SpringerLink
Log in

Some Individual Differences Influencing the Propensity to Happiness: Insights from Behavioral Economics

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study investigated the differences between individuals with high and low level of happiness in regulatory focus, reference point setting and editing rules conformity. Participants (N = 570) responded to the general well-being (GWB) schedule. Those with GWB scores ±1 Z score from the sample mean (N = 182) were recalled to respond to the regular focus scale and self-frame questionnaire, and complete the editing rules test. The results suggested that compared to the individuals with low happiness, individuals with high happiness tend to be promotion focus rather than prevention focus, prefer to regard the current state as reference point, and more comply with editing rules that can produce the maximum psychological value. The current result further illustrated the subjectivity of happiness and suggested some practical ways to achieving more happiness.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ariely, D., Huber, J., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). When do losses loom larger than gains? Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 134–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1907). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (Ed.). (2009). Subjective well-being. In The science of well-being (pp. 11–58). Netherlands: Springer.

  • Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, A. F. (1977). A concurrent validational study of the NCHS general well-being schedule. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Resources Administration, National Center for Health Statistics.

  • Fulmer, C. A., Gelfand, M. J., Kruglanski, A. W., Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Pierro, A., et al. (2010). On “Feeling Right” in cultural contexts how person-culture match affects self-esteem and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1563–1569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geers, A. L., Helfer, S. G., Kosbab, K., Weiland, P. E., & Landry, S. J. (2005). Reconsidering the role of personality in placebo effects: Dispositional optimism, situational expectations, and the placebo response. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58(2), 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 515–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., Hastie, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Hedonomics: Bridging decision research with happiness research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 224–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, F., Zhao, J., & You, X. (2013). Self-esteem as mediator and moderator of the relationship between social support and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Social Indicators Research, 112, 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, T., Seta, J. J., & Waring, D. A. (2007). Reflections of the self: How self-esteem determines decision framing and increases risk taking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(3), 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, J., Miao, D., & **ao, W. (2013a). Why are gainers more risk seeking. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(2), 150–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, J., **ao, W., Yang, Y., Wu, S., & Miao, D. (2013b). The impact of trait anxiety on self-frame and decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. doi:10.1002/bdm.1783.

  • Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2003). Predictive validity of explicit and implicit self-esteem for subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 100–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. E., Poston, W. C., I. I., Haddock, C. K., Blackburn, G. L., Heber, D., Heymsfield, S. B., et al. (2003). Psychometric characteristics of the general well-being schedule (GWB) with African–American women. Quality of Life Research, 12(1), 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Choice, R. (1981). The framing of decisions. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uskul, A. K., Sherman, D. K., & Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain-vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 535–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. T. (2004). Self-framing of risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, L. (1966). Motivation as a determinant of upward comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 27–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F., Stone, E. R. (1992). The risk construct. In J. Yates (Ed.), Risk taking behavior (pp. 1–25). New York: Wiley.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Social Science foundation of the People’s Republic of China (13XRK004), Natural Science Grant of Shann’xi Province (2012K18-03-06), and Social Science fund of China (13BGL074).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Management, Northwest University, Xuefu Road No. 1, **’an, 710127, Shanxi, China

    Fei He & Rong Cao

  2. Department of Burns and Cutaneous Surgery, ****g Hospital, Forth Military Medical University, **’an, China

    Hao Guan

  3. Students’ Affairs Office, Bei**g Normal University, Bei**g, China

    Yi Kong

  4. Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Chang Le Western Street No. 169, **’an, 710032, Shanxi, China

    Jiaxi Peng

Authors
  1. Fei He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hao Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yi Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rong Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jiaxi Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fei He or Jiaxi Peng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

He, F., Guan, H., Kong, Y. et al. Some Individual Differences Influencing the Propensity to Happiness: Insights from Behavioral Economics. Soc Indic Res 119, 897–908 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0519-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0519-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation