Comparison of Interdependent and Subjective Happiness between Japanese and Thai College Students: A Research Note

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The idea of the article is very good but the text seems not to be finished. On the one hand, the review of the academic literature is very brief. In my opinion the authors (of whom I have not been able to see the name anywhere), should investigate other authors and articles on the literature related to happiness and confront the Western and Eastern visions of these studies to improve the theoretical framework and inform the reader of what are the differences between the visions on the subject. In this article the only thing that is done is to discard or mention that there is a Western vision of happiness to focus on the Eastern vision and leave aside in this way already much of the existing academic literature.

Regarding the structure of the article, comment that it seems correct from the methodological point of view and from the statistical analysis it performs. However, they could have drawn much more from their analysis and more powerful and generalizable conclusions if it were fulfilled that the sample:

·    --   Was bigger,

·   --  If it were composed of the same type of people in the two countries analyzed

This second limitation is already recognized by the (unknown) authors of the study. The different composition of the samples, and their size mean that they cannot give as good information. It could be desirable similar composition of the samples  to improve the information about the similarities or differences in the measurement of happiness between the two countries analyzed.

Finally, the article has the basic problem already mentioned, which is that it is not known who has written it (at least I have not seen it anywhere). As the names of the authors are not recorded, I cannot say if I have any conflict of interest with them, which makes this review have or may have a lower value than it would have to know their names.

For this same reason it is not possible to know if the authors cite themselves in the study and to what extent they do so.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and action editor:

 

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We have attempted to revise the manuscript accordingly. We have prepared our responses to the reviewers’ comments, and inserted our responses to each comment after the arrow (à). The original comments are italicized. After describing the responses, we have outlined the changes made to the manuscript.

 

Dear Reviewer 1:

The idea of the article is very good but the text seems not to be finished. On the one hand, the review of the academic literature is very brief. In my opinion the authors (of whom I have not been able to see the name anywhere), should investigate other authors and articles on the literature related to happiness and confront the Western and Eastern visions of these studies to improve the theoretical framework and inform the reader of what are the differences between the visions on the subject. In this article the only thing that is done is to discard or mention that there is a Western vision of happiness to focus on the Eastern vision and leave aside in this way already much of the existing academic literature.

• We have added information regarding the definition of subjective well-being (or happiness) to the first paragraph of the Introduction. We have also added definitions of independent and interdependent happiness to the second paragraph. With these additions, we wish to improve the theoretical framework and inform the reader of the differences between the visions on the subject. (item 2, item 4, and item 5)

 

Regarding the structure of the article, comment that it seems correct from the methodological point of view and from the statistical analysis it performs. However, they could have drawn much more from their analysis and more powerful and generalizable conclusions if it were fulfilled that the sample:

• -- Was bigger,
• -- If it were composed of the same type of people in the two countries analyzed

This second limitation is already recognized by the (unknown) authors of the study. The different composition of the samples, and their size mean that they cannot give as good information. It could be desirable similar composition of the samples to improve the information about the similarities or differences in the measurement of happiness between the two countries analyzed.

• We have added the necessity of collecting samples with similar compositions to enhance the findings regarding the similarities or differences in the measurement of happiness between Japan and Thailand to the third paragraph of the Discussion. We have also added a limitation that the sample size was rather small and a bigger sample size should be used in future studies. (item 11, item 12)

 

Finally, the article has the basic problem already mentioned, which is that it is not known who has written it (at least I have not seen it anywhere). As the names of the authors are not recorded, I cannot say if I have any conflict of interest with them, which makes this review have or may have a lower value than it would have to know their names. For this same reason it is not possible to know if the authors cite themselves in the study and to what extent they do so.

• Thank you for your feedback. We understand your concern. We contacted the editorial office of the journal and asked if we could include our personal information in the revised manuscript. We were informed that it is not advisable to put such information, to maintain confidentiality. We therefore extend our sincere apologies that we were unable to include the authors’ information.

 

Changes made to the manuscript:

Abstract

1) Lines 12–14. The sentence, “The levels of interdependent and subjective happiness were significantly higher among Thai college students than among their Japanese counterparts” has been corrected as follows: The level of subjective happiness was significantly higher among Thai college students than among their Japanese counterparts, while that of interdependent happiness did not differ.

 

Introduction

2) Lines 22–25. The following sentences have been added: In psychology, subjective well-being has often been used interchangeably with happiness. One of the most frequently cited definitions of subjective well-being comes from Diener (1984), who defined it as the presence of positive affect, the absence of negative affect, and life satisfaction.

 

3) Line 37. The words, “such as Japan (Hitokoto and Uchida 2015) and Thailand (Hitokoto 2014)”, has been corrected to “such as Japan (Hitokoto and Uchida 2015), Thailand (Hitokoto 2014), and Malaysia, Philippines, and India (Tan, Chong, Masanda, and George, 2021).

 

4) Line 39. The following sentence has been added: Hitokoto and Uchida (2015) described interdependent happiness as “basically relationship oriented, and a state of harmony with a certain balance being achieved between the self and significant others.”

 

5) Lines 46–47. The following sentence has been added: Subjective happiness was defined by Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) as “a global, sub-jective assessment of whether one is a happy or an unhappy person.”

 

6) Line 44-. The following sentences have been moved to line 40, after the description of interdependent happiness: The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999) was developed in the United States, a Western country, and is frequently used as an indicator of independent happiness (Gardner et al. 2020). The SHS asks respondents about their level of happiness in comparison with others around them.

 

7) Line 65. The following sentences have been added: However, these studies did not use standardized scales to measure subjective and interdependent happiness directly. Moreover, Kanai (2018) used a happiness scale with only one item.

 

8) Lines 67–68. The sentence “Despite the valuable evidence provided by these cited studies, it remains that little is known about differences in interdependent happiness between Japan and Thailand” has been revised as follows: Consequently, differences in interdependent happiness between Japanese and Thai populations remain unclear.

 

9) The following sentences have been deleted from the third paragraph of the Introduction: Thus, individuals can evaluate how happy they are (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999). Still, this evaluation is highly subjective across individuals, making it so that it does not necessarily correspond to life satisfaction (Horiuchi, Tsuda, Toyoshima, Aoki, & Sakano, 2013; Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & DiMatteo, 2006). Accordingly, comparisons of the results between the studies by Diener et al. (2000) and Kanai (2018) cannot be conducted because they measure different constructs.

 

10) The following sentences have been deleted from the third paragraph of the Introduction: Moreover, the two cited studies had methodological limitations, in that one used a happiness scale with only a single item (Kanai, 2018), and the other used a scale that does not directly assess happiness (Diener et al., 2000).

 

11) Lines 228–229. The following sentence has been added: It is necessary to apply compatible comparable procedures to recruit participants in Japan and Thailand.

 

12) Lines 230–231. The following sentence has been added: It is necessary to recruit a larger sample with a diverse demographic background.

 

13) The following two papers have been added to references:

Diener, Ed. 1984. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 95: 542–75.

Tan, Chee-Seng, Chong Shue-Ling, Masanda Argel Bondoc, and George Sanju. 2021. Psychometric qualities evaluation of the Interdependent Happiness Scale across Malaysia, Philippines, and India. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 187.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The authors often use the term "subjective happiness". The adjective "subjective" immanently implies that there is a counterpart "objective happiness", Is there objective happiness?

- The authors use the terms "happiness" and "interdependent happiness" without defining them or giving an accepted definition with which they identify. What is the validity of a paper in which the key term(s) are not defined?

- Line 54-55: „Thus, individuals can evaluate how happy they are (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999). Still, this evaluation is highly subjective across individuals...” Happiness is an emotion. What should be its evaluation if not highly subjective?

- Line 55-56: "...making it so that it does not necessarily correspond to life satisfaction".Why happiness should correspond to life satisfaction? The evaluation of happiness is affective, the evaluation of satisfaction with life, in other words the evaluation of the quality of life is cognitive. They are thus two different, not identical, not interchangeable phenomena.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and action editor:

 

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We have attempted to revise the manuscript accordingly. We have prepared our responses to the reviewers’ comments, and inserted our responses to each comment after the arrow (à). The original comments are italicized. After describing the responses, we have outlined the changes made to the manuscript.

 

Dear Reviewer 2:

- The authors often use the term "subjective happiness". The adjective "subjective" immanently implies that there is a counterpart "objective happiness", Is there objective happiness?

à Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) defined “subjective happiness” as “a global, subjective assessment of whether one is a happy or an unhappy person”; however, to our knowledge, there is no definition of objective happiness. (item 4)

 

- The authors use the terms "happiness" and "interdependent happiness" without defining them or giving an accepted definition with which they identify. What is the validity of a paper in which the key term(s) are not defined?

à We are grateful to you for highlighting this important point. We agree with your concern that key words of the study should be defined. It is very difficult to define happiness. This is because the manner of defining happiness has received much research attention. We have added one of the most frequently cited definitions of subjective well-being (or happiness) to the first paragraph of the Introduction. We have also added definitions of independent and interdependent happiness to the second paragraph. (item 2, item 4, and item 5)

 

- Line 54-55: „Thus, individuals can evaluate how happy they are (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999). Still, this evaluation is highly subjective across individuals...” Happiness is an emotion. What should be its evaluation if not highly subjective?

à We agree with your comment. We have deleted this sentence to improve clarity. (item 9)

 

- Line 55-56: "...making it so that it does not necessarily correspond to life satisfaction". Why happiness should correspond to life satisfaction? The evaluation of happiness is affective, the evaluation of satisfaction with life, in other words the evaluation of the quality of life is cognitive. They are thus two different, not identical, not interchangeable phenomena.

à One of the most widely accepted definitions of subjective well-being (or happiness) comes from Diener (1984), who defined happiness as the presence of positive affect, the absence of negative affect, and life satisfaction. We wanted to clarify that life satisfaction differs from subjective judgement of whether one is happy or not. As you pointed out, these are different constructs. We rewrote these sentences as follows: However, these studies did not use standardized scales to measure subjective and interdependent happiness directly. Moreover, Kanai (2018) used a happiness scale with only one item.

 

Changes made to the manuscript:

Abstract

1) Lines 12–14. The sentence, “The levels of interdependent and subjective happiness were significantly higher among Thai college students than among their Japanese counterparts” has been corrected as follows: The level of subjective happiness was significantly higher among Thai college students than among their Japanese counterparts, while that of interdependent happiness did not differ.

 

Introduction

2) Lines 22–25. The following sentences have been added: In psychology, subjective well-being has often been used interchangeably with happiness. One of the most frequently cited definitions of subjective well-being comes from Diener (1984), who defined it as the presence of positive affect, the absence of negative affect, and life satisfaction.

 

3) Line 37. The words, “such as Japan (Hitokoto and Uchida 2015) and Thailand (Hitokoto 2014)”, has been corrected to “such as Japan (Hitokoto and Uchida 2015), Thailand (Hitokoto 2014), and Malaysia, Philippines, and India (Tan, Chong, Masanda, and George, 2021).

 

4) Line 39. The following sentence has been added: Hitokoto and Uchida (2015) described interdependent happiness as “basically relationship oriented, and a state of harmony with a certain balance being achieved between the self and significant others.”

 

5) Lines 46–47. The following sentence has been added: Subjective happiness was defined by Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) as “a global, sub-jective assessment of whether one is a happy or an unhappy person.”

 

6) Line 44-. The following sentences have been moved to line 40, after the description of interdependent happiness: The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999) was developed in the United States, a Western country, and is frequently used as an indicator of independent happiness (Gardner et al. 2020). The SHS asks respondents about their level of happiness in comparison with others around them.

 

7) Line 65. The following sentences have been added: However, these studies did not use standardized scales to measure subjective and interdependent happiness directly. Moreover, Kanai (2018) used a happiness scale with only one item.

 

8) Lines 67–68. The sentence “Despite the valuable evidence provided by these cited studies, it remains that little is known about differences in interdependent happiness between Japan and Thailand” has been revised as follows: Consequently, differences in interdependent happiness between Japanese and Thai populations remain unclear.

 

9) The following sentences have been deleted from the third paragraph of the Introduction: Thus, individuals can evaluate how happy they are (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999). Still, this evaluation is highly subjective across individuals, making it so that it does not necessarily correspond to life satisfaction (Horiuchi, Tsuda, Toyoshima, Aoki, & Sakano, 2013; Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & DiMatteo, 2006). Accordingly, comparisons of the results between the studies by Diener et al. (2000) and Kanai (2018) cannot be conducted because they measure different constructs.

 

10) The following sentences have been deleted from the third paragraph of the Introduction: Moreover, the two cited studies had methodological limitations, in that one used a happiness scale with only a single item (Kanai, 2018), and the other used a scale that does not directly assess happiness (Diener et al., 2000).

 

11) Lines 228–229. The following sentence has been added: It is necessary to apply compatible comparable procedures to recruit participants in Japan and Thailand.

 

12) Lines 230–231. The following sentence has been added: It is necessary to recruit a larger sample with a diverse demographic background.

 

13) The following two papers have been added to references:

Diener, Ed. 1984. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 95: 542–75.

Tan, Chee-Seng, Chong Shue-Ling, Masanda Argel Bondoc, and George Sanju. 2021. Psychometric qualities evaluation of the Interdependent Happiness Scale across Malaysia, Philippines, and India. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 187.