Measuring experiential well-being among older adults

References

• Anusic, I., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2017). The validity of the day reconstruction method in the German socio-economic panel study. Social Indicators Research, 130(1), 213–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, D., Cornman, J. C., & Freedman, V. A. (2017). Disability and activity-related emotion in later life: Are effects buffered by intimate relationship Support and Strain? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58(3), 387–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, F., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23(10), 2809–2818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy. USA: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the big five across the life span: Evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 558–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, V. A., Cornman, J. C., & Carr, D. (2014). Is spousal caregiving associated with enhanced well-being? New evidence from the panel study of income dynamics. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 69(6), 861–869.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, V. A., Stafford, F., Conrad, F., Schwarz, N., & Cornman, J. C. (2012). Assessing time-diary quality for older couples: An analysis of the PSID disability and use-of-time supplement. Annals of Economics and Statistics, (105/106), 271–289. doi:10.2307/23646465
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hudson, N. W., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2017). Day-To-day affect is surprisingly stable: A 2-year longitudinal study of well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(1), 45–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krueger, A. B., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2009). National time accounting: The currency of life. In Krueger, A. B. (Ed.) Measuring the subjective well-being of nations: National accounts of time use and well-being (pp. 9–86). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., Hofferth, S. L., Flood, S. M., & Fisher, K. (2016). Reliability, validity, and variability of the subjective well-being questions in the 2010 American time use survey. Social Indicators Research; Dordrecht, 126(3), 1355–1373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (2003). Measuring positive emotions. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 201–218). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2013). Subjective well-being: measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 97–123). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J., Ryan, L. H., Queen, T. L., Becker, S., & Gonzalez, R. (2014). Snapshots of mixtures of affective experiences in a day: Findings from the health and retirement study. Journal of Population Ageing, 7(1), 55–79.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S. S., & DeVries, M. W. (1999). Ecological momentary assessment. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 26–39). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar