Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1984. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 53-55).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Texas at Dallas, 2008. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-84)

yes / Shock, horror, a new study shows the British public don’t like their jobs. Using smart phones researchers mapped the happiness of people in real time, while they went about their daily lives. And they discovered that people do not report feeling very happy at work.

Bei N = 101 Arbeitnehmern verschiedener Berufe wurden mit der Experience Sampling Method (ESM) eine Woche lang Daten zum Flow-Erleben, zu Glück/Zufriedenheit und zur Zielausrichtung laufender Aktivitäten erhoben (N = 4603 Messungen). Die Daten wurden mit GLMM-Analysen ausgewertet. Auch bei der jetzt vollständigen Erfassung aller Flow-Komponenten mit der FKS bestätigte sich das „Paradoxon der Arbeit“, wonach während der Arbeit höhere Flow-Werte, aber niedrigere Werte für Glück/Zufriedenheit auftreten als jeweils in der Freizeit. Während der Arbeit waren Aktivitäten häufiger auf die Erreichung von Zielen ausgerichtet als während der Freizeit. Die Zielausrichtung wirkte auf Flow vs. Glück/Zufriedenheit signifikant verschieden. Während der Arbeit hat die Zielausrichtung auf Flow einen stark positiven Effekt, auf Glück/Zufriedenheit jedoch nicht. Im Freizeitbereich war der Effekt von Zielausrichtung auf Glück/Zufriedenheit sogar negativ. Das „Paradoxon der Arbeit“ lässt sich partiell als Effekt der Zielausrichtung verstehen. / For a week, data of N =101 employees with different professions was collected with the Experience Sampling Method (N = 4603 measurements). These data included flow-experience, happiness/satisfaction and goal adjustment of current activities. The data were analysed with GLMM. Flow-experience was measured with all components (FKS) and they confirmed the "paradox of work" (i.e., flow-scores are higher during work but scores for happiness/satisfaction are higher during spare time). During work, participants activities were more often directed towards reaching a goal. The effects of goal adjustment on flow vs. happiness/satisfaction differed significantly. During work goal adjustment had a strong positive effect on flow, but not on happiness/satisfaction. During leisure time goal adjustment had even a negative effect on happiness/satisfaction but a positive on flow. The "paradox of work" could be partially attributed to the stronger goal adjustment during work.

Title from first page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 42-44).

There are a variety of studies that show that absolute income is positively correlated with individual well-being, but find at the same time that average income of the reference group (comparison income) affects individual well-being most often negatively (Clark et al., 2008). Although the results allover the literature are quite consistent, there is a large variety how the reference group is defined. For example, some authors assume that people compare themselves with people living in the same area (Luttmer, 2005; Graham & Felton, 2006) or with people inside the same age range (McBride, 2001). Others define the reference group more precisely and assume that people compare themselves with people of same age, same education and same area of living (Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2005). However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no systematic empirical research on the impact of different reference group specifications on life satisfaction in happiness regressions. Therefore, I investigate in this master thesis to what extent different reference group specifications alter the statistical impact of comparison income on happiness regarding sign, magnitude and statistical significance. The results show that the specification of the reference group matters, since some specifications produce significant and others produce insignificant coefficients. However, the results also show that the sub-sample treated has a considerable impact on sign and statistical significance of the reference groups defined.:Chapter Page Outline II List of Figures and Tables III Abbreviations III 1 Introduction 1 2 Measurement of Happiness in Economics 2 3 The Economics of Happiness 6 3.1 The Relation between Absolute Income and Happiness 6 3.2 Unemployment, Inflation and Inequality 12 4 The Role of Relative Income 15 4.1 Empirical Evidence 16 4.1.1 Empirical Evidence for the \''Social Comparison Effect\'' 16 4.1.2 Empirical Evidence for the \''Tunnel Effect\'' 21 4.1.3 Derived Empirical Regularities 23 4.2 Theoretical Considerations 24 4.2.1 Modeling of Utility Functions 24 4.2.2 A Contribution in Explaining the Easterlin-Paradox? 26 4.2.3 Concluding Remarks 29 5 Specifications of the Reference Group 30 5.1 The Reference Group as Exogeneous Variable 30 5.2 The Reference Group as Endogeneous Variable 33 6 Different Reference Group Specifications and Life Satisfaction 35 6.1 Data Description and Choice of Variables 36 6.2 Methodology 38 6.2.1 Data Preparation 38 6.2.2 Estimation Procedure 39 6.2.3 Further Econometric Issues 44 6.3 Relative Income and Reference Group Specifications 46 6.4 Results 49 6.4.1 Whole Sample 49 6.4.1.1 Looking for the Tunnel Effect: Young and Old respondents 54 6.4.1.2 Looking for the Tunnel Effect: Transition Countries 56 6.4.2 German Sub-Samples 57 6.4.2.1 Whole German Sample 57 6.4.2.2 Looking for the Tunnel Effect: Young and Old respondents 58 6.4.3 Summary of the Empirical Results 60 6.5 Problems and Shortcomings of the Study 61 7 Conclusion 63 Appendix A – List of Variables 65 Appendix B – Correlations 67 References 68 Statement of Authorship 74