Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Behavioural Economics > Happiness > Flashcards

Happiness Flashcards

1
Q

Luttmer (2005)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Liberini et. al (2017)

A

Reverse causality in voter behaviour and SWB

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Stone et al. (2010)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Weiss et. al (2012)

A

Consistent U shape across other primates

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

DiTella, MacCulloh & Oswald (2003)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Blanchflower & Oswald (2004)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Proto & Rustichini (2013)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Frey and Stutzer (2008; 2014)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Kelly (2004)

A

Sleep is a key driver of SWB

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Kahneman & Deaton (2010)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Oswald (2008)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Oswald & Powdthavee (2008)

A

Individuals exhibit adaptation to disabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Clark & Oswald (1998)

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Diener et. al (1999)

A

Poor SWB returns to remarriage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Gilovich et. al (2014)

A

Less adaption to experience goods due to reduction in social comparisons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Oswald & Wu (2010)

A

Data consistency: Happiness and Objective Data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Falk and Knell (2004)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Deaton (2008)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

DiTella et. al (2008)

A

Individuals exhibit adaptation to income shocks in the GSOEP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Stevenson & Wolfers (2013)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

De Neve et. al. (2015)

A

SWB twice as sensitive the negative growth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Easterlin (1974)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Stiglitz et. al (2010)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Boyce, Brown & Moore (2010)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Clark, Frijters & Shileds (2008)

A

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?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Frank (1997)

A

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

27
Q

Clark & Oswald (2002)

A

Panel data stagnancy of happiness

28
Q

Benjamin et. al (2012)

A

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

29
Q

Easterlin et. al (2010)

A

Income only matters in short run

30
Q

Schwarz (1987); Schwarz & Strack (1991)

A

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”

31
Q

Whaples (2009)

A

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

32
Q

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

A

Luttmer (2005)

33
Q

Reversed:

Reverse causality in voter behaviour and SWB

A

Liberini et. al (2017)

34
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Stone et al. (2010)

35
Q

Reversed:

Consistent U shape across other primates

A

Weiss et. al (2012)

36
Q

Reversed:

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

A

DiTella, MacCulloh & Oswald (2003)

37
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Blanchflower & Oswald (2004)

38
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Proto & Rustichini (2013)

39
Q

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

A

Frey and Stutzer (2008; 2014)

40
Q

Reversed:

Sleep is a key driver of SWB

A

Kelly (2004)

41
Q

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

A

Kahneman & Deaton (2010)

42
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Oswald (2008)

43
Q

Reversed:

Individuals exhibit adaptation to disabilities

A

Oswald & Powdthavee (2008)

44
Q

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)

A

Clark & Oswald (1998)

45
Q

Reversed:

Poor SWB returns to remarriage

A

Diener et. al (1999)

46
Q

Reversed:

Less adaption to experience goods due to reduction in social comparisons

A

Gilovich et. al (2014)

47
Q

Reversed:

Data consistency: Happiness and Objective Data

A

Oswald & Wu (2010)

48
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Falk and Knell (2004)

49
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Deaton (2008)

50
Q

Reversed:

Individuals exhibit adaptation to income shocks in the GSOEP

A

DiTella et. al (2008)

51
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Stevenson & Wolfers (2013)

52
Q

Reversed:

SWB twice as sensitive the negative growth

A

De Neve et. al. (2015)

53
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Easterlin (1974)

54
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Stiglitz et. al (2010)

55
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Boyce, Brown & Moore (2010)

56
Q

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?

A

Clark, Frijters & Shileds (2008)

57
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Frank (1997)

58
Q

Reversed:

Panel data stagnancy of happiness

A

Clark & Oswald (2002)

59
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Benjamin et. al (2012)

60
Q

Reversed:

Income only matters in short run

A

Easterlin et. al (2010)

61
Q

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”

A

Schwarz (1987); Schwarz & Strack (1991)

62
Q

Reversed:

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

A

Whaples (2009)

63
Q

Kahneman et. al (1997)

A

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”

64
Q

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”

A

Kahneman et. al (1997)

Behavioural Economics (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions