money can make you happy essay

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Does More Money Really Make Us More Happy?

• Elizabeth Dunn
• Chris Courtney

A big paycheck won’t necessarily bring you joy

Although some studies show that wealthier people tend to be happier, prioritizing money over time can actually have the opposite effect.

• But even having just a little bit of extra cash in your savings account ($500), can increase your life satisfaction. So how can you keep more cash on hand?
• Ask yourself: What do I buy that isn’t essential for my survival? Is the expense genuinely contributing to my happiness? If the answer to the second question is no, try taking a break from those expenses.
• Other research shows there are specific ways to spend your money to promote happiness, such as spending on experiences, buying time, and investing in others.
• Spending choices that promote happiness are also dependent on individual personalities, and future research may provide more individualized advice to help you get the most happiness from your money.

How often have you willingly sacrificed your free time to make more money? You’re not alone. But new research suggests that prioritizing money over time may actually undermine our happiness.

• ED Elizabeth Dunn is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia and Chief Science Officer of Happy Money, a financial technology company with a mission to help borrowers become savers. She is also co-author of “ Happy Money: The Science of Happier Spending ” with Dr. Michael Norton. Her TED2019 talk on money and happiness was selected as one of the top 10 talks of the year by TED.
• CC Chris Courtney is the VP of Science at Happy Money. He utilizes his background in cognitive neuroscience, human-computer interaction, and machine learning to drive personalization and engagement in products designed to empower people to take control of their financial lives. His team is focused on creating innovative ways to provide more inclusionary financial services, while building tools to promote financial and psychological well-being and success.

Partner Center

Can Money Really Buy Happiness?

Money and happiness are related—but not in the way you think..

Updated November 10, 2023 | Reviewed by Chloe Williams

• More money is linked to increased happiness, some research shows.
• People who won the lottery have greater life satisfaction, even years later.
• Wealth is not associated with happiness globally; non-material things are more likely to predict wellbeing.
• Money, in and of itself, cannot buy happiness, but it can provide a means to the things we value in life.

Money is a big part of our lives, our identities, and perhaps our well-being. Sometimes, it can feel like your happiness hinges on how much cash is in your bank account. Have you ever thought to yourself, “If only I could increase my salary by 12 percent, I’d feel better”? How about, “I wish I had an inheritance. How easier life would be!” I don’t blame you — I’ve had the same thoughts many times.

But what does psychological research say about the age-old question: Can money really buy happiness? Let’s take a brutally honest exploration of how money and happiness are (and aren’t) related. (Spoiler alert: I’ve got bad news, good news, and lots of caveats.)

Higher earners are generally happier

Over 10 years ago, a study based on Gallup Poll data on 1,000 people made a big headline in the news. It found that people with higher incomes report being happier... but only up to an annual income of $75,000 (equivalent to about $90,000 today). After this point, a high emotional well-being wasn’t directly correlated to more money. This seemed to show that once a persons’ basic (and some “advanced”) needs are comfortably met, more money isn’t necessary for well-being.

But a new 2021 study of over one million participants found that there’s no such thing as an inflection point where more money doesn’t equal more happiness, at least not up to an annual salary of $500,000. In this study, participants’ well-being was measured in more detail. Instead of being asked to remember how well they felt in the past week, month, or year, they were asked how they felt right now in the moment. And based on this real-time assessment, very high earners were feeling great.

Similarly, a Swedish study on lottery winners found that even after years, people who won the lottery had greater life satisfaction, mental health, and were more prepared to face misfortune like divorce , illness, and being alone than regular folks who didn’t win the lottery. It’s almost as if having a pile of money made those things less difficult to cope with for the winners.

Evaluative vs. experienced well-being

At this point, it's important to suss out what researchers actually mean by "happiness." There are two major types of well-being psychologists measure: evaluative and experienced. Evaluative well-being refers to your answer to, “How do you think your life is going?” It’s what you think about your life. Experienced well-being, however, is your answer to, “What emotions are you feeling from day to day, and in what proportions?” It is your actual experience of positive and negative emotions.

In both of these studies — the one that found the happiness curve to flatten after $75,000 and the one that didn't — the researchers were focusing on experienced well-being. That means there's a disagreement in the research about whether day-to-day experiences of positive emotions really increase with higher and higher incomes, without limit. Which study is more accurate? Well, the 2021 study surveyed many more people, so it has the advantage of being more representative. However, there is a big caveat...

Material wealth is not associated with happiness everywhere in the world

If you’re not a very high earner, you may be feeling a bit irritated right now. How unfair that the rest of us can’t even comfort ourselves with the idea that millionaires must be sad in their giant mansions!

But not so fast.

Yes, in the large million-person study, experienced well-being (aka, happiness) did continually increase with higher income. But this study only included people in the United States. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that our culture is quite materialistic, more so than other countries, and income level plays a huge role in our lifestyle.

Another study of Mayan people in a poor, rural region of Yucatan, Mexico, did not find the level of wealth to be related to happiness, which the participants had high levels of overall. Separately, a Gallup World Poll study of people from many countries and cultures also found that, although higher income was associated with higher life evaluation, it was non-material things that predicted experienced well-being (e.g., learning, autonomy, respect, social support).

Earned wealth generates more happiness than inherited wealth

More good news: For those of us with really big dreams of “making it” and striking it rich through talent and hard work, know that the actual process of reaching your dream will not only bring you cash but also happiness. A study of ultra-rich millionaires (net worth of at least $8,000,000) found that those who earned their wealth through work and effort got more of a happiness boost from their money than those who inherited it. So keep dreaming big and reaching for your entrepreneurial goals … as long as you’re not sacrificing your actual well-being in the pursuit.

There are different types of happiness, and wealth is better for some than others

We’ve been talking about “happiness” as if it’s one big thing. But happiness actually has many different components and flavors. Think about all the positive emotions you’ve felt — can we break them down into more specifics? How about:

• Contentment
• Gratefulness

...and that's just a short list.

It turns out that wealth may be associated with some of these categories of “happiness,” specifically self-focused positive emotions such as pride and contentment, whereas less wealthy people have more other-focused positive emotions like love and compassion.

In fact, in the Swedish lottery winners study, people’s feelings about their social well-being (with friends, family, neighbors, and society) were no different between lottery winners and regular people.

Money is a means to the things we value, not happiness itself

One major difference between lottery winners and non-winners, it turns out, is that lottery winners have more spare time. This is the thing that really makes me envious , and I would hypothesize that this is the main reason why lottery winners are more satisfied with their life.

Consider this simply: If we had the financial security to spend time on things we enjoy and value, instead of feeling pressured to generate income all the time, why wouldn’t we be happier?

This is good news. It’s a reminder that money, in and of itself, cannot literally buy happiness. It can buy time and peace of mind. It can buy security and aesthetic experiences, and the ability to be generous to your family and friends. It makes room for other things that are important in life.

In fact, the researchers in that lottery winner study used statistical approaches to benchmark how much happiness winning $100,000 brings in the short-term (less than one year) and long-term (more than five years) compared to other major life events. For better or worse, getting married and having a baby each give a bigger short-term happiness boost than winning money, but in the long run, all three of these events have the same impact.

What does this mean? We make of our wealth and our life what we will. This is especially true for the vast majority of the world made up of people struggling to meet basic needs and to rise out of insecurity. We’ve learned that being rich can boost your life satisfaction and make it easier to have positive emotions, so it’s certainly worth your effort to set goals, work hard, and move towards financial health.

But getting rich is not the only way to be happy. You can still earn health, compassion, community, love, pride, connectedness, and so much more, even if you don’t have a lot of zeros in your bank account. After all, the original definition of “wealth” referred to a person’s holistic wellness in life, which means we all have the potential to be wealthy... in body, mind, and soul.

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A.. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. . Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2010.

Killingsworth, M. A. . Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year .. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021.

Lindqvist, E., Östling, R., & Cesarini, D. . Long-run effects of lottery wealth on psychological well-being. . The Review of Economic Studies. 2020.

Guardiola, J., González‐Gómez, F., García‐Rubio, M. A., & Lendechy‐Grajales, Á.. Does higher income equal higher levels of happiness in every society? The case of the Mayan people. . International Journal of Social Welfare. 2013.

Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & Arora, R. . Wealth and happiness across the world: material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. . Journal of personality and social psychology. 2010.

Donnelly, G. E., Zheng, T., Haisley, E., & Norton, M. I.. The amount and source of millionaires’ wealth (moderately) predict their happiness . . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2018.

Piff, P. K., & Moskowitz, J. P. . Wealth, poverty, and happiness: Social class is differentially associated with positive emotions.. Emotion. 2018.

Jade Wu, Ph.D., is a clinical health psychologist and host of the Savvy Psychologist podcast. She specializes in helping those with sleep problems and anxiety disorders.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

When we wonder whether money can buy happiness, we may consider the luxuries it provides, like expensive dinners and lavish vacations. But cash is key in another important way: It helps people avoid many of the day-to-day hassles that cause stress, new research shows.

Money can provide calm and control, allowing us to buy our way out of unforeseen bumps in the road, whether it’s a small nuisance, like dodging a rainstorm by ordering up an Uber, or a bigger worry, like handling an unexpected hospital bill, says Harvard Business School professor Jon Jachimowicz.

“If we only focus on the happiness that money can bring, I think we are missing something,” says Jachimowicz, an assistant professor of business administration in the Organizational Behavior Unit at HBS. “We also need to think about all of the worries that it can free us from.”

The idea that money can reduce stress in everyday life and make people happier impacts not only the poor, but also more affluent Americans living at the edge of their means in a bumpy economy. Indeed, in 2019, one in every four Americans faced financial scarcity, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The findings are particularly important now, as inflation eats into the ability of many Americans to afford basic necessities like food and gas, and COVID-19 continues to disrupt the job market.

Buying less stress

The inspiration for researching how money alleviates hardships came from advice that Jachimowicz’s father gave him. After years of living as a struggling graduate student, Jachimowicz received his appointment at HBS and the financial stability that came with it.

“My father said to me, ‘You are going to have to learn how to spend money to fix problems.’” The idea stuck with Jachimowicz, causing him to think differently about even the everyday misfortunes that we all face.

To test the relationship between cash and life satisfaction, Jachimowicz and his colleagues from the University of Southern California, Groningen University, and Columbia Business School conducted a series of experiments, which are outlined in a forthcoming paper in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science , The Sharp Spikes of Poverty: Financial Scarcity Is Related to Higher Levels of Distress Intensity in Daily Life .

Higher income amounts to lower stress

In one study, 522 participants kept a diary for 30 days, tracking daily events and their emotional responses to them. Participants’ incomes in the previous year ranged from less than $10,000 to $150,000 or more. They found:

• Money reduces intense stress: There was no significant difference in how often the participants experienced distressing events—no matter their income, they recorded a similar number of daily frustrations. But those with higher incomes experienced less negative intensity from those events.
• More money brings greater control : Those with higher incomes felt they had more control over negative events and that control reduced their stress. People with ample incomes felt more agency to deal with whatever hassles may arise.
• Higher incomes lead to higher life satisfaction: People with higher incomes were generally more satisfied with their lives.

“It’s not that rich people don’t have problems,” Jachimowicz says, “but having money allows you to fix problems and resolve them more quickly.”

Why cash matters

In another study, researchers presented about 400 participants with daily dilemmas, like finding time to cook meals, getting around in an area with poor public transportation, or working from home among children in tight spaces. They then asked how participants would solve the problem, either using cash to resolve it, or asking friends and family for assistance. The results showed:

• People lean on family and friends regardless of income: Jachimowicz and his colleagues found that there was no difference in how often people suggested turning to friends and family for help—for example, by asking a friend for a ride or asking a family member to help with childcare or dinner.
• Cash is the answer for people with money: The higher a person’s income, however, the more likely they were to suggest money as a solution to a hassle, for example, by calling an Uber or ordering takeout.

While such results might be expected, Jachimowicz says, people may not consider the extent to which the daily hassles we all face create more stress for cash-strapped individuals—or the way a lack of cash may tax social relationships if people are always asking family and friends for help, rather than using their own money to solve a problem.

“The question is, when problems come your way, to what extent do you feel like you can deal with them, that you can walk through life and know everything is going to be OK,” Jachimowicz says.

Breaking the ‘shame spiral’

In another recent paper , Jachimowicz and colleagues found that people experiencing financial difficulties experience shame, which leads them to avoid dealing with their problems and often makes them worse. Such “shame spirals” stem from a perception that people are to blame for their own lack of money, rather than external environmental and societal factors, the research team says.

“We have normalized this idea that when you are poor, it’s your fault and so you should be ashamed of it,” Jachimowicz says. “At the same time, we’ve structured society in a way that makes it really hard on people who are poor.”

For example, Jachimowicz says, public transportation is often inaccessible and expensive, which affects people who can’t afford cars, and tardy policies at work often penalize people on the lowest end of the pay scale. Changing those deeply-engrained structures—and the way many of us think about financial difficulties—is crucial.

After all, society as a whole may feel the ripple effects of the financial hardships some people face, since financial strain is linked with lower job performance, problems with long-term decision-making, and difficulty with meaningful relationships, the research says. Ultimately, Jachimowicz hopes his work can prompt thinking about systemic change.

“People who are poor should feel like they have some control over their lives, too. Why is that a luxury we only afford to rich people?” Jachimowicz says. “We have to structure organizations and institutions to empower everyone.”

[Image: iStockphoto/mihtiander]

Related reading from the Working Knowledge Archives

Selling Out The American Dream

• 25 Jun 2024
• Research & Ideas

Rapport: The Hidden Advantage That Women Managers Bring to Teams

• 11 Jun 2024
• In Practice

The Harvard Business School Faculty Summer Reader 2024

How transparency sped innovation in a $13 billion wireless sector.

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

• 27 Jun 2016

These Management Practices, Like Certain Technologies, Boost Company Performance

• Social Psychology

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Happiness Economics: Can Money Buy Happiness?

It only costs a small amount, a slight risk, with the possibility of a substantial reward.

But will it make you happy? Will it give you long-lasting happiness?

Undoubtedly, there will be a temporary peak in happiness, but will all your troubles finally fade away?

That is what we will investigate today. We explore the economics of happiness and whether money can buy happiness. In this post, we will start by broadly exploring the topic and then look at theories and substantive research findings. We’ll even have a look at previous lottery winners.

For interested readers, we will list interesting books and podcasts for further enjoyment and share a few of our own happiness resources.

Ka-ching: Let’s get rolling!

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Happiness & Subjective Wellbeing Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients identify sources of authentic happiness and strategies to boost wellbeing.

This Article Contains

What is happiness economics, theory of the economics of happiness, can money buy happiness 5 research findings, 6 fascinating books and podcasts on the topic, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Happiness economics is a field of economics that recognizes happiness and wellbeing as important outcome measures, alongside measures typically used, such as employment, education, and health care.

Economics emphasizes how specific economic/financial characteristics affect our wellbeing (Easterlin, 2004).

For example, does employment result in better health and longer lifespan, among other metrics? Do people in wealthier countries have access to better education and longer life spans?

In the last few decades, there has been a shift in economics, where researchers have recognized the importance of the subjective rating of happiness as a valuable and desirable outcome that is significantly correlated with other important outcomes, such as health (Steptoe, 2019) and productivity (DiMaria et al., 2020).

Broadly, happiness is a psychological state of being, typically researched and defined using psychological methods (Diener et al., 2003). We often measure it using self-report measures rather than objective measures that are less vulnerable to misinterpretation and error.

Including happiness in economics has opened up an entirely new avenue of research to explore the relationship between happiness and money.

Andrew Clark (2018) illustrates the variability in the term happiness economics with the following examples:

• Happiness can be a predictor variable, influencing our decisions and behaviors.
• Happiness might be the desired outcome, so understanding how and why some people are happier than others is essential.

However, the connection between our behavior and happiness must be better understood. Even though “being happy” is a desired outcome, people still make decisions that prevent them from becoming happier. For example, why do we choose to work more if our work does not make us happier? Why are we unhappy even if our basic needs are met?

An example of how happiness can influence decision-making

Sometimes, we might choose not to maximize a monetary or financial gain but place importance on other, more subjective outcomes.

Here’s a hypothetical example to illustrate: If faced with two jobs — one that pays well but will bring no joy and another that pays less but will bring much joy — some people would prefer to maximize their happiness over financial gain.

If this decision were evaluated using a utility framework where the only valued outcomes were practical, then the decision would seem irrational. However, this scenario suggests that psychological outcomes, such as the experience of happiness, are as crucial as other socio-economic outcomes.

Economists recognize that subjective wellbeing , or happiness, is an essential characteristic and sometimes a desirable outcome that can motivate our decision-making.

In the last few decades, economics has shifted to include happiness as a measurable and vital part of general wellbeing (Graham, 2005).

The consequence is that typical economic questions now also look at the impact of employment, finances, and other economic metrics on the subjective rating and experience of happiness at individual and country levels.

Happiness is such a vital outcome in society and economic activity that it must be involved in policy making. The subjective measure of happiness is as important as other typical measures used in economics.

Many factors can contribute to happiness. In this post, we consider the role of money. The relationship between happiness, or subjective wellbeing, and money is often assumed to be positive: More money means greater happiness.

However, the relationship between money and happiness is paradoxical: More money does not necessarily guarantee happiness (Graham, 2005; Killingsworth et al., 2023).

According to Killingsworth (as cited in Berger, 2023, para 16) “Money is just one of the many determinants of happiness. […] Money is not the secret to happiness, but it can probably help a bit.”

Indeed, happiness seems to be affected not just by how much money we have, but also how that amount compares to our peers (Clark et al., 2008), how we spend it (Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003), and the fact that even when the amount goes up, we eventually get used it (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012).

This may be at odds with our everyday lived experience. Most of us choose to work longer hours or multiple jobs so that we make more money. However, what is the point of doing this if more money does not necessarily lead to the same amount of more happiness? Why do we seem to think that more money will make us happier?

History of the economics of happiness

The relationship between economics and happiness originated in the early 1970s. Brickman and Campbell (1971, as cited in Brickman et al., 1978) first argued that the typical outcomes of a successful life, such as wealth or income, had no impact on individual wellbeing.

Easterlin (1974) expanded these results and showed that although wealthier people tend to be happier than poor people in the same country, the average happiness levels within a country remained unchanged even as the country’s overall wealth increased.

The inconsistent relationship between happiness and income and its sensitivity to critical income thresholds make this topic so interesting.

There is some evidence that wealthier countries are happier than others, but only when comparing the wealthy with the poor (Easterlin, 1974; Graham, 2005).

As countries become wealthier, citizens report higher happiness, but this relationship is strongest when the starting point is poverty. Above a certain income threshold, happiness no longer increases (Diener et al., 1993).

Interestingly, people tend to agree on the amount of money needed to make them happy; but beyond a certain value, there is little increase in happiness (Haesevoets et al., 2022).

Measurement challenges

Measuring happiness accurately and reliably is challenging. Researchers disagree on what happiness means.

It is not the norm in economics to measure happiness by directly asking a participant how happy they are; instead, happiness is inferred through:

• Subjective wellbeing (Clark, 2018; Easterlin, 2004)
• A combination of happiness and life satisfaction (Bruni, 2007)

Furthermore, happiness can refer to an acute psychological state, such as feeling happy after a nice meal, or a lasting state similar to contentment (Nettle, 2005).

Researchers might use different definitions of happiness and ways to measure it, thus leading to contradictory results. For example, happiness might be used synonymously with subjective wellbeing and can refer to several things, including life satisfaction and financial satisfaction (Diener & Oishi, 2000).

Given the complex relationship between money and happiness, there are many potential reasons wealthier nations are not happier overall than poorer nations and that increasing the wealth of poorer nations does not guarantee that their happiness will increase too. So then, what could be done to increase happiness?

Download 3 Free Happiness Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover authentic happiness and cultivate subjective well-being.

Download 3 Free Happiness Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

What is the relationship between income/wealth and happiness? To answer that question, we looked at studies to see where and how money improves happiness, but we’ll also consider the limitations to the positive effect of income.

Money buys access; jobs boost happiness

Overwhelming evidence shows that wealth is correlated with measures of wellbeing.

Wealthier people have access to better healthcare, education, and employment, which in turn results in higher life satisfaction (Helliwell et al., 2012). A certain amount of wealth is needed to meet basic needs, and satisfying these needs improves happiness (Veenhoven & Ehrhardt, 1995).

Increasing happiness through improved quality of life is highest for poor households, but this is explained by the starting point. Access to essential services improves the quality of life, and in turn, this improves measures of wellbeing.

Most people gain wealth through employment; however, it is not just wealth that improves happiness; instead, employment itself has an important association with happiness. Happiness and employment are also significantly correlated with each other (Helliwell et al., 2021).

Lockdown on happiness

The World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2021) reports that unemployment increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this was accompanied by a marked decline in happiness and optimism.

The pandemic also changed how we evaluated certain aspects of our lives; for example, the relationship between income and happiness declined. After all, what is the use of money if you can’t spend it? In contrast, the association between happiness and having a partner increased (Helliwell et al., 2021).

Wealthier states smile more, but is it real?

If we took a snapshot of happiness and a country’s wealth, we would find that richer countries tend to have happier populations than poorer countries.

For example, based on the 2021 World Happiness Report, the top five happiest countries — which are also wealthy countries — are Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands (Helliwell et al., 2021).

In contrast, the unhappiest countries are those that tend to be emerging markets or have a lower gross domestic product (GDP), e.g., Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and India (Graham, 2005; Helliwell et al., 2021).

At face value, this makes sense: Poorer countries most likely have other factors associated with them, e.g., higher unemployment, more crime, and less political stability. So, based on this cross-sectional data, a country’s wealth and happiness levels appear to be correlated. However, over a more extended period, the relationship between happiness and GDP is nil (Easterlin, 2004).

That is, the subjective wellbeing of a population does not increase as a country becomes richer. Even though the wealth of various countries worldwide has increased over time, the overall happiness levels have not increased similarly or have remained static (Kahneman et al., 2006). This is known as a happiness–income paradox.

Easterlin (2004) posits four explanations for this finding:

• Societal and individual gains associated with increased wealth are concentrated among the extremely wealthy.
• Our degree of happiness is informed by how we compare to other people, and this relative comparison does not change as country-wide wealth increases.
• Happiness is not limited to only wealth and financial status, but is affected by other societal and political factors, such as crime, education, and trust in the government.
• Long-term satisfaction and contentment differ from short-term, acute happiness.

Kahneman et al. (2006) provide an alternative explanation centered on the method typically used by researchers. Specifically, they argue that the order of the questions asked to measure happiness and how these questions are worded have a focusing effect. Through the question, the participant’s attention to their happiness is sharpened — like a lens in a camera — and their happiness needs to be over- or underestimated.

Kahneman et al. (2006) also point out that job advancements like a raise or a promotion are often accompanied by an increase in salary and work hours. Consequently, high-paying jobs often result in less leisure time available to spend with family or on hobbies and can cause more unhappiness.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Not all that glitters is gold

Extensive research explored whether a sudden financial windfall was associated with a spike in happiness (e.g., Sherman et al., 2020). The findings were mixed. Sometimes, having more money is associated with increased life satisfaction and improved physical and mental health.

This boost in happiness, however, is not guaranteed, nor is it long. Sometimes, individuals even wish it had never happened (Brickman et al., 1978; Sherman et al., 2020).

Consider lottery winners. These people win sizable sums of money — typically more extensive than a salary increase — large enough to impact their lives significantly. Despite this, research has consistently shown that although lottery winners report higher immediate, short-term happiness, they do not experience higher long-term happiness (Sherman et al., 2020).

Here are some reasons for this:

• Previous everyday activities and experiences become less enjoyable when compared to a unique, unusual experience like winning the lottery.
• People habituate to their new lifestyle.
• A sudden increase in wealth can disrupt social relationships among friends and family members.
• Work and hobbies typically give us small nuggets of joy over a more extended period (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2005). These activities can lose their meaning over a longer period, resulting in more unhappiness (Sherman et al., 2020; Brickman et al., 1978).

Sherman et al. (2020) further argue that lottery winners who decide to quit their job after winning, but do not fill this newly available time with some type of meaningful hobby or interest, are also more likely to become unhappy.

Passive activities do not provide the same happiness as work or hobbies. Instead, if lottery winners continue to take part in activities that give them meaning and require active engagement, then they can avoid further unhappiness.

Happiness: Is it temperature or climate?

Like most psychological research, part of the challenge is clearly defining the topic of investigation — a task made more daunting when the topic falls within two very different fields.

Nettle (2005) describes happiness as a three-tiered concept, ranging from short-lived but intense on one end of the spectrum to more abstract and deep on the other.

The first tier refers to transitory feelings of joy, like when one opens up a birthday present.

The second tier describes judgments about feelings, such as feeling satisfied with your job. The third tier is more complex and refers to life satisfaction.

Across research, different definitions are used: Participants are asked about feelings of (immediate) joy, overall life satisfaction, moments of happiness or satisfaction, and mental wellbeing . The concepts are similar but not identical, thus influencing the results.

Most books on happiness economics are textbooks. Although no doubt very interesting, they’re not the easy-reading books we prefer to recommend.

Instead, below you will find a range of books written by economists that explore happiness. These should provide a good springboard on the overall topic of happiness and what influences it, in case any of our readers want to pick up a more in-depth textbook afterward.

If you have a happiness book you would recommend, please let us know in the comments section.

1. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science – Richard Layard

Richard Layard, a lead economist based in London, explores in his book if and how money can affect happiness.

Layard does an excellent job of introducing topics from various fields and framing them appropriately for the reader.

The book is aimed at readers from varying academic and professional backgrounds, so no experience is needed to enjoy it.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. Happiness by Design: Change What You Do, Not How You Think – Paul Dolan

This book has a more practical spin. The author explains how we can use existing research and theories to make small changes to increase our happiness.

Paul Dolan’s primary thesis is that practical things will have a bigger effect than abstract methods, and we should change our behavior rather than our thinking.

The book is a quick read (airport-perfect!), and Daniel Kahneman penned the foreword.

3. The Psychology of Money: Timeless Lessons on Wealth, Greed and Happiness – Morgan Housel

This book is not necessarily about happiness economics, but it is close enough to the overall theme that it is worth mentioning.

Since most people are concerned with making more money, this book helps teach the reader why we make the decisions we do and how we make better decisions about our money.

This book is a worthwhile addition to any bookcase if you are interested in the relationship between finances and psychology in general.

4. Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile – Daniel Nettle

If you are interested in happiness overall, then we recommend Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile by Daniel Nettle, a professor of behavioral science at Newcastle University.

In this book, he takes a scientific approach to explaining happiness, starting with an in-depth exploration of the definition of happiness and some of its challenges.

The research that he presents comes from various fields, including social sciences, medicine, neurobiology, and economics.

Because of its small size, this book is perfect for a weekend away or to read on a plane.

5 & 6. Prefer to listen rather than read?

One of our favorite podcasts is Intelligence2, where leading experts in a particular field gather to debate a particular topic.

This show’s host, Dr. Laurie Santos, argues that we can increase our happiness by not hoarding our money for ourselves but by giving it to others instead. If you are interested in this episode , or any of the other episodes in the Happiness Lab podcast series, then head on over to their page.

There are several resources available at PositivePsychology.com for our readers to use in their professional and personal development.

In this section, you’ll find a few that should supplement any work on happiness and economics. Since the undercurrent of the topic is whether happiness can be improved through wealth, a few resources look at happiness overall.

Valued Living Masterclass

Although knowledge is power, knowing that money does not guarantee happiness does not mean that clients will suddenly feel fulfilled and satisfied with their lives.

For this reason, we recommend the Valued Living Masterclass , for professionals to help their clients find meaning in their lives. Rather than keeping up with the Joneses or chasing a high-paying job, professionals can help their clients connect with their inner meaning (i.e., their why ) as a way to find meaning and gain happiness.

Three free exercises

If you want to try it out before committing, look at the Meaning & Valued Living exercise pack , which includes three exercises for free.

Recommended reading

Read our post on Success Versus Happiness for further information on balancing happiness with success, in any domain . This topic is poignant for readers who conflate happiness and success, and will guide readers to better understand their relationship and how the two terms influence each other.

For readers who wonder about altruism , you would find it interesting that rather than hoarding, you can increase your happiness through volunteering and donating. In this post, the author, Dr. Jeremy Sutton, does a fabulous job of approaching altruism from various fields and provides excellent resources for further reading and real-life application.

Our last recommendation is for readers who want to know more about measuring subjective wellbeing and happiness . The post lists various tests and apps that can measure happiness and the overall history of how happiness was measured and defined. This is a good starting point for researchers or clinicians who want to explore happiness economics professionally.

17 happiness exercises

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others develop strategies to boost their wellbeing, this collection contains 17 validated happiness and wellbeing exercises . Use them to help others pursue authentic happiness and work toward a  life filled with purpose and meaning

17 Exercises To Increase Happiness and Wellbeing

Add these 17 Happiness & Subjective Well-Being Exercises [PDF] to your toolkit and help others experience greater purpose, meaning, and positive emotions.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

As you’ve seen in our article, the evidence overwhelmingly clarifies that money does not guarantee more happiness … well, long-term happiness.

Our happiness is relative since we compare ourselves to other people, and over time, as we become accustomed to our wealth, we lose all the happiness gains we made.

Money can ease financial and social difficulties; consequently, it can drastically improve people’s living conditions, life expectancy, and education.

Improvements in these outcomes have a knock-on effect on the overall experience of one’s life and the opportunities for one’s family and children. Nevertheless, better opportunities do not guarantee happiness.

Our intention with this post was to illustrate some complexities surrounding the relationship between money and happiness.

Knowing that money does not guarantee happiness, we recommend less expensive methods to improve one’s happiness:

• Spend time with friends.
• Cultivate hobbies and interests.
• Stay active and eat healthy.
• Try to live a meaningful life.
• Give some love (go smooch your partner or tickle your dog’s belly).

Diamonds might be a girl’s best friend, but money is a fair weather one, at best.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Happiness Exercises for free .

• Berger, M. W. (2023, March 28). Does money buy happiness? Here’s what the research says . Knowledge at Wharton. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/does-money-buy-happiness-heres-what-the-research-says/
• Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 36 (8), 917.
• Bruni, L. (2007). Handbook on the economics of happiness . Edward Elgar.
• Clark, A. E. (2018). Four decades of the economics of happiness: Where next? Review of Income and Wealth , 64 (2), 245–269.
• Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles.  Journal of Economic Literature ,  46 (1), 95–144.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–608). Guilford Publications.
• Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research , 28 , 195–223.
• Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Money and happiness: Income and subjective well-being across nations. Culture and Subjective Well-Being , 185 , 218.
• Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life.  Annual Review of Psychology ,  54 , 403–425.
• DiMaria, C. H., Peroni, C., & Sarracino, F. (2020). Happiness matters: Productivity gains from subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies , 21 (1), 139–160.
• Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). Academic Press.
• Easterlin, R. A. (2004). The economics of happiness. Daedalus , 133 (2), 26–33.
• Graham, C. (2005). The economics of happiness. World Economics , 6 (3), 41–55.
• Haesevoets, T., Dierckx, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2022). Do people believe that you can have too much money? The relationship between hypothetical lottery wins and expected happiness. Judgment and Decision Making , 17 (6), 1229–1254.
• Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (Eds.) (2012). World happiness report . The Earth Institute, Columbia University.
• Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., & Neve, J. E. D. (2021). World happiness report 2021 .
• Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science , 312 (5782), 1908–1910.
• Killingsworth, M. A., Kahneman, D., & Mellers, B. (2023). Income and emotional well-being: A conflict resolved.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ,  120 (10), Article e2208661120.
• Nettle, D. (2005). Happiness: The science behind your smile . Oxford University Press.
• Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier: Testing the hedonic adaptation prevention model.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,  38 (5), 670–680.
• Sherman, A., Shavit, T., & Barokas, G. (2020). A dynamic model on happiness and exogenous wealth shock: The case of lottery winners. Journal of Happiness Studies , 21 , 117–137.
• Steptoe, A. (2019). Happiness and health. Annual Review of Public Health , 40 , 339–359.
• Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (6), 1193–1202.
• Veenhoven, R., & Ehrhardt, J. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research , 34 , 33–68.

Share this article:

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Embracing JOMO: Finding Joy in Missing Out

We’ve probably all heard of FOMO, or ‘the fear of missing out’. FOMO is the currency of social media platforms, eager to encourage us to [...]

The True Meaning of Hedonism: A Philosophical Perspective

“If it feels good, do it, you only live once”. Hedonists are always up for a good time and believe the pursuit of pleasure and [...]

Hedonic vs. Eudaimonic Wellbeing: How to Reach Happiness

Have you ever toyed with the idea of writing your own obituary? As you are now, young or old, would you say you enjoyed a [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (54)
• Coaching & Application (54)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (50)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (18)
• Mindfulness (41)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (31)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (42)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (19)
• Positive Parenting (15)
• Positive Psychology (25)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (17)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (33)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (37)
• Theory & Books (45)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (59)

3 Happiness Exercises Pack [PDF]

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Does More Money Make You Happier? Yes, But It's Complicated

Research says it can help, but there are a few caveats...

Verywell Mind / Getty Images

Why We Think Money Might Buy Happiness

The relationship between money and happiness.

• Limitations
• The Role Money Plays
• Finding Happiness Beyond Money

We've all heard the phrase: “Money can't buy happiness.” But how true is this, exactly? Growing up poor in rural Idaho, I often took comfort in this idea, reassuring myself that those with more money weren't necessarily any happier than I was. But sometimes I wondered: Am I just fooling myself?

Of course, money can't replace the deep joy and meaning we find in relationships and experiences. But there's no denying that financial security feels pretty darn good.

“Money can bring about happiness or a sense of satisfaction that can feel like happiness because it allows security and reduces constant financial anxiety and fear,” explains Sarah Whitmire , LPC-S, ATR-BC, a licensed professional counselor and founder of Whitmire Counseling and Supervision.

A Look Ahead

Many mental health experts will point out that money alone is no guarantee of happiness. Other factors like relationships, purpose, and personal growth have a more powerful impact. 

But money does have some effect on happiness. How much? Keep reading on to learn more about this connection and whether a few extra dollars in your wallet truly translates to a joyful heart or if the key to happiness is something money can't buy.

When you think of happiness, things like friends, family, and life’s simple pleasures often come to mind—not money. So, where does the idea that money can buy happiness come from?

According to Kanchi Wijesekera , PhD, a licensed clinical psychologist and clinical director of the Milika Center for Therapy & Resilience , the origin of this idea is multifaceted. She notes that poverty itself is associated with more stress and a higher risk for mental health issues . 

“There are some caveats, but it can be harder to feel happy when you're living under the chronic stress of poverty and all it entails,” she says. “You may not have the same time and energy to invest into your well-being as if you were to be financially well-off.”

She stresses that this doesn’t mean people with less financial means aren’t happy or can’t be happy. But it can be more challenging to feel happy compared to someone well-off.

Kristin Anderson , LCSW, a licensed psychotherapist and founder of Madison Square Psychotherapy , notes that the idea that money can buy happiness is often deeply engrained in many societies.

“These societies often equate financial success with a good life, and it can be easy to get caught up in that idea,” she says. “It’s the idea that financial resources can provide security, comfort, and opportunities, which are all associated with happiness.”

While money certainly does allow people to afford necessities that can improve their quality of life, such as healthcare and education, Anderson says these are no guarantee of greater happiness. 

Money can enhance our living conditions, but it does not guarantee genuine happiness, which often comes from personal fulfillment, relationships, and emotional well-being.

Whitmire explains that modern consumer culture has a role in creating this idea. By promoting the idea that buying goods and services can make us happier, we’re more likely to believe that having more equals being more fulfilled. 

Dr. Wijesekera notes that our own hard-wired tendencies help fuel these beliefs. Even when we are comfortable, we might think we’d be even happier if we just had a little bit more , whether it’s a new car, a better job, or a bigger house. (Hint: it doesn't).

Money alone doesn’t bring happiness , but researchers have found evidence supporting the connection between financial security and increased happiness and well-being.

According to a 2010 study, higher income does indeed help increase subjective life satisfaction as money can help alleviate emotional pain associated with challenging life events like divorce and poor health. Other research supports the link between financial security and happiness. In fact, studies show that security is particularly connected to happiness in societies where financial instability is more common.

A recent 2023 study has added another layer to this age-old debate by suggesting that higher income levels are connected to increased happiness.

The study found that happiness increases don't plateau once you hit a certain income. Instead, these benefits continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace.

That said, researchers do  note that money isn’t the only factor contributing to happiness. But money undoubtedly plays a huge in creating security, access to resources, and growth opportunities, all of which impact your overall well-being. 

The Limitations of Money in Achieving Happiness

It’s tempting to think that earning a bigger paycheck will be the secret to a fulfilling life. But try not to hinge your happiness on your bank account. Having more money may help increase happiness, yes, but can also bring about diminishing returns if the pursuit of extra cash affects your quality of life.

Studies suggest that beyond a certain income threshold—often cited around $75,000 to $100,000 annually—the additional happiness gains from extra income begin to level off. A boost in salary can make a big difference if you are struggling with basic needs. But you’re less likely to notice the extra income if you are already comfortable or doing well. 

We like to think that money solves all our problems, but the pursuit of financial rewards can be more harmful than good, especially if it costs us healthy relationships and social connections. Sure, having extra cash would be great, but if it means sacrificing meaningful connections with others, are the benefits even worth it?

Our emotional health and well-being thrive on strong relationships and social interactions. What good are financial rewards if they're overshadowing your relationships and experiences?

I know money solves a lot of problems, but it can't buy a sense of purpose and meaning. Think of it like this: if your job is financially rewarding but emotionally draining, burnout is inevitable. You can't appreciate all your hard work and reap the financial benefits if you're emotionally and mentally exhausted. And no amount of money can make your brain or body feel any less tired.

The Role of Money in Different Aspects of Life

The ability to afford what we want and need is often linked to a higher quality of life. Feeling financially secure can reduce anxiety since you’re less worried about how you’ll pay for life’s expected and unexpected expenses.

“We know financial stability also affords improved access to healthcare, leisure activities, and opportunities for personal growth, all of which contribute to better mental and emotional well-being,” Dr. Wijesekera says.

Financial stress can leave you in a constant state of fight or flight mode , she adds. Access to more money and resources shifts you from survivor mode into a space where you can focus on hobbies, friends, or things that make you happy.

Not having to worry about money allows someone to think about their mental health. They have time and an advantage to think about how they are feeling and doing. They do not have a survivalist mentality and can spend time thinking about their pursuits and how they can thrive.

In other words, not having to stress about money is what contributes to happiness the most.

“Imagine the difference between constantly feeling stressed about finances versus having peace of mind knowing your needs are met,” Anderson says. “While money itself is not a direct source of happiness, the security it provides can create a more stable environment for mental health to flourish.”

While it’s important to recognize the relationship between money and happiness, it’s not a silver bullet. True happiness comes from the often intangible things money can’t guarantee including happy relationships, a sense of purpose, and feeling connected to a community.

Strategies for Finding Happiness Beyond Money

There’s no question that financial security can offer comfort and ease stress, but it’s also true that the things that bring us happiness are immaterial.

Some research-backed ways to bring more happiness to your life (that, fortunately, don’t cost money):

Cultivate Positive Relationships

Research has consistently shown that having strong, supportive relationships is essential for mental health and life satisfaction. One 2023 study, in particular, found a significant positive relationship between social support and increased happiness.

Focus on cultivating stronger relationships with your family, friends, and community to gain greater emotional support and a sense of belonging . “Engaging in meaningful interactions and shared activities with loved ones can create lasting memories and strengthen bonds, leading to a sense of fulfillment and happiness that material possessions often cannot match,” Whitmire says.

Dr. Wijesekera suggests building a supportive social network by participating in free community events, joining support groups, or volunteering.

Find Meaning and Purpose

Pursuing a sense of purpose and meaning in your life can also play a pivotal role in your happiness and life satisfaction.

Interestingly, some research suggests that feeling a sense of purpose might be connected to financial success as well. In one study, people who felt a sense of purpose in their work earned more money than those who felt their work lacked meaning.   (Of course, earning more might also help make your work feel more meaningful, too). 

Some experiences like hobbies, volunteer work, and engaging activities can help you find purpose. Dr. Wijesekera suggests exploring inexpensive or free hobbies such as drawing, reading library books, and cooking new recipes. Being open to new experiences can bring a profound sense of fulfillment and meaning that will ultimately help you feel happier.

Practice Gratitude

Gratitude can be a powerful antidote to feelings of sadness and negativity. That’s because regularly reflecting on the things you love and appreciate can help shift your focus away from what might be lacking. Research has found that gratitude interventions such as gratitude journaling increase positive moods, subjective happiness, and life satisfaction.

“Taking time each day to appreciate the good things in your life, big or small, can shift your focus from what you lack to what you have,” Anderson says. “By acknowledging the positive aspects of your life, you can significantly boost your mood and overall well-being.”

Tip From a Clinical Psychologist

Practicing habits such as maintaining a gratitude journal, verbal affirmations, giving thanks, or reflecting on daily blessings can reduce stress and profoundly elevate one's well-being.

Practice Mindfulness and Other Self-Care Strategies

Mindfulness and other self-care practices are powerful tools for fostering better emotional well-being. Mindfulness centers on being fully present and engaged in the present moment without worrying about the past or future.

One study found that mindfulness was associated with various positive outcomes including higher levels of happiness and decreased anxiety and depression. Other self-care activities like meditation , exercise, and adequate sleep are also low-cost or free ways to enhance happiness.

Dr. Wijesekera recommends trying free apps or online videos to learn meditation techniques. She also says that simple mindfulness exercises like deep breathing and mindful walking can be beneficial.

Spending Time in Nature

Dr. Wijesekera recommends spending time outdoors in nature to help alleviate some of the physiological effects of stress. She points to research on the Japanese practice of shinrin-yoku or “ forest bathing .”  This report found that spending just 20 minutes walking outdoors can lower your heart rate, blood pressure, and cortisol levels (a stress hormone).

“Visit local parks, hiking trails, or beaches, which are often free,” she says. “Gardening, even in small spaces or community gardens, can also be a low-cost way to connect with nature.”

Help Others

Anderson also recommends volunteering and finding ways to assist others in your life. “Volunteering your time or doing something kind for someone else can be incredibly rewarding,” she says. “It strengthens your sense of community and purpose, and seeing the positive impact you have on others can be a great source of happiness.”

While evidence suggests that money increases happiness, it isn’t the only thing that brings joy. Plenty of things bring fulfillment to your life that doesn’t involve boosting your financial bottom line.

Strengthening relationships, going after meaningful goals, and caring for yourself are all proven strategies for improving your happiness and well-being. Focusing on those areas can help you create a more fulfilling life, regardless of your finances.

Remember, happiness doesn't come from a single source. By incorporating these strategies into your life and building a fulfilling lifestyle, you can find joy and contentment, regardless of your financial situation.

The answer to the question of whether money can buy happiness is, well, complicated. Research shows that money can alleviate stress and improve life satisfaction. But those benefits will start to taper off after a certain point. A higher income level provides financial security and access to resources and opportunities but doesn't guarantee enduring happiness.

Happiness isn’t just about what’s in your bank account. Finding happiness is an ongoing process that involves many facets. And while there’s nothing wrong with pursuing financial well-being, don't sacrifice your mental health in the long run. Instead, find a balance between your financial pursuits and relationships and experiences. That, we say, is the best approach for unlocking lasting happiness.

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being .  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,  107 (38), 16489–16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107

Ek, C. (2017). Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving .  Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization ,  136 , 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.01.007

Buttrick, N., & Oishi, S. (2023). Money and happiness: A consideration of history and psychological mechanisms .  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,  120 (13), e2301893120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301893120

Beygi, Z., Solhi, M., Irandoost, S. F., & Hoseini, A. F. (2023). The relationship between social support and happiness in older adults referred to health centers in Zarrin Shahr, Iran .  Heliyon ,  9 (9), e19529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19529

Hill, P. L., Turiano, N. A., Mroczek, D. K., & Burrow, A. L. (2016). The value of a purposeful life: Sense of purpose predicts greater income and net worth .  Journal of Research in Personality ,  65 , 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.07.003

Cunha, L. F., Pellanda, L. C., & Reppold, C. T. (2019). Positive psychology and gratitude interventions: A randomized clinical trial .  Frontiers in Psychology ,  10 , 584. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00584

Crego, A., Yela, J. R., Gómez-Martínez, M. Á., Riesco-Matías, P., & Petisco-Rodríguez, C. (2021). Relationships between mindfulness, purpose in life, happiness, anxiety, and depression: Testing a mediation model in a sample of women .  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  18 (3), 925. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030925

Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kasetani, T., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2010). The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (Taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan .  Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine ,  15 (1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets and Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Webinars
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events

Research: Can Money Buy Happiness?

In his quarterly column, Francis J. Flynn looks at research that examines how to spend your way to a more satisfying life.

September 25, 2013

A boy looks at a toy train he received during an annual gift-giving event on Christmas Eve 2011. | Reuters/Jose Luis Gonzalez

What inspires people to act selflessly, help others, and make personal sacrifices? Each quarter, this column features one piece of scholarly research that provides insight on what motivates people to engage in what psychologists call “prosocial behavior” — things like making charitable contributions, buying gifts, volunteering one‘s time, and so forth. In short, it looks at the work of some of our finest researchers on what spurs people to do something on behalf of someone else.

In this column I explore the idea that many of the ways we spend money are prosocial acts — and prosocial expenditures may, in fact, make us happier than personal expenditures. Authors Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton discuss evidence for this in their new book, Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending . These behavioral scientists show that you can get more out of your money by following several principles — like spending money on others rather than yourself. Moreover, they demonstrate that these principles can be used not only by individuals, but also by companies seeking to create happier employees and more satisfying products.

According to Dunn and Norton, recent research on happiness suggests that the most satisfying way of using money is to invest in others. This can take a seemingly limitless variety of forms, from donating to a charity that helps strangers in a faraway country to buying lunch for a friend.

Witness Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, two of the wealthiest people in the world. On a March day in 2010, they sat in a diner in Carter Lake, Iowa, and hatched a scheme. They would ask America‘s billionaires to pledge the majority of their wealth to charity. Buffet decided to donate 99 percent of his, saying, “I couldn‘t be happier with that decision.”

And what about the rest of us? Dunn and Norton show how we all might learn from that example, regardless of the size of our bank accounts. Research demonstrating that people derive more satisfaction spending money on others than they do spending it on themselves spans poor and rich countries alike, as well as income levels. The authors show how this phenomenon extends over an extraordinary range of circumstances, from a Canadian college student purchasing a scarf for her mother to a Ugandan woman buying lifesaving malaria medication for a friend. Indeed, the benefits of giving emerge among children before the age of two.

Investing in others can make individuals feel healthier and wealthier, even if it means making yourself a little poorer to reap these benefits. One study shows that giving as little as $1 away can cause you to feel more flush.

Quote Investing in others can make you feel healthier and wealthier, even if it means making yourself a little poorer.

Dunn and Norton further discuss how businesses such as PepsiCo and Google and nonprofits such as DonorsChoose.org are harnessing these benefits by encouraging donors, customers, and employees to invest in others. When Pepsi punted advertising at the 2010 Superbowl and diverted funds to supporting grants that would allow people to “refresh” their communities, for example, more public votes were cast for projects than had been cast in the 2008 election. Pepsi got buzz, and the company‘s in-house competition also offering a seed grant boosted employee morale.

Could this altruistic happiness principle be applied to one of our most disputed spheres — paying taxes? As it turns out, countries with more equal distributions of income also tend to be happier. And people in countries with more progressive taxation (such as Sweden and Japan) are more content than those in countries where taxes are less progressive (such as Italy and Singapore). One study indicated that people would be happier about paying taxes if they had more choice as to where their money went. Dunn and Norton thus suggest that if taxes were made to feel more like charitable contributions, people might be less resentful having to pay them.

The researchers persuasively suggest that the proclivity to derive joy from investing in others may well be just a fundamental component of human nature. Thus the typical ratio we all tend to fall into of spending on self versus others — ten to one — may need a shift. Giving generously to charities, friends, and coworkers — and even your country — may well be a productive means of increasing well-being and improving our lives.

Research selected by Francis Flynn, Paul E. Holden Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom .

Explore More

Can we be candid how to communicate clearly and directly, directive speech vs. dialogue: how leaders communicate with clarity, balance, a dozen of our favorite insights stories of 2021, editor’s picks.

• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Class of 2024 Candidates
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Dean’s Remarks
• Keynote Address
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Marketing
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2024 Awardees
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• Career Change
• Career Advancement
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• RKMA Market Research Handbook Series
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Does Money Buy Happiness? Here’s What the Research Says

March 28, 2023 • 5 min read.

Reconciling previously contradictory results, researchers from Wharton and Princeton find a steady association between larger incomes and greater happiness for most people but a rise and plateau for an unhappy minority.

• Finance & Accounting

The following article was originally published on Penn Today .

Does money buy happiness? Though it seems like a straightforward question, research had previously returned contradictory findings, leaving uncertainty about its answer.

Foundational work published in 2010 from Princeton University’s  Daniel Kahneman  and Angus Deaton had found that day-to-day happiness rose as annual income increased, but above $75,000 it leveled off and happiness plateaued. In contrast, work published in 2021 from the University of Pennsylvania’s  Matthew Killingsworth  found that happiness rose steadily with income well beyond $75,000, without evidence of a plateau.

To reconcile the differences, Kahneman and Killingsworth paired up in what’s known as an adversarial collaboration, joining forces with Penn Integrates Knowledge  University Professor  Barbara Mellers  as arbiter. In a new  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  paper , the trio shows that, on average, larger incomes are associated with ever-increasing levels of happiness. Zoom in, however, and the relationship becomes more complex, revealing that within that overall trend, an unhappy cohort in each income group shows a sharp rise in happiness up to $100,000 annually and then plateaus.

“In the simplest terms, this suggests that for most people larger incomes are associated with greater happiness,” says Killingsworth, a senior fellow at Wharton and lead paper author. “The exception is people who are financially well-off but unhappy. For instance, if you’re rich and miserable, more money won’t help. For everyone else, more money was associated with higher happiness to somewhat varying degrees.”

Mellers digs into this last notion, noting that emotional well-being and income aren’t connected by a single relationship. “The function differs for people with different levels of emotional well-being,” she says. Specifically, for the least happy group, happiness rises with income until $100,000, then shows no further increase as income grows. For those in the middle range of emotional well-being, happiness increases linearly with income, and for the happiest group the association actually accelerates above $100,000.

Joining Forces to Ask: “Does Money Buy Happiness?”

The researchers began this combined effort recognizing that their previous work had drawn different conclusions. Kahneman’s 2010 study showed a flattening pattern where Killingsworth’s 2021 study did not. As its name suggests, an adversarial collaboration of this type — a notion originated by Kahneman — aims to solve scientific disputes or disagreements by bringing together the differing parties, along with a third-party mediator.

Killingsworth, Kahneman, and Mellers focused on a new hypothesis that both a happy majority and an unhappy minority exist. For the former, they surmised, happiness keeps rising as more money comes in; the latter’s happiness improves as income rises but only up to a certain income threshold, after which it progresses no further.

To test this new hypothesis, they looked for the flattening pattern in data from Killingworth’s study, which he had collected through an app he created called Track Your Happiness. Several times a day, the app pings participants at random moments, asking a variety of questions including how they feel on a scale from “very good” to “very bad.” Taking an average of the person’s happiness and income, Killingsworth draws conclusions about how the two variables are linked.

A breakthrough in the new partnership came early on when the researchers realized that the 2010 data, which had revealed the happiness plateau, had actually been measuring unhappiness in particular rather than happiness in general.

“It’s easiest to understand with an example,” Killingsworth says. Imagine a cognitive test for dementia that most healthy people pass easily. While such a test could detect the presence and severity of cognitive dysfunction, it wouldn’t reveal much about general intelligence since most healthy people would receive the same perfect score.

“In the same way, the 2010 data showing a plateau in happiness had mostly perfect scores, so it tells us about the trend in the unhappy end of the happiness distribution, rather than the trend of happiness in general. Once you recognize that, the two seemingly contradictory findings aren’t necessarily incompatible,” Killingsworth says. “And what we found bore out that possibility in an incredibly beautiful way. When we looked at the happiness trend for unhappy people in the 2021 data, we found exactly the same pattern as was found in 2010; happiness rises relatively steeply with income and then plateaus.”

“The two findings that seemed utterly contradictory actually result from data that are amazingly consistent,” he says.

Does It Matter Whether Money Can Buy Happiness?

Drawing these conclusions would have been challenging had the two research teams not come together, says Mellers, who suggests there’s no better way than adversarial collaborations to resolve scientific conflict.

“This kind of collaboration requires far greater self-discipline and precision in thought than the standard procedure,” she says. “Collaborating with an adversary — or even a non-adversary — is not easy, but both parties are likelier to recognize the limits of their claims.” Indeed, that’s what happened, leading to a better understanding of the relationship between money and happiness.

And these findings have real-world implications, according to Killingsworth. For one, they could inform thinking about tax rates or how to compensate employees. And, of course, they matter to individuals as they navigate career choices or weigh a larger income against other priorities in life, Killingsworth says.

However, he adds that for emotional well-being money isn’t the be all end all. “Money is just one of the many determinants of happiness,” he says. “Money is not the secret to happiness, but it can probably help a bit.”

More From Knowledge at Wharton

What I’ve Learned: Olivia S. Mitchell

Why ETFs Are Scoring Over Mutual Funds

How to Align Private Equity Motives with Nursing Home Outcomes

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Here’s How Money Really Can Buy You Happiness

The following story is excerpted from TIME’s special edition, The Science of Happiness , which is available at Amazon .

“Whoever said money can’t buy happiness isn’t spending it right.” You may remember those Lexus ads from years back, which hijacked this bumper-sticker-ready twist on the conventional wisdom to sell a car so fancy that no one would ever dream of affixing a bumper sticker to it.

What made the ads so intriguing, but also so infuriating, was that they seemed to offer a simple—if rather expensive—solution to a common question: How can you transform the money you work so hard to earn into something approaching the good life? You know that there must be some connection between money and happiness. If there weren’t, you’d be less likely to stay late at work (or even go in at all) or struggle to save money and invest it profitably. But then, why aren’t your lucrative promotion, five-bedroom house and fat 401(k) cheering you up? The relationship between money and happiness, it would appear, is more complicated than you can possibly imagine.

Fortunately, you don’t have to do the untangling yourself. Over the past quarter-century, economists and psychologists have banded together to sort out the hows, whys and why-nots of money and mood. Especially the why-nots. Why is it that the more money you have, the more you want? Why doesn’t buying the car, condo or cellphone of your dreams bring you more than momentary joy?

In attempting to answer these seemingly depressing questions, the new scholars of happiness have arrived at some insights that are, well, downright cheery. Money can help you find more happiness, so long as you know just what you can and can’t expect from it. And no, you don’t have to buy a Lexus to be happy. Much of the research suggests that seeking the good life at a store is an expensive exercise in futility. Before you can pursue happiness the right way, you need to recognize what you’ve been doing wrong.

Money misery

The new science of happiness starts with a simple insight: we’re never satisfied. “We always think if we just had a little bit more money, we’d be happier,” says Catherine Sanderson, a psychology professor at Amherst College, “but when we get there, we’re not.” Indeed, the more you make, the more you want. The more you have, the less effective it is at bringing you joy, and that seeming paradox has long bedeviled economists. “Once you get basic human needs met, a lot more money doesn’t make a lot more happiness,” notes Dan Gilbert, a psychology professor at Harvard University and the author of Stumbling on Happiness . Some research shows that going from earning less than $20,000 a year to making more than $50,000 makes you twice as likely to be happy, yet the payoff for then surpassing $90,000 is slight. And while the rich are happier than the poor, the enormous rise in living standards over the past 50 years hasn’t made Americans happier. Why? Three reasons:

You overestimate how much pleasure you’ll get from having more. Humans are adaptable creatures, which has been a plus during assorted ice ages, plagues and wars. But that’s also why you’re never all that satisfied for long when good fortune comes your way. While earning more makes you happy in the short term, you quickly adjust to your new wealth—and everything it buys you. Yes, you get a thrill at first from shiny new cars and TV screens the size of Picasso’s Guernica . But you soon get used to them, a state of running in place that economists call the “hedonic treadmill” or “hedonic adaptation.”

Even though stuff seldom brings you the satisfaction you expect, you keep returning to the mall and the car dealership in search of more. “When you imagine how much you’re going to enjoy a Porsche, what you’re imagining is the day you get it,” says Gilbert. When your new car loses its ability to make your heart go pitter-patter, he says, you tend to draw the wrong conclusions. Instead of questioning the notion that you can buy happiness on the car lot, you begin to question your choice of car. So you pin your hopes on a new BMW, only to be disappointed again.

More money can also lead to more stress. The big salary you pull in from your high-paying job may not buy you much in the way of happiness. But it can buy you a spacious house in the suburbs. Trouble is, that also means a long trip to and from work, and study after study confirms what you sense daily: even if you love your job, the little slice of everyday hell you call the commute can wear you down. You can adjust to most anything, but a stop-and-go drive or an overstuffed subway car will make you unhappy whether it’s your first day on the job or your last.

You endlessly compare yourself with the family next door. H.L. Mencken once quipped that the happy man is one who earns $100 more than his wife’s sister’s husband. He was right. Happiness scholars have found that how you stand relative to others makes a much bigger difference in your sense of well-being than how much you make in an absolute sense.

You may feel a touch of envy when you read about the glamorous lives of the absurdly wealthy, but the group you likely compare yourself with are folks Dartmouth economist Erzo Luttmer calls “similar others”—the people you work with, people you grew up with, old friends and old classmates. “You have to think, ‘I could have been that person,’ ” Luttmer says.

Matching census data on earnings with data on self-reported happiness from a national survey, Luttmer found that, sure enough, your happiness can depend a great deal on your neighbors’ paychecks. “If you compare two people with the same income, with one living in a richer area than the other,” Luttmer says, “the person in the richer area reports being less happy.”

Your penchant for comparing yourself with the guy next door, like your tendency to grow bored with the things that you acquire, seems to be a deeply rooted human trait. An inability to stay satisfied is arguably one of the key reasons prehistoric man moved out of his drafty cave and began building the civilization you now inhabit. But you’re not living in a cave, and you likely don’t have to worry about mere survival. You can afford to step off the hedonic treadmill. The question is, how do you do it?

Money bliss

If you want to know how to use the money you have to become happier, you need to understand just what it is that brings you happiness in the first place. And that’s where the newest happiness research comes in.

Friends and family are a mighty elixir. One secret of happiness? People. Innumerable studies suggest that having friends matters a great deal. Large-scale surveys by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC), for example, have found that those with five or more close friends are 50% more likely to describe themselves as “very happy” than those with smaller social circles. Compared with the happiness-increasing powers of human connection, the power of money looks feeble indeed. So throw a party, set up regular lunch dates—whatever it takes to invest in your friendships.

Even more important to your happiness is your relationship with your aptly named “significant other.” People in happy, stable, committed relationships tend to be far happier than those who aren’t. Among those surveyed by NORC from the 1970s through the 1990s, some 40% of married couples said they were “very happy”; among the never-married, only about a quarter were quite so exuberant. But there is good reason to choose wisely. Divorce brings misery to everyone involved, though those who stick it out in a terrible marriage are the unhappiest of all.

While a healthy marriage is a clear happiness booster, the kids who tend to follow are more of a mixed blessing. Studies of kids and happiness have come up with little more than a mess of conflicting data. “When you take moment-by-moment readouts of how people feel when they’re taking care of the kids, they actually aren’t very happy,” notes Cornell University psychologist Tom Gilovich. “But if you ask them, they say that having kids is one of the most enjoyable things they do with their lives.”

Doing things can bring us more joy than having things. Our preoccupation with stuff obscures an important truth: the things that don’t last create the most lasting happiness. That’s what Gilovich and Leaf Van Boven of the University of Colorado found when they asked students to compare the pleasure they got from the most recent things they bought with the experiences (a night out, a vacation) they spent money on.

One reason may be that experiences tend to blossom as you recall them, not diminish. “In your memory, you’re free to embellish and elaborate,” says Gilovich. Your trip to Mexico may have been an endless parade of hassles punctuated by a few exquisite moments. But looking back on it, your brain can edit out the surly cabdrivers, remembering only the glorious sunsets. So next time you think that arranging a vacation is more trouble than it’s worth—or a cost you’d rather not shoulder—factor in the delayed impact.

Of course, a lot of what you spend money on could be considered a thing, an experience or a bit of both. A book that sits unread on a bookshelf is a thing; a book you plunge into with gusto, savoring every plot twist, is an experience. Gilovich says that people define what is and isn’t an experience differently. Maybe that’s the key. He suspects that the people who are happiest are those who are best at wringing experiences out of everything they spend money on, whether it’s dancing lessons or hiking boots.

Applying yourself to something hard makes you happy. We’re addicted to challenges, and we’re often far happier while working toward a goal than after we reach it. Challenges help you attain what psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls a state of “flow”: total absorption in something that stretches you to the limits of your abilities, mental or physical. Buy the $1,000 golf clubs; pay for the $50-an-hour music lessons.

Most Popular from TIME

Flow takes work.

After all, you have to learn to play scales on a guitar before you can lose yourself in a Van Halen–esque solo—but the satisfaction you get in the end is greater than what you can get out of more passive pursuits. When people are asked what makes them happy on a moment-to-moment basis, watching TV ranks pretty high. But people who watch a lot of TV tend to be less happy than those who don’t. Settling down on the couch with the remote can help you recharge, but to be truly happy, you need more in your life than passive pleasures.

You need to find activities that help you get into the state of flow. You can find flow at work if you have a job that interests and challenges you and that gives you ample control over your daily assignments. Indeed, one study by two University of British Columbia researchers suggests that workers would be happy to forgo as much as a 20% raise if it meant having a job with more variety.

Not long ago, most researchers thought you had a happiness set point that you were largely stuck with for life. One famous paper said that “trying to be happier” may be “as futile as trying to be taller.” The author of those words has since recanted, and experts are increasingly coming to view happiness as a talent, not an inborn trait. Exceptionally happy people seem to have a set of skills—ones that you too can learn.

Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychology professor at the University of California, Riverside, has found that happy people don’t waste time dwelling on unpleasant things. They tend to interpret ambiguous events in positive ways. And perhaps most tellingly, they aren’t bothered by the successes of others. Lyubomirsky says that when she asked less-happy people whom they compared themselves with, “they went on and on.” She adds, “The happy people didn’t know what we were talking about.” They dare not to compare, thus short-circuiting invidious social comparisons.

That’s not the only way to get yourself to spend less and appreciate what you have more. Try counting your blessings. Literally. In a series of studies, psychologists Robert Emmons of the University of California, Davis, and Michael McCullough of the University of Miami found that those who did exercises to cultivate feelings of gratitude, such as keeping weekly journals, ended up feeling happier, healthier, more energetic and more optimistic than those who didn’t.

And if you can’t change how you think, you can at least learn to resist. The act of shopping unleashes primal hunter-gatherer urges. When you’re in that hot state, you tend to be an extremely poor judge of what you’ll think of a product when you cool down later. Before giving in to your lust, give yourself a time-out. Over the next month, keep track of how many times you tell yourself: I wish I had a camera! If in the course of your life you almost never find yourself wanting a camera, forget about it and move on, happily.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The Reintroduction of Kamala Harris
• The 7 States That Will Decide the Election
• Is the U.S. Ready for Psychedelics?
• Inside Sam Bankman-Fried's Siege of D.C.
• Do You Really Store Stress in Your Body?
• The Rise of a New Kind of Parenting Guru
• The 50 Best Romance Novels to Read Right Now
• Can Food Really Change Your Hormones?

Contact us at [email protected]

Does Money Buy Happiness? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Whether or not money can buy happiness is a continued debate. Billions of people in all parts of the world sacrifice their ambitions and subconscious tensions on the altar of profitability and higher incomes. Millions of people dream to achieve the level of wellbeing, when earning money will no longer be a problem to them. Legal or illegal does not really matter, as long as these strategies lead individuals to the desired monetary outcomes.

Professional economists assert that more money does not buy happiness. As a result, it makes no sense for people to pursue money. Yet, the reality is quite different, as money, wealth, high incomes, and wide opportunities which they open make people extremely satisfied. Based on the current knowledge of economics, the opportunity costs of pursuing money can be extremely high. Therefore, it is better to pursue money for a purpose rather than for its own sake.

People always wanted more money. Money inspired professional economists and bank robbers. Millions of people would even try to sell their souls for a reasonable sum of money. Nevertheless, the debate on whether or not money can buy happiness continues to persist. Globalization and consumerism have turned money into the main criterion of individual and professional success: the more money you earn the better person you are.

However, professional economists suggest that money does not make people happy. The current state of research claims that, despite the rapid increase in personal incomes, the percentage of people who consider themselves happy has not changed (Lee, 2005). Similar disconnects between income and happiness were found in most advanced economies, including Japan, Europe, and the United Kingdom (Lee, 2005).

However, the general inconsistency of these research results is too obvious to ignore. First, what does it mean for people to be happy? Professional economists may have profound knowledge of economic concepts but can hardly make happiness measurable. Second, can people be happy with their incomes if they always want more? Most probably, at any given point, individuals will feel dissatisfied with what they have and will try to obtain more.

I agree that money buys happiness, but this happiness is never constant. This idea is further supported by Lee (2005), who assumes that people will make all sorts of sacrifices to get money, but their happiness will be temporary at best. Lee (2005) relies on the two main premises.

First, “happiness people realize from having more income results from having more relative to others in some reference group, not from having more absolutely” (p.389). Simply stated, individuals always compare their incomes and positions to those of other individuals. They want to have more relative to what others have or can have. However, their happiness wanes as soon as others achieve a better social position, income, or level of wellbeing.

Second, the nature of sensory adaptation in humans explains why people are never happy with what they have: human receptors become irresponsive to the continuous presence of one and the same stimulus (Lee, 2005). As a result, the more money individuals earn the happier they become; however, with time, money turns into boredom and no longer brings happiness.

Obviously, it does make sense to make money, since money is the main instrument of exchange and the source of unlimited opportunities for everyone. Money opens the gateway to a broad range of material and nonmaterial values, including health and education.

We should never belittle the significance of money merely because it brings only temporary satisfaction (Lee, 2005). Yet, it is always better to pursue money for a purpose rather than for its own sake. Money for the sake of money makes little sense. Money is not the end but only the means of achieving some goal, like purchasing a new house or curing a sick child.

Moreover, a common increase in individual wealth is always a positive externality, as richer countries experience lower childbirth mortality, fewer traffic deaths, better health, and longer life expectancy (Lee, 2005). We live in society and our wealth necessarily benefits others, through taxes and charity. Therefore, it always makes sense to pursue money to improve individual and societal wellbeing.

The opportunity costs of pursuing more money can be extremely high. Opportunity costs are everywhere, as every decision necessarily involves tradeoffs. Individuals sacrifice their families and personal wellbeing to become successful, rich professionals. Others apply to illegal activities and decisions to earn their wealth. In my own life, my decision to become educated was associated with major opportunity costs. First, the costs of education impose a heavy burden of financial obligations on me.

I could use this money to meet other life goals. Second, I spend more time at work and earn more money; I lose considerable earnings each time I pursue a better grade. Third, not all courses are equally pleasant: some courses seem not to be tailored to the specific needs and demands of the student majority (Frank, 2005). I could use this time to improve my knowledge of the disciplines that are important for my future career. To a large extent, the dollar cost of education does not reflect all opportunity costs.

Yet, many students forget that higher education provides a variety of benefits that helps to decrease most, if not, opportunity costs. Statistically, college and university graduates earn $14,000 a year more compared with their non-educated counterparts (Anonymous, 2003). The social value of higher education is difficult to underestimate (Porter, 2002). Education enhances workplace productivity and stimulates professional growth. Therefore, the marginal utility of a university degree increases.

Almost all economists treat opportunity cost as the main economic concept (Frank, 2005). Every single decision is inevitably associated with one or more opportunity costs. These involve explicit and implicit costs of other opportunities (Arnold, 2008; Baumol & Blinder, 2008). Opportunity costs reflect the significance of the cost-benefit principle that governs most individual decisions (Frank, 2005). Introductory economics courses must place particular emphasis on teaching students how to weigh benefits and costs of various decisions (Frank, 2005). This knowledge of economics and economic principles will subsequently reduce the opportunity costs of education.

Whether or not money can buy happiness is a continued debate. Billions of people in all parts of the world sacrifice their ambitions and subconscious tensions on the altar of profitability and higher incomes. The current state of research claims that, despite the rapid increase in personal incomes, the percentage of people who consider themselves happy has not changed.

However, these results do not reflect the real order of things in the world. Money buys happiness, but this happiness is never constant. The more money individuals earn the happier they become; however, with time, money turns into boredom and no longer brings happiness.

Moreover, a common increase in individual wealth is always a positive externality, as richer countries experience lower childbirth mortality, fewer traffic deaths, better health, and longer life expectancy. Yet, the opportunity costs of pursuing more money can be extremely high. Every single decision is inevitably associated with one or more opportunity costs. Knowledge of economics and economic principles will subsequently reduce the opportunity costs of education.

Anonymous. (2003). Report puts dollar value on education. Georgia College & State University. Web.

Arnold, R.A. (2008). Microeconomics. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Baumol, W.J. & Blinder, A.S. (2008). Microeconomics: Principles and policy. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Frank, R.H. (2005). The opportunity cost of economics education . The New York Times. Web.

Lee, D.R. (2005). Who says money cannot buy happiness? The Independent Review, X(3), 385-400.

Porter, K. (2002). The value of a college degree. ERIC Digest. Web.

• Impact of HIV/AIDS on Microeconomics
• Demand and Supply
• Can Money Buy You Happiness?
• The Benefits of Pursuing Education
• David Leonhardt: May Be Money Does Buy Happiness After All
• Two Industries in Different Market Structures
• Supply and Demand: The Case of Milk
• Microeconomics Module – Supply and Demand
• Microeconomics Demand: Utility and Marginality
• Opportunity Cost
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 12). Does Money Buy Happiness? https://ivypanda.com/essays/does-money-buy-happiness/

"Does Money Buy Happiness?" IvyPanda , 12 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/does-money-buy-happiness/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Does Money Buy Happiness'. 12 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Does Money Buy Happiness?" October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/does-money-buy-happiness/.

1. IvyPanda . "Does Money Buy Happiness?" October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/does-money-buy-happiness/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Does Money Buy Happiness?" October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/does-money-buy-happiness/.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Can Money Buy Happiness? It Depends on Why You’re Spending It

Imagine that someone gives you a cash gift and tells you that, instead of saving or investing it, you need to spend it right now. What should you put your money toward if you want to make yourself happiest?

According to past research , we’ll be happier if we spend money on an experience than if we buy a material object—like traveling or going out for a meal instead of buying the latest product we see on social media. For example, people report more gratitude when they spend on experiences rather than possessions.

On the other hand, we can all probably think of times when we’ve spent money on an experience that ended up not being worth it. Maybe you bought pricey event tickets to avoid missing out, only to realize on the day of the event that you’d much prefer a cozy night at home. Or perhaps you went out to dinner with a friend at a fancy restaurant, only to find that your friend was more focused on posting the meal to Instagram than having a deep conversation.

It turns out that there might be another factor at play beyond whether we spend money on an experience or a material item: According to a new study published in the British Journal of Social Psychology , it may also matter how our purchases align with our goals.

In the study, researchers asked 452 participants in an online survey to describe a recent purchase. They were asked to write about something they had spent money on in the last three months (ranging from about $60 to $1,200), excluding everyday expenses such as bills and groceries. After describing it, people were asked to indicate the extent to which the purchase helped to fulfill different goals. They also noted how much they felt the purchase contributed to their happiness and life satisfaction.

According to self-determination theory , goals reflect our intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Extrinsic goals are things that other people expect for us: for example, working hard at a job not because you’re passionate about the work, but because you need the money or want a high-status job to impress others. Intrinsic goals, on the other hand, are ones that we have a strong internal motivation to pursue. In the survey, extrinsic goals included gaining wealth or social status, whereas intrinsic ones included cultivating relationships, helping other people, and contributing to growth, learning, and development.

The researchers found that, the more a purchase reflected people’s intrinsic goals, the more they thought it improved their well-being. In other words, the greatest well-being occurred when people spent money on something that was personally important to them.

To compare this finding with past research, the current study also asked participants to indicate to what extent their purchase was an experience or a material item. As in past research, participants did report higher well-being from experiences. However, when the researchers looked at both factors together, they found that how much a purchase reflected intrinsic goals explained more of the differences in well-being than whether something was material or experiential.

So, what does this research mean for our spending habits? Olaya Moldes Andrés, lecturer at Cardiff University and the study’s author, points out that we’re under a lot of pressure to spend money these days; just think about the number of targeted ads you see each time you open social media. However, this pressure to spend has a downside: In past research , Moldes Andrés has found that people who are exposed to more materialistic messages have lower well-being.

Before purchasing something, she recommends pausing to think about the reason for our purchase, and what use we will get out of it. If we’re spending money on trying to impress people or project a certain image (in other words, extrinsic goals), the purchase may not actually be worth it.

So, next time you’re planning to buy something, take a moment to think about whether it’s something you’re buying because you feel it’s what’s expected of you—or whether it’s truly something that you want.

About the Author

Elizabeth Hopper

Elizabeth Hopper, Ph.D. , received her Ph.D. in psychology from UC Santa Barbara and currently works as a freelance science writer specializing in psychology and mental health.

You May Also Enjoy

How Does Valuing Money Affect Your Happiness?

How Spending Influences Happiness

How Much Money Do People Need to Be Happy?

What Makes Us Happier Than Money?

Six ways to get more happiness for your money.

Why Do We Think Money Buys Happiness?

Does Money Make You Happy?

One of the big questions when it comes to happiness, particularly in a work context, is whether money can make you happier. If you keep chasing the next job with a larger salary, will you be happier? Does paying your team more make them happier?

Matt Phelan

23 November 2022

These are the kinds of questions that as individuals and organisations we have to answer. As ever, at The Happiness Index, we believe in going back to science. There have been lots of studies which look at the impact of money on happiness, so it’s easy to find some answers to our questions. 

Does Money Make You Happier?

The short answer is: Yes.

Of course, as ever there’s a bit more to it than that. So let’s dive further into the thorny questions around money and happiness .

Will Earning a Great Salary Make me Happier?

Of course, your salary has a big impact on your quality of life. It’s going to impact everything from the kinds of food you eat, to where you live and the car you drive. However, these improvements will only make you happier to a point.

Wellbeing expert Gethin Nadin tells us that “Money contributes to happiness when it helps us make basic needs but the research tells us that above a certain level more money doesn’t actually yield more happiness.” The research that he refers to here is a 2010 study out of Princeton. The data suggests that happiness increased with salary until participants earned $75,000 per annum. Beyond this point, the correlation between salary and happiness decreased.

Money contributes to happiness when it helps us make basic needs but the research tells us that above a certain level more money doesn’t actually yield more happiness. - Gethin Nadin, Bestselling HR Author & Top Global Employee Experience Influencer 2019 & 2020

Not only did earning more money make participants happier, but it also protected them from things which might make them unhappier. For example, participants going through a divorce who earned less became unhappier than those earning more.

It’s interesting to note, however, that the amount of money people think they need to earn to be happy is very different from what the Princeton study shows. Sonja Lyubomirsky, an important happiness researcher at the University of California, completed a study into just this. She found that people making $30,000 thought they’d need to increase their annual salary to $50,000 to be happy. But, those earning $100,000 per year estimated a yearly salary of $250,000 would make them happy. In short, people always think they need a little more money to be happy.

Will Being a Multimillionaire Make Me Happier?

The studies discussed above only look at income which sits within the bounds of average earners. Many people want to exceed this and earn millions, living a lavish footballer lifestyle. Can you blame them? But will this make them happier? Let’s look at other studies to examine these questions in more detail.

A 2017 study looked at the happiness of multimillionaires to see if they were happy. This study looked at 4,000 millionaires in the US and calculated satisfaction with lifestyle scores for these individuals. The study found that here, as with us mere mortals, there is a link between money and happiness. Indeed the research by Grant Donnelly et al, shows that there isn’t much difference between the happiness of multimillionaires until we get to those worth over $10 million. That said, even within this, these super-rich decamillionaires aren’t significantly happier than regular millionaires. Donnelly describes the difference as “modest”.

So it seems even multimillionaires aren’t significantly happier than those working with regular amounts of money. But what if we look at how these people came to be rich?

Will Inheriting a Fortune Make Me Happier?

By now, we’ve probably all received an email from someone claiming to be a Nigerian prince, telling us that we’ve inherited a fortune. Before hitting the spam button, it’s often tempting to imagine what you would do with your newfound wealth. Unfortunately, it seems that those who inherit fortunes aren’t actually that much happier at all.

The same 2017 study that we looked at before also found that those who inherited their fortune were less happy than those who had earned their millionaire status. So perhaps we should be grateful that our long lost Nigerian uncle’s money is unlikely to reach our bank accounts after all.

Will Winning The Lottery Make Me Happier?

In the absence of rich uncles, long lost or otherwise, the other get-rich-quick dream is winning the lottery. Luckily for us, there have been loads of studies into lottery winners, including a bunch about whether they’re happy or not. So will winning the lottery make us as happy as we think it will?

A 2007 study showed that those winning $200,000 experienced greater stress in the year that they won, but after two years were more likely to be happier than those who hadn’t won any money at all. In a 2018 literature review, Donnelly found that moderately sized winnings may increase happiness. Unfortunately, the impact isn’t very big, certainly not as big as we might think. Those winning the larger prizes showed no increase in happiness.

As with the millionaire’s example, it’s not just about how much money you have, but also how you come by it.

Will Spending Money Make Me Happier?

Once you have your money, does how you spend it affect how happy you are? The short answer here is also, yes. But as ever it’s a bit more complicated than that. It really depends on what you’re spending your money on.

A 2014 study by Thomas Gilovich showed that spending money on experiences is the best way to spend money to bring happiness. Another way to spend money to bring you happiness is to spend money on other people – Elizabeth Dunn has completed studies into what she calls “prosocial spending” and has shown that spending as little as $5 on others can bring more happiness than spending the same amount on yourself.

My favourite way to spend money to bring happiness is to spend money on time. For example, paying others to do jobs we don’t enjoy around the house, spending money on equipment that makes jobs easier or quicker, like a dishwasher, or even working less because we can afford to can all bring us happiness. Particularly when this money is reinvested into things which bring us joy like hobbies, spending time with loved ones, or films or music.

Compared to the ways of spending money already outlined above, buying things actually is the least efficient way of investing money into our happiness. However, there are ways to ensure that our material purchases are bringing us happiness. We can buy several smaller treats, spend time considering exactly what we want to buy, and also continue to think about the benefit that the item brings us in our day to day life even after we purchase it.

Will Paying My Team More Make Them Happier?

Of course, as you’ve seen above, there’s no simple answer to this question. There’s no real proof that raising salaries automatically makes people happier. However, paying people well is obviously the right thing to do.

Morally it makes sense to pay your staff what they’re worth, it also ensures they feel valued – which will definitely impact their performance. It also makes perfect business sense too. A 2020 study showed that worrying about money caused more stress than concerns about relationships or work itself. The study calculated that, on average, an employee loses about 1.5 days of work a year due to money-related stress. Across your whole team, this is going to add up. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense to try to mitigate the financial stress your team is under and help them achieve financial wellbeing. This will impact employee engagement and happiness .

On average employees lose 1.5 days a year to money-related stress. This is having an impact on your bottom line. Gethin Nadin, Bestselling HR Author & Top Global Employee Experience Influencer 2019 & 20

Gethin Nadin argues that employers are in a unique position to have a direct impact on the financial and therefore mental wellbeing of their staff. This is something that organisations should take seriously. At the end of the day, absenteeism is having a direct impact on your bottom line.

Paying your team more also makes sense from a neuroscientific standpoint. In particular we see increasing salary as something that can support the key neuroscience themes of safety and acknowledgement. 

As we’ve seen, ensuring that people can pay their bills can reduce stress, this is because it means that your team will feel more safe and secure in their role. It will also encourage them to build a healthier work-life balance as they will feel less worried about the stability of their role, and so more able to find a healthy balance. 

Being paid what they’re worth will also help your team feel that they are being given the recognition they need. Although it’s easy to think of recognition as being something more associated with praise and relationships, in actual fact, actions are also a very important part of getting Acknowledgement right. It’s a tangible way your team knows that you value them every month. 

Will Paying my Team More Increase Engagement? 

Again, there’s no direct correlation between employee engagement and pay. 

However, personal growth is an important neuroscience theme when it comes to engagement, and salary can definitely feed into this. For many people, being given pay rises and working towards promotion is an important indicator of their development and progression within an organisation.

Although it’s far from the only way to determine growth, and it might not be the way that everyone approaches their development, it’s still important to bear in mind when considering how engaged your team is. Creating defined goals, targets and learning plans is obviously where we should start when supporting our team’s personal growth. But for many individuals this might seem meaningless unless it can be backed up by promotions and corresponding raises.

Linked to Happiness in our neuroscience methodology... learn more

Recommended reading

Creating an Employee Engagement AND Happiness Strategy

How to Succeed With Employee Voice

Employee Engagement: What You Need To Know

What Is eNPS & How Can You Improve It?

Vivobarefoot: A B-Corp Transformation Journey

About The Happiness Index

The Happiness Index helps organisations measure the key employee engagement AND happiness drivers to power their people strategy.

Our unique platform offers the products, insights and tools to shine a light on your cultural health and empower management to drive thriving cultures.

Our neuroscience-based pre-built surveys measure the full employee experience - from onboarding to exit to empower and enable organisations to understand their people and create data-led action plans.

JOIN MAILING LIST

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Money Does Not Always Buy Happiness, but Are Richer People Less Happy in Their Daily Lives? It Depends on How You Analyze Income

Laura kudrna.

1 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Kostadin Kushlev

2 Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States

Associated Data

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found at: https://www.atusdata.org (The ATUS extract builder was used to create the ATUS dataset, see Hofferth et al., 2017 ). GSOEP data were requested from https://www.diw.de/en/diw_02.c.222516.en/data.html , see Richter and Schupp, 2015 .

Do people who have more money feel happier during their daily activities? Some prior research has found no relationship between income and daily happiness when treating income as a continuous variable in OLS regressions, although results differ between studies. We re-analyzed existing data from the United States and Germany, treating household income as a categorical variable and using lowess and spline regressions to explore nonlinearities. Our analyses reveal that these methodological decisions change the results and conclusions about the relationship between income and happiness. In American and German diary data from 2010 to 2015, results for the continuous treatment of income showed a null relationship with happiness, whereas the categorization of income showed that some of those with higher incomes reported feeling less happy than some of those with lower incomes. Lowess and spline regressions suggested null results overall, and there was no evidence of a relationship between income and happiness in Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) data. Not all analytic approaches generate the same results, which may contribute to explaining discrepant results in existing studies about the correlates of happiness. Future research should be explicit about their approaches to measuring and analyzing income when studying its relationship with subjective well-being, ideally testing different approaches, and making conclusions based on the pattern of results across approaches.

Introduction

Does having more money make someone feel happier? The answer to this longstanding question has implications for how individuals live their lives and societies are structured. It is often assumed that more income brings more happiness (with happiness broadly defined herein as hedonic feelings, while recognizing closely related constructs, including satisfaction and eudaimonia; Tiberius, 2006 ; Angner, 2010 ; Dolan and Kudrna, 2016 ; Sunstein, 2021 ). In many aspects of policy, upward income mobility is encouraged, and poverty can result in exclusion, stigmatization, and discrimination by institutions and members of the public. More income provides people with opportunities and, sometimes, capabilities to consume more and thus satisfy more of their preferences, meet their desires and obtain more of what they want and need ( Harsanyi, 1997 ; Sen, 1999 ; Nussbaum, 2008 ). These are all reasons to assume that higher income will bring greater happiness—or, at least, that low income will bring low happiness.

Some research challenges the assumption that earning more should lead to greater happiness. First, because people expect that more money should make them happier, people may feel less happy when their high expectations are not met ( Graham and Pettinato, 2002 ; Nickerson et al., 2003 ) and they may adapt more quickly to more income than they expect ( Aknin et al., 2009 ; Di Tella et al., 2010 ). Second, since the 1980s in many developed countries, the well-educated have had less leisure time than those who are not ( Aguiar and Hurst, 2007 ) and people living in high-earning and well-educated households report feeling more time stress and dissatisfaction with their leisure time ( Hamermesh and Lee, 2007 ; Nikolaev, 2018 ). The quantity of leisure time is not linearly related to happiness, with both too much and too little having a negative association ( Sharif et al., 2021 ). Evidence also shows that people with higher incomes spend more time alone ( Bianchi and Vohs, 2016 ). The lower quality and quantity of leisure and social time of people with higher incomes may, in turn, negatively impact their happiness, especially given there are strong links between social capital or “relational goods” and well-being ( Helliwell and Putnam, 2004 ; Becchetti et al., 2008 ).

At the same time, some—but not all—evidence suggests that working class individuals tend to be more generous and empathetic than more affluent individuals ( Kraus et al., 2010 ; Piff et al., 2010 ; Balakrishnan et al., 2017 ; Macchia and Whillans, 2022 ), and such kindness toward others has been associated with higher well-being ( Dunn et al., 2008 ; Aknin et al., 2012 ). Relatedly, psychological research suggests that people with lower socioeconomic status have a more interdependent sense of self ( Snibbe and Markus, 2005 ; Stephens et al., 2007 ). It is, therefore, possible that people high in income have lower well-being because they experience less of the internal “warm glow” ( Andreoni, 1990 ) benefit that comes along with valuing social relationships and group membership. In theory, therefore, there are reasons to suppose that high income has both benefits and costs for well-being, and empirical evidence can inform the debate about when and whether these different perspectives are supported.

Empirical Evidence on Income and Happiness

The standard finding in existing literature is that higher income predicts greater happiness, but with a declining marginal utility ( Dolan et al., 2008 ; Layard et al., 2008 ): that is, higher income is most closely associated with happiness among those with the least income and is least closely associated with happiness for those with the most income. Recently, this finding has been qualified by studies showing that the relationship between income and happiness depends on how happiness is conceptualized and measured: as an overall evaluation of one’s life or as daily emotional states ( Kahneman and Deaton, 2010 ; Killingsworth, 2021 ). In this vein, authors Kushlev et al. (2015) found no relationship between income and daily happiness in the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), which has recently been found for other happiness measures, too ( Casinillo et al., 2020 , 2021 ) The finding from Kushlev et al. (2015) was replicated in the German Socioeconomic Panel Survey (GSEOP) by Hudson et al. (2016) , and in another analysis of the ATUS by Stone et al. (2018) .

Some research has focused specifically on the effect of high income on happiness. Kahneman and Deaton (2010) conducted regression analyses using a Gallup sample of United States residents, finding that annual income beyond ~$75K was not associated with any higher daily emotional well-being. Income beyond ~$75K, however, predicted better life evaluations. Using a self-selecting sample of experiential data in the United States, Killingsworth (2021) conducted piecewise regressions and found no evidence of satiation or turning points. Jebb et al. (2018) fit regression spline models to global Gallup data, showing that the satiation point in daily experiences found by Kahneman and Deaton (2010) was also apparent in other countries. Unlike Kahneman and Deaton (2010) , however, Jebb et al. (2018) also found evidence of satiation in people’s life evaluations, and even some evidence for “turning points”—whereby richer people evaluated their lives as worse than some of those with lower incomes. A satiation point in life evaluations was also found in European countries at around €28K annually ( Muresan et al., 2020 ).

This pattern of findings could partly depend on the choice of analytic strategy. In analyses of the same dataset as Jebb et al. (2018) but using lowess regression, researchers found no evidence of satiation or turning points in the relationship between income and people’s life evaluations ( Sacks et al., 2012 ; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2012 ). These conflicting results suggest that the effect of analytic strategy on results deserves a closer examination.

The Research Gap

While there has been much research on income and happiness, including according to how happiness is defined and measured, we are not away of any studies that have compared the relationship between income and happiness according to how income is defined and measured. We propose that the relationship between income and happiness may depend not only on how happiness is measured, but also on how income is measured and analyzed. To improve our knowledge of the relationship between income and happiness, this paper, we focus on nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness and re-analyze the ATUS data used by Kushlev et al. (2015) and Stone et al. (2018) , as well as the GSOEP data used by Hudson et al. (2016) . Specifically, while Kushlev et al. (2015) analyzed income as a continuous variable in the ATUS, we treat income the way it was measured: as a categorical variable. We compare these results to GSOEP data where we re-code the original continuous measure of income into categorical quantiles. To further explore nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness, we also conduct local linear “lowess” and spline regression analyses.

We chose to re-analyze these data to address the question of differences in the relationship between income and happiness according to the measurement and analysis of income because the ATUS and GSOEP provide nationally representative data on people’s feelings as experienced during specific “episodes” of the day after asking them to reconstruct what they did during the entire day. Thus, compared to data from Gallup, which measures affect “yesterday,” measurements in the ATUS are more grounded in specific experiences, and therefore, less subject to recall bias ( Kahneman et al., 2004 ). And unlike Gallup, which uses more crude, dichotomous (“yes-no”) response scales, ATUS measures happiness along a standard seven-point Likert-type scale. In the GSOEP, we were also able to analyze data from the Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM), which asks people how they are feeling during specific episodes during the day and, as such, is even more grounded in specific experiences.

Measuring and Analyzing Income

The original ATUS income variable—family income—contains 16 uneven categories (see Table 1 ). For example, Category 11 has a range of ~$10K, whereas Category 14 has a range of ~$25K. The increasingly larger categories are designed to reflect declining marginal utility as an innate quality of income. Based on this, Kushlev et al. (2015) analyzed income as a continuous variable using the original uneven categories. Continuous scales, however, assume equal intervals between scale points—a strong assumption to make for the relatively arbitrary rate of change in the category ranges. Is increasing one’s income from $20,000 to $25,000 really equidistant to increasing it from $35,000 to $40,000 ( Table 1 )? And can we really assume, for example, that adding $5,000 of additional income to $35,000 is the same as adding $10,000 of additional income to $40,000? Recognizing this issue, income researchers have adopted alternative strategies. For example, Stone et al. (2018) took the midpoints of each category of income, and then log-transformed it. Thus, they transformed the categorical measure of income into a continuous measure. This approach produced results for happiness consistent with the findings of Kushlev et al. (2015) .

The original categories of income in the ATUS family income measure with number of individuals in each income category in the ATUS 2010, 2012, and 2013 well-being modules.

Complete cases only for all variables analyzed.

Both the increasing ranges of the income scale itself and its log-transformations reflect an assumed declining marginal utility of income: They treat a given amount of income increase at the higher end of the income distribution as having less utility than the same amount at the lower end of the distribution. But by subsuming income’s declining utility in its very measurement (or transformation thereof), it becomes difficult to interpret a null relationship with happiness. In other words, we might not be seeing a declining marginal utility of income reflected on happiness because the income variable itself reflects its declining utility.

Even when the income variable itself does not reflect its declining utility, a null relationship between income and daily experiences of happiness has been observed. Hudson et al. (2016) used GSOEP, which contains a measure of income that is continuous in its original form. Whether analyzing this income measure in its raw original form or in transformed log and quadratic forms, a null relationship with happiness was observed. This approach, however, does not consider whether there might be nonlinear/log/quadratic turning or satiation points at higher levels of income—an issue also applicable to previous analyses of ATUS ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Stone et al., 2018 ). This is important because there are theoretically both benefits and costs to achieving higher levels of income that could occur at various levels of income; however, this possibility has not yet been fully explored in ATUS or GSOEP data.

In sum, past research using ATUS has treated categorically measured income as a continuous variable, either assuming equidistance between scale points or attempting to create equidistance through statistical transformations. By doing so, however, researchers may have statistically accounted for the very utility of income for happiness that they are trying to test. In both ATUS and GSOEP, the question of whether there might be satiation and/or turning points at higher levels of income has not been fully considered. The present research explores whether treating income as a categorical variable in both ATUS and GSOEP would replicate past findings or reveal novel insights, focusing on possible nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness.

Materials and Methods

We used data from ATUS well-being modules in 2010, 2012, and 2013. To facilitate future replications of this research, the ATUS extract builder was used to create the dataset ( Hofferth et al., 2017 ). 1 The ATUS is a repeated cross-sectional survey and is nationally representative of United States household residents aged 15 years and older. Its sampling frame is the Current Population Survey (CPS), which was conducted 2–5 months prior to the ATUS. Some items in the ATUS come from the CPS, including the household income item that we analyze.

Data from the GSOEP come from the Innovation Sample (IS), which is a subsample of the larger main GSOEP ( Richter and Schupp, 2015 ). The main GSOEP and the IS are designed to be nationally representative. The IS contains information on household residents aged 17 years of age and older. We used two modules from these data: the 2012–2015 DRM module, which is a longitudinal survey, and the 2014–2015 ESM module.

Outcome Measures

In ATUS, participants were called on the phone and asked how they spent their time yesterday: what activities they were doing, for how long, who they spent time with and where they were located. This information was used to create their time use diary. A random selection of three activities were taken from these diaries and participants were asked how they felt during them. The feelings items were tired, sad, stressed, pain, and happy. Participants were also asked how meaningful what they were doing felt.

In GSOEP, participants were interviewed face to face for the DRM questions and through smartphones for the ESM questions. In the DRM, as in the ATUS, they were asked how they spent their time yesterday and, for a random selection of three activities, they were asked further details about how they felt. In the ESM, participants were randomly notified on mobile phones at seven random points during the day for around 1 week. As in the DRM, they were asked how they were spending their time at the point of notification, as well as how they felt. Participants in both ESM and DRM samples were asked about whether they were feeling happy, as well as other emotions such as sadness, stress, and boredom.

The focus of this research is on the happiness items from both the ATUS and GSOEP to highlight differences according to the treatment of the independent measure of income rather than differences according to the dependent outcome of emotional well-being.

Data were analyzed in STATA 15 and jamovi. The Supplementary Material S1 file contains the STATA command file for the main commands written to analyze the data. In both ATUS and GSOEP, OLS regressions were conducted with happiness as the outcome measure and income as the explanatory measure. Following Kushlev et al. (2015) and Hudson et al. (2016) , the average happiness across all activities each day was taken to create an individual-level measure. Because the GSOEP DRM sample contained multiple observations across years, the SEs were clustered at the individual level for models using this dataset.

The treatment of income differed according to the dataset because income was collected differently in each dataset. In the ATUS, income was first analyzed in continuous, log, and quadratic forms in OLS regressions, as in other research ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Hudson et al., 2016 ). Next, it was analyzed as a categorical variable with 16 categories, preserving the identical format that it was originally collected in from the CPS questionnaire.

In GSOEP, the income variable in the dataset is provided in continuous form because participants reported their monthly income as an integer. To compare to the ATUS results, 16 quantiles of income were created and analyzed in GSOEP DRMs (see Table 2 - note that there were insufficient observations to conduct these analyses with GSOEP ESMs). This income variable was also analyzed in continuous, log, and quadratic forms.

The range and number of person-year observations of the GSOEP Income 4 variable divided into 16 quantiles.

Omnibus F -tests and effect sizes ( n 2 ) are also reported to compare the categorical, continuous, log, and quadratic approaches.

We conducted lowess and spline regressions to further investigate possible nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness. For the lowess regressions, the smoothing parameter was set at of 0.08. For the regression splines, we fitted knots at four quartiles and five quantiles of income. We also used the results of OLS regressions treating income as a categorical variable, as well as the results of the lowess regression treating income as continuous, to fit knots at pre-specified values of income (where these analyses suggested there could be turning and/or satiation points).

Complete case analyses were conducted with 33,976 individuals in ATUS, 6,766 individuals in German DRMs, and 249 individuals in German ESMs. There was item-missing data in some samples (ATUS, 1.7% missing; GSOEP DRMs, 8.2% missing; GSOEP ESMs data, and 6.0% missing). We make analytical and not population inferences and therefore do not use survey weights ( Pfeffermann, 1996 ).

Results are presented without and with controls for demographic and diary characteristics. Following Kushlev et al. (2015) , Hudson et al. (2016) , and Stone et al. (2018) , these controls were age, gender, marital status, ethnic background, 2 health, 3 employment status, children, 4 and whether the day was a weekend. We also control for the year of the survey in ATUS DRM data to address the issue that our results are not due to new data but rather how we treat the income variable.

The list of variables we use in analyses are in Table 3 .

List of variables used in analyses in ATUS and GSOEP.

In both ATUS and GSOEP, daily happiness was analyzed using a 0–6 scale (in GSOEP scale points 1–7 were recoded to 0–6 to match ATUS). The ATUS mean happiness was 4.38 (SD = 1.33). The GSOEP DRM mean happiness was 2.91 (SD = 1.46), and the GSOEP ESM mean happiness was 2.65 (SD = 1.03).

The magnitude of our results can be considered in the context of effect sizes from other research on demographic characteristics and daily happiness ( Kahneman et al., 2004 ; Stone et al., 2010 ; Luhmann et al., 2012 ; Hudson et al., 2019 ). For example, the effect size for the relationship between age and daily experiences of happiness was 0.16 in Stone et al. (2010) . Our effect sizes range from 0.06 to 0.37. Throughout, we focus on coefficients, their 95% CIs, and visualizations of these coefficients and CIs, rather than on their statistical significance ( Lakens, 2021 ). The purpose of this is to highlight how analytic treatments of income affect the magnitude and precision of the relationship between income and happiness.

When treating the 16-category family income variable as continuous in OLS regressions, there was no substantive relationship between income and happiness as in other prior research ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Hudson et al., 2016 ; Stone et al., 2018 ). Out of the linear, squared, and log coefficients without and with controls, the largest and most precise coefficients were with controls; for linear income it was ( b  = −0.006, 95% CI = −0.01, −0.002), squared income ( b  = −0.0001, 95% CI = 0.0003, 0.00006), and log income ( b  = −0.03, 95% CI = −0.05, 0.001). The omnibus F -test (without controls) for linear income was F  = 0.28, n 2  = 0.000008 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0002), for income squared was F  = 1.60, n 2  = 0.00005 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0003), and for log income was F  = 0.23, n 2  = 0.000006 (95% CI = 0.00,0.0002).

The categorization of income focused attention on those with incomes of $35–40K, who appeared substantively happier than some of those with higher incomes (and lower incomes; see Figure 1 ). For example, with controls, those with incomes of $35–40K appeared happier relative to those with incomes of $150K+ ( b  = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.24) and $100–150K ( b  = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.221). The omnibus test for categorical income was F  = 1.61, n 2  = 0.007 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0009).

Predicted values of average individual happiness in the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) at the 16 values of the family income variable without and with controls. Covariates at means. 95% CI.

Results from regression splines and a lowess regression suggested null results overall (see Figure 2 ). Further details of the analyses are in Supplementary Material S2 .

Line graph of predicted values from lowess regressions explaining variance in happiness from income treated as a continuous variable in ATUS.

When treating the continuous household income variable as continuous (in €10,000s) in OLS regressions, there was no substantive relationship between income and happiness as in other prior research ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Hudson et al., 2016 ; Stone et al., 2018 ). The association with the largest magnitude and most precision was for log income with controls ( b  = −0.08, 95% CI = −0.18, 0.01). 5

As in ATUS, treating the variable as categorical suggested some relationships between income and happiness. These results drew attention to those third quantile (~€14–18K), who seemed happier than those both higher and lower in income (see Figure 3 ). For example, with controls, they were happier than those in quantiles 13 (€42.6–48K, b  = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.25, 0.67), seven (~€24–27K, b  = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.56), and one (€2.40–11,520K, b  = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.51). The omnibus test for categorical income was F  = 4.00, n 2  = 0.009 (95% CI = 0.003, 0.01), whereas the omnibus test for linear income was F  = 0.09, n 2  = 0.00001 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0007). The omnibus for log income was F  = 1.42, n 2  = 0.0002 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.0001) and for income squared it was F  = 0.96, n 2  = 0.0001 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.001).

Predicted values of average person-year happiness from GSOEP DRMs at 16 quantiles of income (Income 4) without and with controls. Covariates at means. 95% CI.

The lowess and spline regressions suggested null results overall, as the coefficients were small in magnitude (see Figure 4 ). Further details of the analyses are in Supplementary Material S3 .

Line graph of predicted values from lowess regressions explaining variance in happiness from income treated as a continuous variable in GSOEP DRMs at 16 quantiles of income.

There was no evidence to suggest any substantive association between income and happiness in ESM data for linear income, income squared, log income, in the lowess regressions, or regression splines. A visualization of the lowess results are in Figure 5 and further details of the analyses are in Supplementary Material S4 .

Results of local linear “lowess” regression from GSOEP Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) data with happiness as the outcome and continuous annual income as the explanatory variable.

The omnibus F -test for linear income was F  = 0.53, n 2  = 0.002 (95%CI = −0.00, 0.03), and for log income it was F  = 0.12, n 2  = 0.0005, 95%CI = 0.00, 0.02. For income squared it was F  = 0.63, n 2  = 0.003, 95%CI = 0.00 0.03.

Is income creating a signal in these data on daily experiences of happiness, or is it all simply noise? The present results suggest that whether income can be concluded as being associated with daily experiences of happiness may depend on how income is analyzed. When income in ATUS is analyzed in its original, categorical form, there is some evidence that some people with higher incomes feel somewhat less happy than some of those with lower incomes. When the continuous income variable in GSOEP is split into categories, a similar pattern is observed. This is not inconsistent with the findings of Kushlev et al. (2015) , Hudson et al. (2016) , and Stone et al. (2018) , who found no relationship between income and daily feelings of happiness in the same data when income was analyzed as a continuous variable. It simply illustrates that a relationship between income and happiness could be interpreted when treating income categorically rather than continuously.

There are at least three possible interpretations to our overall results. One interpretation tends toward conservative. We conducted multiple comparisons of many transformations of income, which might inspire some to question whether we should have accounted for this in some way by adjusting for multiple comparisons. Although we found some evidence of differences in happiness according to income, such an adjustment might lead to an overall null conclusion when characterizing the relationship between income on happiness. A second interpretation is more generous. Within this perspective, one might emphasize the fact that because our income measures were correlated, no correction for multiple comparisons was required. It could then be argued that because we found some evidence for the relationship between income on happiness, there is good evidence that the overall effect is not null. A more moderate perspective, and the one adopted in this paper, is that because the overall pattern of our results showed mixed null and nonnull results, we can make an overall conclusion of some differences in happiness according to income. We also noticed that equivalizing income in the German data strengthened the relationship of income and happiness, further supporting the conclusion of some differences—and that the analytic treatment of income matters.

Based on the moderate perspective, we conclude that there is very little evidence of any relationship between income and daily experiences of happiness—and any relationship that does exist would suggest higher income could be associated with less happiness. The results do not support the results of Sacks et al. (2012) or Killingsworth (2021) , where a greater income was associated with greater happiness, and there were no satiation or turning points (see also Stevenson and Wolfers, 2012 ). These results are more aligned with Kahneman and Deaton (2010) , who found a satiation point in the relationship between income daily experiences of happiness, researchers finding no association between income and happiness ( Kushlev et al., 2015 ; Jebb et al., 2018 ; Casinillo et al., 2020 , 2021 ), who found that higher income can be associated with worse evaluations of life. We suggest the analytic strategy for income could contribute to explaining discrepant results in existing literature, and researchers should be clear about the approaches they have tested, although we acknowledge that sampling differences could play a role, too.

Overall, the results were broadly consistent between countries because there was no substantive relationship between income and happiness when income was treated continuously but there appeared to be relationships when treating income categorically. Despite a similar overall pattern in the income results, there were other difference between countries. German residents rated their happiness as lower than United States residents (a difference of ~1.5 scale points out of seven). This could be because of different interpretations of the word “happiness” in Germany and the United States. The word for happiness in German used in the survey— glück —can mean something more akin to lucky or optimistic—which is different from the meaning of word “happy” in the United States. Despite this linguistic difference, those with higher incomes were still less happy than some of those with lower incomes in both samples.

Limitations

One limitation to our results is the representativeness of the income distribution. Household surveys like those that we used do not tend to capture the “tails” of the income distribution very well: People in institutions and without addresses are excluded from these sample populations, which omits populations such as those living in nursing homes and prisons, as well as the homeless. Moreover, people do not always self-report their income accurately due to issues such as social desirability bias ( Angel et al., 2019 ). Existing studies that have focused on those with very low incomes do tend to find that low income is associated with low happiness ( Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2002 ; Clark et al., 2016 ; Adesanya et al., 2017 ). In ATUS, the highest household income value available was $150K, whereas in GSOEP it was €360K. Thus, it is not always clear whether the very affluent, such as millionaires, are represented in these samples ( Smeets et al., 2020 ). Overall, our results cannot be taken as representative of people who are very poor or rich and should not be interpreted as such.

Another limitation is that the present results cannot be interpreted casually because there has been no manipulation of income in these data nor exploration of mechanisms and there was no longitudinal data in ATUS. As discussed by Kushlev et al. (2015) , there are issues such as reverse causality. Here, however, some of our results potentially suggest an alternative reverse causality pathway, whereby less happy people may select into earning more income. Because the counterfactual is not apparent—we do not know how happy people with high incomes would be without their higher income—it could also be that those with high incomes would be even less happy than they currently are if they had not attained their current level of income. In other words, people with high incomes may have started out as less happy in the first place and be even less happy if they did not have high incomes.

A further limitation is the time period of the data, especially that they were collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. This could be an issue because it is possible that the relationship between income and daily experiences of happiness has changed, such as due to the exacerbation of health inequalities and restrictions on freedom of movement due to nationwide lockdowns. Our study does not provide any information on the longer-term and health and well-being consequences of both COVID-19 itself and the policy response to COVID-19 ( Aknin et al., 2022 ). As one example, access to green space, which has health and well-being benefits, is lower among those with low income, and this mechanism between income and happiness may have become more salient during COVID-19 ( Geary et al., 2021 ). Overall, it is important to consider the regional, political, and socioeconomic contexts in which income is attained to understand its relationship with well-being, including levels of income in reference groups such as neighbors, friends, and colleagues ( Luttmer, 2005 ; De Neve and Sachs, 2020 ). It would be important to replicate the results in this research with more recent data to address the limitation that the data we used are not recent, considering our broader point that the measurement and analysis of income should be considered as carefully as the measurement and analysis of happiness.

Future Directions

This research points to several directions for future research. One direction relates to data and measures: Nonlinearities in the relationship between income and happiness could be examined using time use data from other countries, considered between countries and/or within countries over time ( Deaton et al., 2008 ; De Neve et al., 2018 ), and investigated for measures of emotional states other than happiness ( Piff and Moskowitz, 2018 ). In general, our results suggest that researchers should pay attention to how income is measured and analyzed when considering how it is related to happiness, which complements findings from other research that the way happiness is measured and analyzed is important ( Kahneman and Deaton, 2010 ; Jebb et al., 2018 ).

Future research could also explore mechanisms that may explain our findings. In addition to those mentioned in the Introduction—expectations ( Graham and Pettinato, 2002 ; Nickerson et al., 2003 ), time use ( Aguiar and Hurst, 2007 ; Hamermesh and Lee, 2007 ; Bianchi and Vohs, 2016 ; Nikolaev, 2018 ; Sharif et al., 2021 ); generosity ( Dunn et al., 2008 ; Kraus et al., 2010 ; Piff et al., 2010 ; Aknin et al., 2012 ; Balakrishnan et al., 2017 ; Macchia and Whillans, 2022 ), and sense of self ( Snibbe and Markus, 2005 ; Stephens et al., 2007 )—another is the identity-related effect of transitioning between socioeconomic groups. Though one might expect upward mobility to be associated with greater happiness, research suggests that some working class people do not wish to become upwardly mobile because it could lead to a loss of identity and change in community ( Akerlof, 1997 ; Friedman, 2014 ). Indeed, upward intergenerational mobility is associated with worse life evaluations in the United Kingdom—though not in Switzerland ( Hadjar and Samuel, 2015 ), although recent findings show substantial negative effects of downward mobility, too ( Dolan and Lordan, 2021 ). Over time, therefore, the degree of mobility in a population could influence the relationship between income and happiness in both positive and negative directions.

Additionally, social comparisons could drive the effects of higher income on happiness. Higher income might not benefit happiness if one’s reference group—that is, the people to whom we compare or have knowledge of in some form ( Hyman, 1942 ; Shibutani, 1955 ; Runciman, 1966 )—changes with higher socioeconomic status. As income increases, people might compare themselves to others who are also doing similarly or better to them, and then not feel or think that they are doing any better by comparison—or even feel worse ( Cheung and Lucas, 2016 ). This is one of the explanations for the well-known “Easterlin Paradox” ( Easterlin, 1974 ), which suggests that as national income rises people do not become happier because they compare their achievements to others. The paradox is debated ( Sacks et al., 2012 ). Additionally, some research shows that it is possible to view others’ greater success as one’s own future opportunity and for upward social comparisons to then positively impact upon well-being ( Senik, 2004 ; Davis and Wu, 2014 ; Ifcher et al., 2018 ). As with the role of mobility in the relationship between income and happiness, it is unclear whether the role of social comparisons would create a positive or negative impact over time and future research could explore this.

Final Remarks

Overall, our results provide some evidence that individual attainment in terms of income may not equate to the attainment of individual happiness—and could even be associated with less daily happiness, depending upon how income is measured and analyzed. These results suggest that how income is associated with happiness depends on how income is measured and analyzed. They provide some support to the idea that financial achievement can have both costs and benefits, potentially informing normative discussions about the optimal distribution of income in society.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

LK and KK contributed to conception and design of the study. LK organized the data, performed the statistical analysis in STATA, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. KK performed additional statistical analysis in jamovi and wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

LK was supported by a London School of Economics PhD scholarship during early work and later by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

LK thanks Professor Paul Dolan and Dr Georgios Kavetsos for their support early on in conducting this research, as well as Professor Richard Lilford for insights about multiple comparisons.

1 https://www.atusdata.org

2 In the ATUS this was Hispanic and Black, in GSOEP this was German origin.

3 In the ATUS this was whether the respondent had any physical or cognitive difficulty (yes/no), in GSOEP this was self-rated general health (bad, poor, satisfactory, good, and very good).

4 In the ATUS this was presence of children <18 years in the household, in GSOEP this was number of children.

5 This association was stronger and more precise when equivalizing income (dividing by the square root of household size), b  = −0.16, 95%CI = −0.06, −0.27, underscoring the importance of transparency in the treatment of income.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883137/full#supplementary-material

• Adesanya O., Rojas B. M., Darboe A., Beogo I. (2017). Socioeconomic differential in self-assessment of health and happiness in 5 African countries: finding from world value survey . PLoS One 12 :e0188281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188281, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aguiar M., Hurst E. (2007). Measuring trends in leisure: the allocation of time over five decades . Q. J. Econ. 122 , 969–1006. doi: 10.1162/qjec.122.3.969 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akerlof G. A. (1997). Social distance and social decisions . Econometrica 65 , 1005–1027. doi: 10.2307/2171877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aknin L. B., De Neve J. E., Dunn E. W., Fancourt D. E., Goldberg E., Helliwell J. F., et al.. (2022). Mental health during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a review and recommendations for moving forward . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 19 :17456916211029964. doi: 10.1177/17456916211029964, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aknin L. B., Hamlin J. K., Dunn E. W. (2012). Giving leads to happiness in young children . PLoS One 7 :e39211. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039211, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aknin L. B., Norton M. I., Dunn E. W. (2009). From wealth to well-being? Money matters, but less than people think . J. Posit. Psychol. 4 , 523–527. doi: 10.1080/17439760903271421 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andreoni J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving . Econ. J. 100 , 464–477. doi: 10.2307/2234133 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Angel S., Disslbacher F., Humer S., Schnetzer M. (2019). What did you really earn last year? Explaining measurement error in survey income data . J. R. Stat. Soc. A. Stat. Soc. 182 , 1411–1437. doi: 10.1111/rssa.12463 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Angner E. (2010). Subjective well-being . J. Socio-Econ. 39 , 361–368. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2009.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balakrishnan A., Palma P. A., Patenaude J., Campbell L. (2017). A 4-study replication of the moderating effects of greed on socioeconomic status and unethical behaviour . Sci. Data 4 :160120. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.120, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becchetti L., Pelloni A., Rossetti F. (2008). Relational goods, sociability, and happiness . Kyklos 61 , 343–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00405.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bianchi E. C., Vohs K. D. (2016). Social class and social worlds: income predicts the frequency and nature of social contact . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7 , 479–486. doi: 10.1177/1948550616641472 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casinillo L. F., Casinillo E. L., Aure M. R. K. L. (2021). Economics of happiness: a social study on determinants of well-being among employees in a state university . Philippine Soc. Sci. J. 4 , 42–52. doi: 10.52006/main.v4i1.316 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casinillo L. F., Casinillo E. L., Casinillo M. F. (2020). On happiness in teaching: an ordered logit modeling approach . JPI 9 , 290–300. doi: 10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v9i2.25630 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung F., Lucas R. E. (2016). Income inequality is associated with stronger social comparison effects: the effect of relative income on life satisfaction . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110 , 332–341. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000059, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark A. E., D’Ambrosio C., Ghislandi S. (2016). Adaptation to poverty in long-run panel data . Rev. Econ. Stat. 98 , 591–600. doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00544, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis L., Wu S. (2014). Social comparisons and life satisfaction across racial and ethnic groups: the effects of status, information and solidarity . Soc. Indic. Res. 117 , 849–869. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0367-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Neve J. E., Sachs J. D. (2020). The SDGs and human well-being: a global analysis of synergies, trade-offs, and regional differences . Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71916-9, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Neve J. E., Ward G., De Keulenaer F., Van Landeghem B., Kavetsos G., Norton M. I. (2018). The asymmetric experience of positive and negative economic growth: global evidence using subjective well-being data . Rev. Econ. Stat. 100 , 362–375. doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00697, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deaton A. (2008). Income, health, and well-being around the world: evidence from the Gallup world poll . J. Econ. Perspect. 22 , 53–72. doi: 10.1257/jep.22.2.53, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Tella R., Haisken-De New J., MacCulloch R. (2010). Happiness adaptation to income and to status in an individual panel . J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 76 , 834–852. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.09.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E., Biswas-Diener R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Soc. Indic. Res. 57 , 119–169. doi: 10.1023/A:1014411319119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolan P., Kudrna L. (2016). “ Sentimental hedonism: pleasure, purpose, and public policy ” in International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life. Handbook of Eudemonic Well-Being. ed. Vittersø J. (Springer International Publishing AG; ), 437–452. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolan P., Lordan G. (2021). Climbing up ladders and sliding down snakes: an empirical assessment of the effect of social mobility on subjective wellbeing . Rev. Econ. Househ. 19 , 1023–1045. doi: 10.1007/s11150-020-09487-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolan P., Peasgood T., White M. (2008). Do we realy know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literaure on the factors associated with subjective well-being . J. Econ. Psychol. 29 , 94–122. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn E. W., Aknin L. B., Norton M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness . Science 319 , 1687–1688. doi: 10.1126/science.1150952, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Easterlin R. A. (1974). “ Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence ,” in Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramowitz. eds. David P. A., Reder M. W. (New York: Academic Press, Inc.). [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman S. (2014). The price of the ticket: rethinking the experience of social mobility . Sociology 48 , 352–368. doi: 10.1177/0038038513490355 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geary R. S., Wheeler B., Lovell R., Jepson R., Hunter R., Rodgers S. (2021). A call to action: improving urban green spaces to reduce health inequalities exacerbated by COVID-19 . Prev. Med. 145 :106425. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106425, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham C., Pettinato S. (2002). Frustrated achievers: winners, losers and subjective well-being in new market economies . J. Dev. Stud. 38 , 100–140. doi: 10.1080/00220380412331322431 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hadjar A., Samuel R. (2015). Does upward social mobility increase life satisfaction? A longitudinal analysis using British and Swiss panel data . Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 39 , 48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.rssm.2014.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamermesh D. S., Lee J. (2007). Stressed out on four continents: time crunch or yuppie kvetch? Rev. Econ. Stat. 89 , 374–383. doi: 10.1162/rest.89.2.374 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harsanyi J. C. (1997). Utilities, preferences, and substantive goods . Soc. Choice Welf. 14 , 129–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helliwell J. F., Putnam R. D. (2004). The social context of well–being . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 359 , 1435–1446. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1522, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofferth S., Flood S., Sobek M. (2017). American time use survey data extract system: version 26 [machine-readable database]. College Park, MD: University of Maryland and Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota .
• Hudson N. W., Lucas R. E., Donnellan M. B. (2019). Healthier and happier? A 3-year longitudinal investigation of the prospective associations and concurrent changes in health and experiential well-being . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45 , 1635–1650. doi: 10.1177/0146167219838547, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudson N. W., Lucas R. E., Donnellan M. B., Kushlev K. (2016). Income reliably predicts daily sadness, but not happiness: a replication and extension of Kushlev, Dunn, and Lucas (2015) . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7 , 828–836. doi: 10.1177/1948550616657599, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyman H. H. (1942). “ The psychology of status ,” in Archives of Psychology (Columbia University; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Ifcher J., Zarghamee H., Graham C. (2018). Local neighbors as positives, regional neighbors as negatives: competing channels in the relationship between others’ income, health, and happiness . J. Health Econ. 57 , 263–276. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.08.003, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jebb A. T., Tay L., Diener E., Oishi S. (2018). Happiness, income satiation and turning points around the world . Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 33–38. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0277-0, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D., Deaton A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107 , 16489–16493. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011492107, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D., Krueger A., Schkade D., Schwarz N., Stone A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method . Science 306 , 1776–1780. doi: 10.1126/science.1103572, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killingsworth M. A. (2021). Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118 :e2016976118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2016976118, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraus M. W., Côté S., Keltner D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy . Psychol. Sci. 21 , 1716–1723. doi: 10.1177/0956797610387613, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kushlev K., Dunn E. W., Lucas R. E. (2015). Higher income is associated with less daily sadness but not more daily happiness . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6 , 483–489. doi: 10.1177/1948550614568161 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakens D. (2021). The practical alternative to the p value is the correctly used p value . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16 , 639–648. doi: 10.1177/1745691620958012, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Layard R., Mayraz G., Nickell S. (2008). The marginal utility of income . J. Public Econ. 92 , 1846–1857. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhmann M., Hofmann W., Eid M., Lucas R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102 , 592–615. doi: 10.1037/a0025948, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luttmer E. F. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: relative earnings and well-being . Q. J. Econ. 120 , 963–1002. doi: 10.1162/003355305774268255 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macchia L., Whillans A. V. (2022). The link between income, income inequality, and prosocial behavior around the world . Soc. Psychol. 52 , 375–386. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000466 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muresan G. M., Ciumas C., Achim M. V. (2020). Can money buy happiness? Evidence for European countries . Appl. Res. Qual. Life 15 , 953–970. doi: 10.1007/s11482-019-09714-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nickerson C., Schwarz N., Diener E., Kahneman D. (2003). Zeroing in on the dark side of the American dream: a closer look at the negative consequences of the goal for financial success . Psychol. Sci. 14 , 531–536. doi: 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1461.x, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikolaev B. (2018). Does higher education increase hedonic and eudaimonic happiness? J. Happiness Stud. 19 , 483–504. doi: 10.1007/s10902-016-9833-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nussbaum M. C. (2008). Who is the happy warrior? Philosophy poses questions to psychology . J. Leg. Stud. 37 , S81–S113. doi: 10.1086/587438 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfeffermann D. (1996). The use of sampling weights for survey data analysis . Stat. Methods Med. Res. 5 , 239–261. doi: 10.1177/096228029600500303, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piff P. K., Kraus M. W., Côté S., Cheng B. H., Keltner D. (2010). Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99 , 771–784. doi: 10.1037/a0020092, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piff P. K., Moskowitz J. P. (2018). Wealth, poverty, and happiness: social class is differentially associated with positive emotions . Emotion 18 , 902–905. doi: 10.1037/emo0000387, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richter D., Schupp J. (2015). The SOEP innovation sample (SOEP IS) . Schmollers Jahr. 135 , 389–399. doi: 10.3790/schm1353389 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Runciman W. (1966). Relative Deprivation, Social Justice: Study Attitudes Social Inequality in 20th Century England. Berkeley: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sacks D. W., Stevenson B., Wolfers J. (2012). The new stylized facts about income and subjective well-being . Emotion 12 , 1181–1187. doi: 10.1037/a0029873, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sen A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. [ Google Scholar ]
• Senik C. (2004). When information dominates comparison: learning from Russian subjective panel data . J. Public Econ. 88 , 2099–2123. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(03)00066-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharif M. A., Mogilner C., Hershfield H. E. (2021). Having too little or too much time is linked to lower subjective well-being . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121 , 933–947., PMID: [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shibutani T. (1955). Reference groups as perspectives . Am. J. Sociol. 60 , 562–569. doi: 10.1086/221630 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smeets P., Whillans A., Bekkers R., Norton M. I. (2020). Time use and happiness of millionaires: evidence from the Netherlands . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11 , 295–307. doi: 10.1177/1948550619854751 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snibbe A. C., Markus H. R. (2005). You can't always get what you want: educational attainment, agency, and choice . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 , 703–720. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.703, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephens N. M., Markus H. R., Townsend S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: the case of social class . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 , 814–830. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.814, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevenson B., Wolfers J. (2012). Subjective well-being and income: is there any evidence of satiation? Am. Econ. Rev. 103 , 598–604. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.3.598 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone A., Schneider S., Krueger A., Schwartz J. E., Deaton A. (2018). Experiential wellbeing data from the American time use survey: comparisons with other methods and analytic illustrations with age and income . Soc. Indic. Res. 136 , 359–378. doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1532-x, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone A. A., Schwartz J. E., Broderick J. E., Deaton A. (2010). A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107 , 9985–9990. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003744107, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sunstein C. R. (2021). Some costs and benefits of cost-benefit analysis . Daedalus 150 , 208–219. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_01868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiberius V. (2006). Well-being: psychological research for philosophers . Philos. Compass 1 , 493–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00038.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Money can buy happiness: Here's how much you need and how to spend it, according to a financial therapist

• Money can buy happiness up to a point — studies indicate emotional well-being rises with income up to about $75,000.
• Researchers have also found that experiences make people happier because they enhance social relationships and are a bigger part of one's identity.
• Spending money on experiences or items that align with your values can increase your potential for happiness.
• This article was  medically reviewed  by  Alisa Ruby Bash , PsyD, LMFT, in Malibu, California. 

You know the phrase: money can't buy happiness. It turns out, that's not entirely true. Money can buy a certain degree of life satisfaction, depending on how much wealth you have and how you spend it. 

Research shows that emotional well-being rises along with income, up to a point. A 2010 study looked at surveys of 450,000 Americans and found that participants with higher incomes reported higher emotional well-being, up to an annual income of $75,000. After that, it drops off. 

Beyond simply having money, here's why being able to meet your basic needs, enjoying life experiences, and having social ties are also important factors for satisfaction and happiness in life.

Basic Needs

Lindsay Bryan-Podvin, LMSW , a financial therapist and author of "The Financial Anxiety Solution" says an annual income of $75,000 may not be the threshold for everyone. Being able to meet basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare are top priorities.  Then, the amount of satisfaction derived from income varies depending on factors like the cost of living in your area and your personal interests.

"The data is pretty clear that when we can financially take care of ourselves, our mental health is better," says Bryan-Podvin. "It's stressful to be on the grind all the time."

In fact, according to the CDC , adults living below the poverty level were three to four times more likely to have depression than adults living at or above the poverty level. 

The ability to meet basic needs without working multiple jobs also means you are more likely to have time for your friends and family, which is important for happiness. A Harvard study , which started in 1938 and tracked hundreds of men for nearly 80 years, collected data on both physical and mental well-being. The researchers found that close relationships, more than money or fame, keep people happy throughout their lives. 

Experience vs materials

Once you cover basic needs, whether money buys happiness may depend on what you spend it on, says Bryan-Podvin. 

There is a common theory that spending money on experiences will make you happier than spending money on material objects. Some studies back this up. A 2014 review found that experiences make people happier because they enhance social relationships, are a bigger part of one's identity, and are less likely to be compared to other people's experiences. 

A poll of more than 2,000 millennials in 2014 found that 78% prefer spending money on experiences or events compared to a material object. It's not just millennials. The same poll found that consumer spending on experience and events is up 70% since 1987. 

For some people, though, it may be buying a tangible item that brings the most happiness. "What research shows is if we have a very strong affinity for something, then we do get a lot of happiness out of buying that thing," says Bryan-Podvin, who gives the example of someone passionate about cars. 

When money doesn't buy happiness

One reason more money doesn't always equal more happiness is a tendency for what Bryan-Podvin calls "lifestyle creep." Meaning that when you are making more money, your expenses often go up.

For instance, you may end up spending money on things like a country club membership or dinners at more expensive restaurants. If this is happening, you may not feel like you don't have enough money even though you are making a substantial salary.  

Happiness also depends on how much you have to work to make that money. "You might be pulling in $300,000, which sounds great in theory, but if you are working 80 hours a week and can't enjoy the money you are earning, then what is the point?" says Bryan-Podvin. 

Bottom line

How much money a person needs to be happy varies. Happiness may depend on how much money is required to cover your own basic needs and what brings you joy personally.

For one person, that might be season tickets to the Yankees. For someone else, it might be a massage once a month or a new pair of running shoes. 

Ultimately, money can increase the potential for life satisfaction, depending on how you spend it. If you spend money on experiences or items that align with your values, you will increase your happiness, says Bryan-Podvin.

Related articles from Health Reference:

• How to increase dopamine levels and feel like your best self
• The best exercises to battle depression
• How to get better sleep with anxiety or stress, in 5 different ways
• The 5 types of anxiety disorder and how to know if you have one
• 5 benefits of green tea and how it can help your memory, skin, and bones

• Main content

More From Forbes

A psychologist explains how the ‘lion’s gate portal’ can benefit you.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Days like 8/8 can benefit you regardless of your belief in them as they create the perfect storm of ... [+] positivity, placebo and manifestation practice.

Research has confirmed time and again that the gaps between psychological science and spirituality are wide. While one uses treatment modalities developed through scientific rigor, the other banks on faith, belief and optimism.

Paradoxically, however, psychological healing often intersects with spirituality in the realm of practice. “Manifestation” exercises such as meditation and chanting, positive visualization, journaling and affirmations are prescribed in both spaces regularly and are often rooted in gaining more knowledge of and control over the subconscious and unconscious mind.

Research published in 2023 also indicates that certain psychological constructs, like being in a “flow state,” mirror spiritual experiences. The study further argues that incorporating spirituality into your life may enhance self-understanding and potential through self-belief, a goal therapists often set for clients they treat.

All of this is to say that there are many paths that lead to a desired destination. Whether you are a realist with elaborate plans for the future or you’re a spiritual soul building a deeper connection with the universe, manifestation exercises can help you break substantial ground on the journey you’re already on.

And while there is no perfect time to start this journey, many swear by certain fated days, meant to be more powerful and “bountiful” than others. Today is supposed to be one such day, marking the opening of the “Lion’s Gate portal.” Here’s the lore behind the popular legend.

It’s ‘Over’—Leak Sparks Serious U.S. Crypto Crackdown Fears As The Bitcoin Price Bounces Back

New samsung galaxy s24 ultra price lands as pixel 9 releases, trump vs. harris 2024 polls: harris up 5 in latest survey, the astrological tale behind lion’s gate portal.

Spiritual practitioners claim the eighth of August to be the day the universe supposedly opens a cosmic gateway known as the Lion’s Gate Portal. With Sirius rising and the Sun in Leo, believers claim this is a magical window for transformation and manifestation, as if the universe itself is conspiring to grant all wishes.

For those who believe the lore, it presents a tantalizing chance to harness the universe’s supposed powers. Whether it’s celestial truth or just a fanciful story lacking scientific or cosmic corroboration, the intent to start manifesting in your life is never unuseful. Regardless of these beliefs, manifestation can always help people achieve their best potential.

Why Does Manifestation Work Well With Spirituality?

While they may use vastly different language, construct different arguments and are trying to prove different things—spiritual healing and psychological healing often coincide when it comes to execution. Here’s a psychologist’s take on why manifestation works in both worlds:

• The placebo effect of faith and positive outcomes. Research published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B suggests that belief systems, including spiritual practices, can impact physical health and well-being. Another study examining the Covid-19 pandemic found that patients with higher emotional, social, physical and spiritual resilience experienced less severe symptoms and recovered more quickly, illustrating how faith can influence outcomes through the placebo effect. And finally, in a 2020 article discussing the power of religious practices, psychiatrist Harold Koening notes: “Placebos have been used in medicine since antiquity and may have significantly improved health and quality of life when little was known about the causes of most illnesses. Many outcomes were likely due to the placebo effect, as available treatments were either unproven or later disproven.” In the same vein, practices like manifestation may rely on the placebo effect, where believing in positive outcomes creates a psychological environment that supports achieving those outcomes.
• The powerful role of self-efficacy. Prolific researcher Albert Bandura's work on self-efficacy highlights the power of one’s belief in their own ability to succeed. When individuals engage in manifestation practices, spiritual or not, they are essentially boosting their self-efficacy—which can lead to better performance and greater resilience in the face of challenges. This helps in building a positive self-image and enhances strength to take righteous actions towards one's ambitions.
• Principles of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). CBT , a well-established psychological treatment modality, emphasizes the importance of changing negative thought patterns to improve mental health. Manifestation techniques, such as affirmations and visualization, align closely with CBT principles by encouraging individuals to focus on positive thoughts and outcomes, thereby reducing anxiety and self-sabotaging thoughts.

How You Can Harness The “Magic” Of Days Like 8/8

Whether ordained by the universe or not, there may not be a better time than now to channelize your mental and spiritual energy toward manifesting the goals you desire to achieve. Here’s why the efficacy of these tools can feel like magic:

• Meditation and visualization. Meditation and visualization are powerful tools that help individuals focus their intentions and reduce stress. Research led by epidemiologists at West Virginia University shows that regular meditation can enhance cognitive function and emotional regulation.
• Journaling. Writing down aspirations and goals can clarify intentions and create a tangible blueprint for success. Journaling has been shown to improve mental health by allowing individuals to process emotions and articulate their own thoughts.
• Environmental enhancements. Creating a conducive environment for manifestation, such as lighting candles or using fragrances, can enhance mood and focus. Research published in Scientia Pharmaceutica suggests that certain olfactory stimulation can positively affect mood and cognitive function.
• Affirmations. Repeating affirmations can reinforce positive beliefs and motivate individuals to pursue their goals. A 2015 study indicates that affirmations, when practiced consistently and spoken as if true, can improve performance and self-perception through a sense of achieving rewards.

While the myths surrounding events like the Lion’s Gate portal may blend astrological assumptions into daily life, the practice of manifestation itself holds significant psychological value at all times in life. The power of intention, belief and structured practice can have profound effects on cognitive health and personal growth. By understanding and harnessing these psychological techniques, individuals can achieve positive transformations, regardless of their spiritual beliefs.

Test your levels of spirituality by taking the science-backed Ego Dissolution Scale, here .

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Salesforce is closed for new business in your area.

Essay on Money Can’t Buy Happiness

Students are often asked to write an essay on Money Can’t Buy Happiness in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Money Can’t Buy Happiness

The meaning of happiness.

Happiness is a feeling of joy that comes from within. It’s when we feel good about our lives and the people around us. It’s not something you can go to a store and buy like a toy or a candy bar.

Money’s Role

Riches and smiles.

Some rich people have lots of money but are not happy. They may feel lonely or worried. This shows us that even with all the money in the world, you can’t buy a happy heart.

Lasting Joy

True happiness comes from love, friendship, and good memories. These are things that money can’t buy. Doing kind things for others or spending time with family and friends makes us truly happy.

250 Words Essay on Money Can’t Buy Happiness

What is true happiness.

True happiness is a feeling of joy, contentment, and well-being that comes from within. It’s not something you can pick up from a store or order online. Happiness is about feeling good inside your heart and mind, not about how much stuff you have.

Money and Things

Money can buy a lot of things like toys, games, and candy. But these things only make us happy for a little while. After some time, new toys become old, and the excitement fades. The joy that comes from things you can touch and buy does not last forever.

Love and Friendship

Think about the times you laugh with your friends or get a hug from your family. These moments give you a warm feeling that stays with you much longer than the happiness you get from a new toy. Love and friendship are priceless, and you cannot buy them with money.

Helping Others

Have you ever helped someone and seen them smile because of what you did? This kind of joy comes from giving, not getting. When you help others, you feel good on the inside. You can’t put a price tag on the happiness that comes from being kind.

The Simple Things

500 words essay on money can’t buy happiness, the meaning of true happiness.

Many people think that having a lot of money means you will be happy. They believe that when you are rich, you can buy anything you want, and that will make you happy. But true happiness is not something you can buy with money. True happiness comes from love, good health, and being content with what you have.

Love and Relationships

Think about the times you feel the happiest. Is it when you get a new toy, or is it when you are playing with your friends? For most of us, being with our family and friends makes us feel good. Laughing, playing games, and sharing stories are moments that make us happy. These moments do not cost anything. Money cannot buy the love of your family or the fun times with your friends.

Health is Wealth

Contentment is key.

Contentment means being happy with what you have. It does not matter if you do not have the newest video game or the latest sneakers. Being thankful for what you have is a big part of being happy. If you always want more, you will never be happy. Even if you have a lot of money, you will always be looking for the next thing to buy. But if you are content, you can find joy in the simple things in life.

The Best Things in Life Are Free

Money and happiness.

In conclusion, happiness is not something you can buy at a store. It comes from love, health, being content, and enjoying the simple things. Remember, the most precious moments in life are often the ones that money cannot buy. So, smile, play, and enjoy every day, and you will find that happiness is all around you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Money blog: Coca-Cola launching new flavour in collaboration with popular biscuit - and fans are divided

Welcome to the Money blog, a hub of personal finance and consumer news. Our focus has been on inflation rising - while other posts include Coke launching a new flavour with Oreo. Leave a comment on any of the stories we're covering in the box below - we round them up every Saturday.

Wednesday 14 August 2024 20:04, UK

• UK inflation rises for first time since December - analysis
• Wizz launches unlimited flight package for £445 - but there's a catch
• Coca-Cola launching Oreo drink - and fans are divided

Essential reads

• Is this the end of the British pub?
• What's gone wrong at Asda?
• Best of the Money blog - an archive of features

Tips and advice

• TV chef picks best cheap eats in London
• Save up to half price when visiting top attractions with this trick
• 'I cancelled swimming with weeks of notice - can they keep my money?'

Ask a question or make a comment

A "major breakthrough" which could signal the end of national rail strikes has been made in the long-running pay row involving drivers, according to the Department for Transport (DfT).

The department said the train drivers' union ASLEF had agreed to recommend a new pay proposal to its members after a series of "positive" talks led by the government. 

"The offer made to ASLEF is a 5% pay rise for 2022/23, 4.75% for 23/24, and 4.5% for 24/25," a spokesperson for the DfT said.

"The offer will now be put to ASLEF members in a referendum."

During the two-year pay dispute, drivers have taken 18 days of strike action, as well as refusing to work non-contractual overtime.

Mars is buying the food company Kellanova in a deal worth nearly $30bn (£23.3bn). 

The deal will see the business, which already owns several brands such as M&M's, Snickers and Skittles, take control of a huge portfolio of products, including Pringles, Pop Tarts and Cheez-Its.

Kellanova was created when the Kellogg Co split into three companies in 2022.

Based in Chicago, it had net sales of more than $13bn (£10bn) last year and has around 23,000 employees.

Mars Inc said it will pay $83.50 dollars (£65.02) per share in cash, putting the total value of the transaction at £35.9bn (£27.9bn).

The deal is expected to close in the first half of next year.

"The Kellanova brands significantly expand our snacking platform, allowing us to even more effectively meet consumer needs and drive profitable business growth," Andrew Clarke, global president of Mars Snacking, said in a statement.

Adverts for nutrition brands Zoe and Huel featuring a Dragons' Den star have been banned for failing to disclose their commercial relationship with the celebrity.

Steven Bartlett is an investor in Zoe and a director at Huel, but the the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found ads seen on Facebook in February "omitted material information" about their links to him.

Starbucks has ousted its chief executive Laxman Narasimhan after less than two years at the helm.

The news comes after pressure for management change from hedge fund Elliott Management.

Read more...

Primark is trying to make headway in US markets with an advertising campaign across the pond.

Hoping "That's so Primark" will catch on, the retailer is introducing its budget style via two 30-second videos.

The company aims to open 60 stores in the US by 2026.

John Lewis is looking to cut 153 jobs as part of a staff shake-up across its stores. 

The high street giant claims the proposals are designed to improve customer service, ensuring workers are "in the right place, doing the right tasks at the right time". 

It is hoping the job cuts will be through voluntary redundancy and natural attrition - which covers people leaving through retirement, resignations or moving job. 

Staffing changes will also see currently separate roles for serving front and back of house combined.

John Lewis is also investing £5m in digital headsets for store workers to communicate better with one another - in a bid to improve service.

The changes, which were announced to staff yesterday, follow a similar staffing overhaul at sister business Waitrose.

A spokesman for John Lewis said: "We're seeking to make sure partners are in the right place at the right time to help customers.

"We're also removing unnecessary tasks and introducing new technology to make their roles easier.

"We carried out similar changes in Waitrose earlier this year, with customer and partner feedback increasing significantly since.

"It's since been ranked the number one supermarket for customer satisfaction."

Coca-Cola is launching an Oreo-flavoured drink in collaboration with the biscuit manufacturer.

The limited edition, zero-sugar drink will be released from September in a black and white can containing what Coca-Cola describe as "flavourful hints inspired by Oreo cookies".

At the same time, Oreo will release a Coca-Cola flavoured biscuit.

Eugenia Zalis, global head of marketing for Oreo-maker Mondelez International, said she "cannot wait to see the reaction" from customers - but they're already coming in before the products have even hit the shelves.

Multiple X users were quick to deploy the Jurassic Park meme inspired by Jeff Goldblum's character, Ian Malcolm: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should".

Another added: "I will happily eat Oreos while drinking a Coke Zero, but I don't want either of these things."

Others were more enthusiastic, simply writing: "Need."

Ms Zalis was confident about the collaboration, saying: "We have truly upped the ante."

The beverage will be available at major retailers and Pizza Express, Popeyes and Slim Chickens, Coca-Cola said.

By Daniel Binns, business reporter

Annual inflation in the US fell to 2.9% in July, down from 3%, according to official data released this lunchtime.

The announcement helps pave the way for the US Federal Reserve for cut interest rates next month.

This matters to monetary policy makers in the EU and UK as they don't like to be too misaligned with the US - for fear of impacting currency strength, among other reasons.

The annual consumer prices index (CPI) rate for July was the lowest since March 2021 and came in below market expectations.

In the immediate aftermath of the publication of the latest figures, financial markets upped their expectations that the Fed would cut interest rates by 0.25 percentage points, pricing in the likelihood of such an outcome at 60.5%. 

The likelihood of a bigger 0.5 percentage point cut was judged to be 39.5%.

Earlier in the day, the likelihood of a 0.25 or 0.5 percentage point cut had been almost 50-50.

The first increase in inflation this year is less a reason for panic than a signal that, after almost three years of wild volatility, the UK's measure of price increases is returning to a period of what looks far more normal fluctuation.

The primary reason CPI stepped up to 2.2% in the year to July is statistical, the base effect of energy prices falling less this year than they did in July 2023. A year ago the Ofgem retail price cap fell by more than £1,100, 10 times more than the £110 reduction last month. That means that while energy prices are lower than they were, annual inflation increased.

The Bank of England had forecast this move upwards from its target rate of 2% and used it to justify its cautious tone around interest rates, even as they were cut earlier this month for the first time since the hiking cycle began.

Below the headline rate of CPI were numbers that will give the Bank some confidence that it can afford to cut rates further by the end of the year.

Core inflation, a measure that removes volatile food and energy prices and indicates the underlying "secondary" effects of inflation, fell slightly from 3.5% to 3.2%. 

Goods inflation remains in negative territory at minus 0.6%, but that was an increase from minus 1.4% the previous month, driven in part by food inflation, which increased to 1.8% after 15 consecutive monthly falls. 

Inflation in services, which make up the majority of the British economy, fell to 5.2%. Coming a day after wage inflation also eased, that fuelled expectations that further rate cuts are coming, though not necessarily at the next Bank of England meeting in September. 

Market expectations of a cut in September rose to 45%, meaning a narrow majority expect rates to be held at 5%, with the prospects of further cuts before the year-end priced at 90% in November and 97% in December.

Watch Kelso's TV analysis here...

Every Wednesday we ask top chefs to pick their favourite Cheap Eats where they live and when they cook at home. This week we speak to TV chef Judy Joo, who co-owns the popular Seoul Bird in London.

Hi Judy, can you tell us your favourite places in London where you can get a meal for two for less than £40?

Since 1900,  Paul Rothe & Son  in Marylebone has been crafting some of the best sandwiches in London. Lucky for me, I live just around the corner from this charming, historic deli. 

My go-to is their famous pastrami and cheese, piled high with pickle, mayo, and mustard. Occasionally, I'll switch things up with their epic coronation chicken, or if I'm feeling adventurous, a jacket potato with tuna and sweetcorn. It's quintessentially British, and I love it. 

Trejo's Tacos has crossed the pond, opening its first international outpost in Notting Hill. Founded by actor Danny Trejo, this canteen boasts a cult following in Los Angeles (myself included) and has quickly become my favourite spot for tacos in London. 

My usual order includes a plate of Baja fish and spicy shrimp tacos, dosed in their house hot sauce and perfectly complemented by one of their stellar OG margaritas or homemade horchata. I also love their house-made guacamole and salsa served with their truly addictive freshly fried corn tortilla chips. I just munch away while thinking of the southern California sun. 

I live near Edgware Road, an area renowned for its vibrant Middle Eastern community and fantastic cuisine. Maroush , a London institution with multiple venues across the city, remains a favourite, especially the original one on Edgware Road.

The chicken or lamb shawarma is the star dish, slow-cooked on vertical rotisseries, infused with aromatic spices, and expertly sliced off with sabers. It's the perfect late-night snack after a few too many pints. I love their tomato okra stew with rice - so comforting and warming. 

Tucked away in the basement of an unassuming British pub down a quaint mews street in Marylebone is Liu Xiaomian . 

I usually order the minced pork xiaomian - toothsome wheat noodles swimming in a red chilli broth, then dressed with seasoned pork and fragrant spring onions. The numbing pork wontons are another standout, delivering what their name promises in true mala style. Don't miss the cucumber side salad which offers a refreshing respite for your palate.

What is your go-to cheap eat to cook at home when you have a night in?

My go-to budget-friendly meal for cooking at home is pimped-out instant ramen noodles. 

If I am feeling spicy, I'll grab a pack of Shin Ramen and add fresh veggies and leftover proteins from the fridge. 

Spinach, mushrooms, corn, spring onions, leftover roasted chicken, and some frozen dumplings usually make their way into the pot. Absolutely anything goes!  

And, to finish, I'll crack an egg in and let it cook on top of the noodles just until the yolk is set, but still gooey. It's a quick, delicious meal that hits the spot every time.

We've spoken to lots of top chefs - check out their cheap eats from around the country here...

By Sky News Data and Forensics Unit

As we've discussed throughout the morning, the rate of inflation grew to 2.2% in July - the first time since December last year that it has increased.

Which shop prices are increasing fastest?

Olive oil costs nearly two fifths more than it did last year, with prices for 500ml-1 litre rising from £6.39 to £8.83 in just 12 months.

The Money blog looked at the reasons why here...

Plums, meanwhile, are up by a quarter, from £3.08 per kilo to £3.57.

Food and drink products are responsible for seven of the 10 highest increases since last year.

For fans of a slicked-back hairstyle, non-food items like hair gel increased by a third, and for any pet owners, the price of a small mammal cage nearly hopped up by a fifth.

Top five price rises:

• Olive oil (500ml-1litre): up 38%, £6.39 to £8.83
• Hair gel (150-200ml): up 33%, £3.08 to £4.10
• Plums (per kg): up 25%, £2.85 to £3.57
• White potatoes (per kg): up 20%, 74p to 89p
• Cauliflower (each): up 20%, £1.07 to £1.28

Fifty-six of the 156 types of food and drink tracked by the ONS have actually become cheaper since last year. Many of these were store cupboard staples like pulses, dried pasta, and canned tomatoes.

Top food price decreases:

• Pulses (390-420g): down 13%, 77p to 67p
• Frozen prawns (per kg): down 8%, £18.77 to £17.24
• Cheddar cheese (per kg): down 8%, £9.49 to £8.77
• Spreadable butter (500g): down 7%, £4.18 to £3.90
• Frozen berries (per pack): down 6%, £2.53 to £2.37

Of non-supermarket items, electric heaters have been some of the biggest price fallers - by 22%.

How much has your individual spending changed in the last year?

Use our calculator to see how much prices are rising on the groceries, clothing and leisure activities you pay for...

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

Advertisement

Where Tim Walz Stands on the Issues

As governor of Minnesota, he has enacted policies to secure abortion protections, provide free meals for schoolchildren, allow recreational marijuana and set renewable energy goals.

• Share full article

By Maggie Astor

• Aug. 6, 2024

Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the newly announced running mate to Vice President Kamala Harris, has worked with his state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature to enact an ambitious agenda of liberal policies: free college tuition for low-income students, free meals for schoolchildren, legal recreational marijuana and protections for transgender people.

“You don’t win elections to bank political capital,” Mr. Walz wrote last year about his approach to governing. “You win elections to burn political capital and improve lives.”

Republicans have slammed these policies as big-government liberalism and accused Mr. Walz of taking a hard left turn since he represented a politically divided district in Congress years ago.

Here is an overview of where Mr. Walz stands on some key issues.

Mr. Walz signed a bill last year that guaranteed Minnesotans a “fundamental right to make autonomous decisions” about reproductive health care on issues such as abortion, contraception and fertility treatments.

Abortion was already protected by a Minnesota Supreme Court decision, but the new law guarded against a future court reversing that precedent as the U.S. Supreme Court did with Roe v. Wade, and Mr. Walz said this year that he was also open to an amendment to the state’s Constitution that would codify abortion rights.

Another bill he signed legally shields patients, and their medical providers, if they receive an abortion in Minnesota after traveling from a state where abortion is banned.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .