The mystery of the U-shaped relationship between happiness and age☆
Introduction
What is the relationship between happiness and age? Do we become more miserable as we age, or, is our happiness relatively constant throughout our lives with only the occasional special event (marriage, birth, promotion, and illness) temporarily raising or reducing our happiness, or do we actually get happier as we age?
The answer to this question in the recent economic literature is that the age–happiness relationship is U-shaped.1 This finding holds for the US, Germany, Britain, Australia, Europe, and South Africa. The stylised finding is that individuals gradually become unhappier after their 18th birthday, with a minimum around 50, followed by a gradual upturn in old age. The predicted effect of age can be quite large. For example, the predicted difference in average happiness between an 18 year old and a 50 year old from regressions can be as much as 1.5 points on a 10-point-scale.
This recent economics literature, however, conflicts with an old psychology literature that finds no happiness-age relationship (Cantril, 1965). Palmore and Luikart (1972) comment in their review; ‘Several variables thought to be related to life satisfaction had little or no relationship: age, sex, total social contacts’. More recently, the psychologists Dear et al. (2002) postulate a slight reduction in life satisfaction as people age, due to the prevalence of high life satisfaction becoming less common at higher ages. From this reading, it is clear that either the psychologists have overlooked something important for a long time or that the methodology of economists begets different answers. This paper intends to find out, which it is.
We re-examine the age–happiness relationship and delve into the methodological aspects to provide an explanation for the difference of opinion between economists and psychologists. We essentially want to know if the U-shape that economic scholars find is an artefact or real, and what the actual relationship between age and life satisfaction is. We re-examine the age–happiness relationship in three often-used panel datasets, the German Socio Economic Panel (the GSOEP), the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), and the Household Income Labour Dynamics Australia (HILDA), which all have an extensive set of variables on the individual level. This data-richness allows us to not only replicate the findings of other studies based on cross-sectional data, but, furthermore, allows us to explore the dynamic interplay between age, covariates, unobserved heterogeneity, and happiness.
The format of this paper is to let the solution to the puzzle of the age–happiness relationship progressively unfold. We first briefly review the recent literature where we summarise the main findings of others, as well as their methodology. Then we present the data we have and show that we can indeed replicate a U-shape in happiness when we run similar regressions to those in the literature. We then go through a succession of reasons for both the raw relationship between happiness and age in these panels, as well as the changes in coefficients of age-related variables as more factors are included. This includes the possibility: that the age–happiness relationship is dominated by a happiness reduction found in early adulthood (age 18–22); that found age effects are due to estimation biases arising from selectivity, or; that it is a truly robust finding. We find that selection, i.e. fixed effects, and are extremely important for the age–happiness puzzle. Not only does the inclusion of fixed-effects change the coefficients of important age-varying factors (such as employment and income), which in turn changes the found residual effects of age directly, but it also turns out that the raw relation is heavily tainted by selection effects; the panels seem to over-sample particularly happy very old individual and particularly unhappy middle age individuals, leading these datasets to exaggerate the happiness decline in middle-age and to underestimate the decline in very old age.
Section snippets
Literature review
Whilst a lot of the economic literature on the age–happiness relationship is recent, there have been earlier discussions of it (see Theodossiou, 1998 for a discussion of the history of this issue). Until the early 2000s, the opinion of economists about the effect of age was still divided. Clark and Oswald (1994) found a U-shaped pattern for the UK, whilst Winkelmann and Winkelmann (1998) found no U-shape in happiness but simply a very strong negative effect of age. Easterlin et al. (1993) using
The GSOEP
We use the 1984–2002 waves of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP, 2008), a representative 18-year panel of the German population. The first wave (1980) included only the Federal Republic of Germany; it has included the former East Germany since 1990. We use only the information on West Germany in order to be able to abstract from the importance of the 1990 German reunification, which had a tremendous impact on the lives and satisfaction levels of East Germans (Frijters et al., 2004). The
Is there a U-shape in the raw data?
For all analyses that follow the full regression tables are shown in Appendix B, but we tell the story using graphs and summary tables in the main text. We experimented using both simple least squares (which is the dominant method in the literature) and latent-variable analyses (for cross-sectional as well as fixed-effects analyses) but we found, as in Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Frijters (2004), that there is no qualitative difference, so we choose to present the least squares results here whilst
The relation is due to the very young and the very old
A naive first-thought is that there is a particular issue with the early ages, i.e. age 18–22, and with high ages, i.e. those above 80. This is because the happiness decline is particularly steep for the early years and one may worry about the selectivity of those who are still alive at very high ages; they could be much happier or much less happy than others. This makes one wonder if the young are being overly optimistic about their actual levels of happiness and that the happiness of the very
The actual age–happiness relationship
In order to arrive at a consolidated model of the age–happiness relation, we must allow for a more flexible age-profile, age-specific selectivity, and panel-dependent response profile than hitherto. We wish to answer two questions9:
- 1.
How does raw happiness vary over the life cycle for a given individual with a given level of initial happiness?
- 2.
What is the potential causal impact of age on happiness ceteris
Robustness analyses
We here briefly mention the robustness analyses we ran. We redid everything with latent-variable techniques rather than linear regressions. To this end we used ordered logits as a cross-sectional model and the recent BUC estimator from Baetschmann et al. (2011), which is a fixed-effect conditional logit estimator. The results are in Appendix C, Table C1, Table C2, Table C3. As in the main text above, the highly significant and positive effect on age-squared found in the cross-section
Conclusions and discussion
This paper started out with the puzzling findings of other researchers of a U-shaped relationship between age and happiness. We replicated this relationship for Germany, Australia, and Britain using well-known panel datasets, the GSOEP, the HILDA, and the BHPS. In all three cases, the age–happiness profile became a much clearer U-shape when adding commonly used socio-economic variables. This emergence of the U-shape was not dependent on the inclusion of individuals aged 18–22 or those above 80.
References (54)
- et al.
Inequality and happiness: are Europeans and Americans different?
Journal of Public Economics
(2004) - et al.
Well-being over time in Britain and the USA
Journal of Public Economics
(2004) - et al.
Hypertension and happiness across nations
Journal of Health Economics
(2008) - et al.
Extraversion and subjective well-being in a U.S. national probability sample
Journal of Research in Personality
(1992) Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect
Journal of Public Economics
(2005)- et al.
The relationship between happiness, health, and social economic factors: results based on Swedish microdata
Journal of Socio-Economics
(2001) - et al.
Subjective economic well-being in Eastern Europe
Journal of Economic Psychology
(2003) How's life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being
Economic Modelling
(2003)- et al.
Does happiness adapt? A longitudinal study of disability with implications for economists and judges
Journal of Public Economics
(2008) When information dominates comparison: learning from Russian subjective panel data
Journal of Public Economics
(2004)
Estimating linear models with ordinal qualitative regressors
Journal of Econometrics
The effects of low-pay and unemployment on psychological well-being: a logistic regression approach
Journal of Health Economics
Why income comparison is rational
Games and Economic Behavior
Causes and correlates of happiness
Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology
Consistent Estimation of the Fixed Effects Ordered Logit Model
The Scots may be brave but they are neither healthy nor happy
Scottish Journal of Political Economy
British Household Panel Survey
International Evidence on Well-Being
Well-Being Over Time in Britain and the USA
Is Well-being U-Shaped Over the Life Cycle?
The U-Shape without Controls
The Pattern of Human Concerns
Relative income, happiness, and utility: an explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles
Journal of Economic Literature
Unhappiness an unemployment
Economic Journal
Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: happy and unhappy people
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Cited by (289)
Multiple reference points of commute time in commute satisfaction
2024, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and EnvironmentTo Evaluate the Age–Happiness Relationship, Look Beyond Statistical Significance
2024, Journal of Happiness StudiesThe Political Economy of Life Satisfaction: Democracy, National Wealth, and Personal Income
2024, International Journal of Public Opinion ResearchCity Health Examination Evaluation and Subjective Well-Being in Resource-Based Cities in China
2023, Journal of Urban Planning and DevelopmentSocio-economic determinants of subjective wellbeing of Indians in the post-liberalization era: evidence from the world value survey
2023, Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional ScienceIncome raises human well-being indefinitely, but age consistently slashes it
2023, Scientific Reports
- ☆
We would like to thank conference, staff, and seminar participants for useful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.