Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 301–324 | Cite as

Subjective Well-Being and Kahneman’s ‘Objective Happiness’

  • Anna Alexandrova


This paper is an attempt to clarify the relation between, on the one hand, the construct of ‘objective happiness’ recently proposed by Daniel Kahneman and, on the other hand, the principal focus of happiness studies, namely subjective well-being (SWB). I have two aims. The first, a critical one, is to give a theoretical explanation for why ‘objective happiness’ cannot be a general measure of SWB. Kahneman’s methodology precludes incorporation of relevant pieces of information that can become available to the subject only retrospectively. The second aim, a constructive one, is to clarify the exact connection between ‘objective happiness’ and the wider notion of SWB. Unlike Kahneman, who treats the notion as a useful first approximation, I propose that its applicability should be thought of as context-dependent: under some conditions it could be the right measure of SWB but what these conditions are involves both psychological and ethical considerations.

Key words

experience sampling global retrospective judgments Kahneman’s ‘objective happiness’ subjective well-being 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S. 1985The satisfaction with life scaleJournal of Personality Assessment497175Google Scholar
  2. Diener, E. and R.E. Lucas: 1999, ‘Personality and Subjective Well-Being’, in Kahneman et al., 1999Google Scholar
  3. Fredrickson, B.L., Kahneman, D 1993Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodesJournal of Personality and Social Psychology654555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kahneman, D.: 1999, ‘Objective Happiness’, in Kahneman et al. 1999Google Scholar
  5. Kahneman, D. 2000Experienced Utility and Objective Happiness: A Moment-Based ApproachKahneman, D.Tversky, A. eds. Choices, Values and Frames Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Kahneman, D., E. Diener, and N. Schwarz (eds): 1999, ‘Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology’ (Russel Sage Foundation New York)Google Scholar
  7. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D., Schwartz, N., Stone, A.A. 2004Toward national well-being accountsAmerican Economic Review94/2429434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Redelmeier, D., Kahneman, D. 1996Patients memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive proceduresPain66pp3-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schwarz, N. and F. Strack: 1999, Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications: in Kahneman et al. 1999Google Scholar
  10. Scollon, C.N., Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E. 2003Experience sampling: promises and pitfalls, strengths and weaknessesJournal of Happiness Studies4534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sen, A. and M. Nussbaum (eds): 1993 ‘Quality of Life’ (Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
  12. Stone, A.A., S.S. Shiffman and M.W. DeVries: 1999, Ecological Momentary Assessment in Kahneman et al. 1999Google Scholar
  13. Sumner, L.W. 1996Welfare, Happiness and EthicsClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Wierzbicka, A.: 2004, ‘Happiness’ in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective, Daedalus, Spring 2004, pp. 34–43Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations