print

Correlational findings

Study Adams (1997): study US 1980

Public:
Black Americans, USA, followed from 1980 to 1992
Sample:
Respondents:
N = 623
Non Response:
T1: 32%; T2: 19%; T3: 17%; T4:17%
Assessment:
Interview: face-to-face
T1: face to face interviews; T2,T3,T4: telephone interviews

Correlate

Authors's Label
Change over time
Our Classification
Operationalization
Happiness assessed at
T1: 1980
T2: 1987/1988
T3: 1989
T4: 1992

Observed Relation with Happiness

Happiness Measure Statistics Elaboration / Remarks O-SLu-c-sq-v-4-b DMt = + T1: M=3.08  SD=0.77
T2: M=3.20  SD=0.73
T3: M=3.24  SD=0.73
T4: M=3.21  SD=0.77 O-SLu-c-sq-v-4-b F = 8.95 p < .00 O-SLu-c-sq-v-4-b t. = +4.5 p < .001 linear trend in means O-SLu-c-sq-v-4-b t. = -1.9 p < .06 quadratic trend in means O-HL-c-sq-v-*-a DMt = - T1: M=2.19  SD=0.62
T2: M=2.07  SD=0.64
T3: M=2.09  SD=0.61
T4: M=2.07  SD=0.65 O-HL-c-sq-v-*-a F = 7.47 p < .001 O-HL-c-sq-v-*-a t. = -4.1 p < .001 linear trend in means O-HL-c-sq-v-*-a t. = +1.5 p < .12 quadratic trend in means

The divergence in trend of happiness general-satisfaction-item cannot be explained by response bias or other methodological issues