The name is absent



The net affect-measure preserves much of the original information even after aggregation
(in particular, the strength of positive and negative emotions), but suffers from the
disadvantage any cardinal measure possesses: it is unclear what the scale of measurement
really refers to and whether different people interpret the scale in the same way. These issues
are addressed by the
U-index (for “unpleasant” or “undesirable”) that does not require a
cardinal conception of individuals’ feelings. Kahneman and Krueger (2006) define the U-
index as the proportion of time in which the highest-rated feeling was a negative one. The U-
index can be computed for each individual, i.e. the fraction of a person’s waking time that is
spent in an unpleasant state, or for each activity, i.e. the fraction of the time people spend on a
specific activity that is experienced as unpleasant (Krueger et al. 2009). The U-index for
person
i engaged in activity j is defined by

1 if        max{NAi1,...,NAik,...,NAiK} >max{PAi1,...,PAil,...,PAiL}

(3)


ijijijijijij

0 otherwise

The U-index for individual i is calculated by weighting the U-index for each activity, Uij, by
the fraction of time the individual was engaged in that activity,
hjj :

Ui=hijUij.                                         (4)

j

The U-index for activity j is then given by

Uj= ⅛√∑ hj.                    (5)

ii

According to Kahneman and Krueger (2006), the U-index has the favorable property that it
relies only on an ordinal ranking of feelings. In particular, the U-index is independent of scale
effects. If one person uses only values between 2 and 4 to characterize his feelings, while
another person uses the full scale from 0 to 6 but ranks his feelings in the same order, both
people will have the same U-index (whereas the same does not necessarily hold for net
affect).

Other authors have questioned the validity of the U-index as an ordinal measure. Layard
(2009) claims that if the assessment of feelings is truly ordinal, the U-index does not
overcome the problem that the reported strength of feelings cannot be aggregated in a
meaningful way. Suppose, for example, that two people have the same “true”, but
unobservable strengths of feelings. Both people use the 11-point-scale in different ways.



More intriguing information

1. Public Debt Management in Brazil
2. DURABLE CONSUMPTION AS A STATUS GOOD: A STUDY OF NEOCLASSICAL CASES
3. Healthy state, worried workers: North Carolina in the world economy
4. Brauchen wir ein Konjunkturprogramm?: Kommentar
5. Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program
6. The name is absent
7. Recognizability of Individual Creative Style Within and Across Domains: Preliminary Studies
8. SAEA EDITOR'S REPORT, FEBRUARY 1988
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent
11. Staying on the Dole
12. How does an infant acquire the ability of joint attention?: A Constructive Approach
13. Une Gestion des ressources humaines à l'interface des organisations : vers une GRH territoriale ?
14. The name is absent
15. Notes on an Endogenous Growth Model with two Capital Stocks II: The Stochastic Case
16. Robust Econometrics
17. Fiscal Rules, Fiscal Institutions, and Fiscal Performance
18. EMU's Decentralized System of Fiscal Policy
19. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
20. WP 36 - Women's Preferences or Delineated Policies? The development or part-time work in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom