print

Happiness Measures

Characteristics

Code:
O-DT-u-sq-v-7-a
Focus:
Overall: Delighted vs Terrible life (O-DT)
Time frame:
time unspecified (u)
Mode:
1 question (sq)
Scale Type:
verbal scale (v)
Scale Range:
7

Description

Selfreport 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)

List of Studies Using this Measure

Study Population N Statistics Ackerman & Paolucci (1983): study US 1974 18+ aged, general public, USA, 1974 N = 1064
Andrews & Withey (1976): study US 1973 /1 18+ aged, general public, USA, 1973/7 N = 222
Mean
= 5.310
SD
= 1.055
Forrester (1980): study US San Diego County, California 1980 21-71 aged divorced women, San Diego, California, USA, 1980 N = 70
Mean
= 4.840
SD
= 1.140
Kammann & Flett (1983a): study NZ 1980 18 + aged, general public, New Zealand, 198? N = 118
Kammann & Flett (1983a): study NZ 1980 /3 18+ aged, general public, New Zealand, 198? N = 118
Andrews & Withey (1976): study US 1972 /3 18+ aged, general public, United States, 1972 N = 1118
Mean
= 5.352
SD
= 1.002
Andrews & Withey (1976): study US 1973 18+ aged, general public, USA, 1973/3 N = 1433
Mean
= 5.300
SD
= 1.050
McCrae & Costa (1991): study US Baltimore County, Maryland 1979 Single males and couples Baltimore USA, followed 7 years, 1979-86 N = 429
Herzog et al. (1982): study US 1971 25-97 aged, general public, USA, 1971-1978 N = 1500
Goodhart (1985): study US 1983 Students in stress, followed 8 weeks, Illinois, USA, 1983 N = 173
Herzog et al. (1982): study US 1975 50+ aged, general public, USA, 1975 N = 410
Balatsky & Diener (1993): study RU 1990 Students, Moscow and Glazov (Ural), Russia, 1990 N = 116
Mean
= 4.600
SD
= 1.000
Simpson et al. (1989): study GB 1987 Chronic mental patients, Manchester, Great Britain, 1987 N = 33
Mean
= 3.730
SD
= 1.730
Sullivan et al. (1991): study US 1988 Former inpatients of mental hospital, Mississipi, 1988 N = 130
Mean
= 5.300
McCrae (1986): study US Baltimore County, Maryland 1981 Adults, general public, Baltimore, USA, 1981 N = 62
Magnus & Diener (1991): study US 1986 University students, USA, followed 4 years 1986-1990 N = 130
Hoopes & Lounsbury (1989): study US 1985 Working adults, USA, before and after vacation, 198?, N = 129
Mean
= 5.300
SD
= 0.860
Linn & McGranahan (1980): study US 1984 Physicians, California, USA, 1984 N = 211
Mean
= 5.605
SD
= 1.058
Ahuvia & Wong (1995): study US 1994 University students, Michigan, USA, 1994 N = 200
Diener et al. (1991): study US 1989 Students , USA, 1989 N = 107
Diener et al. (1991): study US 1989 /1 Students, USA, 1989 N = 62
Diener et al. (1991): study US 1989 /2 Students, USA, 1989 N = 42
Tiedje et al. (1990): study US 1985 Married women with a preschool child, USA, 1985 N = 158
Mean
= 5.010
SD
= 1.000
Ackerman et al. (1989): study US 1986 Dairy farm couples, Utah, USA,1986 N = 116
Mean
= 5.660
Lee et al. (2002): study US 1997 18+ aged, students, USA, 199? N = 298
Australian Values Study (1984): study AU 1983 18+ aged, general public, Australia, 1983 N = 1228
Mean
= 6.032
SD
= 1.056
Andrews & Withey (1976): study US 1972 /4 18+ aged, general public, United States, 1972 N = 1072
Mean
= 5.302
SD
= 0.991
Czapinski (2003): study PL 1991 18+ aged, general public, Poland, 1991 N = 4187
Mean
= 4.667
SD
= 1.054
Czapinski (2003): study PL 1992 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1992 N = 3402
Mean
= 4.618
SD
= 1.038
Czapinski (2003): study PL 1993 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1993 N = 2306
Mean
= 4.570
SD
= 1.048
Czapinski (2003): study PL 1994 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1994 N = 2304
Mean
= 4.696
SD
= 1.051
Czapinski (2003): study PL 1995 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1995 N = 3020
Mean
= 4.766
SD
= 1.010
Czapinski (2003): study PL 1996 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1996 N = 2333
Mean
= 4.729
SD
= 1.063
Czapinski (2003): study PL 1997 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1997 N = 2094
Mean
= 4.760
SD
= 1.032
Czapinski (2003): study PL 2000 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 2000 N = 6403
Mean
= 4.913
SD
= 1.050
Czapinski (2003): study PL 2003 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 2003 N = 9665
Mean
= 4.950
SD
= 1.073
Czapinski & Panek (2007): study PL 1991 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1991 N = 4187
Mean
= 4.667
SD
= 1.054
Czapinski & Panek (2007): study PL 1992 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1992 N = 3402
Mean
= 4.614
SD
= 1.037
Czapinski & Panek (2007): study PL 1993 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1993 N = 2306
Mean
= 4.570
SD
= 1.048
Czapinski & Panek (2007): study PL 1994 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1994 N = 2302
Mean
= 4.696
SD
= 1.051
Cummins (2007): study PL 1995 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1995 N = 3020
Mean
= 4.766
SD
= 1.010
Czapinski & Panek (2007): study PL 1996 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1996 N = 2333
Mean
= 4.729
SD
= 1.063
Czapinski & Panek (2007): study PL 1997 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 1997 N = 2094
Mean
= 4.760
SD
= 1.032
Czapinski & Panek (2007): study PL 2005 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 2005 N = 8821
Mean
= 5.008
SD
= 1.040
Czapinski & Panek (2007): study PL 2007 16+ aged, general public, Poland, 2007 N = 20312
Mean
= 5.117
SD
= 1.016
Hunter et al. (2008): study ZZ 2003 45-55 aged Indian women in menopause, Delhi, India and Birmigham, UK. 200? N = 153
Mean
= 4.740
Roberts et al. (1983): study US 1983 Patients health centers, United States, 1983 N = 148
Roberts et al. (1983): study US 1983 /1 13+ aged, patients of urban public health center, USA, 1983 N = 148
Leung & Zhang (2000): study HK 1998 Chinese adolescents, Hong-Kong, 1998 N = 1099
Mean
= 4.310
SD
= 1.090