IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v68y2016i4p861-870..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding context effects for a measure of life evaluation: how responses matter

Author

Listed:
  • Angus Deaton
  • Arthur A. Stone

Abstract

We study context effects on responses to wellbeing questions. We find that those who were randomized into being asked a series of political questions subsequently report lower life evaluation; those who were previously asked about their evaluation of the direction of the United States lowered their own life evaluation, but only if they disapproved of the way the country was going. Subgroups of the population are affected in different ways; the age profile of wellbeing is tipped in favor of the elderly, and African American’s life evaluations are increased when they are asked about President Obama’s performance. The context effects are large, not easily removed, and change wellbeing rankings across groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Angus Deaton & Arthur A. Stone, 2016. "Understanding context effects for a measure of life evaluation: how responses matter," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 68(4), pages 861-870.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:68:y:2016:i:4:p:861-870.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpw022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Reasons to be Cheerful -- 1, 2, 3 by Mark Harrison
      by Mark Harrison in Mark Harrison's blog on 2016-12-31 22:26:29

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    2. Wan Jiang & Qinxuan Gu & Thomas Li-Ping Tang, 2019. "Do Victims of Supervisor Bullying Suffer from Poor Creativity? Social Cognitive and Social Comparison Perspectives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 865-884, July.
    3. Deaton, Angus, 2018. "What do self-reports of wellbeing say about life-cycle theory and policy?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 18-25.
    4. Tiziana CARPI & Airo HINO & Stefano Maria IACUS & Giuseppe PORRO, 2022. "A Japanese Subjective Well-Being Indicator Based on Twitter Data [‘Collective Smile: Measuring Societal Happiness from Geolocated Images’]," Social Science Japan Journal, University of Tokyo and Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 273-296.
    5. Chunmei Zhou & Liqi Tian & Yujun Shan, 2022. "How Tourism Industry Development Affects Residents’ Well-Being: An Empirical Study Based on CGSS and Provincial-Level Matched Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-14, September.
    6. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen B. Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles Kimball, 2017. "Challenges in Constructing a Survey-Based Well-Being Index," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 81-85, May.
    7. Ratna K. Shrestha & Raunak Shrestha & Sara Shneiderman & Jeevan Baniya, 2023. "Beyond Reconstruction: What Leads to Satisfaction in Post-Disaster Recovery?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1367-1395, April.
    8. Polly Mitchell & Anna Alexandrova, 2021. "Well-Being and Pluralism," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 2411-2433, August.
    9. Mark Fabian, 2022. "Scale Norming Undermines the Use of Life Satisfaction Scale Data for Welfare Analysis," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1509-1541, April.
    10. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball, 2023. "From Happiness Data to Economic Conclusions," NBER Working Papers 31727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Richard E. Lucas, 2021. "Comparing global reports of subjective well-being to experiential measures," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 19(1), pages 67-89.
    12. Jolian McHardy & Anita Ratcliffe, 2017. "Identity conflict: A framework and empirical investigation," Working Papers 2017006, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    13. John F. Helliwell, 2019. "Measuring and Using Happiness to Support Public Policies," NBER Working Papers 26529, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Knut Halvorsen, 2016. "Economic, Financial, and Political Crisis and Well-Being in the PIGS-Countries," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, December.
    15. Yuri Kwon & Eunsoo Choi & Jongan Choi & Incheol Choi, 2019. "Discrepancy Regarding Self, Family, and Country and Well-Being: The Critical Role of Self and Cultural Orientation," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 2189-2209, October.
    16. Marcus Klemm, 2022. "Well-being Changes from Year to Year: A Comparison of Current, Remembered and Predicted Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1669-1681, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Carol Graham, 2005. "The Economics of Happiness," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 6(3), pages 41-55, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:68:y:2016:i:4:p:861-870.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.