Imitative Obesity Imitative Obesity EEA Conference in Milan EEA Conference in Milan Sunday 31 August 2008 Sunday 31 August 2008 David G. David G. Blanchflower Blanchflower Dartmouth College; Bank of England; Dartmouth College; Bank of England; and NBER and NBER Andrew J. Oswald Andrew J. Oswald University of Warwick University of Warwick Bert Van Bert Van Landeghem Landeghem
52
Embed
Imitative Obesity EEA Conference in Milan Sunday 31 August 2008 David G. Blanchflower Dartmouth College; Bank of England; and NBER Andrew J. Oswald University.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Imitative ObesityImitative Obesity
EEA Conference in MilanEEA Conference in Milan
Sunday 31 August 2008Sunday 31 August 2008
David G. BlanchflowerDavid G. BlanchflowerDartmouth College; Bank of England; and NBERDartmouth College; Bank of England; and NBER
Andrew J. OswaldAndrew J. OswaldUniversity of WarwickUniversity of Warwick
Bert Van LandeghemBert Van LandeghemUniversity of LeuvenUniversity of Leuven
We would like to understand the rise in obesity in the western (and other) nations.
Why have weights gone up?
Why have weights gone up?
And
Can we explain the puzzle of over-eating and anorexia emerging at the same time?
People’s utilities may depend, in poorly understood ways, on relative weight.
If so, comparison effects can in principle create ‘obesity spirals’..
.. while those with convex utility get thinner.
In the data, we find:
• perceptions do depend on others’ BMI
• dieting is correlated with relative weight
• some evidence that others’ weights affect life-satisfaction.
First: some background.
Economics is changing
Researchers are studying mental well-being.
We are drawing closer to psychology and medicine.
There is evidence in Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium that mental strain is increasing.
• Verhaak, P.F.M., Hoeymans, N. and Westert, G.P. (2005). ‘Mental health in the Dutch population and in general practice: 1987-2001’, British Journal of General Practice, vol. 55, pp.770-775.
• Hodiamont, P.P.G., Rijnders, C.A.T., Mulder, J. and Furer, J.W. (2005). ‘Psychiatric disorders in a Dutch Health Area: a repeated cross-sectional survey.’ Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 84, pp.77-83.
Consider weight and well-being.
In work on BHPS with Nick Powdthavee
In work on BHPS with Nick Powdthavee
.. we find that BMI enters negatively in regressions for
Life satisfactionHappinessWell-being measured by GHQ
Oswald-Powdthavee “Obesity, Unhappiness and the Challenge of Affluence: Theory and Evidence”, Economic Journal, 2007.
So again…
then why have people’s weights risen?
• Christakis, N. A. and J. H. Fowler "The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years." New England Journal of Medicine, 2007.
• Clark, A.E. and A.J. Oswald "Comparison-concave utility and following behaviour in social and economic settings", Journal of Public Economics, 1998
Thinking how imitation could work
Thinking how imitation could work
Using proxy utility data, say, could we show that..?
Happiness = f(BMI relative to others’ BMI, controls)
If so, and utility is concave in relative position, it is rational for people to emulate each other.
A general point about the mathematics of imitation
A general point about the mathematics of imitation
Caring about relative things is not sufficient to give us Keeping up with the Joneses.
What matters is the sign of the second derivative of the utility function with respect to status.
Concavity leads to imitation.
Convexity produces deviance.
A general point about the mathematics of imitation
Say a person is choosing an action a to solve:
Maximize v(a – a*) – c(a)
where a* is what everyone else is doing.
But then if v(.) is concave (convex) in status, it is rational to act similarly to (deviantly from) the herd.
Status may come from rank
• Assume the person rationally chooses body weight. He or she picks b to maximize
s.t.
where r is ordinal rank in the slimness distribution in society, v(r) is the utility from that rank, u(b) is the direct benefit from high body weight, and a constant c is the marginal cost of body weight.
cbbrvbuV ))(()(
b
b
dxxfbr )()(
Empirically, is utility convex or concave in status?
Empirically, is utility convex or concave in status?
• Decreasing effect in age, particularly for women.
• The most highly educated Europeans are more likely to view themselves as overweight
• BMI enters with an inverted U-shape with a turning point around 50
Table 4. Table 4. DisDissatisfaction with weight and dieting - satisfaction with weight and dieting - 19961996
• Here are some statements. For each of these, please tell me if you agree strongly, agree slightly, disagree slightly or disagree strongly?
1) I am very satisfied with my body weight. Agree strongly=1 … disagree strongly=5
2) Over the last 12 months, have you been on a diet, or not?
• 24% of women and 13% of men had been on a diet
Table 5. Table 5. DisDissatisfaction with weight - ordered logitsatisfaction with weight - ordered logit
Male Female
BMI .2387* .6065
BMI2 .0005* -.0072
Relative BMI -.7220* 1.2250
N 7,245 7035
* Coefficient insignificantly different from zero
Table 5. Table 5. DisDissatisfaction with weight – relative BMIsatisfaction with weight – relative BMI
• Among Europe’s females, a high value of relative BMI is a predictor of those who say they are dissatisfied
• Highly educated people are more likely, ceteris paribus, to be dissatisfied with their weight.
Table 5. Recently been on a diet - dprobitTable 5. Recently been on a diet - dprobit
Male Female
BMI .0176 .0239
BMI2 -.0001 -.0004
Relative BMI .1595 .6001
N 7,251 7,045
* Coefficient insignificantly different from zero
Is there longitudinal evidence?
German Socio-Economic PanelGerman Socio-Economic Panel
• The GSOEP is a representative longitudinal study of private households.
• The panel was started in 1984. In June 1990 the GSOEP was extended to the GDR.
• There are 20,229 observations for 2002, 18,913 for 2004 and 20,704 for 2006.
Fixed effect models using GSOEPFixed effect models using GSOEP
• Table 8 gives non-linear impact of BMI using OLS
• Inverted U-shape in BMI
• Also present in the fixed effects
Fixed effect models using GSOEP – relative BMIFixed effect models using GSOEP – relative BMI
• Table 9 includes log of BMI
• It also includes log of the average BMI by 16 federal states and 3 year cells
• Log BMI in the fixed effects is insignificant for women and positive for men
• The coefficient on Log Average BMI is significant for men. The result implies that, after differencing out person-effects, life satisfaction is higher among those men who live in an area populated by fatter individuals
Others’ weight affects well-being
Summing up
Conclusions - 1Conclusions - 1
• It may be that people’s utility functions contain relative BMI.
• If so, this is consistent, under certain conditions, with the idea of obesity imitation or contagion.
• One third of Europe’s population think of themselves as overweight.
Conclusions - 2Conclusions - 2
• There is a negative relationship between BMI and happiness in cross-sections.
• For German males, in a fixed-effects framework, life satisfaction is greater among those who live in places where other people tend to be fatter.
• Consistent with Christakis and Fowler, weight comparisons seem to matter.