Soc Indic Res

DOI 10.1007/s11205-014-0818-0

Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

Bogdan Voicu

Accepted: 8 November 2014

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Life satisfaction, as an indicator of subjective well-being, has received

increasing attention in the recent decades. It has become a potential indicator of devel-
opment, to be used complementary to objective measures. However, no clear consensus
exists on the relationship between life satisfaction and satisfaction with the various
domains of life as well as on the measurement of life satisfaction. This paper addresses the
relationship between overall life satisfaction and domain satisfaction (DS). The objective is
to identify potential biases induced by priming effects when measuring DS. Four types of
theoretical models, derived from existing literature, are tested in different scenarios. Data
from three waves of the European Quality of Life Surveys are analyzed using a structural
equation modeling framework to provide empirical evidence. An original experimental
design is employed to demonstrate that priming effects cannot be ignored. A comparison of
models including priming effects and those ignoring such biases shows that the former is a
better fit and has higher propensity to explain the variations in life satisfaction and DS.

Keywords Life satisfaction
Domain satisfaction
Priming effects
Measurement

invariance
Top-down approaches
Bottom-up approaches
EQLS

1 Introduction

Unwanted effects may often affect the quality of surveys results. Non-sampling errors are
not easy to avoid and emanate from various sources (Biemer and Lyberg 2003). In par-
ticular, the order of questions is important and can be a key factor in causing priming

B. Voicu (&)
Research Institute for Quality of Life, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania
e-mail: bogdan@iccv.ro
URL: http://web.bogdanvoicu.ro

B. Voicu
Department of Sociology, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania

123
 B. Voicu

effects (Converse and Presser 1986: 39–42; Crano and Brewer 2002: 279–280). Prior items
may trigger certain answers to later questions, prompting the respondent to make choices
such as to avoid redundancy, to increase consistency, to appear moderate, or to follow a
certain framework of reference (Tourangeau and Rasinski 1988).
Existing literature in psychology defines priming effects as implicit memory effects in
which prior exposure to a certain stimuli determines, to a given extent, the response to later
stimuli (Cesario 2014). Priming effects have been used to explain semantic effects
(Hutchison et al. 2013), to describe the effects of media framing on political communi-
cations and public opinions (Althaus and Kim 2006; Domke et al. 1998) and the influence
of advertisements on, for example, eating behaviors (Harris et al. 2009). Priming effects
can be crucial in surveys measuring constructs that correlate with theoretical consider-
ations. For instance, the first question can establish a reference framework, which will
influence the patterns to answer to the next as well as subsequent questions.
To the effect of measuring life-satisfaction and satisfaction with the domains of life (or
life-facets), existing theories imply a strong correlation between domain satisfaction (DS)
and overall life satisfaction (OvLS), that is, how satisfied one is with life in general. The
DS-OvLS relation can be explained through bottom-up (Andrews and Withey 1976;
Campbell et al. 1976; Diener 1984; Schimmack et al. 2002), top-down (Brief et al. 1993;
Rode 2004; Schimmack et al. 2002), and simultaneous models, depending on how one
conceives the implied causality (Mihalache 2008; Voicu and Pop 2011). Irrespective of the
approach, strong correlations can be expected between each domain satisfaction and the
OvLS as well as between the domain satisfactions themselves. This leads to the assumption
that priming effects can manifest during measurement of life satisfaction.
This paper aims to investigate the significance of priming effects, and whether they
should be considered when assessing measures of domain satisfaction and of OvLS.
To do so, this study uses data from three waves (2003, 2007, and 2011) of the European
Quality of Life Surveys (EQLS). A structural equation modeling framework is proposed to
develop explanatory models to assess the DS–OvLS relationship under two conditions—
with and without priming effects. The comparison is intended to elucidate the strengths of
priming effects. Measurement invariance across various time intervals and across countries
is tested to identify if priming effects can help develop comparable measurement models
across Europe. Since changing the order of questions can partially solve the problem, the
results are compared to those of the second wave of the Romanian Electoral Studies (RES)
conducted in 2012, in which the order of DS-based questions varied per respondent, a
strategy recommended to avoid priming effects (Crano and Brewer 2002).
This paper makes a two-fold contribution to the literature. First, it shows the importance
of controlling for priming effects when analyzing the traditional measures of domain
satisfaction adopted in surveys. It also demonstrates that, depending on the paradigm used
to explain the DS–OvLS relationship, the measures are not always comparable across
countries, or even within countries, and across various times. Second, the findings reveal
new evidence supporting the reliability of various explanations for the DS–OvLS rela-
tionship. The existing literature has seldom validated such models using comparative data.
To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no study has compared the adequacy of different
models using the same dataset.
The paper begins with a short review of the literature on the DS–OvLS relationship and
a brief overview of priming effects. The bulk of the paper focuses on describing the
methodology and findings. A brief summary concludes the analysis.

123
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

2 Approaches to the Life Satisfaction–Domain Satisfaction Relationship

Life satisfaction is a very general indicator of subjective well-being (Christoph and Noll
2003; Diener and Suh 1997; Veenhoven 2007). It encompasses the extent to which one is
satisfied with his/her life in general, with no specific reference to any domain, of greater or
lesser importance.
There are two major approaches to the sources of life satisfaction and its association
with one’s satisfaction with various aspects of life. The bottom-up approach conceives that
OvLS is a result of satisfaction that one experiences in general with every aspect of life. On
the hand, the top-down approach reflects reverse causality, perceiving domain satisfactions
as dependent on general OvLS (Diener 1984; Leonardi et al. 2005; Mihalache 2008).
The first argument builds on a simple explanation: when specific needs are fulfilled, the
corresponding domain satisfaction increases. This implicitly leads to increasing the OvLS.
Factors such as good health, decent accommodation, access to comfortable heating, and an
inclusive social life increase the subjective views of quality of life leading to higher life
satisfaction. Life satisfaction becomes a sum of the satisfaction scores reported in various
domains (Andrews and Withey 1976; Campbell et al. 1976; Diener 1984; Schimmack et al.
2002); some studies that analyze life satisfaction using EQLS data have also adopted this
approach (Böhnke 2005; Delhey 2004). By contrast, the top-down approach emphasizes
the importance of general personality factors, which are stable over a longer period of time
and determine certain levels of life satisfaction. Objective conditions explain only little
variation in subjective well-being (Andrews and Withey 1976). Therefore, the bottom-up
approach is insufficient to explain the levels of both domain satisfactions and of the OvLS
(Costa and McRae 1980; Diener 1984). Alternatively, studies suggest that life satisfaction
is rooted in personality traits and is a predisposition to being happy, content, and satisfied;
therefore, by controlling for objective conditions, satisfaction remains stable over time,
irrespective if OvLS or any domain satisfaction are considered (Brief et al. 1993; Rode
2004; Schimmack et al. 2002). Since the overall life-satisfaction is generic in nature and
more closely related to latent personality traits, it should determine the domain satisfac-
tions; however, this contrasts with the bottom-up model.
The two approaches may be simultaneously true. One should consider two causal paths.
On the one hand, controlling for objective conditions, each domain satisfaction contributes
to the more generic OvLS. On the other hand, OvLS influences domain satisfaction, owing
to stable personality traits, which might be closer to it as compared to the more specific
domain satisfactions. This paper refers to such an approach as the ‘‘pure simultaneity
model’’.
Some of these attempts to formulate such a model focused on specific OvLS–DS pairs
(such as, for instance, the relation between the OvLS and the satisfaction with health) and
treat them separately from any other pair (Headey et al. 1991). Such models do not
consider in the same time several domain satisfactions, but treat them as separate objects,
without proposing an integrated simultaneous approach.
Cummins (2003) argued that life satisfaction is normative, and varies around a certain
societal average value. People tend to adjust their levels of life satisfaction to the levels of
those around them. The argument is the one of the social comparison theory (Festinger
1954; Michalos 1985; Suls and Wheeler 2012). People live in collectivities, internalize
their standards, and constantly refer them as orientation frameworks. One may equally
apply the same rationale to the OvLS and to any domain satisfaction as well. Such pro-
cesses can occur only simultaneously. Thus, they should be treated as interdependent to
avoid cognitive dissonance and status inconsistency. The high intercorrelations between

123
 B. Voicu

OvLS and DS (Casas et al. 2004; Lance et al. 1989; Hsieh 2008) are therefore normal and
reflect such interdependency. From a different perspective, a system of homeostatic con-
trols contributes to the stability of life satisfaction over time (Cummins et al. 2012). Each
individual is said to have a set point, which is genetically predetermined. Since all domain
satisfaction are interrelated and contribute to OvLS, the set point will affect every aspect of
life.
In an attempt to fit the bottom-up approach using SEM, Rode and Near (2005) allowed
covariations among the error terms of the indicators for domain satisfactions. The inclusion
of all covariances in the model may indicate that they are interdependent. On the other
hand, it highlights the presence of a common latent trait used to explain all the domain
satisfactions. This suggests the potential for setting up a fourth type of model, which
integrates the top-down and bottom-up approaches as well as the pure simultaneity model.
This model simply identifies the factor common to explain the variation of both the domain
satisfactions and the OvLS. This approach is similar to that of the top-down model;
however, it conceives the OvLS as determined by the common factor and does not treat it
as the driver for the satisfactions with the life-facets.
Figure 1 summarizes this section. It presents the basic relationships implied by the four
theoretical models. The next section presents a comparison of the models using a slightly
altered approach, which also includes the priming effects.

3 Priming Effects and Measuring Satisfaction

Measurement issues may affect the quality of the empirical data, and may hinder the
capacity of the researcher to validate the OvLS–DS models, irrespectively of the con-
ceptual approach. I argue in the following that priming effects may have such an impact,
and top-down, bottom-up, and simultaneous models should be amended accordingly.
Cognitive psychology documents priming effects as a ‘‘process by which activated
mental constructs can influence how individuals evaluate other concepts and ideas’’
(Domke et al. 1998, 52). Put simply, when one reads or sees something, a certain cognitive
schema is activated, which later becomes a framework to interpret or perceive other
stimuli. Extensive literature discusses the effects of media on public opinions and even
values, consumer behavior (Harris et al. 2009), and political attitudes (Althaus and Kim
2006; Domke et al. 1998). In the latter case, media discourses set up a clear framework of
reference that tends to filter specific cognition and trigger consistent responses (Kim et al.
2010). Semantic priming effects have also attracted significant attention (Hutchison et al.
2013; Ortells et al. 2007). Studies have proved they are driving factor in memory orga-
nization and information retrieval, thereby shaping memory activation. Words can be an
important stimulus to activate cognitive patterns, making them salient for immediate
subsequent choices. This becomes essential in assessing survey results, particularly when
measuring attitudes or subjective evaluations. In such cases, respondents face a succession
of stimuli, most of which are semantic. Stimuli experienced first are likely to influence
answers to subsequent questions.
Tourangeau and Rasinski (1988) proposed that priming effects arise from four pro-
cesses. First, the initial questions in a survey offer a pattern to interpret later stimuli,
influencing responses to successive questions. Second, they make some beliefs more
salient, priming them, pushing them closer to be accessed in the process of retrieving
information. For example, when measuring domain satisfaction, one is asked about the
level of satisfaction with his/her social life. The answer to this question will trigger a

123
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

Top-Down Boom-Up

Pure Simultaneity Common Factor

Fig. 1 Graphic display of the four explanatory models WITHOUT priming effects

certain propensity to provide non-redundant and consistent responses to subsequent

questions. If the immediately subsequent question targets another domain of satisfaction
(for example, satisfaction with one’s standard of living), the answer to the second question
is influenced by the response to the first one (social life) and this occurs at an extent higher
than the mere association or causation implied by the models in Fig. 1. Third, ‘‘prior items
can suggest a norm or standard of comparison for making the judgment’’ (Tourangeau and
Rasinski 1988, 299); this draws the same conclusion as above. Fourth, prior questions
impose pressure on consistency, which in the case of similar and strongly correlated
measures can further increase the correlation between resulting indicators.
Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the fact that priming effects are only one of the factors
that triggers responses to a survey and that they merely add to the on-spot development of
the answers (Tourangeau et al. 2000). Some studies argue that respondents retain little, if
any, of the prior questions and react spontaneously to every new stimulus (Feldman and
Lynch 1988). However, research also shows that priming effects are likely to be found in
various set-ups, including those measuring subjective well-being (Kaplan et al. 2013).

123
 B. Voicu

Kaplan et al. (2013) examined measures for job-related satisfaction and demonstrated that
asking generic satisfaction questions first and more specific ones last induces a stronger
covariance between the two measures, after controlling for few effects, than when
reversing the order of the items. This shows that certain sequence effects must exist when
measuring domain satisfactions. Priming effects, as defined in this paper, can be the
explanation, although they were not considered as such by the mentioned scholars.
Satisfaction and well-being are dynamic. They depend on various influences and may
slightly differ by person and time period, depending on the event (Diener 1994). By
combining them—the expected strong correlations between the various measures of sub-
jective well-being and the potential priming effects—one reaches the main hypothesis of
this paper: measuring domain satisfactions using a sequence of questions that investigate
satisfaction with the various life facets is subject to the presence of priming effects. In other
words, irrespective of the model used to test for the relationship between domain satis-
factions and for how they interconnect to OvLS, one will find significant priming effects.

Common factor: employed respondents (EQLS) Common factor: employed respondents (RES)

Common factor: respondents without a job (EQLS)

Fig. 2 Examples of explanatory models INCLUDING priming effects

123
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

4 Method and Data

To validate the hypothesis, this study employs models with and without priming effects
and compares the results. If the model better fits data when priming effects are included
and the priming effects are significant, there is a need to control for them. The primary data
source is the EQLS. The EQLS is a survey conducted every 4 years across-Europe. It
conducts face-to-face interviews with national representative samples inquiring about
various aspects related to subjective well-being. To date, data for three waves are available
(2003, 2007, and 2011). Some countries are covered in only one wave, a few are inves-
tigated twice, but the most are included in every wave. For comparative reasons explained
below, this study excludes from the data countries that were not consecutively surveyed in
the three waves. The 28 countries that are part of the all three samples, include all the
current European Union member-states, except Croatia, but including Turkey (Table 2).
EQLS includes the question: All things considered, how satisfied would you say you are
with your life these days? The participants were asked to rate their satisfaction on a scale of
1–10. After about 30 items, they were asked to rate how satisfied they were with their
education, present job, present standard of living, accommodation, family life, health, and
social life. These seven measures of domain satisfactions were recorded in the same order
for all respondents. Various approaches can used to explain the relationship between the
seven domain satisfactions, and their connection with the OvLS. These include the models
depicted in Fig. 1. The hypothesis about the presence of priming effects means that one
should also consider other relations in these models. More precisely, additional causal
relation should be added to the models, as explained in Fig. 2. They indicate that the
answer to the first life-facet question (satisfaction with own education) sets up a certain
framework of reference in which the answer to the second question (satisfaction with own
present job) is answered. In turn, the choice at the second question determines the third and
so on.
The models illustrated in Fig. 1 do not include priming effects. The bottom-up approach
is a simple regression model, in which the more general question of OvLS is explained as
resulting from the seven indicators of satisfaction with the life-facets. The top-down
approach is the opposite. In general, the top-down approach should be designed such that it
mirrors the bottom-up model; however, this would lead to the same results. Therefore, for
the purpose of this study, a second latent variable was added to the model. This variable
can be considered the common factor that explains the domain satisfactions and, in turn, it
is explained by the OvLS. This model is the one developed in subsequent analyses as
illustration for the top-down approach. Apart from it, I tested another variation for the top-
down approach, which reversed the direction of the arrow between the two latent variables.
In such a case, the OvLS becomes an indicator of the latent factor of life satisfaction,
which has a formative impact on each domain satisfaction. However, this model simply
replicates, with slightly worse fit, the common factor model.
The pure simultaneity model combines the first two approaches and includes the
dependency of OvLS on domain satisfaction and that of each domain satisfaction on OvLS.
The common factor model is the simplest and assumes that a latent predisposition to be
satisfied determines all domain satisfactions and the OvLS.
Using the common factor model, Fig. 2 shows examples on how priming effects are
added. As argued above, priming effects mean the simple dependency created from the first
DS-based question to the second, the second to the third, the third to the fourth, and so on.
A potential drawback of this approach is that the covariance between consecutive domain
satisfactions is not artificially induced by the order of questions, but in fact is a real one. In

123
 B. Voicu

other words, the dependency of job satisfaction (the second question in EQLS) on satis-
faction with education (the first recorded domain satisfaction) can be legitimate. Therefore
the arrow that connects the two in Fig. 2 would not be a (mere) indication of priming
effects, but would have substantial meaning. There is a well-known solution to avoid
measurement bias caused by question ordering in average estimates. This involves ran-
domly rotating the questions from one respondent to another (Krosnick and Alwin 1987;
Schuman and Presser 1981). RES collected data from a sample of adult citizens imme-
diately after the legislative elections in December 2012 and used this method to measure
domain satisfaction. The general question on OvLS, the same seven variables of domain
satisfactions, and an additional item (satisfaction with political life) were asked at the
beginning of the interview. The question on the OvLS was always asked first, but all the
other items were rotated. Models similar to those in Fig. 1 can also be adopted with the
additional variable, satisfaction with political life.
A quasi-experimental design with respect to the order of questions should be conducted
to test for priming effects. Instead of using the satisfaction with education, the satisfaction
with present job, the satisfaction with heath, etc., the life-facet variables were recoded such
as to tap for: satisfaction with the domain about the questionnaire asked firstly, no matter
which this would be; satisfaction with the second one, again irrespectively of which is the
actual life-facet that was measured; etc. In this way, models similar to those in Fig. 2 can
be developed. The relationships between domain satisfactions, OvLS, and the latent
variables can be included in the model, but their substantial meaning would disappear.
They will capture only generic relationships between various constructs related to sub-
jective well-being, and therefore, are expected to be weaker. On their turn, the priming
effects are not likely to depend on the substantial meaning of the items, but only to their
quality to be successive, and to the assumption that they are interrelated. Therefore, when
recoding the variables, this meaning is not lost. In this case, the relationships depicted in
Fig. 2 through the arrows that connect a domain satisfaction to another, tap mainly for the
presence of biases induced by the order of questions. An alternative solution is to imagine a
multi-group approach considering each ordering pattern as a group. However, pragmatic
reasons impede such an approach: 1,248 cases are nested in 704 ordering patterns and most
of them include a maximum of two cases.
Another important modeling issue is the inclusion of job satisfaction among the
investigated life-facets. In the case of those a respondents which had no occupation at the
time of the interview, the rule asked to skip the question. This divides the sample in two
groups: the employed ones who answer all the questions, and those without an occupation.
For the latter, the priming effect goes directly from satisfaction with education to satis-
faction with the standard of living.
The analytic strategy includes several steps. First, I use EQLS data for Romania to test
the four models from Fig. 1. Initially, only data collected from respondents who have
occupation were considered. The models’ goodness of fit was tested using Amos 22.
Pairwise deletion was used to estimate the covariance matrices. Less than 5 % of the cases
were omitted. Measurement invariance was tested across waves to check for the stability of
the models. Configural invariance was checked to test for a consistent structure that
connects the variables. Next, the stability of factor loadings and intercepts were tested
(metric and scalar invariance). The stability of priming effects was also tested. This process
was repeated for the models including priming effects and the results were compared. The
same was done for the respondents without occupation. In this step, only EQLS data for
Romania were analyzed, so that the results can be compared to those of RES, in which the
order of questions was rotated. The idea was not to compare the fit of the models, since

123
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

they are not nested, but to check if they do fit the data and if the priming effects are
significant. However, as secondary outcome, a certain comparison of the models arise from
the analysis and may help to better understanding the OvL–DS relationship.
In a second stage, the same was done using RES data, and comparisons were made.
Third, the models were replicated for the remaining 27 countries that participated in all
three EQLS waves. The results can help understand whether priming effects are observed
in all societies. Finally, invariance is checked for across the countries.
Due to space constraints, Table 1 displays a limited number of descriptive statistics. The
statistics indicate that although there is important variation across the countries (within the
EQLS waves), there is minimal variation within them (across waves). The next section
shows if the stability of country-averages to be noticed in Table 1 may also be an indi-
cation for the stability of the explanatory models.

5 Findings

5.1 Romanian EQLS Data

A first inspection of the variables of interest reveals average values that typically fall
between 6.0 and 8.0, which are similar across samples for both domain satisfactions and
OvLS. The bivariate correlations between the items vary substantially, from 0.22 to 0.80,
but seem strong enough to indicate that the relationships between these measures of
subjective well-being are worth a thorough examination.
The first step was to test the models’ goodness of fit and invariance, for the subsample
that included only respondents with occupation. Considering the three waves of the EQLS,
when not including priming effects, the configural invariance is rejected for almost all the
models. In most cases, not only RMSEA and CFI (reported in Table 2) but also TLI, IFI,
PCLOSE, and other goodness of fit indices are outside the conventionally acceptable
thresholds. This means that none of the models provides a satisfactory explanation for the
data distribution. The only notable exception is the common factor model, in which some
of the goodness of fit measures exceed the more permissive thresholds (CFI [0.90;
RMSEA \0.8; see Chen 2007; Comşa 2010); however, indexes such as PCLOSE and TLI
reject the model. The same applies to the models that refer only to the respondents
(Table 3). In this case, the bottom–up, top–down, and pure-simultaneity models were
rejected, whereas the common factor model marginally exceeded the permissive
thresholds.
When including the priming effects, the goodness of fit substantially increases for all the
models. This occurs mainly for the goodness of fit indicators that test the saturated model
(e.g., CFI or IFI). In these cases, the increase is normal because adding the priming effects
means including supplementary relationships in the model. However, better fit is also
indicated by other types of indicators: RMSEA decreases for most of the tested models,
while the parsimony-adjusted measures such as PNFI and PCFI increase. The information
criteria, AIC and BIC, decrease as well. All these indicate that when adding priming
effects, the models become more adequate to explain the empirical evidence. In most
cases, the differences in Chi squares are indeed significant.
On the other, as explained in the next paragraphs, according to the usual thresholds
(Chen 2007), only few models are acceptable in contrast to the observed data. In other
words, the increase in the goodness of fit indicators is selective, and it may lead to
satisfactory models depending on how the model is conceptualized. This reduces the

123
 Table 1 Descriptives
EQLS Overall life satisfaction (average) N (respondents with no occupation) N (respondents with occupation)

2003 2007 2011 2003 2007 2011 2003 2007 2011

123
Austria 7.85 6.95 7.66 480 514 468 527 529 564
Belgium 7.52 7.54 7.38 536 523 540 469 487 473
Bulgaria 4.47 5.01 5.55 579 542 539 428 488 461
Cyprus 7.22 7.05 7.16 242 441 533 356 562 473
Czech Rep. 6.57 6.59 6.43 437 529 450 558 698 562
Germany 7.36 7.16 7.2 597 1,038 1,661 455 970 1,394
Denmark 8.47 8.48 8.37 436 443 515 563 561 509
Estonia 5.94 6.72 6.28 277 453 531 314 570 471
Greece 6.69 6.58 6.16 558 531 610 444 469 394
Spain 7.49 7.25 7.47 562 532 891 443 483 621
Finland 8.14 8.23 8.08 465 492 490 532 510 530
France 6.96 7.32 7.23 496 763 1,144 537 774 1,126
Hungary 5.94 5.59 5.77 557 546 550 444 454 474
Ireland 7.7 7.59 7.39 501 466 556 489 534 495
Italy 7.22 6.59 6.88 533 774 1,199 471 742 1,051
Lithuania 5.44 6.32 6.7 517 457 611 484 547 523
Luxembourg 7.69 7.9 7.79 292 506 458 313 498 547
Latvia 5.57 6.04 6.24 510 513 513 494 489 496
Malta 7.32 7.56 7.23 281 524 541 322 476 460
Netherlands 7.55 7.87 7.69 491 400 461 559 611 547
Poland 6.16 6.89 7.07 608 861 1,265 392 639 997
Portugal 5.99 6.19 6.77 487 478 565 511 522 448
Romania 6.12 6.47 6.73 615 536 918 415 464 624
Sweden 7.89 8.34 8.03 446 391 481 554 626 526
B. Voicu
 Table 1 continued

EQLS Overall life satisfaction (average) N (respondents with no occupation) N (respondents with occupation)

2003 2007 2011 2003 2007 2011 2003 2007 2011

Slovenia 7.04 7.23 6.95 292 537 573 309 498 435
Slovakia 5.66 6.68 6.39 514 504 465 557 624 535
UK 7.42 7.29 7.29 523 710 1,135 489 797 1,117
Turkey 5.62 6.2 6.61 662 1,359 1,405 334 641 630
RES2012
Romania 6.08 (2.42) 432 816
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

123
123
Table 2 Goodness-of-fit measures for testing invariance
Type of Top-down Bottom-up Pure-simultaneity Common factor
invariance
No priming With priming No priming With priming No priming With priming No priming With priming

CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA

Configural 0.864 0.079 0.925 0.070 0.201 0.254 0.781 0.083 0.717 0.137 0.774 0.153 0.901 0.068 0.968 0.046
Full metric 0.914 0.066 0.887 0.065 0.955 0.047
Partial metric 0.923 0.069
Full scalar 0.884 0.067 0.839 0.070 0.925 0.054
Partial scalar 0.909 0.071 0.869 0.071
Structural weights 0.81 0.080 0.856 0.072 0.918 0.055

Romanian EQLS samples (2003, 2007, 2011): only employed respondents

B. Voicu
 Table 3 Goodness-of-fit measures for testing invariance
Type of Top-down Bottom-up Pure-simultaneity Common factor
invariance
No priming With priming No priming With priming No priming With priming No priming With priming

CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

Configural 0.880 0.081 0.933 0.075 0.189 0.194 0.790 0.128 0.652 0.174 0.256 0.342 0.910 0.071 0.962 0.057
Full metric 0.919 0.070 0.898 0.066 0.953 0.053
Partial metric 0.936 0.075 0.904 0.070
Full scalar 0.894 0.069 0.866 0.068 0.929 0.056
Partial scalar 0.924 0.073 0.890 0.070
Structural weights 0.795 0.079 0.853 0.069 0.905 0.056

Romanian EQLS samples (2003, 2007, 2011), all respondents, job satisfaction not considered

123
 B. Voicu

probability that the noticed increase in fit after adding the priming effects would be a mere
artefact the models.
For the bottom-up and pure simultaneity models,1 the goodness-of-fit indicators prove
that configural invariance is not acquired. That is, these models do not manage to explain
in the same way, for each moment in time, the patterns followed by the associations
between the considered items. In other words, they are not stable interpretations of the
relationships between life satisfaction and domain satisfactions. The top-down model with
priming effects and the common factor model without priming effects are acceptable
according to the mentioned more permissive threshold, while only the common factor
model with priming effects passes the more restrictive thresholds.
The absence of configural invariance simply means that the relationships among vari-
ables fluctuated across years. In particular, for the bottom-up and pure simultaneity models,
with no latent variable except the error terms, the invariance can be of lesser importance.
The explained variance for the predicted manifest variables should be also considered. In
the case of the pure simultaneity models, the squared multiple correlations for each
indicator of domain satisfaction and for the OvLS were examined. Next, for each year, the
models with priming effects were compared with those excluding them. In the case of
employed population, for all three EQLS waves (2003, 2007, and 2011), the results were
similar: the explained variance for almost all the variables increases when priming effects
are included. In absolute terms, the domain satisfactions explain between 60 and 70 % of
the variation in OvLS. The explanation for respondents’ satisfaction with each domain
varies from 5 to 40 %. In all the cases, the increase is between 5 and 15 %. This indicates
that, under the assumption of the pure simultaneity models, including priming effects in the
measurement models enhances the capacity to explain the considered variables.
When examining the bottom-up approach and the squared multiple correlations for the
OvLS itself, the results are mixed. In 2003, adding priming effects decreases the explained
variance from 47 to 34 %. In 2007, it decreases from a model to another from 34 to 18 %.
However, in 2011, the explained variance increases from 28 to 34 %. Therefore, in the case
of the bottom-up models, it is unclear if the inclusion of priming effects adds explanatory
power.
The priming effects included in the models are positive and significant, as expected. The
strongest tend to be those from job satisfaction to satisfaction with the standard of living,
respectively from satisfaction with the standard of living to satisfaction with accommo-
dation. The order of the questions related to these variables is generally positioned at
second, third, and fourth.
For most models for which no configural invariance was reached, the goodness of fit
indexes were unacceptable even when analyzing a single EQLS wave. This means that the
theoretical model does not fit the empirical evidence in any wave, which is an even
stronger result than the lack of configural invariance. Inclusion of priming effects tends to
marginally increase the goodness of fit for these models.
Priming effects were also added for the models that excluded the question on job
satisfaction; however, little change was found in the results. The models with priming
effects are better off, except for the pure simultaneity model, for which the fit was
extremely low regardless. In all the models, the priming effects are significant and positive,
as expected.

1
For all the pure-simultaneity models that are non-recursive, the stability indexes are \1. With some
caution (see Kline 2006, 59), this means that the estimates can be analyzed as such. When not including
priming effects, minimization is unsuccessful, indicating the extremely poor fit of the model.

123
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

The next step was to further inspect the invariance of the three sets of models, which
achieved configural invariance. The top-down model passed the test of metric invariance,
implying that the manner in which the indicators load on the latent variables is similar to
all the three waves. However, the fit is acceptable only when working with lenient
thresholds, and even in this case, only partial metric invariance is achieved.
For the models where configural invariance was reached, but metric or scalar invariance
was not achieved, partial scalar models were designed. To do so, the constraints imposed
on the loadings, intercepts, and were released for all domain satisfactions (except satis-
faction with the standard of living and satisfaction with own education; the loading for the
latter was set to 1). Still, the fit was rather poor for the top-down model with priming
effects and the common factor model without priming effects. Tables 2 and 3 show that
only the common factor model with priming effects achieve metric and scalar invariance,
both when including and excluding unemployed respondents.
Summing up, the findings based on analyzing the Romanian data from EQLS, show that
priming effects are present and significant when measuring domain satisfaction. However,
this could simply be due to a relationship among the life listed in EQLS question.
Therefore, the experiment of rotating the items is necessary to shed more light on these
findings, which brings us to RES.

5.2 RES Data

The RES models are slightly different because the scale includes an additional variable,
satisfaction with political life. The order of the questions is also different. The life-facets
where randomly ordered when measuring domain satisfactions, and the OvLS question was
posed immediately before. However, Fig. 2 illustrated no substantial difference between
the EQLS-based and RES-based models.
In the case of the RES data, irrespective of respondents’ occupation or the exclusion of
priming effects, the top-down, bottom-up, and pure simultaneity models do not fit the data.
After adding priming effects, the fit increased in the bottom-up and top-down models, but
reduced in the pure–simultaneity model. Beyond these changes, it remained far from being
acceptable.
The common factor models have satisfactory indexes of fit in the case of whole sample,
when excluding job satisfaction (Table 4). Adding priming effects does not change the fit
and the Chi square of difference is not significant (results not shown). The results differ for
employed respondents. Both models have acceptable fit, but the values are marginally
better after adding priming effects and the Chi square difference is 13.22, significant at
0.032 (8 degrees of freedom).
Beyond the results on the goodness of fit, the strength of the priming effects is key.
First, I examined the common factor models that have a good fit to the data. For the model
that encompasses to the entire population, all priming effects that connect domain-satis-
factions are positive and significant. However, in almost all cases, their standardized values
are lower as compared to the regression weights, through which the latent factor explains
the domain satisfactions. In other words, priming effects have been observed, but their
strength is too low to provide substantial explanations. On the other hand, priming effect
from OvLS on the first measure of a domain satisfaction (DS1) is negative. The same holds
true for the sample of employed respondents. In this latter case, all other priming effects
continue to be positive, but are not significant.
The priming effects for the other models (top-down, bottom-up, and simultaneity) are
significant, positive, and lower than the other weights included in the model. The important

123
123
Table 4 Goodness of fit measures for the models run on the RES2012 sample
Sample Top-down Bottom-up Pure-simultaneity Common Factor

No priming With priming No priming With priming No priming With priming No priming With priming

CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA CFI RMSEA

Only employed 0.877 0.110 0.880 0.229 0.290 0.265 0.665 0.210 0.508 0.255 0.605 0.280 0.994 0.025 0.996 0.023
respondents
all respondents, 0.810 0.122 0.730 0.168 0.335 0.229 0.741 0.165 0.288 0.274 0.435 0.300 0.957 0.059 0.947 0.077
job satisfaction
not considered
B. Voicu
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

difference is that the priming effect from the OvLS on the first measure of a domain
satisfaction DS is no longer negative.
In sum, adding priming effects increases the fit of the model to the data. The signifi-
cance of priming effects between the domain-satisfactions is as expected, but the size of
the effects is not powerful enough to provide substantial explanation. In other words, even
when rotating the order of questions, priming effects tend to remain constant, confirming
the initial hypothesis.

5.3 EQLS Data: A Comparative Perspective

Using EQLS data, one can check for measurement invariance for the remaining 27
countries, data for which are available for all three waves. First, I discuss the findings of
the common factor model, which based on the Romanian results is the most reliable. Then I
briefly address other models. Each country was treated separately and was treated in the
same way as the Romanian case.
For most of the countries, when excluding priming effects in the models, configural
invariance was rejected (Table 5). After adding priming effects, full scalar invariance was
plausible or at least partial scalar invariance was reached. In countries such as Latvia or
Hungary, in which configural invariance cannot be achieved without controlling for
priming effects, adding the priming effects led to metric invariance. In most of the
countries, even the priming effects were invariant over time. In other words, the effect does
not change from one EQLS wave to another, which indicates remarkable stability of and
consistency in the response patterns.
In the case of the common-factor models that do not include priming effects, scalar
invariance was reached only in Finland, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Even in these cases,
invariance was achieved only for the respondents without a job, and the relaxed criteria for
the indexes of fit were employed. In contrast, adding priming effects immediately resulted
in scalar invariance in almost all societies. As in the case of Romania, the priming effects
were positive and most of the time significant, but lower than the loadings of each domain
satisfaction on the latent variable that depicts satisfaction.
In general, the other three types of models failed to provide any type of invariance over
time. Therefore, compared to the other tested explanations, the common factor model
better describes the data distribution. Attempts have also been made to develop an
explanatory model that is invariant across countries, that is, a model that similarly explains
the relationships between OvLS and each variable of DS and that among the domain
satisfactions themselves; however, such an attempt failed. Even configural invariance
seems impossible to be reached with empirical data provided by the EQLS waves.

6 Discussion

This paper jointly used insights from existing literature on priming effects and on sub-
jective well-being. It assumed that since domain satisfactions and OvLS are strongly inter-
connected measures, collecting quantitative data using a set of consecutive questions can
be influenced by the DS variable recorded first. Empirical evidence revealed that the first
question, irrespective of the domain satisfaction, establishes a strong framework of ref-
erence to guide the respondents’ choices with respect to the remaining variables. There-
fore, responses to subsequent domain satisfactions depend on first life-facet that a
respondent is required to evaluate.

123
 B. Voicu

Table 5 Overview of the findings for the 27 countries to be surveyed three times by EQLS: type of
invariance for the common-factor-model
Whole sample, no job-satisfaction Employed respondents

Without priming With priming Without priming with priming

AT Partial metrica Full scalar Configurala Full scalar

a
BE Partial metric Full scalar None Full scalar
BG Partial metrica Full metric/partial scalara Configurala Full metrica
CY Partial metrica Full scalara None Full scalar
a
CZ Configural Full scalar None Full scalar
DE Configurala Full scalar Configurala Full scalar
DK Full metrica Full scalar None Full scalar
EE Configurala Full scalar Configurala Full scalar
EI Partial scalara Full scalar None Full scalar
ES None Full metric/partial scalara Configurala Full scalar
FI Full scalara Full scalar None Full scalar
FR Partial metrica Full scalar None Full scalar
GR Partial metrica Full scalar Configurala Full scalara
HU None Full scalara None Full scalar
a
IT Configural Full metric/full scalara Full metrica Full scalar
LT Partial metrica Full scalar Configurala Full scalar
a
LU Partial metric Full scalar Configurala Full scalara
LV None Full scalar None Full scalar
MT Partial metrica Full scalar None Full scalar
NL Full scalara Full scalar Partial metrica Full scalar
a
PL Partial metric Full scalar Partial metrica Full scalar
SE Partial metrica Full scalar Configurala Full scalara
a
SK None Full scalar None Full scalar
SL None Full scalar None Full scalar
TR Configurala Full scalar None Full scalar
UK Partial scalara Full scalar Partial scalara Full scalar
a
relaxed criteria (RMSEA \ 0.08; IFI [ 0.900)

Various theoretical models of dependency between the satisfaction with each life-facet
and the OvLS were tested. The aim was not to find the best possible explanation, but to
simply have decent conceptual explanation to assess the impact of priming effects.
However, as a secondary outcome, only one model was deemed as an adequate fit to the
data, the common factor model. As opposed to the top-down and bottom-up approaches,
the common factor model assumes that a common trait can be used to explain both the
OvLS and the satisfactions with life-facets. This model proved to be the most reliable of
the tested theoretical explanations. Therefore, this paper suggests that an integrated
approach to the OvLS–DS relationship can be more productive than the top-down and
bottom-up approaches. However, identifying the most appropriate approach is beyond the
scope of this study. For the purposes of this paper, it was important to test the presence of
priming effects under different conceptual assumptions. Thus, priming effects were con-
sidered in modeling, irrespective of the approach. The indexes of fit generally increase

123
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

when prior relationships between variables are included in the models. Most of the prior
effects are significant, and the RES experiment shows that this is not due to randomly
added covariances. To assess which theoretical explanation facilitates a greater under-
standing of the empirical data, further testing including the control for objective conditions,
is needed.
In all the tested models, priming effects had the expected direction and strength. The
answer to the first domain-satisfaction question triggers a tendency to answer in a similar
manner to subsequent ones. The same holds true for the third, fourth, fifth, etc. satisfaction
with life-facets. Both the EQLS data and RES experimental design of rotating the order of
questions led to similar conclusions. The priming effects, however, are much weaker in
size than the other relationships included in the models.
In other words, when analyzing relationships among the variables or when explaining
any of the domain-satisfactions, priming effects can be ignored. However, when comparing
one domain satisfaction variable with another, the position of a question within the order
can create a bias. A random rotation of questions can solve this, as demonstrated by the
RES experiment. Nonetheless, further testing is necessary to identify if specific random-
izing procedures are more efficient than the others.
Additionally, random rotation solves only the problem of comparing aggregate mea-
sures, such as the estimates for an entire population. When referring to the level of a single
respondent, the presence of priming effects hinders the comparison of responses based on
any DS variable pair. This merits further analysis such as breaking the domain-satisfaction
battery of questions and spreading them across the questionnaire. Alternatively, a lower
number of random ordering patterns can be used. In such a case, one may also adopt a
multi-group approach, in which the groups are defined by ordering patterns. If there is no
significant difference across such groups, then the priming effects are independent of the
order and are unaffected by other relationships between the domains of life.
In conclusion, the primary finding remains that EQLS users should be aware of priming
effects in the measurements of OvLS and of domain-satisfactions. To identify the general
trend of respondents’ declared satisfaction in any country, future studies must consider
computing the means of latent variables in the common factor model. The proven scalar
invariance allows such an approach, but it cannot be employed for cross-country analyses
due to the mentioned lack of invariance.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the CNCS-UEFISCDI grants PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0210

and PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0669. The author thanks Paula Tufiş, Marian Vasile and Mircea Comşa for
valuable comments on early versions of the paper.

References

Althaus, S. L., & Kim, Y. M. (2006). Priming effects in complex information environments: Reassessing the
impact of news discourse on presidential approval. Journal of Politics, 68(4), 960–976.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social Indicators of well-being. Americans’ perceptions of life
quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Biemer, P. P., & Lyberg, L. E. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. New York: Wiley.
Böhnke, P. (2005). First European quality of life survey: Life satisfaction, happiness and sense of belonging.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., George, J. M., & Link, K. E. (1993). Integrating bottom-up and top-down
theories of subjective well-being: The case of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
64(4), 646–653.

123
 B. Voicu

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life perceptions, eval-
uations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Casas, F., Figuer, C., González, M., & Coenders, G. (2004). Satisfaction with life domains and salient values
for future: Data from children and their parents in five different countries. In W. Glatzer, S. von Below,
& M. Stoffregen (Eds.), Challenges for the quality of life in contemporary societies (pp. 233–248).
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cesario, J. (2014). Priming, replication, and the hardest science. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
9(1), 40–48.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.
Christoph, B., & Noll, H. (2003). Subjective well-being in the European Union during the 90s. Social
Indicators Research, 64(3), 521–546.
Comşa, M. (2010). How to compare means of latent variables across countries and waves: Testing for
invariance measurement. An application using eastern European societies. Sociológia, 42(6), 639–669.
Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Costa, P. T., & McRae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being:
Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.
Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principles and methods of social research. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social
Indicators Research, 64(2), 225–256.
Cummins, R. A., Lau, A. L. D., & Davern, M. T. (2012). Subjective wellbeing homeostasis. In K. C. Land,
et al. (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 79–98). Berlin: Springer.
Delhey, J. (2004). Life satisfaction in an enlarged Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research,
31, 103–157.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social
Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.
Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Wackman, D. B. (1998). Media priming effects: Accessibility, association, and
activation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10(1), 51–74.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G, Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement of
belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421–435.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming effects of television food advertising on eating
behavior. Health Psychology, 28(4), 404.
Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-
being. Social Indicators Research, 24(1), 81–100.
Hsieh, C. M. (2008). The relative importance of health. Social Indicators Research, 84(1), 127–137.
Hutchison, K. A., et al. (2013). The semantic priming project. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4),
1099–1114.
Kaplan, S. A., Luchman, J. N., & Mock, L. (2013). General and specific question sequence effects in
satisfaction surveys: Integrating directional and correlational effects. Journal of Happiness Studies,
14(5), 1443–1458.
Kim, S.-H., Han, M., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). Think about him this way: Priming, news media, and South
Koreans’ evaluation of the president. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(3),
299–319.
Kline, R. B. (2006). Reversed arrows dynamics. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural
equation modeling: A second course (pp. 43–68). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response order effects in
survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201–219.
Lance, C. E., Lautenschlager, G. J., Sloan, C. E., & Varca, P. E. (1989). A comparison between bottom-up,
top-down, and bidirectional models of relationships between global and life facet satisfaction. Journal
of Personality, 57(3), 601–624.
Leonardi, F., Spazzafumo, L., & Marcellini, F. (2005). Subjective well-being: The constructionist point of
view. A longitudinal study to verify the predictive power of top-down effects and bottom-up processes.
Social Indicators Research, 70, 53–77.

123
Priming Effects in Measuring Life Satisfaction

Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Citation Classics
from social indicators research. The most cited articles edited and introduced by Alex C. Michalos (pp.
305–372). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Mihalache, F. F. (2008). Top-down vs. bottom-up: Two perspectives in explaining life satisfaction. Calit-
atea vieţii, 1–2, 71–83.
Ortells, J. J., Vellido, C., Daza, M. T., & Noguera, C. (2007). Semantic priming effects with and without
perceptual awareness. Psicológica, 27(2), 225–242.
Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated model.
Human Relations, 57(9), 1205–1230.
Rode, J. C., & Near, J. P. (2005). Spillover between work attitude and overall life attitudes: Myth or reality?
Social Indicators Research, 70(1), 79–100.
Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Life-satisfaction is a momentary judgment and a stable
personality characteristic: The use of chronically accessible and stable sources. Journal of Personality,
70, 345–384.
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question
form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press.
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2012). Social comparison. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 460–482). London: Sage Publications.
Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude
measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Veenhoven, R. (2007). Subjective measures of well-being. In McGillivray (Ed.), Human well-being. Con-
cept and measurement, houndmills, New Hampshire (pp. 214–239). USA: Palgrave/McMillan.
Voicu, B., & Pop, C. (2011). Measurement models of life satisfaction: A SEM approach. Calitatea Vieţii,
2(2011), 137–154.

123