Transcript A comparison of the Personal Wellbeing Index in Slovakia

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
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 Method
Country
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 Method
Country
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
Mexico
Randomly selected from electoral role zones in the Interview
urban zone of Culiacan
Philippine
s
Random/general population
Interview
64%
Romania
Random/general population
Interview
70%
35%
n/a
The theoretical conception of the
Index
It represents the First Level
Deconstruction of two global
constructs.
Two global constructs
Satisfaction with Life as a Whole
Satisfaction with Life in [country]
Personal Wellbeing Index
National Wellbeing Index
“How satisfied are you with -------”
“How satisfied are you with -------”
1. your standard of living?
1. the economic situation in Algeria?
2. your health?
2. the state of the natural
environment in Italy?
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?
3. the social conditions in Spain?
4. Government in Romania?
5. business in Australia?
6. national security in Argentina?
Response Scale
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Very
Disatisfied
9
10
Very
satisfied
Standardized Scale
0-100
Normative population range for
Western countries
Personal Wellbeing Index = 70-80
Factor Analysis
AUSTRALIA
Government
Business
Social
Environment
Economic
Nat. Security
Achievements
S2
Factor 1
S5
S6
.75
.75
.70
.69
.72
.63
.81
.77
.76
.73
.73
.61
.79
.77
.67
.69
.68
.70
Fut. Security
Standard
Relations
Safety
Community
Health
Eigen Values
% variance explained
Reliability
3.21
24.69
3.48
.82
4.53
-
S2
Factor 2
S5
S6
.69
.70
.67
.68
.74
.67
.52
.60
.57
3.03
23.30
.69
.67
.60
.58
.57
.48
2.92
.78
.62
.67
.62
.50
.58
.56
1.60
-
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
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
Factor 2
Factor 1
0
50
Satisfaction scale
100
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
Control
mechanism
Homeostasis
Cognition
HI
Strength of
Homeostatic
Control
LO
Proximal
(about me)
“My integrity”
Distal
(not at all about me)
“The Government”
“How satisfied are you with your -------”
Why does the National Wellbeing
Index normally emerge first as the
strongest factor?
National wellbeing normally has the largest variance
Personal wellbeing: Factor 2
National wellbeing: Factor 1
0
50
Satisfaction scale
100
BUT
This will only apply if homeostasis it
effective.
In situations of homeostatic defeat, the
pattern will be reversed
Personal wellbeing: Factor 1
National wellbeing: Factor 2
0
50
Satisfaction scale
100
Prediction
Variance
NWI > PWI
NWI : PWI
Hostile PWI > NWI
PWI : NWI
Benign
Environment
Factor order
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 Analysis
First Factor
Factor
% of
variance
PWI
Second Factor
Index
Factor
% of
variance
SD
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 Analysis
First Factor
Factor
% of
variance
SD
GDP/
CAP
>$20K
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
Factor
% of
variance
PWI
Second Factor
Index
Personal Wellbeing Index
80
77.4
75
73.0
72.8
71.1
71.0
69.6
70
Strength
of
satisfaction
65.6
65
60
55
52.3
50
Mexico
Australia
Ireland
Spain
Italy
Romania
Argentina
Algeria
Personal Wellbeing Index
80
GDP/CAP
PWI
90
30.4
77.4
73.0
70
35
72.8
30
71.1
71.0
69.6
27.8
65.6
25
24.6
60
52.3
20.9
50
Strength
of
satisfaction 40
20
GDP/CAP
$
(x 1,000)
15
30
20
7.4
10
8.1
8.8
5.6
5
10
0
0
Mexico
Australia
Ireland
Spain
Italy
Romania
Argentina
Algeria
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:
Mean sample size per country:
• EPQ (39), NEO-PI-R (24)
• Affect (hedonic balance) = 2,901
• Happiness = 25,300
• Satisfaction = 28,654
Number of people involved in the overall data = 2,100,000
Using population mean scores as
data
NEO-PI-R: Extraversion & Neuroticism
• Predicting affect R² = .79
• Predicting SWB (happiness and
satisfaction) R² = .64
Hierarchical Regression
Step 1:
Step 2:
GDP
SWB
R² = .76
R² = .41
ie. Personality explains MORE of the variance
in between-nation SWB than does GDP !!
Neuroticism
vs.
Personal Wellbeing Index
17
79.3
16.7
80
78
16
15.5
75.6
76
15
14.6
75.3
14.2
74
14
72
13.3
Neuroticism 13
71.0
70
69.4
68
12
66
65.1
11
64
10.3
10
62
9
60
Norway
Romania
Mexico
Hong Kong
Country
Australia
Italty
PWI
Extraversion
vs.
Personal Wellbeing Index
21
79.3
20.6
79
20
77
75.3
75.6
19.3
75
19
18.7
73
18.5
Extraversion
PWI
18.4
71.0
18
71
69.4
69
17
16.7
67
65.1
16
65
Mexico
Australia
Norway
Romania
Country
Italty
Hong Kong
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