Transcript The Personal Well-Being Index and the Work of the International
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 Commerce 8-9 February 2013 Dr Dave Webb University of Western Australia [email protected]
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) = COMQOL 7
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 --------?”
How people feel about the domain How satisfied people feel in general
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 Personal relationships Personal Health Standard of living Spirituality/ Religion 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Completely Satisfied 9 10 0
Score * 100/(number of scale points – 1)
100
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
• Ireland • Mexico • Croatia • Germany • Australia • Austria • Spain • Portugal • Columbia
Coverage
• 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
77 76 >S11 >S2, S4, S5
Strength of satisfaction
75 Scores above this line are signif icantly higher than S1 74
Personal Wellbeing Index 2001 - 2011
73
Major events preceding survey
72
Survey Date
Maximum = 76.3
Current = 75.9
Minimum = 73.2
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n
76.7
73.7
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
m = Labor government re-elected n = Qld/Vic floods 20 Prof Cummins 2012
77 76 >S11 >S2, S4, S5
Strength of satisfaction
75 Scores above this line are signif icantly higher than S1 74
Personal Wellbeing Index 2001 - 2011
73
Major events preceding survey
72
Survey Date
Current = 75.9
Minimum = 73.2
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n
76.7
73.7
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 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 80 70
Subjective Wellbeing
60 50 40 30 20
Very dissatisfied
10 0
Mean = 74.9
SD = 0.8
76.4
73.4
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
These set-points lie between 60 and 90 90 Range for individual set-points 60
Set-points are always POSITIVE ie above 50
24 Prof Cummins 2012
90 75
Each person has a set-point for their SWB
The average set-point 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) http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=1165 28 Prof Cummins 2012
Income is an external resource that enhances resilience
Subjective wellbeing 75 74 73 72 71 81 80 79 78 77 76 71.7
<$15 Total N ≈ 30,000 * 73.9
* 74.9
78.3
Normal Range 79.2
$15-30 $31-60 Median $61-90 $91-120 $121-150 Household Income ($'000) $150+ 76.3
73.0
29 Prof Cummins 2012
Internal resources
Challenges X Subjective wellbeing 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 30 Prof Cummins 2012
The use of internal resources
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 X Subjective wellbeing
Internal resources (eg. blaming someone else) 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 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.
33 Prof Cummins 2012
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
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
High 75 SWB Dominant source of control Homeostasis DISTRESS 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
SWB Subjective Wellbeing is generally insensitive to most medical conditions 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 76.3
75.7
73.9
73.7
Blood pressure Diabetes Heart problems Asthma Normative range 71.0
64.8
76.4
73.3
Arthritis Depression 61.0
Anxiety
NB. The medical condition must be consciously experienced as strongly aversive in order to affect subjective wellbeing
38 Prof Cummins 2012
77 75 73
SWB
71 69 67 65 Underweight 6.9% N=499 75.3
Body Mass Index (PWI)
Normal 42.0% N=3044 76.1
Overweight 35.6% N=2575 75.5
11.2% N=810 Mild 73.9
2.9% N=207 Moderate Obese 0.8% N=57 Severe 0.3
N=22 Very severe 76.6
Normal Range 73.4
72.7
71.4
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34
BMI
35-39 66.0
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 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 75 74 73 72 71 70 69
75.4
76.5
77.3
77.4
3.7 point change 79.1
79.1
77.4
Normative Range
76.7
73.4
<$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120
Household Income ($'000)
$121-$150 $150+ 41 Prof Cummins 2012
Household structure Strength of satisfaction (PWI)
81 80 79 78 77 76 67 66 65 64 63 62 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68
75.4
70.3
Partner only Partner & children
76.5
72.6
77.3
75.9
77.4
77.3
3.7 point change 78.9
77.4
79.1
78.2
Normative Range 80.7
79.1
76.7
73.4
10.4 point change
<$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120
Household Income ($'000)
$121-$150 $150+ 42 Prof Cummins 2012
Strength of satisfaction (PWI)
67 66 65 64 63 62 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68
75.4
Household structure
Partner only Partner & children Sole parent
76.5
72.6
77.3
75.9
77.4
77.3
76.3
78.9
77.4
79.1
78.2
74.5
Normative Range 80.7
79.1
76.7
73.4
70.3
64.1
69.6
70.1
12.2 point change <$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120
Household Income ($'000)
$121-$150 $150+ 43 Prof Cummins 2012
Strength of satisfaction (PWI)
81 80 79 78 77 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69
75.4
70.3
64.1
Partner only Partner & children Sole parent
76.5
72.6
69.6
77.3
75.9
77.4
77.3
76.3
70.1
78.9
77.4
79.1
78.2
80.7
79.1
76.7
74.5
Normative Range
73.4
<$15 $15-$30 $31-$60 $61-$90 $91-$120
Household Income ($'000)
$121-$150 $150+
Conclusion: Sources of challenge are additive
44 Prof Cummins 2012
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, 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 Algeria Argentina Australia Hong Kong N
1,417 476 1897 179
Males
708
Females
709
Age Range
18 up 160 931 68 316 966 111 18 up 18 up 18 up
Mean Age
29 82% < age group 48+ 49 44
Italy Ireland Norway Mexico Philippines Romania
172 994 427 1170 888 351 100 491 184 556 444 157 72 503 243 614 444 194 18-30 15 up 18 up 18 up 18 up 18 up 22 37 48 * 41 48 49 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Sample Demographics and Method
Country Sample Demographics Method Response Rate Algeria
n/a
Argentina Australia Hong Kong Italy
Recruited around colleges, Universities and institutions Randomly selected from general population (approx. 30% small cities and rural areas) Randomly selected from general population Recruited to age quota
College students
Questionnaire and interview Interview public places Telephone interview Telephone interview Interview n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ireland Norway Mexico
Random/quota-controls Randomly selected from general population Interview Postal survey Randomly selected from electoral role zones in the urban zone of Culiacan Interview n/a 35% n/a
Philippine s Romania
Random/general population Random/general population Interview 64% Interview International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Two global constructs: Satisfaction with Life as a Whole
Personal Wellbeing Index
Satisfaction with Life in [country]
National Wellbeing Index “ How satisfied are you with ------ ” 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?
“ How satisfied are you with ------ ” 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?
51 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Government Business Social Environment Economic Nat. Security Achievements Fut. Security Standard Relations Safety Community Health Eigen Values
% variance explained Reliability
Factor Analysis
AUSTRALIA S2 .75
.75
.70
.69
.72
.63
Factor 1 S5 .81
.77
.76
.73
.73
.61
S6 .79
.77
.67
.69
.68
.70
S2 3.21
24.69
3.48
.82
4.53
-
Factor 2 S5 S6 .69
.70
.67
.68
.69
.62
.74
.67
.52
.60
.67
.60
.58
.57
.67
.62
.50
.58
.57
3.03
.48
2.92
.56
1.60
23.30
.78
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
Factor % of variance
PWI PWI PWI 37.5
42.0
41.8
NWI NWI NWI NWI NWI 43.9
35.8
32.5
39.9
42.0
Second Factor
Factor % of variance
NWI NWI NWI 15.6
14.1
14.7
PWI PWI PWI PWI PWI 15.1
12.7
17.3
14.9
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
0 Factor 1 50 Satisfaction scale Factor 2 100 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
HI
Homeostasis Cognition
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
0 Personal wellbeing: Factor 2 National wellbeing: Factor 1 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
0 Personal wellbeing: Factor 1 National wellbeing: Factor 2 50 Satisfaction scale 100 58 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Prediction
Environment Benign
Variance NWI > PWI
Hostile
PWI > NWI Factor order NWI : PWI PWI : NWI
Theory: The factor order can be diagnostic of a hostile environment
59 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis
First Factor
Factor % of variance
PWI PWI PWI 37.5
42.0
41.8
NWI NWI NWI NWI NWI 43.9
35.8
32.5
39.9
42.0
Second Factor
Factor % of variance
NWI NWI NWI 15.6
14.1
14.7
PWI PWI PWI PWI PWI 15.1
12.7
17.3
14.9
14.1
60 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis
First Factor
Factor % of variance
PWI PWI PWI 37.5
42.0
41.8
NWI NWI NWI NWI NWI 43.9
35.8
32.5
39.9
42.0
Second Factor
Factor % of variance
NWI NWI NWI 15.6
14.1
14.7
PWI PWI PWI PWI PWI 15.1
12.7
17.3
Index
SD
P > N P > N P > N N > P N > P N > P 14.9
N > P 14.1
N > P
61 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Factor Analysis
Factor
PWI PWI PWI First Factor
% of variance
37.5
42.0
41.8
NWI NWI NWI NWI NWI 43.9
35.8
32.5
39.9
42.0
Second Factor
Factor
NWI NWI NWI
% of variance
15.6
14.1
14.7
PWI PWI PWI PWI PWI 15.1
12.7
17.3
14.9
14.1
Index
SD
P > N P > N P > N N > P N > P N > P N > P N > P GDP/ CAP >$20K No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Personal Wellbeing Index
80 75 70 Strength of satisfaction 65 60 55 50 77.4
Mexico
73.0
72.8
71.1
71.0
69.6
65.6
Australia Ireland Spain Italy
52.3
Romania Argentina Algeria 63 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Strength of satisfaction 50 40 60 70 80 90
Personal Wellbeing Index
GDP/CAP PWI
77.4
30.4
72.8
73.0
27.8
71.1
71.0
69.6
65.6
24.6
52.3
20.9
30 8.1
7.4
20 10 0 8.8
Mexico Australia Ireland Spain Italy 35 30 25 20 GDP/CAP $ 15 (x 1,000 ) 10 5.6
5 Romania 0 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) R ² = .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 16 15 14 Neuroticism 13 12 11 10 9 75.6
10.3
Norway 13.3
69.4
Romania 79.3
14.2
14.6
65.1
Mexico Hong Kong Country 15.5
75.3
16.7
71.0
80 78 76 74 66 64 62 72 70 PWI 68 60 Australia Italty
69 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
Extraversion 19 18 20 17 16
Extraversion vs. Personal Wellbeing Index
21 20.6
79.3
Mexico 19.3
75.3
Australia 18.7
75.6
18.5
69.4
Norway Country Romania 18.4
71.0
79 77 75 73 PWI 71 69 16.7
67 Italty 65.1
65 Hong Kong
70 International Well-Being Group (IWBG)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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)
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 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.
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/s11205-011 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....
77