This chapter introduces a cross-cutting module of experimental subjective well-being measures that have broad-based relevance across cultures but, as of yet, have not been widely included in large-scale official data collections. These include in particular low arousal positive affect and measures of subjective well-being with a strong relational component. The chapter also provides question banks (rather than a module) for additional important concepts for which existing evidence is insufficient to recommend a single measure that best captures the concept in a valid and concise way. These include balance and harmony in one’s life, a connection to future generations and an emotional connection to the natural world. While future work is needed to identify single-item measures that best measure each element, on whole, the inclusion of these measures in subjective well-being modules can enhance the global inclusivity of measurement practice.
OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well‑being (2025 Update)
Abstract
A key consideration in the process of refining and updating OECD measurement guidelines on subjective well-being was to ensure that the resulting question modules contain measures that capture well-understood concepts that have meaning and resonate for populations both within and among countries, rather than being too strongly anchored in only some regions, cultures or population groups. Broad relevance is a central objective for any international measurement guidelines, where the goal is to provide sets of measures that can be fielded successfully across different countries and contexts. This objective differs from – but can be very effectively complemented and informed by – national efforts to develop tailored surveys addressing the well-being needs of specific communities (see Box A A.3. in the Annex). Thus, one of the selection criteria for all measures recommended in Chapter 2 is global inclusivity, meaning that the outcomes measured need to have evidence of broad-based resonance and successful deployment in a wide variety of countries and contexts. As a part of the process to ensure this, a technical overview of the global evidence base on subjective well-being measurement was conducted that widened the scope beyond the usual set of academic economics and psychology journals to also include evidence from other sources, with an explicit goal of including evidence from non-OECD countries (Smith et al., 2025[1]).
As well as informing the recommendations in Chapter 2, this exercise highlighted some additional subjective well-being elements that are not currently captured by existing measurement guidelines and that could serve to broaden the global relevance of the recommendations. These elements, included here in Chapter 3, are considered as cross-cutting experimental measures for three different, but sometimes overlapping, reasons: (1) evidence on the statistical properties of existing measures to capture these specific elements is minimal, especially extensions to populations (and linguistic groups) outside of the national context in which they were developed; (2) the new elements do not fit neatly into the life evaluation / affect / eudaimonia framework of subjective well-being (Figure 1.2) and may therefore be better thought of as cross-cutting measures, and (3) because there are few examples of single-item measures, or insufficient evidence to propose a specific measure – even if it is deemed experimental – to capture the concept. A cross-cutting module of subjective well-being measures is provided to capture measures falling into the first two categories, while question banks with multiple measurement approaches are provided for the latter.
For official data producers who have a well-established subjective well-being measurement practice, the experimental measures and question banks in this chapter are intended to be a useful resource to expand coverage of important subjective well-being elements that have heretofore remained under-measured and thus under-studied and under-prioritised.
When reviewing the global evidence base on varied approaches to subjective well-being measurement, frequently recurring themes include: a greater diversity of low arousal positive affect measures (beyond feeling calm, which is included in the affect extended module Box 2.5), such as being at peace and feeling content, or a sense of spirituality; and measures of subjective well-being with a strong relational component, that are distinct from typical measures of social connections (Box A A.2) in that they are emotional experiences that can be interpreted only in the context of other people, or they are subjective evaluations of the well-being of a concept broader than the self (e.g. extending to a person’s family or the people around them).
These concepts are included in an experimental module of subjective well-being measures (Box 3.1). A detailed discussion on each topic, including more information on the policy relevance of the concept and existing approaches to its measurement, can be found in the Annex. The experimental module is cross-cutting, in that it includes subjective well-being measures that span evaluative, eudaimonic and affective components. The module begins by asking respondents to reflect on how well their family is doing overall (Q1). The next two questions refer to general feelings, asking respondents how often they feel their mind is at ease, a measure of low arousal positive affect (Q2), how often they feel a sense of something bigger than themselves, a question about spirituality that is not specific to any one religious group (Q3), and how often they feel that their actions positively impact others – a measure of beneficence (Q4). The final set of questions asks respondents to report how often they felt the given emotion over the preceding day: treated with respect (Q5), envious (Q6), compassionate (Q7), forgiving (Q8), fearful (Q9), generous (Q10) and selfish (Q11).
First of all, I’d like you to think in general about how your family is doing.
Q1. On a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means “extremely badly” and ten means “extremely well”, how would you rate how your family is doing these days? [0-10; I have no family]
The following questions ask about your feelings in general. Zero means you did not experience the feeling ”at all”, while 10 means you experience the feeling “all of the time”. On a scale from 0 to 10, in general how often:
Q2. … is your mind at ease? [0-10]
Q3. … do you feel a sense of connection to something bigger than yourself? [0-10]
Q4. … do you feel that your actions have a positive impact on the people [0-10]
around you?
The following questions ask about how you felt yesterday on a scale from 0 to 10. Zero means you did not experience the feeling "at all" yesterday while 10 means you experienced the feeling "all of the time" yesterday. Here is a list of ways you might have felt yesterday.
Q5. How about that you were treated with respect? [0-10]
Q6. How about envious? [0-10]
Q7. How about compassionate? [0-10]
-----
Q8. How about forgiving? [0-10]
Q9. How about fearful? [0-10]
Q10. How about generous? [0-10]
Q11. How about selfish? [0-10]
Implementation details:
The questions in the module should be fielded using the exact phrasing and answer formats provided. Questions selected by data producers should be asked in the order in which they appear. Given limited space, survey designers can ask only Q1-Q7. The module can be implemented alongside the core module (Box 2.2).
All questions are deemed experimental; more information on why these measures have been selected, and the importance of each concept, can be found in Annex A.
Q5-11 use a yesterday recall period, which enables them to be used alongside measures in the affect extended module (Box 2.5). Should space be a constraint, Q5, Q6 and Q7 should be prioritised for inclusion alongside the affect extended module.
Time:
This module is expected to take between 4 and 5 minutes to complete in its entirety.
Origin:
Q1 is originally from the New Zealand General Social Survey (Statistics New Zealand, 2024[2]), which was itself adapted from a question that was originally developed for Te Kupenga, a survey of social, cultural and economic well-being of the Indigenous Māori population in New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand, 2014[3]).
Q2 is from the Gallup World Poll Wellbeing module (Lomas et al., 2022[4]); the answer scale has been adapted to a 0-10 format.
Q3 is a single item of the longer Spiritual Well-Being: The Awe Index scale (Hamby, Grych and Banyard, 2013[5]); the answer scale has been adapted to a 0-10 scale to align with other measures in the module.
Q4 is a single item in the Beneficence Scale (Martela and Ryan, 2016[6]) and has been adapted to use a 0-10 answer scale.
Q5 has been adapted from a Gallup question fielded in its annual World Poll (Gallup World Poll, 2024[7]).
Q6-11 are originally from the Bhutan Gross National Happiness Survey (Ura et al., 2022[8]); they have been adapted to use a 0-10 answer scale and yesterday recall period.
Output:
Information on individual questions can be presented as the mean value of each response, omitting missing values. Summary measures of distribution (inequalities) should also be reported (see Box 1.2 for details). The mean value of responses, and the standard error of this estimate, can be used to describe differences between population groups.
The percentage of the population reporting scores below a “low outcome” threshold (a score ≤ 4) can also be reported.
Guidelines for interviewers:
Q1-4 deliberately focus on how people are feeling in general rather than specifying a longer or shorter time period, and they ask the respondents for a reflective judgement rather than a statement of their current mood.
For Q1, respondents should consider all areas of life when rating how well their family is doing. Family refers to the group of people that respondents think of as their family. Some official data producers may have pre-established definitions as to what constitutes “family”, in those instances those same criteria can be applied here, with respondents prompted as necessary.
Q3 is a question about spirituality, but to ensure broad relevance, it does not mention a god or formal religion and rather focuses on the existential dimension of spirituality.
As for Q5-11, the aim of the module is to capture information on respondents’ feelings, states, moods or emotions on the previous day. The time frame is explicitly short because the primary focus is the affective states that people actually experienced, which is most accurately recalled over short time periods. If a respondent indicates that the previous day was unusual in some respect (something particularly bad or good happened, or they were feeling unwell), they should still report how they felt that day, since this question is intended to capture the feelings people have actually experienced, not how people feel on a “typical” day. These affect items are designed to be used in very large sample household surveys only under these conditions; because several thousand people are be interviewed over a relatively long period of time over the course of the survey, unusual events will not overly bias the aggregated statistics that are produced. More importantly, the reference to a specific day permits the data to be used to unravel day-of-week effects and responses to external events for which the dates are known.
The scoping exercise on globally inclusive approaches to subjective well-being measurement yielded additional important concepts for which different measurement approaches exist. However, these measures vary in question framing and length. These concepts include a feeling of balance and/or harmony in one’s life, feeling connected to future generations (in a broad sense, beyond feeling concern or consideration for one’s own children or grandchildren, personally) and feeling connected to nature. Given the lack of existing evidence on the statistical properties of these, there is thus far insufficient information to provide a single recommended measure. Instead, question banks showing some of the most prominent existing measures are provided so that interested data producers can select, and adapt, the options that are best suited to their national (or local) context. Given the current lack of evidence, fielding and testing these questions – and publishing the results – will be a crucial tool in improving the evidence base.
Balance and harmony
Balance and harmony are highly interrelated concepts that touch on feeling that the various forces in one’s life are in equilibrium. These concepts have so far largely been absent from subjective well-being measurement conversations despite their universal relevance and strong link to concepts of happiness and satisfaction (refer to Annex A for an extended discussion). Table 3.1 provides examples of measures capturing balance and harmony. Beginning in 2020, the Gallup World Poll has included measures of both balance and harmony in its well-being module. Cognitive testing has yielded some insights into which measures are better understood than others (refer to Annex A for details); however, there is not yet consensus as to which measure is best placed to capture harmony and balance. In addition to Gallup’s work, the Harmony in Life Scale – both the full-length and shorter versions – provides a multi-item scale approach to measurement.
Connection to future generations
A sense of connection to one’s ancestors and descendants is a common feature in many Indigenous well-being frameworks, and, increasingly, OECD member state governments are introducing policies and legislative frameworks focused on the well-being of future generations (see Annex A). Different ways to measure affinity towards future generations are shown in Table 3.2. The first three rows show different ways to frame single-item questions: being in harmony with the needs of future generations, an evaluative assessment of what life will be like for future generations, and satisfaction with the younger generation’s future. One multi-item scale is also included.
Connection with nature
Connection with nature is distinct from measures that describe the quality or features of the natural environment, or the amount of time one spends in nature. Rather, this concept recognises that in some traditions there is not a clear distinction between the self and nature and that many cultures place value on being connected to, and in harmony with, the natural world (Annex A). Unlike the preceding two concepts, the evidence base on existing measures is more extensive for connection to nature – but these measures have been developed to address people’s value systems, not their subjective well-being. In addition, validated single-item measures (or ultra-brief scales) are lacking. The Gallup World Poll provides possible examples of single-item measures, asking respondents how emotionally connected they feel to nature (fielded in 2021) and how often they feel in harmony with nature around them (fielded in 2024) (Table 3.3). Experimentation with phrasing to ensure face validity is on-going at the time of this publication. In addition, the Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale is a single-item question that uses a visual aid to enable respondents to assess their perceived closeness to nature (Figure 3.1); it is a single-item scale, however, the visual component makes it inappropriate for telephone-based surveys.
Beyond this, the 14-item Connectedness to Nature Scale is one of the most referenced in the literature; however, its length makes it difficult to integrate into general household surveys (Mayer and Frantz, 2004[14]). Three other multi-item scales – the Environmental Identity Scale, the Love and Care for Nature Scale (Perkins, 2010[15]) and the Nature Relatedness Scale (Mayer and Frantz, 2004[14]) – also frequently appear. The Practitioner Guide to Assessing Connection to Nature includes details on how to implement such scales, as well as how to analyse and report on the data once collected (Salazar, Kunkle and Monroe, 2020[16]).
Please circle the picture that best describes your relationship with the natural environment. How interconnected are you with nature?
Note: A respondent’s score is the numerical value associated with the image selected; the overall score can then be calculated as the mean value of all response outcomes.
Source: Schultz (2002[17]), “Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology Of Human-Nature Relations”, Psychology of Sustainable Development, pp. 61-78, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4; image taken from Chen et al. (2022[18]), “The Impact of Gratitude on Connection With Nature: The Mediating Role of Positive Emotions of Self-Transcendence”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, p. 908138, https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2022.908138.
References
[11] CEPREMAP (2025), Le Bien-Être en France, https://www.cepremap.fr/Tableau_de_Bord_Bien-Etre.html.
[18] Chen, L. et al. (2022), “The impact of gratitude on connection with nature: The mediating role of positive emotions of self-transcendence”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, p. 908138, https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2022.908138.
[7] Gallup World Poll (2024), The State of Global Emotions, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/349280/gallup-global-emotions-report.aspx.
[5] Hamby, S., J. Grych and V. Banyard (2013), Life paths measurement packet: finalized Scales, https://lifepathsresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Life-Paths-Measurement-Packet-finalized-scales-Aug-2015-Color-front-and-back.pdf.
[9] Kjell, O. et al. (2016), “The Harmony in Life Scale complements the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Expanding the conceptualization of the cognitive component of subjective well-being”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 126/2, pp. 893-919, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-015-0903-Z.
[10] Kjell, O. and E. Diener (2021), “Abbreviated three-item versions of the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Harmony in Life Scale yield as strong psychometric properties as the original scales”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 103/2, pp. 183-194, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1737093.
[12] LiK (2025), The ‘Life in Kyrgyzstan’ Study, Life in Kyrgyzstan (LiK), https://lifeinkyrgyzstan.org/.
[4] Lomas, T. et al. (2022), “Balance and harmony in the Gallup World Poll: The development of the Global Wellbeing Initiative module”, International Journal of Wellbeing, Vol. 12/4, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.5502/IJW.V12I4.2655.
[6] Martela, F. and R. Ryan (2016), “The benefits of benevolence: Basic psychological needs, beneficence, and the enhancement of well-being”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 84/6, pp. 750-764, https://doi.org/10.1111/JOPY.12215.
[14] Mayer, F. and C. Frantz (2004), “The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 24/4, pp. 503-515, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2004.10.001.
[13] Morselli, D. and S. Passini (2015), “Measuring prosocial attitudes for future generations: The social generativity scale”, Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 22/3, pp. 173-182, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10804-015-9210-9.
[15] Perkins, H. (2010), “Measuring love and care for nature”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 30/4, pp. 455-463, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2010.05.004.
[16] Salazar, G., K. Kunkle and M. Monroe (2020), Practitioner Guide to Assessing Connection to Nature, North American Association for Environmental Education, Washington, DC, https://naaee.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/Assessing%20Connection%20to%20Nature.5.6.20.pdf.
[17] Schultz, P. (2002), “Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations”, Psychology of Sustainable Development, pp. 61-78, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4.
[1] Smith, C. et al. (2025), “Globally inclusive measures of subjective wellbeing: Updated evidence to inform national data collections”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, Vol. 35, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd72752a-en (accessed on 11 February 2025).
[2] Statistics New Zealand (2024), Wellbeing Statistics: 2023, Statistics New Zealand, https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/wellbeing-statistics-2023/.
[3] Statistics New Zealand (2014), Te Kupenga 2013 (English), Statistics New Zealand, https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/te-kupenga-2013-english.
[8] Ura, K. et al. (2022), GNH 2022, Centre for Bhutan & GNH Studies, Thimphu, Bhutan, https://ophi.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-03/Bhutan_GNH_2022_%282023%29_compressed.pdf.