print

Correlational findings

Study Posel & Casale (2011): study ZA 2008

Public:
17+ aged general public, South-Africa., 2008
Survey name:
US-National Income Dynamics Study (NIDS) 2008
Sample:
Respondents:
N = 28000
Non Response:
Assessment:
Interview: face-to-face
Assumed by WDH team.

Correlate

Authors's label
Perceived rank in village/suburb
Our Classification
Distribution
3. M = 0.12 SE = 0.005
2. M = 0.41 SE = 0.008
1. M = 0.48 SE = 0.008
Operationalization
Perceived income rank in village/suburb:
3. richest
2. middle
1, lowest (reference)

Observed Relation with Happiness

Happiness Measure Statistics Special Research Type Elaboration / Remarks O-SLW-c-sq-n-10-I OPRC = +.70 p < .01 none Richest income rank (vs lowest)
- Africans only OPRC = +0.80 (p<.01)
- Whites only   OPRC = +0.13 (ns)
O-SLW-c-sq-n-10-I OPRC = +.44 p < .01 none Middle income rank (vs lowest)
- Africans only OPRC = +.45 (p<.01)
- Whites only   OPRC = +.06 (ns)

OPRC's controled for:
- individual characteristics
  - ethnicity
  - head of household
  - age
  - years of schooling
  - sexe
  - marital status
  - health status
- household characteristics
  - number of children
  - number of pensioners
  - quality dwelling place
- social capital variables
  - involved in religious activities
  - neigbours
  - crime in neighbourhood
  - member of a group
  - owns a cellular phone
- income variables
  - per capita household income (Rands)
    - actual rank in SA (richest, middle, poorest)
    - perceived rank in SA (richest, middle, poorest)
  - perceived to be better/same/worse than at age 15
  - expect to be better/same/worse off 2 years hence