Relative Income and Happiness: An Experiment

John Ifcher, Homa Zarghamee, Daniel Houser, Lina Diaz
{"title":"Relative Income and Happiness: An Experiment","authors":"John Ifcher, Homa Zarghamee, Daniel Houser, Lina Diaz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3249877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"John Stuart Mill claimed that \"men do not desire merely to be rich, but richer than other men.\" Do people desire to be richer than others? Or is it that people desire favorable comparisons to others more generally, and being richer is merely a proxy for this ineffable relativity? We conduct an online experiment absent choice in which we measure subjective wellbeing (SWB) before and after an exogenous shock that reveals to subjects how many experimental points they and another subject receive, and whether or not points are worth money. We find that subjects like receiving monetized points significantly more than non-monetized points but dislike being \"poorer\" than others in monetized and non-monetized points equally, suggesting relative money is valued only for the relative points it represents. We find no evidence that subjects like being \"richer\" than others. Subgroup analyses reveal women have a strong(er) distaste for being \"richer\" and \"poorer\" (than do men), and conservatives have a strong(er) distaste for being \"poorer\" (than do progressives). Our experimental-SWB approach is easy to administer and can provide some insights a revealed-preference approach cannot, suggesting that it may complement choice-based tasks in future experiments to better estimate preference parameters.","PeriodicalId":345692,"journal":{"name":"Political Methods: Experiments & Experimental Design eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Methods: Experiments & Experimental Design eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3249877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

John Stuart Mill claimed that "men do not desire merely to be rich, but richer than other men." Do people desire to be richer than others? Or is it that people desire favorable comparisons to others more generally, and being richer is merely a proxy for this ineffable relativity? We conduct an online experiment absent choice in which we measure subjective wellbeing (SWB) before and after an exogenous shock that reveals to subjects how many experimental points they and another subject receive, and whether or not points are worth money. We find that subjects like receiving monetized points significantly more than non-monetized points but dislike being "poorer" than others in monetized and non-monetized points equally, suggesting relative money is valued only for the relative points it represents. We find no evidence that subjects like being "richer" than others. Subgroup analyses reveal women have a strong(er) distaste for being "richer" and "poorer" (than do men), and conservatives have a strong(er) distaste for being "poorer" (than do progressives). Our experimental-SWB approach is easy to administer and can provide some insights a revealed-preference approach cannot, suggesting that it may complement choice-based tasks in future experiments to better estimate preference parameters.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
相对收入和幸福:一个实验
约翰·斯图亚特·密尔(John Stuart Mill)声称:“人们不仅希望变得富有,而且希望比别人更富有。”人们渴望比别人富有吗?还是人们更普遍地希望与他人进行有利的比较,而变得更富有仅仅是这种不可言喻的相对性的一种代表?我们进行了一个没有选择的在线实验,在这个实验中,我们测量了外生冲击之前和之后的主观幸福感(SWB),这些外生冲击向受试者揭示了他们和另一个受试者获得了多少实验分数,以及这些分数是否值得花钱。我们发现,受试者喜欢获得货币化积分明显多于非货币化积分,但不喜欢在货币化和非货币化积分上比其他人“更穷”,这表明相对货币的价值只取决于它所代表的相对积分。我们没有发现证据表明受试者喜欢比其他人“富有”。分组分析显示,女性对“更富有”和“更贫穷”(比男性)有强烈的厌恶,保守派对“更贫穷”(比进步派)有强烈的厌恶。我们的实验swb方法易于管理,并且可以提供一些揭示偏好方法无法提供的见解,这表明它可以在未来的实验中补充基于选择的任务,以更好地估计偏好参数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Do American Voters Really Not Punish Overt Undemocratic Behavior at the Polls? Natural Experimental Evidence from the 2021 Insurrection of the U.S. Capitol Absolute versus Relative: Asymmetric Framing and Feedback in a Heterogeneous-Endowment Public Goods Game Improving Studies of Sensitive Topics Using Prior Evidence: A Unified Bayesian Framework for List Experiments Are More Children Better Than One? Evidence from a Lab Experiment of Decision Making Financial Vulnerability and Seeking Expert Advice: Evidence from a Survey Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1