Presentation 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 2013DrDave WebbUniversity of Western Australiadave.webb@uwa.edu.au
2. 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)
4. 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
6. 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 - 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) = 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 in 2001
9. “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 Achieving in life Life as a whole Spirituality/ Religion Community connectedness An over-all average [Subjective wellbeing] A value for each domain that can be used diagnostically as well as potentially an input to policy development Safety Future security Prof Cummins 2012
10. 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. How satisfied are you with your ----? [Jones and Thurstone 1955] 11-point, end-defined scale Completely Dissatisfied Completely Satisfied 100 0 Score * 100/(number of scale points – 1) Prof Cummins 2012
12. 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 MichalosEncyclopedia 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. Prof Cummins 2012
19. Personal Wellbeing Index2001 - 2011 Key: a = September 11 e = Athens Olympics i = Labor Government Elected m = Labor government re-elected b = Bali Bombing f = Asian Tsunami j = Stock market collapse n = Qld/Vic floods c = Pre-Iraq War g = Second Bali Bombing k = Fires and floods d = Hussein Depose h = New IR Laws l = Stock market recovery Prof Cummins 2012
20. Personal Wellbeing Index2001 - 2011 This represents a 3.0 percentage point variation Key: a = September 11 e = Athens Olympics i = Labor Government Elected m = Labor government re-elected b = Bali Bombing f = Asian Tsunami j = Stock market collapse n = Qld/Vic floods c = Pre-Iraq War g = Second Bali Bombing k = Fires and floods d = Hussein Depose h = New IR Laws l = Stock market recovery Prof Cummins 2012
21. 100 90 80 76.4 73.4 70 Subjective Wellbeing Mean = 74.9 60 50 SD = 0.8 40 30 20 10 0 Normative rangeusing survey mean scores as data (N=25 survey periods) Very satisfied Very dissatisfied Prof Cummins 2012
22. 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
23. 90 60 Each person has a set-point for their SWB These set-points lie between 60 and 90 Range for individual set-points Set-points are always POSITIVE ie above 50 Prof Cummins 2012
24. When nothing much is happening to them, people rate how they feel about their life in terms of their set-point for SWB Each person has a set-point for their SWB 90 The average set-point 75 60 Time Prof Cummins 2012
25. Overwhelming negative challenges Subjective wellbeing Homeostasis can fail The potential result of SWB loss is depression Prof Cummins 2012
26. 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
27. SWB constantly under challenge, but is well protected Subjective Wellbeing [normal] X Challenges External resources (eg. Relationships, Money) http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=1165 Prof Cummins 2012
28. Income is an external resource that enhances resilience 81 Total N ≈ 30,000 80 79.2 * 79 78.3 78.0 * 78 76.5 77 Subjective wellbeing * 76.3 76 * 74.9 75 Normal Range 73.9 74 73.0 73 71.7 72 71 <$15 $15-30 $31-60 $61-90 $91-120 $121-150 $150+ Median Household Income ($'000) Prof Cummins 2012
29. Internal resources X Subjective wellbeing Challenges 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
30. The use of internal resources When we fail to control the world around us (Primary Control failure) we engage Secondary Control to protect SWB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_car_accident_blur.jpg “It wasn’t my fault” reasons (insert name here!)
31. Subjective wellbeing Bad stuff X Internal resources (eg. blaming someone else) External resources (eg. relationships, money) Homeostasis failure The result of subjective wellbeing loss is depression X Prof Cummins 2012
32. Predictions for homeostasis theory The relationship between the strength of challenge to homeostasis and SWB is non-linear The level of challenge to homeostasis is cumulative over sources of stress Of themselves, ill-health and disability only weakly challenge homeostasis Only the person concerned is qualified to report on their own subjective wellbeing. Prof Cummins 2012
33. 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
34. High SWB ? Low Very Weak Very Strong Stressor So, what is the Relationship Between negative events (stressors) and SWB? Prof Cummins 2012
35. Dominant source of control Homeostasis DISTRESS High 75 SWB Threshold Low No stress High stress Stress Level of environmental challenge The Relationship Between Stress and SWB Prof Cummins 2012
36. Does the presence of a medical condition automatically mean low SWB? Prof Cummins 2012
37. 80 76.3 78 75.7 76.4 76 73.9 73.7 74 SWB 73.3 72 71.0 70 68 66 64.8 64 62 61.0 60 Blood Diabetes Heart Asthma Arthritis Depression Anxiety pressure problems Subjective Wellbeing is generally insensitive to most medical conditions Normative range NB. The medical condition must be consciously experienced as strongly aversive in order to affect subjective wellbeing Prof Cummins 2012
38. Underweight Normal Overweight Obese 6.9% N=499 42.0% N=3044 35.6% N=2575 11.2% N=810 2.9% N=207 0.8% N=57 0.3 N=22 Mild Moderate Severe Very severe 77 76.1 76.6 75.3 75.5 Normal Range 75 73.9 73.4 73 SWB 72.7 71.4 71 69 67 66.0 65 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 BMI Body Mass Index (PWI) Prof Cummins 2012
39. The level of challenge to homeostasis is cumulative over sources of stress Prof Cummins 2012
40. Household structure 3.7 point change Prof Cummins 2012
41. Household structure 3.7 point change 10.4 point change Prof Cummins 2012
42. Household structure 12.2 point change Prof Cummins 2012
43. Conclusion: Sources of challenge are additive Prof Cummins 2012

44. The Personal Well-Being Index and the Work of the International Well-Being 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, IrelandHabib TILIOUINE University of Oran, AlgeriaGraciela TONON Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora, ArgentinaAnnapia VERRI Neurologic Institute C. Mondino and University of Pavia,Italy. Joar VITTERSO University of Tromso, Norway International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
46. 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)

47. 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)
48. Sample Demographics and Method International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
49. Sample Demographics and Method International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
50. Two global constructs: Satisfaction with Life as a Whole Satisfaction with Life in [country] Personal Wellbeing Index “How satisfied are you with -------” National Wellbeing Index “How satisfied are you with -------” the economic situation in Algeria? 2. the state of the natural environment in Italy? 3. the social conditions in Spain? 4. Government in Romania? business in Australia? 6. national security in Argentina? your standard of living? 2. your health? 3. what you achieve in life? 4. your personal relationships? 5. how safe you feel? feeling part of your community? 7. your future security? International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
51. Factor Analysis International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
52. Algeria Mexico Romania Spain Australia Italy Ireland Argentina Factor Analysis All countries tested produce two clean factors (using an item-loading cut-off score of .4 BUT, the factors emerge in different orders International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
53. The strongest factor will be the one with the largest variance Factor 2 Factor 1 0 100 50 Satisfaction scale

    What causes one factor to be stronger than the other?

    International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
54. 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)
55. Control mechanism Homeostasis HI Strength of Homeostatic Control LO Distal (not at all about me) “The Government” Proximal (about me) “My integrity” Cognition “How satisfied are you with your -------” Proximal – Distal Dimension of homeostasis International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
56. National wellbeing normally has the largest variance Personal wellbeing: Factor 2 National wellbeing: Factor 1 0 100 50 Satisfaction scale

    Why does the National Wellbeing Index normally emerge first as the strongest factor?

    International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
57. Personal wellbeing: Factor 1 National wellbeing: Factor 2 0 100 50 Satisfaction scale BUT This will only apply if homeostasis is effective. In situations of homeostatic defeat, the pattern will be reversed International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
58. Factor order Variance NWI > PWI NWI : PWI Benign Environment PWI > NWI PWI : NWI Hostile Theory:The factor order can be diagnostic of a hostile environment Prediction International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
59. Algeria Mexico Romania Spain Australia Italy Ireland Argentina Factor Analysis International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
60. Algeria Mexico Romania Spain Australia Italy Ireland Argentina Factor Analysis International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
61. Algeria Mexico Romania Spain Australia Italy Ireland Argentina Factor Analysis
62. Personal Wellbeing Index International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
63. GDP/CAP PWI 90 35 30.4 77.4 80 30 73.0 72.8 71.1 71.0 69.6 70 27.8 65.6 25 24.6 60 52.3 20.9 20 50 GDP/CAP Strength $ of (x 1,000) satisfaction 40 15 30 10 8.1 7.4 20 8.8 5.6 5 10 0 0 Mexico Australia Ireland Spain Italy Romania Argentina Algeria Personal Wellbeing Index International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
64. 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)
65. NEO-PI-R (24 countries) Neuroticism(anxious, moody etc) Extraversion (sociable, optimistic etc.) Openness to experience (intellect, appreciate arts etc.) Conscientiousness(organised, industrious) Agreeableness(altruistic, friendly etc.) International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
66. 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 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
67. 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)
68. Neuroticismvs. Personal Wellbeing Index International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
69. Extraversionvs. Personal Wellbeing Index International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
70. Conclusions 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) International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
71. 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.
72. 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
73. 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 Determination of Behaviour', Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227-268.
75. 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.

76. Thank you for inviting me to Osaka and for listening

    Question time....