the personal well-being index and the work of the international well- being group (iwbg)...

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

[email protected]

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

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+


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+


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+


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+


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.


48

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


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]


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


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


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


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


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


57

Why does the National Wellbeing Index normally emerge first as the

strongest factor?

National wellbeing normally has the largest variance


50

National wellbeing: Factor 1

Personal wellbeing: Factor 2


58

BUT

This will only apply if homeostasis is effective.

In situations of homeostatic defeat, the pattern will be reversed


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


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


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


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 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


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


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


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.)


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


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


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


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)


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....

the personal well-being index and the work of the international well- being group (iwbg)...

Documents

life personal health

osaka slide

selfsufficient slide

personal wellbeing index

life experience

quality of life comqol

quality of life swb

personal inventory