Can money buy happiness or steal it?

Continuing with our topic of whether money can buy happiness, I was interested to read this article from Sonja Lyubomirsky’s blog: The How of Happiness: The scientific pursuit of happiness. 

Sonja argues that maybe it is not money per se which adds to or subtracts from our levels of happiness, but the increased aspirations which go hand in hand with wealth and which can lead to disappointment if they are left unfulfilled.  Please read the article and decide for yourself.  I would also recommend Sonja’s book The How of Happiness which looks at actions you can take to get the life you want.

 

 

 

Can Money Buy Happiness or Steal From It?

New research reveals that money can impair savoring ability.

Published on August 30, 2010 by Sonja Lyubomirsky, Ph.D. in How of Happiness

 

This is a piece I wrote for Scientific American‘s Mind Matters column:

 

Money can’t buy you love. Worshipping Mammon foments evil ways. Materialists are shallow and unhappy. The greenback finds itself in tough times these days. Whether it’s Wall Street Bankers earning lavish multi-million-dollar bonuses or  two-bit city managers in Los Angeles County bringing in higher salaries than President Obama, the recessionary economic climate has helped spur outrage and revulsion at those of us collecting undeserved lucre.

Wealthy people have a bad rep. Sure, there are philanthropists like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who have given billions of their net worth away and have made the world a better, healthier, safer place. But, sadly, they are an exception. American families who make over $300,000 a year donate to charity a mere 4 percent of their incomes. The statistic should not be surprising, as studies by University of Minnesota psychologist Kathleen Vohs and her collaborators have shown that merely glimpsing dollar bills makes people less generous and approachable, and more egocentric.

Now come a new set of studies that reveal yet another toll that money takes. An international team of researchers led by Jordi Quoidbach report in the August 2010 issue of Psychological Science that, although wealth may grant us opportunities to purchase many things, it simultaneously impairs our ability to enjoy those things.

Their first study, conducted with adult employees of the University of Liège in Belgium showed that the wealthier the workers were, the less likely they were to display a strong capacity to savor positive experiences in their lives. Furthermore, simply being reminded of money (by being exposed to a picture of a huge stack of Euros) dampened their savoring ability.

Quoidbach and his colleagues’ second study was even cleverer. Participants aged 16 to 59 recruited on the University of British Columbia campus were entrusted with the not unpleasant task of tasting a piece of chocolate. Before accepting the chocolate, however, they were obliged to complete a brief questionnaire. For half of the participants, this questionnaire furtively included a page with a picture of Canadian money (allegedly for an unrelated experiment), and for the other half, it included a neutral picture.

Although the ostensibly irrelevant photo was unlikely to have elicited more than a cursory glance, it had a pronounced effect on the volunteers’ behavior. Those “primed,” or subconsciously reminded, of money ended up spending less time consuming the chocolate and were rated by observers as enjoying it less.

How to explain these results? The researchers argue that because wealth allows people to experience the best that life has to offer, it ultimately undermines their ability to savor life’s little pleasures. Once we’ve had the opportunity to drink the finest French wines, fly in a private jet, eat foie gras with edible gold leaf, and watch the Super Bowl from a box seat, coffee at Starbucks with a friend, a sunny day after a week of rain, or an unexpected Reese’s peanut butter cup on our desks just doesn’t provide the same jolt of happiness it used to. Indeed, a landmark study of lottery winners showed just that: People who had won between $50,000 and $1,000,000 (in 1970s dollars) were less impressed by life’s simple pleasures than people who experienced no such windfall.

Of course, Quoidbach et al.’s findings may have alternative explanations. Maybe seeing banknotes triggers feelings of disgust (due to associations with greed or just with germs) or stirs up our money worries, and those feelings of disgust, anxiety, or unease may be enough to lose our appetites just a little and curb enjoyment of the chocolate bar.

Despite those possibilities, I find the researchers’ arguments compelling. In a book I’m writing, I devote an entire chapter to the costs of materialism and wealth. The single biggest culprit, I argue, is that having money raises our aspirations about the happiness that we expect in our daily lives, and these raised aspirations can be toxic. They say you can never go back to holding hands, but it’s also hard to go back to economy class (from business), to sleeping on a futon with a bunch of roommates (from your comfortable master bedroom in a split level), or to eating at chain restaurants (after regularly partaking of the cuisines of Mario Batali and Bobby Flay).

Unfortunately, raised aspirations don’t only lead us to take things for granted and impair our savoring abilities. They steer us to consume too much, tax the planet’s resources, overspend and undersave, go into debt, gamble, live beyond our means, and purchase mortgages that we can’t afford. Not long ago, I read a newspaper article that quoted the shocking statistic that 20 percent of Americans trade in their automobiles every two years. Every two years! We acquire the new Toyota Camry or Lexus SUV or Jaguar, and for the first few weeks or months, the ride is thrilling. But, as we all know too well, the thrill wears off not long after the new car smell fades.

If attaining wealth or earning pay raises so unfailingly elevates our aspirations, are we doomed never to reap money’s pleasures and rewards? Can people who make partner, write a best-seller, or invest wisely ever enjoy a simple piece of chocolate? Of course, they can. Indeed, in my mind, one of the biggest misconceptions about money is that it can’t make us happy – or rather, that the joys it offers can be only faint and fleeting. As it happens, a growing social science of money is showing how we can compensate for some of its damaging effects by getting the most out of our spending. The conclusion is that if we want to buy happiness, we need to wring as many rewarding and stretching experiences from our purchases as possible. The most effective empirically-supported ways include:

  • spending our money on activities that help us grow as a person (taking guitar lessons, investing in an entrepreneurial venture), strengthen our connections with others (dinners with colleagues, car trips with friends, roller blades for mom and child), and contribute to our communities (catering a fundraiser, donating to the needy);
  • shelling it out on activities and experiences (e.g., rock climbing expeditions, wine tasting family reunions) rather than material possessions;
  • spending it on many small pleasures (e.g., regular massages, weekly delivery of fresh flowers, or frequent phone calls to our best friend in Europe) rather than on one big-ticket item (like a new car or flat-screen TV); and
  • splurging on something that we work extremely hard to get and have to wait for (whether it’s a concert, trip, or gadget) and relish the feeling of hard-won accomplishment and anticipation as we wait.

Finally, our money will be even better spent if we take the time to appreciate the objects of our spending (the vacation, gadget, or smiles of the people we have helped); if we make efforts to inject novelty, variety, and surprise (e.g., buying activities that bring unexpected opportunities or adventures); and if we strive to compare less with others (e.g., focusing on how much I enjoyed the Paul McCartney concert rather than on how much better my neighbor’s seats were, or recognizing that my roller blades give me no less pleasure even if my sister has an even fancier pair). As researchers (including Ken Sheldon and myself) have argued, these are all factors that slow down or pre-empt the process that leads us to take our purchases for granted and allow us to derive the maximal possible happiness from them.

Both empirical research and anecdotal observations testify to the many pitfalls of thinking about money. And now we know from Quoidbach and his colleagues that merely scanning a wad of cash can impair our ability to savor life’s small delights. If this all seems like pretty strong evidence that money cannot pay for happiness, then we are not looking at the problem in the right way. The truth is that money’s pitfalls can be overcome with a little effort and forethought.

A famous Lexus ad pronounced, “Whoever said money can’t buy happiness isn’t spending it right.” Happiness is a choice. We can choose to become never-satisfied janitors of our possessions, or we can use our money in ways that improve our worlds and, as a bonus, supply us with genuine and lasting well-being.

Article originally published in Psychology Today on 30th August 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do we need $75000 a year to be happy?

Continuing with our theme of looking at whether money can buy you happiness this article, written by Belinda Luscombe, for Time Magazine looks at a study carried out by Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School which demonstrates that money sort of does by us happiness but only up to a point.

Happiness caps at $75K: Kelly Blair for Time

Do we need $75000 a year to be happy?

Article originally published in Time magazine on 6th September 2010
People say money doesn’t buy happiness. Except, according to a new study from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, it sort of does — up to about $75,000 a year. The lower a person’s annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don’t report any greater degree of happiness.

Before employers rush to hold — or raise — everyone’s salary to $75,000, the study points out that there are actually two types of happiness. There’s your changeable, day-to-day mood: whether you’re stressed or blue or feeling emotionally sound. Then there’s the deeper satisfaction you feel about the way your life is going — the kind of thing Tony Robbins tries to teach you. While having an income above the magic $75,000 cutoff doesn’t seem to have an impact on the former (emotional well-being), it definitely improves people’s Robbins-like life satisfaction. In other words, the more people make above $75,000, the more they feel their life is working out on the whole. But it doesn’t make them any more jovial in the mornings.

The study, by economist Angus Deaton and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who has won a Nobel Prize for Economics, analyzed the responses of 450,000 Americans polled by Gallup and Healthways in 2008 and 2009. Participants were asked how they had felt the previous day and whether they were living the best possible life for them. They were also asked about their income.

The authors found that most Americans — 85% — regardless of their annual income, felt happy each day. Almost 40% of respondents also reported feeling stressed (which is not mutually exclusive with happiness) and 24% had feelings of sadness. Most people were also satisfied with the way their life was going.(See TIME’s special issue on the science of happiness.)

So, where does the $75,000 come into play? Researchers found that lower income did not cause sadness itself but made people feel more ground down by the problems they already had. The study found, for example, that among divorced people, about 51% who made less than $1,000 a month reported feeling sad or stressed the previous day, while only 24% of those earning more than $3,000 a month reported similar feelings. Among people with asthma, 41% of low earners reported feeling unhappy, compared with about 22% of the wealthier group. Having money clearly takes the sting out of adversities.

At $75,000, that effect disappears. For people who earn that much or more, individual temperament and life circumstances have much more sway over their lightness of heart than money. The study doesn’t say why $75,000 is the benchmark, but “it does seem to me a plausible number at which people would think money is not an issue,” says Deaton. At that level, people probably have enough expendable cash to do things that make them feel good, like going out with friends. (The federal poverty level for a family of four, by the way, is $22,050.)

But in the bigger view of their lives, people’s evaluations were much more tied to their income. The more they made, the more they felt their life was going well. The survey asked respondents to place themselves on a life-satisfaction ladder, with the first rung meaning their lives were not going well and the 10th rung meaning it was as good as it could be. The higher their income, the higher the rung people chose. “Importantly, the same percentage increase in income has the same effect on evaluation for everyone, rich or poor alike, even though the absolute dollar amounts differ,” the authors write. So every 10% rise in annual income moves people up the satisfaction ladder the same amount, whether they’re making $25,000 or $100,000. “High incomes don’t bring you happiness, but they do bring you a life you think is better,” conclude the authors. Might it be time for Oprah to give these guys their own show?

Past research on money and happiness has also found that it’s not absolute wealth that’s linked with happiness, but relative wealth or status — that is, how much more money you have than your neighbors.

It’s no surprise, then, that when the same polls are done in different countries, Americans come out as a bit of a mixed lot: they’re fifth in terms of happiness, 33rd in terms of smiling and 10th in terms of enjoyment. At the same time, they’re the 89th biggest worriers, the 69th saddest and fifth most stressed people out of the 151 nations studied. Even so, perhaps because of the country’s general wealth, they are in the top 10 citizenries where people feel their lives are going well, beaten out by such eternal optimists as the Canadians, New Zealanders and Scandinavians.

Right. Now that Princeton researchers have untangled that life mystery, maybe someone at MIT can look into the optimal amount of money required to buy us love.

How to edit your life: Less stuff = more happiness

It’s the weekend, which for most of us is the time of the week when we have more leisure time on our hands and (if we are lucky) money in our pockets and many of us celebrate this fact by hitting the shops and buying more STUFF.

Writer and designer Graham Hill questions whether this is a route to happiness and in this TED talk he asks: Can having less stuff, in less room, lead to more happiness?

He makes the case for taking up less space, and lays out three rules for editing your life. He has set up a website called LifeEdited which explores this idea further.  So before you hit the shops this weekend take a few minutes to watch his fascinating video and explore his website and decide for yourself whether you think he has a valid argument.

Money can’t buy happiness or can it?

We have all heard the advice from religion, self help books and conventional wisdom that money can’t buy happiness yet much of our time is spent pursuing success, money and the status these bring in the vain hope that they will in fact buy us the happiness we desire.  Do you you believe that money can or can’t buy you happiness? Michael Norton argues in this TED talk that if you think that money can’t buy happiness you are wrong, money can buy happiness if you learn how to spend it correctly. Intrigued? Watch this video to find out more.

 

Posted by Shona Lockhart, 9th June 2012