The Longitudinal Effect of Pre-war Investments in Hedonic Capital on Wartime Well-Being
- Open Access
- 01.01.2025
- Research Paper
Erschienen in:
Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden. powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden. powered by (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)
Abstract
1 Introduction
War and terror attacks are examples of unexpected exogenous shocks, which are presumed to harm individuals’ well-being. This paper focuses on individual’s evaluations of their subjective well-being (SWB) and seeks to empirically probe two questions: first, how are the various components of SWB affected by such shocks? Do wars influence both the affective component—negative and positive emotions—which tend to fluctuate (Frijda, 1999), and the more stable components—global life evaluation and meaning in life (Diener et al., 2006, 2013; Steger & Kashdan, 2007)? Literature provides evidence regarding the effects of COVID-19 (Greyling & Rossouw, 2024; Shavit et al., 2021) and wars and terror attacks (Kurapov et al., 2023; Lahav et al., 2019; Lerner et al., 2003; Limone et al., 2022; Shahrabani et al., 2009) but, to the best of our knowledge, there is lack in longitudinal evidence for people’s emotional reactions before and during an ongoing war.
Second, what protects people’s SWB in wartime? More specifically, what pre-war actions can be undertaken to support better emotional coping during wartime, and what wartime activities should be avoided to mitigate the harm to well-being? In general, fluctuations in emotions can influence people’s well-being by disrupting both their sense of identity and coherence in the world, and their relationships and interactions with others (Frijda, 1999). Understanding people’s emotional reactions is critical for individuals, businesses, and society due to the objective benefits of SWB.1 Identifying the factors that support wartime well-being would, therefore, enable better recovery at both the micro and macro levels of the economy.
Anzeige
Non-pecuniary capital is one of these factors. Psychological research has established that resource-rich people, who possess assets that either have value as an end or serve as a means to obtain valued ends, are less likely to be affected by stressful circumstances (see review by Hobfoll, 2002). In economics, Graham and Oswald (2010) suggest that accumulating hedonic capital, “a stock of psychological resources available to an individual, such as social relationships with partners, friends and colleagues; health, self-esteem; status; religious faith and meaningful work” (p. 373) supports high psychological resilience. Literature confirms that some forms of hedonic capital, e.g., social support and religious faith, promote psychological resilience in times of unexpected shocks such as COVID-19 and floods (Cherry et al., 2023; Delhey et al., 2023; Tindle et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). To possess productive capital, people must invest scarce resources, such as effort, attention, and time. The lack of empirical evidence for the longitudinal effect on emotional reactions in wartime is very relevant with regards to the influance of pre-war investments in hedonic capital.
The Iron Swords Wars erupted on October 7, 2023, following an attack by Hamas, the most devastating shock to Israel since its establishment. The attacks left more than 1200 Israeli and foreign citizens dead, and Hamas abducted more than 200 individuals, including many elderly people and young children, to Gaza.2 In the fourth week of the war, we asked 1954 adults, ages 27–67, to participate in a survey about various components of their SWB as well as their anxiety and fear and objective questions about the impact of the war on their life. All of the participants had previously completed the survey prior to the war (Sherman & Shavit, 2023). In the first wave, they reported their level of religiosity and subjective assessments of effort in six life domains, work, leisure, friends, community, health, and work-life balance (Sherman & Shavit, 2023). A total of 1189 participants completed the survey, and passed the attention checks, enabling us to analyze the causal effect of pre-war hedonic capital investments on wartime emotional reactions. The research considers the negative effect of unmet expectations on individuals’ SWB in wartime (Schwandt, 2016).
The next section includes the literature review and hypotheses, followed by a description of the method. Then follows a presentation of the empirical results, including robustness check, and our conclusions.
2 Related Literature and Hypotheses
It has been shown that wars and terrorist attacks profoundly affect people’s psychological well-being (e.g., Kurapov et al., 2023; Lahav et al., 2019; Lerner et al., 2003; Limone et al., 2022; Shahrabani et al., 2009). The current study focuses on the concept of SWB, “a broad category of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfaction” (Diener et al., 1999, p. 277). There are three major components to SWB: global life evaluations (the cognitive component), negative/positive affect (the affective component), and meaning (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2013; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Schimmack, 2008). The latter encompasses both cognitive and emotional aspects of an individual’s sense of coherence, significance, and purpose in life (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2013; Martela & Steger, 2016).
Anzeige
Although SWB’s components are related, “they are empirically separable and must be studied individually to gain a complete picture of overall subjective well-being” (Diener & Lucas, 1999, p. 213). The affective component is the least stable. Both negative and positive emotions are expected to fluctuate “in the guise of a perceived property of events or stimulus objects (‘pleasant stimulus,’ ‘horrible sight,’ ‘shocking news’)” (Frijda, 1999, p. 194), or in response to health concerns, income instability and increased mortality. Findings on the Israeli experience during the first wave of COVID-19 confirm such emotional responses (Lahav et al., 2024; Shavit et al., 2021).3 Since our data allows us to compare pre- and during-war emotions, our first hypothesis is:
H1:
The affective component of SWB deteriorates profoundly in wartime compared to pre-war emotions.
In respect to global life evaluations and meaning, the literature addresses two competing predictions regarding their stability over time (Diener et al., 2006). Global life evaluations are expected to drop because they “reliably and validly reflect authentic differences in the ways people evaluate their lives, and the scores move in expected ways to changes in people’s circumstances” (Diener et al., 2013, p. 507). In contrast, adaptation mechanisms would be expected to maintain pre-crisis levels. Hedonic adaptation (e.g., Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999), or, metaphorically, the hedonic treadmill (Brickman & Campbell, 1971) suggests that positive and negative events temporarily affect SWB, but people adapt quickly and return to hedonic neutrality (see the discussion in Diener et al., 2006).
Steger and Kashdan (2007) found that both life evaluation and meaning in life appeared moderately stable over one year. Krause and Hayward (2014) also found that meaning in life did not vary. Shavit et al. (2021) showed that life evaluations remained stable over three periods during the COVID-19 crisis: (1) a day before the first COVID-19 case was found; (2) during the first lockdown period when no exit strategy had been conveyed; and (3) when the exit strategy was publicized, and implementation began. However, that study analyzed three diverse groups (between subjects), while the current study analyzes the same people’s responses (within subjects).4 In a recent study, Greyling and Rossouw (2024) show that people return to their pre-shock (COVID-19 and Russian-Ukraine war) well-being levels.
On the basis of the international evidence discussed above, we hypothesize that the current shock does not profoundly affect cognitive components. Our second hypothesis is:
H2:
SWB cognitive components will remain stable, compared to pre-war assessments.
The essential inquiry regarding all SWB components concerns the factors that provide an emotional panacea in times of adverse exogenous shock. According to both economists and psychologists, it is a non-pecuniary form of capital (Graham & Oswald, 2010; Hobfoll, 2002). Resource-rich people are “less likely to encounter stressful circumstances that negatively affect psychological and physical well-being,” and “are more capable of solving the problems inherent in stressful circumstances.” Moreover, they are “less negatively affected by the resource drain or loss that occurs in the face of stressful conditions. This allows them to substitute resources for those lost or simply absorb the loss with the ability to call on further resource reserves,” and “the influence of resources is long term and tends not to be transient as with stress impact” (Hobfoll, 2002, pp. 318–319). Using economic terminology, Graham and Oswald (2010) predict that possession of hedonic capital promotes psychological resilience, and “can be used to smooth shocks” (p. 379). Empirical findings demonstrate that in times of uncontrolled adverse shocks, e.g., wars, COVID-19 and floods, some types of hedonic capital, such as religious faith and social support, are correlated with improved SWB. (Cherry et al., 2023; Delhey et al., 2023; Fardin, 2020; Schnabel & Schieman, 2022; Tindle et al., 2022). However, none of these papers identified a causal effect of past investment in hedonic capital on shock time SWB.
Productive hedonic capital requires a person to function as an active producer (Stigler & Becker, 1977) who engages in extensive investment activities for the purpose of developing a “production function” or “technology” that converts scarce resources into capital (Graham & Oswald, 2010; Sherman & Shavit, 2018, 2023). Assuming a constant depreciation rate, this implies that pre-war reduced investments deteriorate hedonic capital productivity in wartime. The current paper’s focus is on the efforts allocated to several elements of hedonic capital that are essential for an individual’s SWB, including social relationships, health, active leisure, work per se, work-life balance, and religiosity (Clark et al., 2019; Dolan et al., 2008; Layard, 2005; Lee & Hwang, 2018; Sherman & Shavit, 2023). Our third hypothesis is:
H3:
Exerting effort in seven life domains—work, work-life-balance, friends, community, leisure, health, and religiosity—prior to war will positively affect individuals’ wartime SWB.
The literature suggests that under the threat of terrorism, individuals experience heightened fear and anxiety (Benzion et al., 2009; Lerner et al., 2003; Neria et al., 2006; Shahrabani et al., 2009). Such responses can potentially influence job performance (De Clercq et al., 2017; Raja et al., 2020; Toker et al., 2015) and economic behavior (Levy & Galili, 2006). Giordano and Lindström (2016) investigated the impact of the 2005 terror attack in London on well-being, utilizing the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) proposed by Goldberg and Blackwell (1970), which includes measures of anxiety. Their survey included participants who had responded to the 2003 survey, as a baseline for comparison. Among other variables, they measured social participation, which they defined as “individuals’ active (not passive) membership in local groups, organizations, or leisure activities” (p. 486). Such activities may represent investment of effort in friends and community, and in leisure time. Giordano and Lindström (2016) discovered that individuals with no social participation had a higher likelihood of experiencing lower GHQ-12 scores in 2005 compared to 2003. Additionally, they observed that those who were unemployed, perhaps because they did not exert effort to improve the intrinsic features related to their job (see discussion in Frey & Stutzer, 2010), were more likely to have lower GHQ-12 scores in 2005 compared to 2003. Social participation strengthens social ties and networks, which can aid in reducing negative responses to stressful events (Kawachi & Berkman, 2001). Other studies have also found that social integration can assist in coping with stress responses following terror attacks (Henrich & Shahar, 2008; Schwarzer et al., 2014; Shahar et al., 2009). Our fourth hypothesis is:
H4:
Exerting efforts in seven life domains—work, work-life-balance, friends, community, leisure, health, and religiosity—prior to war will help to reduce anxiety and fear related to the war.
3 Method
To examine our hypotheses, we administered a survey to 1954 participants who had previously participated in a survey in November 2021 (Sherman & Shavit, 2023). The online survey was conducted by the Israeli research survey company, the Midgam Project platform (e.g., Shavit et al., 2021; Sherman & Shavit, 2023; Sherman et al., 2021). This platform allows for the re-engagement of the same participants two years after an initial survey, providing an opportunity to pose identical questions in both routine and exceptional conditions. The questionnaire and methodology for this study were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Management and Economics Department at the Open University of Israel.5
3.1 Sample
The repeat survey was conducted from October 29 to November 1, 2023 (during the fourth week of the war). The participants provided their consent through an informed consent form and acknowledged their right to discontinue the survey at any stage. They were informed that their responses would be kept confidential and only used for research purposes. The survey included two attention-checking questions that required respondents to provide specific answers.6 Of those who began the questionnaire (1549 out of 1954), 297 participants did not complete the survey, and 63 participants did not answer one or both of the attention check questions correctly and were removed from the sample. Therefore, our inclusion criterion was participation in the November 2021 survey, while the exclusion criteria were correct answers to both attention checks and completion of the survey. Only those who completed the survey and answered all the questions received payment. In total, 1189 fully completed surveys were used.
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Effort
The current study used the same set of questions regarding effort as in the pre-war survey (Sherman & Shavit, 2023). The use of a scale for participants’ subjective assessment of their own efforts is based on Sheldon et al. (2010), Waterman (2005) and Waterman et al. (2008).
Participants were prompted to provide subjective assessments of their recent effort across six domains: work, work-life balance, leisure, community, friends, and health. (Refer to online supplement, Section S1, for the specific questions that were presented, in random order.) The participants were asked to answer on a scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (agree very strongly).7
3.2.2 Subjective Well-Being
We employed the same three components of SWB as in the preceding survey, outlined as follows (see online supplement, Section S2, for the specific questions that were presented, in random order):
Cognitive component Present-life evaluation was measured on a scale ranging from 0 (worst possible life) to 10 (best possible life), aligning with the methodology in the World Happiness Report 2023 (Diener et al., 2010, 2013; Helliwell et al., 2023).
Meaning in life Engagement in meaningful activities in the present was measured on a scale from 0 (not meaningful at all) to 10 (very meaningful)8 (see Barokas et al., 2022; Dolan, 2014; Sherman & Axelrad, 2021).
Affective component We inquired about positive and negative emotions experienced in the present, considering the short-term nature of emotions based on the Office for National Statistics (2015) and the World Happiness Report (2020) (see, Table 2.1 and Technical Box 1, page 22). For each emotion, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they experienced it during the previous day using a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely). The negative emotions were concern, sadness, depression, and anger. The positive emotions were enjoyment, smile/laughter, and exaltation.
3.2.3 Anxiety and Fear
Anxiety was measured using the Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire (Cardeña et al., 2000).9 Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they experienced five anxiety-related behaviors, presented in a random order (see online supplement, Section S3), on a scale from 1 (did not experience) to 7 (experienced very often). Fear was measured using three items from Lerner et al. (2003). Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they experienced the feelings on a scale from 1 (did not experience) to 7 (experienced very often) (see Online Supplement, Section S3). The pre-war survey did not inquire about anxiety and fear because it was conducted during a routine period, when there was no significant threat present.
3.2.4 Socio-Demographic and Other Factors
Participants were asked to provide socio-demographic details, including gender, age, income,10 education,11 number of children, relationship status and if they were working at the time of the survey. Additionally, we gathered information on their subjective health on a scale from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good), how religious12 they are on a four-point scale: 1 (non-religious), 2 (traditional) 3 (religious), 4 (ultra-orthodox) and financial satisfaction on a scale from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 7 (very satisfied). To control for events that happened in the time gap from the previous survey, we included a question about how events in the past 2 years, prior to the start of the war, had influenced their life satisfaction. These responses were recoded as: -1 (negative influence), 0 (did not influence), and 1 (positive influence). Those who answered that they were influenced were asked a follow-up question about the intensity of the influence on a scale from 1 (very low influence) to 7 (very high influence). The total effect of the past two years’ events was measured as the product of these measures, on a scale from − 7 (very negative influence) to 0 (no influence) to 7 (very high positive influence).
3.2.5 Personal Involvement in the War
To account for the impact of the war, we included relevant informative questions, based on Lahav et al. (2019), and additional questions relevant to the Iron Swords War (refer to Online Supplement, Section S4). These questions, presented in a random order, cover potential physical or economic damage, whether the respondent had left home due to the war, and if a secure space was available in their home. Additionally, we inquired about experiences with alarms, exposure to video clips of war-related atrocities, and changes in news consumption. We also inquired about military service during the war of the respondent, family members, or close friends. An additional subjective question asked them to rank the influence of the war on their daily routine, on a scale from 1 (not influenced at all) to 7 (highly influenced).
3.2.6 Data Analysis
An index variable for negative emotions was created using the average of the four relevant items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87). Similarly, an index variable for positive emotions was created using the average of the three relevant items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86). The index variables for anxiety and fear were created using the average of the five or three, respectively, relevant items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89 for both anxiety and fear). Two variables were constructed to measure the level of optimistic expectations. These are marked as OpEx (an abbreviation for optimistic expectations). The variables SWB_OpEx1 and Meaning_OpEx1 were constructed by deducting present level of life evaluation/meaning in the pre-war survey from anticipated future life evaluation /meaning (refer to Online Supplement, Section S2) in the pre-war survey, in the range from − 10 (very pessimistic expectations) to 10 (very optimistic expectations). In the pre-war survey, these variables measure the level of optimistic expectations regarding life evaluation and meaning.
To measure the impact of the war, optimistic expectations, and past investment in hedonic capital on life evaluation and meaning, we estimated the following multivariate equation with ordinary least squares (OLS)13:in which, i is an individual and the survey timing is represented by 1 (pre-war) or 2 (during war). Yi2 represents participant i’s current evaluation of life and current meaning in time 2; OpExi1 represents participant i’s level of optimistic expectations of life evaluation or meaning in time 1. Effort’i1 is a vector of the effort variables in time 1; Religiosityi1 represents participants religiosity levels in time 1; X’i2 is a vector of individual i’s characteristics in time 2, which includes both sociodemographic and questions related to personal involvement in the war, while ɛi is an error term. We also estimated the following shortened version of Eq. (1):
$$ Y_{i2} = \, \alpha_{0} + \, \alpha_{1} OpEx_{i1} + \, \alpha_{2} Effort^{\prime}_{i1} + \, \alpha_{3} Religiosity_{i1} + \, \alpha_{4} X^{\prime}_{i2} + \varepsilon_{i} , $$
(1)
$$ Y_{i2} = \, \alpha_{0} + \, \alpha_{1} Effort^{\prime}_{i1} + \, \alpha_{2} Religiosity_{i1} + \, \alpha_{3} X^{\prime}_{i2} + \, \varepsilon_{i} , $$
(2)
In Eq. (2) Yi2 represents participant i’s positive emotions, negative emotions, fear and anxiety during the war. Finally, for the difference-in-differences model we estimated the following multivariate equation with pooled OLS:in which Yi1 represents participant i’s life evaluation, meaning, positive emotions or negative emotions, War is the time dummy variable (0 = pre-war; 1 = during war), Religiosity is an ordered variable for religious affiliation of participant i, War_x_Religiosityi is the interaction term (the difference-in-differences estimator); Z’i is a vector of individual i’s characteristics, which includes sociodemographic factors that were estimated in both surveys, but excludes questions related to personal involvement in the war because they are only relevant in time 2; ɛi is an error term, clustered at the individual level.
$$ Y_{i} = \, \alpha_{0} + \, \alpha_{1} War + \, \alpha_{2} Religiosity_{i} + \, \alpha_{3} War\_x\_Religiosity_{i} + \, \alpha_{4} Z^{\prime}_{i} + \, \varepsilon_{i} , $$
(3)
The statistical analysis was performed using Stata 18 (StataCorp., 2023). P values lower than 0.05 were considered significant.
4 Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Of the participants, 49.95% were male, 78.97% had children, and the mean age was 47.5 (SD = 11.12) years (ranging from 27 to 67). Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviation of the main measures.
Table 1
Mean (Standard deviation) of the main measures before and during the war
Survey time 1 | Survey time 2 | T-test, sig’ between time 1 and time 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Well-being | |||
Evaluation of life | 7.00 (1.69) | 6.33 (1.84) | t(1188) = 13.06 sig’ < 0.01 |
Meaning | 6.79 (2.22) | 6.6 (2.24) | t(1188) = 3.44 sig’ < 0.01 |
Positive emotions | 5.17 (2.38) | 3.85 (2.41) | t(1188) = 17.20 sig’ < 0.01 |
Negative emotions | 2.34 (2.27) | 4.35 (2.57) | t(1188) = -24.41 sig’ < 0.01 |
Effort | |||
Effort of managing work-life-balance (WLB) | 4.70 (1.50) | 4.19 (1.62) | t(1188) = 9.30 sig’ < 0.01 |
Effort nonstandard work | 3.90 (1.67) | 3.45 (1.66) | t(1188) = 8.36 sig’ < 0.01 |
Effort leisure activities | 3.86 (1.56) | 3.23 (1.56) | t(1188) = 11.73 sig’ < 0.01 |
Effort community | 2.92 (1.66) | 3.51 (1.70) | t(1188) = -12.04 sig’ < 0.01 |
Effort friends | 3.73 (1.57) | 3.78 (1.60) | t(1188) = -1.00 sig’ = 0.32 |
Effort health | 4.56 (1.58) | 4.20 (1.66) | t(1,188) = 6.91 sig’ < 0.01 |
Health and religiosity | |||
Self-rated health | 4.09 (0.80) | 4.06 (0.79) | t(1188) = 1.8 sig’ = 0.07 |
Religiosity | 1.77 (1.01) | 1.76 (1.00) | t(1188) = 1.65 sig’ = 0.10 |
Table 1 clearly shows that the war had a significant impact on people’s average SWB. Evaluation of life decreased by 9.6%14; meaning in life decreased by 2.8%, the value of positive emotions decreased by 25.5%, and the value of negative emotions increased by 85.9%. In addition, Table 1 shows opposing trends with regards to the effort types. On one hand there is a reduction in the average level of effort in WLB (− 10.9%), nonstandard work (− 11.5%), leisure activities (− 16.3%), and health maintenance (− 7.9%). On the other hand, there is an increase in the average effort in community (20.2%) and no significant change in the average effort in friends. The reduction in the level of health maintenance is not exhibited in the self-rated health which does not change due to the war, as with religiosity. Correlation analysis (see Appendix A) shows a high correlation between negative emotions and fear and anxiety (r > 0.6). The results also reveal that efforts before the war are positively correlated with SWB measures during the war. As expected, religiosity and subjective health have significant correlations with all SWB measures.
4.2 Regression Analysis
Table 2 shows the results of a regression analysis based on Eq. (1) in columns 1–2, and on Eq. (2) in columns 3–6.
Table 2
Regression Analysis SWB, Fear and Anxiety in Wartime
Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Life evaluation today2 | Meaning today2 | Negative emotions2 | Positive emotions2 | Fear2 | Anxiety 2 | |
SWB_OpEx1 | − 0.11** | |||||
(0.03) | ||||||
Meaning_OpEx1 | − 0.15*** | |||||
(0.04) | ||||||
Effort of managing WLB1 | − 0.01 | 0.02 | − 0.06 | − 0.06 | − 0.02 | − 0.05 |
(0.03) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Effort nonstandard work1 | 0.02 | 0.12** | − 0.04 | 0.09* | − 0.01 | − 0.00 |
(0.03) | (0.04) | (0.05) | (0.04) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Effort leisure activities1 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.08 | − 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
(0.04) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Effort community1 | − 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.13** | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
(0.04) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Effort friends1 | 0.04 | 0.09 | − 0.00 | 0.15** | − 0.03 | − 0.03 |
(0.04) | (0.05) | (0.06) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Effort health1 | 0.04 | 0.10* | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
(0.03) | (0.04) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Religiosity1 | 0.17*** | 0.38*** | − 0.43*** | 0.55*** | − 0.25*** | − 0.19*** |
(0.05) | (0.06) | (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
Age2 | − 0.01 | − 0.08 | 0.05 | − 0.02 | 0.00 | − 0.01 |
(0.04) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
(Age2)2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | − 0.00 | 0.00 | − 0.00 | − 0.00 |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
Gender2 (1-male, 0-female) | 0.04 | − 0.18 | − 1.18*** | 0.39** | − 1.18*** | − 0.92*** |
(0.09) | (0.11) | (0.14) | (0.13) | (0.09) | (0.09) | |
In relationship2 (1-yes) | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.34 | − 0.01 | 0.00 | − 0.01 |
(0.14) | (0.17) | (0.19) | (0.18) | (0.13) | (0.12) | |
Children2 (1-yes) | 0.07 | 0.55** | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.26 | 0.18 |
(0.15) | (0.18) | (0.20) | (0.19) | (0.13) | (0.12) | |
Education2 | − 0.03 | − 0.03 | 0.09 | − 0.10 | − 0.04 | 0.01 |
(0.04) | (0.05) | (0.06) | (0.06) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
Self-rated health2 | 0.31*** | 0.29** | − 0.32*** | 0.32*** | − 0.22*** | − 0.33*** |
(0.07) | (0.09) | (0.10) | (0.08) | (0.06) | (0.06) | |
Financial satisfaction2 | 0.31*** | 0.30*** | − 0.02 | 0.17*** | − 0.06* | − 0.06* |
(0.04) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Past 2 years events | 0.10*** | 0.11*** | − 0.08*** | 0.06*** | − 0.02 | − 0.02* |
(0.01) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
Me or family physically hurt (1-yes) | − 0.47* | − 0.12 | 0.76** | − 0.33 | 0.45** | 0.55*** |
(0.22) | (0.23) | (0.27) | (0.24) | (0.17) | (0.16) | |
Friends physically hurt (1-yes) | − 0.03 | 0.31* | 0.10 | − 0.20 | − 0.09 | − 0.08 |
(0.15) | (0.15) | (0.18) | (0.18) | (0.11) | (0.11) | |
Me or family financially hurt (1-yes) | − 0.02 | − 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.14 |
(0.11) | (0.13) | (0.16) | (0.14) | (0.10) | (0.10) | |
Left home (1-yes) | − 0.20 | − 0.15 | 0.48* | − 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.23 |
(0.19) | (0.27) | (0.23) | (0.24) | (0.16) | (0.16) | |
I work now (1-yes) | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.21 | − 0.18 | 0.08 | − 0.07 |
(0.14) | (0.17) | (0.20) | (0.18) | (0.12) | (0.12) | |
Shelter (1-yes) | − 0.02 | − 0.10 | − 0.17 | − 0.17 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
(0.12) | (0.14) | (0.16) | (0.15) | (0.10) | (0.10) | |
Alarms | − 0.11* | 0.04 | 0.19** | − 0.04 | 0.10* | 0.14*** |
(0.05) | (0.05) | (0.07) | (0.06) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
Atrocities clips | − 0.01 | − 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.10** |
(0.04) | (0.05) | (0.06) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
News | − 0.06* | − 0.04 | 0.08* | − 0.10* | 0.04 | 0.03 |
(0.03) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.03) | (0.02) | |
Volunteer | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
(0.05) | (0.05) | (0.06) | (0.06) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
In army (1-Yes) | 0.04 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.72** | − 0.05 | − 0.03 |
(0.22) | (0.24) | (0.28) | (0.27) | (0.16) | (0.16) | |
Family in army (1-yes) | − 0.35*** | − 0.34** | − 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.13 |
(0.10) | (0.12) | (0.15) | (0.14) | (0.09) | (0.09) | |
Friends in army (1-yes) | 0.14 | − 0.03 | 0.17 | − 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
(0.10) | (0.13) | (0.15) | (0.14) | (0.10) | (0.09) | |
Routine influenced | − 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.33*** | − 0.20*** | 0.27*** | 0.27*** |
(0.03) | (0.04) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Constant | 4.18*** | 3.07* | 1.51 | 2.65* | 3.76*** | 4.09*** |
(1.07) | (1.27) | (1.36) | (1.33) | (0.92) | (0.89) | |
Observations | 1189 | 1189 | 1189 | 1189 | 1189 | 1189 |
R-squared | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.34 |
F | 16.49 | 17.39 | 16.92 | 14.39 | 24.65 | 26.59 |
Sig’ | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Table 2 shows several results: first, optimistic expectations before the war are negatively correlated with life evaluation and meaning in life during the war. Second, pre-war efforts associate with wartime SWB. Pre-war efforts in work per se positively associate with meaning and with positive emotions, whereas pre-war community efforts positively associate with negative emotions. Pre-war friend efforts positively associate with positive emotions, and health efforts positively associate with wartime meaning. Beside efforts, pre-war religiosity was found to associate with all SWB measures (positively with evaluation of life, meaning and positive emotion and negatively with negative emotions), and negatively with fear and anxiety. Moreover, the results show that subjective health and financial satisfaction are correlated, as expected, with people’s SWB (e.g., Dolan et al., 2008) and with fear and anxiety. Females report stronger emotional reactions than males.
Our main results are robust to the effect of unique control factors. For example, the potential influence of events in the two years between survey 1 and survey 2 is captured by the positive correlation of past 2 years events with all components of SWB. Those who indicate a negative (positive) effect on life satisfaction show lower (higher) SWB. Respondents who experience a greater influence of war on their day-to-day routine tend to exhibit stronger emotional reactions, characterized by heightened negative emotions, fear and anxiety, as well as diminished positive emotions. Regarding objective war-related factors, such as family physical hurt, alarms and family member service in the army, the results indicate logical correlations with SWB and with fear and anxiety. Moreover, exposure to clips showing atrocities and news consumption were found to be negatively correlated with people’s well-being.
4.3 Robustness Check
We ran a difference-in-differences regression analysis for religiosity, based on the estimation of Eq. (3). The estimation does not include questions related to personal involvement in the war because they are only relevant in time 2. The results that are presented in Table 3 exclude participants with a change in religiosity level between the two surveys (5.05% of the participants).
Table 3
Difference-in-differences regression analysis for religiosity
Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Life Evaluation today | Meaning in life today | Positive emotions | Negative emotions | |
War | − 0.76*** | − 0.47*** | − 2.21*** | 2.99*** |
(0.11) | (0.11) | (0.16) | (0.17) | |
Religiosity | 0.14** | 0.26*** | 0.15* | − 0.05 |
(0.05) | (0.06) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
war_X_religiosity | 0.06 | 0.15** | 0.51*** | − 0.55*** |
(0.06) | (0.05) | (0.08) | (0.08) | |
Age | − 0.02 | − 0.11* | − 0.05 | 0.05 |
(0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
Age2 | 0.00 | 0.00** | 0.00 | − 0.00 |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
Gender (1-male, 0-female) | − 0.08 | − 0.27* | 0.20 | − 0.75*** |
(0.08) | (0.11) | (0.11) | (0.11) | |
In relationship (1-yes) | 0.27* | 0.32* | 0.16 | − 0.02 |
(0.11) | (0.16) | (0.15) | (0.15) | |
Children (1-yes) | 0.21 | 0.74*** | 0.09 | 0.11 |
(0.12) | (0.17) | (0.16) | (0.17) | |
Education | − 0.03 | 0.07 | − 0.05 | 0.08 |
(0.03) | (0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
Self-rated health | 0.45*** | 0.40*** | 0.35*** | − 0.52*** |
(0.05) | (0.08) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
Financial satisfaction | 0.38*** | 0.34*** | 0.29*** | − 0.15*** |
(0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.03) | |
Constant | 3.29*** | 4.26*** | 3.22** | 4.72*** |
(0.76) | (1.06) | (1.00) | (0.99) | |
Observations | 2258 | 2258 | 2258 | 2258 |
R-squared | 0.26 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.25 |
F | 64.07 | 31.64 | 57.91 | 86.73 |
Sig’ | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
The results show that stronger religiosity is associated with higher life evaluation, meaning in life, and positive emotions. Except for life evaluation, higher religiosity is significantly correlated with lower deterioration in SWB in time of war. This is exhibited by the interaction which have reversed signs to the war variable. To summarize, the results empirically support H1 and H3; reject H2, and support H4 only for religiosity.
5 Discussion
This paper explores two questions regarding the recent Israel-Hamas war. First, how does an unexpected, adverse exogenous shock affect people’s well-being. Second, do and to what extent do pre-war investments in hedonic capital support emotional coping with such shocks? Analyzing longitudinal data on people’s emotional responses before and during the war provided answers to both inquiries. First, the results demonstrate that various components of SWB—global life evaluation, negative and positive emotions, and meaning in life—worsened. The affective component, as expected, deteriorated more profoundly than life evaluations and meaning. The decline in the latter factors implies that war is a type of shock that potentially moves people’s well-being away from a long-term equilibrium. The present data was collected while the war was still in progress and therefore, we are unable to analyze whether such deviations are short-term or permanent. Greyling and Rossouw (2024) show that people return to pre-shock well-being levels but if the change is permanent, this would suggest that some exogenous shocks can be powerful enough to cause a permanent shift in people’s indicators of well-being.
Regarding the second issue, the results show that productive hedonic capital can mitigate war’s adverse emotional effects. Some pre-war investments—efforts in six life domains and religiosity—affected wartime well-being. The basic idea being examined is that people who reported increased investments before the war possess a larger stock of hedonic capital in wartime, and therefore would be more resilient to the emotional damage of the war. The results support this idea. All efforts investigated, except those allocated to improving work-life balance and active leisure, were found to be associated with at least one component of SWB. The nonsignificant correlation of active leisure’s hedonic capital and work-life balance on wartime well-being suggests that neither is crucial during wartime. It seems that people find emotional support in other aspects of their lives, such as their health, friends, and meaningful work. Regarding community, we found a positive correlation with negative emotions, suggesting that those who invest higher effort in their community show higher negative emotions at the time of the war. A possible explanation is that these people are more emotionally connected to their community and the negative impact of the war on their community triggers stronger negative emotions.
Our results support the perspective that considers effort per se to be an essential ingredient for a meaningful and fulfilling life (see the review of both perspectives in Sherman & Shavit, 2023) and contrast with the perspectives that view effort as a cost or disutility. A strong causal effect was found in respect to religiosity. Higher religiosity significantly protected all measures of SWB. This novel result was obtained in both OLS and pooled OLS Difference-in-Differences analysis.
Fear and anxiety are expected to be strongly affected by war and terror (e.g., Lerner et al., 2003; Neria et al., 2006). We hypothesized that pre-war investments in hedonic capital would be associated with lower intensity of these factors. However, apart from religiosity, there was no correlation between pre-war efforts and fear and anxiety. The explanation may be the effect of the latter factors on the allocation of efforts in wartime. The literature suggests that during periods of stress, individuals tend to safeguard their resources due to the fear of potential loss (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000). Particularly in the face of terror threats, individuals may allocate their resources towards coping with fear and anxiety (Raja et al., 2020). However, the fear and anxiety induced by such threats can also deplete emotional and psychological resources (De Clercq et al., 2017; Raja et al., 2020). Our findings indicate that individuals adjust their efforts during wartime compared to their prior efforts. There is a decrease in effort related to managing work-life balance, engaging in non-standard work, participating in leisure activities, and maintaining health. Effort related to maintaining friendships shows no significant change. Conversely, there is an increase in effort related to community involvement. It is plausible that individuals reallocate their efforts in response to threats as a means to cope with fear and anxiety, directing more effort towards community activities at the expense of other pursuits. This aligns with research indicating that social integration can aid in coping with stress following terror incidents (Henrich & Shahar, 2008; Schwarzer et al., 2014; Shahar et al., 2009).
Identifying the factors that support people’s emotional well-being is crucial for better recovery at both the micro and macro levels of the economy. Emotions affect behavior by forming preferences and goal setting (Frijda, 1999). Therefore, possessing productive hedonic capital in times of crisis should enhance emotional functioning, which would in turn affect the economy and society on multiple levels. Improved health is one of them, improved social connectivity is another, and increased labor productivity and business performance is another path that carries economic benefits for both employers and employees.
The data allows a better understanding of how to cope with objective impact of war, that the individual cannot control. For example, family members’ military service, physical injury to family members or alarms. Their negative effect on people’s well-being is out of their control, and therefore their impact is difficult to mitigate. However, the adverse effects of some war-related factors can be reduced, and people probably should learn how to do this. For example, news consumption was found to be negatively (positively) correlated with global life evaluation and positive (negative) emotions and watching video clips of atrocities significantly correlated with anxiety. It is already known that news consumption has unpleasant side effects (e.g., Boukes & Vliegenthart, 2017), but the current case adds the case of watching shocking news (i.e., clips of atrocities) on anxiety. Both are examples of behaviors that can be avoided. Putting a time limit on news consumption and totally avoiding watching clips of atrocities on social media are operative recommendations for maintaining well-being levels during times of crisis.
Our study has several limitations that warrant mention. Firstly, our sample is drawn from Israel, a nation accustomed to living under the constant threat of terrorism. While the Iron Swords War represents a significant departure from the constant threat of terrorism, Israeli individuals may possess a certain resilience to terror attacks, potentially influencing the impact of their hedonic capital on emotional responses. Future research could explore the role of hedonic capital in shaping emotions and subjective well-being during extreme events in various countries and societies. Secondly, our measurement of effort across six life domains was conducted prior to the onset of the war. It is conceivable that there are additional domains of effort which become more salient during times of conflict, such as efforts to defend oneself and loved ones. A third limitation is that respondents’ perception of effort before the war may differ from their perception during the war. For instance, community effort in peacetime might involve participating in local activities or volunteering, whereas during war, community effort might entail defending the community. Future research could delve into the different perceptions of effort during normal times compared to those during extreme events.
6 Conclusion
War is a devastating event for people’s well-being and overall welfare. Compared to prewar, longitudinal data indicate a drop in SWB affective component, as expected, as well as a decline in global life evaluation and meaning in life. Regression analysis demonstrated that prewar investments in hedonic capital could mitigate war’s adverse emotional effects. The strongest effect was found in religiosity. Pre-war religiosity longitudinally affected all war-time subjective well-being components including fear and anxiety.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge financial support from the Open University of Israel, research authority (Grant No. 103022). The authors declare no conflict of interest. The questionnaire and methodology for this study were approved by the research ethics committee of the Management and Economics Department of the Open University of Israel (ethics approval number: faculty 25-10-23). The data sets analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.