Final Report

SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS OF ECONOMIC

WELL-BEING: WAVE II 

Cognitive Interviews

Linda L. Stinson

Research Psychologist

April 17, 1998 
2

Subjective Assessments of Economic Well-Being: Wave II

During the past twenty years, many economists and social scientists have shown interest 

in measuring individuals’ assessments of their own economic well-being relative to objective 

financial measures. In some cases, these self-ratings are used in the assessment of poverty; in 

other cases, these ratings are included in ‘quality of life’ measurements. In all cases, there is a 

belief that the actual opinions of people about their own economic situation is a valuable source 

of information, supplying details and finesse to the otherwise faceless information obtained by 

considering the grosser measures of objective income and expense levels. 

Much of the work on subjective measures of economic well-being has focused upon the 

minimum income, income evaluation, and income satisfaction questions used in Europe, Canada, 

Australia, and the United States. However, in previous research conducted by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, the traditional minimum income, income evaluation, and income satisfaction 

questions were found to be somewhat complex and burdensome for respondents and to contain 

ambiguous language and response categories (final report, January, 1997).

Based upon these findings, we tested possible revisions to existing questions, examined 

alternative approaches to the measurement of economic well-being, and began investigating the 

processes by which people assess their income and expenses. This second wave of testing was 

intended to take what we learned from the first phase conducted in 1996 and extend our 

knowledge by:

1. testing new question wording directed at the more problematic aspects of the existing 

questions,

2. testing alternative scales and formats, especially those that are less tied to ambiguous 

verbal categories, and

3. looking at specific components of income and expenses, the assessment of which 

may sum to a global economic assessment.

We conducted forty (40) individual interviews from the greater Washington metroplex, 

all of which were conducted on-site at BLS. Each interview included the following components:

1. two versions of the minimum income question (see Appendix A),

2. three versions of the income evaluation question (see Appendix B),

3. tests of alternative scales for measuring economic well-being,

a. faces scale (see Appendix C),

b. feeling thermometer (see Appendix D),

c. the delighted/terrible Scale (see Appendix E),

d. circles scale (see Appendix F),

e. worry scale (see Appendix G),

f. economic attitudes (see Appendix H),

g. ladder scale (see Appendix I),

h. balance of income and expenses (see Appendix J),

i. positive and negative line (see Appendix K)

j. the pie (see Appendix L).

The interviews were semi-structured cognitive interviews that lasted about one hour each. 

Structure was provided by the scripted questions outlined above. The respondents were selected 
3

by advertising in local newspapers. Each participant received an assurance of confidentiality and 

was paid $25.00 for participating in the interview. The actual burden hours for the forty 

interviews was 32.4 burden hours. Since all forty study participants were compensated $25.00 

for their time and travel expenses, the cost to the Federal Government for reimbursing subjects 

was $1,000. 

A. MINIMUM INCOME QUESTIONS (MIQ)

In this study, participants were given both the traditional version of the MIQ, asking for a 

total estimated amount needed to “make ends meet” and a new trial version, asking specifically 

for shelter, food, clothing, utilities, and work expenses (see Appendix A). The order of 

presentation was randomly varied. When asked to compare the two versions, participants 

overwhelming expressed a preference (87.5%) for the new version with its five specific 

questions. The reasons expressed for this preference included:

• The old question was wordy and convoluted; the new version was simpler and easier 

to understand;

• The old question was too long to comprehend; the new version itemized the question 

into smaller more manageable components; and

• The old question caused respondents to give answers that they felt were inaccurate 

because important expenses did not always spring to mind; the new question helped 

participants create answers that they felt were more accurate by asking about specific 

expenses.

The next step was to compare the numeric estimates obtained by each version of the 

MIQ. Two participants said that they could not construct the total estimate required by the 

original version of the question, so this analysis is computed for the thirty-eight (38) test subjects 

who answered both versions. Beginning with the descriptive statistics we find:

Table 1: Comparison of the Descriptive Statistics for Two Versions of the MIQ

N Mean St. Dev. Median Minimum Maximum

Old version:

Single estimate 38 2793.08 1559.7 2000 500 6250

New version:

Five estimates (summed) 38 1562.50 760.6 1545 710 2500

The old version not only produced a higher mean than the new version, but also greater 

variability around that mean. This is seen most clearly when considering the spread between the 

lowest and highest estimates produced by the old version ($5,750 difference) and the new version 

($1,790 difference).

Another problem is seen when comparing the within-subject estimates produced by the 

two versions of the question. The correlation between the two versions is only 0.565. While this 

indicates a statistically significant association between the two versions, it shows clearly that they 

are not identical and do not produce the same information. In other words, only about 32% of the 

variance in one set of answers is accounted for statistically by the other set of answers, since the 

coefficient of determination r

2 = .5652 = .319.
4

One may conclude, therefore, that the difficulties reported by test subjects in 

comprehending and responding to the original MIQ (i.e., a total estimate of “income needed to 

make ends meet”) are very real. That is to say, respondents find it difficult to track the multiple 

conceptual components delineated by the question and apparently are not very good at producing 

a single estimate summarizing their financial needs. This does not suggest that the alternative 

version of the MIQ is more “accurate,” since one would be hard-pressed to find a “real value” 

against which to judge the validity of a subjective appraisal of financial need. It does suggest, 

however, that the estimates produced by such questions are extremely vulnerable to the nuances 

of question wording. Extreme care should be taken when designing such questions and using the 

estimates.

B. INCOME EVALUATION QUESTIONS (IEQ)

When evaluating the IEQ, we presented the participants with three approaches: (1) the 

traditional IEQ that was used in the previous wave of testing, (2) a series of four sentences asking 

for the amount needed to live “currently,” “at an acceptable level,” “very well,” and “very 

unacceptably,” and (3) ranges of dollars based on a simple 4-point range from “very bad” to 

“very good” (see Appendix B).

Looking at the descriptive statistics, we see that the wording and layout of the question 

does make a difference. By way of example we see that “Very Bad _______” as used in the 

traditional version does not produce the same information as the sentence asking “how much 

take-home pay would you be making each month if you were living at a very unacceptable 

level?” Likewise, the “Very Bad” dollar amount from the traditional IEQ format produces 

information different from the “Very Bad” question when placed within a range format. Some of 

the differences may be seen in the descriptive statistics below.

Table 2: Comparison of the Descriptive Statistics for Three Versions of the IEQ

Version Mean Median Mode Minimum Maximum 25% 50% 75%

Very Good (1) 3712.8 3000.0 2000 600 25000 2000.0 3000.0 4500

Good (1) 2458.0 2050.0 1500 300 10000 1000.0 2050.0 3450

Sufficient (1) 1759.7 1575.0 2000 400 5500 700.0 1575.0 2300

Insufficient (1) 1054.2 850.0 900 175 4000 400.0 850.0 1500

Bad (1) 1198.8 1000.0 1500 200 4500 563.8 1000.0 1500

Very Bad (1) 1020.6 899.5 1000 100 3500 499.3 899.5 1200

Living Very Well (2) 4383.8 4000.0 5000 650 10000 2100.0 4000.0 6000

Acceptable (2) 2593.1 2400.0 4000 300 6000 1275.0 2400.0 4000

As Currently Do (2) 2236.1 2050.0 800 400 6000 1043.8 2050.0 3000

Very Unacceptable (2) 1091.9 875.0 500 250 4500 500.0 875.0 1500

Range: Very Good (3) 3935.5 3416.5 2000 850 10000 2000.0 3416.5 5000

Range: Good (3) 2803.9 2500.0 2000 500 8000 1200.0 2500.0 4000

Range: Bad (3) 1488.7 1500 1500 250 4750 500.0 1500.0 2000

Range: Very Bad (3) 991.6 1000.0 1000 150 4000 400.0 1000.0 1100

The variability becomes somewhat clearer when we consider the correlations between the 

responses produced by the three different versions. The higher correlations for the “Very Bad” 
5

and “Bad” income amounts seem to indicate that test participants were more consistent with those 

answers despite format differences in the way they were asked. Perhaps respondents have more 

clearly defined boundaries on the lower pole of the economic spectrum, below which they do not 

wish to pass. On the upper end of the scale there is no ceiling and respondents may have 

difficulty identifying specific dollar amounts that fit the category; they may be more easily 

swayed by the wording of the question.

Table 3: Correlations Between the Three Versions of the IEQ 

RANGE FORMAT (Version 3)

Very Bad Bad Good Very Good

Traditional IEQ (Version 1)

Very Bad 66.3%

Bad 67.7%

Insufficient 74.2%

Sufficient 57.5%

Good 47.1%

Very Good 26.1%

New IEQ (Version 2)

Very Unacceptable 81.6%

Acceptable 60.8%

Living Very Well 37.7%

Reactions to the question formats varied. Roughly 67.5% of our participants had a 

strong, unequivocal preference for the new revised version using short sentences; 25% had a clear 

preference for original version. When asked about their preferences, those who liked the new 

format gave the following reasons:

a. The use of sentences made the question clearer, more precise, and easier to 

understand.

b. The categories of “comfortable and uncomfortable” were more descriptive and 

better than “good and bad.”

c. The first sentence began with where you are now and then moved from there; this 

made it more explicit.

d. These categories and the sentences put them more “at ease” and were easier to 

understand; it made them feel more “comfortable.”

e. The sentences told respondents exactly what we were looking for and dealt with 

real things; it seemed less “random.”

C. FACES

Following the lead of Andrews and Withey (1976), faces (see Appendix C) were tested 

for measuring global feelings of economic well-being (overall financial situation; one’s capacity 

to get ahead financially) and, in addition, feelings about specific financial concerns (the costs of 

shelter; food; health care; the capacity to save for the future; one’s income). When used by 
6

Andrews and Withey, the faces formed a seven (7)-point scale ranging from a deep frown to a 

broad smile. In our test we restricted the scale to five (5) faces.

The majority (72.5%) of our test participants had a strong, positive reaction to the face 

scale. They reported that the faces were “easy to use,” “enjoyable,” “cute,” “a good idea,” and 

“fun.” The remaining eleven (11) participants ranged from those who thought the use of graphics 

for depicting a scale was too simplistic an approach, but otherwise didn’t really have strong 

feelings about it, to those who were offended by what they perceived as a demeaning 

childishness.

Overall, the participants were in agreement about how to interpret the faces. They clearly 

understood that the scale ranged from strong positive to strong negative feelings. While there 

was variation in the description of the amounts of money that it would take to generate the 

different feelings, there was no disagreement about the progression of the feelings (positive, 

neutral, negative) or how to select them to answer test questions. When applied to feelings about 

income, the faces were generally described in this way:

Face A (strongly positive) You have an excellent income; you are very satisfied and secure.

Face B (moderately positive) You are comfortable and fairly satisfied, but you are not rich.

Face C (neutral) Your financial situation is mixed.

Face D (moderately negative) Your financial situation is bad, but not unbearable.

Face E (strongly negative) Your financial situation is bleak and you are very unhappy.

The greatest inconsistency was found, however, when participants were asked which face 

indicated that one could “make ends meet.” Among those who were asked this question, the 

responses were fairly evenly divided between Faces B (moderately positive), C (neutral), and D 

(moderately negative). 

Participants appeared to be consistent in the way they used the faces to answer questions. 

There was a moderate correlation between participants’ feelings about their capacity to save for 

the future and their overall financial situation (r = .30 , p < .06). Likewise, participants’ feelings 

about their overall financial situation was significantly correlated with their feelings about their 

income (r = .53, p < .001) and with their perceived capacity to get ahead (r = .43, p < .01). 

Consequently, it seems that respondents were using the scale in an appropriate and consistent 

manner. 

When Andrews and Withey used the faces scale to measure global quality of life 

assessments, they found some clustering of responses on the positive end of the scale (p. 209-

212). However when applying the scale to financial questions, we did not seem to find this. Our 

distributions appeared normal in most cases, but showed some clustering around the negative pole 

when respondents reported their feelings about the cost of health care and their capacity to save 

for the future. Converting the faces to a range from one (1) to five (5) with three (3) as the 

midpoint, the means and standard errors were:
7

Table 4: Means and Standard Errors for Questions Answered with FACES

How do you feel about...

MEAN STANDARD 

ERROR

1. your income? 3.03 .166

2. the cost of shelter? 2.77 .181

3. the cost of food? 3.00 .129

4. the cost of health care? 2.34 .208

5. your capacity to save for the future? 2.83 .202

6. your capacity to get ahead financially? 3.08 .187

7. your overall financial situation? 2.83 .156

In general, this seemed to be a useful approach for measuring respondents’ feelings about 

various aspects of their financial situation. The only difficulties would appear to be in the manner 

of presentation. First, the drawings of the faces would need to be tested to ensure that they 

expressed the appropriate emotions. For example, it was indicated by two of our participants that 

the most negative face on our test seemed to express more anger or hostility than sadness. They 

suggested that this could be corrected by making the frown more horizontal and less vertical. 

Second, it would be necessary to explore ways of explaining the choice for such a graphic 

presentation (e.g., it is useful for all levels of education and language skills), so that more mature, 

well-educated, sophisticated, or serious respondents would not be offended.

D. THERMOMETER

The “Feeling Thermometer” is a graphic device printed on a card that looks like a 

thermometer. It is, in fact, a nine (9) point scale ranging from 0 degrees (very cold or 

unfavorable feeling) up to 100 degrees (very warm or favorable feeling) has been used a number 

of times in the past by both the Survey Research Center and the Center for Political Studies at the 

University of Michigan. Andrews and Withey (1976) compared the results of the feeling 

thermometer with the “Delighted/Terrible” scale and the Faces and found them to be comparable. 

The one advantage of a graphic like the Thermometer is that it is not dependent upon the labels 

on the scale points, if a respondent would prefer to use just the graphic representation. However 

in our work, one of the advantages most frequently cited by respondents who liked using the 

Thermometer was that we had labeled each of the temperature points. Among respondents who 

did not like the Thermometer, the most frequent suggestion was that we simply drop the graphic

and keep the scale of “favorable” to “unfavorable” feelings.

A slight majority (60 %) of our test participants had a positive reaction to the 

Thermometer. They reported that the temperature labels were clear and easy to follow, there 

were a good number of choices to cover the full range of feelings and they had no difficulty 

selecting an appropriate response. The other forty percent (40%), however, had moderately 

strong negative reactions. They reported that they were:

• confused by the references to temperature which evoked images of climate 

temperatures and

• unsatisfied with the mid-point of the scale (“no feeling”) which did not seem 

appropriate.
8

Most participants appeared to be consistent in the way they used the Thermometer to 

answer key questions. There was a strong correlation between participants’ feelings about their 

chances to get ahead and their feelings about their financial future (r = .80, p < .000). There was 

also a moderate association between the feelings about their chances to get ahead and their 

income (r = .33 , p < .05), their sense of financial security (r = .42, p = .01), their overall financial 

situation (.42, p = .01) and with their feelings about their investments (r =.34, p < .05). Likewise, 

participants’ feelings about their overall financial situation was significantly correlated with their 

feelings about their income (r = .87, p < .000), their savings (r = .55, p < .000) and with their 

feelings of financial security (r = .66, p < .000). Consequently, it seems that respondents were 

generally using the scale in an appropriate and consistent manner. 

However when doing a cross-tabulation with the Faces, some serious inconsistencies 

emerged. Looking at the responses to the question, “how do you feel about your total family 

income?” using the Faces scale and the Thermometer, we find:

Table 5: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

your total family income?”

Strong 

Frown

(Face E)

Moderate 

Frown

(Face D)

Neutral 

Face

(Face C)

Moderate 

Smile

(Face B)

Strong 

Smile

(Face A)

Total

0 degrees

very unfavorable

1 1

20 degrees

quite unfavorable

1 1 2

30 degrees

fairly unfavorable

1 2 3

40 degrees 

more unfavorable 

than favorable

1 1 5 7

50 degrees

no feeling at all

3 1 1 5

60 degrees

more favorable 

than unfavorable

1 5 3 9

70 degrees

fairly favorable

1 7 1 9

80 degrees 

quite favorable

1 2 1 4

100 degrees

very favorable

Total 4 7 15 12 2 40

Here we notice:

• Four respondents selected Face E (strong frown) to report their feelings about their 

income. These four respondents each selected a different temperature to express 

those same feelings: (a) 20 degrees, quite cold, (b) 30 degrees, fairly cold, (c) 40 

degrees, more cold than warm, and (d) 80 degrees, quite warm. While it seems likely 

that the respondent selecting the 80 degrees made a mistake using one of the scales, 
9

nevertheless, the range of feelings evoked among the other three respondents 

suggests there is variability in the interpretation and use of the graphic 

representations.

• Seven respondents selected Face D (moderate frown) to report their feelings about 

their income. Of those seven, five of the subjects seemed to use the Thermometer 

consistently: (a) 0 degrees, very cold, (b) 20 degrees, quite cold, (c) 30 degrees, 

fairly cold, and (d) 40 degrees, more cold than warm. However two subjects seemed 

to be inconsistent in their use of one of the scales by selecting (a) 70 degrees, fairly 

warm and (b) 80 degrees, quite warm. While one wonders why the respondent who 

selected the most extreme temperature reading did not also select the most extremely 

negative face, there is still a consistently negative expression of feeling being made. 

This is not the case with the two instances of positive feelings expressed with the 

Thermometer that were associated with the slightly negative Face.

• Two subjects who selected Face C (neutral expression) selected 80 “degrees, quite 

warm,” the most favorable Thermometer point endorsed by any respondent.

• Two subjects who selected “50 degrees, no feeling at all” also selected the two most 

positive faces (Face B, moderate smile and Face A, broad smile).

These are serious inconsistencies and explain why the scales do not correlate perfectly. 

There are a number of possible explanations, including: (1) the respondents are not using the two 

scales in the same way, (b) some respondents mis-interpreted the scales and graphics, or (c) 

certain response options are easier or more difficult for respondents to endorse comfortably.

Looking at the thermometer as a range from one (1) to nine (9) with five (5) as the 

midpoint, the means and standard errors were:

Table 6: Means and Standard Errors for Responses Using the Feeling Thermometer

How do you feel about...

MEAN STANDARD 

ERROR

1. the cost of shelter? 4.53 .312

2. the cost of food? 4.82 .266

3. the cost of transportation? 4.93 .244

4. the cost of health care? 3.45 .371

5. the cost of clothing? 4.82 .282

6. the cost of utilities? 4.82 .259

7. the cost of recreation? 4.88 .243

8. your total family income? 5.40 .286

9. your savings? 3.84 .361

10.your investments? 3.76 .367

11.your financial security? 4.32 .372

12.your financial situation taken as a whole? 4.95 .320

13.your financial future 6.32 .315

14.your chances of getting ahead financially? 6.54 .340

When Andrews and Withey used the thermometer to measure feelings about “life-as-awhole,” they found respondents more willing to endorse the extreme positive values with the 
10

Thermometer than with other scales (p. 313). Apparently the “very warm” or “very favorable” 

categories did not seem as intensely perfect as did the extreme options on the other scales. 

However when applying the Thermometer to financial questions, we did not necessary find this to 

be so. By collapsing categories, we were able to approximate a 5-point thermometer, the means 

for which were lower than those obtained by the FACES scale, with the exception of the income 

question. In general, however, there were strong correlations between the Faces and the 

Thermometer responses.

Table 7: Comparisons of Answer Collected Using Faces and the Feeling Thermometer

Means Correlations

(p values)

Correlations

(p values)

How do you feel about...

Faces Thermometer 

(converted to 

5-pt scale)

Faces and 

Thermometer 

(5-pt scale)

Faces and 

Thermometer 

(9-pt scale)

1. your income? 3.03 3.53 .325

(.041)

.521

(.001)

2. the cost of shelter? 2.77 2.60 .68

(.000)

.71

(.000)

3. the cost of food? 3.00 2.83 .55

(.000)

.57

(.000)

4. the cost of health care? 2.34 2.18 .69

(.000)

.70

(.000)

5. your capacity to save for the future? 2.83 2.38 .52

(.001)

.55

(.000)

6. your capacity to get ahead financially? 3.08 3.98 .38

(.015)

.36

(.025)

7. your overall financial situation? 2.83 3.03 .42

(.007)

.48

(.002)

In general, the THERMOMETER seemed to be a somewhat more complicated method of making 

assessments than using the FACES graphic. Respondents were more divided in their reactions to 

it.

E. DELIGHTED/TERRIBLE SCALE

The Delighted/Terrible (DT) Scale is a 7-pt scale with a “mixed” category as the 

midpoint. In a previous test of this question, we found subjects generally unwilling to endorse 

either extreme category as an expression of their feelings about their income. In this test, we 

compared the expression of feeling towards income elicited by the DT scale with that recorded 

with other scales. 

At first glance, there seems to be a fairly high and significant correlation between the 

responses from the DT scale and those using the Faces (r = .804, p < .000). Likewise, there was a 

significant relationship with the responses obtained using the Thermometer (r = .591, p < .000). 

There were, however, a number of notable inconsistencies. Looking first at the cross-tabulation 

of responses for the question “how do you feel about your income” using the Faces and the DT 

Scale, we find:
11

Table 8: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

your income?”

Strong 

Frown

(Face E)

Moderate 

Frown

(Face D)

Neutral 

Face

(Face C)

Moderate 

Smile

(Face B)

Strong 

Smile

(Face A)

Total

Terrible 0

Unhappy 3 2 1 6

Mostly 

Dissatisfied

1 2 3

Mixed 2 10 2 14

Mostly 

Satisfied

1 3 6 10

Pleased 1 4 5

Delighted 2 2

Total 4 7 15 12 2 40

While most of these responses appear completely consistent, there are three notable exceptions:

• First, while there were four (4) subjects who selected the face with the extreme 

frown, indicating the most negative feelings, none of those four (4) selected “terrible” 

as their response option. Rather, they were spread between the “unhappy” and 

“mostly dissatisfied” responses.

• Second, the “mostly satisfied” response which falls on the positive side of the neutral 

center expression, did not consistently correspond with the selection of a positive 

face. In one instance, the respondent selecting “mostly satisfied” also selected the 

“moderate frown” as the face expressing feelings about income. In three other cases, 

the “mostly satisfied” respondents selected the “neutral face” as best expressing the 

same feeling.

• Third, one test subject who recorded being “pleased” with income also selected the 

“neutral” face as the expression of feelings about that income.

These few instances of apparently inconsistent response selection produce fairly minor 

effects upon the overall statistical associations. Nevertheless, they reveal somewhat disturbing 

differences in how the scales are being used to express feelings. Clearly there is something about 

the graphic representations or the set of response options that lead some respondents to express 

the same feeling in divergent ways or actually to convey different feelings. The comparisons of 

the DT answers with the FEELING THERMOMETER also showed some rather surprising 

inconsistencies:
12

Table 9: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about your 

income?”

Terrible Unhappy Mostly 

Dissatisfied

Mixed Mostly 

Satisfied

Pleased Delighted Total

0 degrees

very unfavorable

1 1

20 degrees

quite unfavorable

1 1 2

30 degrees

fairly unfavorable

1 2 3

40 degrees 

more unfavorable 

than favorable

2 3 2 7

50 degrees

no feeling at all

2 2 1 5

60 degrees

more favorable 

than unfavorable

7 2 9

70 degrees

fairly favorable

1 4 3 1 9

80 degrees 

quite favorable

1 1 2 4

100 degrees

very favorable

Total 0 6 3 14 10 5 2 40

• The first thing that should be noted is the clustering of responses upon the “mixed” 

response in the DT Scale. The same respondents selecting “mixed” chose five 

different way to answer the same question with the feeling Thermometer: (a) more 

unfavorable than favorable, (b) no feeling at all, (c) more favorable than unfavorable, 

(d) fairly favorable, and (e) quite favorable.

• Second, one should notice the absence of the “terrible” option, even though the 

Thermometer registered one respondent who felt “0 degrees, very unfavorable” about 

income and another who felt “20 degrees, quite unfavorable.”

• Third, the two respondents who did respond that they were “delighted” with their 

income used the feeling Thermometer to say that they “had no feeling at all” or felt 

“fairly favorable” about their incomes.

• Fourth, a respondent who reported feeling “unhappy” about income also reported 

feeling “80 degrees, quite favorable” toward it.

While there was a fairly significant statistical association between the DT Scale and the 

Faces and the Thermometer, the jarring contradictory responses produced by some respondents 

leads one to raise two questions: 
13

(1) Are these scales practical, accurate, and reliable tools for assessing the extremely 

complex feelings that respondents have toward their income?

(2) Are “feelings about income” a simple, meaningful construct that can be measured as 

a single point estimate or are these feelings extremely complex and complicated, such 

that a number of expressions of different aspects of those feelings are required to 

approximate the respondents true position?

F. CIRCLES

The Circles Scale is a series of seven circles that have each been divided into six 

segments. At the lowest end of the range, the six segments have all been labeled with minus 

signs; at the highest end of the range, there are plus signs placed within each segment. In 

between the two extremes, there is a gradual transition in the balance of plus and minus signs as 

the scale progresses from completely negative to completely positive. When Andrews and 

Withey (1976) tested the scale, they found that the scale might still need some improvement. In 

particular, it was not always clear to respondents how the Circles related to one another or what 

their essential meaning was. They speculated that the use of color or shading might help clarify 

the transitions across circles (p. 213).

In using the Circles to ask respondents about their feelings towards their income, 

expenses, and financial situation, we also found that this scale may be in need of further 

refinement. Reaction among participants was strongly divided. On the one hand, about eighteen 

of the participants reported that the scale was easy to understand and use. As one test subject 

expressed it, “It was similar to the faces, but more concrete. Each plus sign meant one step closer 

to economic satisfaction.” On the other hand, an equal number of eighteen participants reported a 

strong negative reaction to the Circles, saying it was cumbersome, difficult to decipher, and 

messy to look at. As two of those not in favor of the scale expressed it, “this looks like a test.”

The next question was whether the Circles captured the same information from 

respondents as did other scales when used to answer the same questions. Two questions, in 

particular, provided information that could be compared with other scales: “Which circle comes 

closest to matching how you feel about your total income?” and “Which circle do you think 

comes closest to matching your current financial situation?” 

Looking first at the income question, there is one immediate comparison that may be 

made. Since both the DT Scale and the Circles are 7-point scales that may be coded from one to 

seven, we can compare their means and standard errors:

Table 10: Comparison of Means and Standard Errors When Using the Circles and the D/T 

Scale

Means SE

Circles 4.0 .202

DT Scale 4.28 .215

Here we see that when answering the same question about their feelings toward their incomes, 

respondents provided lower responses when using the Circles than when answering with the DT 

Scale. In fact, the answers to the income question obtained with the two scales produced a 
14

correlation of only .598. Looking at the cross-tabulation of responses, we can see some of the 

inconsistencies (Table 11):

Table 11: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

your income?”

Terrible Unhappy Mostly 

Dissatisfied

Mixed Mostly 

Satisfied

Pleased Delighted

100% neg 1 1

5/6 neg 1 1

4/6 neg 3 1 3 1

3/6 neg

3/6 pos

5 3 1 1

4/6 pos 3 5 2

5/6 pos 1 2 1

100% pos

Total 0 5 3 11 10 5 2

There are a number of apparent inconsistencies in these response patterns:

• One respondent who selected the lowest circle with only negative signs inside the 

segments, nevertheless, did not select “terrible” (the lowest point on the DT Scale). 

Rather, this respondent selected “unhappy” which is not the lowest point on the scale.

• Respondents who selected “mixed” on the DT Scale ranged from two, three, and four 

pluses on the Circles. 

• Two participants who were “mostly satisfied” (above the midpoint) with their 

incomes selected circles with either only one or two plus signs (below the midpoint).

• One participant who reported feeling “delighted” with income also selected the 

middle circle, showing an equal number of plus and minus signs.

• Another participant who had reported being “delighted”(the highest point on the DT 

Scale) did not also select the highest circle, but rather selected the circle with one 

minus sign in it.

We also saw the same pattern of apparent inconsistency when comparing the responses to 

the income question with those obtained using Faces (Table 12):
15

Table 12: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

your total family income?”

Strong 

Frown

(Face E)

Moderate 

Frown

(Face D)

Neutral Face

(Face C)

Moderate 

Smile

(Face B)

Strong Smile

(Face A)

100% neg 1

5/6 neg 2 1

4/6 neg 1 4 3

3/6 neg

3/6 pos

7 2 1

4/6 pos 1 1 8

5/6 pos 1 1 1 1

100% pos

Total 3 7 12 12 2

Once again we find some inconsistent response patterns:

• One test subject who selected the most negative face with the strong frown to express 

feelings about income, also selected the second most positive circle with five plus 

signs.

• On participant who selected the moderate frown (below the midpoint) also selected 

the circle with four positive signs (above the midpoint).

• Three respondents who selected the balanced circle with equal numbers of plus and 

minus signs also selected either the moderate smile or the strong smile.

• Respondents who selected the second most positive circle (5/6 plus signs) also 

selected (a) the strong frown (most negative face) and (b) the neutral face.

Considering the cross-tabulation of responses with the Thermometer Scale, the same sort 

of problematic inconsistencies appear once again:

• Someone selecting the totally negative circle (no positive signs) also selected “80 

degrees, quite favorable.”

• A participant who selected the circle with five of the six segments showing minus 

signs also selected “50 degrees, no feeling at all.”

• One respondent who selected the circle with four of the six segments showing minus 

signs (below the midpoint) selected the “60 degrees, more favorable than 

unfavorable.”

• Several respondents who selected the balanced circle with equal numbers of plus and 

minus signs selected positive temperatures: 60 degrees, more favorable than 

unfavorable; 70 degrees, fairly favorable; 80 degrees, quite favorable.

• One participant who selected the second most positive circle (five out of six plus 

signs) also selected “30 degrees, fairly unfavorable.”
16

When looking at the assessments of the “current financial situation,” the same types of 

problems surfaced when comparing the responses obtained by Circles, Faces, and the 

Thermometer. This lack of consistency in selecting positive, negative, and neutral responses 

when answering the same question but with different scales is troubling. Since it is unlikely that 

respondents’ feelings about their income or financial situation changed during the course of the 

interview, we are left with the probability that either (a) several respondents used the scales in 

idiosyncratic ways, (b) that the scales themselves convey different concepts to the respondents so 

that their responses appear inconsistent, or (c) some respondents were responding almost 

randomly.

G. THE WORRY SCALE

The “Worry Scale” (1.Never worry, 2.Worry a little, 3.Worry Sometimes, 4.Worry a lot, 

5.Worry all the time) was tested using a series of sixteen items which were expected to evoke 

varying degrees of concern amongst participants. The items queried respondents’ worry about:

• Making ends meet,

• Paying for shelter,

• Paying for food,

• Paying for utilities,

• Paying for recreation,

• Paying for health care,

• Paying off debts,

• Paying for clothing,

• Paying for transportation,

• Paying for insurance,

• Paying for education,

• Getting ahead financially,

• Saving for the future,

• Having a steady income,

• Having income increase with inflation,

• Maintaining current levels of living.

At least three quarters of the participants expressed a positive response to the Worry Scale 

and questions. They reported that it was easy to understand what the questions were asking and 

easy to discern and articulate their levels of concern or worry. Only two participants reported that 

“worry” was an unpleasant topic to consider and they didn’t like discussing something so 

negative and depressing. The majority that the Worry Questions were simple, to-the-point, and 

apropos – the type of things you might “talk about with your co-workers.”

In their discussion of the Worry Scale, respondents provided several interesting insights: 

• One participant suggested that the “amount of worry” depended not only upon the 

frequency with which the problems arose, but also the seriousness or magnitude of the 

problem.

• Several participants suggested that the “amount of worry” corresponded with the amount 

of time spent (a) thinking about a problem, (b) seeking a solution, or (c) planning and 

budgeting.

• One participant pointed out that a respondent might select the response “Never Worry” 

for one of three reasons. It might be because: (1) you have enough money so a given 

expense is not a problem, (2) a certain expense may never arise and, therefore, not be 

applicable, or (3) there may be a problem, but you are unwilling or unable to confront it 

or try to think about a solution. 
17

• Several participants suggested that it might be better to condense the scale into 4-points. 

They felt that the categories “Worry a little” and “Worry sometimes” overlapped and 

expressed the same degree of concern.

One indication that respondents were discriminating and expressing different levels of 

worry may be found by assigning 1 to 5 points to the escalating amounts of worry and then 

summing the responses for each item. In order for this comparison to be a valid comparison of 

concerns, we have omitted the cases with missing data and summed across an equal number of 

cases for each item. The result may be considered a rank-ordering of the intensity of worry 

expressed by test subjects. Looking at the rank-ordering in Table 13, it seems to represent a 

logical progression of concerns, indicating perhaps that subjects were using the scale coherently 

and consistently.

Table 13: Rank Ordering of Aggregate “Worries”

Rank Ordering of Worries: N Sum

Paying off debts 33 106

Getting ahead financially 33 103

Saving for the future 33 103

Making ends meet 33 99

Paying for health care 33 96

Having a steady income 33 95

Maintaining your current level of living 33 86

Paying for education 33 86

Paying for insurance 33 83

Having an income that increases with inflation 33 81

Paying for shelter 33 78

Paying for utilities 33 74

Paying for food 33 69

Paying for transportation 33 65

Paying for recreation 33 65

Paying for clothing 33 63

Another way of considering this same information is to look at the distribution of scores 

within each item. While the item sums provide us a glimpse into the intensity of the aggregate 

concern, looking at the percentage of respondents endorsing each response option enables us to 

see the scope of the worry across participants. 
18

Table 14: Frequencies of Responses Obtain Using the “Worry Scale”

Items of Worry:

% 

Never 

worry

%

Worry 

a little

% 

Worry 

sometimes

% 

Worry 

a lot

% 

Worry 

all the 

time

Paying off debts 12.8 20.5 25.6 25.6 15.4 100%

Getting ahead financially 20.5 20.5 25.6 12.8 20.5 100%

Saving for the future 10.5 28.9 28.9 13.2 18.4 100%

Making ends meet 12.8 15.4 46.2 23.1 2.6 100%

Paying for health care 28.9 10.5 21.1 26.3 13.2 100%

Having a steady income 23.1 25.6 23.1 15.4 12.8 100%

Maintaining your current level of living 17.9 41.0 23.1 10.3 7.7 100%

Paying for education 37.8 16.2 13.5 16.2 16.2 100%

Paying for insurance 36.1 22.2 16.7 13.9 11.1 100%

Having an income that increases with inflation 30.8 30.8 20.5 15.4 2.6 100%

Paying for shelter 34.2 23.7 26.3 13.2 2.6 100%

Paying for utilities 39.5 15.8 28.9 10.5 5.3 100%

Paying for food 38.5 33.3 25.6 0.0 2.6 100%

Paying for transportation 48.6 24.3 16.2 8.1 2.7 100%

Paying for recreation 42.1 31.6 15.8 10.5 0.0 100%

Paying for clothing 44.7 28.9 26.3 0.0 0.0 100%

By looking at these distributions, we begin to understand the worry that our participants 

were expressing. For example, we see that:

• The least of the worries, paying for clothing, receives its ranking not only because 

none of our participants reported any intense worry (i.e., “Worry a Lot” or “Worry 

All the Time”), but mainly because almost 45 percent reported never worrying about 

it at all.

• The fourth highest worry, making ends meet, appears to receive this high placement, 

not because large numbers (2.6 %) of our participants expressed intense worry (i.e., 

“All the Time”), but rather because this concern was widespread among our subjects 

with over 87 % expressing at least some worry.

• The second highest worry, getting ahead financially, receives its rank largely because 

almost 21% of our respondents reported worrying about it “All the Time.”

Finally, it is necessary to compare the information reported with Worry Scale and the 

information we gained with other scales to see if it is consistent. In particular, six comparisons 

may be made between the Worry Scale and the Faces and the Thermometer.
19

1. How do you feel about making ends meet? 

Comparing the information we received from the Faces with that from the Worry Scale, we 

see a number of consistencies and a few inconsistencies.

Table 15: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

making ends meet?” and “How much do you worry about making ends meet?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

Strong frown 1 1 1 1

Moderate frown 1 2 3

Neutral face 1 3 6 5

Moderate smile 1 3 8

Strong smile 1 1

In this case at least, the responses “never worry” and “worry sometimes” seem to be somewhat 

independent from the reported feelings about the capacity to make ends meet. That is to say, 

those with negative, neutral, and positive feelings about their capacity to make ends meet are 

reporting that they either “never worry” or they “worry sometimes.” This raises the possibility 

that either there are (a) social norms (e.g., don’t worry, things could be worse) or (b) personality 

traits that alter the amount of worry a person experiences and/or reports. In either case, this 

would severely limit any conclusions we might wish to draw about respondents’ objective 

financial reality based upon their reported subjective experience.

2. How do you feel about the cost of shelter?

Once again we see the same pattern with the “Never Worry” responses; no matter how 

these respondents report feeling about the cost of food as measured by the Faces, they still report 

that they never worry about it. Another apparent anomaly includes the respondent who reported 

strong positive feelings (strong smile) about the cost of shelter, but still reported worrying about it 

“a little.”

Table 16: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about the 

cost of shelter?” and “How much do you worry about the cost of shelter?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

Strong frown 1 1 4 1

Moderate frown 4 2 1

Neutral face 4 3 6

Moderate smile 2 2 2

Strong smile 1 1

The same pattern may be seen when looking at feelings about the cost of shelter 

measured by the Thermometer. Again those reporting that they “Never Worry” include not only 

those with positive feelings, but also some with neutral or even strong negative feelings. This 

seems to further indicate that whether one worries (or reports worry) may be, to some extent, 

independent of one’s actual feelings toward something. 
20

Table 17: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about the 

cost of shelter?” and “How much do you worry about the cost of shelter?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

0 degrees

Very unfavorable

1 2

20 degrees

Quite unfavorable

1 1 2

30 degrees

Fairly unfavorable

1

40 degrees

More unfavorable than favorable

7 2 5 1 1

50 degrees

No feeling at all

1 1

60 degrees

More favorable than unfavorable

2 2 1

70 degrees

Fairly favorable

2 2

80 degrees

Quite favorable

2

100 degrees

Very favorable

1

3. How do you feel about the cost of food?

The same patterns may be seen when considering the feelings about the cost of food as 

measured by the Faces and the Thermometer in comparison with the reported amount of worry. 

Once again those saying that they “Never Worry” or only “Worry a Little” report feelings that 

may positive, negative, or neutral. And in this particular case, the cost of food does not appear to 

be of much concern at all to any of our participants, despite their feelings about it.

Table 18: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about the 

cost of food?” and “How much do you worry about the cost of food?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

Strong frown 1

Moderate frown 1 4 3 1

Neutral face 6 6 5

Moderate smile 7 3 2

Strong smile

This same pattern was captured by the Thermometer. In only one case did a test 

participant report a great deal of worry. And while no one reported strong positive feelings 

toward the cost of food, over 70 % of our respondents said they “Never Worry” or only “Worry a 
21

Little.” Thus once again, we see respondents reporting negative feelings, but indicating no 

concern.

Table 19: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about the 

cost of food?” and “How much do you worry about the cost of food?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

0 degrees

Very unfavorable

1 1

20 degrees

Quite unfavorable

1

30 degrees

Fairly unfavorable

2 1

40 degrees

More unfavorable than favorable

3 2 6

50 degrees

No feeling at all

2 2 1

60 degrees

More favorable than unfavorable

4 3 1

70 degrees

Fairly favorable

2 3 2

80 degrees

Quite favorable

100 degrees

Very favorable

4. How do you feel about your capacity to save for the future?

This particular question revealed some interesting anomalies. Unfortunately at this point, 

we are unable to determine whether these result from measurement difficulties associated with 

the scales or are, in fact, true psychological paradoxes. For example, looking at those participants 

reporting positive affect in regard to their capacity to save for the future (i.e., they selected Face 

A or Face B), we find that ten (10) of our participants or over 26% still reported some degree of 

worry. Most strangely, we see that two (2) participants who reported the strongest positive 

feelings (Strong Smile) went on to report that they worry all the time about it. In fact, the 

majority of these participants (58 %) report that they “Worry a Little” or “Worry Sometimes” and 

yet express feelings with the Faces that fall into every affect category. While one may be tempted 

to blame these results on the difficulties with the Faces Scale, it should be pointed out that similar 

results appear with the Thermometer. In this case, 61% of our test subjects reported that they 

“Worry a Little” or “Worry Sometimes” and yet express feelings that fall into all except the 

single most positive category. 
22

Table 20: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

your capacity to save for the future?” and “How much do you worry about your capacity to 

save for the future?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

Strong frown 1 2 1 3

Moderate frown 2 4 2 1

Neutral face 2 2 3 2 1

Moderate smile 1 5 1

Strong smile 1 1 1 2

Table 21: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

your capacity to save for the future?” and “How much do you worry about your capacity to 

save for the future?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

0 degrees

Very unfavorable

1 1 2 1 2

20 degrees

Quite unfavorable

1 1 1 1

30 degrees

Fairly unfavorable

2 3 2

40 degrees

More unfavorable than favorable

1 3 2 2

50 degrees

No feeling at all

1

60 degrees

More favorable than unfavorable

1 2

70 degrees

Fairly favorable

2 1 1

80 degrees

Quite favorable

1 1

100 degrees

Very favorable

5. How do you feel about your capacity to get ahead financially?

Once again we find the now familiar paradox: (a) almost 21% (n=8) of our participants 

report that they “Never Worry” while reporting a wide range of affect, including negative 

feelings, with the Face Scale and (b) 33% (n=13) say that they “Worry a Lot” or even “Worry All 

the Time” despite reporting the full range of affect, including the strongest positive feelings 

(Strong Smile). Likewise, we find that 32% (n=12) of our test subjects reported that they “Worry 

All the Time” or “Worry a Lot” even though eight (8) of those twelve (12) reported favorable 

feelings with the Thermometer. As suggested before, this replication of the same patterns with 

both the Face Scale and the Thermometer suggests that the experience of worry about something 
23

(or the likelihood of reporting worry) may be somewhat independent of other feelings toward the

target.

Table 22: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

your capacity to get ahead financially?” and “How much do you worry about getting ahead 

financially?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

Strong frown 1 2

Moderate frown 1 2 3 2 2

Neutral face 4 1 4 1 2

Moderate smile 1 4 1 1 1

Strong smile 2 1 1 1 1

Table 23: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Question, “How do you feel about 

your capacity to get ahead financially?” and “How much do you worry about getting ahead 

financially?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

0 degrees

Very unfavorable

20 degrees

Quite unfavorable

1 2

30 degrees

Fairly unfavorable

1 1

40 degrees

More unfavorable than favorable

1 1 1

50 degrees

No feeling at all

1 1

60 degrees

More favorable than unfavorable

1 2 2 1

70 degrees

Fairly favorable

5 1 2

80 degrees

Quite favorable

1 5 3 2 1

100 degrees

Very favorable

1
24

6. How do you feel about your capacity to maintain your current level of living?

Of all the questions that we were able to compare with the Worry Scale, the strongest 

associations were found between:

a. How much do you worry about maintaining your current level of living? 

Which face comes closest to expressing how your feel about your overall financial situation? 

(r = -.63)

b. How much do you worry about maintaining your current level of living? 

Using the Feeling Thermometer, how would you rate your feelings about your financial 

security?

(r = -.57)

Here we begin to see the expected patterns with those respondents expressing the more 

negative feelings toward the phenomenon also reporting the greater amounts of worry. However 

once again, the most frequently endorsed worry category is “Worry a Little” (n = 16) and those 

respondents selecting that option have responses to the Face Scale and the Thermometer 

questions that fall in every category (positive, negative, and neutral), with the exception of the 

most negative category. 

Table 24: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Questions, “How do you feel about 

your current level of living?” and “How do you feel about your overall financial situation?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

Strong frown 2 1 2

Moderate frown 1 3 2 1

Neutral face 5 10 3 1

Moderate smile 2 4 1

Strong smile 1
25

Table 25: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the Questions, “How do you feel about 

your capacity to maintain your current level of living?” and “How do you feel about your 

financial security?”

Never 

worry

Worry 

a little

Worry 

sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

0 degrees

Very unfavorable

4 1 2

20 degrees

Quite unfavorable

1 3

30 degrees

Fairly unfavorable

2 1

40 degrees

More unfavorable than favorable

1 4 1 1

50 degrees

No feeling at all

2 1

60 degrees

More favorable than unfavorable

2 4 1

70 degrees

Fairly favorable

2 2

80 degrees

Quite favorable

1 1

100 degrees

Very favorable

In summary, the Worry Scale appears to be easy to use and, in many ways, enjoyable to 

respondents. It is easy to understand and uses categories that have popular appeal. Likewise, our 

participants seemed to use the scale effectively and made distinctions that provided us with a 

reasonable list of priority concerns. Nevertheless, when compared with the responses obtained 

with the Face Scale and the Thermometer, it appears that for some proportion of our test subjects, 

either the experience of or the willingness to admit to “worry” about a given target may be 

somewhat independent of reported feelings toward it. As a consequence, the Worry Scale may be 

useful for providing critical information about aggregate concerns, but it may be of less value in 

constructing an understanding of the financial situation of individuals. In other words, based on 

the responses from our participants, it appears that some people will worry continuously, no 

matter how favorably disposed they are to the particulars of their situation; other people may have 

strong negative feelings toward something, but will still report a total lack of worry.

H. ECONOMIC ATTITUDES

Of all the question formats we tested, this series of five short-answer questions (dubbed 

our “economic attitude” questions), was the only section universally approved and applauded by 

all our respondents. While they occasionally suggested slight alterations (e.g., add a “don’t 

know” response option) or acknowledged that other scales (i.e., the Faces and Thermometer) 

were more fun and unusual, every one of our test subjects reported that they liked these questions 

and that they were easy to answer. Repeatedly, we were told by participants that using simple 

words in short questions and providing five easy response choices was something that they liked 

working with.
26

The answers to the economic attitude questions generated by respondents also appeared 

to be consistent with the information reported with other scales. For instance, there is a 

significant correlation (r = .60, p = .000) between the responses to the economic attitude question 

concerning one’s current financial situation and feelings about your income as measured by 

Faces. When looking at the cross tabulations, however, some interesting insights regarding the 

meaning of the categories appears. In particular, when looking at the respondents who selected 

the second most positive response to the attitude question (i.e., The best financial situation you 

are able to have for now), we see that one person also expressed the most negative feelings about 

“making ends meet” (i.e., Strong frown). This identical pattern was detected when comparing the 

same attitude question with respondents’ feelings about “your overall financial situation” as 

measured by the Faces. Once again we found that two respondents who selected the second most 

positive response (i.e., The best financial situation you are able to have for now) also selected the 

two most negative faces (i.e., Strong Frown and Moderate Frown). In other words, for these 

respondents the emphasis has shifted from the opening of the phrase (the best situation) to the rest 

of the sentence (that you are able to have for now), which logically does not require that the 

situation be, in fact, a good one. Clearly question designers need to recognize the possibility of 

this dual interpretation and replace the second category with a less ambiguous positive appraisal.

Table 26: Cross Tabulation between Responses to the question, “How do you feel about 

your current financial situation?” and “How do you feel about your income?”

Strong 

Frown

(Face E)

Moderate 

Frown

(Face D)

Neutral 

Face

(Face C)

Moderate 

Smile

(Face B)

Strong 

Smile

(Face A)

Total

Ideal 1 1

Best you are able to 

have for now

1 2 7 10

Good enough 1 4 3 1 9

Tolerable 2 3 9 2 16

Very unsatisfactory 1 3 4

Total 4 7 15 12 2 40

Respondents also seemed to be answering the fourth attitude question (How much do you 

worry about money and expenses?) in a pattern consistent with the previously mentioned series of 

worry questions. There are statistically significant correlations with the following questions:

Table 27: Correlations Between the Economic Attitude “Worry” Question and Other 

“Worry” Questions

How much do you worry about... R P value

Making ends meet? .546 .000

Paying for shelter? .586 .000

Paying for food? .460 .003

Paying for utilities? .484 .002

Paying for health care? .325 .047

Paying off debts? .600 .000

Paying for insurance? .367 .028

Getting ahead financially? .646 .000

Saving for the future? .550 .000

Having a steady income? .498 .001

Maintaining your current level of living? .474 .002
27

Likewise, when the responses from the entire worry series are summed to created a “total worry 

score,” this index of worry has a correlation of .601 (p =.01) with the fourth attitude question 

asking “how much do you worry about money and expenses. Thus, while we have seen that 

“worry” may be a problematic construct in that it can be somewhat independent from objective 

circumstances for some people, nevertheless, our respondents did appear to use the Worry Scale 

consistently and logically.

I. THE LADDER

The Ladder Scale was a graphic representation of a ladder with nine rungs. The only 

labels were place on the lowest rung (worst financial situation I could expect to have) and the 

highest rung (best financial situation I could expect to have). This scale was then used to assess 

respondents’ financial situations in (1) the best month of the past year, (2) the worst month of the 

past year, (3) most of the past year, (4) five year ago, and (5) five years in the future.

Our test participants were strongly divided in their reaction to the Ladder Scale. Some 

participants thought that nine choices were too many; others thought that having nine options 

provided them with a better opportunity to express their position. Some participants liked having 

only the extreme poles labeled so they could use the numbers to locate their position on the scale; 

others said they needed labels for the other rungs on the ladder because they either couldn’t locate 

the midpoint or they did not have a clear understanding of the gradations defining the range from 

“best financial situation” to “worst financial situation.” Likewise, respondents were divided in 

their reaction to the questions that were evaluated with the Ladder Scale. About half of the 

respondents liked the questions and thought they were easy because they dealt with their real-life 

situation at precise points in time. Others thought the questions were difficult because they were 

asking about the past and the future.

Despite their reactions to the scale or the questions, participants did appear to use the 

scale appropriately and answer the questions consistently. By looking at the mean responses we 

see that the respondents gave appropriately lower answers for the “worst month” than for the 

“best month” and expressed optimism over the future.

Table 28: Means and Standard Errors for Questions Using the Ladder Scale

Where on the ladder would you put...

Mean Std. 

Error

Your best month in the past year? 6.00 .25

Your worst month in the past year? 2.92 .18

Most of the past year? 4.72 .26

Your situation five years ago? 5.00 .34

Your situation five years from now? 7.38 .26

In addition, when the responses given for the best month in the past year and the worst month in 

the past year were averaged, there was a correlation of .70 (p=.000) with the responses to the 

question about most of the past year. In other words, the answers they provided to the question 

about most of last year appear to be consistently constructed out of their assessments of the best 

month in the past year and the worst month in the past year.
28

Beyond this internal consistency, there is also evidence of some consistency with external 

sources. Looking at correlations between these questions, we found some patterns very similar to 

those reported by Andrews and Withey in their April, 1973 study (1976, p. 78):

Table 29: Correlations Between Questions Answered with the Ladder Scale Collected by 

BLS and Andrews & Withey

Correlations:

Our 

study

Andrews 

& Withey

Best month in the past year * Most of the past year .71 .68

Five years ago * Most of the past year .26 .30

Five years from now * Most of the past year .32 .48

Worst month in the past year * Most of the past year .27 .52

The single greatest difference between the findings reported by Andrews & Withey and 

our study seems to be that our respondents reported their “worst month” as an exception to the 

norm of the past year (r = .27), whereas the Michigan study uncovered more of an association 

between the worst month and the overall rating of the year (r = .52).

In summary, our test participants appear capable of using the Ladder Scale effectively 

and providing temporal comparisons of their financial situations. However, considering the 

strong negative reactions to the scale and questions, one is led to question the actual value of this 

approach.

J. INCOME BALANCE

The Income Balance was single short-answer question asking respondents to compare the 

amounts of the income and expenses. There were five response options ranging from our income 

is much greater than our expenses through a balanced middle point (our income and expenses are 

about the same) to our expenses are much greater than our income. While the majority of test 

participants reported that the balance question was easy to understand and answer, there was a 

small portion reporting that (a) it was difficult to compare monthly income against expenses, 

including outstanding debts or (b) the question was confusing, causing them to have to re-read it 

several times before they could answer.

Regardless of respondents’ reactions to the question, their answers formed a fairly normal 

distribution: 

(a) income much greater than expenses = 10%, 

(b) income somewhat greater than expenses = 22.5%, 

(c) income about the same as expenses = 35%, 

(d) expenses somewhat greater than income = 17.5%, and 

(e) expenses much greater than expenses= 15%. 

There was also a statistically significant correlation with assessments obtained by several 

other scales: 
29

Table 30: Correlations Between Balance Question and Similar Assessments from other 

Scales

Other scales R P value

Faces: your overall financial situation .56 .000

Circles: your current financial situation .48 .002

Circles: your total income .51 .001

Circles: your total expenses -.45 .004

Worry: making ends meet .46 .003

Therm: financial situation as a whole .34 .034

Attitude: worry about money & expenses .33 .040

Attitude: your financial situation .32 .042

In summary, this question appeared to be a fairly easy assessment for our subjects and the 

answers appear consistent with the information we gained from the other scales. As one 

participant pointed out, this information was more “factual” and less focused upon subjective 

feelings. In many ways, it seems likely that this or other similar questions would provide more 

accurate information about respondents’ actual financial reality than other questions that focus 

more upon their feelings resulting from their situation.

K. POSITIVE / NEGATIVE LINE

The Line was a simple flat line with one end point labeled with a “+” and the other end 

point labeled with a “-.” In-between the poles were three equally spaced vertical marks. 

Respondents were instructed to place their feelings about their total family income at the 

appropriate place along the line.

Reaction to the scale was fairly evenly mixed. Respondents who liked the approach said 

that it was:

a. simple,

b. fast,

c. similar to the familiar 1 to 10 rating, and 

d. clear because of the 2 very definite end points.

The participants who did not like the approach said that it:

a. used an unpleasant positive to negative comparison,

b. was unclear as to what each of the points meant,

c. needed labels,

d. was vague, confusing and unfocused, 

e. lacked a clear mid-point for expressing neutrality, and

f. was difficult because you didn’t know whether you were supposed to put 

your mark on one of the vertical lines or anywhere along the line.

Despite the strong negative reaction to this scale, participants appeared to answer the 

question in a manner consistent with their answers to other questions. One might argue, however, 

that because this question was located on the same page as the Balance Question, respondents 

used the cues about the balance of income and expenses to understand how to answer the Line 

Question. In fact, when asked to define the points on the scale, several participants used the 

responses to the Balance Question to define the five points on the Line:
30

Plus sign (+) Income is much greater than expenses,

1st point Income is somewhat greater than expenses,

2nd point Income and expenses are about the same,

3rd point Expenses are somewhat greater than income, and

Minus sign (-) Expenses are much greater than income.

 Nevertheless, responses were also significantly correlated with the responses to similar 

assessments throughout the entire test using other scales.

Table 31: Correlations Between Positive/Negative Line and Similar Assessments from other 

Scales

Other scales R P value

Balance of Income and Expenses .690 .000

Faces: your income .475 .002

Circles: your total income .692 .000

Worry scale: making ends meet .581 .000

Thermometer: your total family income .400 .011

Attitude 5: your financial situation .431 .006

In summary, while the line seems to be equally effective for taping participants’ feelings 

about their incomes, there was a strong negative reaction to the approach. Looking at the 

correlations, it seems that other scales gather largely the same information, but with less burden 

to participants. Consequently, other avenues of approach should be considered over this one.

L. THE PIE

The Pie represented another variation on the Circles and the Balance of Income and 

Expenses questions. In this exercise, respondents were presented with a circle divided into eight 

(8) slices (see Appendix L). Respondents were instructed to consider the pie as a representation 

of their complete financial situation and they were to label each slice as either positive (+), 

negative (-), or neutral (0). In this way, they were to express their overall financial situation with 

its balance of good, bad, and neutral elements. 

The reaction to this approach was strongly unfavorable. Respondents were unclear about 

how to proceed with the question. They felt uncomfortable with a graphic representing their 

“complete financial situation” and expressed the need to identify each particular slice of the pie 

with specific components of that situation (e.g., their salary, their savings, their food expenses 

etc.). Given the extraordinary amount of confusion that this approach engendered, it seems 

unlikely that this type of question could ever be used successfully in a survey setting.

M. Conclusion

Based on the information provided to us by these test subjects, a number of tentative 

conclusions may be suggested:

1. Questions asking our respondents about their feelings toward their income and expenses 

appear to be susceptible to variations in question wording and format.
31

2. While our respondents showed some degree of consistency in how they responded to 

questions using different formats, the correlations between the same or similar questions 

answered with different scales was lower than expected and the cross tabulations revealed 

a number of jarring inconsistencies.

3. Some of our respondents showed a tendency to express feelings about their income or 

expenses that contradicted either the (a) objective situation assessed by questions asking 

about the balance of their income and expenses or (b) amount reported worry associated 

with their situation.

4. Our respondents indicated a preference for simple questions using the more traditional 

survey approach to question wording (e.g., the Economic Attitude Questions, Balance of 

Income and Expenses, and Worry questions).

References

Andrews, F.M. and Withey, S.B. (1976). Social Indicators of Well-Being. New York: Plenum 

Press.
32

APPENDIX A

Traditional Minimum Income Question (#1)

“Living where you do now and meeting the expenses that you consider necessary, what would be 

the smallest income (before any deductions) you and your family would need to make ends 

meet?”

$ ________________________ 

Alternative Version of MIQ (#2)

a. How much would you need in a month for the cheapest housing that you would live in? ____

b. How much would you need in a month for just enough food to maintain your health? _______

c. How much would you need in a month to pay for clothes? __________________

d. How much would you need in a month to pay utilities in the cheapest housing you would live 

in? _________

e. How much would you need each month to pay for “work expenses,” such as transportation, 

uniforms or child care? __________________ 
33

APPENDIX B

Income Evaluation Question (Version #1)

“Which after-tax monthly income would you, in your circumstances consider to be:”

very bad? $ ________________________ 

bad? $ ________________________

insufficient? $ ________________________

sufficient? $ ________________________

good? $ ________________________

very good? $ ________________________

IEQ Version #2

a. At least how much take-home pay would you need each month to live your life as you 

currently do? $_________

b. At least how much take-home pay would you need each month to live at an acceptable level 

(i.e., if you were “comfortable”)? $____________________

c. At least how much take-home pay would you need each month to change from living at an 

“acceptable level” to living VERY well? $_____________________

d. At most how much take-home pay would you be making each month if you were living at a 

VERY UNACCEPTABLE level (i.e., if you were ‘very uncomfortable’)? 

$____________________
34

IEQ #3:

INCOME RANGES

Here is a scale ranging from $0.00 (NO INCOME) at the bottom up through BAD levels, into 

GOOD levels and up to the VERY HIGHEST income levels. Please enter a dollar amount in 

each of the blanks to identify where the different levels of income begin and end.

The VERY HIGHEST income levels

|

|

|

$ ____________________________

(VERY GOOD income)

|

|

|

$____________________________

(GOOD income)

|

|

|

$ ___________________________

(BAD income)

|

|

|

$ __________________________

(VERY BAD income)

|

|

|

NO INCOME ($ 0.00)
35

APPENDIX C

FACES

Here are some faces expressing various feelings. Below 

each is a letter.

 A B C D E 

1. Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel 

about your income? __________ 

2. Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel 

about the cost of housing? ___________

3. Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel 

about the cost of food? __________ 

4. Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel 

about the cost of health care? ___________ 

5. Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel 

about saving for the future? ____________ 

6. Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel 

about getting ahead financially? ____________

7. Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel 

about your overall financial situation? ____________ 
36
37

APPENDIX D

FEELING THERMOMETER

WARM 100° very warm or favorable feeling

 ↑

 | 80° quite warm or favorable feeling

 |

 | 70° fairly warm or favorable feeling

 |

 | 60° a bit more warm or favorable than 

cold feeling

 ____

 ________ 50° no feeling at all

 ____

 | 40° a bit more cold/unfavorable feeling

 |

 | 30° fairly cold or unfavorable feeling

 |

 | 20° quite cold or unfavorable feeling

 ↓

 COLD 0° very cold or unfavorable feeling
38

FEELING THERMOMETER

Using the “Feeling Thermometer”, how would you rate your feelings about...

1. the cost of housing? _____

2. the cost of food? _____

3. the cost of transportation? _____

4. the cost of health care? _____

5. the cost of clothing? _____

6. the cost of electricity, water, 

 and other utilities? _____

7. the cost of recreation? _____

8. your total (family) income? _____

9. your savings? _____

10. your investments? _____

11. your financial security? _____

12. your financial situation,

 taken as a whole? _____

13. your financial future? _____

14. your chances of getting

 ahead financially? _____
39

APPENDIX E

Delighted Terrible Scale

“Which of the following categories best describes how you feel about your family income (or 

your own income if you are not living with relatives)? 

Do you feel delighted, pleased, mostly satisfied, mixed, mostly dissatisfied, unhappy, or terrible?”
40

APPENDIX F

Circles Scale

Here are some circles that we can imagine represent the economic circumstances of 

different people. Circle 0 has all minuses in it, to represent a person whose financial 

situation is all bad. Circle 6 has all plus signs, to represent a person whose financial 

situation is all good. Other circles are in between. Write one number on the line to the left 

of each question.

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

____ Which circle do you think comes closest to matching your current financial situation?

____ Which circle do you think would be chosen most often by people in this country to 

describe their current financial situation?

____ Which circle comes closest to matching how you feel about your total income?

____ Which circle comes closest to matching how you feel about your total expenses?

____ Which circle comes closest to matching how you feel about the overall economy of the 

country?

____ Which circle comes closest to matching how you feel about your level of living—the 

things you have like shelter, furniture, recreation, and the like?
41

APPENDIX G

WORRY SCALE

Listed below are a number of things that might be a source of concern 

or worry for someone. For each item, please indicate whether you never 

worry, worry a little, worry sometimes, worry a lot, or worry all the 

time about it. (Check one response for each item.)

Worry about...

Never 

worry

Worry 

A little

Worry 

Sometimes

Worry 

a lot

Worry all 

the time

1. Making ends meet

2. Paying for housing

3. Paying for food

4. Paying for utilities

5. Paying for recreation

6. Paying for health care

7. Paying off debts

8. Paying for clothing

9. Paying for transportation 

10. Paying for insurance

11. Paying for education

12. Getting ahead financially

13. Saving for the future 

14. Having a steady income

15. Having an income that 

 increases with inflation

16. Maintaining your current 

 standard of living
42

APPENDIX H

Economic Attitudes

1. We are interested in how people are getting along financially these days. Would you say that 

you (and your family) are better off now , about the same , or worse off now financially than 

you were a year ago? (Check one response.)

 Much better now

 A little better now

 About the same

 A little worse now

 Much worse now

2. Now thinking back 5 years, would you say that you (and your family) are better off now , 

about the same , or worse off now financially than you were 5 years ago? (Check one 

response.)

 Much better now

 A little better now

 About the same

 A little worse now

 Much worse now

3. Now looking ahead—do you think that a year from now you (and your family) will be better 

off , about the same , or worse off financially than you are now? (Check one response.)

 Much better in a year

 A little better in a year

 About the same

 A little worse in a year

 Much worse in a year

4. Many people worry about money and expenses. Would you say that you never worry, worry 

a little, worry sometimes, worry a lot, or worry all the time about money and expenses? 

(Check one response.)

 Never worry

 Worry a little

 Worry sometimes

 Worry a lot

 Worry all the time

5. For this point in your life, do you think of your financial situation as:

 An ideal financial situation for you

 The best financial situation you are able to have for now

 A good enough financial situation

 A tolerable financial situation

 A very unsatisfactory financial situation
43

APPENDIX I

LADDER SCALE

Here is a picture of a ladder. At the bottom of the ladder is the worst financial situation you 

might reasonably expect to have. At the top is the best financial situation you might expect to 

have. Of course, life from month to month falls somewhere in between...

| |

|______| 9 Best financial situation I could expect to have

| |

| |

|______| 8

| |

| |

|______| 7

| |

| |

|______| 6

| |

| |

|______| 5

| |

| |

|______| 4

| |

| |

|______| 3

| |

| |

|______| 2

| |

| |

|______| 1 Worst financial situation I could expect to have

| |

| |

1. Where on the ladder would you say was your best month in the past year

– on which rung of the ladder would you put it?

2. Where on the ladder would you say was your worst month in the past 

year – on which rung of the ladder would you put it?

3. Where was your financial situation most of the time during the past year? 

4. Where was your financial situation five years ago (summer of 1992)? 

5. Where do you expect your financial situation to be five years from now? 
44

APPENDIX J

BALANCE OF INCOME AND EXPENSES 

1. When you think about your income and expenses would you say that your income is greater 

than your expenses, your income and expenses are about the same, or that your expenses are 

greater than your income? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

 Our INCOME is much greater than expenses

 Our INCOME is somewhat greater than expenses

 Our INCOME and EXPENSES are about the same

 Our EXPENSES are somewhat greater than our income

 Our EXPENSES are much greater than our income
45

APPENDIX K

THE POSITIVE & NEGATIVE LINE

Below is a line that goes from a negative point (-) to a positive point (+). Where on that line 

would you place your feelings about your total family income?

(-)______________|______________|______________|______________(+)
46

APPENDIX L

The Pie

Here is a circle (like a pie) and we can imagine that it represents the 

balance between your income and expenses that makes up your 

complete financial situation. The pie slices are parts of your financial 

situation – including your total family income, your total family 

expenses, your savings, your debt and all other aspects. There are 8 

slices, so let’s imagine that you can divide your financial situation up 

into 8 parts.

1. Now put a plus sign (+) in those slices that are good parts of your 

financial situation.

2. Put a zero (0) in those slices that are neutral parts of your financial 

situation – neither good or bad.

3. And last, put a minus sign (-) in those slices that are bad parts of 

your financial situation.

PUT SOME MARK IN EVERY SLICE.