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 Commerce 8-9 February Dr Dave Webb University of Western Australia

2. 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)

4. Introduction Why measure SWB Introduction to PWI Work of the IWBG
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

6. 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 - 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

9. PWI Development Construct validity failure (item loadings)
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 --------?”
How people feel about the domain
Life as
a whole
Personal
relationships
Community
connectedness
Spirituality/
Religion
Safety
Future
security
Standard of
living
Achieving in life
Health
How satisfied people feel in general
An over-all average [Subjective wellbeing]
A value for each domain that can be used diagnostically as well as potentially an input to policy development
Prof Cummins 2012

11. 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?

12. How satisfied are you with your ----?
[Jones and Thurstone 1955]
11-point, end-defined scale
How satisfied are you with your ----?
Completely
Dissatisfied
Completely
Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
100
Score * 100/(number of scale points – 1)
Prof Cummins 2012

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. Personal Wellbeing Index 2001 - 2011
Key: a = September 11 e = Athens Olympics i = Labor Government Elected m = Labor government re-elected
b = Bali Bombing f = Asian Tsunami j = Stock market collapse n = Qld/Vic floods
c = Pre-Iraq War g = Second Bali Bombing k = Fires and floods
d = Hussein Depose h = New IR Laws l = Stock market recovery
Prof Cummins 2012

21. Personal Wellbeing Index 2001 - 2011
This represents a 3.0 percentage point variation
Key: a = September 11 e = Athens Olympics i = Labor Government Elected m = Labor government re-elected
b = Bali Bombing f = Asian Tsunami j = Stock market collapse n = Qld/Vic floods
c = Pre-Iraq War g = Second Bali Bombing k = Fires and floods
d = Hussein Depose h = New IR Laws l = Stock market recovery
Prof Cummins 2012

22. Normative range using survey mean scores as data (N=25 survey periods)
Very satisfied 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
SD = 0.8
Mean = 74.9
76.4
73.4
Subjective
Wellbeing
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 SWB60 90
These set-points
lie between
60 and 90
Range for
individual
set-points
Set-points are always POSITIVE
ie above 50
Prof Cummins 2012

25. Each person has a set-point for their SWB90
The average set-point 75 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
Prof Cummins 2012

26. The potential result of SWB loss is depression
Homeostasis can fail
Overwhelming
negative
challenges
Subjective
wellbeing
The potential result of SWB loss is depression
Prof Cummins 2012

27. It is a balance between personal resources and the level of challenge
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
Challenges
Subjective
Wellbeing
[normal] X
External resources
(eg. Relationships,
Money)
Prof Cummins 2012

29. Income is an external resource that enhances resilience81
Total N ≈ 30,000 80 *
79.2 79
78.3
78.0 * 78 77
76.5
Subjective
wellbeing * 76
76.3 *
74.9 75
73.9
Normal Range 74
73.0 73
71.7 72 71
<$15
$15-30
$31-60
$61-90
$91-120 $
$150+
Median
Household Income ($'000)
Prof Cummins 2012

30. X Internal resources Challenges 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
Prof Cummins 2012

31. 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!)

32. The result of subjective wellbeing loss is depression
Homeostasis failure
Bad
stuff
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
The relationship between the strength of challenge to homeostasis and SWB is non-linear
The level of challenge to homeostasis is cumulative over sources of stress
Of themselves, ill-health and disability only weakly challenge homeostasis
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
High
Low
Threshold
DISTRESS
Homeostasis
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
73.7
73.9
75.7
76.3 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80
Blood
pressure
Diabetes
Heart
problems
Asthma
Arthritis
Depression
Anxiety
SWB
Normative range
NB. The medical condition must be consciously experienced
as strongly aversive in order to affect subjective wellbeing
Prof Cummins 2012

39. Body Mass Index (PWI) BMI SWB 76.6 Normal Range 73.4 71.4 66.0 72.7
Very severe
Severe
Moderate
Mild
0.3
N=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
Obese
Overweight
Normal
Underweight
BMI
76.6
Normal Range
73.4
71.4
66.0
72.7
73.9
75.5
76.1
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
3.7 point change
Prof Cummins 2012

42. Household structure 3.7 point change 10.4 point change
Prof Cummins 2012

43. Household structure 12.2 point change
Generally happier without children unless you’re earning level is high
12.2 point change
Prof Cummins 2012

44. 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. 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
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.
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

48. To build understanding of WHY countries differ in their SWB
AIM #2
To get beyond simplistic (and misleading) between-country comparisons of SWB
To build understanding of WHY countries differ in their SWB
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

49. Sample Demographics and Method
Country N
Males
Females
Age Range
Mean Age
Algeria
1,417
708
709
18 up 29
Argentina
476
160
316
82% < age group 48+
Australia
1897
931
966 49
Hong Kong
179 68
111 44
Italy
172
100 72
18-30 22
Ireland
994
491
503
15 up 37
Norway
427
184
243 48
Mexico
1170
556
614 *
Philippines
888
444 41
Romania
351
157
194
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

50. 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
Australia
Randomly selected from general population
Telephone interview
Hong Kong
Recruited to age quota
Italy
College students
Interview
Ireland
Random/quota-controls
Norway
Postal survey
35%
Mexico
Randomly selected from electoral role zones in the urban zone of Culiacan
Philippines
Random/general population
64%
Romania
70%
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

51. Two global constructs:
the economic situation in Algeria?
2. the state of the natural environment in Italy?
3. the social conditions in Spain?
4. Government in Romania?
business in Australia?
6. national security in Argentina?
your standard of living?
2. your health?
3. what you achieve in life?
4. your personal relationships?
5. how safe you feel?
feeling part of your community?
7. your future security?
National Wellbeing Index
“How satisfied are you with ”
Personal Wellbeing Index
Two global constructs:
Satisfaction with Life as a Whole
Satisfaction with Life in [country]
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

52. Factor Analysis AUSTRALIA Factor 1 Factor 2 S2 S5 S6 Government .75
.81
.79
Business
.77
Social
.70
.76
.67
Environment
.69
.73
Economic
.72
.68
Nat. Security
.63
.61
Achievements
Fut. Security
.62
Standard
.74
Relations
.60
Safety
.52
.58
.50
Community
.57
Health
.48
.56
Eigen Values
3.21
3.48
4.53
3.03
2.92
1.60
% variance explained
24.69 -
23.30
Reliability
.82
.78
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

53. Factor Analysis
All countries tested produce two clean factors (using an item-loading cut-off score of .4
BUT, the factors emerge in different orders
First Factor
Second Factor
Factor
% of variance
PWI
37.5
NWI
15.6
42.0
14.1
41.8
14.7
43.9
15.1
35.8
12.7
32.5
17.3
39.9
14.9
Algeria
Mexico
Romania
Spain
Australia
Italy
Ireland
Argentina
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

54. What causes one factor to be stronger than the other?
The strongest factor will be the one with the largest variance
100
Satisfaction scale 50
Factor 1
Factor 2
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

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
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

56. Proximal – Distal Dimension of homeostasisLO 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
Homeostatic set point theory more robust in proximal satisfaction situations i.e., about me (PWI) rather than about Government (NWI). Such situations are more within our control and therefore autonomy is greater than in the case of government. However, under conditions of homeostatic failure this would not be the case and one would expect to find greater variance in PWI. Given that increase in autonomy = increase in SWB, one would expect that the more distal the control (NWI), the lower the SWB. This can be tested.
Similarly, one would also expect to locate greater variance at this level thus = more difficult to isolate set point at NWI level.
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

57. Why does the National Wellbeing Index normally emerge first as the strongest factor?
National wellbeing normally has the largest variance
100
Satisfaction scale 50
National wellbeing: Factor 1
Personal wellbeing: Factor 2
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

58. BUT This will only apply if homeostasis is effective.
In situations of homeostatic defeat, the pattern will be reversed
100
Satisfaction scale 50
National wellbeing: Factor 2
Personal wellbeing: Factor 1
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

59. Prediction Theory: The factor order can be diagnostic
PWI : NWI
PWI > NWI
NWI : PWI
NWI > PWI
Variance
Factor order
Environment
Benign
Hostile
Theory: The factor order can be diagnostic
of a hostile environment
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

60. Factor Analysis First Factor Second Factor Factor % of variance PWI
37.5
NWI
15.6
42.0
14.1
41.8
14.7
43.9
15.1
35.8
12.7
32.5
17.3
39.9
14.9
Algeria
Mexico
Romania
Spain
Australia
Italy
Ireland
Argentina
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

61. Factor Analysis First Factor Second Factor Index Factor % of varianceSD
PWI
37.5
NWI
15.6
P > N
42.0
14.1
41.8
14.7
43.9
15.1
N > P
35.8
12.7
32.5
17.3
39.9
14.9
Algeria
Mexico
Romania
Spain
Australia
Italy
Ireland
Argentina
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

62. Factor Analysis First Factor Second Factor Index GDP/ CAP >$20K
% of variance SD
PWI
37.5
NWI
15.6
P > N No
42.0
14.1
41.8
14.7
43.9
15.1
N > P
Yes
35.8
12.7
32.5
17.3
39.9
14.9
Algeria
Mexico
Romania
Spain
Australia
Italy
Ireland
Argentina

63. Personal Wellbeing Index
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

64. Personal Wellbeing Index
77.4
73.0
72.8
71.1
71.0
69.6
65.6
52.3
24.6
5.6
8.1
7.4
20.9
30.4
27.8
8.8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mexico
Australia
Ireland
Spain
Italy
Romania
Argentina
Algeria
Strength of
satisfaction 5 15 25 35
GDP/CAP $
(x 1,000)
PWI
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

65. Source of SWB: Veenhoven’s World Database of Happiness
Comparison SWB and Personality Steel, P. & Ones, D.S. (2002). Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83,
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
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

66. NEO-PI-R (24 countries) Neuroticism (anxious, moody etc)
Extraversion (sociable, optimistic etc.)
Openness to experience (intellect, appreciate arts etc.)
Conscientiousness (organised, industrious)
Agreeableness (altruistic, friendly etc.)
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

67. 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) R² = .64
Variance accounted for by neuroticism
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

68. Hierarchical Regression
Step 1: GNP
Step 2: SWB R² = R² =
Here, only neuroticism accounts for change in variance
Personality explains MORE of the variance in between-nation SWB than does GNP !!
.41
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

69. Neuroticism vs. Personal Wellbeing Index
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

70. Extraversion vs. Personal Wellbeing Index
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

71. 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)
International Well-Being Group (IWBG)

72. 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

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):
Cummins, R. A. (1998). "The second approximation to an international standard for life satisfaction." Social Indicators Research 43(3):
Cummins, R. A., (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for subjective wellbeing, Social Indicators Research. Vol. 35, No. 2, Pp
Cummins , R. A., (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research. Vol. 38, No. 3, Pp
Cummins, R. A. (2000). "Objective and Subjective Quality of Life: an Interactive Model." Social Indicators Research 52(1):
Cummins, R. A. (2003). "Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model." Social Indicators Research 64(2):
Cummins, R. A. (2005). "The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos." Citation classics from social indicators research:
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):
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):
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

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):
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 DOI /s
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: /s Volume 107, Number 1, Pages
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):
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):
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....