Slide 2 Slide 3 Happiness Science Popular Topic Slide 4 What is
happiness? An evaluation of a life. A happy life is a good life.
How is happiness measured? Standard economics (Utility/$$$) Welfare
economics (Capabilities/HDI) Subjective Measures (Quality of Life,
Subjective Well-Being) Slide 5 Happiness Science Book: Well-Being:
The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (Kahneman, Diener, Schwarz,
1999). policy relevance development of valid indicators existing
economic indicators are limited focus on traded goods flawed
assumptions (behavioral economics) Slide 6 Happiness Science Focus
on subjective measures Subjective Well-Being (SWB) Affective
Component (AWB) Amount of Positive Affect / Negative Affect
Cognitive Component (CWB) Life Satisfaction Average Domain
Satisfaction Slide 7 Cognitive Well-Being (CWB) Life satisfaction
judgments A global assessment of ones life Widely used in happiness
surveys The majority of empirical findings in happiness science are
based on these measures. Slide 8 Example: World Value Survey Taking
all things together, would you say you are 1 Very happy 2 Rather
happy 3 Not very happy 4 Not at all happy All things considered,
how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? Using a
scale on which 1 means you are completely dissatisfied and 10 means
you are completely satisfied where would you put your satisfaction
with your life as a whole? Completely dissatisfied Completely
satisfied 123456789 10 Slide 9 Promises subjective / evaluation
based on individuals own point of view (not paternalistic)
comprehensive Problems requires willingness to participate requires
cognitive abilities insensitive to environmental influences
(set-point, adaptation) may rely on inappropriate comparison
standards (satisfaction treadmill, relative vs. absolute judgments)
Slide 10 Participation Problems National representative surveys
routinely include life satisfaction questions. Few respondents do
not answer these questions. Responses are not random (high
correlation between two independent questions). Conclusion A
general problem of survey-based indicators, but not specific to
happiness science. Slide 11 (Lack of) Cognitive Abilities:
Heuristics and Biases Traditionally studied by social psychologists
and behavioral economists (Kahneman, Schwarz, etc.) The heuristics
and bias research program is itself biased and has focused on
demonstrating biases in human judgments (Giegerenzer, Funder). This
has lead to a biased perception of humans abilities. Individual
bias may often cancel out in aggregated measures of life
satisfaction (e.g., national averages). Slide 12 Example:
Context-Effects In a well-known example, Strack, Martin, and
Schwarz (1988) presented the following two questions consecutively
in a survey administered to students: How happy are you? and, How
many dates did you have last month The correlation was.12 when the
general happiness question came first, but when the dating question
came first, the correlation rose to.66 (Kahneman, 1999, p. 22).
[difference between two correlations, effect size q =.67] Slide 13
Example: Context-Effects Two important conclusions can be drawn
from this finding, WHICH HAS BEEN REPLICATED MANY TIMES WITH
DIVERSE POPULATIONS AND IN A VARIETY OF LIFE DOMAINS (Schwarz &
Strack, 1999, this volume). First, people EVIDENTLY compute an
answer to the subjective happiness question on the fly, instead of
retrieving a prepared answer from memory. Second, respondents
APPEAR TO anchor their report of well-being on their satisfaction
with any significant life domain to which attention has been drawn.
(Kahneman, 1999, p. 22). Slide 14 Kahneman et al. (2006) Would you
be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion SCIENCE, 312,
1908-1910. Same example the dating question EVIDENTLY caused that
aspect of life to become salient and its importance to be
exaggerated when the respondents encountered the more general
question about their happiness (p. 1908). Slide 15 Schimmack and
Oishi (2005) Meta-analysis of all studies that manipulated item-
order (no priming r =.32, priming r =.40, effect size q =.09).
Replication of Strack and Schwarz (1988) dating study (no priming r
=.39, priming r =.49, effect size q =.12). Correlation with average
domain satisfaction (priming r =.71, no priming r =.78, effect size
q =.16). Slide 16 Conclusions Priming effects are weak Satisfaction
in important life domains that were not primed is a strong
predictor of global life satisfaction judgments. Chronically
accessible information is more important than temporarily
accessible information. You get a noble price for pushing a
paradigm, not for accurate reporting of empirical evidence. Slide
17 Stability and Change (Adaptation/Set Point) Genetic dispositions
may produce stable differences between individuals. Environmental
influences may have short-lasting effects due to adaptation. Policy
implication: Even if it could be measured, it could not be changed.
Slide 18 Empirical Evidence Meta-analyses and longitudinal panel
studies provide evidence for stability and change. Veenhoven (1994)
meta-analysis Ehrhardt et al. (2000) SOEP Fujita and Diener (2005)-
SOEP Schimmack and Oishi (2005) meta-analysis Schilling (2006) SOEP
Schimmack and Lucas (2007) SOEP Anusic and Schimmack (in prep.)
Meta Slide 19 Modeling Stability and Change Trait State Error /
Fluctuation Stability of State Variance High slow adaptation Low
fast adaptation Slide 20 Trait State Error Plot Slide 21 Error Free
Trait State Plot Slide 22 Grey=multiple items Black=single items
Slide 23 Schimmack and Lucas (2007) A dyadic study of stability and
change of married couples. Spousal similarity in trait variance
Assortative mating (genetic similarity) Stable environmental
factors Spousal similarity in state variance Mutual social
influence Shared environmental factors Slide 24 Slide 25 Conclusion
Evidence for a stable trait component, presumably due to genetic
dispositions. Evidence for a slowly change state component. No
evidence for quick adaptation. Both components contribute about
equally to the error free variance in life satisfaction. Evidence
for spousal similarity in both components. Change may be due to
changing circumstances rather than simple adaptation to stable
circumstances. Slide 26 Environmental factors that produce change
in life satisfaction? Unemployment (down, up after reemployment)
Disability (down, adaptation evidence mixed) Widowhood (down, slow
adaptation) Divorce (down, then up in new relationship) Marriage
(up and down, no adaptation) Having children (on average up,
adaptation unknown) Bigger house (up, adaptation unknown) Source.
Several articles by Rich Lucas, review article by Diener et al.
2006); children effect based on poster German Sociological Society
2007; house effect based on preliminary unpublished results of SOEP
data. Slide 27 Relative versus Absolute: National Differences in
Happiness Studies of individuals within a nation fail to reveal
causes that produce differences across nations. Changes within
nation may be caused by absolute or relative judgments of
well-being. Large survey studies of national representative samples
show marked differences between nations. Last year, researchers
published a world map of happiness. Slide 28 Slide 29 Theoretically
Important Questions What is the correlation between per capita GDP
in Purchasing Power Parity $ and happiness? Is the relation linear
or non-linear (log-function, diminishing marginal utility)? What
predicts discrepancies between these two measures of nations
well-being (welfare)? standard economics (error in happiness
measures) happiness economics (false assumptions of standard
economics) Slide 30 Schimmack, Oishi, Diener (in preparation) used
two WVS items (N = 80 nations) avoid computation of average
estimate correlations separately for frequencies of different
response categories modeling shows that indicators are not
unidimensional. one dimension shows high loadings of categories
7,8, and 9, other dimension has high loading of 10s. GDP predicts
frequencies of 7s, 8s, and 9s. Latin America predicts frequencies
of 10s. Slide 31 Top 10 Happy Nations 1. Finland 2. Netherlands 3.
Iceland 4. Luxembourg 5. Sweden 6. Australia 7. Norway 8. Canada 9.
Ireland 10. USA Top 10 Bias Nations 1. Puerto Rico 2. Colombia 3.
Venezuela 4. Brazil 5. El Salvador 6. Malta ? 7. Switzerland ? 8.
Denmark ? 9. Mexico 10. Austria ? Slide 32 Happiness and Wealth
(PPP) Slide 33 Results Linear correlation with PPP, r =.83
Correlation with Log-PPPP, r =.82 Multiple correlation, r =.85
unique linear, beta =.51 unique log, beta =.35 Slide 34 Lowest 10
Nations Residuals Unhappier than PPP predicts 1. Zimbabwe 2.
Luxembourg 3. Ukraine 4. Russia 5. Tanzania 6. Belarus 7. Moldova
8. Armenia 9. Pakistan 10. Georgia Slide 35 Top 10 Residuals
Happier than PPP Predicts 1. Indonesia 2. Colombia ! 3. China 4. El
Salvador 5. Mexico ! 6. Dominican Republic 7. Nigeria 8. Finland 9.
Malta 10. Philippines ! Slide 36 Human Development Index
(Education, Longevity, Log (PPP) Correlation with happiness, r =.73
Controlling for PPP, beta =.17, n.s. Gini (Income Inequality)
Correlation with happiness, r = -.24 Controlling for PPP, beta =.13
Correlation with bias, r =.55 Controlling for Latin America, beta
=.27 Slide 37 CO2 Emissions Correlation with happiness, r =.57
Controlling for PPP, beta = -.16, n.s. Electricity Consumption
Correlation with happiness, r =.66 Controlling for PPP, beta = -.03
Slide 38 Conclusion Life satisfaction judgments are at least
partially based on absolute information. PPP predicts life
satisfaction beyond the fulfillment of basic needs (proxy for
utility). Other national indicators do not explain discrepancies
between happiness and PPP. Measurement error in PPP may account for
some of the discrepancies? Slide 39 Hedonic indicators (AWB)? Less
empirical evidence, but often highly correlated with CWB. Life
satisfaction more responsive to unemployment than affective
well-being (Schimmack, Schupp, & Wagner, in press) (hedonic
treadmill, bread and circuses). Slide 40 Happiness Science
Important research area Wealth of data Remaining problems
cardinality bounded measure (problem?) More empirical (positive
happiness science) work needed before it can be used in public
policy (normative happiness science).
