Who (Really) Wins with Basic Income: Personality and Values as Predictors of Happiness Trajectories

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2025-01-15 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00831-x

Julia Malinka, Kristin Mitte, Matthias Ziegler

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Universal Basic Income (UBI) might cause different effects in happiness depending on a person’s individual characteristics. In an online panel study of 573 basic income recipients in Germany, we examined whether personality traits (NEOAC) and certain personal values (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, power, achievement, universalism, benevolence) predicted trajectories in happiness. Latent Growth Curve Analysis revealed that overall, most individuals experienced similar changes in happiness over time. For personality traits as predictors, higher neuroticism and openness to new experience were linked to growth in well-being. Additionally for personal values, significant growth in life satisfaction appeared to be associated with lower hedonism at the beginning of the study, and growth in well-being was related to higher levels of self-direction. In fact, none of the subgroups suffered in happiness. We conclude with implications and some important directions for further research regarding the effect of basic income on happiness.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

谁（真正）赢得了基本收入：人格和价值观作为幸福轨迹的预测因素

全民基本收入（UBI）可能会根据个人特征对幸福感产生不同的影响。在一项针对德国573名基本收入领取者的在线小组研究中，我们研究了人格特征（NEOAC）和某些个人价值观（自我导向、激励、享乐主义、权力、成就、普世主义、仁慈）是否能预测幸福的轨迹。潜在增长曲线分析显示，总体而言，随着时间的推移，大多数人的幸福感都经历了类似的变化。作为预测因素的人格特征，较高的神经质和对新体验的开放程度与幸福感的增长有关。此外，在个人价值观方面，在研究开始时，生活满意度的显著增长似乎与较低的享乐主义有关，而幸福感的增长与较高的自我指导水平有关。事实上，没有一个小组的快乐程度受到影响。最后，我们提出了基本收入对幸福感影响的启示和一些重要的研究方向。

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

Journal of Happiness Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

6.50%

发文量

110

期刊介绍： The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?