Editing Happiness (section)

==Measurement==
[[File:World map of countries by World Happiness Report score (2023).svg|thumb|upright=2|Worldwide levels of happiness as measured by the [[World Happiness Report]] (2023)]]
People have been trying to measure happiness for centuries. In 1780, the English utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham proposed that as happiness was the primary goal of humans, it should be measured as a way of determining how well the government was performing.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tokumitsu|first=Miya|date=June 2017|title=Did the Fun Work?|url=https://thebaffler.com/salvos/did-fun-work-tokumitsu|journal=The Baffler|volume=35|access-date=3 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190725124256/https://thebaffler.com/salvos/did-fun-work-tokumitsu|archive-date=25 July 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

Today, happiness is typically measured using self-report surveys. Self-reporting is prone to [[cognitive bias]]es and other sources of errors, such as [[peak–end rule]]. Studies show that [[Emotion and memory#Memory of felt emotion|memories of felt emotions]] can be inaccurate.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1521/soco.22.5.530.50767| title=Emotion and Memory Research: A Grumpy Overview| journal=Social Cognition| volume=22| issue=5| pages=530–554| year=2004| last1=Levine| first1=Linda J.| last2=Pizarro| first2=David A.| s2cid=144482564}}</ref> [[Affective forecasting]] research shows that people are poor predictors of their future emotions, including how happy they will be.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hoerger|first=Michael|author2=Stuart W. Quirk|author3=Richard E. Lucas|author4=Thomas H. Carr|title=Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors|journal=Judgment and Decision Making|date=August 2010|volume=5|issue=5|pages=365–373|doi=10.1017/S1930297500002163 |pmid=21912580|pmc=3170528}}</ref>

[[Happiness economics|Happiness economists]] are not overly concerned with philosophical and methodological issues and continue to use questionaries to measure average happiness of populations.

Several scales have been developed to measure happiness:
* The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) is a four-item scale, measuring global subjective happiness from 1999. The scale requires participants to use absolute ratings to characterize themselves as happy or unhappy individuals, as well as it asks to what extent they identify themselves with descriptions of happy and unhappy individuals.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lyubomirsky |first1=Sonja |url=http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/subjectivehappinessscale.pdf |title=Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) |access-date=1 April 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120522230648/http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/subjectivehappinessscale.pdf |archive-date=22 May 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lyubomirsky |first1=Sonja |last2=Lepper |first2=Heidi S. |date=February 1999 |title=A Measure of Subjective Happiness: Preliminary Reliability and Construct Validation |journal=Social Indicators Research |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=137–155 |jstor=27522363 |doi=10.1023/A:1006824100041 |s2cid=28334702 }}</ref>
* The [[Affect measures#PANAS|Positive and Negative Affect Schedule]] (PANAS) from 1988 is a 20-item questionnaire, using a five-point [[Likert scale]] (1 = very slightly or not at all, 5 = extremely) to assess the relation between personality traits and positive or negative affects at "this moment, today, the past few days, the past week, the past few weeks, the past year, and in general".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Watson |first1=David |last2=Clark |first2=Lee A. |last3=Tellegen |first3=Auke |title=Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages=1063–1070 |year=1988 |pmid=3397865 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 |s2cid=7679194 }}</ref> A longer version with additional affect scales was published 1994.<ref>{{citation | last1=Watson | first1=David | last2=Clark | first2=Lee Anna | title=The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule – Expanded Form | publisher=The University of Iowa | year=1994 | doi=10.17077/48vt-m4t2 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
* The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a global cognitive assessment of [[life satisfaction]] developed by [[Ed Diener]]. A seven-point Likert scale is used to agree or disagree with five statements about one's life.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tbims.org/combi/swls/swlsrat.html|title=SWLS Rating Form|work=tbims.org|access-date=1 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416031915/http://www.tbims.org/combi/swls/swlsrat.html|archive-date=16 April 2012|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Diener |first1=Ed |last2=Emmons |first2=Robert A. |last3=Larsen |first3=Randy J. |last4=Griffin |first4=Sharon |title=The Satisfaction With Life Scale |journal=Journal of Personality Assessment |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=71–75 |year=1985 |pmid=16367493 |doi=10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 |s2cid=27546553 }}</ref>
* The Cantril ladder method<ref name="autogenerated1047">{{cite journal |last1=Levin |first1=K. A. |last2=Currie |first2=C. |title=Reliability and Validity of an Adapted Version of the Cantril Ladder for Use with Adolescent Samples |journal=Social Indicators Research |date=November 2014 |volume=119 |issue=2 |pages=1047–1063 |doi=10.1007/s11205-013-0507-4 |s2cid=144584204 }}</ref> has been used in the [[World Happiness Report]]. Respondents are asked to think of a ladder, with the best possible life for them being a 10, and the worst possible life being a 0. They are then asked to rate their own current lives on that 0 to 10 scale.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://worldhappiness.report/faq/ |website=The World Happiness Report | title=FAQ | access-date=27 January 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181231184939/http://worldhappiness.report/faq/ | archive-date=31 December 2018 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="autogenerated1047"/>
* Positive Experience; the survey by [[Gallup (company)|Gallup]] asks if, the day before, people experienced enjoyment, laughing or smiling a lot, feeling well-rested, being treated with respect, learning or doing something interesting. 9 of the top 10 countries in 2018 were [[South American]], led by [[Paraguay]] and [[Panama]]. Country scores range from 85 to 43.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gallup.com/analytics/248906/gallup-global-emotions-report-2019.aspx|title=Gallup 2019 Global Emotions Report |website=Gallup |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240118192252/https://www.gallup.com/analytics/248906/gallup-global-emotions-report-2019.aspx |archive-date=18 January 2024 }}</ref>
*The Oxford Happiness Inventory is a comprehensive assessment tool consisting of 29 items, in which the person has to chose one of four options. It is user-friendly and easy to administer. This questionnaire shows the amount of well-being of a person. Providing quality insights of the happiness of one person.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=hills |first1=Peter |last2=Argyle |first2=Michael |date=November 2002 |title=The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886901002136 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=33 |issue=7 |pages=1073–1082 |doi=10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00213-6 |access-date=5 August 2024 |archive-date=27 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170827064012/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886901002136 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Since 2012, a [[World Happiness Report]] has been published. Happiness is evaluated, as in "How happy are you with your life as a whole?", and in emotional reports, as in "How happy are you now?," and people seem able to use happiness as appropriate in these verbal contexts. Using these measures, the report identifies the countries with the highest levels of happiness. In subjective well-being measures, the primary distinction is between cognitive life evaluations and emotional reports.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first=John |editor1-last=Helliwell |editor2-first=Richard |editor2-last=Layard |editor3-first=Jeffrey |editor3-last=Sachs |year=2012 |title=World Happiness Report |publisher=Earth Institute, Columbia University |isbn=978-0996851305 |url=http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2012/ |access-date=5 August 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160718204801/http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2012/ |archive-date=18 July 2016 |url-status=live }}{{page needed|date=August 2016}}</ref>

The UK began to measure national well-being in 2012,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/first-annual-report-on-measuring-national-well-being/art-measuring-national-well-being-annual-report.html |title=Measuring National Well-being: Life in the UK, 2012 |publisher=Ons.gov.uk |date=20 November 2012 |access-date=26 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130326144130/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/first-annual-report-on-measuring-national-well-being/art-measuring-national-well-being-annual-report.html |archive-date=26 March 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref> following [[Bhutan]], which had already been measuring [[gross national happiness]].<ref>{{cite web|title=The Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan|url=http://www.nationalcouncil.bt/assets/uploads/files/Constitution%20%20of%20Bhutan%20English.pdf|website=National Council|publisher=Royal Government of Bhutan|access-date=1 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170516192917/http://www.nationalcouncil.bt/assets/uploads/files/Constitution%20%20of%20Bhutan%20English.pdf|archive-date=16 May 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/bhutan-wealth-happiness-counts|title=Gross national happiness in Bhutan: the big idea from a tiny state that could change the world|first=Annie|last=Kelly|date=1 December 2012|website=The Guardian|access-date=4 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405024423/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/bhutan-wealth-happiness-counts|archive-date=5 April 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Academic economists and international economic organizations are arguing for and developing multi-dimensional dashboards which combine subjective and objective indicators to provide a more direct and explicit assessment of human wellbeing. There are many different contributors to adult wellbeing, such as the point that happiness judgements partly reflect the presence of salient constraints, and that fairness, autonomy, community and engagement are key aspects of happiness and wellbeing throughout the life course.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Anand |first1=Paul |last2=Krishnakumar |first2=Jaya |last3=Tran |first3=Ngoc Bich |title=Measuring welfare: Latent variable models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity |journal=Journal of Public Economics |date=April 2011 |volume=95 |issue=3–4 |pages=205–215 |doi=10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.007 |s2cid=53679226 |url=https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:41667 |access-date=13 July 2021 |archive-date=2 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211202063747/https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:41667 |url-status=live }}</ref> Although these factors play a role in happiness, they do not all need to improve simultaneously to help one achieve an increase in happiness.

Happiness has been found to be quite stable over time.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Baumeister|first1=Roy F.|last2=Vohs|first2=Kathleen D.|last3=Aaker|first3=Jennifer L.|last4=Garbinsky|first4=Emily N.|title=Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life|journal=The Journal of Positive Psychology|date=November 2013|volume=8|issue=6|pages=505–516|doi=10.1080/17439760.2013.830764|s2cid=11271686}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Costa|first1=Paul T.|last2=McCrae|first2=Robert R.|last3=Zonderman|first3=Alan B.|title=Environmental and dispositional influences on well-being: Longitudinal follow-up of an American national sample|journal=British Journal of Psychology|date=August 1987|volume=78|issue=3|pages=299–306|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.1987.tb02248.x|pmid=3620790}}</ref>