Happiness and Socio-Demographic Factors in an Italian Sample: A Propensity-Matched Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and Study Design
2.2. Measure of Happiness Questionnaire
- ○
- Come valuti il rapporto con il tuo corpo?
- ■
- How do you evaluate your relationship with your body?
- ○
- Come valuti il tuo livello di equilibrio mentale e fisico?
- ■
- How do you evaluate your level of mental and physical balance?
- ○
- Come valuti il tuo rapporto con te stesso?
- ■
- How do you evaluate your relationship with yourself?
- ○
- Quanto ritieni di essere realizzato in questo momento?
- ■
- How fulfilled do you feel with your life at this moment?
- ○
- Quanto sei soddisfatto della tua condizione finanziaria?
- ■
- How satisfied are you with your financial situation?
- ○
- Quanto ti senti solido finanziariamente?
- ■
- How financially sound do you feel?
- ○
- Come valuti la qualità dei tuoi rapporti con i tuoi affetti principali?
- ■
- How do you evaluate the quality of your relationships with your dear ones?
- ○
- Quanto ti soddisfa l’atmosfera che si vive nella tua attuale casa?
- ■
- At present, how satisfied are you with the atmosphere in your home?
- ○
- Secondo te, i membri della tua famiglia, quanto ti stimano?
- ■
- In your opinion, how much do your family members appreciate you?
- ○
- Quanto pensi che le persone, in generale, siano felici di relazionarsi con te?
- ■
- In general, how happy do you think people are to interact with you?
- ○
- Quanto ritieni apprezzati i tuoi comportamenti nella società?
- ■
- How much do you think your behavior is appreciated in society?
- ○
- Quanto ritieni importante porti degli obiettivi di lungo termine?
- ■
- How important is it to you to set long-term goals?
- ○
- Quanto ti interessi al tuo miglioramento personale?
- ■
- How much are you engaged in self-improvement?
- ○
- Quanto ti senti flessibile di fronte ai cambiamenti della vita?
- ■
- How adaptable do you feel to major changes in your life?
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kushlev, K.; Heintzelman, S.J.; Lutes, L.D.; Wirtz, D.; Kanippayoor, J.M.; Leitner, D.; Diener, E. Does Happiness Improve Health? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 31, 807–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steptoe, A. Happiness and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2019, 40, 339–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rizzato, M.; Di Dio, C.; Miraglia, L.; Sam, C.; D’Anzi, S.; Antonelli, M.; Donelli, D. Are You Happy? A Validation Study of a Tool Measuring Happiness. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim-Prieto, C.; Diener, E.; Tamir, M.; Scollon, C.; Diener, M. Integrating the Diverse Definitions of Happiness: A Time-Sequential Framework of Subjective Well-Being. J. Happiness Stud. 2005, 6, 261–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livingston, V.; Jackson-Nevels, B.; Reddy, V.V. Social, Cultural, and Economic Determinants of Well-Being. Encyclopedia 2022, 2, 1183–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E. Subjective Well-Being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Hedonia, Eudaimonia, and Well-Being: An Introduction. J. Happiness Stud. 2008, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vittersø, J. Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; ISBN 9783319424453. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, L. Personal or Environmental Causes of Happiness: A Longitudinal Analysis. J. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 139, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshanloo, M.; Ghaedi, G. Value Priorities as Predictors of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Aspects of Well-Being. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2009, 47, 294–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Disabato, D.J.; Goodman, F.R.; Kashdan, T.B.; Short, J.L.; Jarden, A. Different Types of Well-Being? A Cross-Cultural Examination of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Psychol. Assess. 2016, 28, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, L.W.; Knight, T. Integrating the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Perspectives to More Comprehensively Understand Wellbeing and Pathways to Wellbeing. Int. J. Wellbeing 2012, 2, 196–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huta, V.; Ryan, R.M. Pursuing Pleasure or Virtue: The Differential and Overlapping Well-Being Benefits of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives. J. Happiness Stud. 2010, 11, 735–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sebire, S.J.; Standage, M.; Vansteenkiste, M. Examining Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Exercise Goals: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2009, 31, 189–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ul Haq, M.A.; Sankar, J.P.; Akram, F. Factors Influencing Happiness and Well-Being in South Asia. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA), Sakheer, Bahrain, 7–8 December 2021; pp. 385–391. [Google Scholar]
- Veenhoven, R. Is Happiness Relative? Soc. Indic. Res. 1991, 24, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolaev, B.; Rusakov, P. Education and Happiness: An Alternative Hypothesis. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2016, 23, 827–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Room, G. Education and Welfare: Recalibrating the European Debate. Policy Stud. 2002, 23, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.; Luo, J.; Zhang, M. Higher Education, Happiness, and Residents’ Health. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wijaya, T.T.; Rahmadi, I.F.; Chotimah, S.; Jailani, J.; Wutsqa, D.U. A Case Study of Factors That Affect Secondary School Mathematics Achievement: Teacher-Parent Support, Stress Levels, and Students’ Well-Being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salanova, M.; Schaufeli, W.; Martinez, I.; Breso, E. How Obstacles and Facilitators Predict Academic Performance: The Mediating Role of Study Burnout and Engagement. Anxiety Stress Coping 2010, 23, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ott, J. Cognitive Happiness, or the Cognitive Component of Happiness. In Beyond Economics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 45–60. ISBN 9783030565992. [Google Scholar]
- Katsumi, Y.; Kondo, N.; Dolcos, S.; Dolcos, F.; Tsukiura, T. Intrinsic Functional Network Contributions to the Relationship between Trait Empathy and Subjective Happiness. Neuroimage 2021, 227, 117650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muresan, G.M.; Ciumas, C.; Achim, M.V. Can Money Buy Happiness? Evidence for European Countries. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2020, 15, 953–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bünger, B. The Demand for Relational Goods: Empirical Evidence from the European Social Survey. Int. Rev. Econ. 2010, 57, 177–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scoppa, V.; Ponzo, M. An Empirical Study of Happiness in Italy. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2008, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, C.K.; Trautmann, S.T. Does Happiness Increase in Old Age? Longitudinal Evidence from 20 European Countries. J. Happiness Stud. 2022, 23, 3625–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frijters, P.; Beatton, T. The Mystery of the U-Shaped Relationship between Happiness and Age. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012, 82, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becchetti, L.; Pelloni, A.; Rossetti, F. Relational Goods, Sociability, and Happiness. Kyklos 2008, 61, 343–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, G.M.D.N.; Graduate School of Business, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak; Yew, T.S.; Haq, M.A.U.L. Social Capital and Well-Being of Small-Scale Fishers in the West Coast Island of Peninsular Malaysia. Asian Fish. Sci. 2023, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjørnskov, C. Social Capital and Happiness in the United States. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2008, 3, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Righi, A. Happiness and the Relational Dimension of Well-Being. Stat. Appl. Ital. J. Appl. Stat. 2015, 24, 153–172. [Google Scholar]
- Becchetti, L.; Ricca, E.G.; Pelloni, A. On the Causal Impact of Relational Goods on Happiness. Riv. Politica Econ. 2008, 98, 199–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, G.; Brandt, M.; Kneip, T. The Role of Parenthood for Life Satisfaction of Older Women and Men in Europe. J. Happiness Stud. 2023, 24, 275–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asselmann, E.; Specht, J. Baby Bliss: Longitudinal Evidence for Set-Point Theory around Childbirth for Cognitive and Affective Well-Being. Emotion 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bartram, D.; Boniwell, I. The Science of Happiness: Achieving Sustained Psychological Wellbeing. InPractice 2007, 29, 478–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, C.D. Happiness at Work. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 384–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirschauer, N.; Lehberger, M.; Musshoff, O. Happiness and Utility in Economic Thought—Or: What Can We Learn from Happiness Research for Public Policy Analysis and Public Policy Making? Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 121, 647–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, C. Happiness and Health: Lessons–and Questions–for Public Policy. Health Aff. 2008, 27, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekhet, A.K.; Zauszniewski, J.A.; Nakhla, W.E. Happiness: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations. Nurs. Forum 2008, 43, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fordyce, M.W. A Review of Research on the Happiness Measures: A Sixty Second Index of Happiness and Mental Health. Soc. Indic. Res. 1988, 20, 355–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukoševičiūtė, J.; Argustaitė-Zailskienė, G.; Šmigelskas, K. Measuring Happiness in Adolescent Samples: A Systematic Review. Children 2022, 9, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlesinger, A.M. The Lost Meaning of “the Pursuit of Happiness”. William Mary Q. 1964, 21, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, W. Gross National Happiness. Asian Pac. Econ. Lit. 2009, 23, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helliwell, J.; Layard, R.; Sachs, J. World Happiness Report; University of British Columbia Library: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012; p. 167. [Google Scholar]
- In a Lamentable Year, Finland Again is the Happiest Country in the World. Available online: https://worldhappiness.report/news/in-a-lamentable-year-finland-again-is-the-happiest-country-in-the-world/ (accessed on 6 January 2023).
- Sabatini, F. The Relationship between Happiness and Health: Evidence from Italy. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 114, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iani, L.; Lauriola, M.; Layous, K.; Sirigatti, S. Happiness in Italy: Translation, Factorial Structure and Norming of the Subjective Happiness Scale in a Large Community Sample. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 118, 953–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galletta, S. On the Determinants of Happiness: A Classification and Regression Tree (CART) Approach. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2016, 23, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernini, C.; Tampieri, A. Happiness in Italian Cities. Reg. Stud. 2019, 53, 1614–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Studio. Available online: http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed on 28 March 2023).
- Ho, D.E.; Imai, K.; King, G.; Stuart, E.A. MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 42, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing: Reference Index; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; ISBN 9783900051075. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenbaum, P.R.; Rubin, D.B. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika 1983, 70, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin, P.C. Balance Diagnostics for Comparing the Distribution of Baseline Covariates between Treatment Groups in Propensity-Score Matched Samples. Stat. Med. 2009, 28, 3083–3107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin, P.C. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2011, 46, 399–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VanderWeele, T.J. Principles of Confounder Selection. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2019, 34, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, D.B. Matching to Remove Bias in Observational Studies. Biometrics 1973, 29, 159–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perperoglou, A.; Sauerbrei, W.; Abrahamowicz, M.; Schmid, M. A Review of Spline Function Procedures in R. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019, 19, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heckman, M.G.; Davis, J.M., III; Crowson, C.S. Post Hoc Power Calculations: An Inappropriate Method for Interpreting the Findings of a Research Study. J. Rheumatol. 2022, 49, 867–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Statista–the Statistics Portal. Available online: https://www.statista.com/ (accessed on 16 April 2023).
- Share of Young People Who Are NEET in Italy 2004–2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/729239/percentage-of-young-people-who-are-neet-in-italy/ (accessed on 14 January 2023).
- Simões, F.; Marta, E.; Marzana, D.; Alfieri, S.; Pozzi, M. An Analysis of Social Relationships’ Quality Associations with Hope among Young Italians: The Role of NEET Status. J. Appl. Youth Stud. 2021, 4, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, C.-M. Money and Happiness: Does Age Make a Difference? Ageing Soc. 2011, 31, 1289–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pichler, F. Subjective Quality of Life of Young Europeans. Feeling Happy but Who Knows Why? Soc. Indic. Res. 2006, 75, 419–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harter, S. Developmental Perspectives on the Self-System. In Handbook of Child Psychology; Hetherington, E.M., Ed.; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 275–385. [Google Scholar]
- Stevenson, B.; Wolfers, J. The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2009, 1, 190–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrosa, M.L.; Gandelman, N. Happiness Decomposition: Female Optimism. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 17, 731–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuckerman, M.; Li, C.; Diener, E.F. Societal Conditions and the Gender Difference in Well-Being: Testing a Three-Stage Model. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 43, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kling, K.C.; Hyde, J.S.; Showers, C.J.; Buswell, B.N. Gender Differences in Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 470–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentile, B.; Grabe, S.; Dolan-Pascoe, B.; Twenge, J.M.; Wells, B.E.; Maitino, A. Gender Differences in Domain-Specific Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2009, 13, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baxter Magolda, M.B. Making Their Own Way: Narratives for Transforming Higher Education to Promote Self-Development; Stylus Publishing, LLC.: Sterling, VA, USA, 2004; ISBN 9781579220914. [Google Scholar]
- Andreassen, C.S. Workaholism: An Overview and Current Status of the Research. J. Behav. Addict. 2014, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dakin, J.; Wampler, R. Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness, but It Helps: Marital Satisfaction, Psychological Distress, and Demographic Differences between Low- and Middle-Income Clinic Couples. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 2008, 36, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanchflower, D.G.; Clark, A.E. Children, Unhappiness and Family Finances. J. Popul. Econ. 2021, 34, 625–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myrskylä, M.; Margolis, R. Happiness: Before and after the Kids. Demography 2014, 51, 1843–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kohler, H.-P.; Behrman, J.R.; Skytthe, A. Partner + Children = Happiness? The Effects of Partnerships and Fertility on Well-Being. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2005, 31, 407–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, S.K.; Kushlev, K.; Lyubomirsky, S. The Pains and Pleasures of Parenting: When, Why, and How Is Parenthood Associated with More or Less Well-Being? Psychol. Bull. 2014, 140, 846–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, T. Parenthood and Happiness: A Review of Folk Theories versus Empirical Evidence. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 108, 29–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciccarone, G.; Saltari, E. Cyclical Downturn or Structural Disease? The Decline of the Italian Economy in the Last Twenty Years. J. Mod. Ital. Stud. 2015, 20, 228–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynaud, C.; Miccoli, S. Depopulation and the Aging Population: The Relationship in Italian Municipalities. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2018, 10, 1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Apice, C.; Fadda, S. The Italian Welfare System in the European Context. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2003, 61, 317–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petretto, D.R.; Pili, R. Ageing and COVID-19: What is the Role for Elderly People? Geriatrics 2020, 5, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tomassini, C.; Lamura, G. Population Ageing in Italy and Southern Europe. In International Handbook of Population Aging; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 69–89. ISBN 9781402083556. [Google Scholar]
- Mogilner, C.; Norton, M.I. Time, Money, and Happiness. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 10, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mistry, R.S.; Benner, A.D.; Tan, C.S.; Kim, S.Y. Family Economic Stress and Academic Well-Being among Chinese-American Youth: The Influence of Adolescents’ Perceptions of Economic Strain. J. Fam. Psychol. 2009, 23, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conger, R.D.; Conger, K.J.; Martin, M.J. Socioeconomic Status, Family Processes, and Individual Development. J. Marriage Fam. 2010, 72, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Italy Population. Live—Countrymeters. 2023. Available online: https://countrymeters.info/en/Italy (accessed on 16 April 2023).
All (n = 1695) | Males (n = 239) | Females (n = 1456) | |
---|---|---|---|
Age (years. mean ± SD) | 35.3 ± 11.3 | 40.0 ± 13.3 | 34.5 ± 10.7 |
Relational status | |||
Engaged | 1107 (65.3%) | 158 (66.1%) | 949 (65.2%) |
Single | 588 (34.7%) | 81 (33.9%) | 507 (34.8%) |
Have children | |||
Yes | 470 (27.7%) | 104 (43.5%) | 366 (25.1%) |
1 | 206 (12.2%) | 37 (15.5%) | 169 (11.6%) |
2 | 208 (12.3%) | 54 (22.6%) | 154 (10.6%) |
3 or more | 56 (3.4%) | 13 (5.4%) | 43 (3%) |
No | 1225 (72.3%) | 135 (56.5%) | 1090 (74.9%) |
Education | |||
Primary School | 50 (3%) | 18 (7.5%) | 32 (2.2%) |
High School | 606 (35.8%) | 92 (38.5%) | 514 (35.3%) |
University | 778 (45.9%) | 103 (43.1%) | 675 (46.4%) |
Postgraduate | 261 (15.4%) | 26 (10.9%) | 235 (16.1%) |
Annual income | |||
<EUR 21,000 per year | 835 (49.3%) | 73 (30.5%) | 762 (52.3%) |
>EUR 21,000 per year and <EUR 60,000 per year | 751 (44.3%) | 128 (53.6%) | 623 (42.8%) |
>EUR 60,000 per year | 109 (6.4%) | 38 (15.9%) | 71 (4.9%) |
TOTAL SAMPLE (n = 1695) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Condition | Best Covariate Balance | Matched | Unmatched | Outcome | Estimated Mean Effect in the Individual with the Condition | 95% CI | p Value | Clinically Meaningful Difference (CMD) Likelihood |
Being Male vs. Female | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 1456 Cases = 239 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | +3.2 | +0.8 to +5.5 | 0.008 * | possible |
Life Perspective | 0.0 | −0.7 to +0.7 | 0.94 | unlikely | ||||
Psychophysics Status | +1.6 | +1.0 to +2.2 | <0.0001 * | likely | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.1 | −0.5 to +0.4 | 0.77 | unlikely | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −0.1 | −0.9 to +0.7 | 0.75 | unlikely | ||||
Financial Status | +1.7 | +0.9 to +2.5 | <0.0001 * | possible | ||||
Having an Annual Income < EUR 21,000 | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 860 Cases = 835 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −7.2 | −9.4 to −4.9 | <0.0001 * | likely |
Life Perspective | −0.6 | −1.2 to 0.1 | 0.08 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −1.0 | −1.6 to −0.4 | 0.002 * | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.5 | −0.9 to −0.0 | 0.04 * | possible | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −1.6 | −2.2 to −1.0 | <0.0001 * | ikely | ||||
Financial Status | −3.6 | −4.4 to −2.7 | <0.0001 * | likely | ||||
Having Children | Std. Mean Difference < 0.15 | Controls = 1225 Cases = 470 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −2.0 | −4.6 to +0.6 | 0.13 | possible |
Life Perspective | +0.2 | −0.6 to +0.9 | 0.62 | unlikely | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −0.6 | −1.3 to +0.2 | 0.12 | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.3 | −0.7 to +0.2 | 0.22 | unlikely | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −0.7 | −1.4 to 0.1 | 0.07 | possible | ||||
Financial Status | −0.7 | −1.9 to +0.5 | 0.26 | possible | ||||
Having a higher education degree | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 656 Cases = 1039 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −0.3 | −2.6 to +1.9 | 0.79 | possible |
Life Perspective | +0.5 | 0.0 to 1.0 | 0.04 * | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | 0.0 | −0.8 to +0.8 | 0.99 | unlikely | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | +0.4 | −0.3 to +1.0 | 0.24 | possible | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −1.3 | −2.2 to −0.4 | 0.004 * | possible | ||||
Financial Status | +0.1 | −1–1 to +1.4 | 0.85 | possible | ||||
Being Engaged vs. Single | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 588 Cases = 1107 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | +3.0 | +0.1 to +5.9 | 0.04 * | possible |
Life Perspective | +0.4 | −0.5 to +1.2 | 0.41 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | +0.4 | −0.3 to +1.1 | 0.24 | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | +0.2 | −0.4 to +0.7 | 0.57 | unlikely | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | +1.2 | +0.4 to +2.0 | 0.004 * | possible | ||||
Financial Status | +1.0 | +0.2 to +1.7 | 0.01 * | possible | ||||
Being under 30 yo | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 971 Cases = 724 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −1.0 | −3.5 to +1.5 | 0.44 | possible |
Life Perspective | +0.4 | −0.2 to +1.1 | 0.21 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −0.6 | −1.3 to +0.1 | 0.09 | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.3 | −0.7 to +0.2 | 0.22 | unlikely | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | +0.4 | −0.4 to +1.1 | 0.33 | possible | ||||
Financial Status | −0.9 | −1.7 to −0.2 | 0.02 * | possible | ||||
FEMALES (n = 1456) | ||||||||
Having an Annual Income < EUR 21,000 | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 694 Cases = 762 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −7.3 | −9.4 to −5.1 | <0.0001 * | likely |
Life Perspective | −1.0 | −1.6 to −0.4 | 0.001 * | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −0.9 | −1.6 to −0.2 | 0.01 * | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.6 | −1.1 to −0.2 | 0.004 * | possible | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −1.2 | −2.0 to −0.4 | 0.003 * | possible | ||||
Financial Status | −3.5 | −4.5 to −2.6 | <0.0001 * | likely | ||||
Having Children | Std. Mean Difference < 0.15 | Controls = 1090 Cases = 366 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −0.2 | −2.9 to +2.4 | 0.87 | possible |
Life Perspective | +1.0 | +0.2 to +1.7 | 0.01 * | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −0.1 | −0.8 to +0.6 | 0.83 | unlikely | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.1 | −0.6 to +0.4 | 0.66 | unlikely | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −0.6 | −1.4 to +0.2 | 0.15 | possible | ||||
Financial Status | −0.4 | −1.5 to +0.7 | 0.47 | possible | ||||
Having a higher education degree | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 546 Cases = 910 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | +2.3 | −0.4 to +5.1 | 0.1 | possible |
Life Perspective | +0.6 | −0.1 to +1.3 | 0.07 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | +0.6 | −0.2 to +1.3 | 0.15 | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | +0.4 | −0.1 to +0.9 | 0.09 | unlikely | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | +0.2 | −0.6 to +1.0 | 0.60 | possible | ||||
Financial Status | +0.5 | −0.4 to +1.4 | 0.28 | possible | ||||
Being Engaged vs. Single | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 507 Cases = 949 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −0.3 | −2.0 to +2.6 | 0.79 | possible |
Life Perspective | −0.3 | −0.9 to +0.3 | 0.29 | unlikely | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −0.4 | −1.1 to +0.3 | 0.30 | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.3 | −0.6 to +0.1 | 0.15 | unlikely | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | +0.9 | +0.1 to +1.7 | 0.02 * | possible | ||||
Financial Status | +0.4 | −0.6 to +1.3 | 0.47 | possible | ||||
Being under 30 yo | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 802 Cases = 654 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −1.4 | −3.3 to +0.4 | 0.13 | possible |
Life Perspective | +0.4 | −0.3 to +1.0 | 0.26 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −1.3 | −2.2 to −0.4 | 0.007 * | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.6 | −0.9 to −0.2 | 0.004 * | unlikely | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −0.3 | −1.6 to +1.0 | 0.66 | possible | ||||
Financial Status | +0.3 | −1.3 to +1.9 | 0.69 | possible | ||||
MALES (n = 239) | ||||||||
Having an Annual Income < EUR 21,000 | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 166 Cases = 73 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −6.5 | −10.7 to −2.3 | 0.002 * | likely |
Life Perspective | −0.1 | −1.7 to +1.6 | 0.95 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −0.7 | −1.8 to +0.4 | 0.22 | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.7 | −1.8 to +0.3 | 0.16 | possible | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −1.7 | −3.1 to −0.3 | 0.02 * | possible | ||||
Financial Status | −3.3 | −5.1 to −1.5 | 0.0003 * | likely | ||||
Having Children | Std. Mean Difference < 0.15 | Controls = 135 Cases = 104 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −5.7 | −9.6 to −1.8 | 0.005 * | likely |
Life Perspective | −0.6 | −2.0 to +0.8 | 0.40 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −1.2 | −1.9 to −0.5 | 0.0003 * | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.9 | −1.6 to −0.2 | 0.01 * | possible | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −0.5 | −1.9 to +1.0 | 0.52 | possible | ||||
Financial Status | −2.5 | −3.6 to −1.5 | <0.0001 * | likely | ||||
Having a higher education degree | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 110 Cases = 129 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | +0.2 | −4.7 to +5.1 | 0.94 | possible |
Life Perspective | +0.3 | −1.1 to +1.8 | 0.64 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | +0.1 | −1.1 to +1.4 | 0.83 | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.4 | −1.2 to +0.3 | 0.29 | possible | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | −0.4 | −1.9 to +1.1 | 0.58 | possible | ||||
Financial Status | +0.6 | −1.2 to +2.3 | 0.53 | possible | ||||
Being Engaged vs. Single | Std. Mean Difference < 0.2 | Controls = 43 Cases = 158 | Controls = 38 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | NA | NA | NA | |
Life Perspective | NA | NA | NA | |||||
Psychophysics Status | NA | NA | NA | |||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | NA | NA | NA | |||||
Relational Private Sphere | NA | NA | NA | |||||
Financial Status | NA | NA | NA | |||||
Being under 30 yo | Std. Mean Difference < 0.1 | Controls = 169 Cases = 70 | Controls = 0 Cases = 0 | Total Happiness | −2.6 | −7.9 to +2.7 | 0.34 | possible |
Life Perspective | −0.2 | −1.7 to +1.3 | 0.83 | possible | ||||
Psychophysics Status | −1.3 | −2.9 to +0.2 | 0.09 | possible | ||||
Socio-Relational Sphere | −0.3 | −1.5 to +0.9 | 0.66 | possible | ||||
Relational Private Sphere | +0.2 | −1.4 to +1.8 | 0.79 | possible | ||||
Financial Status | −1.1 | −2.5 to +0.3 | 0.14 | possible |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rizzato, M.; Antonelli, M.; Sam, C.; Di Dio, C.; Lazzeroni, D.; Donelli, D. Happiness and Socio-Demographic Factors in an Italian Sample: A Propensity-Matched Study. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1557. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111557
Rizzato M, Antonelli M, Sam C, Di Dio C, Lazzeroni D, Donelli D. Happiness and Socio-Demographic Factors in an Italian Sample: A Propensity-Matched Study. Healthcare. 2023; 11(11):1557. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111557
Chicago/Turabian StyleRizzato, Matteo, Michele Antonelli, Carlo Sam, Cinzia Di Dio, Davide Lazzeroni, and Davide Donelli. 2023. "Happiness and Socio-Demographic Factors in an Italian Sample: A Propensity-Matched Study" Healthcare 11, no. 11: 1557. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111557