Therapy 32 Times More Cost Effective At Increasing Happiness Than Money

[HuckleB]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/172090.php

"Research by the University of Warwick and the University of Manchester finds that psychological therapy could be 32 times more cost effective at making you happy than simply obtaining more money. The research has obvious implications for large compensation awards in law courts but also has wider implications for general public health.

Chris Boyce of the University of Warwick and Alex Wood of the University of Manchester compared large data sets where 1000s of people had reported on their well-being. They then looked at how well-being changed due to therapy compared to getting sudden increases in income, such as through lottery wins or pay rises. They found that a 4 month course of psychological therapy had a large effect on well-being. They then showed that the increase in well-being from an £800 course of therapy was so large that it would take a pay rise of over £25,000 to achieve an equivalent increase in well-being. The research therefore demonstrates that psychological therapy could be 32 times more cost effective at making you happy than simply obtaining more money.

Governments pursue economic growth in the belief that it will raise the well-being of its citizens. However, the research suggests that more money only leads to tiny increases in happiness and is an inefficient way to increase the happiness of a population. This research suggests that if policy makers were concerned about improving well-being they would be better off increasing the access and availability of mental health care as opposed to increasing economic growth.

..."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not sure what I think about the statement about compensation awards, but the general outcome seems to be good information, albeit perhaps what one would expect.

[mopinko]

1. bread and roses

is still a good goal, imho.

[zazen]

2. but did it establish a material baseline?

Yes, I know we should all be capable of being serene Buddhist monks who live in caves and beg from strangers, but failing that, not having enough money to keep a roof over your kids' heads and/or feed them or get them medical care has an effect on one's mental health as well.

The claim here makes it seem like the money/mental health relationship is a stable one from poverty on up to billionaire status, but don't we need a baseline where a modicum of needs are met first, and _then_ the rest becomes fluff? There's probably a respectable mathematical term for this, but I don't know it.

(forgive me if this is in the article--didn't have time to read it)

[Euromutt]

3. As the saying goes "Money may not be able to buy happiness..."

"...but a shortage of money buys you a buttload of misery."

That is freely translated from the Dutch, though.

[dropkickpa]

4. money may not buy happiness, but it sure makes misery nicer!!