Testing Framing Effects on Subjective Wellbeing in Lao PDR

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

There is an increasing international reliance on measures of subjective well-being to guide policy formulation by identifying well-being dimensions prioritised by affected households. The cognitive dimension of subjective wellbeing represents how one’s life measures up to expectations and resembles an individual’s envisioned ideal life. Tversky and Kahneman () established that survey questions framed as either a loss or a gain significantly bias responses. The effects of question framing have not been previously tested in subjective wellbeing research. We test the effect of framing difference (satisfied vs. dissatisfied) based on a survey of randomly selected households in two adjacent Lao PDR river basins: the Nam Ngum (n = 1000; well-being posed as “how satisfied”) and the Nam Xong (n = 1000; well-being posed as “how dissatisfied”), using a multi-dimensional and location specific list of 38 well-being factors. Subjective wellbeing factors were quantified and prioritised for each household by calculating a widely tested index of dissatisfaction (IDS). The results indicate no significant differences (p < 0.05) in the pattern of ranked IDS factors across the sample cohorts and inconsistent valency in mean IDS values. Roads, electricity, food security, and domestic water supply had the highest ranked IDS scores for both basins and represent interventions points where well-being gains are most likely. Policies singularly focussed on increased household income represent sub-optimal solutions to improve household wellbeing in the Nam Xong and Nam Ngum River basins.