Many scholars have studied the effects of economic conditions on subjective well-being, but scarce attention has been paid to the effect of cultural and social determinants on quality of life. This study aims to analyse the effect of social cohesion considered as a characteristic of a country on subjective quality of life. In addition, we also tested the moderating effect of social cohesion on the relationship between income and placement in society with quality of life. To test our hypotheses we estimated a multilevel regression model. First, we estimated the null model, which showed that almost a quarter of the variance in quality of life is located at country level. Second, we included in the model all the level-1 predictors. This model highlighted that self-evaluated position on the social ladder has a larger positive effect than income on quality of life. In the third step, we added country-level predictors. Controlling for other macro factors—GDP, Life Expectancy, Gini coefficient and Homicide rate—and individual-level variables, we shows that Cohesion exerts a positive effect on subjective quality of life. The model also points out that country’s economic conditions (measured by GDP) do not affect quality of life when we control this relationship for social cohesion. Interestingly, also the within-country economic disparities (measured by Gini coefficient) do not seem to affect quality of life when cohesion is taken into account. Finally, we also shows that the positive effect of income on quality of life is moderated by cohesion. In other words, income is a relatively less important factor in determining quality of life in countries with higher levels of cohesion. In the same way, individuals’ position and perception of their placement on the social ladder affects in a lesser extent their quality of life in those countries that have higher degrees of cohesion.

A number of countries in Europe and beyond have established online or mixed mode panels with a web component based upon probability samples. This paper aims to assess the first ever attempt to do this cross-nationally using an input harmonised approach representing a major innovation in cross-national survey methodology. The European Social Survey established a panel using the face-to-face interview as the basis for recruitment to the panel. This experiment was conducted in Estonia, Slovenia and Great Britain using an input harmonised approach to the design throughout something never done before across multiple countries simultaneously. The paper outlines how the experiment was conducted. It then moves on to compare the web panel respondents to the ESS achieved face-to-face sample in each country, as well as comparing the web panel achieved sample to external benchmarks. Most importantly, since the literature is very scarce, the differences in attitudinal and behavioural characteristics are also assessed. By comparing the answers of the total achieved sample in the ESS to the subset who also answered the CRONOS web panel we assess changes in representativeness and substantive answers without confounding the findings with other changes such as mode effects. This approach is only possible where ‘piggybacking’ recruitment has been used. This in itself is rare at the national level but this is the first time survey methodologists have employed this cross-nationally allowing such an analytical approach. Our findings suggest that the CRONOS sample is not too divergent from the target population and to the ESS with the exception of the oldest age groups. However, there are cross-national differences suggesting cross-national comparability might be different when compared to estimates from a face-to-face survey.

Previous research highlights the impact of nonverbal cues and visual layouts on respondents’ interpretations and answers to survey questions (Schwarz et al. in Pub Opin Q 55(4):570–582, 1991; Tourangeau et al. in Pub Opin Q 71(1):91–112, 2007; Toepoel and Dillman in Soc Sci Comput Rev 29(2):193–207, 2011). In this study, we investigate the effect of numerical values on responses to five questions measured using 11-point bipolar scales. These questions asked for evaluations of the general impact of climate change and its effects on different groups. Respondents were randomly assigned to scales ranging from 0 to 10, or from − 5 to + 5. The scales were presented horizontally and had identical verbal endpoints anchored as “extremely negative” and “extremely positive”. The experiment was embedded in a cross-national face-to-face survey conducted in Hungary, Portugal, and Great Britain. Contrary to prior research (Schwarz et al. in Pub Opin Q 55(4):570–582, 1991; O’Muircheartaigh et al. J Off Stat 11:295–308, 1995; Tourangeau et al. in Pub Opin Q 71(1):91–112, 2007), our analyses show an opposite trend: the means tend to be consistently and significantly lower for the − 5/+5 scale. The discrepancy between our findings and previous studies suggests that the interpretations of the 0/10 and − 5/+5 scales could be item specific. The implications of these findings and how they fit with previous work are discussed.