Evaluate Myers and diener ‘who is happy’

• Point: methodology

  one strength of Myers and Diener’s research is the use of self-report methods to gather data on subjective well-being (SWB), which allows direct insight into people’s feelings of happiness
• Evidence: methodology

  Although self-report can be affected by social desirability bias, Myers and Diener addressed this by comparing individuals‘ responses with ratings from friends and family, which showed strong agreement
• Evaluate: methodology

  This increased the validity of their findings, as it suggests that self-reports of happiness can be trusted to reflect genuine well-being. however, some psychologists argue that people may repress negative emotions and be unaware of their true feelings, meaning their answers might not be fully accurate
• Link: methodology

  Despite this limitation, the correlation with external ratings provides good support for the reliability of their data, which strengthens the overall credibility of the study
• Point: cultural bias

  A limitation of the study is that much of the data comes from Western, individualistic cultures, which may not generalise to collectivist societies
• Evidence: cultural bias

  Myers and Diener found higher reported happiness in countries like the Netherlands compared to Portugal, but this may reflect cultural differences in expressing happiness rather than actual well-being
• Evaluate: cultural bias

  This makes the research culturally biased, and also socially sensitive, as it risks reinforcing stereotypes about National or ethnic groups. Ethically, participants who are unhappy may also feel more distressed when asked about their well-being, so researchers must take care to debrief and support vulnerable individuals
• Link: cultural bias

  These issues limit the universality and social impact of the findings, showing that while the research offers valuable insights, it must be interpreted with cultural and ethical awareness