身体质量指数变化的货币价值:配偶是否起作用?

IF 4.1 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Review of Economics of the Household Pub Date : 2024-05-31 DOI:10.1007/s11150-024-09709-6
Kristjana Baldursdottir, Paul McNamee, Edward C. Norton, Tinna Laufey Asgeirsdottir
{"title":"身体质量指数变化的货币价值:配偶是否起作用?","authors":"Kristjana Baldursdottir, Paul McNamee, Edward C. Norton, Tinna Laufey Asgeirsdottir","doi":"10.1007/s11150-024-09709-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The public-health challenges associated with increased body weight have long been stressed, but greater attention has lately been brought to how individuals are affected psychologically. This can be rooted in factors such as social norms and interpersonal relationships, including marriage or cohabitation. We estimate the “utility-maximizing” Body Mass Index (BMI) and calculate the implied monetary value of changes in BMI for individuals and their spouses using the compensating income variation method and data from the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Random-effects models are estimated for women and men separately and windfall income is used to address the endogeneity of income. While the spousal analysis suggests that couples generally dislike having substantially different BMI levels, women most strongly dislike having a higher BMI than their spouses and men have the highest dislike when their BMI is lower than their spouses. On average women prefer to be 4.8 BMI points below their spouses while men prefer to be 2.5 BMI points above their spouses. Similarities and differences in lifestyle are explored in this context. Results also suggest that the optimal own BMI is 28.0 and 25.1 for men and women, respectively. The annual value of reaching optimal weight ranges from $13,483 for women with underweight to $26,647 for women with obesity. Men on the other hand place greater value on not being with underweight ($29,064) than being with obesity ($14,405). The results highlight important gender differences and relative effects based on spousal BMI.</p>","PeriodicalId":47111,"journal":{"name":"Review of Economics of the Household","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monetary values of changes in Body Mass Index: do spouses play a role?\",\"authors\":\"Kristjana Baldursdottir, Paul McNamee, Edward C. Norton, Tinna Laufey Asgeirsdottir\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11150-024-09709-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The public-health challenges associated with increased body weight have long been stressed, but greater attention has lately been brought to how individuals are affected psychologically. This can be rooted in factors such as social norms and interpersonal relationships, including marriage or cohabitation. We estimate the “utility-maximizing” Body Mass Index (BMI) and calculate the implied monetary value of changes in BMI for individuals and their spouses using the compensating income variation method and data from the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Random-effects models are estimated for women and men separately and windfall income is used to address the endogeneity of income. While the spousal analysis suggests that couples generally dislike having substantially different BMI levels, women most strongly dislike having a higher BMI than their spouses and men have the highest dislike when their BMI is lower than their spouses. On average women prefer to be 4.8 BMI points below their spouses while men prefer to be 2.5 BMI points above their spouses. Similarities and differences in lifestyle are explored in this context. Results also suggest that the optimal own BMI is 28.0 and 25.1 for men and women, respectively. The annual value of reaching optimal weight ranges from $13,483 for women with underweight to $26,647 for women with obesity. Men on the other hand place greater value on not being with underweight ($29,064) than being with obesity ($14,405). The results highlight important gender differences and relative effects based on spousal BMI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Economics of the Household\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Economics of the Household\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-024-09709-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Economics of the Household","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-024-09709-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,人们一直强调体重增加给公共健康带来的挑战,但最近人们更加关注个人心理如何受到影响。这可能源于社会规范和人际关系(包括婚姻或同居)等因素。我们利用补偿收入变化法和澳大利亚家庭、收入和劳动力动态调查的数据,估算了 "效用最大化 "的体重指数(BMI),并计算了体重指数变化对个人及其配偶的隐含货币价值。随机效应模型分别对女性和男性进行估算,并使用意外收入来解决收入的内生性问题。对配偶的分析表明,夫妻一般都不喜欢自己的体重指数有很大差异,女性最不喜欢自己的体重指数高于配偶,而男性最不喜欢自己的体重指数低于配偶。平均而言,女性希望自己的体重指数比配偶低 4.8 个百分点,而男性则希望自己的体重指数比配偶高 2.5 个百分点。在此背景下探讨了生活方式的异同。结果还表明,男性和女性的最佳自身体重指数分别为 28.0 和 25.1。达到最佳体重的年价值从体重不足妇女的 13 483 美元到肥胖妇女的 26 647 美元不等。另一方面,与肥胖(14 405 美元)相比,男性更看重体重不超标(29 064 美元)。这些结果凸显了重要的性别差异和基于配偶体重指数的相对影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Monetary values of changes in Body Mass Index: do spouses play a role?

The public-health challenges associated with increased body weight have long been stressed, but greater attention has lately been brought to how individuals are affected psychologically. This can be rooted in factors such as social norms and interpersonal relationships, including marriage or cohabitation. We estimate the “utility-maximizing” Body Mass Index (BMI) and calculate the implied monetary value of changes in BMI for individuals and their spouses using the compensating income variation method and data from the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Random-effects models are estimated for women and men separately and windfall income is used to address the endogeneity of income. While the spousal analysis suggests that couples generally dislike having substantially different BMI levels, women most strongly dislike having a higher BMI than their spouses and men have the highest dislike when their BMI is lower than their spouses. On average women prefer to be 4.8 BMI points below their spouses while men prefer to be 2.5 BMI points above their spouses. Similarities and differences in lifestyle are explored in this context. Results also suggest that the optimal own BMI is 28.0 and 25.1 for men and women, respectively. The annual value of reaching optimal weight ranges from $13,483 for women with underweight to $26,647 for women with obesity. Men on the other hand place greater value on not being with underweight ($29,064) than being with obesity ($14,405). The results highlight important gender differences and relative effects based on spousal BMI.

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
9.30
自引率
3.90%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Review of Economics of the Household publishes high-quality empirical and theoretical research on the economic behavior and decision-making processes of single and multi-person households. The Review is not wedded to any particular models or methods. It welcomes both macro-economic and micro-level applications. Household decisions analyzed in this journal include ·         household production of human capital, health, nutrition/food, childcare, and eldercare, ·         well-being of persons living in households, issues of gender and power, ·         fertility and risky behaviors, ·         consumption, savings and wealth accumulation, ·         labor force participation and time use,·         household formation (including marriage, cohabitation and fertility) and dissolution,·         migration, intergenerational transfers,·         experiments involving households,·         religiosity and civility.The journal is particularly interested in policy-relevant economic analyses and equally interested in applications to countries at various levels of economic development. The Perspectives section covers articles on the history of economic thought and review articles. Officially cited as: Rev Econ Household
期刊最新文献
The heterogeneous effects of the first childbirth on women’s income Parental labor market penalties during two years of COVID-19 Commuting in dual-earner households: international gender differences with time use surveys Unemployment insurance generosity and intimate partner violence Unequal care provision: Evidence from the SHARE-Corona Survey
×
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