the personal well-being index and the work of the international well- being group (iwbg)...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Personal Well-Being Index and the Work of the International Well-
Being Group (IWBG)
Presentation to Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) Group, Osaka
School of Commerce8-9 February 2013
Dr Dave WebbUniversity of Western Australia
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
3
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)
Introduction• Why measure SWB• Introduction to PWI
– Development– Current application
• Work of the IWBG• Examples of current personal work• Future research
– Collaboration opportunities
5
Subjective Well-Being
A positive state of mind that involves the whole life
experience
Why should we measure it?How do we measure it?
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
7
PWI Development - HistoryCummins 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) = COMQOL
8
9
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 in 2001
10
“How satisfied are you with your --------?”
Life as a whole
Personalrelationships
Community connectedness
Spirituality/Religion
SafetyFuturesecurity
Standard ofliving
Achieving in life
Personal Health
How people feel about the domain
How satisfied people feel in
general
Prof Cummins 2012
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
11
PWI = Eight questions of satisfaction with specific life domains.
How satisfied are you with…?
Domains1. 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?
12
How satisfied are you with your ----?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CompletelyDissatisfied
CompletelySatisfied
[Jones and Thurstone 1955]
11-point, end-defined scale
Prof Cummins 2012
0 100Score * 100/(number of scale points – 1)
13
National Wellbeing Index (NWI)
How satisfied are you with…?•Economic situation•Natural environment•Social conditions•Government•Business •National security
14
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)
15
Coverage• Ireland• Mexico• Croatia• Germany• Australia• Austria• Spain• Portugal• Columbia
• Argentina• China (Hong Kong,
Macau, Tibet)• Thailand• New Zealand• USA• Canada• India• Algeria• Iran
16
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
17
Homeostasis and Set Point Theory
18
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)
19
Prof Cummins 2012
20
Key: a = September 11 e = Athens Olympics i = Labor Government Elected m = Labor government re-electedb = Bali Bombing f = Asian Tsunami j = Stock market collapse n = Qld/Vic floodsc = Pre-Iraq War g = Second Bali Bombing k = Fires and floodsd = Hussein Depose h = New IR Laws l = Stock market recovery
76.7
73.7
>S11
>S2, S4, S5
Scores above this line aresignif icantly higher than S1
SurveyDate
Major eventspreceding survey
72
73
74
75
76
77
S1
Ap
r 200
1
S2
Sep
t 200
1
S3
Mar
200
2
S4
Aug
200
2
S5
No
v 20
02
S6
Mar
200
3
S7
Jun
2003
S8
Aug
200
3
S9
No
v 20
03
S10
Feb
200
4
S11
May
200
4
S12
Aug
200
4
S13
May
200
5
S14
Oct
200
5
S15
May
200
6
S16
Oct
200
6
S17
Ap
r 20
07
S18
Oct
200
7
S18
.1 F
eb 2
008
S19
Ap
r 20
08
S20
Oct
200
8
S20
.1 F
eb 2
009
S21
May
200
9
S22
Sep
t 20
09
S23
Ap
ril 2
010
S24
Sep
t 20
10
S25
Ap
r 20
11
Strengthof
satisfaction
Maximum = 76.3Current = 75.9Minimum = 73.2
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n
Personal Wellbeing Index2001 - 2011
Prof Cummins 2012
21
Key: a = September 11 e = Athens Olympics i = Labor Government Elected m = Labor government re-electedb = Bali Bombing f = Asian Tsunami j = Stock market collapse n = Qld/Vic floodsc = Pre-Iraq War g = Second Bali Bombing k = Fires and floodsd = Hussein Depose h = New IR Laws l = Stock market recovery
76.7
73.7
>S11
>S2, S4, S5
Scores above this line aresignif icantly higher than S1
SurveyDate
Major eventspreceding survey
72
73
74
75
76
77
S1
Ap
r 200
1
S2
Sep
t 200
1
S3
Mar
200
2
S4
Aug
200
2
S5
No
v 20
02
S6
Mar
200
3
S7
Jun
2003
S8
Aug
200
3
S9
No
v 20
03
S10
Feb
200
4
S11
May
200
4
S12
Aug
200
4
S13
May
200
5
S14
Oct
200
5
S15
May
200
6
S16
Oct
200
6
S17
Ap
r 20
07
S18
Oct
200
7
S18
.1 F
eb 2
008
S19
Ap
r 20
08
S20
Oct
200
8
S20
.1 F
eb 2
009
S21
May
200
9
S22
Sep
t 20
09
S23
Ap
ril 2
010
S24
Sep
t 20
10
S25
Ap
r 20
11
Strengthof
satisfaction
Maximum = 76.3Current = 75.9Minimum = 73.2
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n
Personal Wellbeing Index2001 - 2011
This represents a 3.0 percentage point variation
Prof Cummins 2012
22
Normative range using survey mean scores as data
(N=25 survey periods)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
SD = 0.8
Mean = 74.9
76.4
73.4
SubjectiveWellbeing
Very satisfied
Very dissatisfied
Prof Cummins 2012
23
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
Prof Cummins 2012
24
Each person has a set-point for their SWB
60
90
Range forindividualset-points
These set-points lie between
60 and 90
Set-points are always POSITIVEie above 50
Prof Cummins 2012
25
Each person has a set-point for their SWB
75
Time
60
90
When nothing much is happening to them, people rate how they feel about their life in terms of their set-point for SWB
The average set-point
Prof Cummins 2012
26
Homeostasis can fail
Overwhelmingnegative
challenges
Subjective wellbeing
The potential result of SWB loss is depression
Prof Cummins 2012
27
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
Prof Cummins 2012
28
SWB constantly under challenge, but is well protected
ChallengesSubjective Wellbeing[normal]
X
External resources(eg. Relationships,
Money)
Prof Cummins 2012http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=1165
29
Income is an external resource that enhances resilience
Median
Total N ≈ 30,000
76.3
Normal Range
73.0
*78.0
*76.5
*73.9
71.7
74.9
78.3
79.2
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
<$15 $15-30 $31-60 $61-90 $91-120 $121-150 $150+
Household Income ($'000)
Subjectivewellbeing *
Prof Cummins 2012
30
Internal resources
ChallengesSubjective wellbeingX
External resources(eg. relationships,
money)
Internal resources(eg. Finding meaning,
rationalising event)
• God is testing me• It wasn’t my fault• I didn’t need that vase
Prof Cummins 2012
31“It wasn’t my fault” reasons (insert name here!)
When we fail to control the world around us(Primary Control failure)
we engage Secondary Control to protect SWB
The use of internal resources
htt
p:/
/en
.wik
ipe
dia
.org
/wik
i/File
:Ja
pa
ne
se_
car_
acc
ide
nt_
blu
r.jp
g
32
Homeostasis failure
Badstuff
Subjective wellbeing
X
External resources(eg. relationships,
money)
Internal resources(eg. blaming
someone else)
X
The result of subjective wellbeing loss is depression
Prof Cummins 2012
33
Predictions for homeostasis theory
1.The relationship between the strength of challenge to homeostasis and SWB is non-linear
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.
Prof Cummins 2012
34
Homeostasis can be challenged by:
Chronic pain (arthritis) Chronic stress (informal carers) Lack of intimacy Living conditions (homelessness) Incarceration (prisoners) Poverty (and loss of wealth) Lack of purpose in life
Prof Cummins 2012
35
So, what is the Relationship Between negative events (stressors) and SWB?
Very Weak Very Strong Stressor
SWB
High
Low
?
Prof Cummins 2012
36
The Relationship Between Stress and SWB
SWB
Stress
High
Low
Threshold
DISTRESSHomeostasis
No stress High stress
75
Level of environmental challenge
Dominant source of control
Prof Cummins 2012
37
Does the presence of a medical condition
automatically mean low SWB?
Prof Cummins 2012
38
Subjective Wellbeing is generally insensitive to most medical conditions
76.4
73.3
61.0
64.8
71.0
73.773.975.7
76.3
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
Bloodpressure
Diabetes Heartproblems
Asthma Arthritis Depression Anxiety
SWB
Normative range
NB. The medical condition must be consciously experiencedas strongly aversive in order to affect subjective wellbeing
Prof Cummins 2012
39
Body Mass Index (PWI)
Very severeSevereModerateMild
0.3N=22
0.8%N=57
2.9%N=207
11.2%N=810
35.6%N=2575
42.0%N=3044
6.9%N=499
ObeseOverweightNormalUnderweight
BMI
76.6
Normal Range
73.4
71.4
66.0
72.7
73.9
75.576.1
75.3
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49
SWB
Prof Cummins 2012
40
The level of challenge to homeostasis is cumulative
over sources of stress
Prof Cummins 2012
41
Household structure
76.7
Normative Range
73.4
79.179.1
77.477.477.3
76.575.4
62
63
6465
66
67
68
6970
71
72
7374
75
76
77
7879
80
81
<$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120 $121-$150 $150+
Household Income ($'000)
Strengthof
satisfaction(PWI)
Partner only
3.7 point change
Prof Cummins 2012
42
Household structure
76.7
73.4
Normative Range
79.1
80.7
75.476.5
77.3 77.477.4
79.1
77.3
78.9
70.3
72.6
75.9
78.2
62
63
6465
66
67
68
6970
71
72
7374
75
76
77
7879
80
81
<$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120 $121-$150 $150+
Household Income ($'000)
Strengthof
satisfaction(PWI)
Partner only
Partner & children
3.7 point change
10.4 point change
Prof Cummins 2012
43
Household structure
76.7
Normative Range
73.4
79.1
80.7
64.1
70.1
76.3
79.1
77.477.477.3
76.575.4
78.2
75.9
72.6
70.3
78.9
77.3
74.5
69.6
62
63
6465
66
67
68
6970
71
72
7374
75
76
77
7879
80
81
<$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120 $121-$150 $150+
Household Income ($'000)
Strengthof
satisfaction(PWI)
Partner only
Partner & children
Sole parent
Prof Cummins 2012
12.2 point change
44
76.7
Normative Range
73.4
79.1
80.7
64.1
70.1
76.3
79.1
77.477.477.3
76.575.4
78.2
75.9
72.6
70.3
78.9
77.3
74.5
69.6
62
63
6465
66
67
68
6970
71
72
7374
75
76
77
7879
80
81
<$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120 $121-$150 $150+
Household Income ($'000)
Strengthof
satisfaction(PWI)
Partner only
Partner & children
Sole parent
Conclusion: Sources of challenge are additive
Prof Cummins 2012
45
The Personal Well-Being Index and the Work of the International Well-
Being Group (IWBG)
46
The International wellbeing Index: A psychometric progress report
Robert A. CUMMINSDeakin 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 VITTERSOUniversity of Tromso, Norway
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
47
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.
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
48
AIM #2
To get beyond simplistic (and misleading) between-country
comparisons of SWB
To build understanding of WHY countries differ in their SWB
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Sample Demographics and MethodCountry 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
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
49
Sample Demographics and MethodCountry 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 35%
Mexico Randomly selected from electoral role zones in the urban zone of Culiacan
Interview n/a
Philippines
Random/general population Interview 64%
Romania Random/general population Interview 70%International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
50
51
1. the economic situation in Algeria?
2. the state of the natural environment in Italy?
3. the social conditions in Spain?
4. Government in Romania?
5. business in Australia?
6. national security in Argentina?
1. your standard of living?
2. your health?
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?
National Wellbeing Index
“How satisfied are you with -------”
Personal Wellbeing Index
“How satisfied are you with -------”
Two global constructs:
Satisfaction with Life as a Whole Satisfaction with Life in [country]
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
52
Factor AnalysisAUSTRALIA
Factor 1 Factor 2
S2 S5 S6 S2 S5 S6Government .75 .81 .79Business .75 .77 .77Social .70 .76 .67Environment .69 .73 .69Economic .72 .73 .68Nat. Security .63 .61 .70Achievements .69 .70 .67
Fut. Security .68 .69 .62
Standard .74 .67 .67Relations .67 .60 .62Safety .52 .58 .50Community .60 .57 .58Health .57 .48 .56Eigen Values 3.21 3.48 4.53 3.03 2.92 1.60% variance explained 24.69 - - 23.30 - -Reliability .82 .78
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis1. 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
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
53
54
What causes one factor to be stronger than the other?
The strongest factor will be the one with the largest variance
0 100Satisfaction scale
50
Factor 1
Factor 2
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
55
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
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
56
Proximal – Distal Dimension of homeostasis
LO
HI
Strength of Homeostatic
Control
“How satisfied are you with your -------”
Proximal(about me)
“My integrity”
Distal(not at all about me)“The Government”
Controlmechanism CognitionHomeostasis
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
57
Why does the National Wellbeing Index normally emerge first as the
strongest factor?
National wellbeing normally has the largest variance
0 100Satisfaction scale
50
National wellbeing: Factor 1
Personal wellbeing: Factor 2
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
58
BUT
This will only apply if homeostasis is effective.
In situations of homeostatic defeat, the pattern will be reversed
0 100Satisfaction scale
50
National wellbeing: Factor 2
Personal wellbeing: Factor 1
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Prediction
PWI : NWIPWI > NWI
NWI : PWINWI > PWIVariance Factor order
EnvironmentBenign
Hostile
Theory: The factor order can be diagnostic of a hostile environment
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
59
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
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
60
61
Factor Analysis
First Factor Second Factor Index
Factor% of
variance Factor% of
variance SD
PWI 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
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
62
Factor Analysis
First Factor Second Factor Index GDP/CAP
>$20K
Factor% of
variance Factor% of
variance SD
PWI 37.5 NWI 15.6 P > N No
PWI 42.0 NWI 14.1 P > N No
PWI 41.8 NWI 14.7 P > N No
NWI 43.9 PWI 15.1 N > P Yes
NWI 35.8 PWI 12.7 N > P Yes
NWI 32.5 PWI 17.3 N > P Yes
NWI 39.9 PWI 14.9 N > P Yes
NWI 42.0 PWI 14.1 N > P No
Personal Wellbeing Index77.4
73.0 72.871.1 71.0
69.6
65.6
52.3
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Mexico Australia Ireland Spain Italy Romania Argentina Algeria
Strengthof
satisfaction
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
63
64
Personal Wellbeing Index
77.4
73.0 72.871.1 71.0 69.6
65.6
52.3
24.6
5.6
8.17.4
20.9
30.4
27.8
8.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mexico Australia Ireland Spain Italy Romania Argentina Algeria
Strengthof
satisfaction
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
GDP/CAP$
(x 1,000)
PWI GDP/CAP
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
65
Comparison SWB and PersonalitySteel, 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
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
66
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.)
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
67
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
Using population mean scores as data
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
68
Hierarchical Regression
Step 1: GNP
Step 2: SWB R² = .76 R² =
Here, only neuroticism accounts for change in variance
Personality explains MORE of the variance in between-nation SWB than does GNP !!
.41
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
69
Neuroticismvs. Personal Wellbeing Index
10.3
13.3
14.2
14.6
15.5
16.7
75.6
69.4
79.3
65.1
75.3
71.0
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Norway Romania Mexico Hong Kong Australia Italty
PWINeuroticism
CountryInternational Well-Being Group (IWBG)
70
Extraversionvs. Personal Wellbeing Index
18.518.4
16.7
20.6
19.3
18.7
79.3
75.375.6
71.0
65.1
69.4
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mexico Australia Norway Romania Italty Hong Kong
Country
Extraversion
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
PWI
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
71
Conclusions1. These results are consistent with predictions
based on Homeostasis Theory
2. In trying to understand why countries differ in their level of SWB, the variance is at least as informative as the mean scores.
3. Studies highlight the importance of personality in explaining SWB
4. Highlight importance too in being clear about what wants to be measured in terms of SWB
5. 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)
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.
73
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 well-
being)– Internet security and risk-taking behaviour aversion in
young children and well-being• Ethics
– Workplace
74
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
75
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
Determination of Behaviour', Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227-268.
76
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/s11205-011-9829-2. 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 impact on subjective well-being. Submitted 12 November 2012 to Social Indicators Research, Springer, The Netherlands.
77
Thank you for inviting me to Osaka and for listening
Question time....