Wealth and Happiness Don't Necessarily Go Hand in Hand
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "not at all satisfied with my life" and 7 means "completely satisfied," it's no surprise that survey-respondents who make Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans average 5.8, while homeless pavement dwellers in Calcutta average 2.9.
All in all, sleeping on sidewalks and starving can't hold a candle to sleeping on satin and splurging.
Not so fast. In the surveys, taken off and on over the last 20 years, the Inuit people of frigid northern Greenland also average 5.8. So do the cattle-herding Masai of Kenya, who live in dung huts with no electricity or running water. And Calcutta's slum dwellers, for whom being only a single economic rung above the pavement denizens apparently makes a huge difference, come in at 4.6.
Does money buy happiness? In particular, does raising a nation's income or wealth, as measured by gross domestic product, raise the population's overall level of happiness? Intuitively, you'd think the answer is a definite yes. After all, classic economic theory holds that additional income allows people to meet additional needs, and the more needs -- or even wants -- you satisfy, the happier you are. Also, money buys choices. With $10 you can buy steak or hot dogs, but with only $1 you better hope you have relish in the fridge. The more choices people have, economists assume, the happier they are.
Psychologists suggest that things are a lot more complicated. An ambitious analysis of more than 150 studies on wealth and happiness shows that "economic indicators have glaring shortcomings" as approximations of well-being, write psychology professors Ed Diener of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and Martin E.P. Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in an coming issue of the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest. The studies show that, in many countries, "although economic output has risen steeply over the past decades, there has been no rise in life satisfaction ... and there has been a substantial increase in depression and distrust."
You can sure see that in individuals. To be sure, income is an accurate predictor of well-being when it raises someone from, say, homelessness to a janitorial job, because the jump up the economic ladder brings basic needs like food and shelter. With increasing wealth, however, extra money doesn't buy much extra happiness, according to most of the 150 studies. Instead, happiness comes from social relationships, enjoyable work, fulfillment, a sense that life has meaning, and joining civic and other groups.
"Economic success falls short as a measure of well-being, in part because materialism can negatively influence well-being, and also because it is possible to be happy without living a life of luxury," conclude Profs. Diener and Seligman.
Just to make things interesting, studies that find money and happiness go together often suffer from an inability to tell correlation from causation, or what causes what. People who say they're happy typically go on, years later, to earn higher incomes than people who said they were not. That suggests that a sense of well-being boosts productivity, initiative and other traits leading to a higher income, and not (or not only) that higher income buys extra happiness. Contented people are also more likely to get married and stay that way, and to be healthy, all of which tend to increase happiness. Money may not buy happiness, but happiness can buy money.
Government policies to promote economic growth seem, at first glance, like an obvious way to give people a greater sense of well-being. Economists find repeatedly that, in general, the higher a nation's GDP the greater its population's happiness. While that seems to support the money-can-buy-happiness idea, though, it ignores one thing. Wealthy nations tend to be democracies that respect human rights and have a fair legal system, good health care, and effective, honest government. All of these contribute to well-being. When you account for these variables, the effect of income itself on the citizenry's happiness practically vanishes.
Just look at the world's wealthiest nations. Since World War II, GDP per capita in the U.S. has tripled, but life satisfaction (measured by surveys that ask something like, "overall, how satisfied are you with your life?") has barely budged. Japan, too, has had a stupendous rise in GDP per capita since 1958, yet measures of national happiness have been flat. The same holds for much of Western Europe, finds social psychologist Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University, Rotterdam. One reason may be that a rising economy produces rising aspirations. Luxuries come to seem like necessities, canceling the psychological benefits of economic growth.
If psychologists had a seat on a government's economic team, they would point out that, once a nation reaches a certain level of prosperity, further economic growth is unlikely to buy additional happiness. Instead, Prof. Veenhoven says, increasing the citizenry's sense of well-being requires "less investment in economic growth and more in policies that promote good governance, liberties, democracy, trust and public safety."
财富不等于快乐
如果让你从1到7选出一个数字，1代表“对我的生活根本不满意”，7代表“完全满意”，那么毫不奇怪被《福布斯》(Forbes)杂志列为美国首富400人的平均快乐指数为5.8，而无家可归露宿街头者的平均指数为2.9。
一般说来，风餐露宿的人不可能拥有烛光晚宴和绫罗绸缎，也不可能享受挥金如土的感觉。
但不要这么快就妄下结论。在过去20年间断断续续的调查中人们发现，居住在寒冷的北格陵兰岛的因纽特人的快乐指数也是5.8。此外还有肯尼亚的游牧民族马赛人，他们生活在简陋肮脏的草棚内，没有电也没有自来水，而快乐指数同样为5.8。而生活在加尔各答贫民窟的人们，对他们来说经济的一星半点改善都似乎具有重大意义，而他们的快乐指数也达到了4.6。
钱能买到快乐吗？特别是当一个国家以国内生产总值(GDP)衡量的国家财富增长时，公民的整体快乐水平是否也会上升呢？凭直觉，你可能会毫不犹豫地回答：是的。毕竟传统经济理论显示，收入的增加可以让人们满足更多需求，而得到满足的需求，甚至欲望越多，就会感觉越快乐。而且有钱就可以有更多选择。用10美元你可以去买牛排或者热狗，而如果只有1美元，那么你只能指望冰箱里还有些开胃的小咸菜。经济学家曾说，人们的选择余地越大，快乐程度越高。
但是在心理学家眼中，事情要复杂得多。美国伊利诺伊州大学香槟城校区的心理学教授艾德?比纳(Ed Diener)和宾夕法尼亚州大学的马丁?塞利格曼(Martin E.P. Seligman)深入分析了150份有关财富和快乐的研究报告，他们认为将经济指标看作幸福的近似值显然缺乏说服力。该报告即将在《Psychological Science in the Public Interest》刊物上发表。
研究显示，在很多国家，尽管过去10年间经济产值大幅增长，但人们对生活的满意程度却没有明显改善，抑郁和不信任的程度反而有所增加。
这样的例子数不胜数。当经济的改善满足了基本的食宿需求、让一个无家可归的人获得一份门卫的工作时，收入的确是衡量幸福的标尺。但这150份调查显示，随著财富的不断增长，额外的收入将不再带来多少额外的快乐。相反，快乐是来自良好的人际关系、愉快的工作气围、自我满足感、对生命意义的感受、以及对社会活动的参与。
比纳和塞利格曼总结道，经济兴旺不足以作为衡量幸福的标准，一方面是因为拜金主义会对幸福感造成负面影响，另一方面没有奢华的生活人们也同样可以感受快乐。
更有趣的是，发现金钱与快乐同步变化的研究通常苦于无法解释其中的因果关系，即通常所说的鸡生蛋还是蛋生鸡的问题。认为自己现在很快乐的人，多年以后赚的钱往往比当年自称不快乐的人更多。这说明幸福感可以使生产能力、创造性和其他导致收入增加的特长不断提高，而并非（或不只是）收入的提高带来更多快乐。对自身状态满意的人也更容易结婚，并保持稳定和健康的生活状态，而这一切都可以增加人们的快乐感。钱或许不能买来快乐，但快乐可以生钱。
政府促进经济增长的政策乍一看似乎是提升公民快乐感的明显途径。经济学家屡屡发现，总体上GDP水平越高人们的快乐程度越高。这似乎为“钱能买到快乐”的观点提供了佐证，然而它忽视了一件事情。富余的国家往往是民主国家，尊重人权，有公平的法律体系、完善的医疗保健制度、以及高效廉洁的政府。所有这一切都是幸福的源泉。当你考虑到这些变量时，收入本身对快乐的影响就很微不足道了。
看看全球最富有的几个国家。自第二次世界大战以来，美国人均GDP已经增长两倍，而人们对生活的满足感（通过“你对生活的满意程度怎样？”的调查得出）却几乎没变。日本自1958年以来人均GDP惊人增长，而国民的快乐感却一直维持原状。鹿特丹伊拉斯莫斯大学(Erasmus University)社会心理学教授鲁特?维恩霍文(Ruut Veenhoven)在对西欧的研究中也得出同样结论。一个原因可能是，经济增长导致欲望膨胀。奢华的生活越来越显得平常无奇，因此抵消了经济增长带来的心理满足。
如果心理学家在政府的经济班底中也能有一席之地，那么他们一定会指出，一旦某个国家达到一定的繁荣水平，经济的进一步增长并不能换取更多快乐。相反，维恩霍文教授说，提升公民的幸福感需要减少对经济增长的投资，增加促进自由、民主、信任和公众安全的政策举措。
