Transcript Document

Love and money:
non-linear moderators of subjective wellbeing
relevant to public policy
Robert A. Cummins1
Anna L.D. Lau2
Jacqui Woerner1
Adele Gibson1
Adrian Tomyn1
Jenny Walter1
Lufanna Lai Ching1
James Collard1
1Australian
Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol
2Hong
Kong Polytechnic University
This manuscript contains notes below each slide. To view these notes, open
in Powerpoint , go to ‘View’, and click on ‘Notes Page’
Translation
High population SWB is desirable
Therefore, public policy should be directed to
increasing population SWB
The best way to do this is through love and money
But the means are complicated by the fact that the
relationships are non-linear
Why is population happiness relevant to public policy?
Positive emotions build a range of
desirable characteristics as:
Physical resources (health, longevity)
Social resources (friendliness, social capital)
Intellectual resources (intellectual curiosity, expert
knowledge)
Psychological resources (resilience, optimism, creativity)
How do we measure Subjective Wellbeing?
Personal Wellbeing Index
“How satisfied are you with your
-----?”
• Standard of living
• Health
• Achieving in life
• Relationships
• Safety
• Community connectedness
• Future security
( SWB )
Our data are drawn from the
Australian Unity Wellbeing Index
Surveys
Geographically representative sample
N = 2,000
Telephone interview
#1: April 2001
-----------#18: October 2007
Personal Wellbeing Index 2001 - 2007
77
>S11
76
75
Strength
of
satisfaction
>S2, S4, S5
Scores above this line are
significantly higher than S1
74
73
Major events
preceding survey
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Survey
Date
Key:
1 = September 11
2 = Bali Bombing
3 = Pre-Iraq War
4 = Hussein Deposed
5 = Athens Olympic
6 = Asian Tsunami
7 = Second Bali Bombing 8 = New Industrial Relations Laws
Personal Wellbeing Index 2001 - 2007
77
>S11
76
75
Strength
of
satisfaction
>S2, S4, S5
Scores above this line are
significantly higher than S1
74
This represents a 3.0 percentage point variation
73
Major events
preceding survey
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Survey
Date
Key:
1 = September 11
2 = Bali Bombing
3 = Pre-Iraq War
4 = Hussein Deposed
5 = Athens Olympic
6 = Asian Tsunami
7 = Second Bali Bombing 8 = New Industrial Relations Laws
Why is happiness held so
steady?
Homeostasis
Just like we hold body temperature steady
Subjective wellbeing homeostasis
Homeostasis is maintained by using
resources for defence
Bad
stuff
X
Major external
protective resources
(Money, Relationships)
Subjective
wellbeing
Internal resources
(eg. Finding meaning
for the bad event)
Money is a flexible resource that allows people
to defend homeostasis and their happiness
Homeostasis can fail
Overwhelming
Negative
Challenges
Subjective
wellbeing
The result of subjective wellbeing loss is
depression
How can we use this knowledge to identify
disadvantaged groups in Australia?
Their mean SWB can be examined against
the normative range for group mean scores
80
SWB normative range for group mean scores
in Australia
75
Normal range
76.4
73.4
70
PWI
?
?
?
65
60
55
Group
A
Group
B
Group
C
.
Demographic investigation
Combined data from 16 surveys
N≈30,000
Categories (Number of Cells)
Gender - G (2)
Age - A (7)
Income - I (7)
Household Composition - HC (5)
Relationship Status – RS (6)
Employment Status – ES (11)
Total number of cells = 3,277
G x All others (2 x 36) 72
A x All others (7 x 31) 217
I x All others (7 x 31) 217
HC x All others (5 x 33) 165
RS x All others (6 x 32) 192
ES x All others (11 x 27) 297
G x A x I (2 x 7 x 7) 98
G x A x HC (2 x 7 x 5) 70
G x A x RS (2 x 7 x 6) 84
G x A x ES (2 x 7 x 11) 154
I x RS x ES (7 x 6 x 11) 462
G x I x ES (2 x 7 x 11) 154
HC x RS x I (5 x 6 x 7) 210
HC x ES x I (5 x 11 x 7) 385
RS x ES x I (6 x 11 x 7) 462
Low Wellbeing in Australia
80
75
Normal range
71.4
73.4
71.9
70.5
70
PWI
66.6
65
61.3
60.0
.
60
55
(N)
58.5
(548)
(2,146)
(2,774)
(752)
(144)
(134)
(3,766)
Unemployed
<$15K
Live
alone
<$15K
and
Alone
<$15K
and
Unemployed
Alone
and
Unemployed
Carers
Major risk factors
76.4
What are the implications of this
understanding for public policy?
To manage the two major resources
that protect SWB
1. The management of national wealth
1.1 Managing inflation
1.2 Wealth distribution
1.3 Assisting disadvantaged groups
2. Policy on human relationships
Inflation
Consumer Price Index (for the quarter prior to the survey)
Personal Wellbeing Index
CPI/Month x 10
76.3
77
7.0
75.9
6.0
76
75.6
75.4
75.3
76
75
8.0
7.5
6.0
75.3
75.3
4.7
75.6
75.3
74.8
5.0
74.6
74.6
74.4
75
74.4
73
4.0
74.5
4.0
74
3.2
74
74.1
4.3
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.3
2.0
73.2
r = -.48 , p<.025
73
1.0
0.0
72
0.0
-0.2
72
-1.0
1 April
2001
2 Sept
2001
3 March
2002
4 Aug
2002
5 Nov
2002
6 Mar
2003
7 June
2003
8 Aug
2003
9 Nov
2003
10 Feb
2004
11 May
2004
12 Aug
2004
13 May
2005
14 Oct
2005
16 May
2006
15 Oct
2006
17 Apr
2007
CPI
Level of satisfaction
77
How can we increase population SWB through
wealth?
In the conventional view it is automatic
Public
Policy
Increasing
National
Wealth
Increased
population
happiness
Mean of percent Happy and percent Satisfied with life as a whole
GNP/capita (World Bank purchasing power parity estimates, 1995 US
550
Economic growth
and
Subjective Wellbeing
in Japan
500
450
400
GDP is held
as a percent
of its
1958 value
350
Deflated GDP/capita
300
250
200
Life satisfaction 150
is the actual
100
value for
each year
50
Life Satisfaction
0
1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1987
(Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002)
Year
It is not just about getting wealthier
Public
Policy
Increasing
National
Wealth
Equitable
Wealth
Distribution
Increased
population
happiness
As countries become richer, increases in population
happiness can be achieved through managing
the distribution of wealth
World Map of Gini coefficients
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Map_Gini_coefficient.png
Denmark
= 23.2
Hong Kong
= 54.3
Australia
= 35.2
Gini index
0 = perfect economic equality
100 = perfect inequality
Who is the happiest of them all?
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
Scandinavian welfare model causing wealth distribution
The principle is simple
40
35
How satisfied are you with your
life as a whole?
30
33.1
N≈30,000
25
Frequency 20
17.9
17.1
15.1
15
10
7.0
5
0.5
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.7
0
1
2
3
4
5.5
0
Pathological
5
6
7
8
9
10
Normal
The addition of resources here will cause the tail of the
distribution to move to the right, and the mean population
happiness will increase as a consequence
Special purpose samples
Members of Carers Australia
Mailed questionnaires
July 2007
N ≈ 4,000 returns
The wellbeing of carers
80
75
Normal range
71.4
73.4
71.9
70.5
70
PWI
66.6
65
61.3
60.0
60
55
(N)
76.4
58.5
(548)
(2,146)
(2,774)
(752)
(144)
(134)
(3,766)
Unemployed
<$15K
Live
alone
<$15K
and
Alone
<$15K
and
Unemployed
Alone
and
Unemployed
Carers
Diagnostic ranges of depression
80
70
49-64
60
Level of
65+
50
32-48
depression 40
30
20
22-31
0-21
Carer sample
average
10
0
Normal
Mild
Moderate
Severe Extremely
depression depression depression severe
depression
Are you the person who provides most
of the care?
80
76.4
Normal range
75
73.4
70
PWI
65
*
61.3
60
58.2
55
Yes
(N=3,447)
Primary care responsibilitiy
No
(N=295)
Depression is expensive
Hawthorne, G., Cheok, F., Goldney, R., Fisher, L., 2003. The excess cost of depression in South
Australia: a population-based study. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 37, 362–373.
Australia
Direct cost/annum ≈ US$ 2,500
Indirect cost
≈ US$ 8,500
TOTAL
≈ US$ 11,000
Protecting homeostasis
Bad
stuff
X
Subjective
wellbeing
Protective resources
(eg. money,
relationships)
Intimate relationships help to protect
wellbeing against negative challenges
It is almost universally assumed that any
level of support is better than none
eg. “How much support do you receive
from your partner? [ 0 – 10]
Researchers make two assumptions as:
1. A rating of 4 is better than a rating of 3.
2. The data can be analysed through
linear statistics
Level of support from partner
SWB
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
Partner
80.4
76.2
76.3
Normative range
Never married
73.8
73.0
72.0
71.4
Live alone
70.2
70.6
70.1
69.2
67.4
80%
62.8
(51%) (15%) (14%)
10
9
8
7
6
Level of support
5
(4 + 3)
(2 + 1)
0
The protective/damaging effect of
relationships with Age
84
Married
Never married
Divorced
82
80
78
77.5
76.8
77.2
76.9
77.5
79.5
78.2
76.2
76.8
75.4
76
SWB
74
Normal
range
74.2
72
70.3
70
69.6
69.4
68.3
68
67.9
66
66.6
69.9
68.1
66.0
64
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66-75
76+
Age
Questions relevant to Public Policy:
1. How can we strengthen marriages?
2. Why are fewer young people getting married?
3. What are the implications of easy vs difficult divorce?
4. Should we assist single people to find a partner?
Conclusions
1. Measuring population wellbeing allows us to identify
demographic subgroups with low wellbeing.
2. Targeting such groups for additional resources will
act to raise the population wellbeing overall.
3. As low wellbeing is an indicator of depression, and as
depression is a very expensive condition, the above
strategy also has advantages for the economy.
4. There is both a social and an economic advantage
from public policy directed to the enhancement of
population wellbeing.
References
Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social
Indicators Research, 64, 225-256.
Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. L. D. (2004) The motivation to maintain subjective well-being : A homeostatic model.
In H. Switzky (Ed.), International Review of Research on Mental Retardation: Personality and Motivational
Systems in Mental Retardation, 28, (pp. 255-301). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 37-69.
Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R. Pallant, J. Van Vugt, J, & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of
subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159-190.
Cummins, R. A., Gullone, E. & Lau, A. L. D. (2002). A model of subjective well being homeostasis: The role of
personality. In: E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), The universality of subjective wellbeing indicators: Social
Indicators Research Series (pp. 7-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Okerstrom, E., Woerner, J. & Tomyn, A.(2005). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index:
Report 13.0 – “The Wellbeing of Australians – Caregiving at Home”. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality
of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. ISBN 1 74156 014 4
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htm
Cummins, R. A., Hughes, J., Tomyn, A., Gibson, A., Woerner, J., & Lai, L. (2007). Australian Unity Wellbeing
Index: Report 17.1 - The Wellbeing of Australians – Carer Health and Wellbeing”. Melbourne: Australian
Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. ISBN 978 1 74156 092 3
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htm
References continued
Cummins, R. A., Walter, J. & Woerner, J. (2007). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report 16.1 – “The Wellbeing of
Australians – Groups with the highest and lowest wellbeing in Australia”. Melbourne: Australian Centre on
Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. ISBN 978 1 74156 079 4
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htm
Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J. & Tomyn, A., Knapp, T. & Gibson, A. (2005). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report
14.0 – “The Wellbeing of Australians – Personal Relationships”. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of
Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. ISBN 1 7415 6024 1
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htm
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research,
57(2), 119-170.
Ferguson, K. M., & Mindel, C. H. (2007). Modeling fear of crime in Dallas neighborhoods: A test of social capital
theory. Crime and Delinquency, 53(2), 322-349.
Hawthorne, G., Cheok, F., Goldney, R., Fisher, L. (2003). The excess cost of depression in South Australia: a
population-based study. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 362–373
International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index, Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin
University, Melbourne: http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing_index.htm
Louw, A. (2007). Crime and Perceptions after a Decade of democracy. Social Indicators Research. 81. 235–255;
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995) Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales, Psychology Foundation,
Sydney.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005) The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to
success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.
Scandinavian Welfare Model. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_welfare_model