SOCIAL CLASS AND HAPPINESS: FOCUSING ON THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF PROSPECT OF UPWARD MOBILITY

Transcription

1 SOCIAL CLASS AND HAPPINESS: FOCUSING ON THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF PROSPECT OF UPWARD MOBILITY 1 JAE-WAN LEE, 2 DAE HYUN BAEK 1,2 research Professor In Wonkang University, Phd Student In Seoul National University 1 noso791@gmail.com, 2 speak2me@daum.net Abstract- The purpose of this study is not only verify the causality between the class and happiness but also to find out whether prospect of upward mobility has a moderating effect on former causality. The results show that although the Lower Class and Working Class indicate significant negative relation with happiness, the interaction term with prospect of upward mobility(p.o.u.m.) changes the relation from negative to positive. On the other hand, in Upper Class, positive relation with happiness turns into negative. It means P.O.U.M. moderates the relation between class and happiness. In other word, people who belong to lower class feel happier as they think that the possibility of upward mobility is high. Adversely, in high class, the P.O.U.M make people feel unhappier. Index Terms- Class, Happiness, Moderator, POUM. I. INTRODUCTION The perception of happiness in Korea is low in comparison with national economy. According to H.P.I. (Happy Planet Index) conducted by N.E.F. (New Economics Foundation), Korea ranked 63th among 151 countries. At that moment, the GDP per capita of Korea is 35 th largest in the world. Even though the Korean government has been expanding social welfare expenditures, a lot of Koreans still feel that they are not happy. Easterlin(1974) contended that an income level was not necessarily proportional to happiness. After that, studies referring to happiness pay attention to the relations between the social ladder and happiness. The low prospect of upward mobility results in psychological frustration and deprives citizens of hope. As Merton(1957) argued reference group theory, soldiers who had colleagues who are low in military hierarchy are happier than soldiers whose colleagues were rapidly promoted. Therefore, this study will verify whether the class has an effect on the perception of happiness and the effect is moderated by P.O.U.M. (Prospect of Upward Mobility). II. BACKGROUND A. Theory for happiness The debate on happiness in social science has originated from philosophy. To measure happiness which is debated in the world of ideas, operationalization is necessary. In previous studies, happiness is muddled up with quality of life, well-being, and life satisfaction((fordyce, 1977; Graham & Felton, 2006; Veenhoven, 2013). The reason why there is conceptual confusion about happiness is that it is difficult to define happiness itself because it fundamentally relates with a matter of value. Considering the definitions of happiness, it may consist of three concepts. The first one is persistence. Gumpert(1951) regarded happiness as the pleased condition which continued permanently and for Hart(1940) it was a kind of consciousness which one wanted to maintain. In Hartman(1934) and Diener(2000) s definitions, they insisted on the persistence of pleasant emotion. The second one is purpose. Hutschnecker(1964) considered happiness as capability display for significant goals. Purpose can be positive to achieve something and negative to evade uncomfortable condition. The final one is self awareness. In Veenhoven(1991) s opinion, happiness was favorable self-evaluation for one s life. In sum, happiness is a kind of self-satisfaction that maintains for quite a while. B. Determinants of happiness When you submit your final version, after your paper has been accepted, prepare it in two-column format, including figures and tables. Just like the various definitions of happiness, it is also controversial that what makes people happy. Frey & Stutzer(2000) asserted three sets of sources of happiness: personality and demographic factors, micro and macroeconomic factors, and institutional conditions. Rodriguez-Pose & Maslauskaite(2011) pointed out individual characteristics, Macroeconomic factors, and institutional factors. Diener & Seligman(2004) found out that national patterns and political characteristics, national wealth, governance, social capital, and religion affected happiness. Furthermore, in Dolan, Peasgood & White(2008) s study, they suggested that income, personal chracteristics, socially developed characteristics, how we spend our time, attitude and beliefs, relationships, and economic, social and political environment may be the determinants of happiness. Because these studies were conducted in the level of nations, the classifications were not relevant for the studies conducted in the level of individual. Usually in individual level studies, personal characteristics and socio-economic factors are concerned. Therefore, this study also follows that approach. 70

2 C. P.O.U.M. and happiness The mobility which contains upward and downward has an significant effect on individual happiness and life satisfaction(kelly & Kelly, 2009). Although the emotional effect of class mobility has been discussed since Sorokin(1959) s studies, It is still controversial whether it is positive or negative. According to the dissociative hypothesis, the mobility makes people nervous by cutting individual off from familiar relationships and compelling person to adapt to the new circumstance. Namely, the mobility has a negative effect on the individual s psychological health and happiness(houle, 2011: Lee, 2013). On the other hand, the mobility to upward can increase the satisfaction of life and make person happier(clark & D Angelo, 2009) because it enable individual to get more resource and respect from others. These are a higher level of desires that can compensate for the nerve of new environment(xu, 2012). F. Research model To find out the factors that determine happiness of citizens, we establish the research model as follows. D. Distinction of this study Previous studies mostly approached to happiness in relation with socio-economic class without consideration of mobility of class. In open societies, class is not static. As socio-economic status can be changed by individual effort, it is not sufficient to study happiness only in terms of the perception of static status. Therefore, there are two distinctive perspectives in this study. Firstly, the P.O.U.M. will be included in the regression, thereby not only the effect of class itself but also that of mobility can be revealed. Secondly, this study uses interaction term of class and P.O.U.M.. Although present studies only analyzed linear causality simply, as we include interaction term, the additional effect that the mobility may moderate the relation between class and happiness can be tested. III. RESEARCH MODEL AND METHOD E. Hypothesis This study firstly analyzes the effect of class on happiness. Merton(1957) contended that reference group was significant to the perception of happiness regardless of class that he or she belonged to. Nevertheless, in the result of Kim, Kang and Lee(2013) s study, the higher class people belonged to, the more happier they were. To test these discordant results, hypothesis 1 is set up. Hyphthesis 1: As the class is higher, people feel happier. In sequence, the moderating effect of social ladder on happiness will be tested. As mentioned earlier, it is controversial whether the mobility has positive effect or negative effect. Moreover, it is said that the mobility has not a significant effect on happiness(blau, 1956). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is set up. Hypothesis 2: The prospect of upward mobility is moderate the relationship between class and happiness. Figure 1. Research Model G. Measurement of variables and data Since 2003, Seoul local government has conducted Seoul Survey to make use of it as a baseline data for government management. From Oct. 20 th to Nov.25 th in 2013, by stratified cluster sampling, 20,000 families, 47,384 citizens were selected in Seoul. In this study, we colligate house holders data and members of house data. There is a controversial argument, how to measure happiness, which is an effort to retain construct validity of happiness(cummins, 2013). When measured by multiple questions, it is difficult to decide to extent the correlation between questions is allowed and it is accused of not having simple conceptual structure(cummins, 2013; Kashdan, 2004). Furthermore, measurement by multiple questions results in confusion with other concepts such as perceived control, self-esteem, optimism and positive affect. In this reason, although the error variance become larger when we measure variable with a single question single question measurement has been preferred since Gurin, Veroff and Feld(1960)(Cummins, 2013). Therefore, in this study, happiness is measured by a single question in continuous value from 0 to 100. There are three ways to measure class. Firstly, the evaluation of a third party who know well the target. Actually it is not easy to find a proper evaluator. Secondly, measurement by objective indicators such as income, job, education and so on. This way is accused of selecting criteria arbitrarily. Thirdly, the perception of individuals. It also has limitation that it expresses one s desire. Even though three ways all have their own limitation, we use third way. When the relation between class and happiness is tested, the perception of class has more obvious effect than other 71

3 ways. It shows that the perception of class is the most significant way in the relation with happiness(kang et al, 2014). In this study, we measure the class through the perception of individual asking what class you belong to: Lower Class, Working Class, Lower Middle class, Upper Middle Class, Upper Class. On the basis of Lower Middle Class, we make it a dummy variable. P.O.U.M is measured by five-point scale. We also control some important variables. Age is a respondents real age. Gender is dummy variable on the basis of female, i.e. female=0. Marriage is also dummy variable and reference is married. Education is classified by 5 categories and assign point from 1 to 5. So does income. Income inequity is measured by five-point scale. 1 means that it is most equal. Job is considered as a status in the labor market. It is dummy variable. Reference is unemployment. Ideology estimates how progressive the one is by 5 point-scale. Trust is a mean of 4 questions. The higher point is, the credulous they are. Religion is dummy variable. Reference is atheist. The variables and measurement questions are as in the following Table 1. Table 1 Variable and Measurement IV. RESULTS H. Descriptive Statistics Table 2 and 3 show the respondents descriptive characteristics. Table 2 The Respondents Characteristics Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of variables 72

4 I. The result of multiple regression In the model 1 that does not consider moderating effect of P.O.U.M, Lower Class show the lowest coefficient and Working Class and Upper Middle Class follows. Even though Upper Class shows negative relation, it is not significant. Furthermore, P.O.U.M itself has positive relation with happiness. As people feel that the chance to upward is high, they are happier. The possibility of mobility may result in positive psychological effect that make people happy(cheng & Furnham, 2003). In the model 2 that includes interaction term of P.O.U.M and class, similar to model1, Upper Middle Class shows highest coefficient and Working Class follows. P.O.U.M itself also positive effect on happiness. In terms of interaction variables, Lower Class and Working Class become positive effect in the interaction with P.O.U.M on happiness. On the other hand, in the Upper Middle Class P.O.U.M has moderate effect that make positive relation with happiness negative. The marginal effect that P.O.U.M has on happiness by each class can be expressed like Figure2 Figure 2 The Moderating effect of "P.O.U.M" Although happiness is lower in Lower Class and Working Class than in Lower Middle Class, as P.O.U.M. increase, they follow the steeper slope than that of Lower Middle Class. Similarly, Upper Middle Class are happier than Lower Middle Class but the slope is gradual. The table 4 and 5 show the result of regression. Table 4The Result of Multiple Regression 73

5 CONCLUSION As we can see the result of regression, P.O.U.M has moderating effect on the relation class and happiness. Therefore, to increase the subjective happiness in low class, it is important to make social ladder work well, i.e. a open society. Korean government have increased welfare expenditure to construct social safety network. Nevertheless, considering the result of this study, it is necessary to make education function as a social ladder not to increase welfare expenditure. REFERENCE [1] Blau, P. (1956). Social Mobility and Interpersonal Relations. American Sociological Review, 21: [2] Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America, New York, NY: McGraw Hill. [3] Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality, self-esteem, and demographic predictions of happiness and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(6): [4] Clark, A., & D Angelo, E. (2009). Upward Social Mobility, Wellbeing and Political Preferences: Evidence from the BHPS. Working paper. [5] Cummins, R. A. (2013). Positive psychology and subjective wellbeing homeostasis: A critical examination of congruence. In D. Moraitou & A. Efklides (Eds.). Quality of life: A positive psychology perspective (pp.67-86). New York: Springer. [6] Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1): [7] Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Beyond money toward an economy of well-being. Psychological science in the public interest, 5(1): [8] Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29: [9] Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. Nations and households in economic growth, 89: [10] Fordyce, M. W. (1977). Development of a Program to Increase Personal Happiness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24(6): [11] Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, Economy and Institutions. Economic Journal, 110(466): Gumpert, M. (1951). The Anatomy of Happiness, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co [12] Graham, C., & Felton, A. (2006). Inequality and happiness: Insights from Latin America. Journal of Economic Inequality, 4: [13] Gurin, G., J. Veroff, & Feld, S. (1960). Americans View Their Mental Health, NY: Basic Books. [14] Hart, H. (1940). Chart for happiness, New York, NY: Macmillan. [15] Hartmann, G. W. (1934). Personality traits associated with variations in happiness. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29(2): [16] Houle, J. N. (2011). The psychological impact of intragenerational social class mobility. Social Science Research, 40: [17] Hutschnecker, A. A. (1964). The Will to Happiness, Prentice Hall Books [18] Kang, W.T., Kim, B.Y., Ahn, S.H., Lee, J.Y. & Choi,I.C.(2014). Middle Class? 21 Centuary Books. [19] Kashdan, T. B. (2004). The assessment of subjective well-being (issues raised by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire). Personality and Individual Differences, 36: [20] Kelly, S. M. C., and Kelly, C. G. E. (2009). Subjective social mobility: data from 30 nations. In Haller, M., Jowell, R., and Smith, T. (eds.). Charting the Globe: The International Social Survey Programme London: Routledge. Chapter 6. [21] Lee, J.W.(2013). An Exploratory Study on the Impact of Social Ladder on Social Trust: Focused on ono-linear relationship. Korean society and public administration. 24(3): [22] Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press. [23] Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Maslauskaite, K. (2011). Can Policy Make Us Happier?: Individual characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and life satisfaction in Central and Eastern Europe. Bruges European Economic Research Papers 22/2011. [24] Sorokin, A. (1959). Social and Cultural Mobility, Glencoe, IL: Free Press. [25] Veenhoven, R. (1991). Questions on happiness: classical topics, modern answers, blind spots. In Strack, F. (Eds). Subjective well-being: an Interdisciplinary perspective, Pergamon Press. [26] Veenhoven, R.(2013). The Four Qualities of Life Ordering Concepts and Measures of the Good Life. In Delle Fave, A. (Eds). The Exploration of Happiness. [27] Xu, P. C. (2012). Did Social Mobility Make Chinese Happier? (from 74