地理参考收入与澳大利亚人的主观幸福感

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2023-12-06 DOI:10.1007/s10902-023-00707-6
Christopher Phelps, Mark N. Harris, Steven Rowley, Rachel Ong ViforJ, Gavin A. Wood
{"title":"地理参考收入与澳大利亚人的主观幸福感","authors":"Christopher Phelps, Mark N. Harris, Steven Rowley, Rachel Ong ViforJ, Gavin A. Wood","doi":"10.1007/s10902-023-00707-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper panel data is used to estimate the relationship between geographic reference income and subjective wellbeing in Australia. Recent cross-sectional US-based studies suggest that the income of other people in a neighbourhood—geographic reference income—impacts on individual wellbeing but is mediated by geographic scale. On controlling for a household’s own income, subjective wellbeing is raised by neighbourhood income and lowered by region-wide income. However, these findings could be driven by the self-selection of innately happy or unhappy individuals into higher-income areas. This study’s methodology takes advantage of panel-data modelling to show that unobserved individual heterogeneity is in fact correlated with reference income, but on curbing its impacts through the inclusion of fixed-effects we find that there is still a positive relationship between reference income and subjective wellbeing at the neighbourhood level. However, we detect no relationship at the region-wide level. Additionally, the subjective wellbeing relationship is the same no matter an individual’s rank in the distribution of incomes within an area. The neighbourhood wellbeing relationship has implications for policies addressing residential segregation and social mixing.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":" 37","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geographic Reference Income and the Subjective Wellbeing of Australians\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Phelps, Mark N. Harris, Steven Rowley, Rachel Ong ViforJ, Gavin A. Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10902-023-00707-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this paper panel data is used to estimate the relationship between geographic reference income and subjective wellbeing in Australia. Recent cross-sectional US-based studies suggest that the income of other people in a neighbourhood—geographic reference income—impacts on individual wellbeing but is mediated by geographic scale. On controlling for a household’s own income, subjective wellbeing is raised by neighbourhood income and lowered by region-wide income. However, these findings could be driven by the self-selection of innately happy or unhappy individuals into higher-income areas. This study’s methodology takes advantage of panel-data modelling to show that unobserved individual heterogeneity is in fact correlated with reference income, but on curbing its impacts through the inclusion of fixed-effects we find that there is still a positive relationship between reference income and subjective wellbeing at the neighbourhood level. However, we detect no relationship at the region-wide level. Additionally, the subjective wellbeing relationship is the same no matter an individual’s rank in the distribution of incomes within an area. The neighbourhood wellbeing relationship has implications for policies addressing residential segregation and social mixing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Happiness Studies\",\"volume\":\" 37\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Happiness Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00707-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00707-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,使用面板数据来估计澳大利亚地理参考收入与主观幸福感之间的关系。最近美国的横断面研究表明,社区中其他人的收入(地理参考收入)对个人福祉有影响,但受地理规模的调节。在控制家庭自身收入的情况下,主观幸福感受社区收入的影响而提高,受地区收入的影响而降低。然而,这些发现可能是由天生快乐或不快乐的人在高收入地区的自我选择所驱动的。本研究的方法利用面板数据建模的优势,表明未观察到的个体异质性实际上与参考收入相关,但通过纳入固定效应来抑制其影响,我们发现参考收入与主观幸福感之间仍然存在正相关关系。然而,我们发现在区域范围内没有关系。此外,无论个人在一个地区的收入分配中的排名如何,主观幸福感的关系都是相同的。社区福利关系对解决居住隔离和社会混合的政策有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Geographic Reference Income and the Subjective Wellbeing of Australians

In this paper panel data is used to estimate the relationship between geographic reference income and subjective wellbeing in Australia. Recent cross-sectional US-based studies suggest that the income of other people in a neighbourhood—geographic reference income—impacts on individual wellbeing but is mediated by geographic scale. On controlling for a household’s own income, subjective wellbeing is raised by neighbourhood income and lowered by region-wide income. However, these findings could be driven by the self-selection of innately happy or unhappy individuals into higher-income areas. This study’s methodology takes advantage of panel-data modelling to show that unobserved individual heterogeneity is in fact correlated with reference income, but on curbing its impacts through the inclusion of fixed-effects we find that there is still a positive relationship between reference income and subjective wellbeing at the neighbourhood level. However, we detect no relationship at the region-wide level. Additionally, the subjective wellbeing relationship is the same no matter an individual’s rank in the distribution of incomes within an area. The neighbourhood wellbeing relationship has implications for policies addressing residential segregation and social mixing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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?
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Online Multi-Component Positive Psychology Intervention on Adolescents’ Risky Behaviors and Psychological Flexibility: A Mixed Method Study Trajectories of Personal Growth among First-Time Parents: The Predicting Role of Coping Flexibility and Parental Distress How Locus of Control Predicts Subjective Well-Being and its Inequality: The Moderating Role of Social Values Disability and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Accessibility The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Life Satisfaction: Does Social Belonging Matter as a Mechanism and are There Differences by Age?
×
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