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 <520,000 32.0 57.7 12.2 32.0* >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.org31. 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 ask￾ing people, BAll things considered, how satis￾fied 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 evalua￾tion 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 con￾ducted 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 posi￾tively 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 well￾being 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 im￾portance. We refer to this tendency as the fo￾cusing 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 respon￾dents 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, typi￾cally spend in a bad mood. Predictions were compared with the actual reports of mood pro￾vided by respondents who met the relevant cir￾cumstances. 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 Califor￾nia, 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