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 CountryNMalesFemalesAge RangeMean Age Algeria1, up29 Argentina up82% < age group 48+ Australia up49 Hong Kong up44 Italy Ireland up37 Norway up48 Mexico up* Philippines up41 Romania up48

Sample Demographics and Method CountrySample DemographicsMethod Response Rate AlgeriaRecruited around colleges, Universities and institutions Questionnaire and interview n/a ArgentinaRandomly selected from general population (approx. 30% small cities and rural areas) Interview public places n/a AustraliaRandomly selected from general populationTelephone interview n/a Hong Kong Recruited to age quotaTelephone interview n/a ItalyCollege studentsInterviewn/a IrelandRandom/quota-controlsInterviewn/a NorwayRandomly selected from general populationPostal survey35% MexicoRandomly selected from electoral role zones in the urban zone of Culiacan Interviewn/a Philippine s Random/general populationInterview64% RomaniaRandom/general populationInterview70%

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 Standardized Scale Normative population range for Western countries Personal Wellbeing Index = 70-80

Factor Analysis AUSTRALIA Factor 1Factor 2 S2S5S6S2S5S6 Government Business Social Environment Economic Nat. Security Achievements Fut. Security Standard Relations Safety Community Health Eigen Values % variance explained Reliability.82.78

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 FactorSecond Factor Factor % of varianceFactor % of variance PWI37.5NWI15.6 PWI42.0NWI14.1 PWI41.8NWI14.7 NWI43.9PWI15.1 NWI35.8PWI12.7 NWI32.5PWI17.3 NWI39.9PWI14.9 NWI42.0PWI14.1

What causes one factor to be stronger than the other? The strongest factor will be the one with the largest variance 0100 Satisfaction 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

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” Control mechanism Cognition Homeostasis

Why does the National Wellbeing Index normally emerge first as the strongest factor? National wellbeing normally has the largest variance 0100 Satisfaction 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 0100 Satisfaction scale 50 National wellbeing: Factor 2 Personal wellbeing: Factor 1

Prediction PWI : NWIPWI > NWI NWI : PWINWI > PWI Variance Factor order Environment Benign Hostile Theory: The factor order can be diagnostic of a hostile environment

Factor Analysis First FactorSecond Factor Factor % of varianceFactor % of variance PWI37.5NWI15.6 PWI42.0NWI14.1 PWI41.8NWI14.7 NWI43.9PWI15.1 NWI35.8PWI12.7 NWI32.5PWI17.3 NWI39.9PWI14.9 NWI42.0PWI14.1

Factor Analysis First FactorSecond FactorIndex Factor % of varianceFactor % of varianceSD PWI37.5NWI15.6P > N PWI42.0NWI14.1P > N PWI41.8NWI14.7P > N NWI43.9PWI15.1N > P NWI35.8PWI12.7N > P NWI32.5PWI17.3N > P NWI39.9PWI14.9N > P NWI42.0PWI14.1N > P

Factor Analysis First FactorSecond FactorIndexGDP/ CAP >$20K Factor % of varianceFactor % of varianceSD PWI37.5NWI15.6P > NNo PWI42.0NWI14.1P > NNo PWI41.8NWI14.7P > NNo NWI43.9PWI15.1N > PYes NWI35.8PWI12.7N > PYes NWI32.5PWI17.3N > PYes NWI39.9PWI14.9N > PYes NWI42.0PWI14.1N > P No

Personal Wellbeing Index

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

Neuroticism vs. Personal Wellbeing Index

Extraversion vs. Personal Wellbeing Index

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