Quality of affect and self-evaluated happiness

B E R T H O L D B R E N N E R

Q U A L I T Y O F A F F E C T A N D

S E L F - E V A L U A T E D H A P P I N E S S *

(Received 8 September, 1975)

AaSrRACT. The concept of quality of affect is used to develop variables descriptive of how a person is feeling. The extent of marked positive affect, the extent of marked negative affect and the modal hedonic level or modal quality of affect are presented as three components of a quality of affect measure. Alternative two-component measures are also developed. Findings based on interviews with a sample of Washington County, Maryland adults are presented. Selfevaluated happiness was found to have a strong positive relationship with quality of affect. However, while the quality of affect measures are designed to give equal weight to positive affect and negative affect, self- evaluated happiness was found to be related more strongly to positive affect than to negative affect.

This paper is concerned with the assessment o f how a person is feeling,

that is the quality o f his or her affect, and the relationship o f such assessment to self-evaluations o f happiness.

In his pioneering study o f The Structure o f Psychological Well-Being,

Bradburn (1969) proposed that self-evaluations o f overall happiness are

determined by the balance o f positive and negative affect. He describes

his conceptual f ramework as follows (Bradburn, 1969, p. 9)"

This framework takes as its fundamental dependent variable avowed happiness or the feeling of psychological well-being. A person's position on the dimension of psychological well-being is seen as a resultant of the individual's position on two independent dimensions - one of positive affect and the other of negative affect. The model specifies that an individual will be high in psychological well-being in the degree to which he has an excess of positive over negative affect and will be low in well-being in the degree to which negative affect predominates over positive.

For Bradburn the proposed relationship between what are here called

quality o f affect and self-evaluated happiness is more nearly a postulate

than a subject for research. Thus in developing his measures o f positive

affect, negative affect and the balance o f positive and negative affect Bradburn (1969, p. 52) used self-evaluations o f happiness as a validating criterion. Fo r him the balance o f positive and negative affect and self-

evaluations o f overall happiness are simply alternative measures o f the same concept, i.e., psychological well-being.

Social Indicators Research 2 (1975) 315-331. All Rights Reserved Copyright �9 1975 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Hotland

316 BERTHOLD BRENNER

While it seems useful to group quality of affect and self-evaluated happiness under a rubric called psychological or mental well-being, there is a distinction between what these concepts refer to even when both are evaluated on the basis of self-reports. As elaborated below, quality of affect is a rather specific concept. In contrast, self-evaluated happiness is an impressionistic evaluation based on the person's own conception of happiness. The actual relationship between quality of affect and self- evaluated happiness must be determined empirically.

1. C O N S I D E R A T I O N IN ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF AFFECT

The quality of a person's affect refers to the level of that affect on a continuum ranging from very negative or hedonically low to very positive or hedonically high. The quality of a person's pattern of affect during a specified time period refers to the average hedonic level of his or her effect during that time period. The quality of a person's current pattern of affect refers to the average hedonic level of his or her affect during a period long enough to be representative of the pattern which has existed since the last change in pattern.

The ideal assessment of the quality of a person's affect is an almost impossible task. For the case of a specified time period the quality of the affect associated with every moment or episode of that time period would need to be monitored or at least sampled. For the case of a current pattern the quality of affect associated with every moment or episode of a period long enough to establish the pattern and the average quality of affect during a period long enough to include that pattern would need to be monitored or sampled. Fortunately these are more practical approaches.

In a study of Mood and Personality involving a small number of college students, Wessman and Rickes (1966, pp. 29, 273) requested that every night before retiring, for a period of six weeks, each student fill out a 'Daily Record of Personal Feelings' which included a ten point scale of 'elation vs. depression.' The students were asked to report the 'highest' and the 'lowest' they experienced during the day, even though it had been but a moment, and the 'average,' which represented an overall summary for the day.

A problem with using this approach in assessing quality of affect in

QUALITY OF AFFECT AND SELF-EVALUATED HAPPINESS 317

community surveys is that it places a fairly heavy demand on the respondent.

Bradburn's (1969, pp. 53-70) study of The Structure of Psychological Well-Being utilized a technique more suitable for community surveys. In this study each respondent was asked whether or not during the past few weeks he experienced each of five positive feelings (pleased about having accomplished something, proud because someone complimented you on something you had done, particularly excited or interested in something, on top of the world, that things were going your way) and each of five negative feelings (bored, upset because someone criticized you, so restless that you couldn't sit long in a chair, very lonely or remote from other people, depressed or very unhappy). The number of positive feelings experienced was used as a measure of positive affect (Positive Affect Scale) and the number of negative feelings as a measure of negative affect (Negative Affect Scale). The algebraic sum of these was used as a measure of the average quality of affect (Affect Balance Scale). Feelings which were experienced only once were given the same weight as feelings which were experienced many times. Furthermore each report of one of the specific positive or negative feelings was given the same weight as a report of overall positive feeling (feeling that things were going one's way) or overall negative feeling (feeling depressed or very unhappy).

The associations between the individual Affect Balance Scale (ABS) items reported by Bradburn (1969, pp. 57-61) suggest that it is mainly because of the inclusion in the scale of those items which refer to rather specific positive and negative feelings that an inverse relationship between positive affect and negative affect was not found. For instance there appears to be a tendency for persons who had felt "proud because someone complimented you on something" to also have felt "upset because someone criticized you." This positive relationship tends to offset the negative relationship between the items indicative of overall positive and overall negative affect.

There are good reasons to expect a negative association between positive and negative affect. First, positive affect seems to counteract negative affect. This is suggested mainly by the work of Heath (1964) who found that electrical and chemical stimulation of the brain which induced pleasant feelings also "obliterated feelings of pain, both physical and emotional." Second, failure to attain positive affect may be a stimulus

318 B E R T H O L D B R E N N E R

for negative affect. This is supported by the work of Lewinson and Libet (1972) which indicates that when enjoyed activities are frequent, not only does positive affect tend to be greater, but negative affect tends to be less. Third, it follows from the theoretical work of Aldskal and McKinney (1973, 1975) that repeated negative affect tends to lower the biological potential for positive affect.

The failure to find an appreciable negative association between the ABS positive affect and negative affect components therefore raises the question of the extent to which these scales are adequate measures of the extent of marked positive affect and the extent of marked negative affect. This question also applies to Beiser's (1974) modified version of the ABS scales.

Beiser modified the ABS items so as to refer to the "past few months' and so as to require a reply of "often," "sometimes" or "never." He included these items in a factor analysis together with more attitudinal items. One of the resulting factors included all of the ABS negative feelings items and was labeled "Negative Affect." However the item indicative of overall negative affect (During the past few months have you felt very unhappy)? loaded less heavily on this factor than each of the items indicative of selected specific negative feelings. This suggests that the factor is essentially a measure of selected specific negative feelings.

A second factor resulting from Beiser's factor analysis included all of the ABS positive feelings items except one. That item, "During the past few months have you felt on top of the world?," is believed to be a meaningless idiom in the setting of Beiser's research. The factor was labeled "Pleasurable Involvement," possibly because "Pleased about having accomplished something" and "Proud because someone complimented you for something you had done" had the largest factor loadings.

A third factor included items of the type which Andrews and Withey (1974), in their work on measuring quality of life, use to assess "affective responses" to "specific domains" and to "life as a whole" (as opposed to what they call "affective experiences" and what is here called "quality of affect.") This factor was labeled "Long-Term Satisfaction." An example of the items included (and the one which loads most heavily on the factor) is "How successful have you been at planning your life, in your work and with your family?"

QUALITY OF AFFECT AND S E L F - E V A L U A T E D H A P P I N E S S 319

This third factor was found to have a negative relationship with the factor labeled "Negative Affect" and a positive relationship with the factor labeled "Pleasurable Involvement." However, apparently because of the nature of most of the items which load on "Negative Affect" and "Pleasurable Involvement" there appears to be little or no inverse relationship between these two factors.

2. S O U R C E OF DATA

The data for the present study were collected by means of interviews with 916 adults residing in Washington, County, Maryland. A separate probability sample of households was selected for interview during each four week period between mid-1973 and mid-1974. (The samples were selected without replacement from a roster derived from an updated census.) Some respondents not interviewed during the four week period for which selected were interviewed during the subsequent four week period. Interviews were obtained with 75~o of the households selected.

In each household the individual to be interviewed was chosen random- ly from among the persons 18 years old and over living in that household. Since only one adult was selected in each household all of the percentages presented in this paper and the gamma values used as measures of association are based on frequencies which have been weighted according to the number of adults living in the household of the person selected for interview. (However the actual number of cases shown in the tables as the base for percentage distributions are unweighted.)

All interviews were conducted by lay interviewers. Their main tool was a structured interview schedule. In addition to items deling with affect and happiness the interview schedule included demographic items and items dealing with psychological and psychophysiological problems, attitudes, habits, activities, life events, and recent illness.

3. T H E Q U A L I T Y OF AFFECT SCALES

The following three questions were included in the interview schedule for the purpose of assessing the quality of each respondent's current pattern of affect:


(1) How often do you feel that you are really enjoying life? Would you say very often, fairly often, occasionally, rarely or never?

(2) How often do you feel downcast or dejected? Would you say very often, fairly often, occasionally rarely or never?

(3) In general, how would you say you feel most of the time? Would you say very good spirits, fairly good spirits, neither good spirits nor low spirits, fairly low spirits, or very low spirits?

The first question is designed to be an indicator of the extent of marked positive affect. The second question is designed to be an indicator of the extent of marked negative affect. The third question is designed to be an indicator of the modal hedonic level or modal quality of affect. Together these indicators provide information on how the quality of one person's pattern of affect ranks as compared to that of another. Thus, for instance, if two persons have the same modal quality of affect and the same extent of marked negative affect but one is higher than the other with respect to the extent of marked positive affect, that person's quality of affect ranks higher.

When only the first two of the above three questions are used to assess the relative quality of affect the resulting scale is referred to as the Two- Component Quality of Affect Scale (2CQAS). When all three questions are used to assess the relative quality of affect the resulting scale is referred to as the Three-Component Quality of Affect Scale (3CQAS). Both measures range from a score of zero, meaning that the quality level of each component is at its lowest, to a score of six meaning that the quality level of each component is at its highest.

In constructing these scales the categories of the original three questions are handled as an ordinal scale and not assumed to be points on an interval scale. For the first question a reply of "very often" is ranked as very high quality, "fairly often" as high quality, "occasionally" as medium quality, "rarely" as low quality and "never" as very low quality. For the second question a reply of"never" is ranked as very high quality, "rarely" as high quality, "occasionally" as medium quality, "fairly often" as low quality and "very often" as very low quality. For the third question "very good spirits" is ranked as very high quality, "fairly good spirits" as high quality, "neither good spirits nor low spirits" as medium quality, "fairly low spirits" as low quality and "very low spirits" as very


low quality. Quality of affect is then scored (actually ranked) as in Chart 1.

CHART 1 Score asigned to each current quality of affect pattern

Component ranking Subsets not included Assigned score combinations included

Each very low 0 Each low or very low Each very low 1 Each medium, low, or very low Each very low

Each low Each medium 2

Each medium 3 Combination of high or very high

and low or very low 3 Each medium, high or very high Each very high

Each high Each medium 4

Each high or very high Each very high 5 Each very high 6

4. SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY QUALITY OF AFFECT

Table I shows the percent distribution of the study sample by their extent

of positive affect, their extent of negative affect and their modal quality of affect. Of the total sample 2.3% reported being often downcast or dejected, 0.4% reported never really enjoying life, and 0.5% reported feeling in very low spirits most of the time. At the other quality of affect

extreme, 15% of the sample reported that they are never downcast or dejected, 48% reported that they very often feel they are really enjoying

life, and 40% reported they are in very good spirits most of the time. The percentage of persons who rank lowest on more than one quality

of affect component cannot, of course, exceed the percentage who rank lowest when only one component is considered. Since quality of affect scores are based on how a person ranks on more than one component, the percentage of persons who score lowest on the 2CQAS or the 3CQAS cannot exceed the percentage who rank lowest on a single component. The same is true for the percentage of persons who score highest on the 2CQAS or the 3CQAS. Table I I shows the percent distribution of the

I,o

TA

BL

E I

Perc

ent

dist

ribu

tion

for

each

of

thre

e qu

alit

y of

aff

ect

com

pone

nts

Qua

lity

of

affe

ct

Com

pone

nt

Tot

al

Qua

lity

leve

l

Num

ber

Per

cent

V

ery

low

L

ow

Med

ium

H

igh

Ver

y hi

gh

Ext

ent o

f po

sitiv

e af

fect

(H

ow o

ften

rea

lly e

njoy

s lif

e)

Ext

ent o

f ne

gativ

e af

fect

(H

ow o

ften

dow

ncas

t or

dej

ecte

d)

Usu

al q

uali

ty o

f af

fect

(H

ow f

eel m

ost

of ti

me)

Per

cent

91

3 10

0.0

0 4

2.5

12.8

(N

ever

) (R

arel

y)

(Occ

asio

nally

)

913

100.

0 2.

3 5.

8 35

.3

(Ver

y of

ten)

(F

airl

y of

ten)

(O

ccas

iona

lly)

915

100.

0 0.

5 2.

4 5

.8

(Ver

y lo

w

(Fai

rly

low

(N

eith

er g

ood

spir

its)

spir

its)

nor

low

spi

rits

)

36.0

(F

airl

y of

ten)

41.5

(R

arel

y)

51.6

(F

airl

y go

od

spir

its)

48.3

(V

ery

ofte

n)

15.0

(N

~ver

39.7

(V

ery

good

sp

irits

)

O

:Z


sample by their score on the 2CQAS and the 3CQAS. In this sample of

people living in households only a small fraction of one percent had a

score of zero on the 2CQAS and only one case had a score of zero on the

3CQAS. At the other end of the scale, 12~ of the sample had a score of

six on the 2CQAS and 9 ~ had a score of six on the 3CQAS.

TABLE II

Percent distribution for each of two quality of affect measures

Quality of Total Score a affect measure

Number Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Two component quality of affect scale (2CQAS)

Percent

910 100.0 0.2 0.9 3.6 11.8 31.4 40.2 11.9

Three-component quality ofaffectscale(3CQAS) 909 100.0 0.1 0.7 2.6 9.5 35.9 42.7 8.6

a The quality level of the quality of affect components associated with each score is as follows: 0 - very low, 1 - low (but not all very low), 2 - low or medium (but not all low or all medium) 3 - medium or a combination which includes both low and high, 4 - high or medium (but not all high or all medium), 5 - high (but not all very high), 6 - very high.

5. QUALITY OF AFFECT RELATED TO SELF-EVALUATED HAPPINESS

In order to elicit self-evaluations of happiness each respondent was asked:

"Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days ...

would you say you're very happy, pretty happy or not too happy? This

is the question used to assess happiness by Bradburn (1969) and a number

of other investigators (e.g., Curin et aL, 1960; Knupfer et al., 1966;

Brenner, 1967; Phillips, 1967). Like the questions used to assess quality

of affect it does not have a specific time referent. It is designed to elicit

self-evaluations of happiness in terms of the respondent's own conception

of what is meant by "taking all things together," "these days," "very

happy," "pretty happy," and "not too happy." Table III shows the percent distribution of the study sample by self-

evaluated happiness. Of the persons included in the sample, 6~o placed themselves in the lowest category and 35~ in the highest category of the three-category happiness measure.


Table IV shows the extent of association between self-evaluated happiness and each of the quality of affect components and measures. The pattern of these associations holds for each sex, major age group, and level of education. The positive association between self-evaluated happiness and the extent of positive affect is much stronger than the negative

TABLE HI

Percent distribution by self- evaluated happiness

Total (N=915) 100.0 % Very happy 35.1 Pretty happy 59.3 Not too happy 5.6

association between self-evaluated happiness and the extent of negative affect. Each quality of affect component is, however, associated with happiness even when the effect of the other two components is controlled. Figure 1 shows the magnitudes of these partial associations in parentheses

TABLE IV

Extent of association between self-evaluated happiness and the quality of affect components and measures

Quality of affect component or measure

Gamma value of association with self-evaluated happiness a

Extent of positive affect Extent of negative affect Usual quality of affect Quality of affect measures

Two-component (2CQAS) Three-component (3CQAS)

0.84 4- 0.02 --0.46 4- 0.04

0.75 q- 0.03

0.59 -4- 0.04 0.62 4- 0.04

a The estimated standard error of each gamma value is shown preceded by -4- signs. There are two chances out of three that the 'true' value of gamma lies within the limits corresponding to the observed value plus or minus its standard error.

Q U A L I T Y OF AFFECT AND S E L F - E V A L U A T E D H A P P I N E S S 325

next to the magnitude of the corresponding original association. These partial gamma values were computed using the method suggested by Davis (1967). Their significance level was computed using the formula suggested by Quade (1964, p. 392) for Davis' partial gamma.

Figure 1 also shows the magnitude and direction of the relationships between the quality of affect components including the substantial inverse relationship between the extent of positive affect and the extent of negative affect. As discussed earlier in this paper, there are good reasons for expecting such an inverse relationship between variables designed to assess marked positive affect and marked negative affect.

Extent of positive affect

I --0.52 Modal quality of affect

Extent of negative a!f~i " 5 ~

Self-waluated happiness

Fig. 1. Relationships between the quality of affect components and between each component and self-evaluated happiness. (Numbers are gammas. Those in parenthese are partial gammas controlled for the two quality of affect components which are not

one of the variables in the relationship. In each case p < 0.001.)

As shown in Table IV the gamma value for the association between quality of affect and self-evaluated happiness was found to be about 0.60. The association between the two component measure (2CQAS) and self-evaluated happiness was found to be 0.59 while the association between the three component measure (3CQAS) and self-evaluated happiness was found to be 0.62. These associations are substantial but definitely weaker than the association between self-evaluated happiness and the extent of positive affect. This is not surprising since the quality of affect measures are designed to give equal weight to positive affect and negative affect while self-evaluated happiness was found more strongly related to positive affect than to negative affect.


6. ALTERNATIVE QUALITY OF AFFECT MEASURES

As noted above the association between the 2CQAS and self-evaluated happiness was found to be very close in magnitude to the association between the 3CQAS and self-evaluated happiness. This is not surprising since the components of the 2CQAS are also components of the 3CQAS. However three other two-component quality of affect measures, each based on affect during the week before interview, were also found to have a strong association with the 3CQAS and art association with self- evaluated happiness of about the same magnitude as that for the 3CQAS. Insofar as this is indicative of the validity of these three alternative scales as measures of the quality of the respondents' current pattern of affect, this is a most promising finding. Much data has been collected using the items which constitute these three measures. All of this data is poten- tially useful for studies focused on the quality of affect.

For most persons their affect during the week before interview is probably an adequate sampling of their current pattern of affect. Of course a person who did not experience negative affect during the week before interview is probably not a person who never experiences negative affect. However, compared to a person who did experience negative affect during the week before interview, such a person is more likely to be one who seldom experiences negative affect.

6.1. The Going- Your- Way~Depressed-or- Unhappy Scale

Among the items included in the interview schedule to assess affect during the week before interview were "How often did you feel that things were going your way?" and "How often did you feel depressed or very unhappy?" These are overall positive and overall negative affect items included in the ABS. However, in the present study the time referent is 'past week' instead of 'past few weeks' and the reply choices are "not at all," "once," "several times," and "often" instead of 'no' and 'yes.'

A quality of affect scale constructed from the two ABS items is here referred to as the Going-your-way/Depressed-or-unhappy Scale. For the 'Going-your-way' positive affect item "not at all" is ranked as very low quality, "once" as low, "several times" as high and "often" as very high. For the 'Depressed-or-unhappy' negative affect item "often" is ranked as very low quality, "several times" as low, "once" as high and "several

Q U A L I T Y OF AFFECT AND S E L F - E V A L U A T E D H A PPIN ESS 327

t imes" as very high. Quality of affect is then scored as in Chart 2. Of the

persons included in the sample 2 .8~ scored 0 (very low quality on both components) while 40.9~o scored 4 (very high quality on both compo-

nents).

C H A R T 2

Score Assigned to each past-week quality of affect pattern

Component ranking Subsets not included Assigned score combinations included

Each very low 0 Each low or very low Each very low 1 Combination of high or very high

and low or very low 2 Each high or very high Each very high 3 Each very high 4

The association between the Going-your-way/Depressed-or-unhappy

Scale and the 3CQAS was found to have a gamma value of 0.60 (p <0.001). Its association with self-evaluated happiness was also found to have a gamma value of 0.60 (p<0.001). Unlike the original ABS

subscales the positive and negative affect components of the Going-your- way/Depressed-or-unhappy Scale were found to have a definite inverse

relationship (gamma - 0.52, p < 0.001).

6.2. The Enjoyed/Depressed Scale

A list of items designed to assess symptoms of depression, referred to as

CES = D items, was also included in the interview schedule. The respondent was instructed "Below is a list of the ways you might have felt. Please tell me how often you have felt this way during the past week ... rarely or none of the time, some or a little of the time, occasionally or a moderate amount of time, most or all of the time." Two of the items included in

this list were " I enjoyed life" and " I felt depressed." A quality of affect scale constructed f rom the two CES-D items is here

referred to as the Enjoyed/Depressed Scale. For the 'Enjoyed' positive affect item "rarely" is ranked as very low quality, "some of the t ime" as low quality, occasionally, as high quality and "mos t of the t ime" as very high quality. For the 'Depressed' negative affect item "mos t of the t ime"


is ranked as very low quality, "occasionally" as low quality, "some of the time" as high quality and "rarely" as very high quality. Quality of affect is then scored as in Chart 2. Of the persons included in the sample 2.0~ scored 0 (very low quality on both components) and 64.1~ scored 4 (very high quality on both components).

The association between the Enjoyed/Depressed Scale and the 3CQAS was found to have a gamma value of 0.68 (p <0.001). This scale's association with self-evaluated happiness was found to have a gamma value of 0.61 (p<0.001). The positive and negative affect components of the Enjoyed/Depressed scale were found to have a strong inverse relationship (gamma -0.72,p<0.001).

6.3. The Happy/Sad Scale

Two other items included among the CES-D items were "I felt happy" and "I felt sad." In this context the extent of feeling 'happy' refers to periods of positive affect during the previous week rather than position on a happiness-unhappiness continuum.

A quality of affect scale constructed from these other two CES-D items is here referred to as the Happy/Sad Scale. For the 'Happy' positive affect item the replies are ranked like those for the 'Enjoyed' item. For the 'Sad' negative affect item the replies are ranked like those for the 'Depressed' item. Quality of affect is then scored as in Chart 2. Of the persons included in the sample 1.4~ scored 0 (very low quality on both components) and 63.5~ scored 4 (very high quality on both components).

The association between the Happy/Sad and the 3CQAS was found to have a gamma value of 0.59 (p<0.001). This scale's association with self-evaluated happiness was found to have a gamma value of 0.61 (p < 0.001). The positive and negative affect components oft.he Happy/Sad Scale were found to have a strong inverse relationship (gamma -0.71, p<0.001).

7. D i s c u s s i o n

In the present study the concept of quality of affect is used to develop variables descriptive of how a person is feeling. The extent of marked positive affect, the extent of marked negative affect and the modal hedonie level or modal quality of affect are presented as aspects of the quality of a person's current pattern of affect and as the logical compo-


nents of quality of affect measures. However, the questions used to assess each of the quality of affect components are not necessarily the best possible indicators of these components. Somewhat different questions or a series of questions for each component may yield better quality of affect assessments. Research now in progress, concerned with how well various kinds of respondents understand such terms as 'downcast or dejected,' may provide useful insights for the development of better indicators. Such insights may also result from current studies concerned with the antecedents and consequences of quality of affect.

The positive association between 2CQAS and self-evaluated happiness was found to be almost as high as that between 3CQAS and self-evaluated happiness. This appears to be because there is such a strong association between the omitted modal quality of affect component and the positive affect component that there is little need for both. Further explorations may clarify the extent to which the modal quality of affect component im- proves quality of affect measures which include this as a third component.

The three two-item scales based on the quality of affect during the week before interview appear to be satisfactory quality of affect measures. (A four-item scale with two items per component, constructed using both pairs of CES-D items, did not appear to be an improvement over the two-item scales.)

Each set of quality of affect items provided an opportunity to replicate findings obtained using the original set of items. In each case a markedly inverse association was found between positive and negative affect. Also the direct association between positive affect and self-evaluated happiness was in each case found to be greater than the inverse association between negative affect and self-evaluated happiness.

8. CONCLUSION

Assessments of the extent of marked positive affect, the extent of marked negative affect and the modal hedonic level or modal quality of affect provide a useful description of the quality of a person's current pattern of affect. When combined these three assessments also yield a measure of the quality of affect, that is a measure indicative of the average quality of a person's current pattern of affect. Thus these three assessments may be viewed as quality of affect components.


The association between quality of affect and self-evaluated happiness is substantial. Furthermore each quality of affect component is associated with self-evaluated happiness even when the other two components are held constant. It seems reasonable to infer that self-evaluations of happiness are influenced by each of the three components, with the influence of positive affect predominating. Whether there are subcultural or other identifiable categories of people whose conception of happiness is such that this finding fails to hold is a problem for further research. However, quality of affect measures can be designed to give equal weight to positive and negative affect while self-evaluations of happiness depend on the subjective weighting involved in such self-evaluations.

Certainly quality of affect assessments and self-evaluations of happiness should not simply be used interchangeably, depending perhaps on whether a single item or a multiple item measure is desired. However, there may be good reason to include both quality of affect and happiness in the same study, as when there is some question as to which is more respons- ible for or more strongly influenced by a phenomenon under study.

Center for Epidemiologic Studies,

National Institute o f Mental Health

Rockville, Maryland

NOTE

* The data for this study were collected in collaboration with the Training Center for Public Health Research of the Johns Hopkins University.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akiskal, H. and McKinney, W., 1973, 'Depressive Disorders: Toward a Unified Hypothesis', Science 182, 20--29.

Akiskal, H. and McKinney, W., 1975 'Overview of Recent Research in Depression: Integration of Ten Conceptual Models into a Comprehensive Clinical Frame', Archives of General Psychiatry 32, 285-305.

Andrews, F. and Whithey, S., 1974, 'Developing Measures of Perceived Life Quality: Results from Several National Surveys', Social Indicators Research 1, 1-26.

Beiser, M., 1974, 'Components and Correlates of Mental Well-Being', Journal of Health and Social Behavior 15, 320-327.

Bradburn, N., 1969, The Structure of Psychological Well-Being, Aldine, Chicago. Brenner, B., 1967, 'Patterns of Alcohol Use, Happiness, and the Satisfaction of

Wants', Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 28, 667--675.


Davis, J., 1967, 'A Partial Coefficient for Goodman and Kruskal's Gamma', Journal of the American Statistical Association 62, 189-193. Gurin, G., Veroff, J., and Feld, S., 1960, Americana View Their Mental Health, Basic

Books, New York. Heath, R., 1964, 'Pleasure Response of Human Subjects to Direct Stimulation of the

Brain: Physiologic and Psychodynamic Considerations', in R. Heath (ed.), The Role of Pleasure in Behavior, Harper & Row, New York, pp. 219-243.

Knupfer, G., Clark, W., and Room, R., 1966, 'The Mental Health of the Unmarried', American Journal of Psychiatry 122, 841-851.

Lewinsohn, P. and Libet, J., 1972, 'Pleasant Events, Activity Schedules, and Depres- sion', Journal of Abnormal Psychology 79, 291-295.

Phillips, D., 1967, 'Social Participation and Happiness', The American Journal of Sociology 72, 479-488.

Quade, D., 1974, 'Nonparametric Partial Correlation', in H. Blalock (ed.), Measure- ment in the Social Sciences, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 369-398.

Wessman, A. and Ricks, D., 1966, Mood and Personality, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Documents

Quality of affect and self-evaluated happiness