Open Conference Systems, 50th Scientific meeting of the Italian Statistical Society

Font Size: 
A Partial Ordering Application in Synthetizing Dimensions of Subjective Well-being
Paola Conigliaro

Last modified: 2018-06-12


Abstract Starting from the interest for the relationships between labour status and subjective well-being, we focused analysis upon European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions 2013 ad-hoc module on subjective well-being. Following the OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being (2013), we assumed the multidimensionality of well-being as a premise. In order to preserve the multidimensionality of the concept of SWB, we applied an aggregating method based on partial ordering. This note compare results of Partial Ordering methodology with results of other aggregating methods.

Abstract Muovendo dall’interesse per il rapporto tra stato lavorativo e benessere soggettivo, questo studio si concentra sul modulo ad-hoc sul benessere soggettivo dell’Indagine europea sul reddito e sulle condizioni di vita (Eu-SILC) 2013. In accordo con le Linee guida OCSE sulla misurazione del benessere soggettivo (2013), assumiamo in premessa la multidimensionalità del benessere soggettivo. Per preservare tale multidimensionalità, è stato adottato un metodo di aggregazione delle dimensioni del benessere basato sull'ordinamento parziale. Questo contributo confronta i risultati della metodologia di Ordinamento Parziale con i risultati di altri metodi di aggregazione.


Key words: Subjective Well-being indicators, Decent work, Partial Ordering Methodology.


  1. Arcagni, A., and Fattore, M.: PARSEC: An R package for poset-based evaluation of multidimensional poverty. In: R. Bruggemann, L. Carlsen, & J. Wittmann (Eds.), MultiIndicator systems and modelling in partial order. Berlin: Springer (2014)

  2. Conigliaro, P.: Labour Status and Subjective Well-being. A Micro-level Analysis and a Multidimensional Approach to Well-being. Working Papers Series of PhD Course in Applied Social Sciences (2018)

  3. Conigliaro, P., and L. Alaimo: Labour Status and Subjective Well-being A Micro-level Analysis and a Multidimensional Approach to Well-being (step II applying a Partial ordering methodology). Firenze. Contribute to the AIQUAV Conference (2017)

  4. Diener, Ed, and Robert A. Emmons: “The Independence of Positive and Negative Affects.†In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(5): 1105-1117 (1984)

  5. Diener, Ed, D. Wirtz, R. Biswas-Diener, W. Tov, C. Kim-Prieto, D. Choi, and S. Oishi “New: Measures of Well-being.†In: Assessing Well-Being - The Collected Works of Ed Diener, pp.247-266. Springer International Publishing Agency (2009)

  6. Eurostat: Eu-Silc Module on Wellbeing - Assessment of the Implementation. (2013)

  7. Eurostat: Quality of life, Fact and Views. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (2015)

  8. Eurostat: Analytical Report on Subjective Well-being. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (2016)

  9. Fattore, M., F. Maggino, and A. Arcagni: “Exploiting Ordinal Data for Subjective Well-being Evaluation.†In: Statistic in Transition. The measurement of Subjective Well-being in Survey Research. 16(3): 400-428 (2015)

  10. Huppert, F. A., and T.T.C. So: “Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-beingâ€. Social Indicator Research 110(3): 837-861 (2013)

  11. ILO: Decent Work and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva: ILO (2017)

  12. Maggino, F. “Subjective Wellbeing and Subjective Aspects of Wellbeing: Methodology and Theory.†In: Rivista internazionale di scienze sociali 128(1): 89-121 (2015)

  13. Michalos, A. C: “Multiple Discrepancy Theory.†In: Social Indicator Research 16(4):347-413 (1985)

  14. OECD: Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing (2013)

  15. Ware, J. E., K. K. Snow, M. Kosinski, and B. Gandek: SF-36 Health Survey – Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: Nimrod Press (1993)


Full Text: DOC