Sociological Cultural Studies

Sociological Cultural Studies

A Controversy about Measuring Happiness: Comparative Evaluation of Oxford and Islamic Happiness Questionnaires Based on a Survey Among College Students

Document Type : .

Authors
Seyed Mohsen Mousavi 1
Abolfazl Morshedi 1
somayeh vatankhah 2
1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
2 M.A. in Shia studies, faculty of Theology, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran;
10.30465/scs.2024.45543.2734
Abstract
Introduction
Happiness is one of the deepest and most excellent human positive emotions, which today, the necessity and possibility of understanding and recognizing it at the individual and collective levels, has turned it into one of the most attractive and challenging fields of research. However, despite the serious controversies in the field of defining and measuring happiness, A few studies has addressed the ontological and methodological issues of this issue. The purpose of this research is to compare two different questionnaires (Oxford Happiness Questionnaire and Islamic Happiness Questionnaire) that each claim to measure happiness, with a curious and exploratory look, the level of happiness and its components in a common target society (students of Yazd University). The conceptual framework of the research is based on the analytical dualities of the ontology of happiness, which include "biological-psychological"/"cultural-historical" dimensions (in the Positive dimension) and "hedonistic"/" virtuous" dimensions (in the normative dimension).
Materials & Methods
This research is descriptive in terms of the type of goal it pursues and fundamental in terms of the direction of the research. Also, the research design is a survey type and the data collection tool is structured questionnaires whose validity and reliability have already been confirmed. The statistical population of the research includes all students studying in Yazd University from all faculties in both undergraduate and graduate levels, from whom a sample of 384 people was extracted. Stratified random sampling method was used to reach the sample people. The tools used in this research are two questionnaires of Oxford happiness and Islamic happiness. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire made by Argyle, et al (1989) contains 29 items that were first translated into Persian by Alipour and Nurbala (1999) and its validity and reliability have been confirmed. The Islamic happiness questionnaire is derived from Pasandideh (2012), which includes 44 items, and its validity has been confirmed by Morshidi, et al (2020).
Discussion & Result
The results of the analyzes showed that first, the Pearson correlation coefficient between the average scores of the two questionnaires is equal to 0.68, which is a significant value (at the error level of 0.01) and secondly, the average scores of the students from the Islamic questionnaire (3.76 in the range of 1-5) It is significantly different from their average scores in Oxford happiness (3.07 in the range of 1-5) and is a relatively larger number. Further tests also showed that there is no significant relationship between the variables of gender, age and level of education on the one hand and both the variables of Oxford and Islamic happiness on the other hand. Although the relationship between marital status and Oxford happiness is insignificant, this variable has a significant relationship with the Islamic questionnaire in such a way that according to this questionnaire, married people have a higher level of happiness than single people.
Conclusion
One of the possible reasons for the lower average scores of Oxford happiness compared to Islamic happiness is that in the Oxford questionnaire, a large number of questions are accompanied by words such as "always", "everything", "anything", "anyone", and the like which creates a higher expectation in respondents compared to more balanced questions. Also, using words such as "being extremely happy", "considering the world a great place", "having endless energy", “being on top of the world", "having the ability to do anything" and... in the Oxford questionnaire indicating emotions and feelings that has a high level of arousal. In contrast, the Islamic questionnaire contains items that are often associated with balance, calmness and patience. Another cultural factor in psychometric research is the difference in the degree of "individualism" and "collectivism"(Oishi, 2000). The comparison of the items of the Oxford and Islamic questionnaires also represents this difference. another important cross-cultural difference that should be considered in relation to the measurement of happiness (and other emotions) is The degree of valuing happiness and the desire to feel good and happy in different cultures. People generally tend to be in tune with the norms of their society. Happiness seems to be recognized in Western culture as an independent emotion from other emotions for people, But in the culture of the Eastern societies, this feeling is often understood together with other feelings and is represented in their daily life.
Keywords
Happiness
Oxford happiness questionnaire
Islamic happiness questionnaire
cultural approach
measuring happiness
Subjects
آذربایجانی، مسعود و علی محمدی، کاظم (1389). ساخت و اعتباریابی آزمون شادکامی با تکیه بر اسلام، دوفصلنامه تربیت اسلامی، سال 5، شماره10.
انصاریان، مجتبی (1399). حق بر شادی، جامعه پژوهی فرهنگی، سال 11، شماره 3.
بلیکی، نورمن (1389). استراتژی‌های پژوهش اجتماعی، ترجمه هاشم آقا بیگ پوری، تهران: انتشارات جامعه شناسان.
بیکر، ترزا لی (1381). نحوه انجام تحقیقات اجتماعی، ترجمه هوشنگ نایبی، تهران: انتشارات روش.
پسندیده، عباس (1392). الگوی اسلامی شادکامی با رویکرد مثبت‌گرا، قم: انتشارات دارالحدیث.
جوشن لو، محسن و رستمی، رضا (1389). روان شناسی بین فرهنگی، تهران: انتشارات ارجمند.
داینر، اد و داینر، رابرت (1391). شادی؛ ثروت بیکران روان‌شناختی، ترجمه حسن عبداله‌زاده، طاهر محبوبی و معصومه باقرپور، تهران، نشر آذین مهر.
دولان، پل (1401). طرح و نقشه‌ای برای شادکامی، ترجمه بهنام شهائی، تهران: انتشارات ترجمان.
دیویس، ویلیام (1396). صنعت شادی، ترجمه اعظم ورشوچی فرد، تهران: پارسه.
سلینگمن، مارتین، (1389). شادمانی دورنی، ترجمه مصطفی تبریزی، رامین کریمی و علی نیلوفری، تهران: نشر دانژه.
شومیکر، جان ف. (1391). در جستجوی خوشبختی، ترجمه ابوذر کرمی، تهران: نشر مضمون.
طالبان، محمدرضا (1398). تورش مطلوبیت اجتماعی در پیمایش‌های اجتماعی، راهبرد فرهنگ، دوره 12، شماره 45.
علی‌پور، احمد و نوربالا، احمدعلی (۱۳۷۸). بررسی مقدماتی پایایی و روایی پرسشنامه آکسفورد در دانشجویان دانشگاه‌های تهران: سال پنجم، شماره ۱ و ۲.
علی‌محمدی، کاظم و آذربایجانی، مسعود (1388). بررسی رابطه بین شادکامی اسلامی و شادکامی روانشناختی در دانشجویان دانشگاه قم، روان شناسی و دین، سال2، شماره3.
غضنفری، فیروزه (1385). بهزیستی درونی از دیدگاه بین فرهنگی، فصلنامه روانشناسی، سال دهم، شماره 4.
کار، الان (1385). روان شناسی مثبت؛ علم شادمانی و نیرومندی‌های انسان، ترجمه حسن پاشا شریفی و جعفر نجفی زند، تهران: انتشارات سخن.
کیانپور، مسعود و آقابابایی، احسان (1396). جامعه شناسی احساسات، اصفهان: دانشگاه اصفهان.
مرشدی، ابوالفضل؛ دبیری، احمد؛ موسوی، سیدمحسن و اسحاقی، فهیمه (1398). شاخص‌های سنجش شادکامی: بررسی تطبیقی مدل شادکامی آکسفورد و مدل شادکامی اسلامی. پژوهشنامه روان شناسی اسلامی، سال 5، شماره 11.
موسوی، سید محسن (1392). شادمانی: رویکردهای نظری و یافته‌های تجربی، تهران: انتشارات تیسا.
 
Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2006). Measuring Happiness with a Single-Item Scale. Social Behavior and Personality. 34(2), 139-150.
Argyle, M., Martin, M. & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective, (pp. 189-203). North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of
Dakin, B. C; Tan, N; Conner. T. & Bastian, B. (2022). The Relationship Between Prosociality, Meaning, and Happiness in Everyday Life. Journal of Happiness Studies. 23: 2787-2804.
Diener, E.& Suh , E. (2000). Culture and Subjective Well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diener, E.; Oishi, S.& Lucase, R. E. (2003). Personality, Culture and Subjective Well-being. Emotional Annual Review of Psychology, 54.
Diener, ED. & Lucas, Richard E(2000). Explaining Differences in Levels of Happiness: Relative Standards, Need Fulfillment, Culture, and Evaluation Theory, Journal of Happiness Studies 1: 41-78.
Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M. (2009). Measuring the happiness of large-scale written
expression: Songs, blogs, and presidents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(4), 441-456.
Galati, Dario & Manzona, Mayar & Lgor, Sotgio (2006). The Subjective components of happiness and their attainment: a cross-cultural comparison between Italy and Cuba, Social Science Information, Vol.45 No.4. 601-630.
Mesquita, Batja. Between Us: How Cultures Create Emotions. W. W. Norton & Company,2022.
Myers, D. G, & Diener, E.(1995). Who is Happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19.
Neuman, W.Lawrence(2000), Social Research Method, A Viacom company.
Oishi, S. (2000). Goals as cornerstones of Subjective Well-being: linking Individuals and Cultures. In E. Diener & E. Suh (Eds). Culture and Subjective Well-being. Cambridge& London. The MIT Press.
personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593-603.
Pyne, B.; Dhauria, M.; & Et al. (2020). Bengali translations, reliability assessment and validations of four happiness scales in a representative population from Kolkata, India. The International Journal of Indian Psychology. Volume 8, Issue 4.
Rojas, Mariano(2005). A Conceptual- Referent Theory of Happiness: Heterogeneity and Its Consequences, Social Indicator Research 74:261-294.
Suh, E; & Diener, E. (2000). Self, the hyphen between Culture and Subjective well-being. In E. Diener & E. Suh (Eds). Culture and Subjective Well-being. Cambridge& London. The MIT Press.
Veenhoven, R. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of predictions in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 34, 33-68.
Veenhoven, Ruut(2001). Are the Russians as unhappy as the say they are? Comparability of self-reports across nations, Journal of happiness studies 2: 111-136.
Sociological Cultural Studies
Volume 17, Issue 2 - Serial Number 60
Summer 2026
Spring 2026
Pages 507-539

  • Receive Date 17 May 2023
  • Revise Date 19 June 2024
  • Accept Date 29 June 2024
  • Publish Date 23 August 2026