Happiness Accounts for Policy Use Ed Diener Ed Diener Smiley Distinguished Professor of Psychology, University of Illinois Senior Scientist The Gallup Organization Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Rome, Italy April.
Download ReportTranscript Happiness Accounts for Policy Use Ed Diener Ed Diener Smiley Distinguished Professor of Psychology, University of Illinois Senior Scientist The Gallup Organization Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Rome, Italy April.
Happiness Accounts for Policy Use Ed Diener Ed Diener Smiley Distinguished Professor of Psychology, University of Illinois Senior Scientist The Gallup Organization Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Rome, Italy April 2 -3, 2007 Overview Subjective well-being can reveal the progress of societies And can be used as input to policy Will show why, and answer objections Show some examples of policy implications Subjective Well-Being (SWB) People’s evaluations of their lives – in both thoughts and feelings. For example: Life satisfaction Marital, work, & health satisfaction Pleasant emotions, e.g. Joy, affection Feelings of purpose and meaning Feelings of self-efficacy Etc. A few predictors of SWB • • • • • Good social relationships Progress toward long-term goals Trust in neighbors Stable and predictable society Basic needs met Example: Gallup World Poll 2006 • On the ladder below, where the bottom rung, 0, is the worst life you can imagine for yourself, and 10 is the best life you can imagine for yourself, where do you currently stand? 15 Highest on Ladder • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Denmark Finland Switzerland Netherlands Canada Norway Sweden Australia New Zealand Belgium United States Israel Venezuela Spain Ireland 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.1 Income Rank (97) 5 12 4 7 8 3 13 11 22 9 1 20 53 19 2 Lowest Life Ladder Income Rank • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Benin Cambodia Sierra Leone Tanzania Georgia Uganda Niger Ethiopia Burkina Faso Zimbabwe Cameroon Madagascar Kenya Mali 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 90 73 95 97 69 85 96 93 87 78 77 94 89 91 Feel Cannot Afford Medical Care • • • • • • • • • • • • • Japan UK Sweden Canada France Spain Italy Jordan Israel Iran USA Turkey Romania 4% 7% 7% 8% 11 % 11 % 14 % 15 % 16 % 19 % 20 % 45 % 50 % Cannot Afford Housing • • • • • • • • • • • Finland Ireland United Kingdom Switzerland USA Denmark Germany France Spain Belarus Sierra Leone 3% 4% 6% 8% 8% 9% 10 % 11 % 13 % 40 % 62 % Optimism (0 – 10) – Future Ladder • • • • • • • • • • • • • Zimbabwe Haiti Slovakia Afghanistan Portugal Poland Germany Spain France USA Ireland Denmark Venezuela 4.0 5.1 5.6 5.7 5.8 6.3 6.8 7.3 7.6 8.1 8.2 8.5 8.5 Correlates of National Life Satisfaction • • • • • • Income Longevity Political stability Trust other people Unemployment Time with family/friends .82 .73 .52 .48 -.44 .41 Money is Not Enough • Rising incomes, but not life satisfaction • Factors such as Longevity predict Gallup’s life satisfaction ladder beyond income Why SWB ? • People rate it as very important, even the most important. They want it! • Citizen’s evaluations, not those of elites • Behavioral benefits of well-being Objections 1. Happy people are ineffective and unmotivated, or worse yet, silly 2. People adapt to bad and good circumstances 2. Measures are baloney; must look at people’s behavior, not what they say 3. Happiness an individual matter 4. Other values are more important BUT Is happiness good? Is it functional? The Error of Flaubert To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost. Gustave Flaubert Our Research Shows that Happiness is Beneficial Flaubert 180 degrees off • Happy college students later earn higher incomes College Entry Cheerfulness, and Income 19 years later Diener, Nickerson, Lucas, & Sandvik (2002) $70,000 $60,000 Not Cheerful Most Cheerful $50,000 $40,000 Mean More Benefits of Being Happy • • • • • • More friends Better and longer marriages Social capital: Trust and volunteering Higher supervisor ratings at work Organizational citizenship behaviors Health Longevity: The Nun Study Danner, Snowden, & Friesen, U Kentucky 1. Nuns autobiographies at age 22 Expression of positive emotions 2. Happy and less happy nuns living in same life circumstances through lifespan How long do they live? Longevity in The Nun Study Survival Rate at Age: 85 94 Most Cheerful Quartile 90% 54% Least Cheerful 34% 11% Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen My doctor asks me: Smoking (1 pack/day) Exercise Light drinking Smoking (1 pack/day) Exercise Light drinking Heavy drinking Smoking (1 pack/day) Exercise Light drinking Heavy drinking HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT BECOMING A NUN?? Smoking (pack/day) Exercise Light drinking Heavy drinking Hey, Doc, what about: How happy are you? Very Happy vs. Less Happy + 10.7 years Psychologists Happy live about 6 years longer Being happy is beneficial to success BUT • Being a happy person does NOT mean: Acting like an American; Being a “10” Not experiencing unpleasant emotions Slow & Incomplete Adaptation to Unemployment (Mostly Re-Employed, and Controlling for Income) 7.2 7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6 5.8 Past Prior Yr. Fired 1 Yr. 3 Yrs. Life Satisfaction & Disability: The Set-Point Seems to Change 7.2 7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6 5.8 -2 Yrs. -1 Yr. 0 +1 Yr. +3 Yrs. +5 Yrs. -2 Yrs. -1 Yr. 0 OECD Nations Affect Balance (PA –NA) Women Men Ireland New Zealand Sweden Netherlands Canada Denmark Australia Austria Mexico Norway Switzerland U.S.A. U.K. Finland .69 .65 .65 .62 .62 .61 .61 .61 .60 .60 .58 .56 .56 .53 .66 .66 .61 .63 .61 .61 .61 .60 .62 .58 .57 .61 .54 .52 Women Men Japan Germany Belgium France Poland Spain Czech Rep. S. Korea Italy Hungary Slovak Rep. Greece Portugal Turkey .53 .52 .51 .50 .50 .48 .48 .44 .42 .41 .41 .31 .30 .17 .43 .56 .57 .51 .50 .58 .50 .35 .42 .48 .39 .42 .44 .20 Adaptation to Marriage Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener 7.5 7.45 7.4 7.35 7.3 7.25 7.2 7.15 7.1 7.05 2 Yr. Before 1 Before Marriage 1 After 2 After 4 After 2 Yr. Before Marriage 2 After SWB Measures Correlate With: Suicide (individual and national) Physiological (brain, hormones, immune) Informant reports (family and friends) Interview ratings Reaction-time to stimuli tasks Societal Policies? Pleasant Emotions—Enjoyment etc. Highest New Zealand Ireland Netherlands Costa Rica UK Lowest 88 % 88 % 87 % 87 % 86 % Georgia Pakistan Armenia Palestine Sierra L. 43 % 48 % 49 % 50 % 51 % Other Values More Important? For example: survival, basic needs For example: capabilities & functionings Example: People happy for wrong reasons Response: Maybe, but so what? Don’t want survival or functioning with unhappiness, or neutrality! SWB relevant to more focused policy issues: Example: Prostitution Example: Commuting to work Example: School well-being check-ups Life Satisfaction of Sex Workers • Calcutta • Detroit Low LS Extremely low LS Commuting: Gallup World Poll Life Satisfaction Ladder 0 – 60 min/day 61 – 120 min/day 121 – 180 min/day 181 – 240 min/day 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.0 Conclusions • SWB measures can complement existing econ and social measures for policy use • You should be happy! Predictors of National Life Satisfaction (Economist Intelligence Unit Study) • • • • • • • Per capita income Life expectancy Job security Political stability Low divorce rate Political freedom and civil liberties Gender equality Multiple R = .92 SlowAdaptation to Widowhood 7.2 7 6.8 6.6 All is Fine Husband failing Widow 6.4 6.2 6 5.8 All is Fine Widow 4 Yrs. 2 Yrs. 4 Yrs. 6 Yrs. Importance Ratings (1-9) Happiness Wealth Health OVERALL (28 nations) 8.0 6.8 7.9 USA Japan Chile Singapore Egypt Hong Kong China 8.1 7.4 8.6 8.4 8.1 7.8 7.3 6.7 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.6 6.4 7.0 7.6 7.8 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.6 7.8 Unpleasant Emotions— Sad, Angry, Depressed, etc. Highest Lowest Armenia Palestine Bolivia Sierra Leone Denmark Sweden Austria Japan Percent feelings lots yesterday ~ 40 % ~ 13 % Dissatisfied with Standard of Living • • • • • Ukraine Georgia Romania Russia Zimbabwe • Most satisfied: Ireland Diener Index of National Quality of Life (1995) Homicide rate Purchasing power Literacy Human rights Deforestation Physicians per capita Income equality AND Subjective Well-being