1 / 38

Subjective Well-Being is Not Unitary Ed Diener Daniel Kahneman

Subjective Well-Being is Not Unitary Ed Diener Daniel Kahneman Raksha Arora William Tov International Differences in Well-Being Princeton, 2008. SWB or WB Is Not one thing. Which are the happiest nations? Does money influence happiness?

snoon
Download Presentation

Subjective Well-Being is Not Unitary Ed Diener Daniel Kahneman

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Subjective Well-Being is Not Unitary Ed Diener Daniel Kahneman Raksha Arora William Tov International Differences in Well-Being Princeton, 2008

  2. SWB or WBIs Not one thing • Which are the happiest nations? • Does money influence happiness? • What are the causes of happiness? Such questions assume there is one variable in “happiness”

  3. BUT • Empirically – no • Diener, Lucas, etc. Life satisfaction, positive affect, etc. are separate • Conceptually • Kahnamen – judgment vs. momentary feelings are separate

  4. Let’s take seriously the idea that “happiness” is more than one thing

  5. We Propose a Dimension Global life judgments, reflective V • Life satisfaction • Reports of happiness V Momentary affect, feelings at the moment

  6. Intercorrelation of Well-Being Measures Well-Being Life VariablesLadderSatisfactionHappiness Life Satisfaction .74 Happiness .62 .71 Affect Balance .53 .56 .71

  7. Intercorrelation of Well-Being Measures Well-Being Life VariablesLadderSatisfactionHappiness Life Satisfaction .74 V Happiness .62 < .71 V V Affect Balance .53 < .56 < .71

  8. Predicting Life Satisfaction Ladder Score Beta = .61 (p < .01) Affect Balance Beta = .28 (p < .01) • Predicting Happiness Ladder Score Beta = .23 (NS) Affect Balance Beta = .54 (p < .01)

  9. Indicates the Ordering: Judgment-------------------------------------Feelings Ladder Life Satisfaction Happiness AffectBalance

  10. Distributions Also Support a Distinction: Feelings versus Judgment different Cacioppo – “Positivity offset” Diener and Diener “Most people are happy” – but happy how?

  11. Life Judgments Are Dramatically Less Positive than Affect • Biological? • Therefore more room to move?

  12. What Predicts Judgments versus Feelings?

  13. Predictors Correlated with Four Measures of Well-Being Well-Being Income Per Choose How to Possession of CapitaSpend TimeConveniences Ladder Score .83 a .33 a .80 a Life Satisfaction .58 b .51 b .46 b Happiness .34 bc .54 b .16 bc Affect Balance .31 c .57 b .16 c

  14. Judgment ------------------------------------- Feelings Ladder Life Satisfaction Happiness Affect Balance Income Psychological Conveniences Needs??? Prosperity e.g. Autonomy Positive

  15. Easterlin Paradox:What About Changes in Income? Are changes in national income more associated with judgments than with feelings?

  16. Two Waves of Data for Each SWB Variable Criterion – two surveys using same instrument more than five years apart Years Apart Ladder 36 Life Satisfaction 21 Happiness 20

  17. Per Capita Income LadderLife Sat.Happiness Wave 1 PPP $ 8,148 $ 10,702 $ 11,187 Wave 2 PPP $ 19,938 $ 22,114 $ 20,332 Log10 Change .39 .33 .26

  18. Well-Being LadderLife Sat.Happiness Wave 1 5.58 6.68 3.01 Wave 2 6.31 6.91 3.08 Difference: +.72 +.23 +.07 p < .01 .05 .10

  19. Size of Mean Well-being Changes LadderLife Sat.Happiness Percentage of scale change 7 2 2 Between-nation .70 .23 .25 SD units

  20. Correlations of Changes with Income Ladder r = .56, p < .05 Life satisfaction r = .33, p < .10 Happiness r = .24, NS

  21. Change Regression Analyses: Over time predictions (Betas): Log income T1 SWBChange Ladder .85 .37 (p < .06) Life satisfaction .83 .26 (p < .01) Happiness .58 .22 (p < .10)

  22. LossesVersusGains?

  23. Box Score AnalysesAcross 3 SWB Measures: SWB Change Income ChangeDownUp Down 7 1 Up 25 65

  24. Thus: • Asymmetry • When income down, SWB down 88 % • When income up, SWB up 72 %

  25. Happiness Change GDP Up versus Down • Absolute change in Happiness • GDP up -- .16 scale score change • GDP down -- .37 scale score change p < .01

  26. Suggests Asymmetry-- Losses loom larger than gains

  27. Conclusions • Types of SWB are not the same things • They can be ordered on the dimension from judgment to feelings • Judgments reflect income more • For the Ladder there appears to have been little scale recalibration • Feelings of SWB have changed less over time in response to income • Downward income change more powerful than upward income change

  28. Easterlin’s Paradox? • Judgments more likely to change in response to changing income, although they do not invariably do so • Happiness is less related to income, and has been less responsive to income changes

  29. Thank You

  30. Predictors Correlated with Four Measures of Well-Being Well-Being Income Per Choose How to Possession of Variables Capita Spend Time Conveniences • Affect Balance .31c .57a .16a • Ladder Score • Time 1 .82b • Time 2 .83d .33b .80c • Life Satisfaction • Time 1 .66a • Time 2 .58e .51a .46b • Happiness • Time 1 .35a • Time 2 .34ce .54a .16ab

  31. Raw vs. Log Income • Ladder change and income change: • Log income r = .56, p < .05 • Raw income r = .16, NS Listwise N = 18

  32. Income Up • Life Satisfaction down in 39 percent of nations when income rose • Happiness down 22 % when income up • Ladder down 22 % when income up

More Related