print

Correlational findings

Study Amato & Zuo (1992): study US 1987

Public:
Poor people, black and white USA, 1987-88
Survey name:
US-NSFH wave 1
Sample:
Respondents:
N = 3374
Non Response:
26%
Assessment:
Interview: face-to-face

Correlate

Authors's Label
rural- urban living
Our Classification
Distribution
N =  3: 358, 2: 886, 1: 480
Related specification variables
Operationalization
Population in standard metropolitan statistical area
3 rural  (20.00 or less)
2 intermediate
1 urban (100.000 or more); living in the core of such SMSA

Observed Relation with Happiness

Happiness Measure Statistics Elaboration / Remarks O-HL-c-sq-n-7-b DM = - p < .188 Rural             M = 4,89
Intermediate      M = 5,09
Urban             M = 5,03
O-HL-c-sq-n-7-b DMa = - p < .111 Rural             Ma = 4,89
Intermediate      Ma = 5,09
Urban             Ma = 5,03

Ma adjusted for:
- sexe
- age
- family status (married, children0
- education
- employment
- family income
O-HL-c-sq-n-7-b DMa = +/- Less happy in rural environment (vs urban)
- Whites (05)
- Single men without children
- Married women with children
Happier in rural environment    (vs urban)
- Blacks(05)