Are people in the UK getting happier?

It has recently been reported that the people in the UK are getting happier. Based on data from its Personal Well-Being Survey, the ONS claims that the proportion of people rating their life satisfaction as 7 or more out of 10 rose from 75.9% to 77% between 2012 and 2013 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23501423). How meaningful is this data?

The data is collected by asking people to answer the question, on a scale of 0-10, 'Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?'. 0 indicates 'not at all satisfied' and 10 indicates 'completely satisfied'  (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/personal-well-being-in-the-uk--2012-13/sb---personal-well-being-in-the-uk--2012-13.html#tab-Methodology). Respondents are also asked, 'Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?', again on a scale of 0-10. The data shows that in 2013 72% of people rate their happiness as 7 or above, compared with 71.5% in 2012 (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/personal-well-being-in-the-uk--2012-13/sb---personal-well-being-in-the-uk--2012-13.html#tab-Overview).

There are a number of problems with interpreting this kind of data as being representative of people's well-being.

First, people don't really know how happy/satisfied they are. It is cognitively very difficult to give an overall assessment of life satisfaction. Think about your own answer to the first question above. Most people will say 7 out of 10.

Second, people are liable to give normative responses to questions about satisfaction with their lives or with major aspects of their lives. Admission of dissatisfaction with one’s life can sound like admission of personal failure or the assignment of blame to others. Generally, features of the survey design, such as who asks the questions and how, or how the questions are worded, can systematically affect individuals responses. This is evidenced in the ONS's observation that 'Higher average ratings for the life satisfaction, worthwhile, happy yesterday questions and a slightly lower average for the anxious yesterday question were provided by respondents interviewed via the telephone compared with those who are asked personal well-being questions face-to-face.' (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/personal-well-being-in-the-uk--2012-13/sb---personal-well-being-in-the-uk--2012-13.html#tab-Methodology). It seems that people may be reluctant to admit to being unhappy to a stranger over the telephone. 

Third, and particularly relevant to policy, is the statistical difficulty of identifying the relationship between overall satisfaction and specific causal factors. Even if we accept that it is meaningful to conclude that overall happiness has increased, the causes of this increase may be almost impossible to identify using survey techniques. 

Another problem is that the measurement scale not very sensitive, and differences between life satisfaction scores may not map directly onto real-life differences between individuals' levels of well-being. For example, there is a big difference between rating one's life satisfaction as 3 and rating it as 8, and someone whose life satisfaction drops from 8 to 3 obviously has some serious problems. But what can we conclude about a drop from 8 to 7? The problem is more acute in comparing between persons. Due to differences between individuals - in their expectations, their level of optimism, and even what they interpret 'satisfaction with life' to mean, we cannot meaningfully compare one person's happiness with another using life satisfaction data. 

However, the purpose of a large-scale survey such as this is not to compare between individuals. Rather, it is to aggregate well-being scores and compare them across groups of people and within groups of people across time. But there is an important reason why it might be problematic to do this. This is that survey data does not directly tap into a commonly-held concept of 'life satisfaction' because of the differing 'norms' and 'expectations' of respondents. A good example of this is the case job satisfaction. Research has found that there is a u-shaped curve when average level of job satisfaction is plotted against income quintile. That is, on average those in the lowest income are the relatively satisfied with their jobs, with those in middle income groups are on average relatively less satisfied, and average satisfaction increases again amongst those in the highest income quintile. From this data we might conclude that on average those on low incomes have better, more satisfying jobs than those in middle income work. But that would be too quick. Brown et al. argue that many workers on low incomes are in fact in low quality jobs, and are only expressing satisfaction against a bench-mark on very low norms and expectations. They are, in effect, making the best of a bad situation. Brown et al. support their argument with data on New Labour's years in government, which show that job satisfaction increased while according to subjective measures of work effort and stress, there was little or no improvement in job quality; and with qualitative data which shows that low-paid workers have extremely low norms and expectations about work (see Brown et al., 'Job quality and the economics of New Labour: a critical appraisal using subjective well-being data', http://carecon.org.uk/QM/Conference%202008/Papers/Brown%20CJE.pdf). If this argument is sound, then, as Brown points out, 'it would be incorrect to interpret an aggregation across very different groups as tapping into the absolute value of true underlying job quality, given that it is implausible to argue that, for example, factory workers and merchant bankers have identical respective norms and expectations regarding work.' 

A similar argument could be made with respect to the apparent increases in life satisfaction and happiness between 2012 and 2013. It may be that people's norms and expectations have changed, rather than that their objective life circumstances have improved. Perhaps people are adapting their expectations given the tougher economic climate. Perhaps they are getting used to the post-recession landscape, and have revised their expectations about their life prospects accordingly. Perhaps they are comparing themselves to others, in Britain or the wider world, who are worse off, and feel more satisfied as a result. If so, it may be that people's life circumstances are actually getting worse, while their life satisfaction is improving. This phenomenon, known in economic theory as 'adaptive preferences' is well documented. A good example is when people win the lottery. Many people think that winning the lottery will bring them great happiness. But due to adaptation – the fact that when people are in a state for a period of time the initial pleasure or pain of that state is attenuated – winning the lottery doesn’t bring people as much happiness as they think it will. People adapt their norms and expectations to their circumstances, so we cannot conclude from small improvements in happiness and life satisfaction data that people's circumstances have improved. 

The ONS does not only make comparisons between the population across different times, it also makes comparisons between groups within the population. For example, it finds that on average women have higher life satisfaction than men. But we can't conclude that women lead better lives than men. It might be that their expectations are lower. Indeed, other evidence suggests this might be the case. 

For these reasons, subjective well-being data such as that collected by the Personal Well-being Survey is not an appropriate basis to conclude that all is well. And it should not be used to supplant proper public debate, using a broad range of evidence, on well-being, living standards, and the impacts of austerity and the recession. 

What makes an unhappy worker?

What makes an unhappy worker? Researchers at the London School of Economics (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1187.pdf) used a phone app to allow tens of thousands of people to record their happiness while carrying out their various daily activities. They found that the only thing that makes people unhappier than being at work is laying in bed sick. There seems to be something about many people's working lives that makes them miserable. But not everyone hates their job, and not all jobs are bad. So what are the features of a job that have been found to make people unhappy?

Two things that seem to be bad for people are lack of autonomy at work, and lack of control over their work. It has been shown that lack of control over their work causes people stress, which may cause health problems, or encourage unhealthy 'coping behaviours' such as smoking or excessive drinking. Lack of autonomy could stem from the way the work process is designed. Some jobs (often low-paid jobs which require few qualifications) are repetitive and boring. Moreover, some employers 'infantilize' their workers in an attempt to increase productivity.  A friend who worked in a call centre was not allowed to have their mobile phone or other personal belongings at their desk, and their toilet breaks were monitored to make sure they didn't spend too much time away from their work. A feeling of lack of autonomy could also result from being told what to do all the time. A taxi driver I spoke to left his job at a supermarket because managers 'were always on his back'. He preferred to work longer hours driving a taxi because he was his own boss, and had no one telling him what to do. The idea of 'being your own boss' is intuitively appealing to many people, and while it is not realistic for everyone to be self-employed, it is possible to redesign workplace management and decision-making processes to give workers more control over their jobs. 

Other harmful features of work are high, 'borderless' or unpredictable job demands, and an unclear job role. Having an excessively high workload, never being able to see an end to your work, not being able to predict and plan your work load, or being unclear what is required of you to do your job well can all cause negative emotional and psychological responses. The rise of 'zero hours' contracts, which give no guarantees of shifts or work patterns, are worrying in this regard. Research by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) found that up to 1 million UK workers may be on such contracts (http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/zero-hours-contracts-more-widespread-thought-050813.aspx?utm_medium=email&utm_source=cipd&utm_campaign=cipdupdate&utm_content=070813_na_textlink_editorial-przerohrs), and the number has been growing in recent years (http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/6251%20Megatrends%20%28WEB%29.pdf).

Lack of social support when negotiating difficulties at work, from peers or from supervisors and managers, can cause negative emotional and psychological reactions, and stress. Research has found that an individual's perception that social support won't be there when it's needed is particularly harmful. An individual's perception may reflect the general supportive or unsupportive atmosphere of their workplace. Further, working under an unempathetic, emotionally distant or non-responsive manager, who is not sympathetic to the demands of an individual's job, can be very upsetting. Other social aspects of work that are bad for health are negative relationships and workplace conflict. Bullying is a particularly severe form of negative relationship, and is surprisingly common in UK workplaces (http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D9105C52-7FED-42EA-A557-D1785DF6D34F/0/bullyatwork0405.pdf.).

Finally, lack of reciprocity in the relationship between employees and employer has been shown to harm workers' health. Work is based on social norms of exchange and reciprocity between employee and employer. The employee does a hard day's work according to their employer's requirements, and expects to be rewarded appropriately in terms of benefits such as pay, praise or recognition, and promotion. When this exchange is unbalanced - when a worker doesn't feel they are appropriately rewarded for their efforts - it may cause negative emotional and psychological reactions. This problem can be particularly severe in difficult economic circumstances such as those we face now. The material rewards from work decline as employers cut hours and freeze wages. Working conditions deteriorate as employers attempt to squeeze more work out of their employees, who feel unable to protest for fear of losing their jobs. People are unable to find jobs that match their skills, or can't get promoted in a slack labour market. All these things lead to the feeling amongst many that they are working harder and getting less in return.  Indeed, figures just published show that real wages in the UK have seen some of the biggest falls in Europe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23655605). Long term trends, such as globalization and the decline of collective employment relations, have also contributed to an increased imbalance between work efforts and rewards (http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/6251%20Megatrends%20%28WEB%29.pdf).

What can be done to combat negative working conditions and make workers happier? One solution is to give employees a say in their own working conditions. Some employers voluntarily involve their employees in decisions that affect their working conditions. Unfortunately, this is not enough, as employers are not obliged to listen to their workers and when times get tough they may be ignored. Employee rights and powers must be formal and legally enshrined so that employers are obliged to listen to their employees and give them a fair deal. This is why attacks on employees' rights, such as the Government's decision to make workers pay for the right to take their employer to a tribunal if they treat them unfairly (http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/07/what-todays-introduction-employment-tribunal-fees-really-means), are worrying. Backwards steps such as these, together with the long-term decline of trades unions as a means of workers standing up for their rights, contribute to bad working conditions and mean Britain's workers are some of the unhappiest in Europe.