The Personal Well-Being Index and
the Work of the International WellBeing Group (IWBG)
Presentation to Japanese General
Social Surveys (JGSS) Group, Osaka
School of Commerce
8-9 February 2013
Dr Dave Webb
University of Western Australia
dave.webb@uwa.edu.au
1
Acknowledgments
•I would like to thank Professor Robert
Cummins, Director of Australian Centre on
Quality of Life (ACQOL) and members of the
International Well-Being Group (IWBG) for
use of some of the materials included in this
presentation
•I would like to especially thank Professor
Noriko Iwai and staff of JGSS for inviting me
to Osaka
Acronyms seen today
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ACQOL = Australian Centre on Quality of Life
COMQOL = Comprehensive measure of QOL
IWBG = International wellbeing group
QOL = Quality of Life
SWB = Subjective wellbeing
PWI = Personal wellbeing index
NWI = National wellbeing index
NEO-PI-R = Neuroticism, Extraversion and
Openness to experience personal inventory
(revised)
3
Introduction
• Why measure SWB
• Introduction to PWI
– Development
– Current application
• Work of the IWBG
• Examples of current personal work
• Future research
– Collaboration opportunities
Subjective Well-Being
A positive state of mind that
involves the whole life
experience
Why should we measure it?
How do we measure it?
5
Prof Cummins 2012
Why should we measure SWB?
Happy citizens....(Lyubomirsky et al 2005)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Positive perceptions of self and others
Stronger creativity and problem solving
Work harder
Create more social capital
Healthier
Live longer
Better social relationships
More self-sufficient
PWI Development - History
Cummins 1995
• Many diverse instruments of SWB
– Many definitions
– 16 studies located adopting 14 diverse approaches
– Converted mean of 75.02%, SD 2.74
Cummins 1996
• Meta-analysis resulted in 173 dimensions with much
shared variance
• Further analysis reduced to 7 broad domains
(material well-being, health, productivity, intimacy,
safety, community and emotional well-being) =
7
COMQOL
8
PWI Development
• After several years COMQOL abandoned on
grounds of:
– Construct validity failure (item loadings)
– Conceptual: (Importance) X (satisfaction) fails
to explain variance beyond independent
measures and, importance adds no explained
variance beyond satisfaction
– 5-point and 7-point limit discriminative capacity
of respondents above point of neutrality
• COMQOL > PWI/NWI and Relationship between
Deakin University, Melbourne and Australian Unity
9
in 2001
“How satisfied are you with your --------?”
Personal
relationships
How people feel
about the
domain
Personal
Health
Standard of
living
How satisfied
people feel in
general
Spirituality/
Religion
1. An over-all average [Subjective
wellbeing]
2. A value for each domain that can
be used diagnostically as well as
potentially an input to policy
development
Life as
a whole
Achieving
in life
Community
connectedness
Safety
Future
security
10
Prof Cummins 2012
PWI = Eight questions of satisfaction with specific life domains.
How satisfied are you with…?
Domains
1. your standard of living? [Standard of Living]
2. your health? [Personal Health]
3. what you are achieving in life? [Achieving in Life]
4. your personal relationships? [Personal Relationships]
5. how safe you feel? [Personal Safety]
6. feeling part of your community? [Community-Connectedness]
7. your future security? [Future Security]
8. your spirituality or religion?¨ [Spirituality – Religion]
PLUS one overall:
How satisfied are you overall with your life?
11
[Jones and Thurstone 1955]
11-point, end-defined scale
How satisfied are you with your ----?
Completely
Dissatisfied
0
1
Completely
Satisfied
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100
0
Score * 100/(number of scale points – 1)
12
Prof Cummins 2012
National Wellbeing Index (NWI)
How satisfied are you with…?
•Economic situation
•Natural environment
•Social conditions
•Government
•Business
•National security
13
PWI & NWI Current situation
• Since 2001/2002 adopted in over 40
countries
• Translated in to more than 20 languages
• Reported on in more than 120 journal
articles
• Dedicated section to PWI in Prof Alex
Michalos Encyclopedia of QOL, Springer
publishing (2013)
14
Coverage
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ireland
Mexico
Croatia
Germany
Australia
Austria
Spain
Portugal
Columbia
• Argentina
• China (Hong Kong,
Macau, Tibet)
• Thailand
• New Zealand
• USA
• Canada
• India
• Algeria
• Iran
15
Coverage areas
• Measurement; development,
application and validation
• Conceptual & Theory-building
(homeostasis, itemisation and
face validity)
• Economy (wealth, income,
material, poverty, capitalism,
social class, work and job type
• Relationships (parental,
spousal, love, attachment,
belonging, loneliness)
• Consumers and business
interface
• Religion and spirituality
• Community living (aged and
young-persons)
• Community development
• Health (illness, care-giving,
mental and depression, stress,
yogic lifestyle, substance
abuse)
• Affect and mood states
• Crime and security
• Internet usage
• Ageing
16
Homeostasis and
Set Point Theory
17
Australian Unity Studies
• Since 2001 = 28 surveys on diverse
themes of life in Australia e.g., work, family
and relationships, threat of terrorism,
climate change and natural disasters,
personal health and finance, country living
• Sample = approximately n= 2,000 per
survey period across all regional states =
rich within country picture (Total n =
52,000 approximately)
18
19
Prof Cummins 2012
Personal Wellbeing Index
2001 - 2011
77
76.7
>S11
76
75
>S2, S4, S5
Scores above this line are
signif icantly higher than S1
Strength
of
satisfaction
74
73.7
Maximum = 76.3
Current = 75.9
Minimum = 73.2
73
Key:
a = September 11
b = Bali Bombing
c = Pre-Iraq War
d = Hussein Depose
e = Athens Olympics
f = Asian Tsunami
g = Second Bali Bombing
h = New IR Laws
i = Labor Government Elected
j = Stock market collapse
k = Fires and floods
l = Stock market recovery
n
S25 Apr 2011
S24 Sept 2010
m
S23 April 2010
S22 Sept 2009
l
S21 May 2009
S20.1 Feb 2009
k
S20 Oct 2008
S19 Apr 2008
j
S18.1 Feb 2008
S18 Oct 2007
S17 Apr 2007
i
S16 Oct 2006
h
S15 May 2006
S14 Oct 2005
g
S13 May 2005
f
S12 Aug 2004
S10 Feb 2004
S11 May 2004
e
S9 Nov 2003
d
S8 Aug 2003
c
S7 Jun 2003
S5 Nov 2002
S4 Aug 2002
b
S3 Mar 2002
S2 Sept 2001
S1 Apr 2001
Survey
Date
a
S6 Mar 2003
72
Major events
preceding survey
m = Labor government re-elected
n = Qld/Vic floods
20
Prof Cummins 2012
Personal Wellbeing Index
2001 - 2011
77
76.7
>S11
76
75
>S2, S4, S5
Scores above this line are
signif icantly higher than S1
Strength
of
satisfaction
74
73.7
This represents a 3.0 percentage point variation
Maximum = 76.3
Current = 75.9
Minimum = 73.2
73
Key:
a = September 11
b = Bali Bombing
c = Pre-Iraq War
d = Hussein Depose
e = Athens Olympics
f = Asian Tsunami
g = Second Bali Bombing
h = New IR Laws
i = Labor Government Elected
j = Stock market collapse
k = Fires and floods
l = Stock market recovery
n
S25 Apr 2011
S24 Sept 2010
m
S23 April 2010
S22 Sept 2009
l
S21 May 2009
S20.1 Feb 2009
k
S20 Oct 2008
S19 Apr 2008
j
S18.1 Feb 2008
S18 Oct 2007
S17 Apr 2007
i
S16 Oct 2006
h
S15 May 2006
S14 Oct 2005
g
S13 May 2005
f
S12 Aug 2004
S10 Feb 2004
S11 May 2004
e
S9 Nov 2003
d
S8 Aug 2003
c
S7 Jun 2003
S5 Nov 2002
S4 Aug 2002
b
S3 Mar 2002
S2 Sept 2001
S1 Apr 2001
Survey
Date
a
S6 Mar 2003
72
Major events
preceding survey
m = Labor government re-elected
n = Qld/Vic floods
21
Prof Cummins 2012
Normative range
using survey mean scores as data
(N=25 survey periods)
Very satisfied 100
90
Subjective
Wellbeing
80
76.4
70
73.4
60
50
Mean = 74.9
SD = 0.8
40
30
20
10
Very dissatisfied
0
22
Prof Cummins 2012
Why is SWB held so steady?
Homeostasis
Just like we hold body temperature
steady
• SWB Homeostasis is a management
system that acts to keep people feeling
normally positive about themself and
so resists change
23
Prof Cummins 2012
Each person has a set-point for
their SWB
90
These set-points
lie between
60 and 90
Range for
individual
set-points
60
Set-points are always POSITIVE
ie above 50
24
Prof Cummins 2012
Each person has a set-point for
their SWB
90
The average set-point
75
60
When nothing much is happening to them, people rate how
they feel about their life in terms of their set-point for SWB
Time
25
Prof Cummins 2012
Homeostasis can fail
Overwhelming
negative
challenges
Subjective
wellbeing
The potential result of SWB loss
is depression
26
Prof Cummins 2012
What determines whether we can defend
ourselves against homeostatic defeat?
Resilience
• It is the power to defend wellbeing
against sources of threat, such as
poverty, ill-health and other negative
life events
• It is a balance between personal
resources and the level of challenge
27
Prof Cummins 2012
SWB constantly under challenge, but is
well protected
Challenges
X
Subjective
Wellbeing
[normal]
External resources
(eg. Relationships,
Money)
28
http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=1165
Prof Cummins 2012
Income is an external resource that
enhances resilience
81
Total N ≈ 30,000
80
*
79
78.0
78
Subjective
wellbeing
77
76
*
75
*
78.3
*
76.5
76.3
74.9
Normal Range
73.9
74
79.2
73.0
73
72
71.7
71
<$15
$15-30
$31-60
$61-90
$91-120
$121-150
$150+
Median
Household Income ($'000)
29
Prof Cummins 2012
Internal resources
Challenges
X
External resources
(eg. relationships,
money)
Subjective
wellbeing
Internal resources
(eg. Finding meaning,
rationalising event)
• God is testing me
• It wasn’t my fault
• I didn’t need that vase
30
Prof Cummins 2012
The use of internal resources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_car_accident_blur.jpg
When we fail to control the world around us
(Primary Control failure)
we engage Secondary Control to protect SWB
“It wasn’t my fault” reasons (insert name here!)
31
Homeostasis failure
Bad
stuff
X
Internal resources
(eg. blaming
someone else)
X
Subjective
wellbeing
External resources
(eg. relationships,
money)
The result of subjective wellbeing loss is
depression
32
Prof Cummins 2012
Predictions for homeostasis
theory
1. The relationship between the strength of
challenge to homeostasis and SWB is nonlinear
2. The level of challenge to homeostasis is
cumulative over sources of stress
3. Of themselves, ill-health and disability only
weakly challenge homeostasis
4. Only the person concerned is qualified to
report on their own subjective wellbeing.
33
Prof Cummins 2012
Homeostasis can be challenged by:
 Chronic
pain (arthritis)
 Chronic
stress (informal carers)
 Lack
of intimacy
 Living
conditions (homelessness)
 Incarceration
 Poverty
 Lack
(prisoners)
(and loss of wealth)
of purpose in life
34
Prof Cummins 2012
So, what is the Relationship Between
negative events (stressors) and SWB?
High
SWB
?
Low
Very Weak
Very Strong
Stressor
35
Prof Cummins 2012
The Relationship Between Stress
and SWB
Dominant source of control
Homeostasis
DISTRESS
High
75
SWB
Threshold
Low
No stress
High stress
Stress
Level of environmental challenge
36
Prof Cummins 2012
Does the presence of a
medical condition
automatically mean low
SWB?
37
Prof Cummins 2012
Subjective Wellbeing is generally
insensitive to most medical conditions
80
78
76.3
SWB
Normative range
75.7
76
73.9
76.4
73.7
74
72
73.3
71.0
70
68
66
64.8
64
62
61.0
60
Blood
pressure
Diabetes
Heart
problems
Asthma
Arthritis
Depression
Anxiety
NB. The medical condition must be consciously experienced
as strongly aversive in order to affect subjective wellbeing
38
Prof Cummins 2012
Body Mass Index (PWI)
Underweight
Normal
Overweight
6.9%
N=499
42.0%
N=3044
35.6%
N=2575
77
75.3
Obese
11.2%
N=810
2.9%
N=207
0.8%
N=57
0.3
N=22
Mild
Moderate
Severe
Very severe
76.1
76.6
75.5
75
Normal Range
73.9
73.4
73
SWB
72.7
71
71.4
69
67
66.0
65
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
BMI
35-39
40-44
45-49
39
Prof Cummins 2012
The level of challenge to
homeostasis is cumulative
over sources of stress
40
Prof Cummins 2012
Household structure
Partner only
Strength
of
satisfaction
(PWI)
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
79.1
79.1
77.3
77.4
77.4
76.5
76.7
75.4
Normative Range
73.4
3.7 point change
<$15
$15-$30
$31-$60
$61-$90
$91-$120 $121-$150
Household Income ($'000)
$150+
41
Prof Cummins 2012
Household structure
Partner only
Strength
of
satisfaction
(PWI)
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
Partner & children
80.7
78.9
77.3
76.5
75.4
77.4
77.4
77.3
79.1
79.1
78.2
76.7
75.9
Normative Range
72.6
73.4
3.7 point change
70.3
10.4 point change
<$15
$15-$30
$31-$60
$61-$90
$91-$120 $121-$150
Household Income ($'000)
$150+
42
Prof Cummins 2012
Household structure
Partner only
Strength
of
satisfaction
(PWI)
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
Partner & children
Sole parent
80.7
78.9
77.3
76.5
75.4
77.4
77.4
77.3
76.3
75.9
79.1
79.1
78.2
76.7
Normative Range
74.5
72.6
73.4
70.1
70.3
69.6
12.2 point change
64.1
<$15
$15-$30
$31-$60
$61-$90
$91-$120 $121-$150
Household Income ($'000)
$150+
43
Prof Cummins 2012
Partner only
Strength
of
satisfaction
(PWI)
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
Partner & children
Sole parent
80.7
78.9
77.3
76.5
75.4
77.4
77.4
77.3
76.3
75.9
79.1
79.1
78.2
76.7
Normative Range
74.5
72.6
73.4
70.1
70.3
69.6
64.1
<$15
$15-$30
$31-$60
$61-$90
$91-$120 $121-$150
$150+
Household Income ($'000)
Conclusion: Sources of challenge are additive
44
Prof Cummins 2012
The Personal Well-Being Index and
the Work of the International WellBeing Group (IWBG)
45
The International wellbeing Index: A
psychometric progress report
Robert A. CUMMINS
Deakin University, Australia
Beatriz ARITA
Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Mexico
Sergiu BALTATESCU
University of Oradea, Romania
Jozef DZUKA
Presov University, SLOVAKIA
Ferran CASAS
University of Girona, Spain
Anna LAU
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Linda Luz GUERRERO
Social Weather Stations,Philippines
Gerard O'NEILL
Amárach Consulting, Ireland
Habib TILIOUINE
University of Oran, Algeria
Graciela TONON
Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora, Argentina
Annapia VERRI
Neurologic Institute C. Mondino and University of Pavia,Italy.
Joar VITTERSO
University of Tromso, Norway
46
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
This is an initiative of
the IWBG
AIM #1
To examine the relative
psychometric performance of a
standard SWB Index in different
cultural and language groups.
47
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
AIM #2
To get beyond simplistic (and
misleading) between-country
comparisons of SWB
To build understanding of WHY
countries differ in their SWB
48
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Sample Demographics and Method
Country
N
Males
Females
Age Range
Mean Age
Algeria
1,417
708
709
18 up
29
Argentina
476
160
316
18 up
82% < age group 48+
Australia
1897
931
966
18 up
49
Hong Kong
179
68
111
18 up
44
Italy
172
100
72
18-30
22
Ireland
994
491
503
15 up
37
Norway
427
184
243
18 up
48
Mexico
1170
556
614
18 up
*
Philippines
888
444
444
18 up
41
Romania
351
157
194
18 up
48
49
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Sample Demographics and Method
Country
Sample Demographics
Method
Response
Rate
Algeria
Recruited around colleges, Universities and
institutions
Questionnaire
and interview
n/a
Argentina
Randomly selected from general population
(approx. 30% small cities and rural areas)
Interview
public places
n/a
Australia
Randomly selected from general population
Telephone
interview
n/a
Hong
Kong
Recruited to age quota
Telephone
interview
n/a
Italy
College students
Interview
n/a
Ireland
Random/quota-controls
Interview
n/a
Norway
Randomly selected from general population
Postal survey
Mexico
Randomly selected from electoral role zones in the Interview
urban zone of Culiacan
Philippine
s
Random/general population
Interview
64%
Romania
Random/general population
Interview
50
70%
35%
n/a
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Two global constructs:
Satisfaction with Life as a Whole
Personal Wellbeing Index
“How satisfied are you with -------”
Satisfaction with Life in [country]
National Wellbeing Index
“How satisfied are you with -------”
1. your standard of living?
1. the economic situation in Algeria?
2. your health?
2. the state of the natural
environment in Italy?
3. what you achieve in life?
4. your personal relationships?
5. how safe you feel?
6. feeling part of your community?
7. your future security?
3. the social conditions in Spain?
4. Government in Romania?
5. business in Australia?
6. national security in Argentina?
51
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis
AUSTRALIA
Government
Business
Social
Environment
Economic
Nat. Security
Achievements
S2
Factor 1
S5
S6
.75
.75
.70
.69
.72
.63
.81
.77
.76
.73
.73
.61
.79
.77
.67
.69
.68
.70
Fut. Security
Standard
Relations
Safety
Community
Health
Eigen Values
% variance explained
Reliability
3.21
24.69
3.48
.82
4.53
-
S2
Factor 2
S5
S6
.69
.70
.67
.68
.74
.67
.52
.60
.57
3.03
23.30
.69
.67
.60
.58
.57
.48
2.92
.78
.62
.67
.62
.50
.58
.56
1.60
52
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis
1. All countries tested produce two clean factors (using an item-loading
cut-off score of .4
2. BUT, the factors emerge in different orders
First Factor
Second Factor
Factor
% of
variance
Factor
% of
variance
PWI
37.5
NWI
15.6
PWI
42.0
NWI
14.1
PWI
41.8
NWI
14.7
NWI
43.9
PWI
15.1
NWI
35.8
PWI
12.7
NWI
32.5
PWI
17.3
NWI
39.9
PWI
14.9
NWI
42.0
PWI
14.1
53
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
What causes one factor to be
stronger than the other?
The strongest factor will be the one with the largest variance
Factor 2
Factor 1
0
50
Satisfaction scale
100
54
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
SWB Homeostasis
Our SWB is actively managed by a
system that strives to maintain our
level of happiness close to its
genetically determined set-point.
Set-points lie within the positive sector of
the 0 – 100 range ie. between 60 - 90
55
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Proximal – Distal Dimension of homeostasis
Control
mechanism
Homeostasis
Cognition
HI
Strength of
Homeostatic
Control
LO
Proximal
(about me)
“My integrity”
Distal
(not at all about me)
“The Government”
“How satisfied are you with your -------”
56
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Why does the National Wellbeing
Index normally emerge first as the
strongest factor?
National wellbeing normally has the largest variance
Personal wellbeing: Factor 2
National wellbeing: Factor 1
0
50
Satisfaction scale
100
57
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
BUT
This will only apply if homeostasis is
effective.
In situations of homeostatic defeat, the
pattern will be reversed
Personal wellbeing: Factor 1
National wellbeing: Factor 2
0
50
Satisfaction scale
100
58
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Prediction
Variance
NWI > PWI
NWI : PWI
Hostile PWI > NWI
PWI : NWI
Benign
Environment
Factor order
Theory: The factor order can be diagnostic
of a hostile environment
59
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis
First Factor
Second Factor
Factor
% of
variance
Factor
% of
variance
PWI
37.5
NWI
15.6
PWI
42.0
NWI
14.1
PWI
41.8
NWI
14.7
NWI
43.9
PWI
15.1
NWI
35.8
PWI
12.7
NWI
32.5
PWI
17.3
NWI
39.9
PWI
14.9
NWI
42.0
PWI
14.1
60
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis
First Factor
Factor
% of
variance
PWI
Second Factor
Index
Factor
% of
variance
SD
37.5
NWI
15.6
P>N
PWI
42.0
NWI
14.1
P>N
PWI
41.8
NWI
14.7
P>N
NWI
43.9
PWI
15.1
N>P
NWI
35.8
PWI
12.7
N>P
NWI
32.5
PWI
17.3
N>P
NWI
39.9
PWI
14.9
N>P
NWI
42.0
PWI
14.1
N>P
61
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis
First Factor
Factor
% of
variance
SD
GDP/
CAP
>$20K
37.5
NWI
15.6
P>N
No
PWI
42.0
NWI
14.1
P>N
No
PWI
41.8
NWI
14.7
P>N
No
NWI
43.9
PWI
15.1
N>P
Yes
NWI
35.8
PWI
12.7
N>P
Yes
NWI
32.5
PWI
17.3
N>P
Yes
NWI
39.9
PWI
14.9
N>P
Yes
NWI
42.0
PWI
14.1
N>P
62
No
Factor
% of
variance
PWI
Second Factor
Index
Personal Wellbeing Index
80
77.4
75
73.0
72.8
71.1
71.0
69.6
70
Strength
of
satisfaction
65.6
65
60
55
52.3
50
Mexico
Australia
Ireland
Spain
Italy
Romania
Argentina
Algeria
63
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Personal Wellbeing Index
80
GDP/CAP
PWI
90
30.4
77.4
73.0
70
35
72.8
30
71.1
71.0
69.6
27.8
65.6
25
24.6
60
52.3
Strength
of
satisfaction
20.9
50
20
GDP/CAP
$
(x 1,000)
15
40
30
20
7.4
10
8.1
8.8
5.6
5
10
0
0
Mexico
Australia
Ireland
Spain
Italy
Romania
Argentina
Algeria
64
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Comparison SWB and Personality
Steel, P. & Ones, D.S. (2002). Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
83, 767-81.
• Source of SWB: Veenhoven’s World
Database of Happiness
Mean sample size per country:
•Affect (hedonic balance) = 2,901
•Happiness = 25,300
•Satisfaction = 28,654
•Number of people involved in the overall
data = 2,100,000
65
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
NEO-PI-R (24 countries)
1. Neuroticism (anxious, moody etc)
2. Extraversion (sociable, optimistic etc.)
3. Openness to experience (intellect,
appreciate arts etc.)
4. Conscientiousness (organised,
industrious)
5. Agreeableness (altruistic, friendly etc.)
66
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Using population mean scores as
data
NEO-PI-R: Extraversion & Neuroticism
• Predicting affect R² = .79
• Variance accounted for by
extraversion
• Predicting SWB (happiness and
satisfaction) R² = .64
• Variance accounted for by neuroticism
67
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Hierarchical Regression
Step 1:
Step 2:
GNP
SWB
R² = .76
R² = .41
Here, only neuroticism accounts for change in
variance
Personality explains MORE of the variance in
between-nation SWB than does GNP !!
68
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Neuroticism
vs. Personal Wellbeing Index
17
79.3
16.7
80
78
16
15.5
75.6
76
15
14.6
75.3
74
14.2
14
72
13.3
Neuroticism 13
71.0
70
69.4
PWI
68
12
66
65.1
11
64
10.3
10
62
60
9
Norway
Romania
Mexico
Hong Kong
Australia
Italty
69
Country
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Extraversion
vs. Personal Wellbeing Index
21
79.3
20.6
79
20
77
75.3
75.6
19.3
75
19
18.7
73
18.5
Extraversion
PWI
18.4
71.0
18
71
69.4
69
17
16.7
67
65.1
16
65
Mexico
Australia
Norway
Romania
Italty
Hong Kong
70
Country
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Conclusions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
These results are consistent with predictions
based on Homeostasis Theory
In trying to understand why countries differ in their
level of SWB, the variance is at least as informative
as the mean scores.
Studies highlight the importance of personality in
explaining SWB
Highlight importance too in being clear about what
wants to be measured in terms of SWB
Footnote: A study of predictors of mental health &
happiness in Japan found extraversion to be
strongest predictor of happiness = 20% variance
(Furnham and Cheng 1999)
71
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
• In SDT, the nutrients for healthy development
and functioning include basic psychological (self)
needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness.
• When the needs are satisfied, people will
develop and function effectively and experience
wellbeing, but to the extent that they are
thwarted, people more likely evidence ill-being
and non-optimal functioning.
–
Deci, EL & Ryan, RM 2000, 'The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self Determination of Behaviour',
Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227-268.
Current & Future projects
• Sustainable consumption behaviours
– Energy-saving
– Waste management
– Consumer attitude and CWB (charitable-giving and
volunteerism)
– Binge drinking among adolescents and well-being
• Crime, security & Human rights
– Human trafficking (Individual and community wellbeing)
– Internet security and risk-taking behaviour aversion in
young children and well-being
• Ethics
73
– Workplace
Collaboration possibilities
• Self-determination theory and relationship
with attitudes, motivations, behaviours and
subjective well-being across many diverse
settings
• Many other areas open for discussion
• Please contact me to discuss possibilities
74
Useful References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cheng, H. and A. Furnham (2003). "Personality, self-esteem, and demographic predictions of
happiness and depression." Personality and Individual Differences 34(6): 921-942.
Cummins, R. A. (1998). "The second approximation to an international standard for life satisfaction." Social Indicators
Research 43(3): 307-334.
Cummins, R. A., (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for subjective wellbeing, Social Indicators Research. Vol. 35,
No. 2, Pp 179-200
Cummins , R. A., (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research. Vol.
38, No. 3, Pp 303-328
Cummins, R. A. (2000). "Objective and Subjective Quality of Life: an Interactive Model." Social Indicators Research
52(1): 55-72.
Cummins, R. A. (2003). "Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model." Social Indicators
Research 64(2): 225-256.
Cummins, R. A. (2005). "The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos." Citation classics from social
indicators research: 559-584.
Cummins, R. A., R. Eckersley, et al. (2003). "Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity
Wellbeing Index." Social Indicators Research 64(2): 159-190.
Cummins, R. A., R. Eckersley, et al. (2003). "Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity
Wellbeing Index." Social Indicators Research 64(2): 159-190.
Davern, M. and R. A. Cummins (2006). "Is life dissatisfaction the opposite of life satisfaction?" Australian journal of
psychology 58(1): 1-7.
Davern, M. T., R. A. Cummins, et al. (2007). "Subjective wellbeing as an affective-cognitive
construct." Journal of Happiness Studies 8(4): 429-449.
Deci, EL & Ryan, RM 2000, 'The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self
75
Determination of Behaviour', Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227-268.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Furnham, A. and H. Cheng (1999). "Personality as predictor of mental health and happiness in the
East and West." Personality and Individual Differences 27(3): 395-403.
Jones, L. V. and L. L. Thurstone (1955). "The psychophysics of semantics: an experimental investigation." Journal of
Applied Psychology 39(1): 31.
Lyubomirsky, S., L. King, et al. (2005). "The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success?"
Psychological bulletin 131(6): 803.
Sirgy, M. J., Gurel-Atay, E., Webb, D., Cicic, M., Husic, M., Ekici, A., Herrmann, A., Hegazy, I., Lee, D. J., Johar, V.,
(2013), “Is materialism all that bad? Effects on satisfaction with material life, life satisfaction, and economic motivation,”
Social Indicators Research, Vol 10, Issue 1, Pp 349-367. DOI 10.1007/s11205-011-9934-2
Sirgy, M. J., Gurel-Atay , E., Webb, D., Cicic, M., Husic, M., Ekici, A., Herrmann, A., Hegazy, I., Lee, D.-J. & Johar, J.
S. (2012). Linking advertising, materialism, and life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, DOI: 10.1007/s11205-0119829-2. Volume 107, Number 1, Pages 79-101
Steel, P. and D. S. Ones (2002). "Personality and happiness: a national-level analysis." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 83(3): 767.
Webb, D. (2009). "Subjective wellbeing on the Tibetan plateau: An exploratory investigation." Journal of Happiness
Studies 10(6): 753-768.
Webb, D. and V. Khoo (2010). "Exploring Singaporean Giving Behaviour to Different Charitable Causes." Journal of
Research for Consumers.
Webb, D. and K. Stuart (2007). "Benefiting Remote Tibetan Communities with Solar Cooker Technology." Practicing
Anthropology 29(2): 28-31.
Webb, D. and K. Stuart (2007). "Exploring the impact of providing alternative technology products in remote Tibetan
communities." Journal of Research for Consumers(12): 1-13.
Webb, D., and Wong, J., (In review). Exploring the values and attitudes associated with charitable donations and the
76
impact on subjective well-being. Submitted 12 November 2012 to Social Indicators Research, Springer, The
Netherlands.
Thank you for inviting me
to Osaka and for listening
Question time....
77