IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/aea/aecrev/v103y2013i7p3001-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Conclusions Regarding Cross-Group Differences in Happiness Depend on Difficulty of Reaching Respondents

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as


Cited by:

  1. Thomas F. Crossley & Jochem Bresser & Liam Delaney & Joachim Winter, 2017. "Can Survey Participation Alter Household Saving Behaviour?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(606), pages 2332-2357, November.
  2. Sajons, Christoph, 2016. "Information on the ballot, voter satisfaction and election turnout," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 16/05, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
  3. Adrian Chadi & Clemens Hetschko, 2018. "The magic of the new: How job changes affect job satisfaction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 23-39, March.
  4. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & George Ward & Femke De Keulenaer & Bert Van Landeghem & Georgios Kavetsos & Michael I. Norton, 2018. "The Asymmetric Experience of Positive and Negative Economic Growth: Global Evidence Using Subjective Well-Being Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 362-375, May.
  5. Perez-Arce, Francisco, 2017. "The effect of education on time preferences," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 52-64.
  6. Daniel J. Benjamin & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Nichole Szembrot, 2014. "Beyond Happiness and Satisfaction: Toward Well-Being Indices Based on Stated Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(9), pages 2698-2735, September.
  7. Van Landeghem, Bert, 2019. "Stable traits but unstable measures? Identifying panel effects in self-reflective survey questions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 83-95.
  8. Adrian Chadi, 2019. "Dissatisfied with life or with being interviewed? Happiness and the motivation to participate in a survey," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 519-553, October.
  9. Schwandt, Hannes, 2016. "Unmet aspirations as an explanation for the age U-shape in wellbeing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 75-87.
  10. Borgschulte, Mark & Cho, Heepyung & Lubotsky, Darren, 2022. "Partisanship and survey refusal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 332-357.
  11. Sonja C. Kassenboehmer & Stefanie Schurer, 2018. "Survey item-response behavior as an imperfect proxy for unobserved ability: Theory and application," Working Papers 2018-035, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
  12. Opoku-Agyemang, Kweku A., 2017. "A Human-Computer Interaction Approach for Integrity in Economics," SocArXiv ra3cs, Center for Open Science.
  13. Zheng, Jing & Liang, Sai & Ma, Jing & Liu, Guoqiao & Wu, Yirong, 2022. "Can tourism enhance Chinese subjective well-being?," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
  14. Nikolova, Elena & Sanfey, Peter, 2016. "How much should we trust life satisfaction data? Evidence from the Life in Transition Survey," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 720-731.
  15. Paul Dolan & Georgios Kavetsos, 2012. "Happy Talk: Mode of Administration Effects on Subjective Well-Being," CEP Discussion Papers dp1159, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  16. Shadrina, Elena V. & Vinogradov, Dmitri V. & Kashin, Dmitry V., 2022. "Implicit incentives in green public procurement: Good intentions versus rigid regulations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
  17. Lovett, Nicholas & Xue, Yuhan, 2020. "Family first or the kindness of strangers? Foster care placements and adult outcomes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
  18. Van Landeghem, Bert, 2014. "A test based on panel refreshments for panel conditioning in stated utility measures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 236-238.
  19. Richard Dorsett & Richard Hendra & Philip K. Robins, 2018. "Using Administrative Data to Explore the Effect of Survey Nonresponse in the UK Employment Retention and Advancement Demonstration," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(5-6), pages 491-514, October.
  20. Wu, Wenjie, 2015. "Rail access and subjective well-being: Evidence from quality of life surveys," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 456-470.
  21. Scott Schuh, 2018. "Measuring Consumer Expenditures With Payment Diaries," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 13-49, January.
  22. de New, Sonja C. & Schurer, Stefanie & Leung, Felix, 2015. "Testing the Validity of Item Non-Response as a Proxy for Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Skills," IZA Discussion Papers 8874, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  23. Gil Hersch, 2018. "Ignoring Easterlin: Why Easterlin’s Correlation Findings Need Not Matter to Public Policy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(8), pages 2225-2241, December.
  24. Paul Dolan & Kate Laffan & Alina Velias, 2022. "Who’s miserable now? Identifying clusters of people with the lowest subjective wellbeing in the UK," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 679-710, May.
  25. Scott Schuh, 2017. "Measuring consumer expenditures with payment diaries," Working Papers 17-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  26. Reisinger, James, 2022. "Subjective well-being and social desirability," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
  27. Fernanda Marquez-Padilla & Jorge Alvarez, 2018. "Grading happiness: what grading systems tell us about cross-country wellbeing comparisons," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(2), pages 1138-1155.
  28. Ori Heffetz & Daniel B. Reeves, 2016. "Difficulty to Reach Respondents and Nonresponse Bias: Evidence from Large Government Surveys," NBER Working Papers 22333, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  29. Miles S. Kimball & Collin B. Raymond & Jiannan Zhou & Junya Zhou & Fumio Ohtake & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2024. "Happiness Dynamics, Reference Dependence, and Motivated Beliefs in U.S. Presidential Elections," NBER Working Papers 32078, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.