1 / 48

Happiness Accounts for Policy Use Ed Diener

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.

kimberlymartinez
Télécharger la présentation

Happiness Accounts for Policy Use Ed Diener

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Happiness Accounts for Policy UseEd Diener Ed Diener Smiley Distinguished Professor of Psychology, University of Illinois Senior Scientist The Gallup Organization Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentRome, Italy April 2 -3, 2007

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. A few predictors of SWB • Good social relationships • Progress toward long-term goals • Trust in neighbors • Stable and predictable society • Basic needs met

  5. 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?

  6. 15 Highest on Ladder Income Rank (97) • Denmark 8.0 5 • Finland 7.7 12 • Switzerland 7.5 4 • Netherlands 7.5 7 • Canada 7.4 8 • Norway 7.4 3 • Sweden 7.4 13 • Australia 7.4 11 • New Zealand 7.3 22 • Belgium 7.3 9 • United States 7.2 1 • Israel 7.2 20 • Venezuela 7.2 53 • Spain 7.2 19 • Ireland 7.1 2

  7. Lowest Life Ladder Income Rank • Benin 3.3 90 • Cambodia 3.6 73 • Sierra Leone 3.6 95 • Tanzania 3.7 97 • Georgia 3.7 69 • Uganda 3.7 85 • Niger 3.7 96 • Ethiopia 3.8 93 • Burkina Faso 3.8 87 • Zimbabwe 3.8 78 • Cameroon 3.9 77 • Madagascar 4.0 94 • Kenya 4.0 89 • Mali 4.0 91

  8. Feel Cannot Afford Medical Care • Japan 4 % • UK 7 % • Sweden 7 % • Canada 8 % • France 11 % • Spain 11 % • Italy 14 % • Jordan 15 % • Israel 16 % • Iran 19 % • USA 20 % • Turkey 45 % • Romania 50 %

  9. Cannot Afford Housing • Finland 3 % • Ireland 4 % • United Kingdom 6 % • Switzerland 8 % • USA 8 % • Denmark 9 % • Germany 10 % • France 11 % • Spain 13 % • Belarus 40 % • Sierra Leone 62 %

  10. Optimism (0 – 10) – Future Ladder • Zimbabwe 4.0 • Haiti 5.1 • Slovakia 5.6 • Afghanistan 5.7 • Portugal 5.8 • Poland 6.3 • Germany 6.8 • Spain 7.3 • France 7.6 • USA 8.1 • Ireland 8.2 • Denmark 8.5 • Venezuela 8.5

  11. Correlates of National Life Satisfaction • Income .82 • Longevity .73 • Political stability .52 • Trust other people .48 • Unemployment -.44 • Time with family/friends .41

  12. Money is Not Enough • Rising incomes, but not life satisfaction • Factors such as Longevity predict Gallup’s life satisfaction ladder beyond income

  13. 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

  14. Objections • Happy people are ineffective and unmotivated, or worse yet, silly • 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

  15. BUT Is happiness good? Is it functional?

  16. 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

  17. Our Research Shows that Happiness is BeneficialFlaubert 180 degrees off

  18. Happy college students later earn higher incomes

  19. College Entry Cheerfulness, and Income 19 yearslater Diener, Nickerson, Lucas, & Sandvik (2002)

  20. 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

  21. 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?

  22. Longevity inThe Nun Study Survival Rate at Age:8594 Most Cheerful Quartile 90% 54% Least Cheerful 34% 11% Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen

  23. My doctor asks me: Smoking (1 pack/day) Exercise Light drinking

  24. Smoking (1 pack/day) Exercise Light drinking Heavy drinking

  25. Smoking (1 pack/day) Exercise Light drinking Heavy drinking HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT BECOMING A NUN??

  26. Smoking (pack/day) Exercise Light drinking Heavy drinking Hey, Doc, what about: How happy are you? Very Happy vs. Less Happy + 10.7 years

  27. Psychologists Happy live about 6 years longer

  28. 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

  29. Slow & Incomplete Adaptation to Unemployment(Mostly Re-Employed, and Controlling for Income)

  30. Life Satisfaction & Disability: The Set-Point Seems to Change

  31. OECD Nations Affect Balance (PA –NA) WomenMen Ireland .69 .66 New Zealand .65 .66 Sweden .65 .61 Netherlands .62 .63 Canada .62 .61 Denmark .61 .61 Australia .61 .61 Austria .61 .60 Mexico .60 .62 Norway .60 .58 Switzerland .58 .57 U.S.A. .56 .61 U.K. .56 .54 Finland .53 .52 WomenMen Japan .53 .43 Germany .52 .56 Belgium .51 .57 France .50 .51 Poland .50 .50 Spain .48 .58 Czech Rep. .48 .50 S. Korea .44 .35 Italy .42 .42 Hungary .41 .48 Slovak Rep. .41 .39 Greece .31 .42 Portugal .30 .44 Turkey .17 .20

  32. Adaptation to MarriageLucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener

  33. SWB Measures Correlate With: Suicide (individual and national) Physiological (brain, hormones, immune) Informant reports (family and friends) Interview ratings Reaction-time to stimuli tasks

  34. Societal Policies?Pleasant Emotions—Enjoyment etc. HighestLowest New Zealand 88 % Georgia 43 % Ireland 88 % Pakistan 48 % Netherlands 87 % Armenia 49 % Costa Rica 87 % Palestine 50 % UK 86 % Sierra L. 51 %

  35. 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!

  36. SWB relevant to more focused policy issues: Example: Prostitution Example: Commuting to work Example: School well-being check-ups

  37. Life Satisfaction of Sex Workers • Calcutta Low LS • Detroit Extremely low LS

  38. Commuting: Gallup World Poll Life Satisfaction Ladder 0 – 60 min/day 5.8 61 – 120 min/day 5.6 121 – 180 min/day 5.5 181 – 240 min/day 5.0

  39. Conclusions • SWB measures can complement existing econ and social measures for policy use • You should be happy!

  40. 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

  41. SlowAdaptation to Widowhood

  42. Importance Ratings (1-9) HappinessWealthHealth OVERALL (28 nations) 8.0 6.8 7.9 USA 8.1 6.7 7.6 Japan 7.4 6.6 7.8 Chile 8.6 6.9 8.1 Singapore 8.4 7.1 8.0 Egypt 8.1 7.6 8.0 Hong Kong 7.8 6.4 7.6 China 7.3 7.0 7.8

  43. Unpleasant Emotions—Sad, Angry, Depressed, etc. HighestLowest Armenia Denmark Palestine Sweden Bolivia Austria Sierra Leone Japan Percent feelings lots yesterday ~ 40 % ~ 13 %

  44. Dissatisfied with Standard of Living • Ukraine • Georgia • Romania • Russia • Zimbabwe • Most satisfied: Ireland

  45. 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

More Related