Unpacking the hedonic paradox: A dynamic analysis of the relationships between financial capital, social capital and life satisfaction: Wealth and happiness

Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK University of Exeter, UK University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
British Journal of Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 1.76). 05/2011; 52(1). DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02035.x
Source: PubMed


Does money buy happiness? Or is happiness derived from looking outwards towards our social networks? Many researchers have answered these questions by exploring whether the best predictor of well-being is either economic or social (or some fixed combination of the two). This paper argues for a dynamic perspective on the capacity for economic and social factors to predict well-being. In two studies, we show that both money (individual income) and community (social capital) can be the basis for individual happiness. However, the relative influence of each factor depends on the context within which happiness is considered, and how this shapes the way people define the self. Study 1 primes either money or community in the laboratory and demonstrates that such priming shifts individual values (so that they are economic vs. communal) and determines the extent to which income is more (vs. less) predictive of life satisfaction than social relations. Study 2 looks at these same priming processes in the external world (with people travelling to vs. from work). Both studies show that while money can become the basis of happiness when the self is defined in economic terms, the role of community relations in predicting happiness is more stable across contexts.

Download full-text


Available from: Ilka Helene Gleibs,
323 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Direct reports of subjective well-being may have a useful role in the measurement of consumer preferences and social welfare, if they can be done in a credible way. Can well-being be measured by a subjective survey, even approximately? In this paper, we discuss research on how individuals' responses to subjective well-being questions vary with their circumstances and other factors. We will argue that it is fruitful to distinguish among different conceptions of utility rather than presume to measure a single, unifying concept that motivates all human choices and registers all relevant feelings and experiences. While various measures of well being are useful for some purposes, it is important to recognize that subjective well-being measures features of individuals' perceptions of their experiences, not their utility as economists typically conceive of it. Those perceptions are a more accurate gauge of actual feelings if they are reported closer to the time of, and in direct reference to, the actual experience. We conclude by proposing the U- index, a misery index of sorts, which measures the proportion of time that people spend in an unpleasant state, and has the virtue of not requiring a cardinal conception of individuals' feelings.
    Journal of Economic Perspectives 03/2006; 20(1):3-24. DOI:10.1257/089533006776526030 · 4.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper exploits the richness and large sample size of the Gallup/Healthways US daily poll to illustrate significant differences in the dynamics of two key measures of subjective well-being: emotions and life evaluations. We find that there is no day-of-week effect for life evaluations, represented here by the Cantril Ladder, but significantly more happiness, enjoyment, and laughter, and significantly less worry, sadness, and anger on weekends (including public holidays) than on weekdays. We then find strong evidence of the importance of the social context, both at work and at home, in explaining the size and likely determinants of the weekend effects for emotions. Weekend effects are twice as large for full-time paid workers as for the rest of the population, and are much smaller for those whose work supervisor is considered a partner rather than a boss and who report trustable and open work environments. A large portion of the weekend effects is explained by differences in the amount of time spent with friends or family between weekends and weekdays (7.1 vs. 5.4 hours). The extra daily social time of 1.7 hours in weekends raises average happiness by about 2%.Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at
    Social Indicators Research 07/2011; 116(2). DOI:10.1007/s11205-013-0306-y · 1.40 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a lack of longitudinal research linking adolescent career aspirations to adult outcomes other than career and income attainment. Drawing on Nurmi's (2004) and Salmela-Aro, Aunola, and Nurmi's (2007) life-span model of motivation and using quantitative survey data at ages 16, 23, 33, 42, and 50 years, combined with retrospective interview data at age 50 (collected from 25 members of a British cohort study born in 1958), we aimed to gain a more rounded understanding of the role that adolescent career aspirations play in shaping not only adult career development but also adult identities and well-being. Twenty-two of the 25 participants fulfilled their adolescent career aspirations later in life through achieving (a) the exact career they aspired to or (b) the social status of the career they aspired to. In relation to adult personal identity and well-being, the findings suggest that what matters is not just whether a person aims high at age 16 (i.e., to be a professional or a manager) but also whether the person remembers having strong or meaningful career aspirations. Further themes, gender differences, and implications for policy and future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
    Developmental Psychology 02/2012; 48(6). DOI:10.1037/a0027297 · 3.21 Impact Factor
Show more