Measuring Happiness Levels in Mumbai: Methodology

step Happiness Levels in Mumbai methodologyMethodologyHappiness has been defined each as a spacious model of how one feels about their action in general or as an emotional or affective state. Depending on the appearance exploreers define the concept, in that location pack been variable attempts at legal professionment. With decades of enquiry, we ready a better sagaciousness of how to footfall the pleasure of others. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods appears to be approximately productive. (Helm, 2000)This chapter illustrates the methodology followed, tools use and ethical guidelines followed during the study.The following ar the research objectives of the study.RESEARCH OBJECTIVESTo determine the take aim of merriment among the residents of MumbaiTo assess the mental wellnesscare facilities in the cityTo find out If on that point is any coefficient of correlation in the midst of mental health and happiness among the residents of MumbaiOn t he basis of these research objectives, the following methodology was formulated.Quantitative measurement of happinessOver the some clock time(prenominal) two decades thither allow been an increasing itemize of quantitative studies of happiness and eudaimonia. In particular, there be puzzle been ongoing debates on whether happiness eject be measured, whether it should be measured, how it should be measured and what are the factors affecting it (Ballas Tranmer, 2012).Psychologists and sociologists flummox utilise natural enquires regarding item-by-items happiness for over three decades. Cantril (1965) developed a caput for carriage satisfaction. Similar question modules include the Likert (1932)-plate and the Visual running(a) Scale (VAS). See as well Bradburn (1969). The answer to these subjective questions has been indiscriminately termed happiness, general satisfaction and subjective well-being. In the GSOEP the satisfaction question isPlease answer by use the foll owing graduated table in which 0 means totallyun intelligent, and 10 means totally happy.How happy are you at present with your invigoration as a whole?Here, we call the retort to this question the General Satisfaction (GS) aim of the answering. In this case, there are 11 numerical categories, but the question has also been posed with 7 or 5 categories or with literal labels, such as very happy/happy/so-so/somewhat joyless/very unhappy. The end result is invariably an scoreed plane evaluation of the lumber of animation of the mortal.(Ferrer-i-Carbonell Frijters, 2004).The purview context, such as question coiffe, introductory text and the survey source, usher out influence respondents understanding of individual questions at heart a survey, as well as the in dression that they force on in order to answer those questions.In quantitative measurement, we measure the boilers suit subjective well begin by quantifying certain constructs and concepts prone below.Mea surement of subjective well beingEudemonic questions like lay out happy are you with your purport history and how satisfied are you with your life buzz off been asked to be rated on a cantril ladder. essential wellbeing is a broad category of phenomena that includes peoples emotional repartees, domain satisfactions and global judgements of life satisfaction. Each of the ad hoc constructs need to be understood in their witness right ,yet the components oft correlate substantially suggesting the need for the loftyer order factor.(Diener, Suh, Lucas, Smith, 2013). Quality of life is a broad term covering those aspects of overall well-being that are not captured only by material conditions(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013). 12 different constructs were identified and worked upon to generate questions. The constructs viz. are education, employment, family, gender, health/lifestyle, personality/self-efficacy, relationships, work-life balance, communal li ving housing/income. example status employment status is kn declare to cod a jumbo influence on subjectiveWell-being, with unemployment in particular associated with a sound cast out impact onmeasures of life satisfaction.(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013). Hence 9 questions have been formulated on employment.Both sensual and mental health are cor think with measures of subjective well-being (Dolan, Peasgood and White, 2008), and there is shew that revisions in disability status cause changes in life satisfaction (Lucas, 2007). Although health status is complex to measure in family social unit surveys, there is a large pool of well-developed measures available, such as the health state descriptions from the World Health Survey (WHO, 2012), or more specialized question modules, such as the GHQ-12 for mental health (Goldberg et al., 1978).Environmental look is inherently a geographic phenomenon, and integrating datasets on environmental timber wit h household level data on life satisfaction is costly. Nonetheless, there is some evidence that noise pollution (Weinhold, 2008) and air pollution (Dolan, Peasgood and White, 2008) have a significant negative impact on life satisfaction(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013). Hence by merging both, 14 questions have been formulated beneath the heading Health/Lifestyle.There is significant evidence that aspects of work/life balance impact on subjective well-being, in particular commuting (Frey and Stutzer, 2008 Kahneman and Kruger, 2006), and time spent caring for others(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013). To gauge its force-out, 4 questions have been formulated on it. learning and skills have obvious interest both as variables for cross-classification and because there is good evidence that education is associated with subjective well-being at a bivariate level(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013). To understand the eff ect and views of the respondent on education, 7 questions have been formulated.Generalised trust in others as well as more domain specific measures of neighbourhood and work trust are crucial factors when accounting for variation in subjective well-being(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013).Social contact is one of the most chief(prenominal) drivers of subjective well-being, as it has a large impact both on life evaluations and on affect(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013). 5 questions have been formulated under communal living.One of the most consistent and plentiful findings in the field of subjective well-being (SWB) is that the components of SWB are moderately related to personality. Like personality traits, SWB is consistent across situations and is stable across the life span, even after the occurrence of intervening life events(Diener Lucas, 1999). 7 questions have been formulated on personality.Subjective sexual well-being refer s to the perceived quality of an individuals sexuality, sexual life, and sexual relationships. We focus primarily on evaluations of sexuality in terms of satisfaction judgments, which have been central for analyze the concept of overall wellbeing(Laumann et al., 2006). Some of these questions have been asked under relationships (4).The relationship and effect of familial relations, housing and income has also been captured by asking 8 questions on it.Satisfaction with life scaleThe Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) was earlier developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen and Griffin (1985), and was intended as a instruct assessment of an individuals general sense of satisfaction with their life as a whole. Although the SWLS includes only five items, it has demonstrated good psyc home officetric characteristics.(Pavot Diener, 2008)The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS Diener, Emmons, Larsen, Griffin,1985) is a widely used measure of life satisfaction. The SWLS consists of five itemswh ich are rated on a seven-point Likert-type rejoinder scale? Scores on the SWLS varyfrom 5 to 35 and can be compared with the scores of an international norm meeting (seePavot Diener, 2008). According to Pavot and Diener (2008), various studies corroboratethe internal consistency of the SWLS (with alpha coefficients varying from .79to .89) (Rothmann, 2013)The authors began the development of the SWLS by generating a pool of 48 items intended to reflect life satisfaction and well-being. From this real pool of items, factor analysis was used to identify 10 items with high loadings (0.60 or above) on a common factor interpreted as global evaluations of a persons life. After the elimination of redundancies, this group of items was then further reduced to five items, with minimal effect on the alpha reliability of the scale. A 7-point Likert style response scale (ranging from 1powerfully disagree to 7strongly agree) was utilized in order to afford respondents an array of response op tions. The five items are all key in a compulsory direction, so the five responses can evidently be added to arrive at a total score for the scale. The mathematical range of scores is therefore 5 to 35, with a score of 20 representing the inert point on the scale. Scores between 5 and 9 intimate that the respondent is extremely dissatisfied with life, whereas scores ranging between 31 and 35 indicate that the respondent is extremely satisfied with life. Scores between 21 and 25represent slightly satisfied, and scores from 15 to 19 are interpreted as falling in the slightly dissatisfied range(Pavot Diener, 2008).Quality of life has incur a primary concern in the evaluation of both the quality and outcome of health care (Moons, Budts, De Geest, 2006). In a review of different conceptual approaches of quality of life, Moons et al. (2006) put up life satisfaction to be the most adcorrespond and appropriate conceptualization, as it successfully addresses all of the conceptual p roblems they examined with regard to health-related quality of life.(Pavot Diener, 2008).In most ways my life is close to my ideal1. Strongly disagree.2. Disagree.3. meagerly agree.4. uncomplete agrees nor disagrees.5. meagerly agree.6. Agree.7. Strongly agree.The conditions of my life are excellent1. Strongly disagree.2. Disagree.3. Slightly agree.4. uncomplete agrees nor disagrees.5. Slightly agree.6. Agree.7. Strongly agree.I am satisfied with my life.1. Strongly disagree.2. Disagree.3. Slightly agree.4. Neither agrees nor disagrees.5. Slightly agree.6. Agree.7. Strongly agree.So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.1. Strongly disagree.2. Disagree.3. Slightly agree.4. Neither agrees nor disagrees.5. Slightly agree.6. Agree.7. Strongly agree.If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.1. Strongly disagree.2. Disagree.3. Slightly agree.4. Neither agrees nor disagrees.5. Slightly agree.6. Agree.7. Strongly agree.military rating scaleThere are two-fold scales, questionnaires and inventories of happiness. The following tools are unmingled examples the Oxford Happiness Inventory, the Depression-Happiness Scale and the Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale Of Happiness. These scales and other contain multiple items, most frequently from 10-130 items. A plethora of studies on happiness have used single item self-rating scales with different options , mainly the Likert scale which offers 5 or 7 choice point.(Abdel-Khalek, 2006). Much quantitative research within psychology relies upon the use of numerical scales and in the main Likert scales have emerged as the dominant measurement tool(Ogden Lo, 2012).Although providing respondents with a rating scale may see straightforward, thereare many ways in which response formats can vary.There may be differences in the response formats that may be optimum for evaluative, eudemonic and affective measures. Evaluative and eudemonic measures are akin to locating measures in that it may be preferable for the response format to contain information about both the direction of feeling (positive/neutral/negative or agree/disagree), as well as its strength (strong-weak). In the case of affect measures, it is often desirable to measure positive and negative affective states separately. Thus, rather than asking about the direction (positive-neutral-negative) of affect, respondents are often given a single adjective (e.g. happy) and asked to describe either the intensity or the frequency with which they feltthat way within a given time period. This may in turn have implications for the optimalnumber of response options, as well as response scale labelling and anchoring.There is, however, considerable debate around the optimal number of responsecategories and a very wide range of opinions is available in the belles-lettres (Weng, 2004,for a brief summary). This number will depend on respondents information-processingcapacities and preferences, survey mode, scale labelling, and, to some extent, presentationalconcerns and questionnaire length. Increasing the number of response categories beyondthe optimal length could result in loss of information, increase flaw and decreasedreliability, because the individual scale points will mean less to respondents. The increasedresponse burden associated with longer scales may also lead respondents to become lessmotivated to optimise and more likely to satisfice in their answers, thus also increasing therisk of response biases and errorBradburn et al. (2004) press that, due to the burden on memory and attention, five categories is the maximum number that a respondent can process in a verbal interview setting (telephone or face-to-face) without visual prompts. Furthermore, when the response categories are qualitatively different from one another (rather than being imagined on a slip scale), these authors suggest that four categories should be the upper maximum. On the other hand, Alwin and Krosnick (19 91) indicate that respondents may prefer to have response options denoting weak, moderate and strong negative and positive evaluations (i.e. a 7-point scale) in part because these are the categories that people often use to describe attitudes and opinions in everyday life.For evaluative measures with numerical response scales, longer scales (up to around11 scale points) often appear to get along better. Using a multi-trait-multi-methoddesign, Alwin found that across all 17 domains of life satisfaction measured, the 11-point scales had higher reliabilities than the 7-point scales. In 14 out of 17 cases, the 11-point scales also had higher validity coefficients and in 12 of 17 cases, 11-point scales had lower invalidity coefficients, indicating they were affected less, rather than more, by method variance I.e. systematic response biases or styles. This overall finding is supported by Saris et al. (1998) who used a similar multi-trait-multi-method analysis to compare 100-point, 4 or 5 -point and 10-point satisfaction measures, and found that the 10-point scale demonstrated the best reliability.For affect measures, one might be interested in measuring either the intensity of feelingor the frequency with which that feeling occurred. Measures of recently-experienced affectare less like attitude measures, in that one is effectively asking respondents to remember aspecific experience or to sum experiences over a specific time period.The method adopted for this study due to paucity of time and level of research expected from us at masters level is using a 7 point scale for affect measures and using cantril ladder for eudemonic measures. The 7 point scale ranged from strongly disagrees to strongly agree.Background characteristicsQuestions on the respondents background characteristics were collected in the beginning of the questionnaire. Information such as the following was collected.Age sexualityMarital statusReligionEducationWork statusFamily income sum up of age re siding in MumbaiNative stateNumber of family membersNumber of earning members in familyNo of rooms in houseOwnership of house soft measurement of happinessOne open ended question was asked in the beginning of the questionnaire i.e. what does happiness means to you? The aim was to explore what people equate happiness with and how does it affect their overall living. The use of qualitative assessment methods, such as open- ended questions, provides information about the participants perceptions, views and beliefs in their own terms, in contrast to using outside researchers definitions and categories, which is typical of quantitative inquiries (Denzin and Lincoln 2000). qualitative data show an additional crucial feature it is possible to exchange them into quantitative scales for suggests of statistical analyses(Fave, Brdar, Freire, Vella-Brodrick, Wissing, 2010).The entire questionnaire was formulated in the following wayData collection tasteSome surveys with the household as th e unit of measure rely on a single respondent (suchas the head of household) to provide responses for the household as a whole. This cannot beused for measures of subjective well-being, since the cognitive process of evaluating andresponding with respect to ones own subjective well-being is very different to that of providing an estimate of another homeowners state of mind. Responses to questions on subjective wellbeing are inherently personal, and consequently the unit of measure for subjective well-being must be the individual. While this will typically not be an issue for surveys where the individual is the primary unit of analysis(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013).The two modes most commonly used to collect information on subjective well-being are Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), conducted by an interview over the telephone, and Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI), where the interviewer is personally present when recording the data.(OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, 2013)Due to paucity of time, the mode was data collection was paper and pen method. The respondents were allowed to take the questionnaire home for a day and could be collected later based on their discretion.The sampling universe was people who had lived in Mumbai for more than 5 years and was targeted at literate working population. The sampling method chose was convenience sampling and the sample size is 200.Confidentiality and ethicsInitially the respondents were informed about the purpose of the study and the collectors identity and her affiliation to the institute. The confidentiality of the participants was not tell at any point during the course of the research. Furthermore, the respondents were assured that their responses would be used for academic purposes only.