nep-hap New Economics Papers
on Economics of Happiness
Issue of 2015‒12‒12
two papers chosen by
Viviana Di Giovinazzo
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca

  1. Poverty and Psychology By Olga V. Poluektova; Maria V. Efremova; Seger M. Breugelmans
  2. The Benefits, Challenges and Insights of a Dynamic Panel Assessment of Life Satisfaction By Alan Piper

  1. By: Olga V. Poluektova (National Research University Higher School of Economics); Maria V. Efremova (National Research University Higher School of Economics); Seger M. Breugelmans (Tilburg University)
    Abstract: This paper presents a study on the association between dimensions of poverty (income, subjective socioeconomic status, deprivation, and socioeconomic status in childhood) and individual psychological characteristics. In this study, our goal was to determine: 1) the differences in individual psychological characteristics between poor and non-poor people; 2) the effect of each dimension, or indicator, of poverty on individual psychological characteristics (self-esteem, life satisfaction, trust, self-efficacy, self-control, dispositional greed, and individual values); and 3) the relationship between each indicator of poverty and each individual psychological characteristic. We collected data from 157 poor (those whose incomes fall below the poverty threshold) and 140 non-poor (those whose incomes exceed the poverty threshold) participants from Moscow and the greater Moscow region by administering questionnaires containing measures of individual psychological characteristics and poverty. We analyzed the data using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), and part and partial correlation analysis. The results obtained revealed that poverty had significant multivariate effects on individual psychological characteristics (univariate effects were significant for self-esteem, life satisfaction, Self-Transcendence values, and trust); in addition, all indicators of poverty except income had significant multivariate effects on individual psychological characteristics. Furthermore, subjective socioeconomic status was positively associated with life satisfaction, self-esteem, self-transcendence values, and trust; deprivation was positively associated with greed and self-enhancement values, and negatively associated with life satisfaction and self-esteem; socioeconomic status in childhood was positively associated with greed, self-enhancement values, life satisfaction and self-efficacy.
    Keywords: poverty, subjective socioeconomic status, relative deprivation, socioeconomic status in childhood, individual psychological characteristics
    JEL: Z
    Date: 2015
  2. By: Alan Piper (University of Flensburg, International Institute of Management)
    Abstract: This study discusses and employs System Generalised Methods of Moments (GMM) dynamic panel analysis to investigate life satisfaction. There are many benefits that such an investigation provides, though commensurate challenges too. Previous attempts to employ dynamic models within life satisfaction research have, in the main and for different reasons, not been wholly successful. This article explains why, how such research can be improved and undertaken in the future, as well as offering insights into life satisfaction and its dynamics. A key insight is that much of the impact of any commonly measured variable on well-being is contemporaneous.
    Keywords: Life Satisfaction, Dynamic Panel Analysis, GMM, Happiness, Subjective Well-Being
    Date: 2015

This nep-hap issue is ©2015 by Viviana Di Giovinazzo. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.