High Income Improves Evaluation of Life But Not Emotional Well-Being
High Income Improves Evaluation of Life But Not Emotional Well-Being
High Income Improves Evaluation of Life But Not Emotional Well-Being
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20779694?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Academy of Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Contributed by Daniel Kahneman, August 4, 2010 (sent for review July 4, 2010)
Recent research has begun to distinguish two aspects of subjective best possible life for you." We find that emotional well-being and
welt-being. Emotional well-being refers to the emotional quality of an life evaluation have different correlates in the circumstances of
individual's everyday experience?the frequency and intensity of ex people's lives. In particular, we observe striking differences in the
periences of joy, stress, sadness, anger, and affection that make one's relationship of these aspects of well-being to income. (For related
life pleasant or unpleasant. Life evaluation refers to the thoughts that observations in the Gallup World Poll, see ref. 9.)
people have about their life when they think about it. We raise the Confusion abounds in discussions of our question. For an ex
question of whether money buys happiness, separately for these two ample, consider the statement that "a lasting marriage.. .is esti
aspects of well-being. We report an analysis of more than 450,000 re mated to be worth $100,000 a year" (10). This correct statement of
sponses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily survey of a research finding is likely to be misunderstood, because many
1,000 US residents conducted by the Gallup Organization. We find readers will interpret it by imagining the pleasure of a change of
that emotional well-being (measured by questions about emotional this magnitude in their income. The pleasure of a raise is likely to
experiences yesterday) and life evaluation (measured by Cantril's Self be transient, however, due to a phenomenon known as adapta
Anchoring Scale) have different correlates. Income and education are tion. Because of adaptation, the difference in well-being between
more closely related to life evaluation, but health, care giving, loneli two random individuals whose income differs by $100,000 is far
ness, and smoking are relatively stronger predictors of daily emotions. less impressive than the joy and misery that these individuals
When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily. Emo would immediately experience were they to trade places. Because
tional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further the observed effects of long-established income differences are
progress beyond an annual income of -$75,000. Low income exacer much smaller than intuitively expected, they are sometimes de
bates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, scribed as inconsequential, but this too is misleading. When en
ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life sat tered in multiple regression model to predict well-being along
isfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with other aspects of life circumstances (marital status, age, ed
with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being. ucation), the effects of household income are almost invariably
both statistically significant and quantitatively important. We re
life evaluation | emotional experience | household income | satiation | port that household income matters for both emotional well-being
happiness and life evaluation, and that there are circumstances under which
it matters for the latter when it does not matter for the former.
Some of the confusion regarding the effects of income on well
The question of whether
quently in discussions of subjective"money
well-being in buys happiness" comes up fre
both scholarly being can be traced to incorrect analysis. Psychologists and soci
debates and casual conversation. The topic has been addressed in ologists often plot measures of subjective well-being against income
a vast and inconclusive research literature (for a selection of recent in dollars, but a strong argument can be made for the logarithm of
reviews, see refs. 1-4). No single article can settle this complex ques income as the preferred scale. The logarithmic transformation re
tion definitively, but data recently collected by the Gallup Organi presents a basic fact of perception known as Weber's Law, which
zation in the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index (GHWBI) pro applies generally to quantitative dimensions of perception and
vide a rich source of observations, as well as an unusually detailed judgment (e.g., the intensity of sounds and lights). The rule is that
measurement of well-being. We analyze the responses of more than the effective stimulus for the detection and evaluation of changes or
450,000 US residents surveyed in 2008 and 2009 to several questions differences in such dimensions is the percentage change, not its ab
about their subjective well-being. The results suggest a rather com solute amount. In the context of income, a $100 raise does not have
plex answer to our opening question. the same significance for a financial services executive as for an in
A discussion of subjective well-being must recognize a dis dividual earning the minimum wage, but a doubling of their re
tinction between two concepts that are often confounded (5-8), spective incomes might have a similar impact on both. The loga
Emotional well-being (sometimes called hedonic well-being or rithmic transformation reveals an important regularity of judgment
experienced happiness) refers to the emotional quality of an that risks being masked when a dollar scale is used.
individual's everyday experience?the frequency and intensity of Plots of subjective well-being against income in dollars in
experiences of joy, fascination, anxiety, sadness, anger, and af variably yield a strongly concave function. Although concavity is
fection that make one's life pleasant or unpleasant. Life evalu entailed by the psychophysics of quantitative dimensions, it often
ation refers to a person's thoughts about his or her life. Surveys has been cited as evidence that people derive little or no psy
of subjective well-being have traditionally emphasized life eval chological benefit from income beyond some threshold. Al
uation. The most commonly asked question in these surveys is though this conclusion has been widely accepted in discussions of
the life satisfaction question: "How satisfied are you with your the relationship between life evaluation and gross domestic pro
life as a whole these days?" The GHWBI survey is unusual in its duct (GDP) across nations (11-14), it is false, at least for this
attempt to distinguish and capture both aspects of subjective
well-being. Emotional well-being is assessed by questions about
the presence of various emotions in the experience of yesterday Author contributions: D.K. and A.D. designed research; performed research; analyzed
data; and wrote the paper.
(e.g., enjoyment, happiness, anger, sadness, stress, worry). Life
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
evaluation is measured using Cantril's Self-Anchoring Scale,
which has the respondent rate his or her current life on a ladder Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
scale in which 0 is "the worst possible life for you" and 10 is "the 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected].
Kahneman and Deaton PNAS | September 21, 2010 | vol.107 | no. 38 | 16491
The data for positive and blue affect provide an unexpectedly sharp Materials and Methods
answer to our original question. More money does not necessarily The survey involved a telephone interview using a dual-frame random-digit
buy more happiness, but less money is associated with emotional dial methodology that included cell phone numbers from all 50 US states.
pain. Perhaps $75,000 is a threshold beyond which further increases Interviews were conducted between 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM (local time), with
in income no longer improve individuals' ability to do what matters most done in the evening. Up to five callbacks were made in the case of no
most to their emotional well-being, such as spending time with answer. Spanish language interviews were conducted when appropriate.
people they like, avoiding pain and disease, and enjoying leisure. Approximately 1,000 interviews were completed daily from January 2 through
December 30, 2009.
According to the ACS, mean (median) US household income was
$71,500 ($52,000) in 2008, and about a third of households were The questionnaire covered many topics of interest to the Gallup Organi
zation and Healthways Corporation, including basic demographic information,
above the $75,000 threshold. It also is likely that when income rises
participants' opinions about the current economic climate and their personal
beyond this value, the increased ability to purchase positive experi financial situation, information about past diseases, and other topics.
ences is balanced, on average, by some negative effects. A recent Life evaluation was assessed using Cantril's Self-Anchoring Scale (the
psychological study using pinning methods provided suggestive evi ladder), worded as follows: "Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered
dence of a possible association between high income and a reduced from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the
ability to savor small pleasures (21). best possible life for you, and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst
When interpreting our findings, it is essential to distinguish changes possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you per
from differences. Our data speak only to differences; they do not sonally feel you stand at this time?" (15). Questions about emotional well
being had yes/no response options and were worded as follows: "Did you
imply that people will not be happy with a raise from $100,000 to
experience the following feelings during a lot of the day yesterday? How
$150,000, or that they will be indifferent to an equivalent drop in in
about _?" Each of several emotions (e.g., enjoyment, stress) was
come. Changes of income in the high range certainly have emotional reported separately. The positive affect score was the average of the reports
consequences. What the data suggest is that above a certain level of of enjoyment and happiness and of a dichotomous question about the
stable income, individuals' emotional well-being is constrained by frequency of smiling: "Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday?" The blue
other factors in their temperament and life circumstances. affect score was the average of worry and sadness.
We observe a qualitative difference between our measures of To broaden coverage and representativeness, cell phones were part of the
emotional well-being and of life evaluation?the former satiates sampling design. Relative to land lines, the response rate for cell phones was
with high income, whereas the latter does not. This observation typically lower. Of all calls that resulted in contacts with an eligible candidate,
31% of the candidates agreed to be interviewed; of these, 90% completed
underscores the importance of the distinction between the judg
the entire interview. Despite the sampling limitations, available evidence
ments individuals make when they think about their life and the
suggests that the estimates of population parameters were not compro
feelings that they experience as they live it. As might be expected, the mised; for example, the survey predicted recent election results within an
former is sensitive to socioeconomic status, whereas the latter is acceptable margin of error.
sensitive to circumstances that evoke positive and negative emo
tions, such as spending time with others and caring for a sick relative. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Carol Graham, Richard Nisbett, Norbert
Several authors have commented on a related difference between Schwarz, and Arthur Stone for their comments. Special thanks to James
two questions that are often used in surveys of subjective well-being: Harter, one of the authors of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, for
his contribution to the research and for his comments on this report. We
"How satisfied are you with your life?" and "How happy are you these thank the Gallup Organization and Healthways Corporation for access to the
days?" (8, 22, 23). The common conclusion is that income is more survey results. This work was supported by the Gallup Organization and by
strongly related to satisfaction than to happiness, but the difference National Institute on Aging Grant AG024928-06.
1. Diener E, Biswas-Diener R (2002) Will money increase subjective well-being? Soc Indie 4. Clark AE, Kristensen N, Westergaard-Nielsen (2009) Economic satisfaction and
Res 57:119-169. income rank in small neighbourhoods. J Eur Econ Assoc 7:519-527.
2. Headey , Muffels R, Wooden M (2008) Money does not buy happiness: Or does it? A 5. Diener E (1984) Subjective well-being. Psycho! Bull 95:542-575.
reassessment based on the combined effects of wealth, income and consumption. Soc 6. Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA, Schwarz , Stone AA (2004) A survey method for
Indie Res 87:65-82. characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science 306:1776-1780.
3. Clark AE, Frijters P, Shields M (2008) Relative income, happiness and utility: An 7. Kahneman D, Riis J (2005) The Science Of Well-Being, eds Huppert FA, Baylis N,
explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. J Econ Lit 46:95-144. Keverne (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford), pp 285-304.
o
3
Kahneman and Deaton PNAS | September 21, 2010 | vol. 107 | no. 38 | 16493