Correlational finding on Happiness and subject: Current success in values

StudyJacob & Brinkerhoff (1999): study US 1998
TitleMindfulness and Subjective Well-Being in the Sustainability Movement: A Further Discrepancies Theory.
SourceSocial Indicators Research, 1999, Vol. 46, 341 - 368
DOIDOI: 10.1023/A:1006941403481
Public'Back to the landers', USA 1998
SampleNon-probability purposive sample
Respondents N =565

Author's labelDiscrepancy: HFP-ES gap
Page in Source 358
Our classificationCurrent success in values
Discrepancy between the actual homestead food 
production and the selfrated importance ecological 

HFP: percentage of a family's food that the respondents 
reported was produced on ther mini-homesteads

ES: Selfreport on Ecological Sensitivity, rated 
importance of:
- the expanion of wilderness areas
- preserving old growth forests
- providing habitat for endangered species
- recycling newspapers
- reducing personal energy consumption
Rated 1 (very important) to 4 (not at all important)

GAP: The value scales and performance indexes were 
dichotomized at their empirical midpoints (medians) and 
then cross-tabulated with each other. The survey 
respondents then fell into one of four categories: (1) 
low values/low performance (“no gap”), (2) high 
values/low performance (“gap”), (3) low values/high 
performance (“gap”), and (4) high values/high 
performance (“no gap”). These gaps (or absence of gaps) 
are calculated for both performance indicators (TSR 
Index and HFP) and for each of the three value scales 
(Country Asceticism, Homestead Production and 
Ecological Sensitivity). 
The first step to the comparability of the variables is 
to normalize each indicator and then place the 
respondents’ scores along a normalized distribution as 
t-scores with means of 50 and standard deviations of 
10. With respondents possessing comparable scores for 
each of the key indicators which constitute the 
values-performance discrepancies, a “gap score” for 
each value-performance pair was calculated by 
subtracting normalized performance scores from 
normalized value scores.
To faciliate interpretation they just used a subsample 
with values higher than the median for Technological 
Self-Reliance Index (TSR), Country Ascetisism (CA), 
Homestead Production (HP) and Ecological Sensitivity 
(ES) for further analysis

Observed Relation with Happiness
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-br=-.28 p < .005
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bBeta=-.05 ns
Beta controlled for
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
homestead food production
- gap: importance of ecological sensitivity / 
actual use of technology
- gap: importance of homestead production / actual 
use of technology
- gap: importance of cultual ascetiscism / actual 
homestead food production

Appendix 1: Happiness measures used
CodeFull Text
O-H?-c-sq-v-5-bSelfreport on single question:

Lead item not reported.
5 very happy
4 happy
3 neutral
2. unhappy
1 very unhappy

Appendix 2: Statistics used
Type: test statistic.

Measurement level: Correlates: all metric, Happiness: metric.
Range: [-1 ; +1]

beta > 0 « a higher correlate level corresponds to a higher happiness rating on average.
beta < 0 « a higher correlate level corresponds to a higher happiness rating on average.
beta = 0 « no correlation.
beta = + 1 or -1 « perfect correlation.
rPRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (Also "Pearson's correlation coefficient' or simply 'correlation coefficient')
Type: test statistic.
Measurement level: Correlate: metric, Happiness: metric
Range: [-1; +1]

r = 0 « no correlation ,
r = 1 « perfect correlation, where high correlate values correspond with high happiness values, and
r = -1 « perfect correlation, where high correlate values correspond with low happiness values.
Ruut Veenhoven, World Database of Happiness, Collection of Correlational Findings, Erasmus University Rotterdam.