4.7 Article

Income Inequality and Happiness: An Inverted U-Shaped Curve

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02052

关键词

income inequality; Gini coefficient; happiness; curvilinear model; inflection point

资金

  1. Social Science Fund of Jiangxi Province [17JY08]
  2. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province [2015KY59]
  3. Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [13YJC790189]
  4. Education Department of Jiangxi Province [XL1408]
  5. National Social Science Foundation of China [14BSH071]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous studies agree that income inequality, rather than absolute income, is an important predictor of happiness. However, its specific role has been controversial. We argue that income inequality and happiness should exhibit an inverted U-shaped relationship due to the dynamic competing process between two effects: when income inequality is relatively low, the signal effect will be the dominating factor, in which individuals feel happy because they consider income inequality as a signal of social mobility and expect upward mobility; however, if income inequality level increases beyond a critical point, the jealousy effect will become the dominating factor, in which individuals tend to be unhappy because they are disillusioned about the prospect of upward mobility and jealous of their wealthier peers. This hypothesis is tested in a longitudinal dataset on the United States and a cross-national dataset on several European countries. In both datasets, the Gini coefficient (a common index of a society's income inequality) and its quadratic term were significant predictors of personal happiness. Further examinations of the quadratic relationships showed that the signal effect was only presented in the European data, while the jealousy effect was presented in both datasets. These findings shed new light on our understanding of the relationship between income inequality and personal happiness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据