Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 119, Issue 1, pp 139–162 | Cite as

Day-of-the-Week Effects in Subjective Well-Being: Does Selectivity Matter?

  • Semih TumenEmail author
  • Tugba Zeydanli
Article

Abstract

Individuals tend to self-report higher well-being levels on certain days of the week than they do on the remaining days, controlling for observables. Using the 2008 release of the British Household Panel Survey, we test whether this empirical observation suffers from selection bias. In other words, we examine if subjective well-being is correlated with unobserved characteristics that lead the individuals to take the interview on specific days of the week. We focus on two distinct well-being measures: job satisfaction and happiness. We provide convincing evidence for both of these measures that the interviews are not randomly distributed across the days of the week. In other words, individuals with certain unobserved characteristics tend to take the interviews selectively. We conclude that a considerable part of the day-of-the-week patterns can be explained by a standard “non-random sorting on unobservables” argument rather than “mood fluctuations”. This means that the day-of-the-week estimates reported in the literature are likely to be biased and should be treated cautiously.

Keywords

Day-of-the-week effects Subjective well-being Self-selection Treatment effects BHPS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Andrew Clark, Laszlo Goerke, Alex Michalos (the editor), Claudia Senik, four anonymous referees, and the participants of the EDEEM Jamboree 2013 Meeting (CORE) in Louvain-la-Neuve for very helpful comments and insightful suggestions. Tugba Zeydanli gratefully acknowledges financial support from the European Doctorate in Economics—Erasmus Mundus. The views expressed here are of our own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.

References

  1. Akay, A., & Martinsson, P. (2009). Sundays are blue: Aren’t they? The day-of-the-week effect on subjective well-being and socio-economic status. IZA Discussion Paper No. 4563.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blanchflower, D., & Oswald, A. J. (2008). Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Social Science and Medicine, 66, 1733–1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borghans, L., Duckworth, L. A., Heckman, J. J., & ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43, 972–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 95–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, A. E., Oswald, A. J., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croft, G. P., & Walker, A. E. (2001). Are the Monday blues Ail in the mind? The role of expectancy in the subjective experience of mood. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1133–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: The uses of experience sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? In: P. A. David, M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. Economic Journal, 111, 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egloff, B., Tausch, A., Kohlmann, C., & Krohne, H. (1995). Relationships between time of day, day of the week, and positive mood: Exploring the role of the mood measure. Motivation and Emotion, 19, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goldberg, D. P. (1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER.Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER.Google Scholar
  19. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heckman, J. J., Honore B. E. (1990). The empirical content of the Roy model. Econometrica, 58, 1121–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heckman, J. J., & Robb R. (1985). Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview. Journal of Econometrics, 30, 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heckman, J. J., & Vytlacil E. J. (2007). Econometric evaluation of social programs, part I: Causal models, structural models, and econometric policy evaluation. In: J. J. Heckman & E. E. Leamer (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics, vol. 6, chap. 70 (pp. 4779–4874). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  23. Heckman, J. J., & Vytlacil E. J. (2007). Econometric evaluation of social programs, part II: Using the marginal treatment effect to organize alternative econometric estimators to evaluate social programs, and to forecast their effects in new environments. In: J. J. Heckman & E. E. Leamer (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics, vol. 6, chap. 71 (pp. 4875–5143). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Helliwell, J. F., & Wang, S. (2011). Weekends and subjective well-being. NBER Working Paper No. 17180.Google Scholar
  25. Hu, Y. J., Stewart-Brown, S., Twigg, L., & Weich, S. (2007). Can the 12-item General Health Questionnaire be used to measure positive mental health? Psychological Medicine, 37, 1005–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundation of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. Kennedy-Moore, E., Greenberg, M. A., Newman, M. G., & Stone, A. A. (1992). The relationship between daily events and mood: The mood measure may matter. Motivation and Emotion, 162, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larsen, R. J., & Kasimatis M. (1990). Individual differences in entrainment of mood to the weekly calendar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 164–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larsen, R. J., & Kasimatis M. (1991). Day-to-day physical symptoms: Individual differences in the occurrence, duration, and emotional concomitants of minor daily illnesses. Journal of Personality, 59, 387–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leung, S. F., & Yu, S. (1996). On the choice between sample selection and two-part models. Journal of Econometrics, 72, 197–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Manning, G. M., Duan, N., & Rogers, W. H. (1987). Monte Carlo evidence on the choice between sample selection and two-part models. Journal of Econometrics, 35, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCabe, C. J., Thomas, K. J., Brazier, J. E., & Coleman, P. (1996). Measuring the mental health status of a population: A comparison of the GHQ-12 and the SF-36. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 516–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pettengill, G. N. (2003). A survey of the monday effect literature. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, 42, 3–27.Google Scholar
  35. Pollak, R. A. (2003). Gary Becker’s contributions to family and household economics. Review of Economics of the Household, 1, 111–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rose, M. (1999). Explaining and forecasting job satisfaction: The contribution of occupational profiling. University of Bath (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  37. Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. E. (1977). Body time and social time: Mood patterns by menstrual cycle phase and day of week. Social Science Research, 6, 273–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roy, A. D. (1951). Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Economic Papers, 3, 135–146.Google Scholar
  39. Stone, A. A., Hedges, S. M., Neale, J. M., & Satin, S. (1985). Prospective and cross-sectional mood reports offer no evidence of a “Blue Monday” phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor, M. P. (2006). Tell me why I don’t like Mondays: Investigating day of the week effects on job satisfaction and psychological well-being. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A), 169, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tumen, S., & Zeydanli, T. (2012). Is happiness contagious? Separating spillover externalities from the group-level social context. Paris School of Economics (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  42. Tumen, S., & Zeydanli, T. (2012). Social interactions in job satisfaction. Paris School of Economics (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research and Monetary Policy DepartmentCentral Bank of the Republic of TurkeyUlus, AnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Paris School of EconomicsParisFrance
  3. 3.Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de EconomiaLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations