Cited by 96Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionHealth disparities and outcomesFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Comparing the Happiness Effects of Real and On-Line Friends

Open access
Helliwell, John F., Huang, Haifang·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

A recent large Canadian survey permits us to compare face-to-face ('real-life') and on-line social networks as sources of subjective well-being. The sample of 5,000 is drawn randomly from an on-line pool of respondents, a group well placed to have and value on-line friendships. We find three key results. First, the number of real-life friends is positively correlated with subjective well-being (SWB) even after controlling for income, demographic variables and personality differences. Doubling the number of friends in real life has an equivalent effect on well-being as a 50% increase in income. Second, the size of online networks is largely uncorrelated with subjective well-being. Third, we find that real-life friends are much more important for people who are single, divorced, separated or widowed than they are for people who are married or living with a partner. Findings from large international surveys (the European Social Surveys 2002-2008) are used to confirm the importance of real-life social networks to SWB; they also indicate a significantly smaller value of social networks to married or partnered couples.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0072754

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Frijters P (2004) How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Economic Journal 114: 641– 659.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H.
Affiliations
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Helliwell, John F.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-09-03
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
e72754
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2086335346
Cited by
96
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
subjective well-being, happiness, online friendship, social networks, social networking sites, marital status, income and well-being
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Happiness, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review