print

Correlational findings

Study Diener et al. (1995b): study US Illinois 1990 /1

Public
University students, USA, 199?
Sample
Respondents
N = 131
Non Response
Assessment
Questionnaire: Paper & Pencil Interview (PAPI)

Correlate

Authors's Label
Physical attractiveness
Our Classification
Distribution
1:  Men N=35, Women N=33
2:  Men N=36, Women N=27
Operationalization
Photographs were rated for physical attractiveness by 8 raters on a scale 1(extremely unattractive) to 10 (extremely attractive).

1 Less attractive (top quartile)
2 More attractive (bottom quartile)

Observed Relation with Happiness

Happiness Measure Statistics Elaboration / Remarks M-FH-g-sq-v-10-a DM = + ns Men
1 Less attractive M = 6.6, SD = 1.4
2 More attractive M = 7.0, SD = 1.2
- difference     DM =+0.4      -0,2 M-FH-g-sq-v-10-a DM = - ns Women
1 Less attractive M = 7.1, SD = 1.7
2 More attractive M = 7.0, SD = 1.5
- difference     DM =-0.1      -0,2