The satisfaction paradox is the finding, well documented in quality-of-life research, that objectively negative life circumstances have surprisingly little effect on a person's subjective well-being, challenging the assumption that harder conditions should directly produce lower life satisfaction. The paradox is especially studied in older adults, who often report higher financial satisfaction than younger adults despite having lower incomes, and who commonly report greater happiness, deeper relationships, and more emotional stability than younger people even as their physical abilities decline. Proposed explanations include a material factor, since older adults often hold more assets and less debt; a domain-specific factor, since gains in some life areas can offset losses in others as people age; and a psychological factor, since older adults tend to show higher levels of traits such as gratitude, compassion, forgiveness, and tolerance, which are themselves linked to better relational and emotional outcomes.
Facts
Partially Attested
First Described YearWikipedia's own reference entry says the 2004 Internistische Praxis article was likely republished from this 2002 German language paper, not stated as certain. Core ClaimObjectively negative life circumstances have relatively little effect on a person's subjective well-being, contrary to the assumption that harder conditions directly produce lower satisfaction. 1 Classification
Type of Phenomenon Connections
In Branch
Source Satisfaction paradox, Wikipedia
Sources
1. Satisfaction paradox, Wikipedia
Lead section
The satisfaction paradox is an empirical phenomenon in quality-of-life research, describing how objectively negative life circumstances have relatively little impact on an individual's subjective well-being.
References, note 1
Likely republished from Herschbach, Peter (2002).
In Branch: Cognitive Psychology, Categories
Wikipedia article 'Satisfaction paradox' is filed under Category:Cognitive biases.
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.