essay does money buy happiness

Happiness Economics: Can Money Buy Happiness?

It only costs a small amount, a slight risk, with the possibility of a substantial reward.

But will it make you happy? Will it give you long-lasting happiness?

Undoubtedly, there will be a temporary peak in happiness, but will all your troubles finally fade away?

That is what we will investigate today. We explore the economics of happiness and whether money can buy happiness. In this post, we will start by broadly exploring the topic and then look at theories and substantive research findings. We’ll even have a look at previous lottery winners.

For interested readers, we will list interesting books and podcasts for further enjoyment and share a few of our own happiness resources.

Ka-ching: Let’s get rolling!

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Happiness & Subjective Wellbeing Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients identify sources of authentic happiness and strategies to boost wellbeing.

This Article Contains

What is happiness economics, theory of the economics of happiness, can money buy happiness 5 research findings, 6 fascinating books and podcasts on the topic, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Happiness economics is a field of economics that recognizes happiness and wellbeing as important outcome measures, alongside measures typically used, such as employment, education, and health care.

Economics emphasizes how specific economic/financial characteristics affect our wellbeing (Easterlin, 2004).

For example, does employment result in better health and longer lifespan, among other metrics? Do people in wealthier countries have access to better education and longer life spans?

In the last few decades, there has been a shift in economics, where researchers have recognized the importance of the subjective rating of happiness as a valuable and desirable outcome that is significantly correlated with other important outcomes, such as health (Steptoe, 2019) and productivity (DiMaria et al., 2020).

Broadly, happiness is a psychological state of being, typically researched and defined using psychological methods. We often measure it using self-report measures rather than objective measures that are less vulnerable to misinterpretation and error.

Including happiness in economics has opened up an entirely new avenue of research to explore the relationship between happiness and money.

Andrew Clark (2018) illustrates the variability in the term happiness economics with the following examples:

Happiness can be a predictor variable, influencing our decisions and behaviors.
Happiness might be the desired outcome, so understanding how and why some people are happier than others is essential.

However, the connection between our behavior and happiness must be better understood. Even though “being happy” is a desired outcome, people still make decisions that prevent them from becoming happier. For example, why do we choose to work more if our work does not make us happier? Why are we unhappy even if our basic needs are met?

An example of how happiness can influence decision-making

Sometimes, we might choose not to maximize a monetary or financial gain but place importance on other, more subjective outcomes.

To illustrate: If faced with two jobs — one that pays well but will bring no joy and another that pays less but will bring much joy — some people would prefer to maximize their happiness over financial gain.

If this decision were evaluated using a utility framework where the only valued outcomes were practical, then the decision would seem irrational. However, this scenario suggests that psychological outcomes, such as the experience of happiness, are as crucial as other socio-economic outcomes.

Economists recognize that subjective wellbeing , or happiness, is an essential characteristic and sometimes a desirable outcome that can motivate our decision-making.

In the last few decades, economics has shifted to include happiness as a measurable and vital part of general wellbeing (Graham, 2005).

The consequence is that typical economic questions now also look at the impact of employment, finances, and other economic metrics on the subjective rating and experience of happiness at individual and country levels.

Happiness is such a vital outcome in society and economic activity that it must be involved in policy making. The subjective measure of happiness is as important as other typical measures used in economics.

Many factors can contribute to happiness. In this post, we consider the role of money. The relationship between happiness, or subjective wellbeing, and money is assumed to be positive: More money means greater happiness.

However, the relationship between money and happiness is paradoxical: More money does not guarantee happiness (for an excellent review, see Graham, 2005).

Specifically, low levels of income are correlated with unhappiness. However, as our individual wealth increases and our basic needs are met, our needs change and differ in their importance.

Initially, our happiness is affected by absolute levels of income, but at a certain threshold, we place importance on relative levels of income. Knowing how we rank and compare to other people, in terms of wealth and material possession, influences our happiness.

The relationship between wealth and happiness continues to increase, but only to a certain point; at this stage, more wealth does not guarantee more happiness (Easterlin, 1974; Diener et al., 1993).

This may be at odds with our everyday lived experience. Most of us choose to work longer hours or multiple jobs so that we make more money. However, what is the point of doing this if money does not increase our happiness? Why do we seem to think that more money will make us happier?

History of the economics of happiness

The relationship between economics and happiness originated in the early 1970s. Brickman and Campbell (1971, as cited in Brickman et al., 1978) first argued that the typical outcomes of a successful life, such as wealth or income, had no impact on individual wellbeing.

Easterlin (1974) expanded these results and showed that although wealthier people tend to be happier than poor people in the same country, the average happiness levels within a country remained unchanged even as the country’s overall wealth increased.

The inconsistent relationship between happiness and income and its sensitivity to critical income thresholds make this topic so interesting.

There is some evidence that wealthier countries are happier than others, but only when comparing the wealthy with the poor (Easterlin, 1974; Graham, 2005).

As countries become wealthier, citizens report higher happiness, but this relationship is strongest when the starting point is poverty. Above a certain income threshold, happiness no longer increases (Diener et al., 1993).

Interestingly, people tend to agree on the amount of money needed to make them happy; but beyond a certain value, there is little increase in happiness (Haesevoets et al., 2022).

Measurement challenges

Measuring happiness accurately and reliably is challenging. Researchers disagree on what happiness means.

It is not the norm in economics to measure happiness by directly asking a participant how happy they are; instead, happiness is inferred through:

Subjective wellbeing (Clark, 2018; Easterlin, 2004)
A combination of happiness and life satisfaction (Bruni, 2007)

Furthermore, happiness can refer to an acute psychological state, such as feeling happy after a nice meal, or a lasting state similar to contentment (Nettle, 2005).

Researchers might use different definitions of happiness and ways to measure it, thus leading to contradictory results. For example, happiness might be used synonymously with subjective wellbeing and can refer to several things, including life satisfaction and financial satisfaction (Diener & Oishi, 2000).

It seems contradictory that wealthier nations are not happier overall than poorer nations and that increasing the wealth of poorer nations does not guarantee that their happiness will increase too. What could then be done to increase happiness?

Download 3 Free Happiness Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover authentic happiness and cultivate subjective well-being.

Download 3 Free Happiness Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Email Address *
Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

What is the relationship between income/wealth and happiness? To answer that question, we looked at studies to see where and how money improves happiness, but we’ll also consider the limitations to the positive effect of income.

Money buys access; jobs boost happiness

Overwhelming evidence shows that wealth is correlated with measures of wellbeing.

Wealthier people have access to better healthcare, education, and employment, which in turn results in higher life satisfaction (Helliwell et al., 2012). A certain amount of wealth is needed to meet basic needs, and satisfying these needs improves happiness (Veenhoven & Ehrhardt, 1995).

Increasing happiness through improved quality of life is highest for poor households, but this is explained by the starting point. Access to essential services improves the quality of life, and in turn, this improves measures of wellbeing.

Most people gain wealth through employment; however, it is not just wealth that improves happiness; instead, employment itself has an important association with happiness. Happiness and employment are also significantly correlated with each other (Helliwell et al., 2021).

Lockdown on happiness

The World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2021) reports that unemployment increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this was accompanied by a marked decline in happiness and optimism.

The pandemic also changed how we evaluated certain aspects of our lives; for example, the relationship between income and happiness declined. After all, what is the use of money if you can’t spend it? In contrast, the association between happiness and having a partner increased (Helliwell et al., 2021).

Wealthier states smile more, but is it real?

World_Happiness_Report_2020_-_Ranking_of_Happiness_2017-2019_-_Top_20_Countries

If we took a snapshot of happiness and a country’s wealth, we would find that richer countries tend to have happier populations than poorer countries.

For example, based on the 2021 World Happiness Report, the top five happiest countries — which are also wealthy countries — are Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands (Helliwell et al., 2021).

In contrast, the unhappiest countries are those that tend to be emerging markets or have a lower gross domestic product (GDP), e.g., Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and India (Graham, 2005; Helliwell et al., 2021).

At face value, this makes sense: Poorer countries most likely have other factors associated with them, e.g., higher unemployment, more crime, and less political stability. So, based on this cross-sectional data, a country’s wealth and happiness levels appear to be correlated. However, over a more extended period, the relationship between happiness and GDP is nil (Easterlin, 2004).

That is, the subjective wellbeing of a population does not increase as a country becomes richer. Even though the wealth of various countries worldwide has increased over time, the overall happiness levels have not increased similarly or have remained static (Kahneman et al., 2006). This is known as a happiness–income paradox.

Easterlin (2004) posits four explanations for this finding:

Societal and individual gains associated with increased wealth are concentrated among the extremely wealthy.
Our degree of happiness is informed by how we compare to other people, and this relative comparison does not change as country-wide wealth increases.
Happiness is not limited to only wealth and financial status, but is affected by other societal and political factors, such as crime, education, and trust in the government.
Long-term satisfaction and contentment differ from short-term, acute happiness.

Kahneman et al. (2006) provide an alternative explanation centered on the method typically used by researchers. Specifically, they argue that the order of the questions asked to measure happiness and how these questions are worded have a focusing effect. Through the question, the participant’s attention to their happiness is sharpened — like a lens in a camera — and their happiness needs to be over- or underestimated.

Kahneman et al. (2006) also point out that job advancements like a raise or a promotion are often accompanied by an increase in salary and work hours. Consequently, high-paying jobs often result in less leisure time available to spend with family or on hobbies and can cause more unhappiness.

Not all that glitters is gold

Extensive research explored whether a sudden financial windfall was associated with a spike in happiness (e.g., Sherman et al., 2020). The findings were mixed. Sometimes, having more money is associated with increased life satisfaction and improved physical and mental health.

This boost in happiness, however, is not guaranteed, nor is it long. Sometimes, individuals even wish it had never happened (Brickman et al., 1978; Sherman et al., 2020).

Consider lottery winners. These people win sizable sums of money — typically more extensive than a salary increase — large enough to impact their lives significantly. Despite this, research has consistently shown that although lottery winners report higher immediate, short-term happiness, they do not experience higher long-term happiness (Sherman et al., 2020).

Here are some reasons for this:

Previous everyday activities and experiences become less enjoyable when compared to a unique, unusual experience like winning the lottery.
People habituate to their new lifestyle.
A sudden increase in wealth can disrupt social relationships among friends and family members.
Work and hobbies typically give us small nuggets of joy over a more extended period (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2005). These activities can lose their meaning over a longer period, resulting in more unhappiness (Sherman et al., 2020; Brickman et al., 1978).

Sherman et al. (2020) further argue that lottery winners who decide to quit their job after winning, but do not fill this newly available time with some type of meaningful hobby or interest, are also more likely to become unhappy.

Passive activities do not provide the same happiness as work or hobbies. Instead, if lottery winners continue to take part in activities that give them meaning and require active engagement, then they can avoid further unhappiness.

Happiness: Is it temperature or climate?

Like most psychological research, part of the challenge is clearly defining the topic of investigation — a task made more daunting when the topic falls within two very different fields.

Nettle (2005) describes happiness as a three-tiered concept, ranging from short-lived but intense on one end of the spectrum to more abstract and deep on the other.

The first tier refers to transitory feelings of joy, like when one opens up a birthday present.

The second tier describes judgments about feelings, such as feeling satisfied with your job. The third tier is more complex and refers to life satisfaction.

Across research, different definitions are used: Participants are asked about feelings of (immediate) joy, overall life satisfaction, moments of happiness or satisfaction, and mental wellbeing . The concepts are similar but not identical, thus influencing the results.

Most books on happiness economics are textbooks. Although no doubt very interesting, they’re not the easy-reading books we prefer to recommend.

Instead, below you will find a range of books written by economists that explore happiness. These should provide a good springboard on the overall topic of happiness and what influences it, in case any of our readers want to pick up a more in-depth textbook afterward.

If you have a happiness book you would recommend, please let us know in the comments section.

1. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science – Richard Layard

Richard Layard, a lead economist based in London, explores in his book if and how money can affect happiness.

Layard does an excellent job of introducing topics from various fields and framing them appropriately for the reader.

The book is aimed at readers from varying academic and professional backgrounds, so no experience is needed to enjoy it.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. Happiness by Design: Change What You Do, Not How You Think – Paul Dolan

This book has a more practical spin. The author explains how we can use existing research and theories to make small changes to increase our happiness.

Paul Dolan’s primary thesis is that practical things will have a bigger effect than abstract methods, and we should change our behavior rather than our thinking.

The book is a quick read (airport-perfect!), and Daniel Kahneman penned the foreword.

3. The Psychology of Money: Timeless Lessons on Wealth, Greed and Happiness – Morgan Housel

This book is not necessarily about happiness economics, but it is close enough to the overall theme that it is worth mentioning.

Since most people are concerned with making more money, this book helps teach the reader why we make the decisions we do and how we make better decisions about our money.

This book is a worthwhile addition to any bookcase if you are interested in the relationship between finances and psychology in general.

4. Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile – Daniel Nettle

If you are interested in happiness overall, then we recommend Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile by Daniel Nettle, a professor of behavioral science at Newcastle University.

In this book, he takes a scientific approach to explaining happiness, starting with an in-depth exploration of the definition of happiness and some of its challenges.

The research that he presents comes from various fields, including social sciences, medicine, neurobiology, and economics.

Because of its small size, this book is perfect for a weekend away or to read on a plane.

5 & 6. Prefer to listen rather than read?

One of our favorite podcasts is Intelligence2, where leading experts in a particular field gather to debate a particular topic.

This show’s host, Dr. Laurie Santos, argues that we can increase our happiness by not hoarding our money for ourselves but by giving it to others instead. If you are interested in this episode , or any of the other episodes in the Happiness Lab podcast series, then head on over to their page.

There are several resources available at PositivePsychology.com for our readers to use in their professional and personal development.

In this section, you’ll find a few that should supplement any work on happiness and economics. Since the undercurrent of the topic is whether happiness can be improved through wealth, a few resources look at happiness overall.

Valued Living Masterclass

Although knowledge is power, knowing that money does not guarantee happiness does not mean that clients will suddenly feel fulfilled and satisfied with their lives.

For this reason, we recommend the Valued Living Masterclass , for professionals to help their clients find meaning in their lives. Rather than keeping up with the Joneses or chasing a high-paying job, professionals can help their clients connect with their inner meaning (i.e., their why ) as a way to find meaning and gain happiness.

Three free exercises

If you want to try it out before committing, look at the Meaning & Valued Living exercise pack , which includes three exercises for free.

17 Happines Exercises

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others develop strategies to boost their wellbeing, this collection contains 17 validated happiness and wellbeing exercises . Use them to help others pursue authentic happiness and work toward a life filled with purpose and meaning

17 Exercises To Increase Happiness and Wellbeing

Add these 17 Happiness & Subjective Well-Being Exercises [PDF] to your toolkit and help others experience greater purpose, meaning, and positive emotions.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

As you’ve seen in our article, the evidence overwhelmingly clarifies that money does not guarantee more happiness … well, long-term happiness.

Our happiness is relative since we compare ourselves to other people, and over time, as we become accustomed to our wealth, we lose all the happiness gains we made.

Money can ease financial and social difficulties; consequently, it can drastically improve people’s living conditions, life expectancy, and education.

Improvements in these outcomes have a knock-on effect on the overall experience of one’s life and the opportunities for one’s family and children. Nevertheless, better opportunities do not guarantee happiness.

Our intention with this post was to illustrate some complexities surrounding the relationship between money and happiness.

Knowing that money does not guarantee happiness, we recommend less expensive methods to improve one’s happiness:

Spend time with friends.
Cultivate hobbies and interests.
Stay active and eat healthy.
Try to live a meaningful life.
Give some love (go smooch your partner or tickle your dog’s belly).

Diamonds might be a girl’s best friend, but money is a fair weather one, at best.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Happiness Exercises for free .

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 36 (8), 917.
Bruni, L. (2007). Handbook on the economics of happiness . Edward Elgar.
Clark, A. E. (2018). Four decades of the economics of happiness: Where next? Review of Income and Wealth , 64 (2), 245–269.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–608). Guilford Publications.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research , 28 , 195–223.
Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Money and happiness: Income and subjective well-being across nations. Culture and Subjective Well-Being , 185 , 218.
DiMaria, C. H., Peroni, C., & Sarracino, F. (2020). Happiness matters: Productivity gains from subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies , 21 (1), 139–160.
Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). Academic Press.
Easterlin, R. A. (2004). The economics of happiness. Daedalus , 133 (2), 26–33.
Graham, C. (2005). The economics of happiness. World Economics , 6 (3), 41–55.
Haesevoets, T., Dierckx, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2022). Do people believe that you can have too much money? The relationship between hypothetical lottery wins and expected happiness. Judgment and Decision Making , 17 (6), 1229–1254.
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (Eds.) (2012). World happiness report . The Earth Institute, Columbia University.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., & Neve, J. E. D. (2021). World happiness report 2021 .
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science , 312 (5782), 1908–1910.
Nettle, D. (2005). Happiness: The science behind your smile . Oxford University Press.
Sherman, A., Shavit, T., & Barokas, G. (2020). A dynamic model on happiness and exogenous wealth shock: The case of lottery winners. Journal of Happiness Studies , 21 , 117–137.
Steptoe, A. (2019). Happiness and health. Annual Review of Public Health , 40 , 339–359.
Veenhoven, R., & Ehrhardt, J. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research , 34 , 33–68.

Share this article:

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Embracing JOMO: Finding Joy in Missing Out

We’ve probably all heard of FOMO, or ‘the fear of missing out’. FOMO is the currency of social media platforms, eager to encourage us to [...]

The True Meaning of Hedonism: A Philosophical Perspective

“If it feels good, do it, you only live once”. Hedonists are always up for a good time and believe the pursuit of pleasure and [...]

Hedonic vs. Eudaimonic Wellbeing: How to Reach Happiness

Have you ever toyed with the idea of writing your own obituary? As you are now, young or old, would you say you enjoyed a [...]

3 Happiness Exercises Pack [PDF]

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Does More Money Really Make Us More Happy?

Elizabeth Dunn
Chris Courtney

A big paycheck won’t necessarily bring you joy

Although some studies show that wealthier people tend to be happier, prioritizing money over time can actually have the opposite effect.

But even having just a little bit of extra cash in your savings account ($500), can increase your life satisfaction. So how can you keep more cash on hand?
Ask yourself: What do I buy that isn’t essential for my survival? Is the expense genuinely contributing to my happiness? If the answer to the second question is no, try taking a break from those expenses.
Other research shows there are specific ways to spend your money to promote happiness, such as spending on experiences, buying time, and investing in others.
Spending choices that promote happiness are also dependent on individual personalities, and future research may provide more individualized advice to help you get the most happiness from your money.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

How often have you willingly sacrificed your free time to make more money? You’re not alone. But new research suggests that prioritizing money over time may actually undermine our happiness.

ED Elizabeth Dunn is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia and Chief Science Officer of Happy Money, a financial technology company with a mission to help borrowers become savers. She is also co-author of “ Happy Money: The Science of Happier Spending ” with Dr. Michael Norton. Her TED2019 talk on money and happiness was selected as one of the top 10 talks of the year by TED.
CC Chris Courtney is the VP of Science at Happy Money. He utilizes his background in cognitive neuroscience, human-computer interaction, and machine learning to drive personalization and engagement in products designed to empower people to take control of their financial lives. His team is focused on creating innovative ways to provide more inclusionary financial services, while building tools to promote financial and psychological well-being and success.

Partner Center

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Does Money Buy Happiness? Here’s What the Research Says

March 28, 2023 • 5 min read.

Reconciling previously contradictory results, researchers from Wharton and Princeton find a steady association between larger incomes and greater happiness for most people but a rise and plateau for an unhappy minority.

Person running over stacks of money to illustrate whether money can buy happiness

Finance & Accounting

The following article was originally published on Penn Today .

Does money buy happiness? Though it seems like a straightforward question, research had previously returned contradictory findings, leaving uncertainty about its answer.

Foundational work published in 2010 from Princeton University’s Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton had found that day-to-day happiness rose as annual income increased, but above $75,000 it leveled off and happiness plateaued. In contrast, work published in 2021 from the University of Pennsylvania’s Matthew Killingsworth found that happiness rose steadily with income well beyond $75,000, without evidence of a plateau.

To reconcile the differences, Kahneman and Killingsworth paired up in what’s known as an adversarial collaboration, joining forces with Penn Integrates Knowledge University Professor Barbara Mellers as arbiter. In a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper , the trio shows that, on average, larger incomes are associated with ever-increasing levels of happiness. Zoom in, however, and the relationship becomes more complex, revealing that within that overall trend, an unhappy cohort in each income group shows a sharp rise in happiness up to $100,000 annually and then plateaus.

“In the simplest terms, this suggests that for most people larger incomes are associated with greater happiness,” says Killingsworth, a senior fellow at Wharton and lead paper author. “The exception is people who are financially well-off but unhappy. For instance, if you’re rich and miserable, more money won’t help. For everyone else, more money was associated with higher happiness to somewhat varying degrees.”

Mellers digs into this last notion, noting that emotional well-being and income aren’t connected by a single relationship. “The function differs for people with different levels of emotional well-being,” she says. Specifically, for the least happy group, happiness rises with income until $100,000, then shows no further increase as income grows. For those in the middle range of emotional well-being, happiness increases linearly with income, and for the happiest group the association actually accelerates above $100,000.

Joining Forces to Ask: “Does Money Buy Happiness?”

The researchers began this combined effort recognizing that their previous work had drawn different conclusions. Kahneman’s 2010 study showed a flattening pattern where Killingsworth’s 2021 study did not. As its name suggests, an adversarial collaboration of this type — a notion originated by Kahneman — aims to solve scientific disputes or disagreements by bringing together the differing parties, along with a third-party mediator.

Killingsworth, Kahneman, and Mellers focused on a new hypothesis that both a happy majority and an unhappy minority exist. For the former, they surmised, happiness keeps rising as more money comes in; the latter’s happiness improves as income rises but only up to a certain income threshold, after which it progresses no further.

To test this new hypothesis, they looked for the flattening pattern in data from Killingworth’s study, which he had collected through an app he created called Track Your Happiness. Several times a day, the app pings participants at random moments, asking a variety of questions including how they feel on a scale from “very good” to “very bad.” Taking an average of the person’s happiness and income, Killingsworth draws conclusions about how the two variables are linked.

A breakthrough in the new partnership came early on when the researchers realized that the 2010 data, which had revealed the happiness plateau, had actually been measuring unhappiness in particular rather than happiness in general.

“It’s easiest to understand with an example,” Killingsworth says. Imagine a cognitive test for dementia that most healthy people pass easily. While such a test could detect the presence and severity of cognitive dysfunction, it wouldn’t reveal much about general intelligence since most healthy people would receive the same perfect score.

“In the same way, the 2010 data showing a plateau in happiness had mostly perfect scores, so it tells us about the trend in the unhappy end of the happiness distribution, rather than the trend of happiness in general. Once you recognize that, the two seemingly contradictory findings aren’t necessarily incompatible,” Killingsworth says. “And what we found bore out that possibility in an incredibly beautiful way. When we looked at the happiness trend for unhappy people in the 2021 data, we found exactly the same pattern as was found in 2010; happiness rises relatively steeply with income and then plateaus.”

“The two findings that seemed utterly contradictory actually result from data that are amazingly consistent,” he says.

Does It Matter Whether Money Can Buy Happiness?

Drawing these conclusions would have been challenging had the two research teams not come together, says Mellers, who suggests there’s no better way than adversarial collaborations to resolve scientific conflict.

“This kind of collaboration requires far greater self-discipline and precision in thought than the standard procedure,” she says. “Collaborating with an adversary — or even a non-adversary — is not easy, but both parties are likelier to recognize the limits of their claims.” Indeed, that’s what happened, leading to a better understanding of the relationship between money and happiness.

And these findings have real-world implications, according to Killingsworth. For one, they could inform thinking about tax rates or how to compensate employees. And, of course, they matter to individuals as they navigate career choices or weigh a larger income against other priorities in life, Killingsworth says.

However, he adds that for emotional well-being money isn’t the be all end all. “Money is just one of the many determinants of happiness,” he says. “Money is not the secret to happiness, but it can probably help a bit.”

More From Knowledge at Wharton

How Financial Literacy Affects Household Debt and Bankruptcy | Sasha Indarte

How Stock Price Volatility in Closely Held Firms Distorts Capital Allocation

What Are Some of the Keys to Responsible Investing?

Looking for more insights.

One More Time, Does Money Buy Happiness?

Published: 19 September 2023
Volume 18 , pages 3089–3110, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

James Fisher ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9201-4204 1 &
Michael Frechette ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8193-6796 2

1129 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This paper integrates multiple positions on the relationship between money and well-being, commonly referred to as happiness. An aggregation of prior work appears to suggest that money does buy happiness, but not directly. Although many personal and situational characteristics do influence the relationship between money and happiness, most are moderating factors, which would not necessarily rule out a direct link. Here, we discuss the cognitive and affective elements within the formation of happiness, which we propose play a series of mediating roles, first cognition, then affect, between money and happiness. The paper concludes with a discussion about how this proposal influences academic research and society as a whole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Emotional Well-Being: What It Is and Why It Matters

Crystal L. Park, Laura D. Kubzansky, … Kuan Hong Wang

The Efficient Assessment of Self-Esteem: Proposing the Brief Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Renan P. Monteiro, Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho, … Phillip Dyamond Gomes da Silva

Positive Psychology: An Introduction

Materials and/or code availability.

There are no materials or code related to this manuscript.

Data Availability

This conceptual study collected no original data. Citations are given to the original sources when referencing data or results from prior studies.

“As far as I am aware, in every representative national survey ever done a significant positive bivariate relationship between happiness and income has been found.” (Easterlin 2001 , 468). Easterlin supports this assertion with references to Andrews 1996 , xi; Argyle 1999 , 356–57; and Diener 1984 , 553.

A simple correlation of 0.2 is an oft-cited benchmark (cf. Easterlin 2001 , who labels it “highly significant”). At the same time, many researchers qualify the relationship, saying that income ultimately explains relatively little of the variance in self-reports of happiness: e.g., Ahuvia ( 2017 , 18) generalizes that “typically studies in developed economies indicate that income explains only about 3% of the difference in happiness.” Some twenty years prior to Ahuvia’s assessment, Frank ( 1997 ) offered a similar conclusion: the relationship between income and happiness is closer at lower levels of income than for middle- or upper-income households, where "variations in income explain less than 2% of variations in reported satisfaction levels” (citing Diener and Diener 1995 on 1835). Diener and Biswas-Diener ( 2002 , 123) summarize over a dozen correlations between income and subjective well-being, most ranging between 0.15 and 0.25. Kahneman and Deaton ( 2010 ) recommend that efforts to estimate the relationship between that subjective well-being and income should rely on a logarithmic transformation of income, providing a rationale based on Weber’s Law, having to do with the perception of change reflecting the percentage change and not the absolute change.

This literature review reflects the authors’ point-of-view that in answering the question of “how” money buys happiness economists have offered the highest-level, abstract answer (i.e., through a process of utility-maximization); psychologists and researchers into subjective well-being have sought a more precise accounting of what money buys vis-à-vis individual dispositions (e.g., personality) and motivations (e.g., materialism) as well as cultural or national determinants (e.g., individualism versus collectivism); and marketers and consumer researchers have inquired in the most detailed way as to how money delivers particular experiences and effects throughout the continuum of pre-purchase processes, the experience of consumption and post-purchase satisfaction.

Happiness data are a relative late-comers to economic analyses of this sort: “[T]he approach departs from a long tradition in economics that shies away from using what people say about their feelings. Instead, economists have built their trade by analyzing what people do and, from these observations and some theoretical assumptions about the structure of welfare, deducing the implied changes in happiness” (Di Tella and MacCulloch 2006 , 43). Kahneman and Krueger ( 2006 , 3) express a similar opinion: “[E]conomists have had a long-standing preference for studying peoples’ revealed preferences; that is, looking at individuals’ actual choices and decisions rather than their stated intentions or subjective reports of likes and dislikes.”.

An assertion strenuously challenged by Diener and Oishi 2000 and more modestly objected to by Frank ( 1997 , 1820), who interprets the data to say that there “is only slight evidence … that greater economic prosperity leads to more well-being in a nation.”.

Cummins ( 2000 ), in his review of personal income and subjective well-being, constructs a couple of straw men that reflect his estimation of how researchers into quality of life may view income ambivalently. At the outset of the review article, his abstract announces, "Conventional wisdom holds that money has little relevance to happiness." Later in the same review article, he identifies a bias "that can quite commonly be found within the QOL literature" (p. 139) that the rich are not as satisfied with their lot as commonly imagined. Chambers ( 1997 ) provides him with a suitable proof text in which "the link between wealth and well-being is weak or even negative" and therefore, "amassing wealth does not assure well-being and may diminish it” (at 1728 in Chambers). Cummins himself disavows this disciplinary tendency, ultimately labeling it “fanciful.”.

When it comes to terms like subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and happiness, there is some variation in the precision of the terminology. Thus, Kahneman and Krueger ( 2006 ) use life satisfaction and happiness as roughly synonymous in discussing the measurement of well-being and in emphasizing the measurement of emotional states. On the other hand, Diener may commonly use the term happiness as a convenient and widely used construct but will employ more precision in measuring or analyzing "types of well-being.".

E.g., basic needs met, psychological needs met, and satisfaction with living standards in Diener, Ng, Harter and Arora ( 2010 , 56).

E.g., pleasant affect, unpleasant affect, life satisfaction, and domain satisfaction in Diener, Suh, Lucas and Smith ( 1999 , 277).

Dunn et al. ( 2011 ) stake out this position with their article’s title “If money doesn’t make you happy, then you probably aren’t spending it right.”.

Thus, Scitovsky’s title, The Joyless Economy .

Actually, it is nice to be rich. (2023, March 24). The Week , 33.

Ahuvia, A. C. (2017). Consumption, Income and Happiness. In Alan Lewis (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Economic Behaviour, Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). The welfare effects of social media. American Economic Review, 110 (3), 629–676.

Article Google Scholar

Andrews, F. (1996). Editor’s introduction. In F. Andrews (Ed.), Research on the Quality of Life (pp. ix–xiv). University of Michigan.

Argyle, M. (1999). 'Causes and correlates of happiness,' in (D. Kahneman, E. Diener, and N. Schwarz eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , (pp. 353–73). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Auerbach, A. J., Kotlikoff, L. J., & Koehler, D. (2016). US Inequality and Fiscal Progressivity: An Intragenerational Accounting. Available at SSRN 2747187 .

Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being . Aldine.

Bradburn, N. M., & Caplovitz, D. (1965). Reports on Happiness: A Pilot Study of Behavior Related to Mental Health . Aldine Publishing Company.

Bryson, A., & MacKerron, G. (2017). Are you happy while you work? The Economic Journal, 127 (599), 106–125.

Brzozowski, M., & Spotton Visano, B. (2020). Havin’ money’s not everything, not havin’ it is: The importance of financial satisfaction for life satisfaction in financially stressed households. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21 (2), 573–591.

Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns . Rutgers University Press.

Chambers, R. (1997). Responsible well-being—A personal agenda for development. World Development, 25 (11), 1743–1754.

Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic literature , 46 (1), 95–144.

Coy, P. (2022, July 18) There’s a Better Way to Measure Economic Inequality: Differences in wealth or income are not good gauges. New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/opinion/economic-inequality-spending-power.html?searchResultPosition=39 .

Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1 , 133–158.

Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2006). Some uses of happiness data in economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (1), 25–46.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95 (3), 542–575.

Diener, E. (2012). New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. American Psychologist, 67 (8), 590–597.

Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? A literature review guide to needed research. Social Indicators Research, 57 (2), 119–169.

Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1995). The wealth of nations revisited: Income and quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 36 (3), 275–286.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5 (1), 1–31.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2), 276–302.

Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & Arora, R. (2010). Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (1), 52–61.

Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Money and happiness: Income and subjective well-being across nations. Culture and Subjective Well-Being. 185–218.

Dreilinger, D. (2021). The Secret History of Home Economics: How Trailblazing Women Harnessed the Power of Home and Changed the Way We Live . W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

Dunn, E. W., & Weidman, A. C. (2015). Building a science of spending: Lessons from the past and directions for the future. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (1), 172–178.

Dunn, E. W., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2011). If money doesn’t make you happy, then you probably aren’t spending it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (2), 115–125.

Easterlin, R. A. (1973). Does money buy happiness? The Public Interest, 30 , 3–10.

Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honour of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). Academic Press.

Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111 (473), 465–484.

Easterlin, R. A. (2003). Explaining happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100 (19), 11176–11183.

Easterlin, R. A. (2005). Feeding the illusion of growth and happiness: A reply to Hagerty and Veenhoven. Social Indicators Research, 74 (3), 429–443.

Easterlin, R. A., McVey, L. A., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., & Zweig, J. S. (2010). The happiness-income paradox revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences., 107 (52), 22463–22468.

Easterlin, R. A., & O'Connor, K. J. (2020). The Easterlin Paradox. IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series. No. 13923. Available at: https://docs.iza.org/dp13923.pdf .

Ekici, T., & Koydemir, S. (2016). Income expectations and happiness: Evidence from British panel data. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11 (2), 539–552.

Frank, R. H. (1997). The frame of reference as a public good. The Economic Journal, 107 (445), 1832–1847.

Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40 , 402–435.

Fussell, P. (1983). Class: A Guide Through the American Status System . Simon & Schuster.

Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317 , 1351–1354.

Glaeser, E. L., Gottlieb, J. D., & Ziv, O. (2016). Unhappy cities. Journal of Labor Economics, 34 (S2), S129–S182.

Goffman, E. (1951). Symbols of class status. The British Journal of Sociology, 2 (4), 294–304.

Hagerty, M. R., & Veenhoven, R. (2003). Wealth and happiness revisited–growing national income does go with greater happiness. Social Indicators Research, 64 (1), 1–27.

Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. D. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In E. Diener & M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 165–183). The MIT Press.

Chapter Google Scholar

Inkeles, A. (1960). Industrial man: The relation of status to experience, perception, and value. American Journal of Sociology, 66 (1), 1–31.

Jarden, A. (2011, September). Positive psychological assessment: A practical introduction to empirically validated research tools for measuring wellbeing. In 1st New Zealand Association of Positive Psychology Conference , Auckland (pp. 9–10).

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (38), 16489–16493.

Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Development in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (1), 3–24.

Killingsworth, M. A. (2021). Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (4), e2016976118.

Killingsworth, M. A., Kahneman, D., & Mellers, B. (2023). Income and emotional well-being: A conflict resolved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (10), e2208661120.

Klein, E. (2022, July 17) Why a Middle-Class Lifestyle Remains Out of Reach for So Many: Inflation has unmasked the depths of our affordability crisis. New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/opinion/inflation-prices-affordability.html?searchResultPosition=4 .

Layard, R. (2006). Happiness and public policy: A challenge to the profession. The Economic Journal, 116 (510), C24–C33.

Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61 , 92–102.

Li, F., Mu, W., Li, S., Li, X., Zhang, J., Chen, C., & Zhou, M. (2022). Income and Subjective Well-being: Test of a Multilevel Moderated Mediation Model. Applied Research in Quality of Life , 1–18.

Lim, H. E., Shaw, D., Liao, P. S., & Duan, H. (2020). The effects of income on happiness in east and south Asia: Societal values matter? Journal of Happiness Studies, 21 (2), 391–415.

MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2020). Mappiness: natural environments and in-the-moment happiness. In Handbook on Wellbeing, Happiness and the Environment (pp. 266–282). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Muresan, G. M., Ciumas, C., & Achim, M. V. (2020). Can money buy happiness? Evidence for European countries. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15 , 953–970.

Mureșan, G. M., Fülöp, M. T., & Ciumaș, C. (2021). The road from money to happiness. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14 (10), 459.

Ng, Y. K. (2002). East-Asian happiness gap. Pacific Economic Review, 7 (1), 51–63.

Ng, W., & Diener, E. (2019). Affluence and subjective well-being: Does income inequality moderate their associations? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 14 (1), 155–170.

Ouweneel, P., and Veenhoven, R. (1991) Cross-national differences in happiness: Cultural bias or societal quality? in Bleichrodt, N & Drenth, P.J. (eds) Contemporary issues in cross-cultural psychology, Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, 168–184.

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behaviors, 19 (1), 2–21.

Rajan, R. (2010). Bernanke Must End Era of Ultra-Low Rates. Financial Times , 28.

Scitovsky, T. (1976). The joyless economy: An inquiry into human satisfaction and consumer dissatisfaction . Oxford U Press.

Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the Easterlin paradox (No. w14282). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Suranyi-Unger, T., Jr. (1981). Consumer behavior and consumer well-being: An economist’s digest. Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (2), 132–143.

Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24 (1), 1–34.

Veenhoven, R., & Hagerty, M. (2006). Rising happiness in nations 1946–2004: A reply to Easterlin. Social Indicators Research, 79 (3), 421–436.

Download references

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chaifetz School of Business, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA

James Fisher

Welch College of Business and Technology, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, USA

Michael Frechette

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author contributed equally to this manuscript.

One more time, does money buy happiness?

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Frechette .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

IRB approval was granted by Saint Louis University, #24311.

Competing Interests

There are no competing interests regarding this manuscript.

As a theoretical paper consent was not relevant to this theoretical manuscript.

No employment was promised for or contingent upon this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fisher, J., Frechette, M. One More Time, Does Money Buy Happiness?. Applied Research Quality Life 18 , 3089–3110 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-023-10221-9

Download citation

Received : 26 November 2022

Accepted : 28 August 2023

Published : 19 September 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-023-10221-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Subjective well-being
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

When we wonder whether money can buy happiness, we may consider the luxuries it provides, like expensive dinners and lavish vacations. But cash is key in another important way: It helps people avoid many of the day-to-day hassles that cause stress, new research shows.

Money can provide calm and control, allowing us to buy our way out of unforeseen bumps in the road, whether it’s a small nuisance, like dodging a rainstorm by ordering up an Uber, or a bigger worry, like handling an unexpected hospital bill, says Harvard Business School professor Jon Jachimowicz.

“If we only focus on the happiness that money can bring, I think we are missing something,” says Jachimowicz, an assistant professor of business administration in the Organizational Behavior Unit at HBS. “We also need to think about all of the worries that it can free us from.”

The idea that money can reduce stress in everyday life and make people happier impacts not only the poor, but also more affluent Americans living at the edge of their means in a bumpy economy. Indeed, in 2019, one in every four Americans faced financial scarcity, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The findings are particularly important now, as inflation eats into the ability of many Americans to afford basic necessities like food and gas, and COVID-19 continues to disrupt the job market.

Buying less stress

The inspiration for researching how money alleviates hardships came from advice that Jachimowicz’s father gave him. After years of living as a struggling graduate student, Jachimowicz received his appointment at HBS and the financial stability that came with it.

“My father said to me, ‘You are going to have to learn how to spend money to fix problems.’” The idea stuck with Jachimowicz, causing him to think differently about even the everyday misfortunes that we all face.

To test the relationship between cash and life satisfaction, Jachimowicz and his colleagues from the University of Southern California, Groningen University, and Columbia Business School conducted a series of experiments, which are outlined in a forthcoming paper in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science , The Sharp Spikes of Poverty: Financial Scarcity Is Related to Higher Levels of Distress Intensity in Daily Life .

Higher income amounts to lower stress

In one study, 522 participants kept a diary for 30 days, tracking daily events and their emotional responses to them. Participants’ incomes in the previous year ranged from less than $10,000 to $150,000 or more. They found:

Money reduces intense stress: There was no significant difference in how often the participants experienced distressing events—no matter their income, they recorded a similar number of daily frustrations. But those with higher incomes experienced less negative intensity from those events.
More money brings greater control : Those with higher incomes felt they had more control over negative events and that control reduced their stress. People with ample incomes felt more agency to deal with whatever hassles may arise.
Higher incomes lead to higher life satisfaction: People with higher incomes were generally more satisfied with their lives.

“It’s not that rich people don’t have problems,” Jachimowicz says, “but having money allows you to fix problems and resolve them more quickly.”

Why cash matters

In another study, researchers presented about 400 participants with daily dilemmas, like finding time to cook meals, getting around in an area with poor public transportation, or working from home among children in tight spaces. They then asked how participants would solve the problem, either using cash to resolve it, or asking friends and family for assistance. The results showed:

People lean on family and friends regardless of income: Jachimowicz and his colleagues found that there was no difference in how often people suggested turning to friends and family for help—for example, by asking a friend for a ride or asking a family member to help with childcare or dinner.
Cash is the answer for people with money: The higher a person’s income, however, the more likely they were to suggest money as a solution to a hassle, for example, by calling an Uber or ordering takeout.

While such results might be expected, Jachimowicz says, people may not consider the extent to which the daily hassles we all face create more stress for cash-strapped individuals—or the way a lack of cash may tax social relationships if people are always asking family and friends for help, rather than using their own money to solve a problem.

“The question is, when problems come your way, to what extent do you feel like you can deal with them, that you can walk through life and know everything is going to be OK,” Jachimowicz says.

Breaking the ‘shame spiral’

In another recent paper , Jachimowicz and colleagues found that people experiencing financial difficulties experience shame, which leads them to avoid dealing with their problems and often makes them worse. Such “shame spirals” stem from a perception that people are to blame for their own lack of money, rather than external environmental and societal factors, the research team says.

“We have normalized this idea that when you are poor, it’s your fault and so you should be ashamed of it,” Jachimowicz says. “At the same time, we’ve structured society in a way that makes it really hard on people who are poor.”

For example, Jachimowicz says, public transportation is often inaccessible and expensive, which affects people who can’t afford cars, and tardy policies at work often penalize people on the lowest end of the pay scale. Changing those deeply-engrained structures—and the way many of us think about financial difficulties—is crucial.

After all, society as a whole may feel the ripple effects of the financial hardships some people face, since financial strain is linked with lower job performance, problems with long-term decision-making, and difficulty with meaningful relationships, the research says. Ultimately, Jachimowicz hopes his work can prompt thinking about systemic change.

“People who are poor should feel like they have some control over their lives, too. Why is that a luxury we only afford to rich people?” Jachimowicz says. “We have to structure organizations and institutions to empower everyone.”

[Image: iStockphoto/mihtiander]

Why Work Rituals Bring Teams Together and Create More Meaning

24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

02 Apr 2024
What Do You Think?

What's Enough to Make Us Happy?

25 Feb 2019
Research & Ideas

How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

25 Jan 2022

Social Psychology

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

About Stanford GSB

The Leadership
Dean’s Updates
School News & History
Commencement
Business, Government & Society
Centers & Institutes
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
Center for Social Innovation
Stanford Seed

About the Experience

Learning at Stanford GSB
Experiential Learning
Guest Speakers
Entrepreneurship
Social Innovation
Communication
Life at Stanford GSB
Collaborative Environment
Activities & Organizations
Student Services
Housing Options
International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

Why Stanford MBA
Academic Experience
Financial Aid
Why Stanford MSx
Research Fellows Program
See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

Executive Education
Stanford Executive Program
Programs for Organizations
The Difference
Online Programs
Stanford LEAD
Seed Transformation Program
Aspire Program
Seed Spark Program
Faculty Profiles
Academic Areas
Awards & Honors
Conferences

Faculty Research

Publications
Working Papers
Case Studies

Research Hub

Research Labs & Initiatives
Business Library
Data, Analytics & Research Computing
Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

Cities, Housing & Society Lab
Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

Corporate Governance Research Initiative
Corporations and Society Initiative
Policy and Innovation Initiative
Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
Value Chain Innovation Initiative
Venture Capital Initiative
Career & Success
Climate & Sustainability
Corporate Governance
Culture & Society
Finance & Investing
Government & Politics
Leadership & Management
Markets & Trade
Operations & Logistics
Opportunity & Access
Organizational Behavior
Political Economy
Social Impact
Technology & AI
Opinion & Analysis
Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

Communities
Digital Communities & Tools
Regional Chapters
Women’s Programs
Identity Chapters
Find Your Reunion
Career Resources
Job Search Resources
Career & Life Transitions
Programs & Services
Career Video Library
Alumni Education
Research Resources
Volunteering
Alumni News
Class Notes
Alumni Voices
Contact Alumni Relations
Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

MBA Program
MSx Program
PhD Program
Alumni Events
All Other Events

Research: Can Money Buy Happiness?

In his quarterly column, Francis J. Flynn looks at research that examines how to spend your way to a more satisfying life.

September 25, 2013

A boy looks at a toy train he received during an annual gift-giving event on Christmas Eve 2011. | Reuters/Jose Luis Gonzalez

What inspires people to act selflessly, help others, and make personal sacrifices? Each quarter, this column features one piece of scholarly research that provides insight on what motivates people to engage in what psychologists call “prosocial behavior” — things like making charitable contributions, buying gifts, volunteering one‘s time, and so forth. In short, it looks at the work of some of our finest researchers on what spurs people to do something on behalf of someone else.

In this column I explore the idea that many of the ways we spend money are prosocial acts — and prosocial expenditures may, in fact, make us happier than personal expenditures. Authors Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton discuss evidence for this in their new book, Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending . These behavioral scientists show that you can get more out of your money by following several principles — like spending money on others rather than yourself. Moreover, they demonstrate that these principles can be used not only by individuals, but also by companies seeking to create happier employees and more satisfying products.

According to Dunn and Norton, recent research on happiness suggests that the most satisfying way of using money is to invest in others. This can take a seemingly limitless variety of forms, from donating to a charity that helps strangers in a faraway country to buying lunch for a friend.

Witness Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, two of the wealthiest people in the world. On a March day in 2010, they sat in a diner in Carter Lake, Iowa, and hatched a scheme. They would ask America‘s billionaires to pledge the majority of their wealth to charity. Buffet decided to donate 99 percent of his, saying, “I couldn‘t be happier with that decision.”

And what about the rest of us? Dunn and Norton show how we all might learn from that example, regardless of the size of our bank accounts. Research demonstrating that people derive more satisfaction spending money on others than they do spending it on themselves spans poor and rich countries alike, as well as income levels. The authors show how this phenomenon extends over an extraordinary range of circumstances, from a Canadian college student purchasing a scarf for her mother to a Ugandan woman buying lifesaving malaria medication for a friend. Indeed, the benefits of giving emerge among children before the age of two.

Investing in others can make individuals feel healthier and wealthier, even if it means making yourself a little poorer to reap these benefits. One study shows that giving as little as $1 away can cause you to feel more flush.

Quote Investing in others can make you feel healthier and wealthier, even if it means making yourself a little poorer.

Dunn and Norton further discuss how businesses such as PepsiCo and Google and nonprofits such as DonorsChoose.org are harnessing these benefits by encouraging donors, customers, and employees to invest in others. When Pepsi punted advertising at the 2010 Superbowl and diverted funds to supporting grants that would allow people to “refresh” their communities, for example, more public votes were cast for projects than had been cast in the 2008 election. Pepsi got buzz, and the company‘s in-house competition also offering a seed grant boosted employee morale.

Could this altruistic happiness principle be applied to one of our most disputed spheres — paying taxes? As it turns out, countries with more equal distributions of income also tend to be happier. And people in countries with more progressive taxation (such as Sweden and Japan) are more content than those in countries where taxes are less progressive (such as Italy and Singapore). One study indicated that people would be happier about paying taxes if they had more choice as to where their money went. Dunn and Norton thus suggest that if taxes were made to feel more like charitable contributions, people might be less resentful having to pay them.

The researchers persuasively suggest that the proclivity to derive joy from investing in others may well be just a fundamental component of human nature. Thus the typical ratio we all tend to fall into of spending on self versus others — ten to one — may need a shift. Giving generously to charities, friends, and coworkers — and even your country — may well be a productive means of increasing well-being and improving our lives.

Research selected by Francis Flynn, Paul E. Holden Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom .

Explore More

How to “think faster and talk smarter”: a masterclass with matt abrahams, retail investors are making simple — yet costly — mistakes when trading corporate bonds, another price of sloppy bookkeeping: employees want a wage premium., editor’s picks.

Priorities for the GSB's Future
See the Current DEI Report
Supporting Data
Research & Insights
Share Your Thoughts
Search Fund Primer
Teaching & Curriculum
Affiliated Faculty
Faculty Advisors
Louis W. Foster Resource Center
Defining Social Innovation
Impact Compass
Global Health Innovation Insights
Faculty Affiliates
Student Awards & Certificates
Changemakers
Dean Jonathan Levin
Dean Garth Saloner
Dean Robert Joss
Dean Michael Spence
Dean Robert Jaedicke
Dean Rene McPherson
Dean Arjay Miller
Dean Ernest Arbuckle
Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
Dean Willard Hotchkiss
Faculty in Memoriam
Stanford GSB Firsts
Certificate & Award Recipients
Teaching Approach
Analysis and Measurement of Impact
The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
Data-Driven Impact
Designing Experiments for Impact
Digital Business Transformation
The Founder’s Right Hand
Marketing for Measurable Change
Product Management
Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
Lab Features
Curricular Integration
View From The Top
Formation of New Ventures
Managing Growing Enterprises
Startup Garage
Explore Beyond the Classroom
Stanford Venture Studio
Summer Program
Workshops & Events
The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
Leadership Labs
Executive Challenge
Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
Selection Process
Training Schedule
Time Commitment
Learning Expectations
Post-Training Opportunities
Who Should Apply
Introductory T-Groups
Leadership for Society Program
Certificate
2023 Awardees
2022 Awardees
2021 Awardees
2020 Awardees
2019 Awardees
2018 Awardees
Social Management Immersion Fund
Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
Social Entrepreneurship
Stanford GSB Impact Fund
Economic Development
Energy & Environment
Stanford GSB Residences
Environmental Leadership
Stanford GSB Artwork
A Closer Look
California & the Bay Area
Voices of Stanford GSB
Business & Beneficial Technology
Business & Sustainability
Business & Free Markets
Business, Government, and Society Forum
Get Involved
Second Year
Global Experiences
JD/MBA Joint Degree
MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
MD/MBA Dual Degree
MPP/MBA Joint Degree
MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
Academic Calendar
Clubs & Activities
LGBTQ+ Students
Military Veterans
Minorities & People of Color
Partners & Families
Students with Disabilities
Student Support
Residential Life
Student Voices
MBA Alumni Voices
A Week in the Life
Career Support
Employment Outcomes
Cost of Attendance
Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
Yellow Ribbon Program
BOLD Fellows Fund
Application Process
Loan Forgiveness
Contact the Financial Aid Office
Evaluation Criteria
GMAT & GRE
English Language Proficiency
Personal Information, Activities & Awards
Professional Experience
Letters of Recommendation
Optional Short Answer Questions
Application Fee
Reapplication
Deferred Enrollment
Joint & Dual Degrees
Entering Class Profile
Event Schedule
Ambassadors
New & Noteworthy
Ask a Question
See Why Stanford MSx
Is MSx Right for You?
MSx Stories
Leadership Development
Career Advancement
Career Change
How You Will Learn
Admission Events
Personal Information
Information for Recommenders
GMAT, GRE & EA
English Proficiency Tests
After You’re Admitted
Daycare, Schools & Camps
U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
Requirements
Requirements: Behavioral
Requirements: Quantitative
Requirements: Macro
Requirements: Micro
Annual Evaluations
Field Examination
Research Activities
Research Papers
Dissertation
Oral Examination
Current Students
Education & CV
International Applicants
Statement of Purpose
Reapplicants
Application Fee Waiver
Deadline & Decisions
Job Market Candidates
Academic Placements
Stay in Touch
Faculty Mentors
Current Fellows
Standard Track
Fellowship & Benefits
Group Enrollment
Program Formats
Developing a Program
Diversity & Inclusion
Strategic Transformation
Program Experience
Contact Client Services
Campus Experience
Live Online Experience
Silicon Valley & Bay Area
Digital Credentials
Faculty Spotlights
Participant Spotlights
Eligibility
International Participants
Stanford Ignite
Frequently Asked Questions
Operations, Information & Technology
Classical Liberalism
The Eddie Lunch
Accounting Summer Camp
Videos, Code & Data
California Econometrics Conference
California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
California School Conference
China India Insights Conference
Homo economicus, Evolving
Political Economics (2023–24)
Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
Adaptation and Innovation
Changing Climate
Civil Society
Climate Impact Summit
Climate Science
Corporate Carbon Disclosures
Earth’s Seafloor
Environmental Justice
Operations and Information Technology
Organizations
Sustainability Reporting and Control
Taking the Pulse of the Planet
Urban Infrastructure
Watershed Restoration
Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
Ken Singleton Celebration
Marketing Camp
Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
Presentations
Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
Stanford Closer Look Series
Quick Guides
Core Concepts
Journal Articles
Glossary of Terms
Faculty & Staff
Researchers & Students
Research Approach
Charitable Giving
Financial Health
Government Services
Workers & Careers
Short Course
Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
Incentive Design
Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
Bandit Experiment Application
Conferences & Events
Reading Materials
Energy Entrepreneurship
Faculty & Affiliates
SOLE Report
Responsible Supply Chains
Current Study Usage
Pre-Registration Information
Participate in a Study
Founding Donors
Location Information
Participant Profile
Network Membership
Program Impact
Collaborators
Entrepreneur Profiles
Company Spotlights
Seed Transformation Network
Responsibilities
Current Coaches
How to Apply
Meet the Consultants
Meet the Interns
Intern Profiles
Collaborate
Research Library
News & Insights
Program Contacts
Databases & Datasets
Research Guides
Consultations
Research Workshops
Career Research
Research Data Services
Course Reserves
Course Research Guides
Material Loan Periods
Fines & Other Charges
Document Delivery
Interlibrary Loan
Equipment Checkout
Print & Scan
MBA & MSx Students
PhD Students
Other Stanford Students
Faculty Assistants
Research Assistants
Stanford GSB Alumni
Telling Our Story
Staff Directory
Site Registration
Alumni Directory
Alumni Email
Privacy Settings & My Profile
Success Stories
The Story of Circles
Support Women’s Circles
Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
Alumnae Spotlights
Insights & Research
Industry & Professional
Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
Recent Alumni
Half-Century Club
Fall Reunions
Spring Reunions
MBA 25th Reunion
Half-Century Club Reunion
Faculty Lectures
Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
ENCORE Award
Excellence in Leadership Award
John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
Tapestry Award
Student & Alumni Events
Executive Recruiters
Interviewing
Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
Negotiating
Elevator Pitch
Email Best Practices
Resumes & Cover Letters
Self-Assessment
Whitney Birdwell Ball
Margaret Brooks
Bryn Panee Burkhart
Margaret Chan
Ricki Frankel
Peter Gandolfo
Cindy W. Greig
Natalie Guillen
Carly Janson
Sloan Klein
Sherri Appel Lassila
Stuart Meyer
Tanisha Parrish
Virginia Roberson
Philippe Taieb
Michael Takagawa
Terra Winston
Johanna Wise
Debbie Wolter
Rebecca Zucker
Complimentary Coaching
Changing Careers
Work-Life Integration
Career Breaks
Flexible Work
Encore Careers
D&B Hoovers
Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
EBSCO Business Source
Global Newsstream
Market Share Reporter
ProQuest One Business
Student Clubs
Entrepreneurial Students
Stanford GSB Trust
Alumni Community
How to Volunteer
Springboard Sessions
Consulting Projects
2020 – 2029
2010 – 2019
2000 – 2009
1990 – 1999
1980 – 1989
1970 – 1979
1960 – 1969
1950 – 1959
1940 – 1949
Service Areas
ACT History
ACT Awards Celebration
ACT Governance Structure
Building Leadership for ACT
Individual Leadership Positions
Leadership Role Overview
Purpose of the ACT Management Board
Contact ACT
Business & Nonprofit Communities
Reunion Volunteers
Ways to Give
Fiscal Year Report
Business School Fund Leadership Council
Planned Giving Options
Planned Giving Benefits
Planned Gifts and Reunions
Legacy Partners
Giving News & Stories
Giving Deadlines
Development Staff
Submit Class Notes
Class Secretaries
Board of Directors
Health Care
Sustainability
Class Takeaways
All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
Grit & Growth
Think Fast, Talk Smart
Spring 2022
Spring 2021
Autumn 2020
Summer 2020
Winter 2020
In the Media
For Journalists
DCI Fellows
Other Auditors
Academic Calendar & Deadlines
Course Materials
Entrepreneurial Resources
Campus Drive Grove
Campus Drive Lawn
CEMEX Auditorium
King Community Court
Seawell Family Boardroom
Stanford GSB Bowl
Stanford Investors Common
Town Square
Vidalakis Courtyard
Vidalakis Dining Hall
Catering Services
Policies & Guidelines
Reservations
Contact Faculty Recruiting
Lecturer Positions
Postdoctoral Positions
Accommodations
CMC-Managed Interviews
Recruiter-Managed Interviews
Virtual Interviews
Campus & Virtual
Search for Candidates
Think Globally
Recruiting Calendar
Recruiting Policies
Full-Time Employment
Summer Employment
Entrepreneurial Summer Program
Global Management Immersion Experience
Social-Purpose Summer Internships
Process Overview
Project Types
Client Eligibility Criteria
Client Screening
ACT Leadership
Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
Develop Your Organization’s Talent
Centers & Initiatives
Student Fellowships

clock This article was published more than 1 year ago

Can money buy happiness? Scientists say it can.

It’s a question that philosophers, economists and social scientists have grappled with for decades: Can money buy happiness?

For most people in the United States, the answer is, seemingly, yes.

Two prominent researchers, Daniel Kahneman and Matthew Killingsworth, came to this conclusion in a joint study published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, overturning the dominant thinking that people are generally happier as they earn more, with their joy leveling out when their income hits $75,000.

This threshold was initially posited by Kahneman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and psychologist, in a 2010 study that concluded that “emotional well-being [also] rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of $75,000.”

But in 2021, Killingsworth, a happiness researcher and senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, found that happiness does not plateau after $75,000, and that “experienced well-being” can continue to rise with income well beyond $200,000.

Kahneman and Killingsworth said their latest study was an “adversarial collaboration” where they pitted their theories against each other with the help of an arbiter. The latest research adjusted for inflation, they said.

How art, music and dance affect your brain and body

In their study, Kahneman and Killingsworth surveyed 33,391 adults aged between 18 and 65 who live in the United States, are employed and report a household income of least $10,000 a year. The authors said they lacked substantial data for those earning over $500,000.

To measure their happiness, participants were asked to report on their feelings at random intervals in the day via a smartphone app developed by Killingsworth called Track Your Happiness . Killingsworth said in an email that the data came from “repeatedly pinging people at randomly-timed moments during daily life, and asking about their happiness at that moment in real-time.” Specifically, they were asked “How do you feel right now?” on a scale ranging from “very bad” to “very good,” he said.

The study reached two big conclusions: First, that “happiness continues to rise with income even in the high range of incomes” for the majority of people, showing that for many of us, on average having more money can make us increasingly happier.

But the study also found that there was an “unhappy minority,” about 20 percent of participants, “whose unhappiness diminishes with rising income up to a threshold, then shows no further progress.”

These people tend to experience negative “miseries” that typically cannot be alleviated by earning more money; the report cites examples such as heartbreak, bereavement or clinical depression. For them, their “suffering” may diminish as their income rises to about $100,000 but “very little beyond that,” the study said.

The link between our food, gut microbiome and depression

“In the simplest terms, this suggests that for most people larger incomes are associated with greater happiness,” Killingsworth said in a statement about the study.

“The exception is people who are financially well-off but unhappy. For instance, if you’re rich and miserable, more money won’t help. For everyone else, more money was associated with higher happiness to somewhat varying degrees.”

The study acknowledges that happiness or emotional well-being is a changing daily scale for many people and that “happy people are not all equally happy” but argues that there are “degrees of happiness” and often a “ceiling” for happiness.

The study also found that money can affect happiness differently, depending on income. Among lower earners, “unhappy people gain more from increased income than happier people do,” it said. “In other words, the bottom of the happiness distribution rises much faster than the top in that range of incomes.”

Michelle Singletary’s money milestones for every age

In his statement, Killingsowrth made clear that money isn’t everything — “just one of the many determinants of happiness.” He added: “Money is not the secret to happiness, but it can probably help a bit.”

The study also made its way to social media Wednesday, with one Twitter user joking : “Anyone who says money doesn’t buy happiness just doesn’t know where to go for shopping.”

Another teased : “Money won’t make you happy, but it’s nicer to cry in a Ferrari.”

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Nobel Winner Who Liked to Collaborate With His Adversaries

A colorful illustration of two identical-looking youths in a bucolic setting. One is in red overalls and is before a red lawnmower, and the other is in blue overalls and is before a blue lawnmower. They are glaring at each other, and each has a foot pressed against the other’s. The two lawnmowers have carved a circle in the grass.

By Cass R. Sunstein

Mr. Sunstein is a law professor at Harvard and an author of “Noise,” with Daniel Kahneman and Olivier Sibony.

Our all-American belief that money really does buy happiness is roughly correct for about 85 percent of us. We know this thanks to the latest and perhaps final work of Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize winner who insisted on the value of working with those with whom we disagree.

Professor Kahneman, who died last week at the age of 90, is best known for his pathbreaking explorations of human judgment and decision making and of how people deviate from perfect rationality. He should also be remembered for a living and working philosophy that has never been more relevant: his enthusiasm for collaborating with his intellectual adversaries. This enthusiasm was deeply personal. He experienced real joy working with others to discover the truth, even if he learned that he was wrong (something that often delighted him).

Back to that finding, published last year , that for a strong majority of us, more is better when it comes to money. In 2010, Professor Kahneman and the Princeton economist Angus Deaton (also a Nobel Prize winner) published a highly influential essay that found that, on average, higher-income groups show higher levels of happiness — but only to a point. Beyond a threshold at or below $90,000, Professor Kahneman and Professor Deaton found, there is no further progress in average happiness as income increases.

Eleven years later, Matthew Killingsworth, a senior fellow at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, found exactly the opposite : People with higher income reported higher levels of average happiness. Period. The more money people have, the happier they are likely to be.

What gives? You could imagine some furious exchange in which Professor Kahneman and Professor Deaton made sharp objections to Dr. Killingsworth’s paper, to which Dr. Killingsworth answered equally sharply, leaving readers confused and exhausted.

Professor Kahneman saw such a dynamic as “angry science,” which he described as a “nasty world of critiques, replies and rejoinders” and “as a contest, where the aim is to embarrass.” As Professor Kahneman put it, those who live in that nasty world offer “a summary caricature of the target position, refute the weakest argument in that caricature and declare the total destruction of the adversary’s position.” In his account, angry science is “a demeaning experience.” That dynamic might sound familiar, particularly in our politics.

Instead, Professor Kahneman favored an alternative that he termed “adversarial collaboration.” When people who disagree work together to test a hypothesis, they are involved in a common endeavor. They are trying not to win but to figure out what’s true. They might even become friends.

In that spirit, Professor Kahneman, well into his 80s, asked Dr. Killingsworth to collaborate, with the help of a friendly arbiter, Prof. Barbara Mellers, an influential and widely admired psychologist. Their task was to look closely at Dr. Killingsworth’s data to see whether he had analyzed it properly and to understand what, if anything, had been missed by Professor Kahneman and Professor Deaton.

Their central conclusion was simple. Dr. Killingsworth missed a threshold effect in his data that affected only one group: the least happy 15 percent. For these largely unhappy people, average happiness does grow with rising income, up to a level of around $100,000, but it stops growing after that. For a majority of us, by contrast, average happiness keeps growing with increases in income.

Both sides were partly right and partly wrong. Their adversarial collaboration showed that the real story is more interesting and more complicated than anyone saw individually.

Professor Kahneman engaged in a number of adversarial collaborations, with varying degrees of success. His first (and funniest) try was with his wife, the distinguished psychologist Anne Treisman. Their disagreement never did get resolved. (Dr. Treisman died in 2018.) Both of them were able to explain away the results of their experiments — a tribute to what he called “the stubborn persistence of challenged beliefs.” Still, adversarial collaborations sometimes produce both agreement and truth, and he said that “a common feature of all my experiences has been that the adversaries ended up on friendlier terms than they started.”

Professor Kahneman meant both to encourage better science and to strengthen the better angels of our nature. In academic life, adversarial collaborations hold great value . We could easily imagine a situation in which adversaries routinely collaborated to see if they could resolve disputes about the health effects of air pollutants, the consequences of increases in the minimum wage, the harms of climate change or the deterrent effects of the death penalty.

And the idea can be understood more broadly. In fact, the U.S. Constitution should be seen as an effort to create the conditions for adversarial collaboration. Before the founding, it was often thought that republics could work only if people were relatively homogeneous — if they were broadly in agreement with one another. Objecting to the proposed Constitution, the pseudonymous antifederalist Brutus emphasized this point: “In a republic, the manners, sentiments and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions, and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.”

Those who favored the Constitution thought that Brutus had it exactly backward. In their view, the constant clashing of opinions was something not to fear but to welcome, at least if people collaborate — if they act as if they are engaged in a common endeavor. Sounding a lot like Professor Kahneman, Alexander Hamilton put it this way : “The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties” in the legislative department of the government “often promote deliberation and circumspection and serve to check excesses in the majority.”

Angry science is paralleled by angry democracy, a “nasty world of critiques, replies and rejoinders,” whose “aim is to embarrass,” Professor Kahneman said. That’s especially true, of course, in the midst of political campaigns, when the whole point is to win.

Still, the idea of adversarial collaboration has never been more important. Within organizations of all kinds — including corporations, nonprofits, think tanks and government agencies — sustained efforts should be made to lower the volume by isolating the points of disagreement and specifying tests to establish what’s right. Asking how a disagreement might actually be resolved tends to turn enemies, focused on winning and losing, into teammates, focused on truth.

As usual, Professor Kahneman was right. We could use a lot more of that.

Cass R. Sunstein is a law professor at Harvard and an author of “Noise,” with Daniel Kahneman and Olivier Sibony.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

Money Does Not Always Buy Happiness, but Are Richer People Less Happy in Their Daily Lives? It Depends on How You Analyze Income

Laura kudrna.

1 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Kostadin Kushlev

2 Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States

Associated Data

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found at: https://www.atusdata.org (The ATUS extract builder was used to create the ATUS dataset, see Hofferth et al., 2017 ). GSOEP data were requested from https://www.diw.de/en/diw_02.c.222516.en/data.html , see Richter and Schupp, 2015 .

Do people who have more money feel happier during their daily activities? Some prior research has found no relationship between income and daily happiness when treating income as a continuous variable in OLS regressions, although results differ between studies. We re-analyzed existing data from the United States and Germany, treating household income as a categorical variable and using lowess and spline regressions to explore nonlinearities. Our analyses reveal that these methodological decisions change the results and conclusions about the relationship between income and happiness. In American and German diary data from 2010 to 2015, results for the continuous treatment of income showed a null relationship with happiness, whereas the categorization of income showed that some of those with higher incomes reported feeling less happy than some of those with lower incomes. Lowess and spline regressions suggested null results overall, and there was no evidence of a relationship between income and happiness in Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) data. Not all analytic approaches generate the same results, which may contribute to explaining discrepant results in existing studies about the correlates of happiness. Future research should be explicit about their approaches to measuring and analyzing income when studying its relationship with subjective well-being, ideally testing different approaches, and making conclusions based on the pattern of results across approaches.

Introduction

Does having more money make someone feel happier? The answer to this longstanding question has implications for how individuals live their lives and societies are structured. It is often assumed that more income brings more happiness (with happiness broadly defined herein as hedonic feelings, while recognizing closely related constructs, including satisfaction and eudaimonia; Tiberius, 2006 ; Angner, 2010 ; Dolan and Kudrna, 2016 ; Sunstein, 2021 ). In many aspects of policy, upward income mobility is encouraged, and poverty can result in exclusion, stigmatization, and discrimination by institutions and members of the public. More income provides people with opportunities and, sometimes, capabilities to consume more and thus satisfy more of their preferences, meet their desires and obtain more of what they want and need ( Harsanyi, 1997 ; Sen, 1999 ; Nussbaum, 2008 ). These are all reasons to assume that higher income will bring greater happiness—or, at least, that low income will bring low happiness.

Some research challenges the assumption that earning more should lead to greater happiness. First, because people expect that more money should make them happier, people may feel less happy when their high expectations are not met ( Graham and Pettinato, 2002 ; Nickerson et al., 2003 ) and they may adapt more quickly to more income than they expect ( Aknin et al., 2009 ; Di Tella et al., 2010 ). Second, since the 1980s in many developed countries, the well-educated have had less leisure time than those who are not ( Aguiar and Hurst, 2007 ) and people living in high-earning and well-educated households report feeling more time stress and dissatisfaction with their leisure time ( Hamermesh and Lee, 2007 ; Nikolaev, 2018 ). The quantity of leisure time is not linearly related to happiness, with both too much and too little having a negative association ( Sharif et al., 2021 ). Evidence also shows that people with higher incomes spend more time alone ( Bianchi and Vohs, 2016 ). The lower quality and quantity of leisure and social time of people with higher incomes may, in turn, negatively impact their happiness, especially given there are strong links between social capital or “relational goods” and well-being ( Helliwell and Putnam, 2004 ; Becchetti et al., 2008 ).

At the same time, some—but not all—evidence suggests that working class individuals tend to be more generous and empathetic than more affluent individuals ( Kraus et al., 2010 ; Piff et al., 2010 ; Balakrishnan et al., 2017 ; Macchia and Whillans, 2022 ), and such kindness toward others has been associated with higher well-being ( Dunn et al., 2008 ; Aknin et al., 2012 ). Relatedly, psychological research suggests that people with lower socioeconomic status have a more interdependent sense of self ( Snibbe and Markus, 2005 ; Stephens et al., 2007 ). It is, therefore, possible that people high in income have lower well-being because they experience less of the internal “warm glow” ( Andreoni, 1990 ) benefit that comes along with valuing social relationships and group membership. In theory, therefore, there are reasons to suppose that high income has both benefits and costs for well-being, and empirical evidence can inform the debate about when and whether these different perspectives are supported.

Empirical Evidence on Income and Happiness

The standard finding in existing literature is that higher income predicts greater happiness, but with a declining marginal utility ( Dolan et al., 2008 ; Layard et al., 2008 ): that is, higher income is most closely associated with happiness among those with the least income and is least closely associated with happiness for those with the most income. Recently, this finding has been qualified by studies showing that the relationship between income and happiness depends on how happiness is conceptualized and measured: as an overall evaluation of one’s life or as daily emotional states ( Kahneman and Deaton, 2010 ; Killingsworth, 2021 ). In this vein, authors Kushlev et al. (2015) found no relationship between income and daily happiness in the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), which has recently been found for other happiness measures, too ( Casinillo et al., 2020 , 2021 ) The finding from Kushlev et al. (2015) was replicated in the German Socioeconomic Panel Survey (GSEOP) by Hudson et al. (2016) , and in another analysis of the ATUS by Stone et al. (2018) .

Some research has focused specifically on the effect of high income on happiness. Kahneman and Deaton (2010) conducted regression analyses using a Gallup sample of United States residents, finding that annual income beyond ~$75K was not associated with any higher daily emotional well-being. Income beyond ~$75K, however, predicted better life evaluations. Using a self-selecting sample of experiential data in the United States, Killingsworth (2021) conducted piecewise regressions and found no evidence of satiation or turning points. Jebb et al. (2018) fit regression spline models to global Gallup data, showing that the satiation point in daily experiences found by Kahneman and Deaton (2010) was also apparent in other countries. Unlike Kahneman and Deaton (2010) , however, Jebb et al. (2018) also found evidence of satiation in people’s life evaluations, and even some evidence for “turning points”—whereby richer people evaluated their lives as worse than some of those with lower incomes. A satiation point in life evaluations was also found in European countries at around €28K annually ( Muresan et al., 2020 ).

This pattern of findings could partly depend on the choice of analytic strategy. In analyses of the same dataset as Jebb et al. (2018) but using lowess regression, researchers found no evidence of satiation or turning points in the relationship between income and people’s life evaluations ( Sacks et al., 2012 ; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2012 ). These conflicting results suggest that the effect of analytic strategy on results deserves a closer examination.

The Research Gap

While there has been much research on income and happiness, including according to how happiness is defined and measured, we are not away of any studies that have compared the relationship between income and happiness according to how income is defined and measured. We propose that the relationship between income and happiness may depend not only on how happiness is measured, but also on how income is measured and analyzed. To improve our knowledge of the relationship between income and happiness, this paper, we focus on nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness and re-analyze the ATUS data used by Kushlev et al. (2015) and Stone et al. (2018) , as well as the GSOEP data used by Hudson et al. (2016) . Specifically, while Kushlev et al. (2015) analyzed income as a continuous variable in the ATUS, we treat income the way it was measured: as a categorical variable. We compare these results to GSOEP data where we re-code the original continuous measure of income into categorical quantiles. To further explore nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness, we also conduct local linear “lowess” and spline regression analyses.

We chose to re-analyze these data to address the question of differences in the relationship between income and happiness according to the measurement and analysis of income because the ATUS and GSOEP provide nationally representative data on people’s feelings as experienced during specific “episodes” of the day after asking them to reconstruct what they did during the entire day. Thus, compared to data from Gallup, which measures affect “yesterday,” measurements in the ATUS are more grounded in specific experiences, and therefore, less subject to recall bias ( Kahneman et al., 2004 ). And unlike Gallup, which uses more crude, dichotomous (“yes-no”) response scales, ATUS measures happiness along a standard seven-point Likert-type scale. In the GSOEP, we were also able to analyze data from the Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM), which asks people how they are feeling during specific episodes during the day and, as such, is even more grounded in specific experiences.

Measuring and Analyzing Income

The original ATUS income variable—family income—contains 16 uneven categories (see Table 1 ). For example, Category 11 has a range of ~$10K, whereas Category 14 has a range of ~$25K. The increasingly larger categories are designed to reflect declining marginal utility as an innate quality of income. Based on this, Kushlev et al. (2015) analyzed income as a continuous variable using the original uneven categories. Continuous scales, however, assume equal intervals between scale points—a strong assumption to make for the relatively arbitrary rate of change in the category ranges. Is increasing one’s income from $20,000 to $25,000 really equidistant to increasing it from $35,000 to $40,000 ( Table 1 )? And can we really assume, for example, that adding $5,000 of additional income to $35,000 is the same as adding $10,000 of additional income to $40,000? Recognizing this issue, income researchers have adopted alternative strategies. For example, Stone et al. (2018) took the midpoints of each category of income, and then log-transformed it. Thus, they transformed the categorical measure of income into a continuous measure. This approach produced results for happiness consistent with the findings of Kushlev et al. (2015) .

The original categories of income in the ATUS family income measure with number of individuals in each income category in the ATUS 2010, 2012, and 2013 well-being modules.

Complete cases only for all variables analyzed.

Both the increasing ranges of the income scale itself and its log-transformations reflect an assumed declining marginal utility of income: They treat a given amount of income increase at the higher end of the income distribution as having less utility than the same amount at the lower end of the distribution. But by subsuming income’s declining utility in its very measurement (or transformation thereof), it becomes difficult to interpret a null relationship with happiness. In other words, we might not be seeing a declining marginal utility of income reflected on happiness because the income variable itself reflects its declining utility.

Even when the income variable itself does not reflect its declining utility, a null relationship between income and daily experiences of happiness has been observed. Hudson et al. (2016) used GSOEP, which contains a measure of income that is continuous in its original form. Whether analyzing this income measure in its raw original form or in transformed log and quadratic forms, a null relationship with happiness was observed. This approach, however, does not consider whether there might be nonlinear/log/quadratic turning or satiation points at higher levels of income—an issue also applicable to previous analyses of ATUS ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Stone et al., 2018 ). This is important because there are theoretically both benefits and costs to achieving higher levels of income that could occur at various levels of income; however, this possibility has not yet been fully explored in ATUS or GSOEP data.

In sum, past research using ATUS has treated categorically measured income as a continuous variable, either assuming equidistance between scale points or attempting to create equidistance through statistical transformations. By doing so, however, researchers may have statistically accounted for the very utility of income for happiness that they are trying to test. In both ATUS and GSOEP, the question of whether there might be satiation and/or turning points at higher levels of income has not been fully considered. The present research explores whether treating income as a categorical variable in both ATUS and GSOEP would replicate past findings or reveal novel insights, focusing on possible nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness.

Materials and Methods

We used data from ATUS well-being modules in 2010, 2012, and 2013. To facilitate future replications of this research, the ATUS extract builder was used to create the dataset ( Hofferth et al., 2017 ). 1 The ATUS is a repeated cross-sectional survey and is nationally representative of United States household residents aged 15 years and older. Its sampling frame is the Current Population Survey (CPS), which was conducted 2–5 months prior to the ATUS. Some items in the ATUS come from the CPS, including the household income item that we analyze.

Data from the GSOEP come from the Innovation Sample (IS), which is a subsample of the larger main GSOEP ( Richter and Schupp, 2015 ). The main GSOEP and the IS are designed to be nationally representative. The IS contains information on household residents aged 17 years of age and older. We used two modules from these data: the 2012–2015 DRM module, which is a longitudinal survey, and the 2014–2015 ESM module.

Outcome Measures

In ATUS, participants were called on the phone and asked how they spent their time yesterday: what activities they were doing, for how long, who they spent time with and where they were located. This information was used to create their time use diary. A random selection of three activities were taken from these diaries and participants were asked how they felt during them. The feelings items were tired, sad, stressed, pain, and happy. Participants were also asked how meaningful what they were doing felt.

In GSOEP, participants were interviewed face to face for the DRM questions and through smartphones for the ESM questions. In the DRM, as in the ATUS, they were asked how they spent their time yesterday and, for a random selection of three activities, they were asked further details about how they felt. In the ESM, participants were randomly notified on mobile phones at seven random points during the day for around 1 week. As in the DRM, they were asked how they were spending their time at the point of notification, as well as how they felt. Participants in both ESM and DRM samples were asked about whether they were feeling happy, as well as other emotions such as sadness, stress, and boredom.

The focus of this research is on the happiness items from both the ATUS and GSOEP to highlight differences according to the treatment of the independent measure of income rather than differences according to the dependent outcome of emotional well-being.

Data were analyzed in STATA 15 and jamovi. The Supplementary Material S1 file contains the STATA command file for the main commands written to analyze the data. In both ATUS and GSOEP, OLS regressions were conducted with happiness as the outcome measure and income as the explanatory measure. Following Kushlev et al. (2015) and Hudson et al. (2016) , the average happiness across all activities each day was taken to create an individual-level measure. Because the GSOEP DRM sample contained multiple observations across years, the SEs were clustered at the individual level for models using this dataset.

The treatment of income differed according to the dataset because income was collected differently in each dataset. In the ATUS, income was first analyzed in continuous, log, and quadratic forms in OLS regressions, as in other research ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Hudson et al., 2016 ). Next, it was analyzed as a categorical variable with 16 categories, preserving the identical format that it was originally collected in from the CPS questionnaire.

In GSOEP, the income variable in the dataset is provided in continuous form because participants reported their monthly income as an integer. To compare to the ATUS results, 16 quantiles of income were created and analyzed in GSOEP DRMs (see Table 2 - note that there were insufficient observations to conduct these analyses with GSOEP ESMs). This income variable was also analyzed in continuous, log, and quadratic forms.

The range and number of person-year observations of the GSOEP Income 4 variable divided into 16 quantiles.

Omnibus F -tests and effect sizes ( n 2 ) are also reported to compare the categorical, continuous, log, and quadratic approaches.

We conducted lowess and spline regressions to further investigate possible nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness. For the lowess regressions, the smoothing parameter was set at of 0.08. For the regression splines, we fitted knots at four quartiles and five quantiles of income. We also used the results of OLS regressions treating income as a categorical variable, as well as the results of the lowess regression treating income as continuous, to fit knots at pre-specified values of income (where these analyses suggested there could be turning and/or satiation points).

Complete case analyses were conducted with 33,976 individuals in ATUS, 6,766 individuals in German DRMs, and 249 individuals in German ESMs. There was item-missing data in some samples (ATUS, 1.7% missing; GSOEP DRMs, 8.2% missing; GSOEP ESMs data, and 6.0% missing). We make analytical and not population inferences and therefore do not use survey weights ( Pfeffermann, 1996 ).

Results are presented without and with controls for demographic and diary characteristics. Following Kushlev et al. (2015) , Hudson et al. (2016) , and Stone et al. (2018) , these controls were age, gender, marital status, ethnic background, 2 health, 3 employment status, children, 4 and whether the day was a weekend. We also control for the year of the survey in ATUS DRM data to address the issue that our results are not due to new data but rather how we treat the income variable.

The list of variables we use in analyses are in Table 3 .

List of variables used in analyses in ATUS and GSOEP.

In both ATUS and GSOEP, daily happiness was analyzed using a 0–6 scale (in GSOEP scale points 1–7 were recoded to 0–6 to match ATUS). The ATUS mean happiness was 4.38 (SD = 1.33). The GSOEP DRM mean happiness was 2.91 (SD = 1.46), and the GSOEP ESM mean happiness was 2.65 (SD = 1.03).

The magnitude of our results can be considered in the context of effect sizes from other research on demographic characteristics and daily happiness ( Kahneman et al., 2004 ; Stone et al., 2010 ; Luhmann et al., 2012 ; Hudson et al., 2019 ). For example, the effect size for the relationship between age and daily experiences of happiness was 0.16 in Stone et al. (2010) . Our effect sizes range from 0.06 to 0.37. Throughout, we focus on coefficients, their 95% CIs, and visualizations of these coefficients and CIs, rather than on their statistical significance ( Lakens, 2021 ). The purpose of this is to highlight how analytic treatments of income affect the magnitude and precision of the relationship between income and happiness.

When treating the 16-category family income variable as continuous in OLS regressions, there was no substantive relationship between income and happiness as in other prior research ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Hudson et al., 2016 ; Stone et al., 2018 ). Out of the linear, squared, and log coefficients without and with controls, the largest and most precise coefficients were with controls; for linear income it was ( b = −0.006, 95% CI = −0.01, −0.002), squared income ( b = −0.0001, 95% CI = 0.0003, 0.00006), and log income ( b = −0.03, 95% CI = −0.05, 0.001). The omnibus F -test (without controls) for linear income was F = 0.28, n 2 = 0.000008 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0002), for income squared was F = 1.60, n 2 = 0.00005 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0003), and for log income was F = 0.23, n 2 = 0.000006 (95% CI = 0.00,0.0002).

The categorization of income focused attention on those with incomes of $35–40K, who appeared substantively happier than some of those with higher incomes (and lower incomes; see Figure 1 ). For example, with controls, those with incomes of $35–40K appeared happier relative to those with incomes of $150K+ ( b = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.24) and $100–150K ( b = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.221). The omnibus test for categorical income was F = 1.61, n 2 = 0.007 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0009).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-883137-g001.jpg

Predicted values of average individual happiness in the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) at the 16 values of the family income variable without and with controls. Covariates at means. 95% CI.

Results from regression splines and a lowess regression suggested null results overall (see Figure 2 ). Further details of the analyses are in Supplementary Material S2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-883137-g002.jpg

Line graph of predicted values from lowess regressions explaining variance in happiness from income treated as a continuous variable in ATUS.

When treating the continuous household income variable as continuous (in €10,000s) in OLS regressions, there was no substantive relationship between income and happiness as in other prior research ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Hudson et al., 2016 ; Stone et al., 2018 ). The association with the largest magnitude and most precision was for log income with controls ( b = −0.08, 95% CI = −0.18, 0.01). 5

As in ATUS, treating the variable as categorical suggested some relationships between income and happiness. These results drew attention to those third quantile (~€14–18K), who seemed happier than those both higher and lower in income (see Figure 3 ). For example, with controls, they were happier than those in quantiles 13 (€42.6–48K, b = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.25, 0.67), seven (~€24–27K, b = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.56), and one (€2.40–11,520K, b = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.51). The omnibus test for categorical income was F = 4.00, n 2 = 0.009 (95% CI = 0.003, 0.01), whereas the omnibus test for linear income was F = 0.09, n 2 = 0.00001 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0007). The omnibus for log income was F = 1.42, n 2 = 0.0002 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0001) and for income squared it was F = 0.96, n 2 = 0.0001 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.001).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-883137-g003.jpg

Predicted values of average person-year happiness from GSOEP DRMs at 16 quantiles of income (Income 4) without and with controls. Covariates at means. 95% CI.

The lowess and spline regressions suggested null results overall, as the coefficients were small in magnitude (see Figure 4 ). Further details of the analyses are in Supplementary Material S3 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-883137-g004.jpg

Line graph of predicted values from lowess regressions explaining variance in happiness from income treated as a continuous variable in GSOEP DRMs at 16 quantiles of income.

There was no evidence to suggest any substantive association between income and happiness in ESM data for linear income, income squared, log income, in the lowess regressions, or regression splines. A visualization of the lowess results are in Figure 5 and further details of the analyses are in Supplementary Material S4 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-883137-g005.jpg

Results of local linear “lowess” regression from GSOEP Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) data with happiness as the outcome and continuous annual income as the explanatory variable.

The omnibus F -test for linear income was F = 0.53, n 2 = 0.002 (95%CI = −0.00, 0.03), and for log income it was F = 0.12, n 2 = 0.0005, 95%CI = 0.00, 0.02. For income squared it was F = 0.63, n 2 = 0.003, 95%CI = 0.00 0.03.

Is income creating a signal in these data on daily experiences of happiness, or is it all simply noise? The present results suggest that whether income can be concluded as being associated with daily experiences of happiness may depend on how income is analyzed. When income in ATUS is analyzed in its original, categorical form, there is some evidence that some people with higher incomes feel somewhat less happy than some of those with lower incomes. When the continuous income variable in GSOEP is split into categories, a similar pattern is observed. This is not inconsistent with the findings of Kushlev et al. (2015) , Hudson et al. (2016) , and Stone et al. (2018) , who found no relationship between income and daily feelings of happiness in the same data when income was analyzed as a continuous variable. It simply illustrates that a relationship between income and happiness could be interpreted when treating income categorically rather than continuously.

There are at least three possible interpretations to our overall results. One interpretation tends toward conservative. We conducted multiple comparisons of many transformations of income, which might inspire some to question whether we should have accounted for this in some way by adjusting for multiple comparisons. Although we found some evidence of differences in happiness according to income, such an adjustment might lead to an overall null conclusion when characterizing the relationship between income on happiness. A second interpretation is more generous. Within this perspective, one might emphasize the fact that because our income measures were correlated, no correction for multiple comparisons was required. It could then be argued that because we found some evidence for the relationship between income on happiness, there is good evidence that the overall effect is not null. A more moderate perspective, and the one adopted in this paper, is that because the overall pattern of our results showed mixed null and nonnull results, we can make an overall conclusion of some differences in happiness according to income. We also noticed that equivalizing income in the German data strengthened the relationship of income and happiness, further supporting the conclusion of some differences—and that the analytic treatment of income matters.

Based on the moderate perspective, we conclude that there is very little evidence of any relationship between income and daily experiences of happiness—and any relationship that does exist would suggest higher income could be associated with less happiness. The results do not support the results of Sacks et al. (2012) or Killingsworth (2021) , where a greater income was associated with greater happiness, and there were no satiation or turning points (see also Stevenson and Wolfers, 2012 ). These results are more aligned with Kahneman and Deaton (2010) , who found a satiation point in the relationship between income daily experiences of happiness, researchers finding no association between income and happiness ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Jebb et al., 2018 ; Casinillo et al., 2020 , 2021 ), who found that higher income can be associated with worse evaluations of life. We suggest the analytic strategy for income could contribute to explaining discrepant results in existing literature, and researchers should be clear about the approaches they have tested, although we acknowledge that sampling differences could play a role, too.

Overall, the results were broadly consistent between countries because there was no substantive relationship between income and happiness when income was treated continuously but there appeared to be relationships when treating income categorically. Despite a similar overall pattern in the income results, there were other difference between countries. German residents rated their happiness as lower than United States residents (a difference of ~1.5 scale points out of seven). This could be because of different interpretations of the word “happiness” in Germany and the United States. The word for happiness in German used in the survey— glück —can mean something more akin to lucky or optimistic—which is different from the meaning of word “happy” in the United States. Despite this linguistic difference, those with higher incomes were still less happy than some of those with lower incomes in both samples.

Limitations

One limitation to our results is the representativeness of the income distribution. Household surveys like those that we used do not tend to capture the “tails” of the income distribution very well: People in institutions and without addresses are excluded from these sample populations, which omits populations such as those living in nursing homes and prisons, as well as the homeless. Moreover, people do not always self-report their income accurately due to issues such as social desirability bias ( Angel et al., 2019 ). Existing studies that have focused on those with very low incomes do tend to find that low income is associated with low happiness ( Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2002 ; Clark et al., 2016 ; Adesanya et al., 2017 ). In ATUS, the highest household income value available was $150K, whereas in GSOEP it was €360K. Thus, it is not always clear whether the very affluent, such as millionaires, are represented in these samples ( Smeets et al., 2020 ). Overall, our results cannot be taken as representative of people who are very poor or rich and should not be interpreted as such.

Another limitation is that the present results cannot be interpreted casually because there has been no manipulation of income in these data nor exploration of mechanisms and there was no longitudinal data in ATUS. As discussed by Kushlev et al. (2015) , there are issues such as reverse causality. Here, however, some of our results potentially suggest an alternative reverse causality pathway, whereby less happy people may select into earning more income. Because the counterfactual is not apparent—we do not know how happy people with high incomes would be without their higher income—it could also be that those with high incomes would be even less happy than they currently are if they had not attained their current level of income. In other words, people with high incomes may have started out as less happy in the first place and be even less happy if they did not have high incomes.

A further limitation is the time period of the data, especially that they were collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. This could be an issue because it is possible that the relationship between income and daily experiences of happiness has changed, such as due to the exacerbation of health inequalities and restrictions on freedom of movement due to nationwide lockdowns. Our study does not provide any information on the longer-term and health and well-being consequences of both COVID-19 itself and the policy response to COVID-19 ( Aknin et al., 2022 ). As one example, access to green space, which has health and well-being benefits, is lower among those with low income, and this mechanism between income and happiness may have become more salient during COVID-19 ( Geary et al., 2021 ). Overall, it is important to consider the regional, political, and socioeconomic contexts in which income is attained to understand its relationship with well-being, including levels of income in reference groups such as neighbors, friends, and colleagues ( Luttmer, 2005 ; De Neve and Sachs, 2020 ). It would be important to replicate the results in this research with more recent data to address the limitation that the data we used are not recent, considering our broader point that the measurement and analysis of income should be considered as carefully as the measurement and analysis of happiness.

Future Directions

This research points to several directions for future research. One direction relates to data and measures: Nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness could be examined using time use data from other countries, considered between countries and/or within countries over time ( Deaton et al., 2008 ; De Neve et al., 2018 ), and investigated for measures of emotional states other than happiness ( Piff and Moskowitz, 2018 ). In general, our results suggest that researchers should pay attention to how income is measured and analyzed when considering how it is related to happiness, which complements findings from other research that the way happiness is measured and analyzed is important ( Kahneman and Deaton, 2010 ; Jebb et al., 2018 ).

Future research could also explore mechanisms that may explain our findings. In addition to those mentioned in the Introduction—expectations ( Graham and Pettinato, 2002 ; Nickerson et al., 2003 ), time use ( Aguiar and Hurst, 2007 ; Hamermesh and Lee, 2007 ; Bianchi and Vohs, 2016 ; Nikolaev, 2018 ; Sharif et al., 2021 ); generosity ( Dunn et al., 2008 ; Kraus et al., 2010 ; Piff et al., 2010 ; Aknin et al., 2012 ; Balakrishnan et al., 2017 ; Macchia and Whillans, 2022 ), and sense of self ( Snibbe and Markus, 2005 ; Stephens et al., 2007 )—another is the identity-related effect of transitioning between socioeconomic groups. Though one might expect upward mobility to be associated with greater happiness, research suggests that some working class people do not wish to become upwardly mobile because it could lead to a loss of identity and change in community ( Akerlof, 1997 ; Friedman, 2014 ). Indeed, upward intergenerational mobility is associated with worse life evaluations in the United Kingdom—though not in Switzerland ( Hadjar and Samuel, 2015 ), although recent findings show substantial negative effects of downward mobility, too ( Dolan and Lordan, 2021 ). Over time, therefore, the degree of mobility in a population could influence the relationship between income and happiness in both positive and negative directions.

Additionally, social comparisons could drive the effects of higher income on happiness. Higher income might not benefit happiness if one’s reference group—that is, the people to whom we compare or have knowledge of in some form ( Hyman, 1942 ; Shibutani, 1955 ; Runciman, 1966 )—changes with higher socioeconomic status. As income increases, people might compare themselves to others who are also doing similarly or better to them, and then not feel or think that they are doing any better by comparison—or even feel worse ( Cheung and Lucas, 2016 ). This is one of the explanations for the well-known “Easterlin Paradox” ( Easterlin, 1974 ), which suggests that as national income rises people do not become happier because they compare their achievements to others. The paradox is debated ( Sacks et al., 2012 ). Additionally, some research shows that it is possible to view others’ greater success as one’s own future opportunity and for upward social comparisons to then positively impact upon well-being ( Senik, 2004 ; Davis and Wu, 2014 ; Ifcher et al., 2018 ). As with the role of mobility in the relationship between income and happiness, it is unclear whether the role of social comparisons would create a positive or negative impact over time and future research could explore this.

Final Remarks

Overall, our results provide some evidence that individual attainment in terms of income may not equate to the attainment of individual happiness—and could even be associated with less daily happiness, depending upon how income is measured and analyzed. These results suggest that how income is associated with happiness depends on how income is measured and analyzed. They provide some support to the idea that financial achievement can have both costs and benefits, potentially informing normative discussions about the optimal distribution of income in society.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

LK and KK contributed to conception and design of the study. LK organized the data, performed the statistical analysis in STATA, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. KK performed additional statistical analysis in jamovi and wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

LK was supported by a London School of Economics PhD scholarship during early work and later by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

LK thanks Professor Paul Dolan and Dr Georgios Kavetsos for their support early on in conducting this research, as well as Professor Richard Lilford for insights about multiple comparisons.

1 https://www.atusdata.org

2 In the ATUS this was Hispanic and Black, in GSOEP this was German origin.

3 In the ATUS this was whether the respondent had any physical or cognitive difficulty (yes/no), in GSOEP this was self-rated general health (bad, poor, satisfactory, good, and very good).

4 In the ATUS this was presence of children <18 years in the household, in GSOEP this was number of children.

5 This association was stronger and more precise when equivalizing income (dividing by the square root of household size), b = −0.16, 95%CI = −0.06, −0.27, underscoring the importance of transparency in the treatment of income.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883137/full#supplementary-material

Adesanya O., Rojas B. M., Darboe A., Beogo I. (2017). Socioeconomic differential in self-assessment of health and happiness in 5 African countries: finding from world value survey . PLoS One 12 :e0188281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188281, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Aguiar M., Hurst E. (2007). Measuring trends in leisure: the allocation of time over five decades . Q. J. Econ. 122 , 969–1006. doi: 10.1162/qjec.122.3.969 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Akerlof G. A. (1997). Social distance and social decisions . Econometrica 65 , 1005–1027. doi: 10.2307/2171877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Aknin L. B., De Neve J. E., Dunn E. W., Fancourt D. E., Goldberg E., Helliwell J. F., et al.. (2022). Mental health during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a review and recommendations for moving forward . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 19 :17456916211029964. doi: 10.1177/17456916211029964, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Aknin L. B., Hamlin J. K., Dunn E. W. (2012). Giving leads to happiness in young children . PLoS One 7 :e39211. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039211, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Aknin L. B., Norton M. I., Dunn E. W. (2009). From wealth to well-being? Money matters, but less than people think . J. Posit. Psychol. 4 , 523–527. doi: 10.1080/17439760903271421 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Andreoni J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving . Econ. J. 100 , 464–477. doi: 10.2307/2234133 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Angel S., Disslbacher F., Humer S., Schnetzer M. (2019). What did you really earn last year? Explaining measurement error in survey income data . J. R. Stat. Soc. A. Stat. Soc. 182 , 1411–1437. doi: 10.1111/rssa.12463 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Angner E. (2010). Subjective well-being . J. Socio-Econ. 39 , 361–368. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2009.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Balakrishnan A., Palma P. A., Patenaude J., Campbell L. (2017). A 4-study replication of the moderating effects of greed on socioeconomic status and unethical behaviour . Sci. Data 4 :160120. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.120, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Becchetti L., Pelloni A., Rossetti F. (2008). Relational goods, sociability, and happiness . Kyklos 61 , 343–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00405.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bianchi E. C., Vohs K. D. (2016). Social class and social worlds: income predicts the frequency and nature of social contact . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7 , 479–486. doi: 10.1177/1948550616641472 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Casinillo L. F., Casinillo E. L., Aure M. R. K. L. (2021). Economics of happiness: a social study on determinants of well-being among employees in a state university . Philippine Soc. Sci. J. 4 , 42–52. doi: 10.52006/main.v4i1.316 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Casinillo L. F., Casinillo E. L., Casinillo M. F. (2020). On happiness in teaching: an ordered logit modeling approach . JPI 9 , 290–300. doi: 10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v9i2.25630 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cheung F., Lucas R. E. (2016). Income inequality is associated with stronger social comparison effects: the effect of relative income on life satisfaction . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110 , 332–341. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000059, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Clark A. E., D’Ambrosio C., Ghislandi S. (2016). Adaptation to poverty in long-run panel data . Rev. Econ. Stat. 98 , 591–600. doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00544, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Davis L., Wu S. (2014). Social comparisons and life satisfaction across racial and ethnic groups: the effects of status, information and solidarity . Soc. Indic. Res. 117 , 849–869. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0367-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
De Neve J. E., Sachs J. D. (2020). The SDGs and human well-being: a global analysis of synergies, trade-offs, and regional differences . Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71916-9, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
De Neve J. E., Ward G., De Keulenaer F., Van Landeghem B., Kavetsos G., Norton M. I. (2018). The asymmetric experience of positive and negative economic growth: global evidence using subjective well-being data . Rev. Econ. Stat. 100 , 362–375. doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00697, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Deaton A. (2008). Income, health, and well-being around the world: evidence from the Gallup world poll . J. Econ. Perspect. 22 , 53–72. doi: 10.1257/jep.22.2.53, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Di Tella R., Haisken-De New J., MacCulloch R. (2010). Happiness adaptation to income and to status in an individual panel . J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 76 , 834–852. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.09.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Diener E., Biswas-Diener R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Soc. Indic. Res. 57 , 119–169. doi: 10.1023/A:1014411319119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dolan P., Kudrna L. (2016). “ Sentimental hedonism: pleasure, purpose, and public policy ” in International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life. Handbook of Eudemonic Well-Being. ed. Vittersø J. (Springer International Publishing AG; ), 437–452. [ Google Scholar ]
Dolan P., Lordan G. (2021). Climbing up ladders and sliding down snakes: an empirical assessment of the effect of social mobility on subjective wellbeing . Rev. Econ. Househ. 19 , 1023–1045. doi: 10.1007/s11150-020-09487-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dolan P., Peasgood T., White M. (2008). Do we realy know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literaure on the factors associated with subjective well-being . J. Econ. Psychol. 29 , 94–122. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dunn E. W., Aknin L. B., Norton M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness . Science 319 , 1687–1688. doi: 10.1126/science.1150952, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Easterlin R. A. (1974). “ Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence ,” in Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramowitz. eds. David P. A., Reder M. W. (New York: Academic Press, Inc.). [ Google Scholar ]
Friedman S. (2014). The price of the ticket: rethinking the experience of social mobility . Sociology 48 , 352–368. doi: 10.1177/0038038513490355 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Geary R. S., Wheeler B., Lovell R., Jepson R., Hunter R., Rodgers S. (2021). A call to action: improving urban green spaces to reduce health inequalities exacerbated by COVID-19 . Prev. Med. 145 :106425. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106425, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Graham C., Pettinato S. (2002). Frustrated achievers: winners, losers and subjective well-being in new market economies . J. Dev. Stud. 38 , 100–140. doi: 10.1080/00220380412331322431 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hadjar A., Samuel R. (2015). Does upward social mobility increase life satisfaction? A longitudinal analysis using British and Swiss panel data . Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 39 , 48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.rssm.2014.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hamermesh D. S., Lee J. (2007). Stressed out on four continents: time crunch or yuppie kvetch? Rev. Econ. Stat. 89 , 374–383. doi: 10.1162/rest.89.2.374 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Harsanyi J. C. (1997). Utilities, preferences, and substantive goods . Soc. Choice Welf. 14 , 129–145. [ Google Scholar ]
Helliwell J. F., Putnam R. D. (2004). The social context of well–being . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 359 , 1435–1446. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1522, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hofferth S., Flood S., Sobek M. (2017). American time use survey data extract system: version 26 [machine-readable database]. College Park, MD: University of Maryland and Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota .
Hudson N. W., Lucas R. E., Donnellan M. B. (2019). Healthier and happier? A 3-year longitudinal investigation of the prospective associations and concurrent changes in health and experiential well-being . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45 , 1635–1650. doi: 10.1177/0146167219838547, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hudson N. W., Lucas R. E., Donnellan M. B., Kushlev K. (2016). Income reliably predicts daily sadness, but not happiness: a replication and extension of Kushlev, Dunn, and Lucas (2015) . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7 , 828–836. doi: 10.1177/1948550616657599, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hyman H. H. (1942). “ The psychology of status ,” in Archives of Psychology (Columbia University; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Ifcher J., Zarghamee H., Graham C. (2018). Local neighbors as positives, regional neighbors as negatives: competing channels in the relationship between others’ income, health, and happiness . J. Health Econ. 57 , 263–276. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.08.003, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jebb A. T., Tay L., Diener E., Oishi S. (2018). Happiness, income satiation and turning points around the world . Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 33–38. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0277-0, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kahneman D., Deaton A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107 , 16489–16493. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011492107, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kahneman D., Krueger A., Schkade D., Schwarz N., Stone A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method . Science 306 , 1776–1780. doi: 10.1126/science.1103572, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Killingsworth M. A. (2021). Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118 :e2016976118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2016976118, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kraus M. W., Côté S., Keltner D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy . Psychol. Sci. 21 , 1716–1723. doi: 10.1177/0956797610387613, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kushlev K., Dunn E. W., Lucas R. E. (2015). Higher income is associated with less daily sadness but not more daily happiness . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6 , 483–489. doi: 10.1177/1948550614568161 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lakens D. (2021). The practical alternative to the p value is the correctly used p value . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16 , 639–648. doi: 10.1177/1745691620958012, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Layard R., Mayraz G., Nickell S. (2008). The marginal utility of income . J. Public Econ. 92 , 1846–1857. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luhmann M., Hofmann W., Eid M., Lucas R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102 , 592–615. doi: 10.1037/a0025948, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luttmer E. F. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: relative earnings and well-being . Q. J. Econ. 120 , 963–1002. doi: 10.1162/003355305774268255 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Macchia L., Whillans A. V. (2022). The link between income, income inequality, and prosocial behavior around the world . Soc. Psychol. 52 , 375–386. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000466 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Muresan G. M., Ciumas C., Achim M. V. (2020). Can money buy happiness? Evidence for European countries . Appl. Res. Qual. Life 15 , 953–970. doi: 10.1007/s11482-019-09714-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nickerson C., Schwarz N., Diener E., Kahneman D. (2003). Zeroing in on the dark side of the American dream: a closer look at the negative consequences of the goal for financial success . Psychol. Sci. 14 , 531–536. doi: 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1461.x, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nikolaev B. (2018). Does higher education increase hedonic and eudaimonic happiness? J. Happiness Stud. 19 , 483–504. doi: 10.1007/s10902-016-9833-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nussbaum M. C. (2008). Who is the happy warrior? Philosophy poses questions to psychology . J. Leg. Stud. 37 , S81–S113. doi: 10.1086/587438 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pfeffermann D. (1996). The use of sampling weights for survey data analysis . Stat. Methods Med. Res. 5 , 239–261. doi: 10.1177/096228029600500303, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Piff P. K., Kraus M. W., Côté S., Cheng B. H., Keltner D. (2010). Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99 , 771–784. doi: 10.1037/a0020092, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Piff P. K., Moskowitz J. P. (2018). Wealth, poverty, and happiness: social class is differentially associated with positive emotions . Emotion 18 , 902–905. doi: 10.1037/emo0000387, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Richter D., Schupp J. (2015). The SOEP innovation sample (SOEP IS) . Schmollers Jahr. 135 , 389–399. doi: 10.3790/schm1353389 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Runciman W. (1966). Relative Deprivation, Social Justice: Study Attitudes Social Inequality in 20th Century England. Berkeley: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Sacks D. W., Stevenson B., Wolfers J. (2012). The new stylized facts about income and subjective well-being . Emotion 12 , 1181–1187. doi: 10.1037/a0029873, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sen A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. [ Google Scholar ]
Senik C. (2004). When information dominates comparison: learning from Russian subjective panel data . J. Public Econ. 88 , 2099–2123. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(03)00066-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sharif M. A., Mogilner C., Hershfield H. E. (2021). Having too little or too much time is linked to lower subjective well-being . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121 , 933–947., PMID: [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shibutani T. (1955). Reference groups as perspectives . Am. J. Sociol. 60 , 562–569. doi: 10.1086/221630 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smeets P., Whillans A., Bekkers R., Norton M. I. (2020). Time use and happiness of millionaires: evidence from the Netherlands . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11 , 295–307. doi: 10.1177/1948550619854751 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Snibbe A. C., Markus H. R. (2005). You can't always get what you want: educational attainment, agency, and choice . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 , 703–720. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.703, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stephens N. M., Markus H. R., Townsend S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: the case of social class . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 , 814–830. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.814, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stevenson B., Wolfers J. (2012). Subjective well-being and income: is there any evidence of satiation? Am. Econ. Rev. 103 , 598–604. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.3.598 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stone A., Schneider S., Krueger A., Schwartz J. E., Deaton A. (2018). Experiential wellbeing data from the American time use survey: comparisons with other methods and analytic illustrations with age and income . Soc. Indic. Res. 136 , 359–378. doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1532-x, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stone A. A., Schwartz J. E., Broderick J. E., Deaton A. (2010). A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107 , 9985–9990. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003744107, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sunstein C. R. (2021). Some costs and benefits of cost-benefit analysis . Daedalus 150 , 208–219. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_01868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tiberius V. (2006). Well-being: psychological research for philosophers . Philos. Compass 1 , 493–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00038.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

Can money buy happiness, three psychological principles to consider before you make your next purchase.

By Sarah Gervais, Associate Professor of Psychology, Social and Cognitive Program and Law-Psychology Program

11 Nov 2015

We’re all familiar with the idea that money can’t buy happiness. Yet, the reality is that we all spend money and for most of us it is a limited resource. How can we spend our hard earned dough in ways that will maximize our happiness? Psychological research offers some useful insights about the connections between money and happiness to consider before you make your next purchase.

Being Rich Isn’t Necessarily the Path to Happiness. Money is important to happiness. Ask anyone who doesn’t have it. Having a higher income, for example, can give us access to homes in safer neighborhoods, better health care and nutrition, fulfilling work, and more leisure time. However, this only works up to a certain point. Once our income reaches a certain level and our basic needs for food, health care, safety, and shelter are met, the positive effects of money—such as buying your dream home—are often offset by the negative effects—such as working longer hours, or in more stressful jobs, to maintain that income.
Doing Makes us Happier than Having. Most people assume that “things” will lead to more happiness than “experiences.” Physical objects—such as the latest iPhone, handbag, or car—last longer than say going to a concert, taking a cooking class, or going on vacation. Buying things does make us happy, at least in the short term. In the long-term, however, we habituate to new things and even though they may have made us excited and happy at first, eventually the item becomes the new normal and fades into the background. The happiness that comes from purchasing experiences, however, tends to increase over time. One reason is that we often share experiential purchases with other people. Even when you’ve driven that new car into the ground, you’ll still be telling stories with your family and friends about that time when you went on vacation to Colorado and you’ll even be chuckling about when the car broke down and you had to spend the night in the shady motel
Consider Spending Money on Others. Most people think that spending money on themselves will make them happier than spending it on other people. Yet, when researchers assess happiness before and after people spend an annual bonus, people report greater happiness when they spend the bonus money on others or donate it to charity than when they spend it on themselves. This occurs regardless of how big the bonus was. One reason for this phenomenon is that giving to others makes us feel good about ourselves

So, before you pull out your wallet or click to order online, think about whether this purchase will really make you happy. If it will jeopardize your basic needs, think twice. If you have some disposable income, considering planning a trip or taking a class to learn a new skill. Finally, in this season of giving, know that if you spend your money on others or donate it to good causes, you may feel better than if you spend it on yourself.

Note: This article presents some basic principles for money and happiness. Individuals differ in their financial situation and psychological well-being. Consult a financial expert or behavioral health professional for guidance about finances and happiness.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Happiness Articles & More

Can money buy happiness it depends on why you’re spending it, according to new research, our purchases may make us happier when they're motivated by goals we care about..

Imagine that someone gives you a cash gift and tells you that, instead of saving or investing it, you need to spend it right now. What should you put your money toward if you want to make yourself happiest?

According to past research , we’ll be happier if we spend money on an experience than if we buy a material object—like traveling or going out for a meal instead of buying the latest product we see on social media. For example, people report more gratitude when they spend on experiences rather than possessions.

On the other hand, we can all probably think of times when we’ve spent money on an experience that ended up not being worth it. Maybe you bought pricey event tickets to avoid missing out, only to realize on the day of the event that you’d much prefer a cozy night at home. Or perhaps you went out to dinner with a friend at a fancy restaurant, only to find that your friend was more focused on posting the meal to Instagram than having a deep conversation.

It turns out that there might be another factor at play beyond whether we spend money on an experience or a material item: According to a new study published in the British Journal of Social Psychology , it may also matter how our purchases align with our goals.

In the study, researchers asked 452 participants in an online survey to describe a recent purchase. They were asked to write about something they had spent money on in the last three months (ranging from about $60 to $1,200), excluding everyday expenses such as bills and groceries. After describing it, people were asked to indicate the extent to which the purchase helped to fulfill different goals. They also noted how much they felt the purchase contributed to their happiness and life satisfaction.

According to self-determination theory , goals reflect our intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Extrinsic goals are things that other people expect for us: for example, working hard at a job not because you’re passionate about the work, but because you need the money or want a high-status job to impress others. Intrinsic goals, on the other hand, are ones that we have a strong internal motivation to pursue. In the survey, extrinsic goals included gaining wealth or social status, whereas intrinsic ones included cultivating relationships, helping other people, and contributing to growth, learning, and development.

The researchers found that, the more a purchase reflected people’s intrinsic goals, the more they thought it improved their well-being. In other words, the greatest well-being occurred when people spent money on something that was personally important to them.

To compare this finding with past research, the current study also asked participants to indicate to what extent their purchase was an experience or a material item. As in past research, participants did report higher well-being from experiences. However, when the researchers looked at both factors together, they found that how much a purchase reflected intrinsic goals explained more of the differences in well-being than whether something was material or experiential.

So, what does this research mean for our spending habits? Olaya Moldes Andrés, lecturer at Cardiff University and the study’s author, points out that we’re under a lot of pressure to spend money these days; just think about the number of targeted ads you see each time you open social media. However, this pressure to spend has a downside: In past research , Moldes Andrés has found that people who are exposed to more materialistic messages have lower well-being.

Before purchasing something, she recommends pausing to think about the reason for our purchase, and what use we will get out of it. If we’re spending money on trying to impress people or project a certain image (in other words, extrinsic goals), the purchase may not actually be worth it.

So, next time you’re planning to buy something, take a moment to think about whether it’s something you’re buying because you feel it’s what’s expected of you—or whether it’s truly something that you want.

About the Author

Elizabeth Hopper

Elizabeth Hopper, Ph.D. , received her Ph.D. in psychology from UC Santa Barbara and currently works as a freelance science writer specializing in psychology and mental health.

You May Also Enjoy

How Does Valuing Money Affect Your Happiness?

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

Can Money Really Buy Happiness?

Money and happiness are related—but not in the way you think..

Updated November 10, 2023 | Reviewed by Chloe Williams

More money is linked to increased happiness, some research shows.
People who won the lottery have greater life satisfaction, even years later.
Wealth is not associated with happiness globally; non-material things are more likely to predict wellbeing.
Money, in and of itself, cannot buy happiness, but it can provide a means to the things we value in life.

Money is a big part of our lives, our identities, and perhaps our well-being. Sometimes, it can feel like your happiness hinges on how much cash is in your bank account. Have you ever thought to yourself, “If only I could increase my salary by 12 percent, I’d feel better”? How about, “I wish I had an inheritance. How easier life would be!” I don’t blame you — I’ve had the same thoughts many times.

But what does psychological research say about the age-old question: Can money really buy happiness? Let’s take a brutally honest exploration of how money and happiness are (and aren’t) related. (Spoiler alert: I’ve got bad news, good news, and lots of caveats.)

Higher earners are generally happier

Over 10 years ago, a study based on Gallup Poll data on 1,000 people made a big headline in the news. It found that people with higher incomes report being happier... but only up to an annual income of $75,000 (equivalent to about $90,000 today). After this point, a high emotional well-being wasn’t directly correlated to more money. This seemed to show that once a persons’ basic (and some “advanced”) needs are comfortably met, more money isn’t necessary for well-being.

But a new 2021 study of over one million participants found that there’s no such thing as an inflection point where more money doesn’t equal more happiness, at least not up to an annual salary of $500,000. In this study, participants’ well-being was measured in more detail. Instead of being asked to remember how well they felt in the past week, month, or year, they were asked how they felt right now in the moment. And based on this real-time assessment, very high earners were feeling great.

Similarly, a Swedish study on lottery winners found that even after years, people who won the lottery had greater life satisfaction, mental health, and were more prepared to face misfortune like divorce , illness, and being alone than regular folks who didn’t win the lottery. It’s almost as if having a pile of money made those things less difficult to cope with for the winners.

Evaluative vs. experienced well-being

At this point, it's important to suss out what researchers actually mean by "happiness." There are two major types of well-being psychologists measure: evaluative and experienced. Evaluative well-being refers to your answer to, “How do you think your life is going?” It’s what you think about your life. Experienced well-being, however, is your answer to, “What emotions are you feeling from day to day, and in what proportions?” It is your actual experience of positive and negative emotions.

In both of these studies — the one that found the happiness curve to flatten after $75,000 and the one that didn't — the researchers were focusing on experienced well-being. That means there's a disagreement in the research about whether day-to-day experiences of positive emotions really increase with higher and higher incomes, without limit. Which study is more accurate? Well, the 2021 study surveyed many more people, so it has the advantage of being more representative. However, there is a big caveat...

Material wealth is not associated with happiness everywhere in the world

If you’re not a very high earner, you may be feeling a bit irritated right now. How unfair that the rest of us can’t even comfort ourselves with the idea that millionaires must be sad in their giant mansions!

But not so fast.

Yes, in the large million-person study, experienced well-being (aka, happiness) did continually increase with higher income. But this study only included people in the United States. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that our culture is quite materialistic, more so than other countries, and income level plays a huge role in our lifestyle.

Another study of Mayan people in a poor, rural region of Yucatan, Mexico, did not find the level of wealth to be related to happiness, which the participants had high levels of overall. Separately, a Gallup World Poll study of people from many countries and cultures also found that, although higher income was associated with higher life evaluation, it was non-material things that predicted experienced well-being (e.g., learning, autonomy, respect, social support).

Earned wealth generates more happiness than inherited wealth

More good news: For those of us with really big dreams of “making it” and striking it rich through talent and hard work, know that the actual process of reaching your dream will not only bring you cash but also happiness. A study of ultra-rich millionaires (net worth of at least $8,000,000) found that those who earned their wealth through work and effort got more of a happiness boost from their money than those who inherited it. So keep dreaming big and reaching for your entrepreneurial goals … as long as you’re not sacrificing your actual well-being in the pursuit.

There are different types of happiness, and wealth is better for some than others

We’ve been talking about “happiness” as if it’s one big thing. But happiness actually has many different components and flavors. Think about all the positive emotions you’ve felt — can we break them down into more specifics? How about:

Contentment
Gratefulness

...and that's just a short list.

It turns out that wealth may be associated with some of these categories of “happiness,” specifically self-focused positive emotions such as pride and contentment, whereas less wealthy people have more other-focused positive emotions like love and compassion.

In fact, in the Swedish lottery winners study, people’s feelings about their social well-being (with friends, family, neighbors, and society) were no different between lottery winners and regular people.

Money is a means to the things we value, not happiness itself

One major difference between lottery winners and non-winners, it turns out, is that lottery winners have more spare time. This is the thing that really makes me envious , and I would hypothesize that this is the main reason why lottery winners are more satisfied with their life.

Consider this simply: If we had the financial security to spend time on things we enjoy and value, instead of feeling pressured to generate income all the time, why wouldn’t we be happier?

This is good news. It’s a reminder that money, in and of itself, cannot literally buy happiness. It can buy time and peace of mind. It can buy security and aesthetic experiences, and the ability to be generous to your family and friends. It makes room for other things that are important in life.

In fact, the researchers in that lottery winner study used statistical approaches to benchmark how much happiness winning $100,000 brings in the short-term (less than one year) and long-term (more than five years) compared to other major life events. For better or worse, getting married and having a baby each give a bigger short-term happiness boost than winning money, but in the long run, all three of these events have the same impact.

What does this mean? We make of our wealth and our life what we will. This is especially true for the vast majority of the world made up of people struggling to meet basic needs and to rise out of insecurity. We’ve learned that being rich can boost your life satisfaction and make it easier to have positive emotions, so it’s certainly worth your effort to set goals, work hard, and move towards financial health.

But getting rich is not the only way to be happy. You can still earn health, compassion, community, love, pride, connectedness, and so much more, even if you don’t have a lot of zeros in your bank account. After all, the original definition of “wealth” referred to a person’s holistic wellness in life, which means we all have the potential to be wealthy... in body, mind, and soul.

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A.. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. . Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2010.

Killingsworth, M. A. . Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year .. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021.

Lindqvist, E., Östling, R., & Cesarini, D. . Long-run effects of lottery wealth on psychological well-being. . The Review of Economic Studies. 2020.

Guardiola, J., González‐Gómez, F., García‐Rubio, M. A., & Lendechy‐Grajales, Á.. Does higher income equal higher levels of happiness in every society? The case of the Mayan people. . International Journal of Social Welfare. 2013.

Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & Arora, R. . Wealth and happiness across the world: material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. . Journal of personality and social psychology. 2010.

Donnelly, G. E., Zheng, T., Haisley, E., & Norton, M. I.. The amount and source of millionaires’ wealth (moderately) predict their happiness . . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2018.

Piff, P. K., & Moskowitz, J. P. . Wealth, poverty, and happiness: Social class is differentially associated with positive emotions.. Emotion. 2018.

Jade Wu, Ph.D., is a clinical health psychologist and host of the Savvy Psychologist podcast. She specializes in helping those with sleep problems and anxiety disorders.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Support Group
International
New Zealand
South Africa
Switzerland
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Can Money Buy You Happiness? Essay

I believe that money can buy a person happiness due to several reasons related to the costs of comfortable and healthy living. These costs include housing, medicine, and meaningful experience, which improve the quality of life. Despite the fact that luxury is often seen as an attractive point in favor of happiness via increased budget or spending, it is not necessary for well-being. Some researchers propose that happiness is dependent on the living standards and the perception of living circumstances, this is a theory of comparison (Muresan et al.). On the other hand, it is also possible to perceive happiness as the satisfaction of personal needs (Muresan et al.). Nevertheless, multiple factors are crucial to form a happy life which need to be reviewed in detail.

First of all, given that happiness is related to the satisfaction of personal needs, there is also a need to consider the essential need of human life such as housing, medicine, and food. These expenditures are continuous throughout human life. In order to be healthy, one needs medication and medical expertise to ensure long life without illnesses. Electricity and water bills need to be paid to ensure comfortable life at home, which includes cleanness, cooking, and entertainment in the form of TV programs or the Internet. Moreover, technological development led to the digitalization of numerous jobs and created the opportunity to interact with anyone despite the distance. This is essential because, without a job, there’s no source of income to pay the described bills, and connection with family and friends is known to improve life satisfaction and address humans’ social needs.

Other personal needs are often related to the purchase of things and meaningful or memorable experiences. It is well-known that a good experience may improve a person’s mood, resulting in satisfaction with life (Mogilner et al.). These experiences vary due to human individuality but are often connected to romance, socialization, personal development. Romance refers to the maintenance of a romantic relationship with a loved person. This indirectly incurs additional costs such as future marriage organization, dates, and small gifts, which contribute to the improvement of the mood. It is widely accepted that personal development leads to satisfaction with one-self. Personal development is related to the acquisition of new skills and broadening of one’s horizon or accumulation of knowledge. The services of trainers and teachers coupled with the purchase of books are not free and considered as spending outside of basic living needs. Furthermore, buying time or expenditures to free oneself from daily chores or unmeaningful but necessary tasks contribute to personal well-being (Mogilner et al.). Numerous researchers found that money spent on buying time alleviates time stress, and people who utilize these services feel happier (Mogilner et al.).

Living standards vary from country to country due to the differences in economic conditions. Consequently, higher living standards refer to higher costs for basic needs. The theory of comparison suggests that an increase in a personal income would not lead to a significant increase in happiness, given that the income of others would similarly increase. Nevertheless, studies identified that a certain threshold exists after which the effect of income on happiness is significantly reduced. For example, in the US, it is equal to 75 000$ (Mogilner et al.), while in Europe, it is close to 35 000$ (Muresan et al.). This demonstrates that an excessive increase in income is not necessary for well-being. Simultaneously, it points to the fact that below this threshold, people are not as satisfied with life and happy as they could have been.

In conclusion, money can buy happiness but only if spent correctly. The correct spending of money involves improvement and maintenance of life via memorable experiences, meaningful things, and satisfaction of basic needs. Moreover, it is not necessary to have an excessive amount of money certain threshold exists, which demonstrates that money cannot amount to complete happiness but attributes to its significant portion.

Works Cited

Mogilner, C., Whillans, A., & Norton, M. I. “Time, money, and subjective well-being.” Handbook of well-being. Edited by E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay, DEF Publishers, 2018.

Muresan, Gabriela Mihaela, et al. “Can Money Buy Happiness? Evidence for European Countries.” Applied Research in Quality of Life , vol. 15, no. 4, 2019, pp. 953–970. Web.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 29). Can Money Buy You Happiness? https://ivypanda.com/essays/can-money-buy-you-happiness/

"Can Money Buy You Happiness?" IvyPanda , 29 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/can-money-buy-you-happiness/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Can Money Buy You Happiness'. 29 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Can Money Buy You Happiness?" October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/can-money-buy-you-happiness/.

1. IvyPanda . "Can Money Buy You Happiness?" October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/can-money-buy-you-happiness/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Can Money Buy You Happiness?" October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/can-money-buy-you-happiness/.

Earnings Management and the Threshold Model
Dealing With Romance in the Office
Memorable Moments Company’s Branding & Marketing Plan
Love, in the Form of Romance, Can Never Give Us What We Want
The Absolute Threshold of Seeing, and Its Physiological Basis
Romance Languages, Their Origin and Development
Exercise Physiology: Anaerobic Threshold
A Community Yard Sale as a Memorable Event
Memorable Moments Company's Marketing Communication Plan
"Romance Tourism in Jamaica" by Pruitt and LaFont
Why We Should Encourage People to Use and Value Traditional Lifestyles
Lifestyle Action Plan and Self-Discipline
The Prospects of an Overseas Assignment
The Importance of Finding Oneself to Be Happy
Relations Between Oral Histories and Lifestyles in Canada

Essay on Money Can Buy Happiness

Students are often asked to write an essay on Money Can Buy Happiness in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Money Can Buy Happiness

What money can buy.

Money is important because it can help us get things that make us happy. Imagine having enough money to buy your favorite toys, games, or books. It feels good, right? When you can buy what you want, you feel happy.

Experiences Over Things

Money can also let us have fun experiences. Think about going to a theme park or seeing a movie. These are special times that can make us smile and feel joyful. Having money to do these things can lead to happiness.

Helping Others

When we have money, we can help other people too. Giving money to those in need or buying gifts for friends and family can make us feel really good inside. Sharing can bring happiness to us and to others.

250 Words Essay on Money Can Buy Happiness

Money and happiness.

Many people think that money is a key to happiness. This idea might seem true because with money, we can buy things that make us happy. For example, if you love video games, having money means you can buy the latest games. This can make you feel happy because you are enjoying something you love.

Basic Needs

Money is important for happiness because it helps us buy basic things like food, a home, and clothes. Without these, life can be hard and stressful. When we have enough money to take care of these needs, we worry less. Less worry means more room for happiness.

Good Experiences

With money, we can also have good experiences like going on a trip or watching a movie. These fun activities often cost money, and they can create happy memories. When we look back at these times, we feel joy again.

Another way money can bring happiness is by giving us the chance to help others. Buying a gift for a friend or helping people who are less fortunate can make us feel good inside. This feeling of making someone else happy can increase our own happiness.

In conclusion, money can buy happiness in many ways. It lets us live comfortably, enjoy our hobbies, have fun experiences, and help others. While money isn’t everything, it does play a part in creating happiness. It is important to remember that being rich doesn’t mean you will be happy all the time, but it can help in finding some happiness in life.

500 Words Essay on Money Can Buy Happiness

Introduction to money and happiness.

Many people say that happiness cannot be bought with money. But if we think about it, money can actually help us feel happy in many ways. This essay will talk about how money can lead to happiness.

Buying What We Need

First, money helps us buy things we need, like food, a home, and clothes. When we have these things, we don’t have to worry about not having a place to live or being hungry. This makes us feel safe and comfortable, which is a big part of feeling happy.

Good Health and Money

Money can also help us stay healthy. We can pay for doctor visits, medicine, and healthy food. Being healthy makes us feel good and lets us do fun things, like playing sports or going for a walk. So, when we use money to take care of our health, we are using it to buy happiness.

Learning and Experiences

With money, we can also learn new things. We can buy books, go to school, or take classes in things like painting or dancing. Learning makes our brains feel good, and it can make us happy to know more about the world. We can also use money to have experiences, like going on a trip or to a concert. These fun times give us happy memories that can last forever.

One of the best ways money can buy happiness is by helping others. When we give money to people who need it, like in charities, it makes us feel good inside. It’s like when you share your lunch with a friend who forgot theirs. That feeling you get when your friend smiles and says thank you is a kind of happiness that money helped create.

Having Enough, Not Too Much

It’s important to know that having too much money doesn’t mean more happiness. Sometimes, people with a lot of money worry about it too much or don’t know what to do with it. Being happy with money means having enough to do what we talked about – buying what we need, staying healthy, learning, having fun, and helping others.

In the end, money can help us feel happy in many ways. It buys things we need, keeps us healthy, lets us learn and have fun, and helps us make others happy. But remember, it’s not just having money that makes us happy, it’s what we do with it that really matters. So, even though money can buy happiness, it’s up to us to use it in ways that truly make us and those around us happy.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Money And Trees
Essay on Money And Politics
Essay on Mona Lisa

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay, With Outline

Published by Boni on February 21, 2022 February 21, 2022

Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay Outline

Can money buy happiness? A question we ask ourselves everyday but when it comes to writing essays on the subject, the best solution is finding cheap research papers online where you can get a uniquely customized essay that will get you good grades.

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Introduction

Thesis: Money can buy happiness as it reduces stress, enables control, and enables spending on others.

Paragraph 1:

Money can help one reduce or relieve intense stress.

People with higher incomes experience less negative intensity from distressing events.
The higher the income, the lower the intensity of stress one may undergo regardless of the circumstances.
With reduced stress, one is likely to experience happiness as they do not have to develop negative thoughts.

Perhaps you maybe interested on learning how to write descriptive essays about the beach .

Paragraph 2:

Money enables one to exercise greater control over their life.

One can largely determine the direction their life takes by spending large amounts of money.
They can access more leisure time, fulfilling work, better nutrition and healthcare, and homes in friendly and safer neighborhoods.
Satisfaction of human wants forms part of what one needs in order to be happy.

Paragraph 3:

Money makes it possible for a person to attain happiness by spending on other people.

People experience high happiness levels by donating their annual bonus to charitable organizations or spending it on other people.
Giving to others, or lending a helping hand, makes human beings develop a good feeling about themselves.
People have to have enough for themselves first before they can consider giving.

Paragraph 4:

Some people may argue that people need family and friends more than they need money for happiness.

This may be true to some extent as people often turn to family and friends for various kinds of help.
However, without good income, one cannot offer meaningful help to another person.
One can also be happy even without depending so much on their family and friends if they have good income.

Read an essay on The Divine Comedy by Dante Aligheri that tells a fictional story that takes the audience through the nine levels of hell.

Money can buy happiness because with it, one experiences less stress, exercises control over their life, and can easily spend on other people.
Less stress attracts more happiness while control over one’s life gives them immense satisfaction.
Being able to help other people in terms of money makes one feel good about oneself.
Therefore, it is not true that money cannot buy happiness.

Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay

It is often said that “ money cannot buy happiness .”This phrase has even become some wisdom of sorts, one that makes people regulate their “appetite” for money. The irony however is that almost all human needs, both primary and secondary, have some form of attachment to money. Plainly put, it is money that enables an individual to cater for most, if not all, of what they need in their daily life. This yields the question of whether it is true that one cannot buy happiness using money. While some people will align themselves with the argument that happiness depends not on money, others will argue that money attracts satisfaction and thus brings happiness. Irrespective of the argument one may front, money can indeed buy happiness as it reduces stress, enables control, and enables spending on others.

Money can help one reduce or relieve intense stress. In a study investigating the relationship between stress and income, it was found out that regardless of their income, the participants experienced distressing circumstances and/or events almost in a similar manner (Blanding, 2022). The number of frustrations they underwent on a daily basis was similar. However, “those with higher incomes experienced less negative intensity from those events” (Blanding, 2022). The implication here is that the higher the income, the lower the intensity of stress one may undergo regardless of the circumstances. With reduced stress, one is likely to experience happiness as they do not have to develop negative thoughts which might plunge them into depression. It follows that with more money, it is possible that one may actually avoid being unhappy. They may spend their money in dealing with whatever stressing situation they may be experiencing and hence reduce the negative impact of the situation.

In close connection with the foregoing is that money enables one to exercise greater control over their life. One can actually largely determine the direction their life takes by spending large amounts of money. They can access more leisure time, fulfilling work, better nutrition and healthcare, and homes in neighborhoods that are friendly and safer (Gervais, 2015). As noted by Brooks (2022), satisfaction of human wants forms part of what one needs in order for them to lead a happy and fulfilling life. Therefore, when one can afford virtually everything they need for a comfortable life, there is no reason why they should be unhappy. They know they have control of what they will eat in their next meal. In the same breadth, they know they can determine the outcomes of happenings in their life. They are in full control of their life and are therefore very happy.

Money also makes it possible for a person to attain happiness by spending on other people. A research study revealed that participants recorded higher happiness levels upon donating their annual bonus to charitable organizations or spending it on other people than using it on themselves (Gervais, 2015). This was the outcome irrespective of the bonus amount. One explanation to this finding was that giving to other people, or lending a helping hand, makes human beings develop a good feeling about themselves (Clements, 2018). However, it is common knowledge that one cannot give if they do not have. In most cases, they have to have enough for themselves first before they can consider giving. The implication here is that in order to enjoy the happiness that comes with giving, one has to have a higher income or a substantial amount of money. It is a clear case of how one can buy happiness using money.

Some people may front the argument that people need family and friends more than they need money for happiness. To some extent, this may be true as people often turn to family and friends for various kinds of help (Blanding, 2022). It is however also true that in the world of today, one can only offer meaningful help to a friend or family member in need of help mostly if they have good income. On the same note, one may not easily ask for help if they are in a position to afford most of the things they need. This means they can be happy even without depending so much on their family and friends. This argument is in line with the finding that the higher the household income, the higher the happiness and life satisfaction one enjoys, even for those earning more than $75,000 (Hazell & Plant, 2021). People with such income are less likely to find themselves in compelling situations that require calling for help from outside.

Money can buy happiness because with it, one experiences less stress, exercises control over their life, and can easily spend on other people. Less stress attracts more happiness as it ensures that one can avoid being sad because of distressing situations. Control over one’s life gives them immense satisfaction as they can determine the quality of their life. Being able to help other people in terms of money makes one feel good about oneself. Those with high incomes do not even need family and friends that much because they can respond to almost all that they need in good time. Therefore, it is not true that money cannot buy happiness, and people should strive to find better income generating activities so they may enjoy the happiness that accompanies being in possession of large amounts of money.

Blanding, M. (2022). “More proof that money can buy happiness (or a life with less stress)”. Harvard Business School . Retrieved February 20, 2022 from https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/more-proof-that-money-can-buy-happiness

Brooks, A. C. (2022). From strength to strength: finding success, happiness, and deep purpose in the second half of life . East Rutherford, NJ: Penguin Publishing Group.

Clements, J. (2018). From here to financial happiness: enrich your life in just 77 days . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Gervais, S. (2015). “Three psychological principles to consider before you make your next purchase”. College of Arts and Sciences . Retrieved February 20, 2022 from https://psychology.unl.edu/can-money-buy-happiness

Hazell, J., & Plant, M. (2021). “Can money buy happiness? A review of new data”. Giving What We Can . Retrieved February 20, 2022 from https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2021/06/can-money-buy-happiness-a-review-of-new-data/

More examples of argumentative essays written by our team of top-notch writers

Same sex marriage argumentative essay
American patriotism Argumentative Essay
Argumentative essay on marijuana legalization
Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
Euthanasia argumentative essay sample
Argumentative essay on abortion – sample essay
Gun control argumentative essay – sample essay
Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

Do you know that you can buy argumentative essay online from Gudwriter and get a quality paper crafted from scratch by our team of experts? Try us now an improve your grades. We are available 24/7.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

IMAGES

Does Money Bring True Happiness? Free Essay Example
≫ Can Money Truly Buy Happiness Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
Can money buy happiness essay in english || short and easy essay on
Write a short essay on Money can't buy Happiness
Money as the Key to Happiness Essay Example
Essay about Can Money Buy Happiness?

COMMENTS

Can Money Really Buy Happiness?
This is good news. It's a reminder that money, in and of itself, cannot literally buy happiness. It can buy time and peace of mind. It can buy security and aesthetic experiences, and the ability ...
Happiness Economics: Can Money Buy Happiness?
Including happiness in economics has opened up an entirely new avenue of research to explore the relationship between happiness and money. Andrew Clark (2018) illustrates the variability in the term happiness economics with the following examples: Happiness can be a predictor variable, influencing our decisions and behaviors.
Does More Money Really Make Us More Happy?
ProStock-Studio/Getty Images. Summary. Although some studies show that wealthier people tend to be happier, prioritizing money over time can actually have the opposite effect. But even having just ...
Does Money Buy Happiness? Here's What the Research Says
However, he adds that for emotional well-being money isn't the be all end all. "Money is just one of the many determinants of happiness," he says. "Money is not the secret to happiness ...
One More Time, Does Money Buy Happiness?
Abstract. This paper integrates multiple positions on the relationship between money and well-being, commonly referred to as happiness. An aggregation of prior work appears to suggest that money does buy happiness, but not directly. Although many personal and situational characteristics do influence the relationship between money and happiness ...
More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)
The idea that money can reduce stress in everyday life and make people happier impacts not only the poor, but also more affluent Americans living at the edge of their means in a bumpy economy. Indeed, in 2019, one in every four Americans faced financial scarcity, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Research: Can Money Buy Happiness?
According to Dunn and Norton, recent research on happiness suggests that the most satisfying way of using money is to invest in others. This can take a seemingly limitless variety of forms, from donating to a charity that helps strangers in a faraway country to buying lunch for a friend. Witness Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, two of the ...
Can money buy happiness? Scientists say it can.
There is no $75,000 income happiness threshold, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Matthew Killingsworth say. For most in the U.S. earning up to $500,000, more money can bring greater satisfaction.
PDF Can Money Buy HAPPINESS? People around the world share their E ...
Doctor, Bogotá, Colombia. "Yes, money can buy happiness. There's a feeling in this country that if you have problems and at the same time you have some resources, it helps. Most of the problems of this country and the world are solved with money. If I had money to spare, I would buy a house facing the sea.".
Opinion
Our all-American belief that money really does buy happiness is roughly correct for about 85 percent of us. ... published a highly influential essay that found that, on average, higher-income ...
Money Does Not Always Buy Happiness, but Are Richer People Less Happy
Empirical Evidence on Income and Happiness. The standard finding in existing literature is that higher income predicts greater happiness, but with a declining marginal utility (Dolan et al., 2008; Layard et al., 2008): that is, higher income is most closely associated with happiness among those with the least income and is least closely associated with happiness for those with the most income.
Can Money Buy Happiness?
Psychological research offers some useful insights about the connections between money and happiness to consider before you make your next purchase. Being Rich Isn't Necessarily the Path to Happiness. Money is important to happiness. Ask anyone who doesn't have it. Having a higher income, for example, can give us access to homes in safer ...
Can Money Buy Happiness? It Depends on Why You're…
According to past research, we'll be happier if we spend money on an experience than if we buy a material object—like traveling or going out for a meal instead of buying the latest product we see on social media.For example, people report more gratitude when they spend on experiences rather than possessions.. On the other hand, we can all probably think of times when we've spent money on ...
Can Money Really Buy Happiness?
From a global perspective, non-material things tend to predict wellbeing. Money, in and of itself, cannot buy happiness, but it can provide a means to the things we value in life, such as free ...
Does Money Buy Happiness?
Essay. Whether or not money can buy happiness is a continued debate. Billions of people in all parts of the world sacrifice their ambitions and subconscious tensions on the altar of profitability and higher incomes. Millions of people dream to achieve the level of wellbeing, when earning money will no longer be a problem to them.
Can Money Buy You Happiness?
Essay. I believe that money can buy a person happiness due to several reasons related to the costs of comfortable and healthy living. These costs include housing, medicine, and meaningful experience, which improve the quality of life. Despite the fact that luxury is often seen as an attractive point in favor of happiness via increased budget or ...
Money and Happiness: Can Money Buy Happiness
The New York Times and The Times of London, refute the long standing claim, commonly attributed to Richard Easterlin, that money does not 'buy' happiness supported with his reasons. The idea, that the more money does not means happiness, comes, from temporariness of material values. People' level of happiness only increase as income ...
Can Money Buy You Happiness? Yes, It Can. However…
published 17 March 2024. The age-old question of whether money can buy happiness has perplexed philosophers and economists for centuries. While conventional wisdom states that money, beyond basic ...
Essay on Can Money Buy Happiness
Conclusion. In conclusion, money can buy temporary happiness by providing comfort, security, and experiences. However, it falls short in procuring lasting happiness that is often found in intangible aspects of life. Thus, the pursuit of wealth should be balanced with the pursuit of intangible aspects to achieve holistic happiness.
Essay on Money Can Buy Happiness
Conclusion. In conclusion, money can buy happiness in many ways. It lets us live comfortably, enjoy our hobbies, have fun experiences, and help others. While money isn't everything, it does play a part in creating happiness. It is important to remember that being rich doesn't mean you will be happy all the time, but it can help in finding ...
Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
Conclusion. Money can buy happiness because with it, one experiences less stress, exercises control over their life, and can easily spend on other people. Less stress attracts more happiness while control over one's life gives them immense satisfaction. Being able to help other people in terms of money makes one feel good about oneself.