Phase 1: Prepare
Step 1 Warm-up recall
From M2.L1 and Module 1: what is the difference between life evaluation and emotional well-being? Give one survey item for each.
Private: nothing you type here is sent or stored.
Step 2 Learning goal
By the end of this lesson you can:
- state what three well-known studies found about income and well-being (Foundation);
- explain two reasons the studies can seem to disagree (Core);
- use the “equal steps per doubling” pattern to estimate a change (Core).
Phase 2: Teach
Step 3 A familiar example
A pay rise of 5,000 means a great deal to someone earning 20,000 and very little to someone earning 200,000. The same sum is a large step up for one person and a small step for the other. Researchers capture this with proportional, not absolute, change.
Step 4 Clear explanation
Three studies frame the debate.
| Study | Data and measure | What it reported |
|---|---|---|
| Kahneman and Deaton (2010), PNAS | More than 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily US survey. Emotional well-being and life evaluation. | Life evaluation kept rising with income. Emotional well-being showed no further progress beyond an annual income of about $75,000. |
| Killingsworth (2021), PNAS, “Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year” | Reports of feelings collected at random moments from people going about their day (experience sampling). | Experienced well-being kept rising with income. No plateau at $75,000. |
| Killingsworth, Kahneman and Mellers (2023), PNAS, “Income and emotional well-being: A conflict resolved” | A joint analysis by the two earlier teams with a neutral third author (an adversarial collaboration). | As later summarised: emotional well-being rises with income for most people, with a plateau at about $100,000 for the unhappiest minority. |
Why can studies disagree? They may measure different things (a rating of life versus feelings sampled in the moment), collect data differently (a one-off survey versus random moments through the day), and define a “plateau” differently. A 2024 preprint by Bennedsen argued that the plateau finding depends on where the threshold is placed, and reported a flat relationship only above roughly $200,000 when the threshold was chosen from the data; the author called for more research. Treat it as a pointer, not as a settled result.
A pattern often reported in this literature is that life evaluation rises with the logarithm of income: equal steps for each doubling of income. On an ordinary income axis such a line looks as if it flattens, although it is still rising.
Step 5 Worked example (4 marks, invented numbers)
Suppose life evaluation rises by 0.3 points for each doubling of income.
- From 25,000 to 100,000 is two doublings (25 → 50 → 100). (1 mark)
- Rise = 2 × 0.3 = 0.60 points. (1 mark)
- From 100,000 to 175,000 is a rise of 1.75 times, which is 0.81 of a doubling, so the rise = 0.81 × 0.3 ≈ 0.24 points. (1 mark)
- Both steps add 75,000, yet the first is worth about two and a half times the second. Equal sums are not equal steps. (1 mark)
Phase 3: Practise
Step 6 Learner practice (instant-marked)
2. In Kahneman and Deaton (2010), which measure showed no further progress beyond about $75,000?
Emotional well-being plateaued in that analysis, while life evaluation kept rising with income.
3. Why can two income studies seem to disagree?
Differences in measure, method and definition explain much of the apparent conflict.
4. A headline says “Money stops buying happiness at $75,000.” What is the best criticism?
The original study reported a plateau only for emotional well-being, and later studies disputed it.
Phase 4: Close
Step 7 Recap
- Kahneman and Deaton (2010): life evaluation kept rising; emotional well-being showed no progress beyond about $75,000.
- Killingsworth (2021): experienced well-being kept rising.
- The 2023 collaboration: rising for most people, a plateau at about $100,000 for the unhappiest minority.
- Equal steps per doubling: judge income changes in proportion, not by the sum.
Step 8 Exit ticket (ungraded)
Write one sentence on what a policymaker could responsibly say about income and well-being, using only what these three studies support.
Private: nothing you type here is sent or stored.
Step 9 Go further (Extension)
Read the abstract of Killingsworth, Kahneman and Mellers (2023). List which measure they used, which income threshold they pre-specified, and one limit they state.
Common mistakes
| Mistake | Why it fails |
|---|---|
| Reading “no further progress” as “no effect” | The 2010 finding concerned emotional well-being only; life evaluation kept rising. |
| Comparing equal sums at different incomes | The pattern is proportional: doublings, not dollars. |
| Treating a threshold as a law | Thresholds depend on the measure, sample and how they are set. |
Limits. The figures come from the studies’ abstracts and later summaries; learners are asked to read the originals in the Extension. The fixed step per doubling is a teaching simplification. Income, in these studies, is household income in US dollars, and findings may differ in other countries and periods.