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

This is an initiative of the International Wellbeing Group.

AIM-1

To examine the relative psychometric performance of a standard SWB Index

in different cultural and language groups.

AIM-2

To get beyond simplistic (and misleading) between-country comparisons of SWB

To build understanding of WHY countries differ in their SWB

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

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%

The theoretical conception of the

Index

It represents the First Level Deconstruction of two global

constructs.

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]

Response Scale

Very

satisfied

Very

Disatisfied

109876543210

Standardized Scale0-100

Normative population range for Western countries

Personal Wellbeing Index = 70-80

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

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

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

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 50 - 100

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

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

BUT

This will only apply if homeostasis it effective.

In situations of homeostatic defeat, the pattern will be reversed

0 100Satisfaction scale

50

National wellbeing: Factor 2

Personal wellbeing: Factor 1

Prediction

PWI : NWIPWI > NWI

NWI : PWINWI > PWIVariance Factor order

EnvironmentBenign

Hostile

Theory: The factor order can be diagnostic of a hostile environment

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

Factor AnalysisFactor 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

Factor AnalysisFactor 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 Index

77.4

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

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

Steel, P. & Ones, D.S. (2000). Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 767-81.

Compared SWB and Personality

Source of SWB: Veenhoven’s World Database of Happiness

Number of countries:

• EPQ (39), NEO-PI-R (24)

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

NEO-PI-R: Extraversion & Neuroticism• Predicting affect R² = .79• Predicting SWB (happiness and

satisfaction) R² = .64

Using population mean scores as data

Hierarchical Regression

Step 1: GDP

Step 2: SWB R² = .76 R² =

ie. Personality explains MORE of the variance in between-nation SWB than does GDP !!

.41

Neuroticismvs.

Personal Wellbeing Index

10.3

14.2

14.6

15.5

16.7

13.3 71.0

75.6

69.4

79.3

65.1

75.3

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Norway Romania Mexico Hong Kong Australia Italty

Country

Neuroticism

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

PWI

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

Conclusions

1. 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. Extraversion may be a good measure of cultural response bias