Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Aug 8.
Published in final edited form as: Am Econ Rev. 2013 May;103(3):591–597. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.3.591

Table 2.

Self-reported well-being and religiosity

Ladder Happiness
World: within
countries
β s.e. # obs β s.e. # obs
No income control 0.039 (0.006) 796,121 0.044 (0.002) 560,396
Log income control 0.073 (0.007) 595,630 0.049 (0.002) 469,846
Between countries
No income control −0.550 (0.428) 159 0.125 (0.072) 152
Income control (1) 0.264 (0.329) 159 0.186 (0.071) 152
Income control (2) −0.025 (0.334) 155 0.165 (0.071) 149
USA
Person level data 0.248 (0.004) 1,388,404 0.041 (0.0006) 1,391,165
Log income control 0.263 (0.004) 1,080,485 0.042 (0.0007) 1,081,420
State averages −0.059 (0.202) 51 0.022 (0.024) 51
Log income control 0.368 (0.188) 51 0.062 (0.025) 51

Notes: Regressions have either the ladder or happiness as the dependent variable, and we report the coefficient on religiosity. Regressions include controls for sex, age groups, and white/non-white (US only). Micro US regressions contain zipcode dummies, person level world regressions contain country dummies. In the bottom panel we show results for state averages: similar results were obtained for other levels of aggregation, with small or even negative effects without income controls, and positive, often significant, effects with income controls. Income control (1) uses the average of log income from the survey, while income control (2) uses the log of real chained GDP per capita in 2010 from the Penn World Table, Version 7.1.