 34. Personality and Subjective Well‑Being 727
affected by different predictors and may re -
sult from distinct but overlapping processes 
(Kim-  Prieto et al., 2005). Thus, research -
ers who study SWB must carefully consider 
which components are most useful for their 
purposes—  not all components behave in 
similar ways. An important goal for ongo -
ing and future research will be to identify 
and explain the links between these diverse 
ways of evaluating a person’s life.
Measuring  SWB
Because SWB researchers value an individ -
ual’s own opinion about his or her life, it is 
sometimes assumed that self-  reports of well-
being provide the “gold standard” measure 
of the construct. This assumption, however, 
can be challenged. Although it is true that 
self- reports are used quite frequently within 
the field, there are also reasons to be skepti -
cal of these measures. For instance, people 
may not want to reveal their true level of 
happiness, and method factors such as scale 
use or acquiescence bias can overwhelm the 
true variance that is captured by self-  report 
techniques. Furthermore, if certain cognitive 
theories are correct, people may not have 
the cognitive capacity to report accurately 
on their experiences over time (Robinson 
& Clore, 2002; Schwarz & Strack, 1999). 
Thus, the validity of self-  reports must not be 
taken for granted simply because they have 
strong face validity as measures of subjective 
feelings. Researchers must make sure that 
responses to these measures make sense in 
a larger nomological network that includes 
non-self-  report measures and criteria.
Research examining the psychometric 
properties of SWB measures has shown that 
self- report scales tend to be reliable and 
valid. For instance, multiple-  item measures 
of life satisfaction, domain satisfaction, and 
positive and negative affect scales all show 
high reliability, regardless of whether reli -
ability is assessed using interitem correla -
tions or short-term test–  retest correlations 
(Anusic, Lucas, & Donnellan, 2012; Diener, 
Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Indeed, even 
the single-  item measures that are common 
in the field have impressive levels of reliabil -
ity, which can be tested by examining these 
measures over time. For instance, Lucas and Donnellan (2007, 2012) used data from 
nationally representative panel studies to 
separate stable trait variance from variance 
that reflects reliable change in life satisfac -
tion. These models show that approximately 
two- thirds of the variance in single-  item 
measures in these studies appears to be reli -
able. Cheung and Lucas (2014) showed that 
patterns of correlations between single-  item 
measures and predictors were virtually iden -
tical to the patterns of correlations between 
multiple-  item measures and predictors, sup -
porting the idea that single-  item measures 
perform well.
More importantly, there is increasing evi -
dence for the validity of these measures. Dif -
ferent measures of the same well-being con -
struct tend to correlate more strongly with 
one another than with measures of related 
but theoretically distinct constructs (Lucas 
et al., 1996). In addition, these measures 
also converge with non-self-  report meth -
ods of assessment. For instance, Schneider 
and Schimmack (2009) conducted a meta- 
analysis of correlations between self- and in -
formant reports of well-being and found an 
average correlation of .42. Similarly, Sand -
vik, Diener, and Seidlitz (1993) showed that 
expert ratings of participants’ happiness cor -
related approximately .50 with self-  reports. 
Even indirect measures, such as the number 
of positive versus negative life events an in -
dividual could remember and list, tend to 
correlate with self-  report measures of hap -
piness (Sandvik et al., 1993). This evidence 
suggests that unwanted method variance 
does not overwhelm the valid variance that 
is captured by self-  report methods of assess -
ment (for comprehensive reviews, see Diener 
et al., 2009; Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2018).
Research also shows that self-  report mea -
sures are responsive to life events and sen -
sitive to life circumstances. Although we 
review this evidence in more detail when 
we discuss the factors that influence well-
being, it is worth noting here that well-be -
ing measures change when significant life 
events occur (Lucas, 2007a). Furthermore, 
individuals living in disadvantaged circum -
stances tend to report lower well-being than 
do those living in more ideal settings. For 
instance, Biswas-  Diener and Diener (2001) 
found that individuals living in the slums 
of Calcutta reported life satisfaction scores 