EXTENDED PDF FORMAT SPONSORED BY Tools for Your Biological Target sigma.com/biotarget2 Science Would You Be Happier If You Were Richer?A Focusing Illusion Daniel Kahneman et al. Science312,1908(2006): DOl:10.1126/science.1129688 AAAAS This copy is for your personal,non-commercial use only. If you wish to distribute this article to others,you can order high-quality copies for your colleagues,clients,or customers by clicking here. Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by following the guidelines here. The following resources related to this article are available online at www.sciencemag.org(this information is current as of June 24,2012): eun uo Updated information and services,including high-resolution figures,can be found in the online version of this article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1908.full.html A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites related to this article can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1908.full.html#related This article has been cited by 66 article(s)on the ISI Web of Science This article has been cited by 28 articles hosted by HighWire Press;see: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1908.full.html#related-urls This article appears in the following subject collections: Psychology http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/psychology Science(print ISSN 0036-8075;online ISSN 1095-9203)is published weekly,except the last week in December,by the American Association for the Advancement of Science,1200 New York Avenue NW,Washington,DC 20005.Copyright 2006 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science;all rights reserved.The title Science is a registered trademark of AAAS
DOI: 10.1126/science.1129688 Science 312, 1908 (2006); Daniel Kahneman et al. Would You Be Happier If You Were Richer? A Focusing Illusion This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. colleagues, clients, or customers by clicking here. If you wish to distribute this article to others, you can order high-quality copies for your following the guidelines here. Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by www.sciencemag.org (this information is current as of June 24, 2012 ): The following resources related to this article are available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1908.full.html version of this article at: Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1908.full.html#related found at: A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites related to this article can be This article has been cited by 66 article(s) on the ISI Web of Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1908.full.html#related-urls This article has been cited by 28 articles hosted by HighWire Press; see: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/psychology Psychology This article appears in the following subject collections: registered trademark of AAAS. 2006 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title Science is a American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. Copyright Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the on June 24, 2012 www.sciencemag.org Downloaded from
LIFE CYCL ES 31.S.Verba,K.L Schlozman,N.Burns,in The Sociol Logic of 34.L.Stoker,M.K.Jennings,Am.Pol.Sci.Rev.89,421 38.1.Kagan,Three Seductive ldeas (Harvard Univ.Press, Politics,A.S.Zuckerman,Ed.(Temple Univ.Press, (1995). Cambridge,MA 1998). Philadelphia,2005),pp.95-114. 35.S.Verba,K.L Schlozman,H.E.Brady,Voice and 39.I thank T.Brader,L.Stoker,and )Weiss for excellent 32.R.D.Putnam,Bowling Alone:The Collapse and Revival of Equality:Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Harvard advice on an earlier version of this essay. American Community (Simon Schuster,New York,2000). Univ.Press,Cambridge,MA,1995). 33.C.Tilly,From Mobilization to Revolution (Addison-Wesley, 36.M.K.Jennings,Am.J.PoL Sci.23,755 (1979). Reading.MA,1978）. 37.D.P.Green,]A.Cowden,J.Pol 54,471(1992) 10.1126/science.1127891 PERSPECTIVE questions was-0.012 (not statistically different from 0)when they were asked in the preceding Would You Be Happier If You Were order,but the correlation rose to 0.66 when the order was reversed with another sample of Richer?A Focusing lllusion students.The dating question evidently caused that aspect of life to become salient and its Daniel Kahneman,1 Alan B.Krueger,1.2*David Schkade,3 Norbert Schwarz,4 Arthur A.Stones importance to be exaggerated when the respon- dents encountered the more general question The belief that high income is associated with good mood is widespread but mostly illusory.People about their happiness.Similar focusing effects with above-average income are relatively satisfied with their lives but are barely happier than were observed when attention was first called to 点 others in moment-to-moment experience,tend to be more tense,and do not spend more time in respondents'marriage (6)or health (7).One particularly enjoyable activities.Moreover,the effect of income on life satisfaction seems to be conclusion from this research is that people do 咸 transient.We argue that people exaggerate the contribution of income to happiness because they not know how happy or satisfied they are with focus,in part,on conventional achievements when evaluating their life or the lives of others. their life in the way they know their height or telephone number.The answers to global life ost people believe that they would be cusing illusion.Standard survey questions on life satisfaction questions are constructed only when happier if they were richer,but survey satisfaction by which subjective well-being is asked (8).and are,therefore,susceptible to the evidence on subjective well-being is measured may induce a form of focusing illusion, focusing of attention on different aspects of life largely inconsistent with that belief.Subjective by drawing people's attention to their relative To test the focusing illusion regarding income, well-being is most commonly measured by ask- standing in the distribution of material well-being we asked a sample of working women to estimate E ing people,"All things considered,how satis- and other circumstances.More importantly,the the percentage of time that they had spent in a bad fied are you with your life as a whole these focusing illusion may be a source of error in mood in the preceding day.Respondents were days?”or“Taken all together,.would you say significant decisions that people make (4). also asked to predict the percentage of time that that you are very happy,pretty happy,or not too Evidence for the focusing illusion comes people with pairs of various life circumstances happy?"Such questions elicit a global evalua- from diverse lines of research.For example, (Table 1),such as high-and low-income,typi- tion of one's life.An alternative method asks Strack and colleagues(5)reported an experiment cally spend in a bad mood.Predictions were people to report their feelings in real time in which students were asked:(i)"How happy compared with the actual reports of mood pro- which yields a measure of experienced affect are you with your life in general?”and(o） vided by respondents who met the relevant cir- or happiness.Surveys in many countries con- “How many dates did you have last month?” cumstances.The predictions were biased in two ducted over decades indicate that,on average, The correlation between the answers to these respects.First,the prevalence of bad mood was reported global judgments of life satisfaction or happiness have not changed much over the last four decades,in spite of large increases in Table 1.The focusing illusion:Exaggerating the effect of various circumstances on well-being.The real income per capita.Although reported life question posed was "Now we would like to know overall how you felt and what your mood was like satisfaction and household income are posi- yesterday.Thinking only about yesterday,what percentage of the time were you:in a bad tively correlated in a cross section of people at a mood%,a little low or irritable%,in a mildly pleasant mood%,in a very good given time,increases in income have been found mood%."Bad mood reported here is the sum of the first two response categories.A parallel to have mainly a transitory effect on individuals question was then asked about yesterday at work.Bad mood at work was used for the supervision and fringe benefits comparisons.Data are from (14).Reading down the Actual column,sample sizes reported life satisfaction (1-3).Moreover,the are 64,59,75,237,96,211,82,221,respectively;reading down the Predicted column,sample sizes correlation between income and subjective well- are 83,83,84,84,83,85,85,87,respectively.Predicted difference was significantly larger than actual being is weaker when a measure of experienced happiness is used instead of a global measure. difference by a t test;see asterisks. When people consider the impact of any Percentage of time in a bad mood single factor on their well-being-not only Variable Group Actual Predicted income-they are prone to exaggerate its im- Actual Predicted difference difference portance.We refer to this tendency as the fo- Household income 5100.000 Princeton University,Princeton,N]08544,USA.National 19.8 25.7 Bureau of Economic Research,Cambridge,MA 02138, Woman over 40 years old Alone 21.4 41.1 -1.7 13.2* USA.Rady School of Management,University of Califor- Married 23.1 27.9 nia,San Diego,San Diego,CA 92093,USA."Department Supervision at work Definitely close 36.5 64.3 17.4 42.1* of Psychology.University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI 19.1 22.3 48106.USA.SStony Brook University,Stony Brook,NY, Definitely not close 11794.U5A Fringe benefits No health insurance 26.6 49.7 4.5 30.5* *To whom correspondence should be addressed.E-mail: Excellent benefits 22.2 19.2 akrueger@princeton.edu p<0.001 1908 30 JUNE 2006 VOL 312 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
31. S. Verba, K. L. Schlozman, N. Burns, in The Social Logic of Politics, A. S. Zuckerman, Ed. (Temple Univ. Press, Philadelphia, 2005), pp. 95–114. 32. R. D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000). 33. C. Tilly, From Mobilization to Revolution (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978). 34. L. Stoker, M. K. Jennings, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 89, 421 (1995). 35. S. Verba, K. L. Schlozman, H. E. Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995). 36. M. K. Jennings, Am. J. Pol. Sci. 23, 755 (1979). 37. D. P. Green, J. A. Cowden, J. Pol. 54, 471 (1992). 38. J. Kagan, Three Seductive Ideas (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998). 39. I thank T. Brader, L. Stoker, and J. Weiss for excellent advice on an earlier version of this essay. 10.1126/science.1127891 PERSPECTIVE Would You Be Happier If You Were Richer? A Focusing Illusion Daniel Kahneman,1 Alan B. Krueger,1,2* David Schkade,3 Norbert Schwarz,4 Arthur A. Stone5 The belief that high income is associated with good mood is widespread but mostly illusory. People with above-average income are relatively satisfied with their lives but are barely happier than others in moment-to-moment experience, tend to be more tense, and do not spend more time in particularly enjoyable activities. Moreover, the effect of income on life satisfaction seems to be transient. We argue that people exaggerate the contribution of income to happiness because they focus, in part, on conventional achievements when evaluating their life or the lives of others. Most people believe that they would be happier if they were richer, but survey evidence on subjective well-being is largely inconsistent with that belief. Subjective well-being is most commonly measured by asking people, BAll things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?[ or BTaken all together, would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?[ Such questions elicit a global evaluation of one_s life. An alternative method asks people to report their feelings in real time, which yields a measure of experienced affect or happiness. Surveys in many countries conducted over decades indicate that, on average, reported global judgments of life satisfaction or happiness have not changed much over the last four decades, in spite of large increases in real income per capita. Although reported life satisfaction and household income are positively correlated in a cross section of people at a given time, increases in income have been found to have mainly a transitory effect on individuals_ reported life satisfaction (1–3). Moreover, the correlation between income and subjective wellbeing is weaker when a measure of experienced happiness is used instead of a global measure. When people consider the impact of any single factor on their well-being—not only income—they are prone to exaggerate its importance. We refer to this tendency as the focusing illusion. Standard survey questions on life satisfaction by which subjective well-being is measured may induce a form of focusing illusion, by drawing people_s attention to their relative standing in the distribution of material well-being and other circumstances. More importantly, the focusing illusion may be a source of error in significant decisions that people make (4). Evidence for the focusing illusion comes from diverse lines of research. For example, Strack and colleagues (5) reported an experiment in which students were asked: (i) BHow happy are you with your life in general?[ and (ii) BHow many dates did you have last month?[ The correlation between the answers to these questions was –0.012 (not statistically different from 0) when they were asked in the preceding order, but the correlation rose to 0.66 when the order was reversed with another sample of students. 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. Similar focusing effects were observed when attention was first called to respondents_ marriage (6) or health (7). One conclusion from this research is that people do not know how happy or satisfied they are with their life in the way they know their height or telephone number. The answers to global life satisfaction questions are constructed only when asked (8), and are, therefore, susceptible to the focusing of attention on different aspects of life. To test the focusing illusion regarding income, we asked a sample of working women to estimate the percentage of time that they had spent in a bad mood in the preceding day. Respondents were also asked to predict the percentage of time that people with pairs of various life circumstances (Table 1), such as high- and low-income, typically spend in a bad mood. Predictions were compared with the actual reports of mood provided by respondents who met the relevant circumstances. The predictions were biased in two respects. First, the prevalence of bad mood was Table 1. The focusing illusion: Exaggerating the effect of various circumstances on well-being. The question posed was ‘‘Now we would like to know overall how you felt and what your mood was like yesterday. Thinking only about yesterday, what percentage of the time were you: in a bad mood____%, a little low or irritable____%, in a mildly pleasant mood____%, in a very good mood____%." Bad mood reported here is the sum of the first two response categories. A parallel question was then asked about yesterday at work. Bad mood at work was used for the supervision and fringe benefits comparisons. Data are from (14). Reading down the Actual column, sample sizes are 64, 59, 75, 237, 96, 211, 82, 221, respectively; reading down the Predicted column, sample sizes are 83, 83, 84, 84, 83, 85, 85, 87, respectively. Predicted difference was significantly larger than actual difference by a t test; see asterisks. Variable Group Percentage of time in a bad mood Actual Predicted Actual difference Predicted difference Household income G$20,000 32.0 57.7 12.2 32.0*** 9$100,000 19.8 25.7 Woman over 40 years old Alone 21.4 41.1 –1.7 13.2*** Married 23.1 27.9 Supervision at work Definitely close 36.5 64.3 17.4 42.1*** Definitely not close 19.1 22.3 Fringe benefits No health insurance 26.6 49.7 4.5 30.5*** Excellent benefits 22.2 19.2 ***P G 0.001. 1 Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. 2 National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. 3 Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA 92093, USA. 4 Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA. 5 Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: akrueger@princeton.edu LIFE CYCLES 1908 30 JUNE 2006 VOL 312 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org on June 24, 2012 www.sciencemag.org Downloaded from
SPECIALSECTION generally overestimated.Second,consistent with Survey (GSS)is illustrated in Table 2.Those income is more weakly correlated with experi- the focusing illusion,the predicted prevalence of with incomes over $90,000 were nearly twice as enced feelings such as momentary happiness a bad mood for people with undesirable circum- likely to report being"very happy"as those with averaged over the course of the day (henceforth stances was grossly exaggerated. incomes below $20.000.although there is hardly called duration-weighted or experienced happi- The focusing illusion helps explain why the any difference between the highest income group ness)than it is with a global judgment of life results of well-being research are often counter- and those in the S50.000 to $89.999 bracket. satisfaction or overall happiness,or with a global intuitive.The false intuitions likely arise from a There are reasons to believe that the cor- report of yesterday's mood (Table 3)(/5.16) failure to recognize that people do not continu- relation between income and judgments of life This pattern is probably not a result of greater ously think about their circumstances.whether satisfaction overstates the effect of income on noise in the duration-weighted happiness mea- positive or negative.Schkade and Kahneman(9) subjective well-being.First,increases in income sure than in life satisfaction (/7).Other life cir- noted that,"Nothing in life is quite as important have mostly a transitory effect on individuals' cumstances,such as marital status,also exhibit as you think it is while you are thinking about reported life satisfaction(2,12).Second,large a weaker correlation with duration-weighted it."Individuals who have recently experienced a increases in income for a given country over happiness than with global life satisfaction. significant life change (e.g.becoming disabled, time are not associated with increases in aver- An analysis of EMA data also points to a winning a lottery,or getting maried)surely think age subjective well-being.Easterlin (for weak and sometimes perverse relation between of their new circumstances many times each day, example,found that the fivefold increase in real experienced affect and income.Specifically,we but the allocation of attention eventually changes, income in Japan between 1958 and 1987 did examined EMA data from the Comell Work- so that they spend most of their time attending to not coincide with an increase in the average Site Blood Pressure Study of 374 workers at 10 and drawing pleasure or displeasure from expe- self-reported happiness level there.Third,al- work sites,who were queried about their inten- 点 riences such as having breakfast or watching though average life satisfaction in countries sity of various feelings on a 0 to 3 scale every 25 television (10).However,they are likely to be tends to rise with gross domestic product min or so during an entire workday (/8).The reminded of their status when prompted to answer (GDP)per capita at low levels of income,there correlation between personal income and the a global judgment question such as,"How is little or no further increase in life satisfaction average happiness rating during the day was satisfied are you with your life these days?" once GDP per capita exceeds $12,000(3). just 0.01 (P =0.84),whereas family income The correlation between household income Fourth,when subjective well-being is mea- was significantly positively correlated with and reported general life satisfaction on a numeric sured from moment to moment-either by ratings of angry/hostile(r=0.14),anxious/tense scale (i.e.,global happiness as distinct from querying people in real time with the Ecolog- (r=0.14).and excited (r=0.18).Thus.higher experenced happiness over time)in U.S.samples ical Momentary Assessment (EMA)technique income was associated with more intense nega- typically ranges from 0.15 to 0.30 (1/).The (13)or by asking them to recall their feelings tive experienced emotions and greater arousal, relation between global happiness and income for each episode of the previous day with the but not greater experienced happiness. for 2004 with data from the General Social Day Reconstruction Method (DRM)(/4) Why does income have such a weak effect on subjective well-being?There are several ex- planations,all of which may contribute to vary- Table 2.Distribution of self-reported global happiness by family income,2004.The GSS question ing degrees.First,Duesenberry (/9).Easterlin E posed was "Taken all together,how would you say things are these days-would you say that you (2),Frank (20),and others have argued that are very happy,pretty happy,or not too happy?"Sample size was 1173 individuals. relative income rather than the level of income affects well-being-earning more or less than Percentage indicating global happiness at family income of others looms larger than how much one earns. Response Indeed,much evidence indicates that rank within Under $20,000 520,000-549,999 550,000-589,999 $90,000 and over the income distribution influences life satisfac- Not too happy 17.2 13.0 7.7 5.3 tion(21-23).As society grows richer,average Pretty happy 60.5 56.8 rank does not change,so the relative income 50.3 51.8 hypothesis could explain the stability of av- Very happy 22.2 30.2 41.9 42.9 erage subjective well-being despite national income growth.The importance placed on rel- Table 3.Correlations between selected life circumstances and subjective well-being measures.The ative income may also account for the stronger question posed was"We would like to know how you feel and what mood you are in when you are correlation between income and global life at home.When you are at home,what percentage of the time are you in a bad mood %,a satisfaction than between income and experi- little low or irritable %in a mildly pleasant mood %in a very good mood %.The enced affect,as life satisfaction questions prob- last two response categories were added together to obtain the percentage of time in a good mood. ably evoke a reflection on relative status that is Duration-weighted "happy"is the average of each person's duration-weighted average rating of not present in moment-to-moment ratings of the feeling happy over episodes of the day,where 0 refers to "not at all"and 6 refers to"very affect.The relative income hypothesis cannot by much,"and each individual's responses were weighted by the duration of the episode.Sample itself explain why a permanent increase in an consists of 740 women from Columbus,Ohio,who completed the DRM in May 2005 (16) individual's income has a transitory effect on her Life Characteristic Amount of day well-being,as relative standing would increase. Duration-weighted "happy" satisfaction in good mood (% However,the increase in relative standing can be offset by changes in the reference group:After a Household income 0.32** 0.20** 0.06 promotion,the new peers increasingly serve as a Married 0.21** 0.15* 0.03 reference point,making the improvement rela- Years of education 0.16* 0.13* 0.03 tive to one's previous peers less influential (24) Employed 0.14* 0.12* 0.01 Second,Easterlin(,2)argues that individuals Body mass index -0.13** -0.08* -0.06 adapt to material goods,and Scitovsky (25) p<0.05: P<0.01: *P<0.001 argues that material goods yield little joy for www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 312 30 JUNE 2006 1909
generally overestimated. Second, consistent with the focusing illusion, the predicted prevalence of a bad mood for people with undesirable circumstances was grossly exaggerated. The focusing illusion helps explain why the results of well-being research are often counterintuitive. The false intuitions likely arise from a failure to recognize that people do not continuously think about their circumstances, whether positive or negative. Schkade and Kahneman (9) noted that, BNothing in life is quite as important as you think it is while you are thinking about it.[ Individuals who have recently experienced a significant life change (e.g., becoming disabled, winning a lottery, or getting married) surely think of their new circumstances many times each day, but the allocation of attention eventually changes, so that they spend most of their time attending to and drawing pleasure or displeasure from experiences such as having breakfast or watching television (10). However, they are likely to be reminded of their status when prompted to answer a global judgment question such as, BHow satisfied are you with your life these days?[ The correlation between household income and reported general life satisfaction on a numeric scale (i.e., global happiness as distinct from experienced happiness over time) in U.S. samples typically ranges from 0.15 to 0.30 (11). The relation between global happiness and income for 2004 with data from the General Social Survey (GSS) is illustrated in Table 2. Those with incomes over $90,000 were nearly twice as likely to report being Bvery happy[ as those with incomes below $20,000, although there is hardly any difference between the highest income group and those in the $50,000 to $89,999 bracket. There are reasons to believe that the correlation between income and judgments of life satisfaction overstates the effect of income on subjective well-being. First, increases in income have mostly a transitory effect on individuals_ reported life satisfaction (2, 12). Second, large increases in income for a given country over time are not associated with increases in average subjective well-being. Easterlin (1), for example, found that the fivefold increase in real income in Japan between 1958 and 1987 did not coincide with an increase in the average self-reported happiness level there. Third, although average life satisfaction in countries tends to rise with gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at low levels of income, there is little or no further increase in life satisfaction once GDP per capita exceeds $12,000 (3). Fourth, when subjective well-being is measured from moment to moment—either by querying people in real time with the Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) technique (13) or by asking them to recall their feelings for each episode of the previous day with the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) (14)— income is more weakly correlated with experienced feelings such as momentary happiness averaged over the course of the day (henceforth called duration-weighted or experienced happiness) than it is with a global judgment of life satisfaction or overall happiness, or with a global report of yesterday_s mood (Table 3) (15, 16). This pattern is probably not a result of greater noise in the duration-weighted happiness measure than in life satisfaction (17). Other life circumstances, such as marital status, also exhibit a weaker correlation with duration-weighted happiness than with global life satisfaction. An analysis of EMA data also points to a weak and sometimes perverse relation between experienced affect and income. Specifically, we examined EMA data from the Cornell WorkSite Blood Pressure Study of 374 workers at 10 work sites, who were queried about their intensity of various feelings on a 0 to 3 scale every 25 min or so during an entire workday (18). The correlation between personal income and the average happiness rating during the day was just 0.01 (P 0 0.84), whereas family income was significantly positively correlated with ratings of angry/hostile (r 0 0.14), anxious/tense (r 0 0.14), and excited (r 0 0.18). Thus, higher income was associated with more intense negative experienced emotions and greater arousal, but not greater experienced happiness. Why does income have such a weak effect on subjective well-being? There are several explanations, all of which may contribute to varying degrees. First, Duesenberry (19), Easterlin (2), Frank (20), and others have argued that relative income rather than the level of income affects well-being—earning more or less than others looms larger than how much one earns. Indeed, much evidence indicates that rank within the income distribution influences life satisfaction (21–23). As society grows richer, average rank does not change, so the relative income hypothesis could explain the stability of average subjective well-being despite national income growth. The importance placed on relative income may also account for the stronger correlation between income and global life satisfaction than between income and experienced affect, as life satisfaction questions probably evoke a reflection on relative status that is not present in moment-to-moment ratings of affect. The relative income hypothesis cannot by itself explain why a permanent increase in an individual_s income has a transitory effect on her well-being, as relative standing would increase. However, the increase in relative standing can be offset by changes in the reference group: After a promotion, the new peers increasingly serve as a reference point, making the improvement relative to one_s previous peers less influential (24). Second, Easterlin (1, 2) argues that individuals adapt to material goods, and Scitovsky (25) argues that material goods yield little joy for Table 2. Distribution of self-reported global happiness by family income, 2004. The GSS question posed was ‘‘Taken all together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?’’ Sample size was 1173 individuals. Response Percentage indicating global happiness at family income of Under $20,000 $20,000–$49,999 $50,000–$89,999 $90,000 and over Not too happy 17.2 13.0 7.7 5.3 Pretty happy 60.5 56.8 50.3 51.8 Very happy 22.2 30.2 41.9 42.9 Table 3. Correlations between selected life circumstances and subjective well-being measures. The question posed was ‘‘We would like to know how you feel and what mood you are in when you are at home. When you are at home, what percentage of the time are you in a bad mood____%, a little low or irritable____%, in a mildly pleasant mood____%, in a very good mood____%." The last two response categories were added together to obtain the percentage of time in a good mood. Duration-weighted ‘‘happy’’ is the average of each person’s duration-weighted average rating of the feeling happy over episodes of the day, where 0 refers to ‘‘not at all’’ and 6 refers to ‘‘very much,’’ and each individual’s responses were weighted by the duration of the episode. Sample consists of 740 women from Columbus, Ohio, who completed the DRM in May 2005 (16). Characteristic Life satisfaction Amount of day in good mood (%) Duration- weighted "happy" Household income 0.32*** 0.20*** 0.06 Married 0.21*** 0.15*** 0.03 Years of education 0.16*** 0.13*** 0.03 Employed 0.14*** 0.12** 0.01 Body mass index –0.13*** –0.08* –0.06 *P G 0.05; **P G 0.01; ***P G 0.001. SPECIALSECTION www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 312 30 JUNE 2006 1909 on June 24, 2012 www.sciencemag.org Downloaded from
LIFE CYCL ES Table 4.How is time spent and do the activities bring happiness?Time Sample consists of 3917 men and 4944 women age 18 to 60.Last two rows allocation is weighted-average percentage of the nonsleep day for each were computed by authors from a DRM survey of 810 women in Columbus, sampled observation from the American Time-Use Survey (30).Weighted Ohio,in May 2005;if multiple activities were performed during an episode, average of weekday (5 out of 7)and weekend (2 out of 7)is presented. the activity refers to the one that was selected as "most important." Family income/Gender Active leisure Eating Passive leisure Compulsory Work and commute Other Men Time allocation (% <520.000 6.6 6.6 34.7 20.8 29.1 2.1 520,000-599,999 8.1 7.2 26.4 21.8 35.4 1.1 5100,000+ 10.2 8.6 19.9 23.6 36.9 08 Women <520,000 5.3 5.7 33.5 35.6 18.5 1.4 520,000-599,999 1.5 6.7 23.8 34.3 26.7 1.0 5100,000+ 9.1 7.0 19.6 35.9 27.3 1.1 Women Feelings (0-6 scale) Happy 4.67 4.45 4.21 4.04 3.94 4.25 Tense/Stressed 0.92 1.17 1.30 1.80 2.00 1.61 2102 most individuals.Thus,increases in income, happiness,although it could increase tension and satisfaction and with disaggregated measures of emo- which are expected to raise well-being by raising one's sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. tional experience at particular times. consumption opportunities,may in fact have little 16.D.Kahneman,D.Schkade,C.Fischler,A.Krueger,A Krilla, Despite the weak relation between income and A study of well-being in two cities,"Discussion Paper No.53 lasting effect because of hedonic adaptation or global life satisfaction or experienced happiness, aunr Center for Health and Wellbeing,Princeton,N],2006. because the consumption of material goods has many people are highly motivated to increase 17.We conducted a reliability study of the DRM that asked 6 little effect on well-being above a certain level of their income.In some cases,this focusing illusion the same questions of 229 women two weeks apart,and consumption(26).Moreover,people's aspirations found about the same two-week serial correlation in may lead to a misallocation of time,from ac- 罗 duration-weighted happiness as in life satisfaction for adapt to their possibilities and the income that cepting lengthy commutes (which are among the the respondents. people say they need to get along rises with in- worst moments of the day)to sacrificing time 18.P.Schnall,Schwartz,P.Landsbergis,K.Warren, come,both in a cross section and over time (27). spent socializing (which are among the best T.Pickering,Psychosom.Med.60,697 (1998). Finally,we would propose another explana-moments of the day)(28,29).An emphasis on 19.]Duesenberry,Income,Soving,and the Theory of Consumer Behovior (Harvard Univ.Press,Cambridge,MA. tion:As income rises,people's time use does the role of attention helps to explain both why 1949). not appear to shift toward activities that are many people seek high income-because their 20.R.Frank,Luxury Fever (Princeton Univ.Press,Princeton, associated with improved affect.Subjective predictions exaggerate the increase in happiness N.1999). W well-being is connected to how people spend due to the focusing illusion-and why the long- 21.A.Clark,A.Oswald,Public Econ.61,359 (1996). 22.A.Ferrer-i-Carbonell,J.Public Econ.89,997 (2005). their time.In a representative,nationwide sam- term effect of income gains become relatively 23.E.Luttmer,0.1.Econ.120.963(2005) ple,people with greater income tend to devote small,because attention eventually shifts to less 24.W.Runciman,Relative Deprivation and Social Justice relatively more of their time to work,compul- novel aspects of daily life. (Univ.of California Press,Berkeley,CA 1966). sory nonwork activities (such as shopping and 25.T.Scitovsky,The Joyless Economy (Oxford Univ.Press, 0 xford,1976). childcare),and active leisure (such as exercise) References and Notes 26.S.Frederick,G.Loewenstein,in Well-Being:The Founda- and less of their time to passive leisure activities 1.R.Easterlin,J.Econ.Behav.Organ.27,35(1995). 2.R.Easterlin,"Building a better theory of well-being," tions of Hedonic Psychology,D.Kahneman,E.Diener, pepeojumo (such as watching TV)(Table 4).The activities Discussion Paper No.742.IZA,Bonn,Germany,2003. N.Schwarz,Eds.(Russell Sage Foundation,New York, that higher-income individuals spend relatively 3.R.Layard,Happiness:Lessons from a New Science 1999),pp.302-329. more of their time engaged in are associated with (Penguin Press,London,2005). 27.B.Van Praag,P.Frijter,in Well-Being:The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology,D.Kahneman,E.Diener, no greater happiness,on average,but with 4.D.Gilbert,Stumbling on Happiness (Knopf,New York, 2006). N.Schwarz,Eds.(Russell Sage Foundation,New York, slightly higher tension and stress.The latter 5.F.Strack,L Martin,N.Schwarz,Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.18 1999),Pp.413-433 finding might help explain why income is more 4291988). 28.See (31)for evidence on the misallocation of commuting highly correlated with general life satisfaction 6.N.Schwarz,F.Strack,H.Mai,Public Opin.0.55,3 time and (14)on the hedonic experience of commuting (1991). and socializing. than with experienced happiness,as tension and 7.D.Smith,N.Schwarz,T.Roberts,P.Ubel,Qual.Res.15, 29.It goes without saying that happiness is not the only measure stress may accompany goal attainment,which in 621(2006). of human welfare.Moreover,although income gains may not turn contributes to judgments of life satisfaction 8.N.Schwarz,F.Strack,in Well-Being:The Foundations of contribute very much to experienced happiness or life more than it does to experienced happiness. Hedonic Psychology,D.Kahneman,E.Diener, satisfaction,wealthier societies may well enjoy better health N.Schwarz,Eds.(Russell Sage Foundation,New York, care,safer and cleaner environments,cultural benefits and The results in Table 4 also highlight the pos- sible role of the focusing illusion.When some- 1999).pp.61-84. other amenities that improve the quality of life. 9.D.Schkade,D.Kahneman,Psychol.Sci.9.340 (1998). 30. "Time-use survey-First results announced by Bureau of one reflects on how additional income would 10.D.Kahneman,R.H.Thaler,/Econ.Perspect.20 (1),221 Labor Statistics,"U.S.Department of Labor,USDL change subjective well-being,they are probably (2006). 04-1797 (http://www.bls.gow/). tempted to think about spending more time in 11.E.Diener,R.Biswas-Diener,Soc.Indic.Res.57,119 (2002) 31.A.Stutzer,B.Frey."Stress that doesn't pay:The leisurely pursuits such as watching a large- 12.B.Frey,A.Stutzer,Happiness and Economics:How the commuting paradox,"Discussion Paper No.127,IZA, Economy and Institutions Affect Well-Being (Princeton Bonn,Germany,2004. screen plasma TV or playing golf,but in reality Univ.Press,Princeton,N],2002). 32.The authors thank M.Connolly,M.Fifer,and A.Krilla for they should think of spending a lot more time 13.A.Stone,S.Shiffman,Ann.Behav.Med.16,199 (1994) research assistance,and the Hewlett Foundation,the working and commuting and a lot less time 14.D.Kahneman,A.Krueger,D.Schkade,N.Schwarz, National Institute on Aging,and Princeton University's engaged in passive leisure (and perhaps a bit A.Stone,Science 306,1776 (2004). Woodrow Wilson School and Center for Economic Policy 15.In general,we find that the retrospective report of Studies for financial support. more golf).By itself,this shift in time use is mood on the previous day,which is a global evaluation, unlikely to lead to much increase in experienced shares variance both with the global measures of life 10.1126/science.1129688 1910 30 JUNE 2006 VOL 312 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
most individuals. Thus, increases in income, which are expected to raise well-being by raising consumption opportunities, may in fact have little lasting effect because of hedonic adaptation or because the consumption of material goods has little effect on well-being above a certain level of consumption (26). Moreover, people_s aspirations adapt to their possibilities and the income that people say they need to get along rises with income, both in a cross section and over time (27). Finally, we would propose another explanation: As income rises, people_s time use does not appear to shift toward activities that are associated with improved affect. Subjective well-being is connected to how people spend their time. In a representative, nationwide sample, people with greater income tend to devote relatively more of their time to work, compulsory nonwork activities (such as shopping and childcare), and active leisure (such as exercise) and less of their time to passive leisure activities (such as watching TV) (Table 4). The activities that higher-income individuals spend relatively more of their time engaged in are associated with no greater happiness, on average, but with slightly higher tension and stress. The latter finding might help explain why income is more highly correlated with general life satisfaction than with experienced happiness, as tension and stress may accompany goal attainment, which in turn contributes to judgments of life satisfaction more than it does to experienced happiness. The results in Table 4 also highlight the possible role of the focusing illusion. When someone reflects on how additional income would change subjective well-being, they are probably tempted to think about spending more time in leisurely pursuits such as watching a largescreen plasma TV or playing golf, but in reality they should think of spending a lot more time working and commuting and a lot less time engaged in passive leisure (and perhaps a bit more golf). By itself, this shift in time use is unlikely to lead to much increase in experienced happiness, although it could increase tension and one_s sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. Despite the weak relation between income and global life satisfaction or experienced happiness, many people are highly motivated to increase their income. In some cases, this focusing illusion may lead to a misallocation of time, from accepting lengthy commutes (which are among the worst moments of the day) to sacrificing time spent socializing (which are among the best moments of the day) (28, 29). An emphasis on the role of attention helps to explain both why many people seek high income—because their predictions exaggerate the increase in happiness due to the focusing illusion—and why the longterm effect of income gains become relatively small, because attention eventually shifts to less novel aspects of daily life. References and Notes 1. R. Easterlin, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 27, 35 (1995). 2. R. Easterlin, ‘‘Building a better theory of well-being,’’ Discussion Paper No. 742, IZA, Bonn, Germany, 2003. 3. R. Layard, Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (Penguin Press, London, 2005). 4. D. Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness (Knopf, New York, 2006). 5. F. Strack, L. Martin, N. Schwarz, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 18, 429 (1988). 6. N. Schwarz, F. Strack, H. Mai, Public Opin. Q. 55, 3 (1991). 7. D. Smith, N. Schwarz, T. Roberts, P. Ubel, Qual. Res. 15, 621 (2006). 8. N. Schwarz, F. Strack, in Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, D. Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Schwarz, Eds. (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1999), pp. 61–84. 9. D. Schkade, D. Kahneman, Psychol. Sci. 9, 340 (1998). 10. D. Kahneman, R. H. Thaler, J. Econ. Perspect. 20 (1), 221 (2006). 11. E. Diener, R. Biswas-Diener, Soc. Indic. Res. 57, 119 (2002). 12. B. Frey, A. Stutzer, Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Well-Being (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2002). 13. A. Stone, S. Shiffman, Ann. Behav. Med. 16, 199 (1994). 14. D. Kahneman, A. Krueger, D. Schkade, N. Schwarz, A. Stone, Science 306, 1776 (2004). 15. In general, we find that the retrospective report of mood on the previous day, which is a global evaluation, shares variance both with the global measures of life satisfaction and with disaggregated measures of emotional experience at particular times. 16. D. Kahneman, D. Schkade, C. Fischler, A. Krueger, A. Krilla, ‘‘A study of well-being in two cities,’’ Discussion Paper No. 53, Center for Health and Wellbeing, Princeton, NJ, 2006. 17. We conducted a reliability study of the DRM that asked the same questions of 229 women two weeks apart, and found about the same two-week serial correlation in duration-weighted happiness as in life satisfaction for the respondents. 18. P. Schnall, J. Schwartz, P. Landsbergis, K. Warren, T. Pickering, Psychosom. Med. 60, 697 (1998). 19. J. Duesenberry, Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1949). 20. R. Frank, Luxury Fever (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999). 21. A. Clark, A. Oswald, J. Public Econ. 61, 359 (1996). 22. A. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, J. Public Econ. 89, 997 (2005). 23. E. Luttmer, Q. J. Econ. 120, 963 (2005). 24. W. Runciman, Relative Deprivation and Social Justice (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1966). 25. T. Scitovsky, The Joyless Economy (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1976). 26. S. Frederick, G. Loewenstein, in Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, D. Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Schwarz, Eds. (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1999), pp. 302–329. 27. B. Van Praag, P. Frijter, in Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, D. Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Schwarz, Eds. (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1999), pp. 413–433. 28. See (31) for evidence on the misallocation of commuting time and (14) on the hedonic experience of commuting and socializing. 29. It goes without saying that happiness is not the only measure of human welfare. Moreover, although income gains may not contribute very much to experienced happiness or life satisfaction, wealthier societies may well enjoy better health care, safer and cleaner environments, cultural benefits and other amenities that improve the quality of life. 30. ‘‘Time-use survey—First results announced by Bureau of Labor Statistics,’’ U.S. Department of Labor, USDL 04-1797 (http://www.bls.gov/). 31. A. Stutzer, B. Frey, ‘‘Stress that doesn’t pay: The commuting paradox,’’ Discussion Paper No. 127, IZA, Bonn, Germany, 2004. 32. The authors thank M. Connolly, M. Fifer, and A. Krilla for research assistance, and the Hewlett Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, and Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School and Center for Economic Policy Studies for financial support. 10.1126/science.1129688 Table 4. How is time spent and do the activities bring happiness? Time allocation is weighted-average percentage of the nonsleep day for each sampled observation from the American Time-Use Survey (30). Weighted average of weekday (5 out of 7) and weekend (2 out of 7) is presented. Sample consists of 3917 men and 4944 women age 18 to 60. Last two rows were computed by authors from a DRM survey of 810 women in Columbus, Ohio, in May 2005; if multiple activities were performed during an episode, the activity refers to the one that was selected as ‘‘most important.’’ Family income/Gender Active leisure Eating Passive leisure Compulsory Work and commute Other Men Time allocation (%) G$20,000 6.6 6.6 34.7 20.8 29.1 2.1 $20,000–$99,999 8.1 7.2 26.4 21.8 35.4 1.1 $100,000+ 10.2 8.6 19.9 23.6 36.9 0.8 Women G$20,000 5.3 5.7 33.5 35.6 18.5 1.4 $20,000–$99,999 7.5 6.7 23.8 34.3 26.7 1.0 $100,000+ 9.1 7.0 19.6 35.9 27.3 1.1 Women Feelings (0-6 scale) Happy 4.67 4.45 4.21 4.04 3.94 4.25 Tense/Stressed 0.92 1.17 1.30 1.80 2.00 1.61 LIFE CYCLES 1910 30 JUNE 2006 VOL 312 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org on June 24, 2012 www.sciencemag.org Downloaded from
