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.22 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.18 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.08 ns

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.24 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.20 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.10 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelTSR-homestead production gap
Page in Source 193
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between valued and realized self-reliance

VALUE
Reported importance of: 1. Growing your own food; 2. 
Wearing clothes made in your own home; 3.growing/eating 
organic food.

TECNOLOGICAL SELF RELIANCE (TSR)
Performance index is calculated by multiplying tools or 
technology, possessed by a respondent by the efficiency 
rating claimed for the particular technology, resulting 
in the sum of the efficiency rating for each of the 25 
tools.The tools are: 1.garden, 2. greenhouse, 3.root 
cellar, 4.fish pond, 5. solar heat, 6.pigs, 7.wood lot, 
8.wood stove heat, 9.wood stove cooking, 10.composting 
privy, 11.hydro-electric system, 12.graywater(waste 
water) 13.solar water heater, 14.chickens, 15.goats, 
16.beef cattle, 17.milk cow(s) 18.sheep, 19.wind power, 
20.weeder geese, 21.bees, 22.fruit trees, 23.butcher 
larger anaimals, 24.photo voltaic power, 45.work 
horses.
Efficiency is evaluated by asking the respondents about 
the effectiveness of the tool items of 'providing your 
family with independence or self-reliance from a one 
(not at all effective) to four(very effective point 
sequence. The TSR index-scores have a theoretical range 
between 0-100

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and performance indexes 
at their respective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a. No gap, low values-low TSR
b. gap,    high values-low TSR 
c. gap,    low values-high TSR
d. no gap, high values-high TSR.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-a
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.25 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.23 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.21 p<.005

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.30 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.27 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.21 p<.005


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelTSR-Ecological Sensitivity Gap
Page in Source 192
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between Technological Self Reliance and 
Ecological Sensitivity

PERFORMANCE
Technological Self Reliance. The index is calculated by 
multiplying tools or technology, possessed by a
respondent by the efficiency rating claimed for the 
particular technology, resulting in the sum of the 
efficiency rating for each of the 25 tools.The tools 
are: 1.garden, 2. greenhouse, 3.root cellar, 4.fish 
pond, 5. solar heat, 6.pigs, 7.wood lot, 8.wood stove 
heat, 9.wood stove cooking, 10.composting privy, 
11.hydro-electric system, 12.graywater(waste water) 
13.solar water heater, 14.chickens, 15.goats, 16.beef 
cattle, 17.milk cow(s) 18.sheep, 19.wind power, 
20.weeder geese, 21.bees, 22.fruit trees, 23.butcher 
larger anaimals, 24.photo voltaic power, 45.work 
horses.
Efficiency is evaluated by asking the respondents about 
the effectiveness of the tool items of 'providing your 
family with independence or self-reliance from a one 
(not at all effective) to four(very effective point 
sequence. The TSR index-scores have a theoretical range 
betwee 0-100

VALUE
Ecological Sensitivity is importance of: 1. The 
expansion of wilderness areas; 2.preserving old growth 
forests; 3. Providing habitat for endangered species; 
4. Recycling newspapers; 5. Reducing personal energy 
consumption.

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and performance indexes 
at their respective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a. No gap, low values-low TSR
b. gap,    high values-low TSR 
c. gap,    low values-high TSR
d. no gap, high values-high TSR.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-a
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.22 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.25 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.18 p<.005

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.29 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.28 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.24 p<.005


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelHFP-homestead production gap
Page in Source 192
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between Homestead Food Production and 
Homestead Production Value

VALUE of homestead production
Reported importance of: 1.growing own food, 2.wearing 
clothes, made in your own home, 3.growing/eating 
organic food.

PERFORMANCE 
% family's food, that the respondents claimed was 
produced for their smallholding. The Homestaed Food 
Production index has a range between 0 and 100 per 
cent.

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and the performance 
indexes at their repective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a.No gap low values-low HFP
b.gap    high values-low HFP
c.gap    low values-high HFP
d.no gap high values-high HFP

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-ar=-
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.32 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.22 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.25 p<.005

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.33 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.23 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.25 p<.005


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelHFP- country asceticism gap
Page in Source 192
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between Homestead food production and 
country asceticism

VALUE
Country Asceticism is importance of not having: 1.a gas 
or electric clothes dryer; 2.an indoor toilet or 
bathroom; 3. Not living in a modern house; 4. 
Electricity in your home; 5. A microwave oven.

PERFORMANCE is the percentage
of a family's food, that the respondents claimed was 
produced for their smallholding. The Homestaed Food 
Production index has a range between 0 and 100 per 
cent.

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and the performance 
indexes at their repective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a.No gap low values-low HFP
b.gap    high values-low HFP
c.gap    low values-high HFP
d.no gap high values-high HFP

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-ar=-
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.26 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.17 p<.01
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.12 ns

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.28 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.18 p<.01
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.13 p<.05


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelRealized Country Asceticism
Page in Source 188
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between valued and achieved country 
asceticism.

VALUE of country asceticism:
Reported importance of not having: 1.gas or electric 
clothesdryer, 2.indoor toilet or bathroom, 
3.electricity in your own home, 4.micro-wave oven, 
5.not living in an modern house 

PERFORMANCE: Home Food Production(HFP)
Index calculated by measuring the percentage of 
family's food that the respondents claimed was produced 
from their smallholding.

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and performance indexes 
at their respective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a. No gap, low values-low TSR
b. gap, high values-low TSR 
c. gap, low values-high TSR
d. no gap, high values-high TSR.
Observed distributionHFP: M=35.96 Med=30.0

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-aDM=+
a. M=3.22
b. M=3.05
c. M=3.30
d. M=3.50

b-c difference significant p<.05


Correlational finding on Happiness and Self reliance
Subject code: F04ab04

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelHFP-Ecological sensitivity gap
Page in Source 192
Our classificationSelf reliance, code F04ab04
Operationalization
Discrepancy between Homestead Food Production and 
Ecological Sensitivity

VALUE
Ecological sensitivity is importance of: 1. The 
expansion of wilderness areas; 2.preserving old growth 
forests; 3. Providing habitat for endangered species; 
4. Recycling newspapers; 5. Reducing personal energy 
consumption.

PERFORMANCE is the percentage
of a family's food, that the respondents claimed was 
produced for their smallholding. The Homestaed Food 
Production index has a range between 0 and 100 per 
cent.

GAP between value and performance is constructed by 
dichotomizing the value scale and the performance 
indexes at their repective medians and to cross these 
indicators with each other. The respondents will fall 
in one of the four categories: 
a.No gap low values-low HFP
b.gap    high values-low HFP
c.gap    low values-high HFP
d.no gap high values-high HFP

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-ar=-
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.29 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.24 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.27 p<.005

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=-.30 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=-.25 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=-.28 p<.00-


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current characteristics of the farm
Subject code: F04ac

StudyBrinkerhoff et al. (1997): study IN Other place in India 1996 /2
TitleBasic Minimum Needs, Quality of Life and Selected Correlates: Explorations in Villages in Northern India.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 245 - 281
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006834830518
PublicAdult, general public, two poor rural villages, Garhwal area, Northern India, 1996
SampleNon-probability purposive-quota sample
Non-Response341
Respondents N =0

Correlate
Author's labelQuality of land
Page in Source 272
Our classificationCurrent characteristics of the farm, code F04ac
Operationalization
not reprted

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
M-FH-?-sq-f-7-ar=+.18 p < .001
O-SLu-?-sq-l-5-ar=+.21 p < .001


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current characteristics of the farm
Subject code: F04ac

StudyBrinkerhoff et al. (1997): study IN Other place in India 1996 /2
TitleBasic Minimum Needs, Quality of Life and Selected Correlates: Explorations in Villages in Northern India.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 245 - 281
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006834830518
PublicAdult, general public, two poor rural villages, Garhwal area, Northern India, 1996
SampleNon-probability purposive-quota sample
Non-Response341
Respondents N =0

Correlate
Author's labelOwn land
Page in Source 270
Our classificationCurrent characteristics of the farm, code F04ac
Operationalization
not reported

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
M-FH-?-sq-f-7-ar=-.02 ns
O-SLu-?-sq-l-5-ar=-.10 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current characteristics of the farm
Subject code: F04ac

StudyBrinkerhoff et al. (1997): study IN Other place in India 1996 /2
TitleBasic Minimum Needs, Quality of Life and Selected Correlates: Explorations in Villages in Northern India.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 245 - 281
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006834830518
PublicAdult, general public, two poor rural villages, Garhwal area, Northern India, 1996
SampleNon-probability purposive-quota sample
Non-Response341
Respondents N =0

Correlate
Author's labelJoint land
Page in Source 270
Our classificationCurrent characteristics of the farm, code F04ac
Operationalization
not reported

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
M-FH-?-sq-f-7-ar=+.20 p < .001
O-SLu-?-sq-l-5-ar=+.06 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current characteristics of the farm
Subject code: F04ac

StudyMoller (1988a): study ZA 1983
TitleQuality of Life in Retirement: A Case Study of Zulu Return Migrants.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1988, Vol. 20, 621 - 658
PublicEx-migrant workers, returned to rural KwaZulu, South Africa, 1983
Sample
Non-Response
Respondents N =253

Correlate
Author's labelPerceived security of landholding
Page in Source 630
Our classificationCurrent characteristics of the farm, code F04ac
Operationalization
0: insecure
1: secure

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dr=+.26 p < .01
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-ar=+.33 p < .01
All
          
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=+.11 ns
-65 years old
ß controlled for:
- Satisfied with health
- Higher monthly income
- Religious traditionalist
- Grows cash crop    
- Retired for many years
- Worked for many years in jobs
- No desire to return to work
- Achieved/confident of becoming wealthy


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current characteristics of the farm
Subject code: F04ac

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelTechnical Self Reliance
Page in Source 192
Our classificationCurrent characteristics of the farm, code F04ac
Operationalization
Index calculated by multiplying tools or technology, 
possessed by a respondent by the efficiency rating 
claimed for the particular technology, resulting in the 
sum of the efficiency rating for each of the 25 tools.

The tools are: 1.garden, 2. greenhouse, 3.root cellar, 
4.fish pond, 5. solar heat, 6.pigs, 7.wood lot, 8.wood 
stove heat, 9.wood stove cooking, 10.composting privy, 
11.hydro-electric system, 12.graywater(waste water) 
13.solar water heater, 14.chickens, 15.goats, 16.beef 
cattle, 17.milk cow(s) 18.sheep, 19.wind power, 
20.weeder geese, 21.bees, 22.fruit trees, 23.butcher 
larger anaimals, 24.photo voltaic power, 45.work 
horses.

Efficiency is evaluated by asking the respondents about 
the effectiveness of the tool items of 'providing your 
family with independence or self-reliance from a one 
(not at all effective) to four(very effective point 
sequence. 
The TSR index-scores have a theoretical range between 
0-100
Remarks
Named technological Self Rliance (TSR)

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-ar=+.05
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.26 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=+.27 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.18 p<.005

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.32 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=+.32 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.22 p<.005


Correlational finding on Happiness and Current characteristics of the farm
Subject code: F04ac

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelFarm structure and individual characteristics
Page in Source 156
Our classificationCurrent characteristics of the farm, code F04ac
Operationalization
A   Farm structure characteristics':
     a  gross farm sales
     b  land operated
     c  percent farm income
     d total family income
     e off-farm workdays
     f  wife's work status
B  Individual characteristics'
    a  growth plans
    b  commitment to farming
    c  economic constraints
    d  self-definition as a farm operator
    e  age
    f  education

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aR²=.21
A + B

When specified for size of farm:
- small :    R² = .19
- medium:    R² = .30
- large :    R² = .18


Correlational finding on Happiness and Size of farm
Subject code: F04ac01

StudyBrinkerhoff et al. (1997): study IN Other place in India 1996 /2
TitleBasic Minimum Needs, Quality of Life and Selected Correlates: Explorations in Villages in Northern India.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 245 - 281
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006834830518
PublicAdult, general public, two poor rural villages, Garhwal area, Northern India, 1996
SampleNon-probability purposive-quota sample
Non-Response341
Respondents N =0

Correlate
Author's labelLivestock index
Page in Source 270
Our classificationSize of farm, code F04ac01
Operationalization
Livestock index summates the number of animals the 
family owns, e.g. oxen, water buffalo, chickens.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
M-FH-?-sq-f-7-ar=+.03 ns
O-SLu-?-sq-l-5-ar=+.07 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Size of farm
Subject code: F04ac01

StudyBrinkerhoff & Jacob (1986): study ZZ Anglo-America 1983
TitleQuality of Life in an Alternative Lifestyle: The Smallholding Movement.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1986, Vol. 18, 153 - 173
DOIDOI:10.1007/BF00317546
Public'Back to the land' mini-farmers, West USA and Canada,198?
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response44 %
Respondents N =510

Correlate
Author's labelProperty size
Page in Source 164
Our classificationSize of farm, code F04ac01
Operationalization
self reported amount of acres of mini-farm
Observed distributionrange 0-1000; M=10.2

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-HL-u-sq-v-4-ar=+.09 p < .05


Correlational finding on Happiness and Size of farm
Subject code: F04ac01

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelGross farm sales
Page in Source 150,156
Our classificationSize of farm, code F04ac01
Operationalization
Single direct question: 'What was the approximale gross 
value of farm sales from this place in 1980. Rated on a 
7-point scale ranging from $ 2.500 to 
$ 100.000 or more.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.16 p < .05
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.16 p < .05
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.05 ns
ß controlled for:land operated, percent farm 
income, total family income, off-farm work days, 
wife's work status, growth plans, commitment to 
farming, economic constraints, self-definition, 
age, and education.
When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=+.04
-medium  ß=-.09
-large   ß=-.08 
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.05 ns
ß controlled for: land operated, percent farm 
income, total family income, off-farm work days, 
wife's work status, growth plans, commitment to 
farming, economic constraints, self-definition, 
age, and education.
When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=+.04
-medium  ß=-.09
-large   ß=-.08 


Correlational finding on Happiness and Size of farm
Subject code: F04ac01

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelLand operated
Page in Source 150,156
Our classificationSize of farm, code F04ac01
Operationalization
Sum of 'acress owned' and 'acres rented' minus acres 
rented out. Summarized in 7 categories ranging form 
'less than 50 acres' ot '1000 or more'.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.11 p < .05
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.11 p < .05
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=-.05 ns
ß controlled for:gross farm sales, percent farm 
income, total family income, off-farm work days, 
wife's work status, growth plans, commitment toto 
farming, economic constraints, self-definition, 
age, and education.
When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=-.02
-medium  ß=-.12
-large   ß=+.01 
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=-.05 ns
Controlled for: gross farm sales, percent farm 
income, total family income, off-farm work days, 
wife's work status, growth plans, commitment toto 
farming, economic constraints, self-definition, 
age, and education.
When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=-.02
-medium  ß=-.12
-large   ß=+.01 


Correlational finding on Happiness and Specialization of farm
Subject code: F04ac02

StudyMoller (1988a): study ZA 1983
TitleQuality of Life in Retirement: A Case Study of Zulu Return Migrants.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1988, Vol. 20, 621 - 658
PublicEx-migrant workers, returned to rural KwaZulu, South Africa, 1983
Sample
Non-Response
Respondents N =253

Correlate
Author's labelNeed to purchase maize
Page in Source 630
Our classificationSpecialization of farm, code F04ac02
Operationalization
0: self-supporting
1: need to buy (not self-supporting)

Peasants are typically self-supporting
in maize, whereas market oriented farmers buy it.
Remarks
Landowners only
Direction of correlation unclear in original report. 
Sign in table is negative, but text indicates positive 
relationship. Present version approved by author.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dr=+.29 p < .01
All
              
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-ar=-.43 p < .01
All
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=-.14 p < .01
All 
ß controlled for: 
- Satisfied with health
- Higher affluence rating
- Grows cash crop
- Religious traditionalist
- Has a confidant
- Keeps goats
- Higher monthly income
- More active person
- Worked for many years in jobs
- Retired for many years
- No desire to return to work
- Agrees: Modern community leader
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dBeta=+.03 ns
65+ years old
ß controlled for:
- Satisfied with health
- Grows cash crop
- Voluntary retirement  
- Owns cattle
- Keeps chicken
- Satisfied with job while working
- Feels relatively young
- Retired suddenly               
- Agrees:planning is key to success
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=-.17 p < .01
65+ years old
ß controlled for:
- Seldom restricted by poor health
- Higher affluence rating
- Grows cash crop
- Religious traditionalist
- More active person
- Keeps chicken
- Has a confident
- Higher standard house
- Keeps goats  
- Larger size field 
- Higher monthly income
- No desire to return to work


Correlational finding on Happiness and Specialization of farm
Subject code: F04ac02

StudyMoller (1988a): study ZA 1983
TitleQuality of Life in Retirement: A Case Study of Zulu Return Migrants.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1988, Vol. 20, 621 - 658
PublicEx-migrant workers, returned to rural KwaZulu, South Africa, 1983
Sample
Non-Response
Respondents N =253

Correlate
Author's labelGrows cash crop
Page in Source 630
Our classificationSpecialization of farm, code F04ac02
Operationalization
0: no
1: yes
Remarks
Landowners only
Direction of correlation unclear in original report. 
Sign in table is negative, but text indicates positive 
relationship. Present version approved by author.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dr=+.26 p < .01
All
       
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-ar=-.41 p < .01
All
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=-.18 p < .01
All
ß controlled for: 
- Satisfied with health
- Higher affluence rating
- Need to purchase maize
- Religious traditionalist
- Has a confidant
- Keeps goats
- Higher monthly income
- More active person
- Worked for many years in jobs
- Retired for many years
- No desire to return to work
- Agrees: Modern community leader
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dBeta=+.16 p < .05
65+ years old
ß controlled for:
- Satisfied with health
- Voluntary retirement  
- Need to purchase maize
- Owns cattle  
- Keeps chicken
- Satisfied with job while working
- Feels relatively young
- Retired suddenly               
- Agrees:planning is key to success
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=-.23 p < .01
65+ years old
ß controlled for:
- Seldom restricted by poor health
- Higher affluence rating
- Need to purchase maize
- Religious traditionalist
- More active person
- Keeps chicken
- Has a confident
- Higher standard house
- Keeps goats  
- Larger size field
- Higher monthly income
- No desire to return to work
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=-.14 p < .05
-65 years
ß controlled for:
- Satisfied with health
- Higher monthly income
- Religious traditionalist
- Feels land is secure    
- Retired for many years
- Worked for many years in jobs
- No desire to return to work
- Achieved/confident of becoming wealthy


Correlational finding on Happiness and Specialization of farm
Subject code: F04ac02

StudyMoller (1988a): study ZA 1983
TitleQuality of Life in Retirement: A Case Study of Zulu Return Migrants.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1988, Vol. 20, 621 - 658
PublicEx-migrant workers, returned to rural KwaZulu, South Africa, 1983
Sample
Non-Response
Respondents N =253

Correlate
Author's labelKeeps chicken
Page in Source 630
Our classificationSpecialization of farm, code F04ac02
Operationalization
0: no
1: yes
Remarks
Landowners only
Direction of correlation unclear in original report. 
Sign in table is negative, but text indicates positive 
relationship. Present version approved by author.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dr=+.20 p < .01
All
            
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-ar=+.31 p < .01
All
                
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dBeta=+.20 p < .05
65+ years old
ß controlled for:
- Satisfied with health
- Grows cash crop
- Voluntary retirement  
- Need to purchase maize
- Owns cattle  
- Satisfied with job while working
- Feels relatively young
- Retired suddenly               
- Agrees:planning is key to success
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=+.09 ns
65+ years old
ß controlled for:
- Seldom restricted by poor health
- Higher affluence rating
- Need to purchase maize
- Grows cash crop
- Religious traditionalist
- More active person
- Has a confidant
- Higher standard house
- Keeps goats  
- Larger size field 
- Higher monthly income
- No desire to return to work


Correlational finding on Happiness and Specialization of farm
Subject code: F04ac02

StudyMoller (1988a): study ZA 1983
TitleQuality of Life in Retirement: A Case Study of Zulu Return Migrants.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1988, Vol. 20, 621 - 658
PublicEx-migrant workers, returned to rural KwaZulu, South Africa, 1983
Sample
Non-Response
Respondents N =253

Correlate
Author's labelOwns goats
Page in Source 630
Our classificationSpecialization of farm, code F04ac02
Operationalization
'How many goats do you own?"
0: none
1: other

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dr=+.00 ns
Landowners only
Direction of correlation unclear in original 
report. Sign in table is negative, but text 
indicates positive relationship. Present version 
approved by author.
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-ar=+.24 p < .01
All
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=+.11 p < .01
All
ß controlled for: 
- Satisfied with health
- Higher affluence rating
- Need to purchase maize
- Grows cash crop
- Religious traditionalist
- Has a confidant
- Higher monthly income
- More active person
- Worked for many years in jobs
- Retired for many years
- No desire to return to work
- Agrees: Modern community leader
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aBeta=+.17 p < .01
65+ years old
ß controlled for:
- Seldom restricted by poor health
- Higher affluence rating
- Need to purchase maize
- Grows cash crop
- Religious traditionalist
- More active person
- Keeps chicken
- Has a confidant
- Higher standard house
- Larger size field
- Higher monthly income
- No desire to return to work


Correlational finding on Happiness and Specialization of farm
Subject code: F04ac02

StudyMoller (1988a): study ZA 1983
TitleQuality of Life in Retirement: A Case Study of Zulu Return Migrants.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1988, Vol. 20, 621 - 658
PublicEx-migrant workers, returned to rural KwaZulu, South Africa, 1983
Sample
Non-Response
Respondents N =253

Correlate
Author's labelOwns cattle
Page in Source 630
Our classificationSpecialization of farm, code F04ac02
Operationalization
'How many cattle do you own?'
0: none
1: other
Remarks
Landowners only

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dr=+.06 ns
All
            
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-ar=+.09 ns
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dBeta=+.16 p < .05
65+ years old
ß controlled for:
- Satisfied with health
- Grows cash crop
- Voluntary retirement  
- Need to purchase maize
- Keeps chicken
- Satisfied with job while working
- Feels relatively young
- Retired suddenly               
- Agrees:planning is key to success


Correlational finding on Happiness and Economic success of farm
Subject code: F04ac03

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1997): study US 1989
TitleValues, Performance and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: An Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 171 - 204
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006858618686
Public'Back to the land' mini farmers, USA,1989
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response43,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelHomestead food production
Page in Source 192
Our classificationEconomic success of farm, code F04ac03
Operationalization
Percentage of a family's food, that the respondents 
claimed was produced for their smallholding. The 
Homestaed Food Production index has a range between 0 
and 100 per cent.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-ar=+ p < .005
Ss, who value technical self reliance high, 
irrespectible of their performance (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.29 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=+.33 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.30 p<.005

Ss, who value Homestead Food Production high, 
irrespectable their performance, (N=±280)
-high Country Asceticism     r=+.25 p<.005
-high Homestead Production   r=+.31 p<.005
-high Ecological Sensitivity r=+.29 p<.005


Correlational finding on Happiness and Economic success of farm
Subject code: F04ac03

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelGrowth plans
Page in Source 150,156
Our classificationEconomic success of farm, code F04ac03
Operationalization
5-item index of closed questions. The respondents were 
asked whether they planned to: 
a:  Buy or lease more land and expend the operations. 
B:  Expend the animal herd.
C:  Get into a new animal enterprise.
D:  Construct new buildings. 
E  Facilities.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.04 ns
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=-.00 ns
ß controlled for: 
- gross farm sales
- percent farm income
- total family income
- off-farm work days
- wife's work status
-land operated
- commitment to farming
- economic constraints
- self-definition
- age
- education

When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=-.03
-medium  ß=-.03
-large   ß=+.14


Correlational finding on Happiness and Economic success of farm
Subject code: F04ac03

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelEconomic constraints
Page in Source 150/156
Our classificationEconomic success of farm, code F04ac03
Operationalization
6-item index. The respondents were asked to what extent 
they thought each of the following would hinder or help 
the future survival or growth of their farms, that is, 
their ability to expand or just stay in business: 
a:. Interest rate. 
b. Price of land.
c. Price of hired farm labor. 
d. Availability of labor. 
e. Cost of new technology ormachinery.
f. The price of fuel. 
Rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 'hinder a lot' to 
'help a lot'.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=-.17 p < .05
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=-.16 p < .05
ß controlled for:
- gross farm sales
- percent farm income
- total family income
- off-farm work days
- wife's work status
- growth plans
- commitment to farming
- land operated
- self-definition
- age
- education

When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=-.13
-medium  ß=-.18
-large   ß=+.18


Correlational finding on Happiness and Attitudes to farming
Subject code: F04ad

StudyBrinkerhoff et al. (1997): study IN Other place in India 1996 /2
TitleBasic Minimum Needs, Quality of Life and Selected Correlates: Explorations in Villages in Northern India.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1997, Vol. 42, 245 - 281
DOIDOI:10.1023/A:1006834830518
PublicAdult, general public, two poor rural villages, Garhwal area, Northern India, 1996
SampleNon-probability purposive-quota sample
Non-Response341
Respondents N =0

Correlate
Author's labelSatisfaction with amount of land
Page in Source 272
Our classificationAttitudes to farming, code F04ad
Operationalization
not reported

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
M-FH-?-sq-f-7-ar=+.14 p < .05
O-SLu-?-sq-l-5-ar=+.17 p < .005


Correlational finding on Happiness and Attitudes to farming
Subject code: F04ad

StudyBrinkerhoff & Jacob (1986): study ZZ Anglo-America 1983
TitleQuality of Life in an Alternative Lifestyle: The Smallholding Movement.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1986, Vol. 18, 153 - 173
DOIDOI:10.1007/BF00317546
Public'Back to the land' mini-farmers, West USA and Canada,198?
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response44 %
Respondents N =510

Correlate
Author's labeltTchnical self-reliance
Page in Source 164
Our classificationAttitudes to farming, code F04ad
Operationalization
The respondents were presented with a list of 25 
alternative technologies (gardens, windmills, 
greenhouses etc) and asked, whether they employed the 
particular practises. 
They were then requested to note the effectiveness of 
the technologies they employed on a four point 
Likert-type scale from "not at all effective" to "very 
effective" in terms of 'providing your family with 
independence or self-reliance'
Observed distributionrange: 0 - 100

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-HL-u-sq-v-4-ar=+.24 p < .001


Correlational finding on Happiness and Attitudes to farming
Subject code: F04ad

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Non-Response41,8
Respondents N =565

Correlate
Author's labelFarm life commitment
Page in Source 358
Our classificationAttitudes to farming, code F04ad
Operationalization
not reported

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=+.12 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Attitudes to farming
Subject code: F04ad

StudyWozniak et al. (1993): study US 1985
TitleDomains of Subjective Well-Being in Farm Men and Women.
SourceJournal of Family and Economic Issues, 1993, Vol. 14, 97 - 114
Public18-65 aged farm-couples, USA, 1985
SampleProbability stratified sample
Non-Response?
Respondents N =1110

Correlate
Author's labelSatisfaction with farm plans
Page in Source 105-106
Our classificationAttitudes to farming, code F04ad
Operationalization
Selfreport on single question:
Considering everything about your life at the present 
time, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with 
the plans for the farm, after you and your spouse 
retire?
1: very dissatisfied
2: dissatisfied
3: neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4: satisfied
5: very satisfied
Observed distributionM=3.40 SD=0,899

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-c-sq-v-5-mr=+.43 p < .001
O-SLW-c-sq-v-5-mBeta=+.10 p < .001
Beta controlled for satisfaction with:
-control of life
-standard of living
-children
-farm income
-household
-retirement plans
-farm tasks

Women enployed off the farm rely less on 
satisfaction with plans for the farm for their 
overall happiness than women not employed off the 
farm. However: men employed off the farm rely more 
on satisfaction with plans for the farm than men 
who are not employed off the farm.


Correlational finding on Happiness and Attitudes to farming
Subject code: F04ad

StudyWozniak et al. (1993): study US 1985
TitleDomains of Subjective Well-Being in Farm Men and Women.
SourceJournal of Family and Economic Issues, 1993, Vol. 14, 97 - 114
Public18-65 aged farm-couples, USA, 1985
SampleProbability stratified sample
Non-Response?
Respondents N =1110

Correlate
Author's labelSatisfaction with farm income
Page in Source 105-106
Our classificationAttitudes to farming, code F04ad
Operationalization
Selfreport on single question:
Considering everything about your life at the present 
time, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with 
your farm income?
1: very dissatisfied
2: dissatisfied
3: neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4: satisfied
5: very satisfied
Observed distributionM=2.27 Sd= 1,112

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-c-sq-v-5-mr=+.35 p < .001
O-SLW-c-sq-v-5-mBeta=+.11 p < .001
Beta controlled for satisfaction with:
-control of life
-standard of living
-farm plans
-children
-household
-retirement plans
-farm tasks


Correlational finding on Happiness and Attitudes to farming
Subject code: F04ad

StudyWessman (1956): study US 1946
TitleA Psychological Inquiry into Satisfaction and Happiness.
SourceUnpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Princeton University, 1956, USA
Public21+ aged, general public, USA, 1946
SampleNon-probability purposive-quota sample
Non-Response-
Respondents N =2377

Correlate
Author's labelUnfulfilled aspirations: move to country, become farmer
Page in Source 210
Our classificationAttitudes to farming, code F04ad
Operationalization
Open ended question on unfulfilled aspirations: 
1: move to other country, become farmer mentioned
0: other aspirations mentioned
Remarks
Computed for those having unfulfilled aspirations only 
(N = 1646)

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-HL-g-sq-v-4-bG=+.00 ns


Correlational finding on Happiness and Concern about farming
Subject code: F04ad01

StudyMakarczyk (1962): study PL 1960
TitleFactors affecting Life Satisfaction among People in Poland.
SourcePolish Sociological Bulletin, 1962, Vol. 1, 105 - 116
PublicAdults, general public, students and peasants excluded, Poland, 1960
Sample
Non-Response5%
Respondents N =2387

Correlate
Author's labelAnxiety about future of farm
Page in Source 112
Our classificationConcern about farming, code F04ad01
Operationalization
Single question:are you anxious about the future of 
your farm ?
not anxious at all /rather not anxious / little anxious 
/very anxious.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLu-u-sq-n-5-aT=.16 p < .001
Computed for farm owners and family only.


Correlational finding on Happiness and Concern about farming
Subject code: F04ad01

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelCommitment to farming
Page in Source 150/156
Our classificationConcern about farming, code F04ad01
Operationalization
3-item index. The respondents were asked how they felt 
about the following statements: 
A: . If I had a son growing up at    present, I would 
like to see him    become a farmer.
B: . Even if his income has dropped to a  low point, a 
farmer should try to  stick it out so his children can 
grow up on a farm.
C: . Being my own boss is one of the major reasons I 
enjoy farming. 

Rated on 5-point scales ranging from 'strongly 
disagree' to 'strongly agree'.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.26 p < .05
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aBeta=+.24 p < .05
ß controlled for:
- gross farm sales
- percent farm income
- total family income
- off-farm work days
- wife's work status
- growth plans
- land operated
- economic constraints
- self-definition
- age
- education

When specified for size of farm:
-small   ß=+.23
-medium  ß=+.26
-large   ß=+.20


Correlational finding on Happiness and Concern about farming
Subject code: F04ad01

StudyMolnar (1985): study US 1981
TitleDeterminants of Subjective Well-Being among Farm Operators.
SourceRural Sociology, 1985, Vol. 50, 141 - 162
PublicFarm operators, Alabama, USA, 1981
Sample
Non-Response29,9%
Respondents N =705

Correlate
Author's labelSelf-definition as a farm operator
Page in Source 150/156
Our classificationConcern about farming, code F04ad01
Operationalization
Single closed question: How do you see yourself? Rated 
on a 5-point scale: 
a; small farm operator
b average farmer
c progressive farme
d more-progressive-than-most farmer
e innovator.

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-ar=+.20 p < .05


Correlational finding on Happiness and Satisfaction with farming
Subject code: F04ad02

StudyAckerman et al. (1989): study US 1986
TitleFarm Work and Family: Major Sources of Satisfaction for Farm Families.
SourceUtah Science, 1989, Vol. 50, 134 - 142
PublicDairy farm couples, Utah, USA,1986
SampleProbability stratified sample
Non-Response28%
Respondents N =116

Correlate
Author's labelSatisfaction with farm work
Page in Source 139, 140
Our classificationSatisfaction with farming, code F04ad02
Operationalization
Selfreport on single question:
How do you feel about the work you do on the farm?
7: delighted
6: happy
5: mostly satisfied
4: mixed
3: mostly dissatisfied
2: unhappy
1: terrible
Observed distributionM = wives: 4,93; husbands 5,41; difference is significant at 0,001 level

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-DT-u-sq-v-7-aBeta=+.15 p < .05
Wives
O-DT-u-sq-v-7-aBeta=+.36 p < .001
Husbands

Beta's controlled for satisfaction with:
-family life
-family activities
-oneself
-satisfaction with own health
-leisure: amount of fun
-leisure: spare time (how spent)
-leisure: time (available)
-off-farm job (only if husband and wife have 
off-farm-jobs)
-family income
-own house
-goods and services
-national government


Correlational finding on Happiness and Satisfaction with farming
Subject code: F04ad02

StudyWozniak et al. (1993): study US 1985
TitleDomains of Subjective Well-Being in Farm Men and Women.
SourceJournal of Family and Economic Issues, 1993, Vol. 14, 97 - 114
Public18-65 aged farm-couples, USA, 1985
SampleProbability stratified sample
Non-Response?
Respondents N =1110

Correlate
Author's labelSatisfaction with farm tasks
Page in Source 105-106
Our classificationSatisfaction with farming, code F04ad02
Operationalization
Selfreport on single question:
Considering everything about your life at the present 
time, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with 
the time you spend on farm tasks?
1: very dissatisfied
2: dissatisfied
3: neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4: satisfied
5: very satisfied
Observed distributionM=3,70 SD=0,758

Observed Relation with Happiness
Happiness
Measure
StatisticsElaboration/Remarks
O-SLW-c-sq-v-5-mr=+.33 p < .001
O-SLW-c-sq-v-5-mBeta=+.06 p < .05
Beta controlled for satisfaction with:
-control of life
-standard of living
-farm plans
-children
-farm income
-household
-retirement plans


Appendices

Appendix 1: Happiness measures used

CodeFull Text
C-BW-c-sq-l-11-cSelfreport on single question:

Here is ladder representing the 'ladder of life'. Let's suppose the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you; and the bottom, the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time?
10 best possible
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 worst possible life

This question was followed (not preceded) by items on life 5 years ago and 5 years from now.
C-BW-cy-sq-l-9-aSelfreport on single question:

"Here is a picture of a ladder. At the bottom of the ladder is the worst life you might reasonably expect to have. At the top is the best life you might expect to have. Of course, life from week to week falls somewhere in between. Where was your life most of the time during the past year?"
[ 9 ] best life you might expect to have
[ 8 ]
[ 7 ]
[ 6 ]
[ 5 ]
[ 4 ]
[ 3 ]
[ 2 ]
[ 1 ] worst life you might expect to have


Name: Cantril's self anchoring ladder rating (modified version)
M-FH-?-sq-f-7-aSelfreport on single question:

Lead item not reported
Rated on a 7-step pictorial faces scale, presented on a card
(pictures not shown here)
7 smiling face, very happy
6
5
4
3
2
1 frowning face, very unhappy
O-DT-u-sq-v-7-aSelfreport on single question:

How do you feel about your life as a whole.....?
7 delighted
6 pleased
5 mostly satisfied
4 mixed
3 mostly dissatisfied
2 unhappy
1 terrible

Name: Andrews & Withey's `Delighted-Terrible Scale' (original version)
O-H?-?-sq-v-4-aSelfreport on single question:

Lead item not reported
4 very happy
3 quite happy
2 not very happy
1 not at all happy
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bSelfreport on single question:

Lead item not reported.
5 very happy
4 happy
3 neutral
2. unhappy
1 very unhappy
O-HL-c-sq-v-5-aSelfreport on single question:

Taking all things together in your life, how would you say things are these days? Would you say you are ....?
5 very happy
4 happy
3 neither happy nor unhappy
2 unhappy
1 very unhappy
O-HL-g-sq-v-4-bSelfreport on single question:

In general, how happy would you say you are..?
4 very happy
3 fairly happy
2 not very happy
1 not at all happy
- NA/DK
O-HL-u-sq-v-4-aSelfreport on single question:

Taking all things together, would you say you are.....?
4 very happy
3 quite happy
2 not very happy
1 not at all happy.
O-SLu-?-sq-l-5-aSelfreport on single question:

"..... satisfaction with life ......"
(full lead item not reported)

Rated on a wooden miniature ladder, handed to the respondent
[ 5 ] very satisfied
[ 4 ]
[ 3 ]
[ 2 ]
[ 1 ] very dissatisfied
O-SLu-c-sq-n-10-bSelfreport on single question:

All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life these days? Please tell me on a scale of 1 to 10, where one means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied
10 very satisfied
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 very dissatisfied
O-SLu-u-sq-n-5-aSelfreport on single question:

How satisfied are you with your life in general?
1 very dissatisfied
2
3
4
5 very satisfied
O-SLW-c-sq-v-4-dSelfreport on single question:

Let's think about your life as a whole: would you say that you are with your life right now
4 very satisfied
3 fairly satisfied
2 a little dissatisfied
1 very dissatisfied
O-SLW-c-sq-v-5-mSelfreport on single question:

In general, how satisfied are you with your life at present? Choose one of the following:
5 satisfied
4 quite satisfied
3 cannot decide
2 not so satisfied
1 dissatisfied
- don't know
O-SLW-h-sq-v-4-aSelfreport on single question

Would you say that in general you are .. with your life so far
4 very satisfied
3 fairly satisfied
2 a little dissatisfied
1 quite dissatisfied
O-SLW-u-sq-n-10-bSelfreport on single question:

Please look at this satisfaction scale and tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with your life as a whole
10 satisfied
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Dissatisfied

Numbers were presented in different order (1 satisfied… 10 dissatisfied).
O-SLW-u-sq-v-5-dSelfreport on single question:

Taking your life as a whole, are you .......?
5 very satisfied
4 quite satisfied
3 more satisfied than discontented
2 more discontented than satisfied
1 quite dissatisfied


Appendix 2: Statistics used

SymbolExplanation
bREGRESSION COEFFICIENT (non-standardized) by LEAST SQUARES (OLS)
Type: test statistic
Measurement level: Correlate: metric, Happiness: metric
Theoretical range: unlimited

Meaning:
b > 0 A higher correlate level corresponds with a higher happiness rating on average.
B < 0 A higher correlate level corresponds with a lower happiness rating on average.
B = 0 Not any correlation with the relevant correlate.
Beta STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENT by LEAST SQUARES (OLS)
Type: test statistic.

Measurement level: Correlates: all metric, Happiness: metric.
Range: [-1 ; +1]

Meaning:
beta > 0 « a higher correlate level corresponds to a higher happiness rating on average.
beta < 0 « a higher correlate level corresponds to a higher happiness rating on average.
beta = 0 « no correlation.
beta = + 1 or -1 « perfect correlation.
DMDIFFERENCE of MEANS
Type: descriptive statistic only.
Measurement level: Correlate: dichotomous, Happiness: metric
Range: depending on the happiness rating scale of the author; range symmetric about zero.

Meaning: the difference of the mean happiness, as measured on the author's rating scale, between the two correlate levels.
FF-STATISTIC
Type: asymmetric standard test statistic.
Range: nonnegative unlimited

Meaning : the test statistic is also called the "Variance Ratio" and is the ratio of two independent estimators of the same variance with n1 and n2 degrees of freedom respectively. The critical values of its probability distribution are tabulated extensively in almost any textbook on Statistics
GGOODMAN & Kruskal's GAMMA
Type: test statistic
Measurement level: Correlate: ordinal, Happinessl: ordinal
Range: [-1; +1]

Meaning:
G = 0 « no rank correlation
G = +1 « strongest possible rank correlation, where high correlate values correspond to high happiness ratings.
G = -1 « strongest possible rank correlation, where high correlate values correspond with low happiness ratings.
rPRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (Also "Pearson's correlation coefficient' or simply 'correlation coefficient')
Type: test statistic.
Measurement level: Correlate: metric, Happiness: metric
Range: [-1; +1]

Meaning:
r = 0 « no correlation ,
r = 1 « perfect correlation, where high correlate values correspond with high happiness values, and
r = -1 « perfect correlation, where high correlate values correspond with low happiness values.
rpcPARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
Type: test statistic
Measurement level: Correlate: metric, Happiness: metric
Range: [-1; +1]

Meaning: a partial correlation between happiness and one of the correlates is that correlation, which remains after accounting for the contribution of the other influences, or some of them, to the total variability in the happiness scores.
Under that conditions
rpc > 0 « a higher correlate level corresponds with a higher happiness rating,
rpc < 0 « a higher correlate level corresponds with a lower happiness rating,
COEFFICIENT of DETERMINATION
Type: test statistic
Measurement level: Correlates: all metric, Happiness: metric
Range: [0; 1]

Meaning:
R² = 0 « no influence of any correlate in this study has been established.
R² = 1 « the correlates determine the happiness completely.
TTSCHUPROW'S T
Type: test statistic.
Measurement level: Correlate: nominal, Happiness: ordinal
Range: [0 ; SQRT[[min(r,c)-1]/[max(r,c) -1]]], c and r being the numbers of colums resp. rows in a cross tabulation.

Meaning:
T = 0 « no association
T -> 1 « strongest possible association.

NOTE: sometimes the square value is reported instead !


Appendix 3: About the World Database of Happiness

Structure of the collections

The World Database of Happiness is an archive of research findings on subjective enjoyment of life .
It brings together findings that are scattered throughout many studies and provides a basis for synthetic work.

World literature on subjective wellbeing


Selection on fit with definition of happiness

Bibliography    and     Directory    

Selection of empirical studies and within these on valid measurement: Happiness measures
Abstracting and classification of findings

How happy people are, distributional findings What goes together with happiness

Happiness in nations
Happiness in regions
Happiness in publics
Correlational findings

  Listing of comparable findings in nations  
States of nations   ,   Trends in nations


Size of the collections
11848 publications in Bibliography of happiness, of which 6189 report an empirical study that is eligible for inclusion in the findings archive.
1137 measures of happiness, mostly single survey questions varying in wording and response scale.
12252 distributional findings in the general public, of which 8495 in 172 nations (former nations and de facto nations included) and 3757 findings in 2454 regions and cities in nations.
2106 studies with findings in 160 specific publics.
15522 correlational findings observed in 2051 studies, excerpted from 1565 publications.

Appendix 4 Further Findings in the World Database of Happiness

Main Subjects Subject Description Number of Studies
A01ACTIVITY (how much one does)72
A02ACTIVITY: PATTERN (what one does)114
A03AFFECTIVE LIFE82
A04AGE668
A05AGGRESSION14
A06ANOMY33
A07APPEARANCE (good looks)24
A08ATTITUDES12
A09AUTHORITARIANISM4
B01BIRTH CONTROL0
B02BIRTH HISTORY (own birth)205
B03BODY99
C01CHILDREN12
C02CHILDREN: WANT FOR (Parental aspirations)13
C03CHILDREN: HAVING (parental status)314
C04CHILDREN: CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE'S CHILDREN34
C05CHILDREN: RELATION WITH ONE'S CHILDREN17
C06CHILDREN: REARING OF ONE'S CHILDREN (parental behavior)35
C07COMMUNAL LIVING16
C08CONCERNS46
C09CONSUMPTION114
C10COPING64
C11CREATIVENESS7
C12CRIME2
C13CULTURE (Arts and Sciences)49
D01DAILY JOYS & HASSLES7
D02DISASTER1
E01EDUCATION527
E02EMPLOYMENT 793
E03ETHNICITY171
E04EXPRESSIVE BEHAVIOR12
F01FAMILY OF ORIGIN (earlier family for adults, current for young)320
F02FAMILY OF PROCREATION102
F03FAMILY OF RELATIVES192
F04FARMING66
F05FREEDOM56
F06FRIENDSHIP238
G01GENDER633
G02GRIEF1
H01HABITS2
H02HANDICAP47
H03HAPPINESS: VIEWS ON HAPPINESS120
H04HAPPINESS: DISPERSION OF HAPPINESS18
H05HAPPINESS: CAREER226
H06HAPINNESS: EFFECT OF CONDITIONS FOR HAPPINESS1
H07HAPPINESS: CORRESPONDENCE OF DIFFERENT MEASURES342
H08HAPPINESS OF OTHERS6
H09HAPPINESS: REPUTATION OF HAPPINESS26
H10HEALTH-BEHAVIOR33
H11HELPING16
H12HOPE35
H13HOUSEHOLD: COMPOSITION243
H14HOUSEHOLD: WORK41
H15HOUSING264
I01INCOME1054
I02INSTITUTIONAL LIVING44
I03INTELLIGENCE86
I04INTERESTS17
I05INTERVIEW 87
I06INTIMACY143
L01LANGUAGE18
L02LEADERSHIP14
L03LEISURE328
L04LIFE APPRAISALS: OTHER THAN HAPPINESS462
L05LIFE CHANGE70
L06LIFE EVENTS107
L07LIFE GOALS119
L08LIFE HISTORY11
L09LIFE STYLE 39
L10LOCAL ENVIRONMENT705
L11LOTTERY14
L12LOVE-LIFE44
M01MARRIAGE: MARITAL STATUS CAREER108
M02MARRIAGE: CURRENT MARITAL STATUS874
M03MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP155
M04MARRIAGE: PARTNER78
M05MEANING31
M06MEDICAL TREATMENT107
M07MENTAL HEALTH306
M08MIGRATION: TO OTHER COUNTRY97
M09MIGRATION: MOVING WITHIN COUNTRY (residential mobility)49
M10MIGRATION: MIGRANT WORK5
M11MILITARY LIFE13
M12MODERNITY5
M13MOOD338
M14MOTIVATION21
M15MOBILITY21
N01NATION: NATIONALITY70
N02NATION: ERA (temporal period)124
N03NATION: NATIONAL CHARACTER (modal personality)75
N04NATION: CONDITION IN ONE'S NATION1005
N05NATION: POSITION OF ONE'S NATION16
N06NATION: ATTITUDES TO ONES NATION199
N07NATION: LIVABILITY OF ONE'S NATION53
N08NATION: ATTITUDINAL CLIMATE14
N09NATION: REGION133
N10NUTRITION37
N11NATION: AREA2
O01OCCUPATION224
O02ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION17
P01PERSONALITY: HISTORY55
P02PERSONALITY: CHANGE11
P03PERSONALITY: CURRENT ORGANIZATION10
P04PERSONALITY: CURRENT TRAITS722
P05PERSONALITY: LATER21
P06PHYSICAL HEALTH 819
P07PLANNING11
P08POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR285
P09POPULARITY30
P10POSSESSIONS152
P11PRISON3
P12PROBLEMS30
P13PSYCHO-SOMATIC COMPLAINTS63
P14PETS4
R01RELIGION425
R02RESOURCES29
R03RETIREMENT152
R04ROLES31
S01SCHOOL205
S02SELF-IMAGE313
S03SEX-LIFE77
S04SLEEP17
S05SOCIAL MOBILITY25
S06SOCIAL PARTICIPATION: PERSONAL CONTACTS98
S07SOCIAL PARTICIPATION : VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS152
S08SOCIAL PARTICIPATION: TOTAL (personal + associations)54
S09SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS189
S10SOCIAL SUPPORT: RECEIVED115
S11SOCIAL SUPPORT: PROVIDED24
S12SPORTS62
S13STIMULANTS85
S14SUICIDE10
S15SUMMED DETERMINANTS166
T01TIME 104
T02THERAPY56
T03TOLERANCE39
T05TRUST47
V01VALUES: CAREER6
V02VALUES: CURRENT PREFERENCES (own)163
V03VALUES: CLIMATE (current values in environment)13
V04VALUES: SIMILARITY (current fit with others)13
V05VALUES: LIVING UP TO18
V06VICTIM 31
W01WAR7
W02WISDOM1
W03WORK: CAREER1
W04WORK: CONDITIONS120
W05WORK: ATTITUDES412
W06WORK: PERFORMANCE (current)37
W07WORRIES57
X01UNCLASSIFIED34


Appendix 5: Related Subjects

SubjectRelated Subject(s)
F04abCurrent involvement in farmingL10ab01bRural vs urban dwelling
F04ab01Being a farmerO01ab02Kind of occupation (profession)
F04ab02Being wife of a farmerM04ab03dOccupation of spouse
F04ab03Time spend to farmingT01adCurrent time-usage
F04acCurrent characteristics of the farmP10POSSESSIONS
F04ac03Economic success of farmO01aa03aAdvancement in current job
F04adAttitudes to farmingW05WORK: ATTITUDES
F04ad01Concern about farmingL07ab02Object of life-goals
F04ad01Concern about farmingS02acCurrent self-ideal

A report of the World Database of Happiness, Correlational Findings