Does Money Buy Happiness A Longitudinal Study Using Data on Windfalls
Does Money Buy Happiness? A Longitudinal Study
Using Data on Windfalls
Jonathan Gardner
Department of Economics
Warwick University
CV4 7AL
jonathan.gardner@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/5011438998.html,
Andrew Oswald
Department of Economics
Warwick University
CV4 7AL
andrew.oswald@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/5011438998.html,
March 2001
For their helpful ideas, we are grateful to Danny Blanchflower, Andrew Clark, Ed Diener, Jane Hutton, Bruce Sacerdote, Jon Skinner, Alois Stutzer, and Ian Walker. The Economic and Social Research Council provided research support.
Abstract
The most fundamental idea in economics is that money makes people happy. This paper constructs a test. It studies longitudinal information on the psychological health and reported happiness of approximately 9,000 randomly chosen people. In the spirit of a natural experiment, the paper shows that those in the panel who receive windfalls -- by winning lottery money or receiving an inheritance -- have higher mental wellbeing in the following year. A windfall of 50,000 pounds (approximately 75,000 US dollars) is associated with a rise in wellbeing of between 0.1 and 0.3 standard deviations. Approximately one million pounds (1.5 million dollars), therefore, would be needed to move someone from close to the bottom of a happiness frequency distribution to close to the top. Whether these happiness gains wear off over time remains an open question.
Does Money Buy Happiness? A Longitudinal Study Using Data on Windfalls
Jonathan Gardner and Andrew Oswald
1.Introduction
The central tenet of economics is that money makes people happy. Using deduction, rather than evidence, economists teach their students that utility must be increasing in income1. In this paper we construct one of the first empirical tests. Our results, using two measures of mental wellbeing, show that the economist’s textbook view is correct. We also estimate the size of the effect of a windfall on wellbeing.
To make persuasive progress on this problem, data with three special features are required. First, it is necessary to have a panel of people, that is, longitudinal rather than purely cross-sectional information. Second, measures of psychological wellbeing are needed. Third, it is necessary to observe, whether by an actual or natural experiment, a random assignment of money amongst individuals. We have a data set that approximates these conditions. As far as we know, previous investigators in economics or psychology have been unable to implement such a test. Diener and Biswas-Diener (2000) argue that this form of research design is required.
Individuals' survey responses to questions about wellbeing are used in the paper. Such responses have been studied before. They have been used intensively by psychologists2, examined a little by sociologists and political scientists3, and largely ignored by economists4. Some economists may emphasise the likely unreliability of subjective data
1 A common approach would be to argue that more income simply must make people happier because it opens up extra choices that are denied those with less money; yet in principle human beings might find it costly to make more decisions about how to spend the greater income. Another argument might be that people seek more income whenever they can, so that it necessarily makes them happier; yet in principle they could be mistaken about how they will feel ex post. However, the best reason to want empirical evidence is that it is dangerous for any subject to reach the point where it cannot be conceived that a familiar assumption might be wrong.
2 Earlier work includes Andrews (1991), Argyle (1989), Campbell (1981), Diener (1984), Diener et al (1999), Douthitt et al (1992), Fox and Kahneman (1992), Larsen et al (1984), Mullis (1992), Shin (1980), Veenhoven (1991, 1993), and Warr (1990).
3 For example, Inglehart (1990) and Gallie et al (1998). There is also a related empirical literature on interactions between economic forces and people’s voting behavior; see for example Frey and Schneider (1978).
4 The recent research papers of Andrew Clark, Bruno Frey and Yew Kwang Ng are exceptions (Clark, 1996; Clark and Oswald, 1994; Frey and Stutzer, 1998, 1999; Ng, 1996, 1997). See also Frank (1985, 1997),
– perhaps because they are unaware of the large literature by research psychologists that uses such numbers, or perhaps because they believe economists are better judges of human motivation than those researchers. A recent literature on the border between economics and psychology, however, has attempted to understand the patterns in happiness and stress data.
2.Wellbeing Patterns
One definition of happiness is the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of life in a favourable way (Veenhoven, 1991, 1993).
Self-reported wellbeing measures are thought to be a reflection of at least four factors: circumstances, aspirations, comparisons with others, and a person's baseline happiness or disposition (e.g. Warr, 1980, Chen and Spector, 1991). Konow and Earley (1999) describes evidence that recorded happiness levels have been demonstrated to be correlated with:
1.Objective characteristics such as unemployment.
2.The person’s recall of positive versus negative life-events.
3.Assessments of the person’s happiness by friends and family members.
4.Assessments of the person’s happiness by his or her spouse.
5.Duration of authentic or so-called Duchenne smiles (a Duchenne smile occurs
when both the zygomatic major and obicularus orus facial muscles fire, and
human beings identify these as ‘genuine’ smiles).
6.Heart rate and blood pressure measures responses to stress.
7.Skin-resistance measures of response to stress.
8.Electroencephelogram measures of prefrontal brain activity.
Rather than summarise the psychological literature’s assessment of wellbeing data, this paper refers readers to the checks on self-reported happiness statistics that are discussed in
Blanchflower and Freeman (1997), Blanchflower and Oswald (1998, 1999), Blanchflower, Oswald and Warr (1993), MacCulloch (1996), Di Tella and MacCulloch (1999), and Di Tella et al (2001). Offer (1998) contains interesting ideas about the post-war period and possible reasons for a lack of rising wellbeing in industrialised society.
Argyle (1989) and Myers (1993), and to psychologists’ articles on reliability and validity, such as Fordyce (1985), Larsen, Diener, and Emmons (1984), Pavot and Diener (1993), and Watson and Clark (1991).
Assume a reported wellbeing function:
(1)r = h(u(y, z, t)) + e
where r is some measure of psychological stress or self-reported number or wellbeing level (perhaps the integer 4 on a satisfaction scale, or “very happy” on an ordinal happiness scale), u(…) is to be thought of as the person’s true wellbeing or utility, h(.) is a continuous non-differentiable function relating actual to reported wellbeing, y is real income, z is a set of demographic and personal characteristics, t is the time period, and e is an error term. It is assumed, as seems plausible, that u(…) is a function that is observable only to the individual. Its structure cannot be conveyed unambiguously to the interviewer or any other individual. The error term, ε, then subsumes among other factors the inability of human beings to communicate accurately their happiness level (your ‘two’ may be my ‘three’).5 The measurement error in reported wellbeing data would be less easily handled if wellbeing were to be used as an independent variable. This approach might be viewed as an empirical cousin of the experienced-utility idea advocated by Kahneman et al (1997).
It is possible to view some of the self-reported wellbeing questions in the psychology literature as assessments of a person’s lifetime or expected stock value of future utilities. Equation 1 would then be rewritten as an integral over the u(…) terms. This paper, however, will use stress and happiness questions on the assumption they describe a flow rather than a stock.
Easterlin’s seminal research (1974, and more recently 1995) examined the reported level of happiness in the United States. The author viewed people as getting utility from a comparison of themselves against others; this is the idea that happiness has a large relative component. Hirsch (1976), Scitovsky (1976), Layard (1980), Frank (1985, 1999) and Schor (1998) have argued a similar thesis; a different tradition, with equivalent implications, begins with Cooper and Garcia-Penalosa (1999) and Keely (1999).
5 This recognises the social scientist’s instinctive distrust of a single person’s subjective ‘utility’. An analogy might be to a time before human beings had accurate ways of measuring people’s height. Self-reported heights would contain information but be subject to large error. They would predominantly be useful as ordinal data, and would be more valuable when averaged across people rather than used as individual observations.
3.Data
The data used in this study come from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS). This is a nationally representative sample of more than 5,000 British households, containing over 10,000 adult individuals, conducted between September and Christmas of each year from 1991 to 1998. Respondents are interviewed in successive waves; if an individual splits off from their original household, all adult members of their new household are also interviewed. Children are interviewed once they reach 16. The sample has remained representative of the British population throughout the 1990s.
The BHPS contains a standard mental wellbeing measure, a General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) score. This is used by medical researchers and psychiatrists as a measure of stress or psychological distress. It is unfamiliar to some economists, but GHQ is probably the most widely used questionnaire-based method of measuring mental stress. In the spirit favoured by psychologists, it amalgamates answers to the following list of twelve questions, each one of which is itself scored on a four-point scale for 0 to 3:
Have you recently:
1.Been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing?
2.Lost much sleep over worry?
3.Felt that you are playing a useful part in things?
4.Felt capable of making decisions about things?
5.Felt constantly under strain?
6.Felt you could not overcome your difficulties?
7.Been able to enjoy your normal day-to-day activities?
8.Been able to face up to your problems?
9.Been feeling unhappy and depressed?
10.Been losing confidence in yourself?
11.Been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?
12.Been feeling reasonably happy all things considered?
We use the responses to these so-called GHQ-12 questions. For the first measure of mental wellbeing, we take the simple sum of the responses to the twelve questions, coded so that the response with the lowest wellbeing value scores 3 and that with the highest wellbeing value scores 0. This approach is sometimes called a Likert scale and is scored out of 36. The GHQ measure of stress, or lack of wellbeing, thus runs from a worst possible outcome of 36 (all twelve responses indicating very poor psychological health) to a minimum of 0 (no responses indicating poor psychological health). In general, medical opinion is that healthy individuals will score typically around 10-13 on the test. Numbers near 36 are rare and usually indicate depression in a formal clinical sense.6
A second measure is used in the paper. We also study a direct happiness question. This is Q12 above, denoted GHQH; so our happiness measure is in fact one twelfth of the GHQ measure. We assume that this is a sufficiently small proportion to be ignored without re-calibrating GHQ on only eleven questions.
We therefore employ a measure of (un)happiness as well as the mental stress measure described earlier. The GHQH question is: have you been feeling reasonably happy all things considered? This is the second measure of mental wellbeing. It is coded so that high numbers denote more unhappiness.
A key requirement for a test is that something approximating a random drop of money occurs. In a giant laboratory setting, this could be created experimentally. Aside from any ethical considerations, such an experiment at the start of the 21st century is probably infeasibly expensive to run. An equivalent is needed.
This paper relies on a natural experiment created by windfalls. The data contains two sources of these – lottery wins and inheritances. These figures refer to windfalls ‘within the last year’, as assessed by the respondents. Lottery wins throughout the paper include other gambling wins such as on the soccer ‘pools’. A huge percentage of the British population play the national lottery, and small wins are common. Hence for simplicity, because they dominate the data, we talk primarily of the lottery. The inheritance variable includes both bequests and inherited property [it excludes receipts of gifts or other private income transfers]. Despite the potential usefulness of lottery data to economists and psychologists, the literature exploiting lottery information is still a
6 Likert is 12 times a number from zero to three. An alternative is the Caseness score, which counts the
comparatively small one. Most work has looked at how consumption and work choices are affected by winning (for example, Bodkin 1959, Holtz-Eakin, Joulfaian and Rosen 1993, Imbens, Rubin and Sacerdote 2000, Kaplan 1985, Kreinin 1961, Landsberger 1963, and Sacerdote 1996). One well-known study in the psychology literature is Brickman, Coates and Janoff-Bulman, 1978. This uses only a tiny cross-section sample of lottery winners, and concludes that winners are slightly happier than those who do not win, but that the difference is not statistically significant. Smith and Razzell, 1975, examined a cross-section of those who won on football betting (the ‘pools’), and found that there was some evidence of higher recorded happiness; but individuals also reported lower wellbeing in other spheres of life.
There is an important disadvantage to our data set. Although the British panel itself goes back to the start of the 1990s, questions on windfalls are new. Information on the size of windfalls is known only for the 1997 and 1998 survey years. Analysis is therefore restricted to that sample period7. These data are augmented with people’s GHQ scores from prior waves, so as to allow the examination of how windfalls affect both the level of wellbeing and how it changes over time. In other words, we are able to examine long lags on the dependent variable. In the panel equations, we then have only two years with which to examine the effect of windfall gains.
4.Results
Table 1 presents the simplest results. In these bivariate regressions, money does buy greater happiness and lower measured stress.
Rises in wellbeing, to be clear about the choice of units and definitions, are given by declines in GHQ mental stress and in GHQH unhappiness. This follows the standard usage in the psychology and medical literature. Hence if money buys happiness, that shows up in the paper’s tables as negatives on windfall coefficients.
number of times, out of twelve, that an individual answers in one of two negative response categories.
7 There is one other piece of information. In 1995, people were asked whether they had received a windfall. This is used as a control variable in some of the regression equations.
Windfalls are associated with a statistically well-determined improvement in wellbeing. Mental stress (GHQ) and unhappiness (GHQH) both decline in the year after a windfall. This effect is found in the cross-sectional levels and in the panel’s changes.
In the cross-section equations, a windfall dummy (that is, whether the individual had either an inheritance or lottery win) enters negatively for the full sample in both a mental stress equation and an unhappiness equation. In the first columns of Tables 1a and 1b, the t-statistics are, respectively, 2.83 and 1.24. Entering the amount of windfall gives, predictably, results that are better determined. This is column 2 of Tables 1a and 1b. When only windfall recipients are studied, in column 3, the size of the windfall enters with the expected negative sign and it is possible in each of Table 1a and 1b to reject the null of zero at normal confidence levels.
The pure longitudinal effect of a windfall is picked up in the first-difference equations in the last three columns of Tables 1a and 1b. Here the two dependent variables are the change in mental stress GHQ and the change in reported unhappiness GHQH. Person fixed-effects, therefore, have been removed. In five of these six equations, it is possible to reject the null of zero on the windfall variables. In the sixth case, in column four of Table 1a, the t-statistic is 1.64.
How large are these improvements in wellbeing? The cross-section estimates predict that subsequent to a windfall of 50,000 pounds sterling (approximately 75,000 United States dollars) the level of GHQ improves by 0.709. This is approximately 0.13 of a standard deviation in GHQ (5.44). For the sample of windfall recipients, the gain in GHQ is 1.11 or around 0.21 of the relevant standard deviation (5.28).8 For GHQH, the predicted gain in wellbeing is 0.042 amongst all respondents, and is 0.114 amongst the sub-sample of windfall recipients. These are relative to a standard deviation of 0.59.
When the change in wellbeing is instead examined (columns four to six of Tables 1a and 1b), a 50,000 pounds windfall is predicted to improve GHQ by 0.446, or in other words 0.08 of a standard deviation. For the sample of recipients, the relevant figure is 1.09, or 0.21 of the relevant standard deviation. When we examine the change in GHQH
8 The change in wellbeing is calculated for windfalls of 50,000 pounds relative to the minimum windfall in the sample examined. For the sample of all individuals this is 0.1 (a small constant replaces zero wins). For the sample of windfall recipients 1 pound. The improvement in wellbeing is then calculated as, β*(Ln(50,000)-Ln(min)), and compared to the standard deviation in the dependent variables for that sample. Where the change in wellbeing is examined we use the standard deviation in the differenced variable.
unhappiness, we predict a welfare gain of approximately 0.1 of a standard deviation for the sample of all respondents, and 0.2 of a standard deviation within the sample of windfall recipients9.
There are two sources of windfalls in our data – lottery wins and inheritances. For the rest of the paper, we examine their impact upon wellbeing separately, and add explanatory variables. Although this reduces the size of the regression samples and tends to weaken the standard errors, it has the advantage of providing transparency. Having data on inheritances provides a useful check on the results for lottery wins, because people choose to play the lottery, whereas they presumably have less control over their probability of receiving bequests.
If ordered probit or similar methods are used for the cross-section estimation in Tables 1a and 1b, almost identical results are produced. These are available upon request.
The aim of the remainder of the paper is deliberately not to present equations with the highest t-statistics. Rather, it is to provide a feel, by studying lottery wins and inheritances separately, even when standard errors become poorly determined, for the ubiquity of the expected negative sign on windfalls. Later tables find that in all but 2 of 70 occasions -- across a variety of settings -- the windfall coefficient has the expected sign.
It is natural to begin in a simple way by examining whether, in a cross-section, those who obtain such windfalls are happiest. Table 2a provides evidence consistent with this hypothesis. In the second column of Table 2a, the mean GHQ stress score among those who are not lottery winners is 11.22. Among winners10 it is 10.91. The same pattern is observed for the GHQH unhappiness score in the third column of Table 2a, though the raw effect is much less pronounced. The mean score for winners is 2.00 whilst amongst non-winners it is 2.01.
These cross-tabulations are consistent with the idea that money and wellbeing are positively correlated. Yet, these findings are raw cross-section results without controls. Further evidence, in the same spirit, would be provided if individuals longitudinally report themselves with higher levels of wellbeing subsequent to a lottery windfall. This issue is
9As an illustrative way to think about the size of this effect, if the estimated number is 0.2 then a windfall of 1 million pounds (1.5 million dollars) would move a person by 4 standard deviations -- or in other words from approximately close to the bottom of a wellbeing distribution to close to the top.
investigated in the second panel of Table 2a (so-called Sample 2), and summary statistics reported for those individuals where we observe the change in GHQ score. For this sample, the mean lottery win, conditional on being a winner, is observed to be considerably lower than that observed in the cross-section, respectively 118.5 and 200.0 pounds. Investigation revealed this difference to be chiefly attributable to the dropping of large lottery wins in the sample. Whether this selectivity reflects coincidence, or a more systematic bias, is not here possible to ascertain. The direction of bias is not clear a priori and will depend upon whether there are diminishing returns to wellbeing at very large windfalls.
Despite these concerns, the mean GHQ and GHQH scores for both winners and non-winners are remarkably similar to those observed previously. In the lower half of Table 2a, column 2, the mean GHQ stress score among lottery winners is 10.93, compared to 10.91 for the full sample (called Sample 1). Among non-winners it is 11.25, as opposed to 11.22. Both samples appear to capture similar patterns of behaviour.
When the data are differenced, and changes over time in a person’s wellbeing studied, we observe lottery winners to show on average increased levels of wellbeing (more precisely a reduced lack of wellbeing). In the second half of Table 2a, individuals who record a lottery win have an average decrease in GHQ mental stress of 0.096 points (see the fourth column of Table 2a, Sample 2). Amongst non-winners, GHQ worsens on average by approximately 0.020. For the GHQH unhappiness question the respective figures for winners and non-winners are 0.010 and 0.006. The observed rise in wellbeing subsequent to a lottery windfall appears pronounced when contrasted with the secular fall in wellbeing for non-winners in this period.
Inheritances also work in the way that would be predicted. In Table 2b, the GHQ mental stress scores of inheritors are on average better than the scores of those who do not inherit any cash; they are 10.93 as opposed to 11.15 (see the second column of Table 2b, Sample 1). For the GHQH unhappiness question, the mean response for inheritors is 1.95 in Table 2b, whilst for those who do not receive a bequest the measured level of unhappiness is 2.01. Panel two of Table 2b, which uses the so-called Sample 2, restricts attention to those individuals where we can observe the change in wellbeing over time.
10 We are unable to distinguish between those who do not gamble and those who do gamble but do not win.
Both for those who inherit and those who do not, this (smaller) sample appears to be representative of that observed for the pooled cross-section. Furthermore, this selection does little to alter the tenor of the results.
The most noticeable finding in Table 2b, Sample 2, is that there is a marked drop in mental stress and unhappiness among those people who inherit. Amongst inheritors, there is an average GHQ mental stress decline of 0.429 compared to a mean rise of 0.0002 amongst non-inheritors. For GHQH unhappiness, the relevant figures are 0.097 and 0.006 respectively. As with winning the lottery, inheritances are associated with greater psychological wellbeing.
These numbers are averages across rather heterogeneous outcomes. It is likely that more information, in the statistical sense, is conveyed by the size of the inheritance or lottery win. Tables 3 and 4 explore such data.
Table 3 reveals in its second column a strong pattern in which the worst mental wellbeing scores (mean of GHQ is 11.22) are found among those who did not receive a lottery win. This accords with intuition. Largish wins are nicer than tiny wins. For those individuals who received small winnings, of less than 100 pounds, there is slightly higher wellbeing (mean 11.05). For those individuals who win between 100 and 1000 pounds, GHQ scores are observed to be noticeably better (mean 10.18). Although the sample size here is not a large one, the stress levels of big lottery winners, 1000 pounds or more, seem paradoxically in Sample 1 of Table 5 to rise slightly (mean 10.28). For GHQH, we observe in the second column of Table 3 a similar relationship, and in this case the effect of winnings upon unhappiness is satisfactorily monotonically negative.
Consider the sample where we observe the change in wellbeing, namely, panel two of Table 3. The issue of selectivity can here be seen more clearly: mean lottery wins for those individuals who receive more than 1000 pounds is 2868.9 in Sample 2 as opposed to 6766.6 for the full sample. Whilst we do not know the largest lottery winners, the same distribution of GHQ and GHQH scores is observed. Examining changes in scores, Table 3 reveals in Sample 2 that GHQ stress levels improve with the size of lottery windfall. On average, GHQ worsens over the year 1998-97 by 0.020 for non-winners, but improves by 0.081 for small winners, 0.109 for medium winners, and 0.655 for the largest winners. For the change in GHQH unhappiness levels, the most marked effect is of an improvement in happiness of large winners (mean 0.109).
The same issue can be pursued for individuals who receive an inheritance. Table 4 reports the data. A consistent and intriguing cross-section pattern is revealed in both GHQ and GHQH scores: a smallish inheritance of less than 2500 pounds is associated with the highest level of wellbeing. An inheritance of between 2500 and 10,000 pounds on average improves welfare relative to not receiving an inheritance but is associated with lower wellbeing than the smallest level of inheritance. Individuals who receive the largest inheritances, over 10,000 pounds, are however those with significantly worse cross-section levels of wellbeing both for stress (GHQ) and unhappiness (GHQH). This is true in the full sample and in the sample where we observe the change in wellbeing. Yet when we instead examine the change in wellbeing in response to a bequest, both GHQ stress levels and GHQH unhappiness levels are observed to have improved for all categories, relative to a decline observed for non-inheritors. In the deltas, then, observed behaviour matches intuition. The largest windfalls produce the greatest gains in GHQH wellbeing (column 5 of Table 4, Sample 2).
The summary statistics thus support the hypothesis that money is welfare improving. Windfalls of cash are associated with higher levels of wellbeing. This is, in the main, observed independent of how the data are cut, for both GHQ mental stress and GHQH unhappiness scores, both when examining the level of wellbeing and its change over time.
This evidence is fairly compelling. The recipients of windfalls have, on average, higher levels of wellbeing. For such summary statistics to provide conclusive evidence, however, would require the receipt and size of windfall to be randomly distributed across individuals. Whilst windfalls may be unanticipated, this is unlikely always to be true. The decision to gamble and the intensity of play are likely to be correlated with observed and unobserved characteristics. Indeed early tables demonstrate a positive correlation between lottery winnings and income. Furthermore, if happier people are more (or less) likely to play, and thus win, the correlation between winnings and wellbeing could be due to some subtle self-selection of players rather than any welfare-enhancing effects. Similarly, inheritances may be positively associated with parental wealth, which is likely to be correlated with recipient income (as seen in Tables 2 and 4). To investigate these issues in more detail we turn to regression analysis.
Throughout the remainder of the paper we examine the robustness of the negative sign on windfall gains.
Estimation strategy
The regression equation estimated is an empirical version of equation 1. Wellbeing is assumed a function of the monetary windfall, personal characteristics (such as education, gender, race, and region) and the time period. On occasion it is also examined whether results are robust to the inclusion of family income as an explanatory variable. Wellbeing for individual i, in time period t, is then expressed as:
(2)r it = w it'β + y it'δ + z it'γ + εit i = 1,…,n
t = 1,…,T where r is the dependent variable that captures individual wellbeing, w is the amount of windfall (lottery win or inheritance), y is family income, z is a vector of individual characteristics and time dummies, ε is the conformable error term with mean zero and constant variance, and β, δ and γ the parameters to be estimated. The two measures of wellbeing, the overall GHQ score (on a 0 to 36 scale) and the GHQH unhappiness question (on a 0 to 3 scale), are approximated as linear and equations estimated by least squares.11 Alternative specifications include a lagged dependent variable or instead adopt the change in wellbeing as the dependent variable.
Lottery Wins
A simple regression-equation test of whether winning money improves wellbeing is contained in Table 5. Here, and in all subsequent tables, panel A contains analysis of the GHQ mental stress score, panel
B the GHQH unhappiness score. For comparison, column one of Table 5 reports the estimated effect of family income upon wellbeing. As expected, richer people are happier. GHQ is estimated to improve by 0.117, and GHQH by 0.005, for an increase in income of ten thousand pounds sterling. The controls here, and throughout, are a quadratic in age, and dummies for gender, ethnic minority status, educational qualifications, region, and year. This cross-section result is, however, likely to confound various influences and cannot be presumed to capture causation.
11 This implicitly assumes responses are cardinal.
Columns two and three of Table 5 do a regression test of the hypothesis that lottery winners are happier. Similarly to the sample statistics observed previously, wellbeing is observed to be higher for those who receive winnings and it is increasing in the amount of windfall. The monotonicity in column 3 is encouraging. Coefficient estimates are negative but not usually independently well-determined. For people who win a small amount, such as less than 100 pounds, there is only a negligible difference in wellbeing relative to non-winners. This suggests that the pleasure associated with being a winner per se is largely trivial, at least for the measures of wellbeing studied here, and should not greatly influence results.
Column four of Table 5 instead enters the amount of winnings as the explanatory variable. This gives a strong result. Both for GHQ mental stress and GHQH unhappiness, the amount of winnings enters negatively -- thus improving wellbeing -- and is statistically significant. A windfall of 10,000 pounds improves GHQ mental wellbeing by 0.686 with a t-statistic above 6 and the GHQH unhappiness score by 0.032 with a t-statistic of 2.01. These effects are of a magnitude approximately 6 times as large as those estimated for income; it is not easy to know why.
The impact of a 50,000 pounds lottery windfall is estimated from Table 5 to improve GHQ mental stress by 3.43 points or over 0.6 of a standard deviation. The improvement in GHQH is slightly less marked at 0.16, but still constitutes approximately 0.3 of a standard deviation. Nevertheless, if ‘gamblers’ in general have high (low) levels of wellbeing independent of any monetary gain, we shall overestimate (underestimate) the effects of a windfall upon welfare. If gambling behaviour is characterised by such selection, then coefficient estimates may be different when we restrict attention to a sample of winners only. All individuals are then gamblers and they are also likely to be the more intensive players. In this case, selection bias should be reduced. Column five of Table 5 checks this and reveals that both for GHQ and GHQH the estimated effects of winnings are similar, for the sample of all individuals and the sample of winners. This is reassuring and suggests that the impact of winnings upon wellbeing is broadly orthogonal to the selection of gamblers.12
12 Ideally one would wish to instrument winnings by a variable correlated with play but uncorrelated with wellbeing. However, as we analyse the effect of the amount won, a large degree of random variation is
Walker (1998) and Farrell and Walker (1999) provide some evidence that lottery expenditure is a form of inferior good, that is, increasing in income but at a declining rate. Our amount-won variable may then capture the effect of income and be prone to similar problems of status and selection. Table 6 examines whether the effect of a lottery windfall is robust to the inclusion of a control for income. Column one restates the basic result. Column two of Table 6 adds family income as an explanatory variable. For both the GHQ mental stress and the GHQH unhappiness measures of wellbeing, the estimated coefficient upon the amount won is essentially unaltered – indicating that the psychological benefits of winnings occur largely independently of income.
There is potential for non-linearity. This is checked in column three of Table 6, where quadratics in the amount of winnings and income are examined. The first and second-order terms for the amount won enter with the expected signs consistent with diminishing returns but are not statistically significantly different from zero – neither for stress (GHQ) or reported feelings of unhappiness (GHQH).
An alternative approach to the self-selection of gamblers is followed in Table 7. This assumes the effects of selection are stable over time, and then scrutinises the change in wellbeing associated with a windfall.
As seen previously, the sample of individuals where such data are observed omits some of the largest windfalls. This has the effect of increasing the magnitude of the estimated effect of winnings upon mental stress (GHQ) and reducing the estimated effect upon unhappiness (GHQH) and in both cases reduces the precision of estimates. Nevertheless, when a lagged dependent variable is included in column three of Table 7, the effect is to increase the estimated gain in wellbeing subsequent to a lottery win. In contrast, the coefficient upon income is driven towards zero and is no longer well-determined.
In column three of Table 7 a control for previous gambling behaviour is added –whether the individual received a lottery windfall in 199513. Again the estimated coefficient upon amount won is more pronounced whilst the income parameter is unaffected. Furthermore, previous gambling exerts a positive though not well-determined
introduced subsequent to participation. This is why this variable is of particular interest; yet as a result, no variable was available that identified the amount won separately from wellbeing.
13 The amount won is not known.
effect upon both GHQ mental stress and GHQH unhappiness scores.14 This evidence suggests that any differences in wellbeing levels between gamblers and non-gamblers do not crucially shape results.
A similar conclusion is reached when we examine the change in wellbeing scores over time in columns four and five of Table 7. For GHQ mental stress scores, a windfall of 10,000 pounds is predicted to improve wellbeing, relative to the previous year, by 1.976. This effect is statistically significant only at the 10 percent level. By comparison, in column one of Table 7, where the dependent variable is the level of GHQ the predicted improvement in wellbeing is 0.826. Similar results are observed for GHQH unhappiness, although coefficient estimates are again not well-determined. Interestingly, high-income individuals are observed in Table 7’s column five to have experienced, on average, a secular decline in wellbeing levels over this period, both for GHQ and GHQH.
Hence, whilst, due to the characteristics of the sample, care must be taken in interpretation, results seem robust to the inclusion of a lagged dependent variable, to controlling for previous gambling success, and to examining the change in wellbeing over time. If anything, such checks magnify the improvement in wellbeing from a lottery windfall.
Inheritances
A potential difficulty with the examination of lottery wins is that the act of gambling, and winning, may bring pleasure independent of monetary gain. Table 8 therefore explores the impact upon wellbeing of receiving an inheritance. This event is likely to occur with the death of a close friend or relative and hence, in contrast, often be associated with reductions in wellbeing.
Column one of Table 8 estimates the effect of income upon wellbeing for this sample. Results are close to those in column one of Table 5. Table 8’s column two examines a simple test of whether a windfall increases happiness. Receiving a bequest is found to improve wellbeing for both GHQ mental stress and GHQH unhappiness scores. For GHQ the estimated coefficient is -0.235, for GHQH -0.061, though only the latter effect is statistically robust. Column three extends this analysis by instead entering
14 This result holds if lottery winnings in the current year are omitted.
dummies for the amount of inheritance. For both measures of wellbeing it is predominantly small inheritances, of less than 2500 pounds, that are observed to reduce mental stress and unhappiness. The effect upon GHQ is estimated at -0.488. For GHQH the parameter estimate is -0.102. Again only the latter effect is statistically significant. Medium sized bequests are observed to improve wellbeing, whilst the largest inheritances are estimated to increase GHQ mental stress, though to reduce GHQH unhappiness.
Column four of Table 8 examines the effect of the amount of inheritance, in tens of thousands of pounds, upon wellbeing. Both GHQ and GHQH scores are shown to be improving in the size of the bequest, despite the non-linearity observed above. A bequest of 10,000 pounds is predicted to improve the GHQ mental health score by 0.075 points and the GHQH unhappiness score by 0.014 points. When analysis is conditional upon only those individuals who do inherit, in column five of Table 8, both GHQ and GHQH coefficients are attenuated and are less precisely estimated but remain negative.
McGarry (1999) examines data on intended bequests and finds that the major determinant of the size of bequest is parental wealth. A significant role is, though, found also for the closeness of family relations.
With respect to the data studied here, recipients of the smallest category of inheritance (less than 2500 pounds) may include grandchildren rather than children and individuals with weaker parental links. They may then be more distant from the deceased benefactor and thus likely to suffer less distress. As the amount of inheritance increases, we potentially observe individuals with closer ties to the deceased. Also, larger inheritances may be in the form of property or other assets, which themselves may induce greater levels of stress in possibly disposing of. The improvement in wellbeing observed for small inheritances may be being offset for larger bequests by the mental stress associated with bereavement.
Alternatively, those who inherit are themselves likely to be more affluent, due to linkages in family wealth, potentially with higher levels of wellbeing. Yet for such a mechanism to explain the behaviour observed here would require this effect to be felt for small inheritances but not for large. Such a relation seems doubtful, especially as the age, gender, race, education and region of the recipient are held constant.
Table 9 seeks to investigate these issues. It uses the sample of individuals where past (i.e. lagged levels of) GHQ and GHQH data are available. Column one replicates the
result for column four of Table 8. Parameter estimates are found to be similar, though less well determined. In column two of Table 9, family income is added as an explanatory variable. If the observed effect of the size of inheritance upon wellbeing reflects the wealth of inheritors, then the addition of this variable should drive the estimated coefficient towards zero. In fact, the estimated relationship between wellbeing and bequests seems to be orthogonal to the inclusion of an income control. Furthermore, when we add a lagged dependent variable or instead examine the change in wellbeing15, in columns three and four of Table 9 respectively, the estimated beneficial effect of a bequest increases. Thus the results do not depend upon the wealth of inheritors.
Any gains in wellbeing associated with an inheritance are potentially contaminated by distress associated with the death of a close relative. The results so far may then form a lower bound upon the true effect. Assuming stress levels are liable to be high both pre-and post-bereavement, it seems natural to examine how wellbeing changes over time in response to an inheritance. Columns one and two of Table 10 indicate an improvement in both GHQ mental health scores and GHQH unhappiness scores that itself is increasing in the size of the bequest. This is true both within the sample of all individuals and the sample restricted to inheritors only. A 50,000 pounds inheritance is then predicted to produce an improvement in GHQ mental stress of 0.99 and GHQH unhappiness of 0.15, both of which are approximately 0.2 of a standard deviation.
The results may reflect heightened distress pre-bereavement and a subsequent return to ‘normal’ wellbeing levels. If so, we spuriously overestimate the effect of a windfall. If the bequest is anticipated, consumption patterns may change in advance, improving welfare, and so we underestimate the true gain in wellbeing. Hence we next examine the change in wellbeing over longer time periods, namely, two-year and three-year gaps. Columns three to six of Table 10 show that the results are robust to such considerations; indeed the gains in wellbeing from an inheritance appear to be amplified. A bequest of 10,000 pounds improves the GHQ mental stress score by 0.520 and the GHQH unhappiness scores by 0.083 – compared to the wellbeing levels that prevailed three years prior. The latter effect is found to be statistically significant at normal confidence levels.
15 This will capture the effect of selectivity if it remains stable over time.
5.Conclusions
Economists assume, without detailed evidence, that a person who becomes richer becomes happier. This paper shows that what is arguably the central tenet of economics is supported by the data.
While it is known from recent cross-sectional work that reported happiness is positively correlated with income, that is not a persuasive reason to believe that more money leads to greater wellbeing. Cross-section patterns are at best suggestive because their causal implications are hard to interpret. Constructing a compelling test is difficult because of the stringent requirements of an ideal data set. Our approach seems to have three advantages. First, we follow a group of individuals longitudinally, and thus can measure the same person’s wellbeing and income level at different points in time. Second, the data set provides information on financial windfalls (inheritances and lottery wins). These are probably as close as can be achieved to randomly occurring events in which some individuals have money showered upon them while others, in a control group, do not. Third, information is available on two ways to measure wellbeing: mental stress using a standard psychological health measure, and happiness using a simple four-point question.
We find that, as theory predicts, a windfall of money in year t is followed by lower mental stress and higher reported happiness16. As a conservative estimate, a windfall of 50,000 pounds (75,000 US dollars) improves mental wellbeing by between 0.1 and 0.3 standard deviations.
16 Because we have data on both windfalls and wellbeing only for two years right at the end of our sample, it is not possible to assess whether people adapt psychologically to a windfall (perhaps returning eventually to some baseline happiness level). But the longitudinal data collection is continuing, so eventually it should be possible to address this question.
大学英语作文：幸福 Happiness
【篇一】幸福 Happiness The definition of happiness varies from person to person. Most people believe that earning a lot of money and living the comfortable life are the symbol of great happiness. It is true that making great achievement is our target, so we work so hard to realize our goals. But as we grow up, we realize the different definitions of happiness. 幸福的定义因人而异，大多数人认为赚大钱，过舒适的生活就是幸福的象征。确实，取得伟大的成就是我们的目标，所以我们努力去实现我们的目标。但随着我们的长大，我们意识到关于幸福不一样的定义。 When I graduated from college, the job I chose was far away from home. I never thought about the distance between me and my parents. But in the first year of working, I met some difficult time in my career, just like other young people. At that moment, all I could do was to face the challenge by myself, because I didn’t want my parents to worry about me. Every time when I called home, my parents always comforted me by asking me to go home often. I realized the happiness for me was to have my parents stood by my side. 我大学毕业的时候我选择了离家很远的工作，我从来没有想过关于我和父母之间距离的。但工作的第一年，我的职业生涯就像其他年轻人一样遇到了一些困难。那一刻，我能做的就是独自面对挑战，因为我不想让父母为我担心。每次我打电话回家，父母总是安慰我，让我常回家。我意识到父母能够陪在我身边就是我的幸福。 As an ordinary girl, my definition of happiness is to company my parents as often as possible. Nothing can compare the time to stay with my families. 作为一个普通的女孩，我对幸福的定义是尽可能多地陪伴父母。没有什么能比和家人呆在一起的时间更宝贵了。 【篇二】国际合作节 International Day of Cooperatives Today, the world is globalized and more and more foreigners come to China to seek for business cooperation. Many years ago, a non-profit organization named the second Saturday of July as the International Day of Cooperatives. Its purpose is to call for more cooperations between countries. 当今世界是全球化的，越来越多的外国人来中国寻求商业合作。许多年前，一个非营利组织将7月的第二个星期六定为国际合作日。其目的是呼吁各国之间进行更多的合作。 With the development of Internet, the world gets smaller, because the communication between countries has increased. America is the superpower all the time, but during recent times, there are so many business cooperation between Chinese people and American people. It is known to all that China’s market is full of vitality, so there is no doubt that cooperation between countries will be the main trend. 随着互联网的发展，世界变得越来越小，因为国与国之间的交流增加了。美国一直是超级大国，但在最近，中国和美国之间进行了很多商业合作。众所周知，
【精选】部编版四年级上册语文全册课文《主要内容及中心思想》总结
【精选】部编版四年级上册语文全册 课文《主要内容及中心思想》总结 第一单元 1.《观潮》 《观潮》记叙了作者一次观潮的盛况，写的是（潮来前）、（潮来时）、（潮去后）的景象，写出了大潮的（奇特）、（雄伟）、（壮观）。 2.《走月亮》 《走月亮》是一篇洋溢着诗情画意的散文，描绘了一幅（如诗）、（如梦）、（如世外田园般）的月景图，体现了（温馨）、（快乐）、（幸福）的亲情。 3.《现代诗二首》 《秋晚的江上》描写了作者在（一个秋天的黄昏）所看到的情景，表达了作者（对大自然的热爱）之情。 《花牛歌》用简单明朗、轻快活泼、一咏三叹的诗句形式，将（草地里的花牛行动景象）巧妙生动地展现，表达了作者（对生活的热爱和对自由的追求）。 4.《繁星》 《繁星》紧紧围绕（繁星）展开描写，依次写了“我”在三个（不同时期）、（不同地点）观看繁星的情景，抒发“我”由此产生的（热爱自然、向往美好生活）的感受。 第二单元 5.《一个豆荚里的五粒豆》
《一个豆荚里的五粒豆》这是一篇生动感人的（童话）故事，通过豌豆的（长大）和小女孩的身体的（好转），赞扬了平实、仁爱、（敬重生命）的生活态度。 6.《蝙蝠和雷达》 《蝙蝠和雷达》介绍了科学家通过对（蝙蝠飞行情况）的研究，找出了（蝙蝠夜间能顺利飞行）的原因，并从中受到启发，给飞机装上雷达，保证飞机夜间安全飞行，从而激发了我们观察生活的兴趣，培养了我们认识事物的能力。 7.《呼风唤雨的世纪》 《呼风唤雨的世纪》讲述了（20世纪100年间科学技术的发展历程），作者用（对比）的手法，展示了（科学技术）的迅猛发展给人类生活带来的巨大变化和灿烂前景，激发了我们热爱科学的情感以及学习科学、探索科学的浓厚兴趣。 8.《蝴蝶的家》 《蝴蝶的家》通过“我”想象下雨时蝴蝶无处藏身而为蝴蝶（担心）的事，告诉我们要（关心弱小），帮助需要帮助的小动物。 第三单元 9.《古诗三首》 《暮江吟》这首诗描写了（暮江落日）和（露伴新月）的情景，格调清新，色彩明丽，抒发了诗人（对大自然美景的喜爱），表达了诗人（愉悦）的心情。 《题西林壁》这首诗中，诗人抓住（庐山的姿态）谈感受，赞美了（庐山雄奇壮观、千姿百态）的景象，于写景中寄寓哲理。 《雪梅》这首诗运用（拟人）的修辞手法，通过梅雪争春，突出了（雪花洁白、梅花馨香）的特点，告诉我们（任何事物都是一分为二的，有长处必然也有短处）的道理。
关于幸福名言名句大全
关于幸福名言名句大全 【篇一：关于幸福名言名句大全】 1、人类之所以感到幸福的原因，并不是身体健康，也不是财产富足；幸福的感受是由于心多诚直，智慧丰硕。 德谟克里特 2、要记着，幸福并不是依存于你是什么人或拥有什么，它只取决于 你想的是什么。 卡耐基 3、幸福在于为别人生活。 列夫托尔斯泰 4、获得幸福的惟一途径，就是忘掉目前的幸福，以除此之外的目的 作为人生目标。 米勒 5、那些为共同目标劳动因而使自己变得更加高尚的人，历史承认他 们是伟人；那些为最大多数人们带来幸福的人，经验赞扬他们为最 幸福的人。 马克思 6、人类最大的幸福就在于每天能谈谈道德方面的事情。无灵魂的生 活就失去了人的生活价值。 苏格拉底 7、对人来说，最大的欢乐，最大的幸福是把自己的精神力量奉献给 他人。 苏霍姆林斯基 8、建筑在别人痛苦上的幸福不是真正的幸福。 阿巴巴耶娃 9、人们所努力追求的庸俗的目标财产、虚荣、奢侈的生活我总觉 得都是可鄙的。 爱因斯坦 10、幸福的斗争不论它是如何的艰难，它并不是一种痛苦，而是快乐，不是悲剧的，而只是戏剧的。 车尔尼雪夫斯基 11、幸福，假如它只是属于我，成千上万人当中的一个人的财产， 那就快从我这儿滚开吧！别林斯基 12、猝然死去本无甚苦痛，长期累死倒真难以忍受。
佚名 13、当你幸福的时候，切勿丧失使你成为幸福的德行。 莫罗阿 14、一无所有的人是有福的，因为他们将获得一切！罗兰 15、每一个人可能的最大幸福是在全体人所实现的最大幸福之中。 左拉 16、攀登顶峰，这种奋斗的本身就足以充实人的心。人们必须相信，垒山不止就是幸福。 加缪 17、正像我们无权只享受财富而不创造财富一样，我们也无权只享 受幸福而不创造幸福。 萧伯纳 18、生活中最大的幸福是坚信有人爱我们。 雨果摘自：励志名言 19、痛苦的秘密在于有闲功夫担心自己是否幸福。 萧伯纳 20、对于大多数人来说，他们认定自己有多幸福，就有多幸福。 林肯 21、与其说人类的幸福来自偶尔发生的鸿运，不如说来自每天都有 的小实惠。 富兰克林 22、醉心于某种癖好的人是幸福的。 萧伯纳 23、作家当然必须挣钱才能生活，写作，但是他决不应该为了挣钱 而生活，写作。 马克思 24、一个人有了远大的理想，就是在最艰苦难的时候，也会感到幸福。 徐特立 25、如果有一天，我能够对我们的公共利益有所贡献，我就会认为 自己是世界上最幸福的人了。 果戈理 26、如果幸福在于肉体的快感，那麽就应当说，牛找到草料吃的时 候是幸福的。 赫拉克利特
Happiness Is an Attitude幸福是一种态度
Happiness Is an Attitude 幸福是一种态度 Maybe you wouldn’t say yesterday was a happy day, because you had a misunderstanding with your friend. But were n’t there moments of happiness, moments of clear peace? Now that you think about it, wasn’t there a letter from an old friend, or a stranger who asked where you got such a great haircut? You remember having a bad day, yet those good moments occurred. 或许你会说，昨天是一个不愉快的日子，因为你与朋友之间产生了舞会。难道说那天就没有快乐和平和之时吗？现在想想看，昨天你是否收到了老朋友的来信？是否有陌生人问你：这么漂亮的发型是在哪儿里剪的？你只想着今天是倒霉的一天，却忽略了发生美好事情的某些瞬间。 Happiness is like a visitor, you can’t command her appearance; you can only appreciate her when she does show up. And you can’t force happiness to happen—but you can make sure you are aware of it when it does. 幸福像一位游客，你不能掌控他的出没。只能欣赏她出现时的倩影。你无力迫使幸福出现——而当幸福来临时，你一定会感觉得到。 Happiness is an attitude, not a condition. It’s cleaning the Venetian blinds while listening to an aria, or spending a pleasant hour organizing
三年级下学期语文课文主要内容总结
三年级下学期语文课文主要内容总结 2、《古诗两首》中《咏柳》的作者是唐朝的贺知章，把柳条比作丝绦， 把春风比作剪刀，表现春天的欣欣向荣。《春日》是作者是朱熹，表现了 万紫千红的春天。最著名是：等闲识得东风面，万紫千红总是春。描写春 天的诗句还有：迟日江山丽，春风花草香。春眠不觉晓，处处闻啼鸟。 3、《荷花》的作者是：叶圣陶，写了碧绿的荷叶和形态各异的荷花，表 现了对的自然的喜爱。 4、《珍珠泉》：清澈见底，泉水甘甜，表现了最家乡的热爱。 5、《翠鸟》：羽毛颜色鲜艳，动作敏捷，惹人喜爱，表现人与动物和谐 相处。 6、《燕子专列》中的贝蒂，冒着严寒救助燕子，表现了人类保护鸟类， 爱护动物。 7、《一个小村庄的故事》：人们毁坏树木而受到了大自然的惩罚，表现 保护环境的重要性。 8、《路旁的橡树》中的工程师和工人们爱护树木，保护环境。 9、《寓言二则》中《亡羊补牢》意思：羊丢了再修补羊圈。告诉我们： 犯了错误，及时补救还不算晚。《南辕北辙》意思：心里想去南方，却驾 车往北走。告诉我们：行动与目的相反，永远也到达不了目的地。 10、《惊弓之鸟》人物：更羸善于观察，勤于思考。惊弓之鸟的意思：被 弓箭吓怕了的鸟。道理：受到一点惊吓，就十分害怕。 11、《画杨桃》告诉我们：要实事求是。 12《想别人没想到的》人物：小徒弟，他勇于创新。 13、《和时间赛跑》作者是台湾的林清玄。告诉我们要珍惜时间。 14、《检阅》的故事发生于波兰首都华沙，人物：博莱克，他自尊，自信，自强，对生活充满热情。我们要关爱、尊重残疾人。 15、《争吵》人物：克莱谛，告诉我们要互相谅解，彼此宽容。 16、《绝招》说明：只要勤学苦练，就能成功。 17、《可贵的沉默》让我们明白：不但要感受父母之爱，还要回报父母。 18、《她是我朋友》的人物：阮恒，他舍己为人，表现了真挚的友谊。 19、《七颗钻石》作者是俄国的列夫·托尔斯泰，他的作品还有《安 娜·卡列尼娜》和《战争与和平》。本文主要人物：小姑娘。告诉我们： 爱心可以创造奇迹。 20、《妈妈的账单》人物：小彼得，表现母爱的无私无价。
英语作文Happiness
Happiness If happiness is activity in accordance with excellence, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest excellence. – Aristotle . What is happiness? Happiness is widely considered as a feeling which make us feel pleasant or hate of sadness. What’s your definition of happiness? As we can see, happiness exists almost everywhere. However, happiness only applies to the differential people. Your happiness maybe sadness to others For instance, in team sports, especially ball games, champion only exist one .There must be one winner and one loser. Take the National Basketball Association or the NBA as an example, in 2014 final game between San Antonio Spurs and Miami heat, one person is the fan of San Antonio Spurs, through the fierce game, both teams tied 3-3.At the final game, San Antonio Spurs wined the final game and got the cup. The fan felt very happy and he thought it is the happiest thing in the world. On the other side, the fans of the Miami heat thought it as the saddest thing .Can you tell this kind of things is a happiness or sadness? Happiness can’t exist unless it is based on one thing. We can also talk about the background of the happiness after the basis of happiness. Take the war as one example, Nazi has done abundant things which amazed the whole world. This kind of devoid of humanity hurt the whole world and the Jew. However it’s happiness for Adolf Hitler, isn’t it? He destroyed the whole volk which he hated very often. This kind of examples maybe cruel, but it
关于幸福的格言警句_名人名言
关于幸福的格言警句 关于幸福的格言警句 1、如果他们懂得利用自然的方法，那么所有的人都能得到幸福——克劳迪安内斯 2、出生在一座著名的城市里，这是一个人幸福的首要的条件——欧里庇得斯 3、人，不管是什么，应当从事劳动，汗流满面地工作，他生活的意义和目的、他的幸福、他的欢乐就在于此。——契诃夫 4、只有整个人类的幸福才是你的幸福。——狄慈根 5、我是幸福的，因为我爱，因为我有爱。——白朗宁 6、科学与艺术是人民的光荣，并给人民增添幸福。——爱尔维修 7、把别人的幸福当做自己的幸福，把鲜花奉献给他人，把棘刺留给自己！——巴尔德斯 8、野心终止，幸福方始——欧洲 9、为祖国而死是幸福和光荣的——贺拉斯 10、愚蠢的人，幸福是钱和官，聪明的人，幸福是劳动和贡献。——谚语 11、幸福的时候需要忠诚的友谊，患难的时刻尤其需要。——塞涅卡 12、对人来说，最大的欢乐，最大的幸福是把自己的精神力量奉
献给他人。——苏霍姆林斯基 13、我到处寻找的妈妈，原来一直坐在我的屋子里。您没有种姓，不分贵贱，没有仇恨——您只有我们幸福的象征！——泰戈尔 14、生命的幸福在身体，身体的强壮在——英国 15、如果痛苦换来的是结识真理坚持真理，就应自觉的欣然承受，那时，也只有那时，痛苦才将化为幸福。——张志新 16、智慧不仅是创造文化、获得幸福的原动力，同时也切不可忘记它又是产生破坏、把人推向悲惨和苦恼的深渊的原动力——池田大作 17、科学书籍让人免于愚昧，而文艺作品则使人摆脱粗鄙；对真正的教育和对人们的幸福来说，二者同样的有益和必要。——车尔尼雪夫斯基 18、爱是远远的城市里有所依托的幸福——佚名 19、你们这些生在今日的人，你们这些青年，现在要轮到你们了！踏在我们的身体上面向前吧。但愿你们比我们更伟大、更幸福。——罗曼?罗兰 20、把幸福让给别人，等于得到了双倍的幸福。——佚名 21、没有爱情的婚姻不会得到幸福，而爱情不能用金钱和物质换取。——（苗族）谚语 22、养成我们性格的原因还有我们的自信心，我们坚信这样一句名言：天生我才必有用。今天我常想这样一个问题：如果从孩提时代起就培养孩子们对家庭的和幸福的责任感，使他们认识到自己也是家
On Happiness英语作文
On Happiness Happiness, I can't give you the exact definition of it, and maybe everyone used to have the different understanding. Nonetheless as a student I think happiness is a feeling, it relays on the person's position of mind, the most crucial is what do you think. People every day do the work is remarkable hard and not earn considerably money either, nevertheless he thinks it was his favorite thing to do, he feels extremely pleased and satisfied. At the party, people raised a glass to the new couple and wishing them a happy life forever, which is happiness also. What is happiness, happiness is to have a grateful heart, not only have a healthy body, but also have many friends whom can trust in, a felicity family and a hopeful tomorrow. The American president Abraham Lincoln has been said, most folks are about as happy as they make up their mindsets. In the end, you need to constantly remind yourself that you will discover that happiness is around you. My only suggestion is to cherish every moment, to cherish what belongs to you is the most important!
幸福经典语录
幸福经典语录 导读：经典语录幸福经典语录 1、人类的一切努力的目的在于获得幸福。 2、你想成为幸福的人吗？但愿你首先学会吃得起苦。 3、如果我们可以改变情绪，我们就可以改变未来。 4、爱情应当使人的力量的感觉更丰富起来，并且爱情确正在使人丰富起来。 5、当你幸福的时候，切勿丧失使你成为幸福的德行。 6、遇到对自己好的人，就不要让他从自己的身边溜走，要他对自己一辈子好。如果你喜欢他却不爱他，慢慢的去接受他，走进他的世界，读懂他的故事，让自己爱上他。我宁愿慢慢的去接受一个爱自己的人，也不愿意努力的爱一个不爱自己的人。因为爱是痛苦，被爱是幸福。 7、雨依然下着，风依然刮着，乌云依旧密布着。可我不再害怕那黑暗，因为爸爸就像那一盏永不熄灭的灯，永远在我前面保护着我，
让我做那雨中的铿锵玫瑰吧，在无所顾忌的风里，享受着爱的浸润。 8、我们常常看到的风景是：一个人总是仰望和羡慕着别人的幸福，一回头，却发现自己正被仰望和羡慕着。其实，每个人都是幸福的。只是，你的幸福，常常在别人眼里。 9、关于你，我真是从来不需要想起，因为永远都不会忘记。 10、我总是以为自己是会对流失的时间和往事习惯的。不管在哪里，碰到谁。以什么样的方式结束。 11、全世界最美好的感觉是你喜欢的人，恰好也喜欢你。 12、说话是一种幸福，哪怕废话连篇；不说话也是一种幸福，哪怕诗情澎湃。 13、严肃的人的幸福，并不在于风流、娱乐与欢笑这种种轻佻的伴侣，而在于坚忍与刚毅。 14、幸福就是：我饿了，看见别人手里拿着肉包子，他就比我幸福；我冷了，看见别人穿了一件厚棉袄，他就比我幸福；我想了茅房，就一个坑，你蹲那儿了，你就比我幸福。
on happiness 高级英语写作练习 关于幸福
On happiness Everyone have their own way to pursue the happiness they think,but also have a lot of people who have no idea of happiness while working busily everyday. “What is happiness?”.Everybody has his own different opinions for this question. Some people believed that happiness accompanied with the satisfaction in the well relationship just like Victor Hugo,the French novelist,said:“The supreme happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved”. There is only the pain which we can feel if we accompany day and night with the person we dislike. But Thomas Edison also said that achievement provides the only real pleasure in life. Well-being comes from intense self-identification and realizing one’s self-value in his view. Different from them,Abraham Lincoln have suggested that the most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.Based on this statement,we might conclude that the happiness is only a feeling which depend more on what you think than what the reality is. This just right consistent with the old Taoist wisdom that happiness consists in contentment to a certain extent. Although the adults have made a lot of discussion in this question,happiness for most of children sames just as simple as joy which is easy to obtain.
五上语文课文内容总结
八九岁的时候，父亲叫他去放鸭子。他把鸭子赶进池塘后，就去水边逮蝴蝶、捉甲虫，或是蹲下来静静地观察奇妙的水底世界：漂亮的螺壳、来回穿梭的游鱼、五彩缤纷的蠕虫…… 1．这段话选自文章《装满昆虫的衣袋》，“他”指的是法布尔，他出生在法国（国家）。他是一个昆虫学家。 2．“漂亮的螺壳、来回穿梭的游鱼、五彩缤纷的蠕虫……”这里的省略号指的是列举的省略。在“小英跑过来气喘吁吁地说：“我们……得了……第一名……”这段话中省略号指说话断断续续。3．从这段话，我们可以看出主人翁迷恋昆虫和其他小动物。 4、补写末尾省略号的内容：横行霸道的螃蟹，威风凛凛的龙虾，谨慎胆小的甲鱼等等。 （三）装满昆虫的衣袋 法布尔难过极了，眼泪刷刷地往下掉，很不情愿地把心爱的小宝贝放进了垃圾堆。 可是父母的责骂丝毫没能阻止法布尔对昆虫的迷恋。以后每次放鸭，他仍然兴致勃勃地捡那些“没用的玩意儿”，背着大人把衣袋装得鼓鼓的，躲起来偷偷地玩。 正是这种对昆虫的痴迷，把法布尔引进了科学的殿堂。后人为了纪念法布尔，在为他建造的雕像上，把两个衣袋做得高高地鼓起，好像里面塞满了许许多多昆虫。 1、“小宝贝”指昆虫之类的小玩意儿。突出了法布尔对昆虫的迷恋和珍爱。
2、“没用的玩意儿”引号的作用的是表示特殊含义，或表示否定，意思相反。 3、“两个衣袋做得高高地鼓起”是因为象征了法布尔因为痴迷昆虫而进入了科学的殿堂。 4、文中划线词语表现了法布尔对昆虫的迷恋和对昆虫研究的执着。 （四）《变色龙》 我细细端详着：这条变色龙全身翠绿。椭圆形的头上长着三角形的嘴，两眼凸起，凶相毕露。身躯呈长筒状，隆起的背部酷似龟背，腹部两侧长着四只短脚，尾巴尖细。尽管我们大声叫喊，对着它指手画脚，它却依然一动也不动。 “变色龙如此迟钝，如何捕捉食物呢？” “你别看它可以连续几个小时挂在枝叶上一动不动，但它是似睡非睡地窥探着，伺机捕捉昆虫。它的每只眼睛都能单独转来转去，分别观望四面八方的东西。当它的两只眼睛同时注视着前方时，就会产生一种立体感，准确地判断自己与昆虫之间的距离，用舌头捕捉食物。”中非工人朋加沙绘声绘色地向我们介绍着。 这时，一只色彩缤纷的蝴蝶飞过来，离变色龙还有相当的距离。似睡非睡的变色龙，以迅雷不及掩耳之势，“刷”地伸出它那长得惊人的舌头——舌头的长度超过它身长的一倍，刹那间，那只彩蝶已被卷入它的口中，成为美餐。我们被它吓了一跳。 1．片段中表示“看”的词语有：窥探、观望、注视。 2．从“迅雷不及掩耳”看出捕食迅速。
中学生英语作文：The Pursuit of Happiness 观《当幸福来敲门》有感
中学生英语作文：The Pursuit of Happiness 观《当幸福来敲门》有感 I have watched amovie, which named “The Pursuit of Happiness”. I have to admit that this is amovie excite people’s mind. 我看过一部电影,叫做《当幸福来敲门》。我得承认这是一部触动人们心灵的电影。 It is a real story. The film is about happiness. Chris was an ordinary salesperson. He wentout to sell his scanner every day. He was hard enough, but almost nobody thoughtthe scanner was useful for him or her. Nobody bought it. 这是一个真实的故事，一个关于幸福的电影。克里斯是一名普通的销售人员。他每天出去卖扫描仪。尽管他足够努力,但几乎没人认为扫描仪对他们有用。没有一个人买他的东西。 Chris had a wifeand a son. They need money to live. However, at that time, Chris could not givehis wife an ideal life. Therefore, his wife chose to leave him. This madeChris’s life worse. However, in the end, he still had his own insistence andefforts to get the success. I admire him very much.
幸福箴言
幸福箴言 无知便是福。 （英）乔·拜伦《海岛》 有些人幸福了还想更幸福，我真不明白这种人在图什么。 （古罗马）西塞罗《图斯库卢姆谈话录》 遇到任何事情都不动摇的人是幸福的。他站在高处，却不依赖别人，只靠自己，因为依赖别人是会摔下来的。 （古罗马）塞内加《致鲁西流书信集》 哪怕丝织或皮革的钱袋里只剩下一个闪光的先令，但只要无忧无虑，他就是个幸福的人。 （美）约·菲利普斯《闪光的先令》 幸福不可能十全十美。 （古罗马）贺拉斯《颂诗集》 谁谈论自己的幸福太多，谁就会给自己招来麻烦。 （英）乔·赫伯特《外国谚语名句选》 我们认为，那些在生活经历中学会了忍受痛苦，而不为痛苦所折服的人才是幸福的。 （古罗马）玉外纳《讽刺诗集》 创造至高无上的幸福……是人类的真正理想。 （英）赫·斯宾塞《社会静力学》 是普里斯特利第一个教会我说出这个神圣的真理：全人类的最大幸福是伦理和立法之本。 （英）边沁《文集》 人类的幸福也即最大的幸福。这一真理一旦为世人所认识，那其他的一切便就不足为奇了。 （英）布尔沃·利顿《亚瑟王》 幸福来临时，人们往往不去注意。一旦我们有意去追求，幸福就会像高飞的大雁，永远追不到。 （美）霍桑《日记》 靠侥幸和凭猜测得不到幸福，真才实学才是幸福的本钱。 （英）爱·杨格《名声之爱》 你永远不要相信，把自己的快乐建筑在别人痛苦之上的人会得到幸福。 （古罗马）塞内加《致鲁西流书信集》 如何得到、保住或挽回幸福，实际上是大多数人秘而不宜的动机。在这种动机之下，人会一往无前，赴汤蹈火。 （美）威·詹姆斯《宗教灵性感受的多样性》 不论在哪里，自己的幸福要靠自己去创造，去寻觅。 （英）哥尔斯密《旅行者》 调解纠纷，解救被压迫者，其功德无量；为他人祝福，自己也因此得到幸福。 （古希腊）荷马《奥德修纪》 很难说究竟什么东西会带来幸福——贫穷和富裕都不能。 （希腊）金·哈伯德《阿贝·马丁的广播节目》 要想明天得到幸福，最好的办法就是今天尽情地享受幸福。 （英）查·埃利奥特《幸福生活》 要争取幸福！不过要靠虔诚去争取。 （德）史达尔《高丽娜》 有福知福的人是幸福的。 （英）托·富勒《箴言集》 只有当我们意识到幸福时，幸福才在我们身边。至于以后能否幸福就不得而知了。 （法）乔治·桑《英俊的劳伦斯》 人们只有失去了幸福才懂得它的价值。 （英）托·富勒《箴言集》 如果我命中注定该爬行，那我爬也高兴，如果我命中注定该飞翔，那我飞也称心；既然我不用爬也不用飞，那我永远感到幸福。
大学英语作文：幸福 Happiness
大学英语作文：幸福 Happiness 【篇一】幸福 Happiness The definition of happiness varies from person to person. Most people believe that earning a lot of money and living the comfortable life are the symbol of great happiness. It is true that making great achievement is our target, so we work so hard to realize our goals. But as we grow up, we realize the different definitions of happiness. 幸福的定义因人而异，绝大部分人认为赚大钱，过舒适的生活就是幸福的象征。确实，取得伟大的成就是我们的目标，所以我们努力去实现我们的目标。但随着我们的长大，我们意识到关于幸福不一样的定义。 When I graduated from college, the job I chose was far away from home. I never thought about the distance between me and my parents. But in the first year of working, I met some difficult time in my career, just like other young people. At that moment, all I could do was to face the challenge by myself, because I didn’t want my par ents to worry about me. Every time when I called home, my parents always comforted me by asking me to go home often. I realized the happiness for me was to have my parents stood by my side. 我大学毕业的时候我选择了离家很远的工作，我从来没有想过关于我和父母之间距离的。但工作的第一年，我的职业生涯就像其他年轻人一样遇到了一些困难。那一刻，我能做的就是独自面对挑战，因为我不想让父母为我担心。每次我打电话回家，父母总是安慰我，让我常回家。我意识到父母能够陪在我身边就是我的幸福。
三年级下学期语文课文主要内容总结资料
1、《燕子》燕子活泼可爱。春天生机勃勃。 2、《古诗两首》中《咏柳》的作者是唐朝的贺知章，把柳条比作丝绦，把春风比作剪刀，表现春天的欣欣向荣。《春日》是作者是朱熹，表现了万紫千红的春天。最著名是：等闲识得东风面，万紫千红总是春。描写春天的诗句还有：迟日江山丽，春风花草香。春眠不觉晓，处处闻啼鸟。 3、《荷花》的作者是：叶圣陶，写了碧绿的荷叶和形态各异的荷花，表现了对的自然的喜爱。 4、《珍珠泉》：清澈见底，泉水甘甜，表现了最家乡的热爱。 5、《翠鸟》：羽毛颜色鲜艳，动作敏捷，惹人喜爱，表现人与动物和谐相处。 6、《燕子专列》中的贝蒂，冒着严寒救助燕子，表现了人类保护鸟类，爱护动物。 7、《一个小村庄的故事》：人们毁坏树木而受到了大自然的惩罚，表现保护环境的重要性。 8、《路旁的橡树》中的工程师和工人们爱护树木，保护环境。 9、《寓言二则》中《亡羊补牢》意思：羊丢了再修补羊圈。告诉我们：犯了错误，及时补救还不算晚。《南辕北辙》意思：心里想去南方，却驾车往北走。告诉我们：行动与目的相反，永远也到达不了目的地。 10、《惊弓之鸟》人物：更羸善于观察，勤于思考。惊弓之鸟的意思：被弓箭吓怕了的鸟。道理：受到一点惊吓，就十分害怕。 11、《画杨桃》告诉我们：要实事求是。 12《想别人没想到的》人物：小徒弟，他勇于创新。 13、《和时间赛跑》作者是台湾的林清玄。告诉我们要珍惜时间。 14、《检阅》的故事发生于波兰首都华沙，人物：博莱克，他自尊，自信，
自强，对生活充满热情。我们要关爱、尊重残疾人。 15、《争吵》人物：克莱谛，告诉我们要互相谅解，彼此宽容。 16、《绝招》说明：只要勤学苦练，就能成功。 17、《可贵的沉默》让我们明白：不但要感受父母之爱，还要回报父母。 18、《她是我朋友》的人物：阮恒，他舍己为人，表现了真挚的友谊。 19、《七颗钻石》作者是俄国的列夫·托尔斯泰，他的作品还有《安娜·卡列尼娜》和《战争与和平》。本文主要人物：小姑娘。告诉我们：爱心可以创造奇迹。 20、《妈妈的账单》人物：小彼得，表现母爱的无私无价。 21、《太阳》中写了太阳的特点：远、大、热以及和我们关系密切。 22、《月球之谜》写了月球上奇异的景色和未解之谜。 23、《我家跨上了“信息高速路”》其中“信息高速路”指电脑网络。有了它，世界各地（五洲四海）的人们可以随时联系，地球就成了小村庄。 24、《果园机器人》说明:科技让生活更美好。 25、《太阳是大家的》表明：世界各地的人们要和谐共处，友好相待。 26、《一面五星红旗》中“我”十分爱国，维护了国旗和国家的尊严。 27、《卖木雕的少年》表现了中非人民之间深厚的友谊。 28、《中国国际救援队真棒》中救援队员不怕牺牲，具有人道主义精神。 29、《古诗两首》中《乞巧》：乞取智巧，乞巧节又称：“七夕”，是农历七月七日。《嫦娥》表现使人孤独寂寞，思念亲人的感情。 30、《西门豹》人物：西门豹，他破除迷信，开凿渠道，为民造福。 31、《女娲补天》人物：女娲。她勇敢、善良，甘于奉献。 32、《夸父追日》人物：夸父。向往光明，征服自然，坚持不懈，勇往直前。
关于幸福 About Happiness(初中英语作文)
关于幸福About Happiness 初中英语作文 The definition of happiness always causes the public’s attention. Some people believe that making a lot of money and earning great reputation are the standard to define success, while some people think that spending more time with their families deserves all the things and it is their bliss. In my opinion, the meaning of happiness varies according to different people, but there is one thing in common, which is their positive attitude to life. I am so lucky to born in a happy family, and my parents give me all their love. Though we are ordinary, I am so satisfy with my life now. I cherish the thing I have.幸福的定义总是能引起公众的注意。有些人认为赚大钱，拥有好名声就是定义成功的标准，而有些人则认为花更多的时间和家人在一起是值得的，这是他们的幸福。在我看来，幸福的意义因人而异，但有一个共同点，那就是他们对生活的积极态度。我很幸运出生在一个幸福的家庭，我的父母给了我他们所有的爱。虽然我们很普通，但我现在对我的生活很满意。我珍惜我所拥有的。 1
幸福教育格言
幸福教育格言 导读：经典格言幸福教育格言 1、献出你的爱心，付出你的努力，体现你的价值，你将得到更多幸福。 2、朝晖耀羊城，书声润校园，桃李满芬芳，幸福在心头。 3、爱心之种播撒义小沃土，童心之花绽放幸福家园。 4、开心着你的开心，烦恼着你的烦恼，欢乐着你的欢乐，幸福着你的幸福！ 5、受教育是一种幸福，教育学生也是一种幸福。 6、怀揣教育理想上路，带着幸福感做老师。 7、一张张委屈的哭脸转变为一张张灿烂笑脸的过程，幸福其实就是这么简单。 8、每天微笑地走进教室，并微笑地转身，这就是幸福！ 9、做个教师是富有的，我们辛勤地播种一粒粒爱的种子，我们收获的是一生的精彩和一个花团锦簇的世界。 10、幸福就是讲台下的你们因毕业而欢呼喜悦，讲台上的我们因欣慰而微笑舒心。 11、每天微笑地走进教室，并微笑地转身，这就是幸福。 12、画家创作真善美的图画，教师创造真善美的孩子。 13、当你用专注和信任的眼神望着我时，我快乐地享受着我的工作，用我的知识和关爱伴你成长。 14、一个幸福的教师每一天都会从发自内心的微笑开始。对孩子
最真诚的付出能带给我们最永久的幸福。 15、快乐的老师身边一定围绕着一群更快乐的孩子。 16、在平凡的工作岗位上，将幸福教育进行到底！ 17、幸福就是看到学生求知若渴的眼睛闪烁着满足的光芒。 18、走进学生心灵，追求诗意课堂，享受教育幸福。 19、幸，教学相长乃一大幸事；福，育人向善是一种福气。 20、知足是幸福的大门，常乐是幸福的家园。 21、教师至高无上的幸福，莫过于你的孩子们爱上了你。 22、不经历浇灌百花的辛苦，花香袭人时，又怎能体会园丁的幸福？ 23、教师的幸福在于拥有孩子最美好的纯情！ 24、幸福就是把平平凡凡的工作干出色，把平平淡淡的生活过精彩。 25、幸福就是这么简单：孩子们一个微笑。一点进步。一句：“老师您辛苦了”。 26、教师至高无上的幸福，莫过于你的孩子们爱上了你！ 27、教师的幸福源自于成就一个学生，幸福一个家庭。 28、把机会让给学生，把微笑留给学生，把掌声送给学生，把梦想还给学生。 29、迎着灿烂晨光，闻着童言稚语，幸福就是，给我一个班，面朝孩子，春暖花开。 30、让每个孩子不管是失败还是成功，都能有一张笑脸，这就是