Happiness

Question 1

Luttmer (2005)

Answer 1

Relative income enters negatively in SWB

PUMA as local area comparative income, reference group mean… could argue shoudl link to network of associations not by characteristics

Mechanism?

1. Neighbour incomes increase satisfaction with local area
2. Neighbour incomes decrease leisure time and friend satisfaction, increase work hours to compete

Trading Off: Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Satisfaction

Question 2

Liberini et. al (2017)

Answer 2

Reverse causality in voter behaviour and SWB

Question 3

Stone et al. (2010)

Answer 3

Consistent U shape in age across affective and evaluative measures, both positively and negatively

Question 4

Weiss et. al (2012)

Answer 4

Consistent U shape across other primates

Question 5

DiTella, MacCulloh & Oswald (2003)

Answer 5

Macro variables are important for SWB, recessions have long lasting negative impacts

Question 6

Blanchflower & Oswald (2004)

Answer 6

Stagnant SWB in USA and Britain for 25 years, closing race premium

Question 7

Proto & Rustichini (2013)

Answer 7

Explain the Easterlin paradox through ambition, individuals tend to exhibit adaptation to failure and re-evaluation of life goals and aspirations

Question 8

Frey and Stutzer (2008; 2014)

Answer 8

Tests net compensation for commuting, asymmetries in adaptation mean individuals are not compensated as we adapt to income and housing…the two main compensating forces

Question 9

Kelly (2004)

Answer 9

Sleep is a key driver of SWB

Question 10

Kahneman & Deaton (2010)

Answer 10

More satiation at c.$75,000 in affective measures than evaluative measures upto $120,000; Marriage worth approximately $100,000, Black worth $30,000. Poverty exacerbates the negative feeling of other daily activities; more sensitive to loneliness, stress and worry

Question 11

Oswald (2008)

Answer 11

Nuanced curvature in the reporting function If this shifts over time it may help to explain - Easterlin paradox

Question 12

Oswald & Powdthavee (2008)

Answer 12

Individuals exhibit adaptation to disabilities

Question 13

Clark & Oswald (1998)

Answer 13

Relative income cannot explain emulation. Comparison concave utility leads to herding behaviour, convex leads to deviant

U = sv(a-a*) + [1-s]u(a) - c(a)

Question 14

Diener et. al (1999)

Answer 14

Poor SWB returns to remarriage

Question 15

Gilovich et. al (2014)

Answer 15

Less adaption to experience goods due to reduction in social comparisons

Question 16

Oswald & Wu (2010)

Answer 16

Data consistency: Happiness and Objective Data

Question 17

Falk and Knell (2004)

Answer 17

Self improving upwards, vs. self enhancing downward social comparisons Conflict between motivation/aspiration & boasting

Question 18

Deaton (2008)

Answer 18

Rich countries care more for relative income, argument of positional externalities

Question 19

DiTella et. al (2008)

Answer 19

Individuals exhibit adaptation to income shocks in the GSOEP

Question 20

Stevenson & Wolfers (2013)

Answer 20

Questioning intuitively appealing argument of satiation, rich and poor countries show contradicting evidence

Question 21

De Neve et. al. (2015)

Answer 21

SWB twice as sensitive the negative growth

Question 22

Easterlin (1974)

Answer 22

“Easterlin Paradox” - income and happiness, positive relation in the cross section but flat over time

Question 23

Stiglitz et. al (2010)

Answer 23

Well-being is multi-faceted, current measures act only as imperfect proxies

Question 24

Boyce, Brown & Moore (2010)

Answer 24

Income rank matters for life satisfaction, not absolute or relative - using BHPS

Question 25

Clark, Frijters & Shileds (2008)

Answer 25

Relative income support, near satiation of absolute income as incomes increase Income imposes a negative externality on others, MPB\>MSB...due to MPB incorporating status benefits? Negative positional externalities?

Question 26

Frank (1997)

Answer 26

Advocates savings exemption and consumption tax. Income explains less than 2% of SWB variation in top 2/3 of distribution

Question 27

Clark & Oswald (2002)

Answer 27

Panel data stagnancy of happiness

Question 28

Benjamin et. al (2012)

Answer 28

Large consistency in SWB choices between choice and idealised choice, although some systematic reversal exist - more common when financial variables are in question

Question 29

Easterlin et. al (2010)

Answer 29

Income only matters in short run

Question 30

Schwarz (1987); Schwarz & Strack (1991)

Answer 30

Finding a dime on a photocopier, or watching the german soccer team win makes individuals report higher life satisfaction despite trivial nature and value “Peak end bias”

Question 31

Whaples (2009)

Answer 31

Distinction between happiness and SWB, more support for income improving SWB than happiness

Question 32

# Reversed: Relative income enters negatively in SWB PUMA as local area comparative income, reference group mean... could argue shoudl link to network of associations not by characteristics Mechanism? 1. Neighbour incomes increase satisfaction with local area 2. Neighbour incomes decrease leisure time and friend satisfaction, increase work hours to compete Trading Off: Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Satisfaction

Answer 32

Luttmer (2005)

Question 33

# Reversed: Reverse causality in voter behaviour and SWB

Answer 33

Liberini et. al (2017)

Question 34

# Reversed: Consistent U shape in age across affective and evaluative measures, both positively and negatively

Answer 34

Stone et al. (2010)

Question 35

# Reversed: Consistent U shape across other primates

Answer 35

Weiss et. al (2012)

Question 36

# Reversed: Macro variables are important for SWB, recessions have long lasting negative impacts

Answer 36

DiTella, MacCulloh & Oswald (2003)

Question 37

# Reversed: Stagnant SWB in USA and Britain for 25 years, closing race premium

Answer 37

Blanchflower & Oswald (2004)

Question 38

# Reversed: Explain the Easterlin paradox through ambition, individuals tend to exhibit adaptation to failure and re-evaluation of life goals and aspirations

Answer 38

Proto & Rustichini (2013)

Question 39

# Reversed: Tests net compensation for commuting, asymmetries in adaptation mean individuals are not compensated as we adapt to income and housing...the two main compensating forces

Answer 39

Frey and Stutzer (2008; 2014)

Question 40

# Reversed: Sleep is a key driver of SWB

Answer 40

Kelly (2004)

Question 41

# Reversed: More satiation at c.$75,000 in affective measures than evaluative measures upto $120,000; Marriage worth approximately $100,000, Black worth $30,000. Poverty exacerbates the negative feeling of other daily activities; more sensitive to loneliness, stress and worry

Answer 41

Kahneman & Deaton (2010)

Question 42

# Reversed: Nuanced curvature in the reporting function If this shifts over time it may help to explain - Easterlin paradox

Answer 42

Oswald (2008)

Question 43

# Reversed: Individuals exhibit adaptation to disabilities

Answer 43

Oswald & Powdthavee (2008)

Question 44

# Reversed: Relative income cannot explain emulation. Comparison concave utility leads to herding behaviour, convex leads to deviant U = sv(a-a\*) + [1-s]u(a) - c(a)

Answer 44

Clark & Oswald (1998)

Question 45

# Reversed: Poor SWB returns to remarriage

Answer 45

Diener et. al (1999)

Question 46

# Reversed: Less adaption to experience goods due to reduction in social comparisons

Answer 46

Gilovich et. al (2014)

Question 47

# Reversed: Data consistency: Happiness and Objective Data

Answer 47

Oswald & Wu (2010)

Question 48

# Reversed: Self improving upwards, vs. self enhancing downward social comparisons Conflict between motivation/aspiration & boasting

Answer 48

Falk and Knell (2004)

Question 49

# Reversed: Rich countries care more for relative income, argument of positional externalities

Answer 49

Deaton (2008)

Question 50

# Reversed: Individuals exhibit adaptation to income shocks in the GSOEP

Answer 50

DiTella et. al (2008)

Question 51

# Reversed: Questioning intuitively appealing argument of satiation, rich and poor countries show contradicting evidence

Answer 51

Stevenson & Wolfers (2013)

Question 52

# Reversed: SWB twice as sensitive the negative growth

Answer 52

De Neve et. al. (2015)

Question 53

# Reversed: "Easterlin Paradox" - income and happiness, positive relation in the cross section but flat over time

Answer 53

Easterlin (1974)

Question 54

# Reversed: Well-being is multi-faceted, current measures act only as imperfect proxies

Answer 54

Stiglitz et. al (2010)

Question 55

# Reversed: Income rank matters for life satisfaction, not absolute or relative - using BHPS

Answer 55

Boyce, Brown & Moore (2010)

Question 56

# Reversed: Relative income support, near satiation of absolute income as incomes increase Income imposes a negative externality on others, MPB\>MSB...due to MPB incorporating status benefits? Negative positional externalities?

Answer 56

Clark, Frijters & Shileds (2008)

Question 57

# Reversed: Advocates savings exemption and consumption tax. Income explains less than 2% of SWB variation in top 2/3 of distribution

Answer 57

Frank (1997)

Question 58

# Reversed: Panel data stagnancy of happiness

Answer 58

Clark & Oswald (2002)

Question 59

# Reversed: Large consistency in SWB choices between choice and idealised choice, although some systematic reversal exist - more common when financial variables are in question

Answer 59

Benjamin et. al (2012)

Question 60

# Reversed: Income only matters in short run

Answer 60

Easterlin et. al (2010)

Question 61

# Reversed: Finding a dime on a photocopier, or watching the german soccer team win makes individuals report higher life satisfaction despite trivial nature and value “Peak end bias”

Answer 61

Schwarz (1987); Schwarz & Strack (1991)

Question 62

# Reversed: Distinction between happiness and SWB, more support for income improving SWB than happiness

Answer 62

Whaples (2009)

Question 63

Kahneman et. al (1997)

Answer 63

Instant Utility -\> Total Utility Remembered Utility "Back to Bentham" - experience vs. decision utility Instant vs. Total Utility? Peak - End Bias, colonoscopy duration neglect Hedonic pleasure vs. pain, "felicific calculus"

Question 64

# Reversed: Instant Utility -\> Total Utility Remembered Utility "Back to Bentham" - experience vs. decision utility Instant vs. Total Utility? Peak - End Bias, colonoscopy duration neglect Hedonic pleasure vs. pain, "felicific calculus"

Answer 64

Kahneman et. al (1997)