Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 108, Issue 3, pp 365–385 | Cite as

Longitudinal Analysis of the Domains of Satisfaction Before and After Disability: Evidence from the German Socio-Economic Panel

  • Ricardo Pagán-RodríguezEmail author
Article

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyse the effect of the onset of disability on life satisfaction and five different domains of satisfaction (health, household income, housing, job, leisure) for German individuals. Particular attention is paid to examining whether individuals can adapt to disability over time before and after its onset in terms of satisfaction. Using longitudinal data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) for the period 1984–2008, we estimate an innovative fixed-effects model on life satisfaction and each domain of satisfaction for working-age males (aged 21–58), which allows us to estimate lag and lead effects and thus to test the anticipation and adaptation hypotheses. Although individual obtain complete adaptation to disability in terms of global life satisfaction (5 years after the onset), this adaptation is not complete in all domains of satisfaction. For example, despite the fact that the levels of health satisfaction drop as the individual becomes disabled, after the onset it increases but the levels are lower than those reached before the onset. In contrast, the adaptation is especially faster in the terms of leisure satisfaction (3 years after the onset), household income and housing satisfaction (5 years after the onset in both cases). Our results support the findings obtained in other psychological studies that conclude that the domain of disability extends far beyond health related concerns to encompass the person’s well-being definition of self and social position. Finally, these findings may help policy makers and government to promote social and economic measures and actions lead to increase the scores of global well-being and specific domains of satisfaction of this collective.

Keywords

Disability Subjective well-being: domain satisfaction GSOEP 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Prof. Richard Lucas for his useful comments and suggestions. I also thank Prof. Richard Burkhauser for providing the data used in this study and all participants in the SOEP 2010 Conference held in Berlin.

References

  1. Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 917–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burchardt, T. (2000). The dynamics of being disabled. Journal of Social Policy, 29(4), 645–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burkhauser, R., & Daly, M. (1998). Disability and work: The experiences of American and German men. Economic Review, 2, 17–29.Google Scholar
  4. Burkhauser, R., & Schroeder, M. (2007). A method for comparing the economic outcomes of the working-age population with disabilities in Germany and the United States. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 127(2), 227–258.Google Scholar
  5. Burkhauser, R., Houtenville, A., & Rovba, L. (2006). Accounting for the decline fortunes of working-age people with disabilities. Urbana: Working Paper Cornell University.Google Scholar
  6. Chase, B., Cornille, T., & English, R. (2000). Life satisfaction among persons with spinal cord injuries. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 14–20.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (2006). A note on unhappiness and unemployment duration. Applied Economics Quarterly, 52, 291–308.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A., Georgellis, Y., & Sanfey, P. (2001). Scaring: The psychological effect of past unemployment. Economica, 68(270), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A., Diener, E., Georgelli, Y., & Lucas, R. (2008). Lags and leads in life satisfaction: A test of the baseline hypothesis. Economic Journal, 118, F222–F243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deiner, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 1–31.Google Scholar
  11. Deiner, E., Lucas, R., & Scollon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Tella, R., Haisken-DeNew, J., & Macculloch, R. (2005). Happiness adaptation to income and to status in an individual panel. Philadelphia: Working Paper Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  13. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114, 641–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Van Praag, B. (2002). The subjective costs of health losses due to chronic diseases. An alternative model to monetary appraisal. Health Economics, 11, 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well being: The foundation of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Grimby, G., Finnstram, J., & Jette, A. (1988). On application of the WHO handicap classification in rehabilitation. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 20, 93–98.Google Scholar
  17. Groot, W., Van den Brink, H., & Plug, E. (2004). Money for health: The equivalent variation of cardiovascular diseases. Health Economics, 13, 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hotchkiss, J. (2004). Growing part-time employment among workers with disabilities: Marginalization or opportunity? Economic Review, third quarter, 25–40.Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins, S., & Riggs, J. (2004). Disability and disadvantage: selection, onset, and duration effects. Journal of Social Policy, 33(3), 479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, P., Kooreman, P., Soetevent, A. & Kapteyn, A. (2008). The own and social effects of an unexpected income shock: Evidence from the Dutch postcode lottery. NBER working paper, p. 14035.Google Scholar
  21. Livermore, G., Stapleton, D., Nowak, M., Wittenburg, D., & Eiseman, E. (2000). The economics of policies and programs affecting the employment of people with disabilities. Ithaca: Employment and Disability Institute, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  22. Lucas, R. (2005). Time does not heal all wounds: A longitudinal study of reaction and adaptation. Psychological Science, 16(12), 945–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lucas, R. (2007). Long-term disability is associated with lasting changes in subjective well-being: Evidence from two national representative longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 717–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lucas, R., & Clark, A. (2006). Do people really adapt to marriage? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 405–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lucas, R., Clark, A., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Re examining adaptation and set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucas, R., Clarke, A., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set-point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ng, Y. (1997). A case of happiness, cardinalism, and interpersonal comparability. The Economic Journal, 107(445), 1848–1858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD. (2003). Transforming disability into ability: Policies to promote work and income security for disabled people. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  29. Oi, W. (1991). Disability and a workfare-welfare dilemma. In C. Weaver (Ed.), Disability and Work. Washington: AEI Press.Google Scholar
  30. Oswald, A., & Gardner, J. (2006). Do divorcing couples become happier by breaking up? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 169, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oswald, A., & Powdthavee, N. (2008). Does happiness adapt? A longitudinal study of disability with implications for economists and judges. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1061–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pagan, R. (2010). Onset of disability and life satisfaction: Evidence from the German socio-economic panel. European Journal of Health Economics, 11, 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powdthavee, N. (2009). What happens to people before and after disability? Focusing effects, lead effects, and adaptation in different areas of life. Social Science and Medicine, 69, 1834–1844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwartz, N. (1995). What respondents learn from questionnaires: The survey interview and the logic of conversation. International Statistical Review, 63, 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Praag, B. (1991). Ordinal and cardinal utility: an integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept. Journal of Econometrics, 50, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Veenhoven, R. (1996). Developments in satisfaction research. Social Indicators Research, 37, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warner, G., Frick, J., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German socio-economic panel study (SOEP): Scope, evolution and enhancements. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 127(1), 139–169.Google Scholar
  38. Wu, S. (2001). Adapting to heart conditions: A test of the hedonic treadmill. Journal of Health Economics, 20, 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zimmermann, A., & Easterlin, R. (2006). Happily ever after? Cohabitation, marriage, divorce and happiness in Germany? Population and Development Review, 32(3), 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversity of MalagaMalagaSpain

Personalised recommendations