choices and registers all relevant feelings and experiences” (Kahneman/Krueger
2006: 4). Their empirical findings support the amended production model (Fig. 3.2)
and the Max-Neef matrix (Table 3.2) in many ways. Most important for subjective
well-being are the quality of social relationships, the relative notion of income or
wealth and how sociocultural environments impact on people’s aspirations and
values.
So while these researchers also seek to understand how to maximize happiness
or utility, they make the effort of actually asking people what makes them feel good.
They investigate its sources empirically rather than simply saying that it will come
and grow with consumption. Also, Diener and Helliwell point out that many things,
like love, social relationships, environmental pollution, fair and effective governance and virtue and spirituality all play important roles in people’s experienced
well-being, but are difficult if not impossible to measure through willingness-to-pay
estimates (Diener et al. 2009: 37). They also observe that quite often, individual
predictions of what will make for happiness go wrong.
So while most metrics and success benchmarks for progress and development
involve constantly upping per capita income, when asked, people tend to claim that
health, recognition and a meaningful engagement lie at the center of what makes
their lives satisfying. Chronic pain and unemployment are amongst the worst things
that can happen, in particular in societies where those not finding a job are viewed
as lazy benefit-seekers or live with no social support and much reduced social
contact.
The influence of social norms on what we believe—or at least say we believe—
creates well-being has also been well documented. When comparing ratings on
work and childcare in surveys in which the respondents talked to a real person with
those where they anonymously press buttons on an app, the former type of survey
reveals higher rankings for childcare. According to Kahneman and Krueger they are
“likely to be reminded that both work and childcare are desirable aspects of their
life. Reports of how much they enjoy these activities will tend to be anchored in that
general assessment, resulting in a favorable bias. Respondents may also feel some
social pressure to tell interviewers that these domains of life are enjoyable”
(Kahneman/Krueger 2006: 13).
App technology, however, has now made it easy for people to report their
feelings during the day, while engaged in different activities. Grouped into three
positive categories (happy, warm, enjoying myself) and six negative ones (frustrated, depressed, hassled, angry, worried or criticized) individuals can select their
current state from zero (not at all) to six (very much). In this way answers are much
more immediate, and do not allow for time to reflect on the wider social context.
The results, say Kahneman and Krueger, indicate that net affect, also called
“mood score,” from these ratings “is highest, on average, when individuals are
engaged in leisure activities (such as socializing after work) and lowest when they
are engaged in market work and investment or personal maintenance activities
(such as house cleaning)” (Kahneman/Krueger 2006: 12). The morning commute is
viewed as particularly negative—unless it is undertaken in the company of others,
which again hints at the importance of social contact.
3.1 How Mainstream Economics Views Human Needs and Their Satisfaction
69
2006: 4). Their empirical findings support the amended production model (Fig. 3.2)
and the Max-Neef matrix (Table 3.2) in many ways. Most important for subjective
well-being are the quality of social relationships, the relative notion of income or
wealth and how sociocultural environments impact on people’s aspirations and
values.
So while these researchers also seek to understand how to maximize happiness
or utility, they make the effort of actually asking people what makes them feel good.
They investigate its sources empirically rather than simply saying that it will come
and grow with consumption. Also, Diener and Helliwell point out that many things,
like love, social relationships, environmental pollution, fair and effective governance and virtue and spirituality all play important roles in people’s experienced
well-being, but are difficult if not impossible to measure through willingness-to-pay
estimates (Diener et al. 2009: 37). They also observe that quite often, individual
predictions of what will make for happiness go wrong.
So while most metrics and success benchmarks for progress and development
involve constantly upping per capita income, when asked, people tend to claim that
health, recognition and a meaningful engagement lie at the center of what makes
their lives satisfying. Chronic pain and unemployment are amongst the worst things
that can happen, in particular in societies where those not finding a job are viewed
as lazy benefit-seekers or live with no social support and much reduced social
contact.
The influence of social norms on what we believe—or at least say we believe—
creates well-being has also been well documented. When comparing ratings on
work and childcare in surveys in which the respondents talked to a real person with
those where they anonymously press buttons on an app, the former type of survey
reveals higher rankings for childcare. According to Kahneman and Krueger they are
“likely to be reminded that both work and childcare are desirable aspects of their
life. Reports of how much they enjoy these activities will tend to be anchored in that
general assessment, resulting in a favorable bias. Respondents may also feel some
social pressure to tell interviewers that these domains of life are enjoyable”
(Kahneman/Krueger 2006: 13).
App technology, however, has now made it easy for people to report their
feelings during the day, while engaged in different activities. Grouped into three
positive categories (happy, warm, enjoying myself) and six negative ones (frustrated, depressed, hassled, angry, worried or criticized) individuals can select their
current state from zero (not at all) to six (very much). In this way answers are much
more immediate, and do not allow for time to reflect on the wider social context.
The results, say Kahneman and Krueger, indicate that net affect, also called
“mood score,” from these ratings “is highest, on average, when individuals are
engaged in leisure activities (such as socializing after work) and lowest when they
are engaged in market work and investment or personal maintenance activities
(such as house cleaning)” (Kahneman/Krueger 2006: 12). The morning commute is
viewed as particularly negative—unless it is undertaken in the company of others,
which again hints at the importance of social contact.
3.1 How Mainstream Economics Views Human Needs and Their Satisfaction
69