IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v242y2024ics0165176524003641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The importance of sampling frequency for estimates of well-being dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Hoskins, Stephen
  • Johnston, David W.
  • Kunz, Johannes S.
  • Shields, Michael A.
  • Staub, Kevin E.

Abstract

Using a high-frequency panel survey, we examine the sensitivity of estimated self-reported well-being (SWB) dynamics to using monthly, quarterly, and yearly data. This is an important issue if SWB is to be used to evaluate policy. Results from autoregressive models that account for individual-level heterogeneity indicate that the estimated persistence using yearly data is near zero. However, estimated persistence from monthly and quarterly data is substantial. We estimate that persistence to shocks typically lasts around six months and has a net present value of 75–80 per cent of the contemporaneous effect. Estimates are similar for different domains of SWB.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoskins, Stephen & Johnston, David W. & Kunz, Johannes S. & Shields, Michael A. & Staub, Kevin E., 2024. "The importance of sampling frequency for estimates of well-being dynamics," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:242:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524003641
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111880
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176524003641
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111880?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    2. Andrew E. Clark & Ed Diener & Yannis Georgellis & Richard E. Lucas, 2008. "Lags And Leads in Life Satisfaction: a Test of the Baseline Hypothesis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(529), pages 222-243, June.
    3. Baetschmann, Gregori & Staub, Kevin E. & Studer, Raphael, 2016. "Does the stork deliver happiness? Parenthood and life satisfaction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 242-260.
    4. Bottan, Nicolas Luis & Perez Truglia, Ricardo, 2011. "Deconstructing the hedonic treadmill: Is happiness autoregressive?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 224-236, May.
    5. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    6. Alan Piper, 2023. "What Does Dynamic Panel Analysis Tell Us About Life Satisfaction?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 69(2), pages 376-394, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lionel WILNER, 2019. "The Dynamics of Individual Happiness," Working Papers 2019-18, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    2. Kelsey J. O'Connor, 2020. "Life Satisfaction and Noncognitive Skills: Effects on the Likelihood of Unemployment," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(4), pages 568-604, November.
    3. Piper, Alan T., 2014. "An Investigation into Happiness, Dynamics and Adaptation," MPRA Paper 57778, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Wunder, Christoph, 2012. "Does subjective well-being dynamically adjust to circumstances?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 750-752.
    5. Paleologou, Suzanna-Maria, 2022. "Happiness, democracy and socio-economic conditions: Evidence from a difference GMM estimator," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Alan Piper, 2023. "What Does Dynamic Panel Analysis Tell Us About Life Satisfaction?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 69(2), pages 376-394, June.
    7. Sophie Cetre & Andrew E. Clark & Claudia Senik, 2016. "Happy People Have Children: Choice and Self-Selection into Parenthood," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 445-473, August.
    8. Marco Cozzi & Qiushan Li, 2024. "Do wealth shocks matter for the life satisfaction of the elderly? Evidence from the health and retirement study," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 44(1), pages 88-98.
    9. Xidan Chen & Andrew Page, 2016. "Stability and Instability of Subjective Well-Being in the Transition from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Longitudinal Evidence from 20991 Young Australians," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Fırat Yaman & Patricia Cubí-Mollá & Sergiu Ungureanu, 2023. "Which Decision Theory Describes Life Satisfaction Best? Evidence from Annual Panel Data," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 893-916, March.
    11. Alan Piper, 2022. "Optimism, pessimism and life satisfaction: an empirical investigation," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 177-208, June.
    12. Martin Binder & Felix Ward, 2011. "The Structure of Happiness: A Vector Autoregressive Approach," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2011-08, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    13. Carina Keldenich, 2022. "Work, motherhood and women’s affective well-being," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1345-1375, December.
    14. Giulia Ferrari, 2022. "What is wellbeing for rural South African women? Textual analysis of focus group discussion transcripts and implications for programme design and evaluation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Małgorzata Mikucka & Ester Rizzi, 2020. "The Parenthood and Happiness Link: Testing Predictions from Five Theories," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(2), pages 337-361, April.
    16. Siobhan Austen & Jaslin Kalsi & Astghik Mavisakalyan, 2023. "Parenthood and the distribution of intra-household inequalities in wellbeing," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 21(2), pages 405-440, June.
    17. Frondel, Manuel & Kaestner, Kathrin & Sommer, Stephan & Vance, Colin, 2022. "Photovoltaics and the solar rebound: Evidence for Germany," Ruhr Economic Papers 954, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    18. Piper, Alan T., 2014. "The Benefits, Challenges and Insights of a Dynamic Panel assessment of Life Satisfaction," MPRA Paper 59556, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Dusanee Kesavayuth & Vasileios Zikos, 2018. "Happy People Are Less Likely To Be Unemployed: Psychological Evidence From Panel Data," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(2), pages 277-291, April.
    20. Barbara Pertold-Gebicka & Dominika Spolcova, 2019. "Family Size and Subjective Well-being in Europe: Do More Children Make Us (Un)Happy?," Working Papers IES 2019/24, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Aug 2019.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Well-being; Life satisfaction; Happiness; Dynamic panel data; Panel autoregression; Adaptation; Persistence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:242:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524003641. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.