Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 14 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 14 Report 14.0 October 2005

Part A: The Report “The Wellbeing of Australians – Personal Relationships”

Robert A. Cummins School of Psychology, Deakin University Jacqui Woerner, Adrian Tomyn, Adele Gibson and T’Meika Knapp Doctoral Students, School of Psychology, Deakin University

Australian Centre on Quality of Life Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway Melbourne, Victoria 3125, Australia http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htm

Published by Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia First published 2004 © Deakin University and Australian Unity Limited ISBN 1 7415 6024 1

This is a joint publication of: The School of Psychology, Deakin University The Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University Australian Unity Correspondence should be directed to: Professor Robert A. Cummins Deakin University Geelong, Victoria 3217 Australia Email: [email protected] Website: acqol.deakin.edu.au

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, Survey 14, Report 14, October 2005

Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................................ix 1.

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4.

Understanding Personal Wellbeing .........................................................................................................1 The Survey Methodology........................................................................................................................2 Presentation of results and type of analysis.............................................................................................2 Internal Report Organisation...................................................................................................................3

2.

A Comparison Between Survey 14 and Survey 13 .............................................................................4

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.9. 2.9.1. 2.9.2.

Overview.................................................................................................................................................4 Personal Wellbeing Domains ..................................................................................................................7 Life as a Whole .....................................................................................................................................14 National Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................15 Life in Australia ....................................................................................................................................21 Australian Wellbeing Summary ............................................................................................................21 Discussion of the Changes in Personal and National Wellbeing...........................................................23 Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack............................................................................................................23 Normative Data .....................................................................................................................................27 Normative Data from Individual Scores ...............................................................................................28 Normative Data using Survey Mean Scores as Data (N=14) ................................................................30

3.

Household Income...............................................................................................................................34

3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.2. 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.6.1. 3.7. 3.7.1. 3.7.2. 3.8. 3.8.1. 3.8.2.

Income and Wellbeing ..........................................................................................................................35 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................35 Personal Domains..................................................................................................................................37 National Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................39 National Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................39 Terrorist Attack Probability ..................................................................................................................39 Income and Gender ...............................................................................................................................40 Income and Age ....................................................................................................................................40 Income x Age x Gender ........................................................................................................................42 Income and Household Structure ..........................................................................................................43 Income and Relationship Status ............................................................................................................45 Income and Work Status .......................................................................................................................46 Income x Work Status x Gender ...........................................................................................................47 Testing Homeostasis .............................................................................................................................47 Wellbeing Variation Within Income Groups using Combined Survey Data.........................................47 Differential Personal-National Income Sensitivity ...............................................................................48 Normative Values..................................................................................................................................49 Normative Data for Individual Scores...................................................................................................49 Normative Data for Group Means.........................................................................................................50

4.

Gender..................................................................................................................................................56

4.1. 4.2. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4.2.4. 4.2.5. 4.2.6. 4.3. 4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.4. 4.4.1. 4.5. 4.6.

Overall Distribution ..............................................................................................................................56 Gender and Wellbeing...........................................................................................................................56 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................56 Personal Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................57 Domain Stability Across Surveys x Gender..........................................................................................58 National Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................59 National Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................60 Survey-specific National Aspects .........................................................................................................60 Gender and Age ....................................................................................................................................60 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................60 Gender x Age: Domains.......................................................................................................................62 Gender and Household Structure ..........................................................................................................64 Gender x Household Structure x Age....................................................................................................65 Gender and Relationship Status ............................................................................................................68 Gender x Work Status ...........................................................................................................................69


i

Table of Contents Continued

4.6.1. 4.7. 4.7.1. 4.7.2. 4.8. 4.8.1. 4.8.2.

Gender x Age x Work-Status (Full-time)..............................................................................................71 Normative Data Based on Individual Scores.........................................................................................72 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................72 Individual Scores x Age ........................................................................................................................72 Normative Data based on Survey Mean Scores ....................................................................................75 Personal Wellbeing Index and Domains ...............................................................................................75 Normative: Gender x Age ....................................................................................................................76

5.

Age........................................................................................................................................................79

5.1. 5.2. 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.2.3. 5.2.4. 5.2.5. 5.2.6. 5.2.7. 5.2.8. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.10.

Distribution Overall ..............................................................................................................................79 Age and Wellbeing................................................................................................................................79 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................79 Age x Surveys .......................................................................................................................................79 Personal Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................83 Physical Pain .........................................................................................................................................83 Life as a Whole .....................................................................................................................................84 National Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................84 National Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................84 National Survey Specific.......................................................................................................................84 Age and Household Structure ...............................................................................................................85 Age and Relationship Status .................................................................................................................87 Correlations Between Pain and Personal Wellbeing Index ...................................................................89 Age and Work Status ............................................................................................................................91 Normative Data Generated from Individual Scores ..............................................................................91 Normative Domain Scores (raw data) ...................................................................................................92 Normative Data from Survey Mean Scores (N=13)..............................................................................94 Normative Domain Scores (Survey Mean Scores : N=13)....................................................................95

6.

Household Structure ...........................................................................................................................99

6.1. 6.2. 6.2.1. 6.2.2. 6.2.3. 6.2.4. 6.2.5. 6.2.6. 6.2.7. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5.

Distribution Overall ..............................................................................................................................99 Household Structure and Wellbeing......................................................................................................99 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................99 Personal Domains................................................................................................................................101 Life as a Whole ...................................................................................................................................102 National Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................103 National Wellbeing Domains ..............................................................................................................103 Life in Australia ..................................................................................................................................103 National Survey-Specific Aspects: Terrorist Attack ...........................................................................103 Household Structure and Marital Status..............................................................................................104 Household Structure x Full-time Work Status ....................................................................................106 Living Alone x Work Status................................................................................................................106

7.

Marital Status ....................................................................................................................................109

7.1. 7.1.1. 7.1.2. 7.1.3. 7.1.4. 7.1.5. 7.1.6. 7.1.7. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4.

Marital Status and Wellbeing..............................................................................................................109 Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys)...................................................................................109 Personal Wellbeing Domains ..............................................................................................................109 Life as a Whole ...................................................................................................................................111 National Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................111 National Wellbeing Domains ..............................................................................................................112 Life in Australia ..................................................................................................................................113 Likelihood of Terrorist Attack ............................................................................................................113 Work Status.........................................................................................................................................114 Marital Status x Work Status x Income...............................................................................................115 Part-time Volunteering........................................................................................................................116

8.

Work Status .......................................................................................................................................119

8.1. 8.2. 8.2.1. 8.2.2. 8.2.3.

Overall Distribution ............................................................................................................................119 Work Status and Wellbeing.................................................................................................................120 Full-time Work Status: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys) .............................................120 Personal Domains................................................................................................................................120 Domain profile of Full-time work-status groups.................................................................................121


ii

Table of Contents Continued

8.2.4. 8.2.5. 8.2.6. 8.3. 8.3.1. 8.4. 8.5.

Life as a Whole ...................................................................................................................................124 National Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................124 National Domains................................................................................................................................124 Looking for Work ...............................................................................................................................125 Personal Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................125 Part-time Voluntary Work...................................................................................................................127 Unemployment and Income: Personal Wellbeing Index Domains.....................................................128

9.

Health and Body Mass Index ...........................................................................................................133

9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5.

Height, Weight and Body Mass Index ................................................................................................133 Gender x Height, Weight, and BMI ....................................................................................................135 Income.................................................................................................................................................137 Relationship Status..............................................................................................................................142 Physical Pain .......................................................................................................................................142

10.

Life Events .........................................................................................................................................146

10.1. 10.1.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.3.1. 10.4. 10.4.1. 10.4.2. 10.4.3.

Occurrence of Personal Life Events....................................................................................................146 Gender and Life Event Frequency ......................................................................................................148 Relationship Between Life Events and Wellbeing Moderated by Income ..........................................150 Life Event Frequency x Age ...............................................................................................................151 Income and Life Event Frequency ......................................................................................................152 Perceived Intensity of Life Events ......................................................................................................153 Household Income and Life Event Intensity .......................................................................................153 Gender and Life Event Intensity ........................................................................................................153 Age and Life Event Intensity ..............................................................................................................154

11.

Relationship Support ........................................................................................................................157

11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. 11.5. 11.6. 11.6.1. 11.6.2. 11.7.

Relationship Support x Marital Status.................................................................................................160 High and Low Relationship Support ...................................................................................................163 Relationship Support x Age ................................................................................................................165 Relationship Support x Gender ...........................................................................................................166 Support Compensation ........................................................................................................................166 Correlations Between SWB and Perceived Support ...........................................................................169 Homeostasis ........................................................................................................................................170 Gender.................................................................................................................................................170 Evidence for Homeostasis...................................................................................................................171

12.

The Price of Petrol ............................................................................................................................176

13.

Insights into Homeostasis .................................................................................................................178

13.1. 13.2. 13.3. 13.4. 13.5.

Health Satisfaction ..............................................................................................................................178 Relationship Satisfaction.....................................................................................................................182 Standard of Living Satisfaction...........................................................................................................183 Combined Data ...................................................................................................................................184 Standard of Living Satisfaction...........................................................................................................185

Appendix A1 .......................................................................................................................................................188 A1.1 A1.2

References to the Text.........................................................................................................................188 Previous Reports on the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index ...............................................................188

Acknowledgement We thank Ann-Marie James for word processing this document. All analyses in this Report were performed by Adrian Tomyn, Jacqui Woerner, Adele Gibson and T’Meika Knapp.


iii

Index of Tables Table 2.1: Means and standard deviations of the 13th survey................................................................................. 4 Table 3.1: Income Frequency (Survey 13)........................................................................................................... 34 Table 3.2: The Cost of Each PWI Increment ....................................................................................................... 36 Table 3.3: Rank Order of Domains ...................................................................................................................... 39 Table 3.4: PWI and NWI Change with Income ................................................................................................... 48 Table 4.1: Domain Changes >2.0% Between Adjacent Surveys within each Gender ......................................... 58 Table 4.2: Range (2SD) of Personal Wellbeing Mean Scores over Surveys, 1-13 .............................................. 75 Table 5.1: Mean Domain Score Changes for 76+y (Personal Wellbeing Index) ................................................. 81 Table 10.1: The number of significant domain associations between the strength of happy events and the Personal Wellbeing Index across the seven income groups ...................................................................... 151 Table 11.1: Support Source Frequency .............................................................................................................. 157 Table 11.2: Proportion of Marital Status Receiving Support ............................................................................. 161 Table 11.3: Married vs. Never Married: Relationship Support......................................................................... 161 Table 11.4: Total Perceived Support x Personal Wellbeing Index..................................................................... 162

See Part B for Appended Tables.


iv

Index of Figures Figure 2.1: Personal Wellbeing Index.................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.2: National Wellbeing Index.................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.3: Satisfaction with Standard of Living ................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2.4: Satisfaction with Health...................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2.5: Satisfaction with What you are Currently Achieving ...................................................................... 9 Figure 2.6: Satisfaction with Relationships ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2.7: Satisfaction with How Safe you Feel................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2.8: Satisfaction with Feeling Part of Your Community ....................................................................... 12 Figure 2.9: Satisfaction with Future Security .................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2.10: Satisfaction with Life as a Whole................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2.11: Satisfaction with the Economic Situation in Australia ................................................................. 15 Figure 2.12: Satisfaction with the State of the Natural Environment in Australia ......................................... 16 Figure 2.13: Satisfaction with the Social Conditions in Australia..................................................................... 17 Figure 2.14: Satisfaction with Government in Australia................................................................................... 18 Figure 2.15: Satisfaction with Business in Australia ......................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.16: Satisfaction with National Security................................................................................................ 20 Figure 2.17: Satisfaction with Life in Australia ................................................................................................. 21 Figure 2.18: Percentage who think a terrorist attack is likely .............................................................................. 23 Figure 2.19: Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack ...................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2.20: Likelihood of Terrorist Attack x Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys 9-14) ................... 24 Figure 2.21: Likelihood of Attack x Personal Wellbeing Index Showing 2SD Below the Mean ........................ 25 Figure 2.22: Personal Wellbeing Index x Attack Probability x Life Events ........................................................ 26 Figure 2.23: Normative Range for Individual Data: Personal Wellbeing Index............................................... 28 Figure 2.24: Normative Range for Individual Data: National Wellbeing Index ............................................... 28 Figure 2.25: Normative Range for Life as a Whole and Life in Australia ........................................................... 29 Figure 2.26: Life as a Whole vs. Life in Australia: Survey Means ..................................................................... 29 Figure 2.27: Normative Range for Group Data: Personal Wellbeing Mean Scores (N=14) ............................. 30 Figure 2.28: Normative Range: National Wellbeing Mean Scores (N=13)....................................................... 31 Figure 2.29: Normative Range of Life as a Whole and Life in Australia.......................................................... 31 Figure 3.1: Income and the Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys) ..................................................... 35 Figure 3.2: The cost of purchasing a percentage point of personal wellbeing ..................................................... 36 Figure 3.3: The Influence of Household Income to create differences within the Personal Domains ................. 38 Figure 3.4: Income x National Economic Situation (combined data) .................................................................. 39 Figure 3.5: Gender x Household Income (combined data) .................................................................................. 40 Figure 3.6: Income x Age (combined data).......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 3.7: Income x Age x Gender (combined data) .......................................................................................... 42 Figure 3.8: Income x Household Structure: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined Surveys 9-12) ................... 43 Figure 3.9: Income x Relationship Status .......................................................................................................... 45 Figure 3.10: Income x Work Status (combined data)......................................................................................... 46 Figure 3.11: Income x Work Status x Gender...................................................................................................... 47 Figure 3.12: Variation in Personal Wellbeing Index Within Income Groups Using Individual Scores (S9-S11) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 3.13: Personal Wellbeing Index Range Calculated from Individual Scores........................................... 49 Figure 3.14: Correspondence Between the Whole Sample Normative Range and the Income Specific Normative Range (Combined surveys) ......................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 3.15: Personal Wellbeing Index Range Calculated from Survey Mean Scores...................................... 50 Figure 4.1: Gender x Survey: Personal Wellbeing Index ................................................................................. 56 Figure 4.2: Satisfaction with Safety across all Surveys ....................................................................................... 57 Figure 4.3: Gender x Survey (Safety and Personal Wellbeing Index) ................................................................. 58 Figure 4.4: Satisfaction with Economic Situation x Gender ................................................................................ 60 Figure 4.5: Gender x Age: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys)...................................................... 61 Figure 4.6: Gender x Age: Female PWI minus Male PWI (combined data).................................................. 61 Figure 4.7: Gender x Age: Standard of Living (combined data)....................................................................... 62 Figure 4.8: Gender x Age: Health (combined surveys)...................................................................................... 62 Figure 4.9: Gender x Age: Relationships (combined surveys) ........................................................................... 63 Figure 4.10: Gender x Age: Safety (combined surveys)..................................................................................... 63 Figure 4.11: Gender x Age: Community Connection (combined surveys)....................................................... 64 Figure 4.12: Gender x Living Alone: Personal Wellbeing Index ..................................................................... 65 Figure 4.13: Gender x Sole Parents x Survey (Personal Wellbeing Index).......................................................... 65 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, Survey 14, Report 14, October 2005

v

Index of Figures Continued

Figure 4.14: Age x Sole Parent x Gender (PWI) ................................................................................................ 66 Figure 4.15: Age x Lives Alone x Gender (Personal Wellbeing Index) .............................................................. 66 Figure 4.16: Age x Lives with Other Adults x Gender (Personal Wellbeing Index) .......................................... 67 Figure 4.17: Gender x Relationship Status (Personal Wellbeing Index).............................................................. 68 Figure 4.18: Fulltime employed x Gender: Personal Wellbeing Index ............................................................... 69 Figure 4.19: Full-time Home or Family Care x Gender: Personal Wellbeing Index........................................... 69 Figure 4.20: Work status (F/T) x Gender Differences (Personal Wellbeing Index)............................................. 70 Figure 4.21: Gender x Age x Work Status (Full-time)......................................................................................... 71 Figure 4.22: Gender Normative Data for Individuals: Personal Wellbeing Index............................................ 72 Figure 4.23: Gender x Age: Normative Data for Individuals: Personal Wellbeing Index ............................... 73 Figure 4.24: Gender x Age: Highest Margins of the Normal Range Calculated from Individuals .............. 73 Figure 4.25: Gender x Age: Lowest Extent of the Normative Range Calculated from Individuals ............. 74 Figure 4.26: Index and Domains: Normative Personal Wellbeing................................................................... 75 Figure 4.27: Normative Gender x Age................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 5.1: Age: Personal Wellbeing Index (Survey 13 vs. Normative Data)................................................... 79 Figure 5.2: Age x Survey (Personal Wellbeing Index) ........................................................................................ 79 Figure 5.3: Age (3 oldest groups) x Survey (PWI) .............................................................................................. 80 Figure 5.4: Age x Survey: 76y+ and Four Domains ........................................................................................... 81 Figure 5.5: Age: Satisfaction with Health (Survey 14) ....................................................................................... 83 Figure 5.6: Oldest and Youngest Groups (Pain) .................................................................................................. 83 Figure 5.7: Age: National Wellbeing Index domains (Survey 14)....................................................................... 84 Figure 5.8: Age x Household Structure (cumulative data)................................................................................... 85 Figure 5.9: Age x Relationship Status: Personal Wellbeing Index (cumulative data) ........................................ 87 Figure 5.10: Never Married: Personal Wellbeing x Proportion of Each Age Cohort Living Alone ............. 88 Figure 5.11: Age: Pain Correlated with the Personal Wellbeing Index .............................................................. 89 Figure 5.12: Age x Work Status (Personal Wellbeing Index).............................................................................. 91 Figure 5.13: Normative Range for Each Age Group Derived from the Scores of Individuals (Personal Wellbeing Index)........................................................................................................................................ 92 Figure 5.14: Age x Satisfaction with Health: Normative Raw Data................................................................. 93 Figure 5.15: Age x Satisfaction with Relationships: Normative Raw Data ..................................................... 93 Figure 5.16: Normative Range for each age group derived from the survey mean scores (Personal Wellbeing Index: N=13) .............................................................................................................................................. 94 Figure 5.17: Age x Satisfaction with Health: Survey Mean Scores.................................................................. 95 Figure 5.18: Age x Satisfaction with Relationships: Survey Mean Scores ...................................................... 95 Figure 6.1: Household Structure: Personal Wellbeing Index [combined data] ................................................ 99 Figure 6.2: Effects of Children on Adult Wellbeing....................................................................................... 100 Figure 6.3: Live Alone: Domain vs. Normative Data (Strength of Satisfaction) ............................................. 101 Figure 6.4: Live with Partner in the Absence of Children............................................................................. 102 Figure 6.5: Live with Partner in the Presence of Children............................................................................ 102 Figure 6.6: Household Structure: National Wellbeing Index ......................................................................... 103 Figure 6.7: Household Structure: Terrorist Attack Probability Strength ..................................................... 103 Figure 6.8: Household Structure x Marital Status: Personal Wellbeing Index .............................................. 104 Figure 6.9: Live Alone x Relationship Status x Income: Personal Wellbeing Index......................................... 105 Figure 6.10: Sole Parent x Relationship Status x Income: Personal Wellbeing Index...................................... 105 Figure 6.11: Household Composition x Unemployment: Personal Wellbeing Index ....................................... 106 Figure 6.12: Living Alone x Work Status (Personal Wellbeing Index)............................................................. 106 Figure 7.1: Marital Status: Personal Wellbeing Index.................................................................................... 109 Figure 7.2: Marital Status: Relationship Satisfaction ..................................................................................... 110 Figure 7.3: Marital Status: Health Satisfaction ............................................................................................... 110 Figure 7.4: Widows: Personal Wellbeing Index Domains ................................................................................ 111 Figure 7.5: Marital Status: Community Connection Satisfaction .................................................................. 111 Figure 7.6: Marital Status: National Wellbeing Index .................................................................................... 112 Figure 7.7: Marital Status: National Security.................................................................................................. 112 Figure 7.8: Marital Status: Life in Australia.................................................................................................... 113 Figure 7.9: Marital Status x Perceived Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack (from 0-100).................................. 113 Figure 7.10: Marital Status x Full-time Employment: Personal Wellbeing Index.......................................... 114 Figure 7.11: Marital Status vs. Employed/Unemployed: Personal Wellbeing Index ..................................... 114 Figure 7.12: Marital Status vs. Full-time Home or Family Care........................................................................ 115 Figure 7.13: Divorced x Work Status x Income ................................................................................................ 115 Figure 7.14: Marital Status x Part-time Volunteering (Personal Wellbeing Index) ........................................... 116 Figure 8.1: Work Status: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined data)............................................................ 120 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, Survey 14, Report 14, October 2005

vi


Figure 8.2: Work Status: Satisfaction with Health (Combined Data)............................................................. 120 Figure 8.3: Work Status: Full-time Employed x Personal Domains (Combined Data)................................... 121 Figure 8.4: Work Status: Full-time Retired x Personal Domains (Combined Data) ......................................... 121 Figure 8.5: Work Status: Semi-retired x Personal Domains (Combined Data)................................................. 122 Figure 8.6: Work Status: Full-time Volunteers x Personal Domains (Combined Data) ................................. 122 Figure 8.7: Work Status Full-time Home or Family Care (Combined Data).................................................. 123 Figure 8.8: Work Status Full-time Students x Personal Domains (Combined Data) ....................................... 123 Figure 8.9: Work Status: People who are Unemployed x Personal Domains (Combined Data) .................... 124 Figure 8.10: Work Status: National Wellbeing Index ........................................................................................ 124 Figure 8.11: Looking for Work: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined data)................................................. 125 Figure 8.12: Work Status: Full-time Employed not Looking for Work (PWI) ............................................. 125 Figure 8.13: Work Status: Full-time Employed Looking for Work ............................................................... 126 Figure 8.14: Work Status: Unemployed not Looking for Work ..................................................................... 126 Figure 8.15: Work Status: Unemployed Looking for Work............................................................................ 127 Figure 8.16: Full-time Work Status vs. Part-time Volunteer ............................................................................. 127 Figure 8.17: Unemployment x Income: Personal Wellbeing Index Domains................................................... 128 Figure 9.1: Height (Personal Wellbeing Index) ................................................................................................. 133 Figure 9.2: Weight (Personal Wellbeing Index) ................................................................................................ 133 Figure 9.3: Body Mass Index (Personal Wellbeing Index) ................................................................................ 134 Figure 9.4: Height x Personal Wellbeing Index............................................................................................... 135 Figure 9.5: Weight x Personal Wellbeing Index.............................................................................................. 136 Figure 9.6: Body Mass Index x Gender: Personal Wellbeing Index............................................................... 136 Figure 9.7: Height x Income (% in height category).......................................................................................... 137 Figure 9.8: Height x Income (Personal Wellbeing Index) ................................................................................. 137 Figure 9.9: Income x Weight (% of income in weight category) ....................................................................... 138 Figure 9.10: Weight x Income (Personal Wellbeing Index)............................................................................... 138 Figure 9.11: Income x Body Mass Index (% of income in BMI category) ........................................................ 139 Figure 9.12: Body Mass Index x Income (Personal Wellbeing Index) .............................................................. 139 Figure 9.13: Body Mass Index x Age (% BMI category in age group).............................................................. 140 Figure 9.14: Body Mass Index x Age (Personal Wellbeing Index).................................................................... 141 Figure 9.15: Relationship Status (Married vs. Never Married) x BMI (PWI) .................................................. 142 Figure 9.16: Physical Pain x Gender.................................................................................................................. 142 Figure 9.17: Physical Pain x Gender x Personal Wellbeing Index..................................................................... 143 Figure 9.18: Major Medical Condition x Personal Wellbeing Index ................................................................. 143 Figure 10.1: Percentage of Respondents Reporting the Experience of a Personal Life Event ........................ 146 Figure 10.2: The Percentage of People Reporting a Happy or a Sad Event in Their Life ............................... 147 Figure 10.3: Event x Gender (event % of a total of gender in each survey) ...................................................... 148 Figure 10.4: Gender Differences: Proportion Reporting Happy or Sad Events............................................ 149 Figure 10.5: Event x Gender x Survey (% of a total of gender in each survey)................................................. 149 Figure 10.6: Diagrammatic Representation of Changes in the Incidence of Personal Events & Gender........... 150 Figure 10.7: Relationship Between Strength of Positive Event and Personal Wellbeing Index Between Income Groups ....................................................................................................................................................... 151 Figure 10.8: Age: Life Event Frequency (combined surveys) ......................................................................... 152 Figure 10.9: Income: Life Event Frequency (combined surveys).................................................................... 152 Figure 10.10: Intensity of Recent Personal Events......................................................................................... 153 Figure 10.11: Intensity of Happiness/Sadness to a Personal Life Event....................................................... 154 Figure 11.1: Source and Strength of Support ..................................................................................................... 157 Figure 11.2: Level of Support x Personal Wellbeing Index............................................................................... 158 Figure 11.3: Relationship Support x Marital Status (support strength).............................................................. 160 Figure 11.4: The Relative Risk of Low Support ................................................................................................ 163 Figure 11.5: People who Experience no Support from each Relationship Source ............................................. 164 Figure 11.6: Relationship Support Group x Age................................................................................................ 165 Figure 11.7: Relationship Support x Gender...................................................................................................... 166 Figure 11.8: Reduced or Absent Partner Support: Level of Support from Other Sources ................................. 167 Figure 11.9: Reduced or absent Family Support: Levels of Support from other Sources ................................. 167 Figure 11.10: Reduced or absent, General Friend Support: Levels of Support from other Sources ................. 168 Figure 11.11: Reduced or absent Work Friend Support: Levels of Support from other Sources...................... 168 Figure 11.12: Reduced or absent Counsellor Support: Levels of Support from other Sources......................... 169 Figure 11.13: Correlation Between Support Strength and Personal Wellbeing Index for Married (M) and Separated (S) ............................................................................................................................................. 169 Figure 11.14: The degree to which social support explains SWB: Gender differences ..................................... 171 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, Survey 14, Report 14, October 2005

vii


Figure 11.15: Total Support x Personal Wellbeing Index.................................................................................. 172 Figure 12.1: Petrol Price Distress x Personal Wellbeing Index ......................................................................... 176 Figure 12.2: Comparative Forms of High Distress and Subjective Wellbeing .................................................. 177 Figure 13.1: Satisfaction with Health (Frequency: combined sample) .............................................................. 178 Figure 13.2: Satisfaction with Health x Personal Wellbeing Index ................................................................. 178 Figure 13.3: Health Satisfaction x Personal Wellbeing Index Standard Deviations .......................................... 179 Figure 13.4: Changes in the top and bottom of the x 2SD range using combined scale increments.................. 180 Figure 13.5: Satisfaction with Relationships (Frequency: combined sample) .................................................. 182 Figure 13.6: Satisfaction with Relationships x Personal Wellbeing Index ........................................................ 182 Figure 13.7: Satisfaction with Standard of Living (Frequency: combined sample)........................................... 183 Figure 13.8: Satisfaction with Standard of Living x Personal Wellbeing Index ................................................ 184 Figure 13.9: Standard Deviation (Domains) ...................................................................................................... 184 Figure 13.10: Health and Relationship Satisfaction x Personal Wellbeing Index Standard Deviations ............ 185 Figure 13.11: Percentage point domain rating vs. Personal Wellbeing Index.................................................... 185


viii

Executive Summary Introduction The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index monitors the subjective wellbeing of the Australian population. Our first survey was conducted in April 2001 and this report concerns the 14th survey, undertaken in October 2005. Our previous survey had been conducted five months earlier in May 2005. During this intervening period the second terrorist bomb attack on Australian tourists took place in Bali. The past history of our surveys shows that such events tend to elevate the wellbeing of the Australian population, primarily by inducing social cohesion. True to form, the current survey shows a similar result. Each survey involves a telephone interview with a new sample of 2,000 Australians, selected to represent the national population geographic distribution. These surveys comprise the Personal Wellbeing Index, which measures people’s satisfaction with their own lives, and the National Wellbeing Index, which measures how satisfied people are with life in Australia. Other items include a standard set of demographic questions and other survey-specific questions. The specific topic for Survey 14 is the extent to which feeling supported by other people affects wellbeing.

The Theory The theoretical framework for the interpretation of data is the theory of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis. This proposes that each person has a ‘set-point’ for personal wellbeing that is internally maintained and defended. This set-point is genetically determined and, on average, causes personal wellbeing to be held at 75 points on a 0-100 scale. The normal level of individual set-point variation is between about 60-90 percentage points. The provision of personal resources, such as money or relationships, cannot normally increase the set-point on a long term basis due to the genetic ceiling. However, they can strengthen defences against negative experience. Moreover, in someone who is suffering homeostatic defeat, the provision of additional resources may allow them to regain control of the wellbeing. In this case the provision of resources will cause personal wellbeing to rise until the set-point is achieved. Low levels of personal resources, such as occasioned by low income or absence of a partner, weakens homeostasis. If personal challenges such as stress or pain exceed resources, homeostasis is defeated, and subjective wellbeing decreases below its normal range.

The Analyses All data have been standardized to a 0-100 range Thus, the magnitude of group differences is referred to in terms of percentage points. Reference is also made to normative ranges. These have been calculated for the Personal Wellbeing Index in terms of the whole data-set that combines data across all surveys (see Appendix 2). Norms have also been calculated separately for each of the Personal Wellbeing Index domains. They have also been calculated for gender, age groups and work-status groups. These norms are presented at the back of their respective chapters. All of the reported trends are statistically significant. Dot point summaries are provided at the end of each Chapter.


ix

Executive Summary Continued

The Results Personal Wellbeing Index:

The Personal Wellbeing Index has shown a non-significant increase of 0.6 points since May 2005. This previous survey was showing evidence of a return to the baseline values of Survey 1 but this trend seems to have been arrested by the Second Bali Bombing. Our past surveys show that such events tend to elevate the wellbeing of the Australian population primarily by causing increased social cohesion. This is reflected in an increased satisfaction with inter-personal relationships and community connection. Moreover, probably as a consequence of this, they generate an increased satisfaction with personal safety and security. True to form, all four of these domains rose in response to the second Bali attack, with the rises in Community Connection and Future Security achieving statistical significance. X

The increase in wellbeing generated by the second Bali bombing appears to have caused the Personal Wellbeing Index to remain elevated above the level at Survey 1.

National Wellbeing Index

The National Wellbeing Index has not changed significantly since the previous survey. It remains significantly higher than it was at Survey 1. X

All of the national domains except Government remain elevated above the baseline levels of Survey 1.

Terrorist Threat

The belief that a terrorist attack in Australia is likely to occur within the near future rose by 23.1% since the previous survey. Almost three quarters of the sample (73.4%) considered such an attack likely, which is the highest percentage over the past two years. Moreover, those people who thought an attack likely had the strongest belief in such an attack yet recorded (69.9 percentage points). It is notable that in the month following the survey several people in Melbourne and Sydney were arrested on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks. It is also notable that strong beliefs in the likelihood of an attack are associated with low personal wellbeing. The people who regard the likelihood of such an attack as 9/10 or 10/10 (22.7% of the sample for Survey 14) have below normal wellbeing. This finding raises the issue of the benefits and disadvantages of Government warnings concerning the possibility of terrorist attacks on Australia. X

People generally consider that the threat of a terrorist attack in Australia is the highest it has been over the past two years. Since people who regard such an attack as highly likely have lower than normal wellbeing, there is a clear downside to issuing national terrorist alerts.

Special Survey Topic Relationship Support

Chapter 12 indicates the influence of various sources of support on personal wellbeing. The following conclusions have been made: (a)

The strongest source of personal support is from a Partner. However, only 75% of the sample has access to this form of support.

(b)

Low levels of support from all sources are worse for personal wellbeing than no support at all. This may be because low levels of support drain personal resources in relation to reciprocal


x


interaction with the support source, whereas the situation of no support relieves people of this burden. (c)

Under conditions of low support (strength 4+3), the three sources that also provide the strongest support when they are operating well (Partner, General Friends, and Professionals) are the most damaging to pesonal wellbeing.

(d)

People who have never married have fewer sources of support than people who have a partner. Moreover, the sources that they do have yield less support than they do for people who are married.

(e)

The support people gain from professionals increases markedly with age. This exemplifies the increasing importance of good professional relationships for older people. Support from Partner takes time to mature, jumping 8.1 points between 18-25 and 26-35 years. It then remains stable and high.

(f)

In the situation where personal involvement is forced (the person has a partner) males and females experience equal levels of support. In situations where personal involvement is discretionary (no partner), females experience higher levels of support than males.

(g)

We find no evidence that people who experience low support from one source compensate by gaining higher support from other sources. On the contrary, low support from any one source predicts low support from all other sources.

(h)

While there is a generally positive relationship between support from all sources and personal wellbeing, for people who have separated the only source of support that impacts significantly on their wellbeing is Partner support. Thus, people who are separated remain highly dependent on their partner (current or past) to maintain their wellbeing.

(i)

Male wellbeing is much less influenced by the degree of social support than is the wellbeing of females. For both genders Partners exert the strongest influence on wellbeing.

X

Of all the sources of support, the presence or absence of a partner has the most powerful effect on wellbeing.

Demographic Influences Household Income:

(a)

Personal wellbeing generally increases with income. This is due to two influences. The first is the changing demographic composition of the income groupings. The lowest income groups contain people living on pensions or welfare payments due to unemployment or disability. The second influence is the ability of discretionary income to act as a flexible resource to defend wellbeing against potential sources of distress. People in low income households lack the resources to defend against negative life events (poor people experience more negative and fewer positive life events). High income provides the resources to defend wellbeing against negative events, as well as conferring social status.

(b)

Low income does not, of itself, cause low wellbeing. People who live only with their partner, and widows, manage to attain normal levels of wellbeing in poor financial circumstances. However, as soon as a potential source of stress is introduced (children, being a sole parent, separation or divorce) personal wellbeing drops below the normal range. For these groups, a household income of $60,000-$90,000 generally restores normal levels of wellbeing.


xi


(c)

As household income rises, additional income has less and less impact on personal wellbeing. For people with household incomes S2,S4,S5

Scores above this line are signif icantly higher than S1

Stre ngth of 75 s atis faction 74 73 Major Events Preceding Survey Survey Date

S10

S11

Sy dney

Asian

Second

Terrorist

Sy dney

Oly mpics

Tsunami

Bali

Arrests

Race

Bombing

Mel/Sy d

Riots

S12

S13

S14

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

Aug

Oct

Nov

Dec

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.1: Personal Wellbeing Index

The Personal Wellbeing Index has risen by 0.6 percentage points since the previous survey (Tables 2.1 and A2.1) which is not statistically significant. It is notable that the Personal Wellbeing Index is so stable. Over the 14 surveys it has varied by just 3.1 points and, except for S1-S2 (September 11), and S11-S12/S12-S13 (Sydney Olympics), the change from one survey to the next is less than 1%. The range of values has been from 73.2 (S1) to 76.3 (S12) and the Personal Wellbeing Index is currently 2.0 points above its level at Survey 1, which is significant. The most obvious trend is for the Personal Wellbeing Index to have remained higher than Survey 1 since September 11 (4 years). Presumably this has been sustained by the major events listed in Figure 2.1. The changes that have appeared to be coherently related to these events. It appears that both positive and negative events have acted to raise the wellbeing of the Australian population. In terms of the negative events, it appears that the presence of external threat causes the population wellbeing to rise. This has occurred first followed September 11 and reached its maximum about 6 months after the event. The second occurred immediately following the Bali Bombing and ran into the build-up in tension surrounding the Iraq war. It is possible that the Second Bali Bombing, which substantially increased the perceived probability of a terrorist attack in Australia (see 2.8) prevented the Personal Wellbeing Index continuing its fall back to the baseline value recorded at


5

Section 2 A Comparison Between Survey 14 and Survey 13 continued

Survey 1. In Survey 12, the positive influence of Olympic success also caused personal wellbeing to rise, to an even greater extent than either of the terrorist or war events. It is notable that the same set of domains seem to be affected by both kinds of event, as can be seen in Section 2.2 of this chapter.

National Wellbeing Index >S3,S4,S5,S6,S8

63 61

Strength 59 of Satisfaction

>S2

57 55

63

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

>S3,S5, S8 >S4, S6

61

>S2

Strength 59 of Satis faction 57 55 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.2: National Wellbeing Index

The National Wellbeing Index has numerically gained 0.02 percentage points since Survey 13, but this is not a significant change. It remains significantly higher than it was at Surveys 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The National Index is more volatile than the Personal Index due to the relatively low level of homeostatic control. Its range is 6.9 points from April 2001 (S1:55.8) to August 2004 (S12:62.7). Note: No test of significance can be run against Survey 1 due to a different composition of the NWI at that time.


6


2.2. Personal Wellbeing Domains Standard of Living The personal domains have generally remained stable since the last survey. The only one to show a marginally significant change is Community, which has risen. 80

>S2,S4,S5,S10,S11

79 Strength of satisfaction

78 77 76

>S1

75 74

80

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

>S2,S4,S5,S10,S11

79 78 Strength of 77 satisf action 76

>S1

75 74 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

S14

Figure 2.3: Satisfaction with Standard of Living

Satisfaction with standard of living has numerically fallen 0.19 points (not significant) since Survey 13 (Table 2.1 and A 2.1). It remains 2.0 points higher than Survey 1. The range of scores is 4.7% between April 2001 (S1:74.5) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics: 79.2).


7


Health 77 76 Strength of 75 Satisf action 74

>S1

73 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

77 76

>S1

Strength of 75 Satisf action 74 73 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

S14

Figure 2.4: Satisfaction with Health

Satisfaction with health has risen a significant 1.46 points since Survey 13. It remains not different (+2.0 points) from its level at Survey 1. Historically, this domain rose briefly at March 2003 (S6:Pre-Iraq war) but quickly returned to its original level. It is notable that the level of significance at Survey 6 was marginal (p=.02) and so may reflect a random fluctuation. The overall ANOVA between surveys is not significant (Table A 2.1). It is evident that satisfaction with personal health is marginally, if at all, influenced by world events and this stability is confirmation that the change in other domains since Survey 1 are valid. The range of scores is 2.4% between April 2001 (S1:73.6) and March 2003 (S6:Pre-Iraq war:76.0).


8


Achieving 76 75

>S1

Strength 74 of 73 satisf action 72 71 70 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

76

>S1

75 Strength 74 of 73 satisf action 72 71 70 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.5: Satisfaction with What you are Currently Achieving

Achieving in life has gained a significant 1.62 points since Survey 13. However, it remains no different than it was at Survey 1. The wording of this item has changed once. From Survey 1 to Survey 10, satisfaction with ‘what you achieve’ barely changed over the surveys. It was marginally higher at Survey 6 (Pre-Iraq war), and the range of scores was 1.8% between April 2001 (S1:73.2) and March 2003 (S6:Pre-Iraq war:75.0). In Survey 11 the wording of this item changed from ‘How satisfied are you with what you achieve in life?’ to ‘How satisfied are you with what you are currently achieving in life?’. The reason for this change is to make it more explicit that the question referred to current life rather than to some past aggregation of achievement. The effect of this word change has significantly reduced the score for this domain. The average value over Survey 1 to Survey 10 is 74.47 (SD=0.45). The average value over Survey 11-Survey 14 is 72.51 (SD = 0.85). So it appears to still be a highly reliable measure that has stabilised about 2 points below the original and no different from Survey 1.


9


Relationships 82

>S2,S3,S4,S5 >S1

80 Strength 78 of satisfaction 76 74

82

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

>S2,S3,S4,S5 >S1

80 Strength of satisf action

78 76 74 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.6: Satisfaction with Relationships

Satisfaction with relationships has not changed since Survey 13 (+1.27 points) and remains no different from Survey 1 (+1.3 points). At Survey 13 this domain recorded its lowest ever value (77.32) down a massive 4.1 points from the Olympics (S12) value of 81.39 points. It has now numerically risen a non-significant 1.25 points to a level that remains no different from Survey 1. The overall pattern of change for this domain does not conform to that of the Personal Wellbeing Index (Figure 2.1) in that the earlier rise is restricted to the period surrounding the Iraq war. It therefore differs from the domains Standard of Living, Safety, Community, and Future Security, all of which rose significantly in the period following September 11. Perhaps this difference is due to the fact that these other domain changes were reactions to a past event, whereas the rise in Satisfaction with relationships at Survey 6 was in anticipation of the looming war, to which Australian troops were clearly to be committed. At this time, both of the domains involving other people rose significantly (relationships and community). Perhaps the anticipation of war drew people closer to their family and friends as well as enhancing bonding with the general community. These changes then dissipated as the period of the war was left behind. Then, during the period of the Olympics, the higher levels of satisfaction with relationships returned. The range of scores is 3.2% between April 2001 (S13:77.3) and August 2004 (S12: Olympics:81.4) a range of 4.1 percentage points.


10


Safety 81 80 79 Strength of satisfaction

78 77

>S8 >S3,4,6 S2,5 >S1

76 75 74 73 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

81

>S8

80

>S3,4,6

79 Strength of satisf action

S2,5

78

>S1

77 76 75 74 73 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.7: Satisfaction with How Safe you Feel

Satisfaction with personal safety has risen by a non-significant 0.28 points since Survey 13 (Table 2.1) and remains higher than most surveys in 2001-2002 (Table A 2.1). Previous rises have occurred following the conclusion of a period of danger. Thus, it rose significantly about one year following September 11 (S4) and rose again following the Iraq war (S7). A weaker but non-significant rise was also seen three months following the Bali Bombing (S6). These rises may be linked to the positive feelings of relief following such events, our increasingly strong American alliance, and a sense of confidence in our safety consequent to the lack of terrorist attacks in Australia. The rise in association with the Olympics may be more due to the overall sense of elevated wellbeing than to specific feelings of greater safety. The range of scores is 4.9% between April 2001 (S1:75.2) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics:80.1).


11


Community 74 73 Strength of satisfaction

72 71

>S4,S5,S11 >S1

70 69 68

Strength of satisf action

74 73 72 71 70 69 68

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

>S4,S5,S11 >S1

Second Bali S14

S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Bombing

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

Aug

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.8: Satisfaction with Feeling Part of Your Community

People’s satisfaction with feeling part of their community has numerically risen 1.5 points since Survey 13. This is a significant change between surveys and takes the value high enough to be significantly about Survey 1 once again. Apart from the Olympic period elevation, the previous rises are coherently related to times of major conflict. In the six months following September 11, satisfaction with community connectedness went up from its lowest level in April 2001, and was maintained at this higher level for a further six months. It then fell, but returned to an even higher level in the lead-up to the Iraq war (S6). This higher level was maintained for six months following the Iraq war (S9), but then dissipated. This pattern is consistent with social psychological theory. An external threat will cause a group (or population) to become more socially cohesive. The range of scores is 4.0 points between April 2001 (S1:68.6) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics:72.6).


12


Future Security 73 >S4,S5,S11

72

Strength of satisfaction

>S4 >S1

71

>S2

70 69 68

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

73 72

>S4,S5,S11 >S4

Strength 71 of 70 satisfaction

>S1 >S2

69 68 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.9: Satisfaction with Future Security

Satisfaction with future security has risen by a significant 1.36 points since Survey 13. This rise takes the domain score above S1, S2, S4-S6 once again. In previous surveys, satisfaction with future security dropped to its lowest level immediately following September 11, and then rose to a significantly higher level six months later (S3). It then rose again immediately following the Iraq war (S7), and then gradually fell back. This pattern is very similar to that shown by safety and the explanations are probably similar to those that have been stated for the safety domain. The range of scores is 4.4 points between September 2001 (S2:68.6) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics:73.0).


13


2.3. Life as a Whole “How satisfied are you with your Life as a Whole?” 80 79 Strength 78 of satisfaction 77

>S2,S4

>S1

76 75 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

80 79 Strength 78 of satisf action 77

>S2,S4

>S1

76 75 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.10: Satisfaction with Life as a Whole

Satisfaction with life as a whole has numerically risen by 0.7 points (non-significant) since Survey 13. However, this rise makes it once again higher than Survey 1. After the initial rise one year following September 2001 (S3), this global item dropped back 6 months later, only to rise again after the Bali bombing (S5) and during the period of the Iraq war (S6-S7). Then it gradually decreased until, one year after the end of the war it was no different from Survey 1 once again. The range of scores is 3.9 points between April 2001 (S1:75.2) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics:79.1). Summary of the Changes in Personal Wellbeing

The personal wellbeing of Australians has risen marginally, but not significantly, since May 2005. However, the slight increase has once again taken the Personal Wellbeing Index and many domains to levels higher than some previous surveys. It is notable that the domain of Health seems virtually unaffected by these world events, probably indicating that it is held under stronger homeostatic control than the other variables. In relation to the earlier rises, an important perspective is that these international events did not directly involve many Australians. No attacks happened in this country, the nation rode-out the world economic situation better than most other countries, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were soon over, marked by victory and low casualties among the Australian troops. So the end result of this was a greater sense that the average, high, standard of living in Australia had been maintained. Personal safety and future security also rose with no evidence of terrorist attacks in Australia. While people bonded more to others (Relationships and Community) due both to the common perception of external threat, this effect was dissipating prior to the Olympics and now has reappeared with the increase perceived probability of a terrorist attack following the second Bali bombing.


14


2.4. National Wellbeing Domains “How satisfied are you with the Economic Situation in Australia?” 70 65 Strength of satisfaction

>S5,S6,S7,S8,S10 >S3,4 >S2

60 55

>S1

50

70

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

>S5,S6,S7,S8,S10 >S3,4

65 Strength of satisfaction

>S2 60 >S1

55 50

S14

S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.11: Satisfaction with the Economic Situation in Australia

Satisfaction with the economic situation has numerically increased by a non-significant 0.57 points since Survey 14, but still remains higher than the early surveys. It rose significantly from its baseline (S1) immediately following September 11 (S2) and again six months later (S3). This was followed by a period of stability over the next 12 months (S4-S6), but then it rose significantly once again (S7) and this was sustained over the following 12 months. Now it has fallen back somewhat. This is the most volatile domain. The range of values is 14.9 points, being between April 2001 (S1:53.6) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics:68.5).


15


“How satisfied are you with your state of the Natural Environment in Australia?” 62 >S5 Strength of satisfaction

60 >S1 58

56 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

62 >S5 Strength of satisf action

60 >S1 58

56 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.12: Satisfaction with the State of the Natural Environment in Australia

Satisfaction with the state of the environment has numerically risen a significant 1.5 points since Survey 13. However, this rise has been sufficient to take the level higher than two other surveys. This domain had peaked twice before. The range is 3.0% between April 2001 (S1:57.9) and November 2003 (S9:5 months/following the Iraq war:60.9).


16


“How satisfied are you with Social Conditions in Australia?” 64

>S10


62

>S1

60

58 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

64

>S10


62

>S1

60

58 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.13: Satisfaction with the Social Conditions in Australia

Satisfaction with social conditions risen by a significant 1.9 points since Survey 13, to be equal highest ever recorded, shared with Survey 12 (Olympics). The rise in satisfaction with social conditions evident following September 11 (S2) was sustained over the next two years (S9), after which it fell back to be no different from Survey 1. Then, at the time of the Olympics, it rose to its record high and has now returned to this level. The range of values is 3.9% between April 2001 (S1:59.2) and August 2004 (S12: Olympics and S14:63.1).


17


“How satisfied are you with Government in Australia?” 60 58 Strength of satisf action

56

>S5,6,7,8,9 >S3,4

54 Government re-elected

52 50 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Nov

Mar

Auf

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

September

Bali

Post

11

bombing

Iraq w ar

60 58 Strength of satisf action

56

>S5,6,7,8,9

>S3,4

54 Government re-elected

52 50 S10

S11

S12

Feb

May

Aug

Oct

Jan

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Oly mpics

S13

S14

Tsunami

Figure 2.14: Satisfaction with Government in Australia

Satisfaction with Government remains at one of its lowest levels. It has numerically fallen a nonsignificant -0.96 points since Survey 13. It appears to rise in times of national threat, such that the elevated satisfaction with Government in September 2001 (S2) was a direct result of the September 11 attacks. A similar, but more muted rise is evident in the Bali bombing (S5) survey, and again following the Iraq war (S7). The most obvious explanation for the September 11 (S2) and Bali (S5) rise is that the perception of external threat causes satisfaction with Government to increase. However the pre-Iraq war situation (S6) was different. While it constituted a threat to Australia in so far as there were fears of Weapons of Mass Destruction being unleashed in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere, Australian troops were committed to fight in the front-line. This involvement divided the nation, with 23% in favour and 53% opposed to the war (Report 6.0). Perhaps because of this division, the rise in satisfaction with Government did not materialise. Moreover, the subsequent rise at S7 may represent an increased satisfaction for a quite different set of reasons, which involve relief at no deaths among the Australian troops and the bolstered American alliance. It is interesting that none of these rises are sustained over more than three months and that the substantial rise in national wellbeing occasioned by the Olympics was not reflected in Satisfaction with Government. The range of values is 5.9 points between March 2002 (S3:52.8) and September 2001 (S2:58.7).


18


“How satisfied are you with Business in Australia?” 65

>S5,S7,S8 >S3, S4

60


>S6 >S2

55

50 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

65

>S5,S7,S8 >S3, S4 >S6

60


>S2

55

50 S14

S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.15: Satisfaction with Business in Australia

Satisfaction with Business has risen significantly by 2.89 points since Survey 13, to be equal highest with Survey 12 (Olympics). Satisfaction with both Business and the economy may have increased following September 11 because the doomsayers were proved wrong. The attacks did not, as has been widely predicted, drive the global economy into recession. Moreover, the Australian economy has performed better than expected over the entire post-September 11 period. The range of values is 8.0 points between September 2001 (S2:55.4) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics and S14:63.4).


19


“How satisfied are you with National Security in Australia? 70 Strength 65 of satisf action 60

>S3,S8,S11 >S4 >S5 >S6 >S2

55 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

70


>S3,S8,S11 >S4 >S5 >S6 >S2

65 60 55 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

Figure 2.16: Satisfaction with National Security

Satisfaction with national security has numerically risen a non-significant 0.24 points since Survey 13. It remains higher than it was at the time of four prior surveys. The dramatic rise of 4.6% post the Iraq war (S7) seems almost certain to reflect the strengthened American alliance and the lack of terrorist events in Australia. The range of values is 9.0 points between September 2001 (S2:57.3) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics:66.3).


20


2.5. Life in Australia “How satisfied are you with Life in Australia?” 90


85

>S7, S8, S9

80

>S2

75

>S1

70 65 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

90 85 Strength of satisf action

>S7, S8, S9 >S2

80 75

>S1

70 65 S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

S14

Figure 2.17: Satisfaction with Life in Australia

Satisfaction with this single global item has not changed significantly over the past two years. It rose consistently from April 2001 (S1) to March 2002) (S3) and has since remained fairly stable and high. The major change occurred between S2 and S3, when the strength of satisfaction rose by 10.9%. The range of scores is 15.2% between April 2001 (S1:69.6) and March 2002 (S3:5 months following September 11:84.8). Summary of changes in National Wellbeing

The national wellbeing of Australians has risen somewhat from the previous Survey 13 with three domains (national environment, social conditions, and business) equalling their previous highest values. The only domain to go against the rising trend is satisfaction with Government which showed a non-significant fall. 2.6. Australian Wellbeing Summary A possible sociobiological explanation for this response pattern is as follows. Threat Events

International events that are either nationally threatening (terrorist threats or war) or nationally enhancing (excellent Olympic performance) can enhance personal and national wellbeing. Moreover, they involve much the same set of domains as:


21


Enhance satisfaction with material conditions (Standard of Living, Social Conditions, Natural Environment, Business and Economy). In terms of a threat response, may serve the purpose of encouraging satisfaction with the living environment that requires defending. The alternative would be to leave the living environment for somewhere else, but for most people this is not a realistic option due to issues of personal investment. Enhanced satisfaction with the other people who share the environment under threat (personal relationships and feeling connected to the community) and with the leaders of these people (Government). The increased strength of these connections means people feel they are not alone in facing the threat and that they have worthy leaders. Enhanced satisfaction with general issues of safety (personal safety, future security, national security). If the source of threat is to be approached and met, with the aim of defending the living environment, then it is necessary that people have confidence in their own survival as a consequence of such action. Domain exceptions

While most of the 13 domains are accounted for in the above description, one domain (Health) shows little or no change as a consequence of these international events. The sense of personal health could be under competing forces. In a threat situation, it could be adaptive to have a heightened sense of one’s own powers to defend oneself, and this would be expected to cause an increased satisfaction with health. However, perceived health may be more chronically under threat than the other domains. Practically everybody has some source of health concern and, thus, the homeostatic devices that maintain health satisfaction are already working overtime, such that another source of external threat has little additional impact. Nationally Enhancing Events

While both threat and enhancement events caused wellbeing to rise, the cause of each rise should be different. The preceding description is based on a sociobiological interpretation of an adaptive response to threat. The rise in wellbeing due to nationally enhancing events has no such adaptive links and is more simply explained in the personal pride of being part of a winning team. There are likely to be two major differences between these two event types. First, the threat event should be longer lasting. It may be adaptive to maintain a sense of threat for a long period after the event, thereby maintaining the alertness to detect a new source of harm and the resources to deal with it. Enhancement events, on the other hand, are likely to be far more transitory. The fact of the team’s success is soon submerged within the caldron of current life realities. This is consistent with the data shown in Report 12.0. The second difference is in the domains that are responsive. The enhancement event had no effect on the following domains: Health:

This may be for the reasons already described.

Achieving:

The grand achievements of others is a double-edge sword. The reflected glory is tempered by an upward-comparison against personal achievement.

Natural environment:

This is not a domain that involves connection to other people.

Government:

The achievements are those of the athletes, not of the leaders.


22


Conclusion

While this explanatory account is stronger in some respects than in others, and suffers from the inevitable post-hoc nature of the arguments, it does appear to have some degree of cohesion. It is notable that, despite the intervening Tsunami event that occurred some four months prior to the current survey, the rises associated with the Olympics have proved highly transitory. 2.7. Discussion of the Changes in Personal and National Wellbeing 1.

We have long wondered how the wellbeing of Australians would have reacted to the very successful 2000 Olympic Games held in Sydney. It now seems reasonable to suppose that those Games would have caused both personal and national wellbeing to rise at least as high, if not higher, than is evident in the current data.

2.

This indicates that both negative international events, such as terrorist attacks and war, and positive international events such as the Olympics, cause wellbeing to rise.

3.

In more general terms, these wellbeing measures attest to the remarkable stability of the Indexes. Over the four years, the Personal Wellbeing Index has varied by only 3.1 points and the National Wellbeing Index by 6.9 points. Overall, the national indicators show more variability than the personal indicators and this has been detailed in Report 4.0, Table A7.1. The greatest variation has been shown by the broadest national indicator ‘Satisfaction with Life in Australia’ which has varied by 15.2% over the surveys.

4.

The variations that have been recorded generally show a coherent pattern, which supports the conclusion that variation within the indicators is reflecting the influence of public events.

5.

The attribution of causation is a fraught process when interpreting data patterns such as these. Numerous other events have taken place which could influence these trends. Nevertheless, the data patterns do appear to bear a reasonable relationship to events that can be personalised, and do not seem to reflect happenings that have little impact on the average Australian. Thus, the major corporate collapses that occurred prior to the March 2002 (S3) survey which directly impacted on few people, failed to counteract the general rise in national wellbeing, which included increased satisfaction with business.

2.8. Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack 80 % of pe ople w ho think a te rroris t attack is lik e ly

73.4

70.1 70

64.1

A ugust Second Bali Bombing

59.7

60

54.9 48.3

50

↓

40 November 2003 (Survey 9)

February 2004 (Survey 10)

May 2004 (Survey 11)

A ugust 2004 (Survey 12)


October 2005 (Survey 14)

Figure 2.18: Percentage who think a terrorist attack is likely

When asked whether they thought a ‘terrorist attack is likely in Australia in the near future’ a record 73.4% responded ‘Yes’. This represents a marked reversal of the decreasing percentage who thought this likely over the previous year, and represents a 23.1% increase over Survey 13 conducted five months earlier (Table A2.1).


23


69.9

S10

64

62.6

62.4

A ugust 2004 (Survey 12)


63 62

61.3

61 60 November 2003 (Survey 9)




Figure 2.19: Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack

Among the people who said ‘Yes’, the strength of belief that such an attack will occur (Table A2.1) shows a similar pattern to Figure 2.18. The strength of their belief is significantly higher than it had been over the previous two years. It is notable that even though the prospect of a terrorist attack is more widely regarded as likely, this has not had an adverse effect on the wellbeing of the population. N

42

151

262

379

1645

996

1252

1094

429

591

82 80

78.5

78 Stre ngth 76 of s atis faction74 (PWI) 72

76.3

76.2

74.9

74.5

Normative Range

76.3

74.8 72.3

74.3

73.6

73.0 72.0

70 68 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Lik e lihood of a te rroris t attack

Figure 2.20: Likelihood of Terrorist Attack x Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys 9-14)

Using the PWI mean scores in Table A2.2 and Figure 2.20, the correlation between the perceived likelihood of a terrorist attack and personal wellbeing is -.77 (pS2,S4,S5 Scores above this line are significantly higher than S1

74 Major Events Preceding Survey

73

Survey Date

September

Bali

Pre-Iraq

Post-Iraq

11

Bombing

War

War

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

War

2003

2003

77 76

>S11 >S2,S4,S5

Scores above this line are signif icantly higher than S1

Stre ngth of 75 s atis faction 74 73 Major Events Preceding Survey Survey Date

S10

S11

Sy dney

Asian

Second

Terrorist

Sy dney

Oly mpics

Tsunami

Bali

Arrests

Race

Bombing

Mel/Sy d

Riots

S12

S13

S14

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

Aug

Oct

Nov

Dec

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

2005

2005

2005

The Personal Wellbeing Index remains significantly above its level in 2001


32


2. The National Wellbeing Index has changed little since the previous survey and it remains higher than at Survey 1 >S3,S4,S5,S6,S8

63 61

Strength 59 of Satisfaction

>S2

57 55

63

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

>S3,S5, S8 >S4, S6

61

>S2

Strength 59 of Satis faction 57 55

S10

S11

S12

Tsunami

S13

Feb

May

Aug

Jan

May

S14 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

The National Wellbeing Index remains at a high level

3. The perceived probability of a terrorist attack ‘in the near future’ has risen to its highest level over the past two years. Almost three quarters of the sample now consider such an attack to be likely.

80 % of pe ople w ho think a te rroris t attack is lik e ly

73.4

70.1 70

64.1

August Second Bali Bombing

59.7

60

54.9 48.3

50

↓

40 November 2003 (Survey 9)



August 2004 (Survey 12)



In October 2005 the perceived likelihood of a terrorist attack was the highest yet recorded

4. People who regard the probability of a terrorist attack as 9 or 10/10 (13.2% of the total sample) have lower than normal wellbeing).

N

42

151

262

379

1645

996

1252

1094

429

591

82 80

78.5

78 Stre ngth 76 of s atis faction74 (PWI) 72

76.3

76.2

74.9

74.5

Normative Range

76.3

74.8 72.3

74.3

73.6

73.0 72.0

70 68 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Lik e lihood of a te rroris t attack

People who regard a terrorist attack as very likely have low wellbeing


33

3. Household Income We ask: “I will now give you a number of categories for household income. Can you please give me an idea of your household’s total annual income before tax. Please stop me when I say your household income category.” Table 3.1: Income Frequency (Survey 13) Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $30,000 $31,000 to $60,000 $61,000 to $90,000 $91,000 to $120,000 $121,000 to $150,000 More than $150,000” Total

N 216 258 467 354 232 85 90 1,702

% of respondents to this question 12.7 15.2 27.4 20.8 13.6 5.0 5.3 86.4% of respondents answered this question

As background to the data in this chapter, annual gross incomes are currently as follows: Category Age pension Disability support Pension Unemployment

- single - couple - Single 31-60

75.8

72.0 72.5

72 70

78.1

77.4

74.5

76 74

78.5

m&f > 15-30

74.1

m&f > 2.0% Between Adjacent Surveys within each Gender Domain Standard of Living Achievements Relationships Safety

Future Security Community

Surveys 1-2 11-12 12-13 1-2 10-11 12-13 5-6 12-13 4-5 10-11 11-12 12-13 6-7 11-12 12-13 11-12 12-13 13-14

Male +4.18 +1.90 -1.94 +2.08 -2.06 -1.72 +2.69 -3.15 -0.35 +0.53 +0.75 -2.04 +1.51 +0.17 -2.04 +1.07 -2.42 +2.46

Female +1.72 +3.08 -2.06 +0.12 -2.07 -2.09 -1.03 -4.95 -2.32 -2.24 +2.88 -3.97 +2.43 +3.64 -3.97 +3.75 -3.21 +0.62

Event September 11 Olympics September 11 Bali Bombing Olympics Iraq War Olympics Olympics -

This table is interesting from a number of perspectives as follows: 1.

It emphasizes the extraordinary stability of these measures. With one exception, no domain change between adjacent surveys has exceeded 3.8 points. Of the total 182 comparisons, (2 genders x 13 adjacent survey comparisons x 7 domains) only 13 (7.1%) have varied by >2%.


58

Section 4 Gender continued

2.

The outlying value of 4.18% (Standard of Living, Male, Surveys 1-2) is anomalous. There seems no obvious reason for such a marked change in this domain in response to September 11. However, female satisfaction with this domain also showed a substantial 1.72% rise at the same time, which lends some degree of credibility, but no additional explanation, to the result.

3.

The changes in both genders for ‘achievements’ between Survey 10 and Survey 11 is an artefact caused by the wording change to this item. It is interesting that the change has occurred equally within both genders.

4.

Of, these major changes, 8/18 (44%) are temporally linked to the period immediately following one of the four major international events: September 11 (S1-S2), Bali (S5-S6), the Iraq War (S6-S7), and the Olympics (S11-S12). Since these events only constitute 4/13 (31%) of the number of adjacent survey comparisons, this is further evidence that the Index changes are more likely as a consequence of these international events.

5.

In terms of linking the specific domain changes with a logical explanation for such change, it is a mixed bag. But maybe too much can be made of this. These values are part of a wave of change that involves all of the domains to some degree. Additionally, we know nothing about the relative sensitivity of domains in particular circumstances, other than what these data can tell us. So the apparent logic of safety and security rising after the Iraq war needs to be balanced against the apparent illogicality of relationship satisfaction changing in opposite directions for males and females following the Bali bombing (S5-S6). More data are needed in order to explain some of these domain level changes.

6.

It is notable that the domain of health has shown no change >2 points between adjacent surveys for either gender.

4.2.4.


For the first time since these surveys began, males in Survey 13 showed a marginally higher national wellbeing than females. This was caused by the domains of Economic Situation, Business, and National Security. Very importantly, this indicates that the higher female values on the Personal Wellbeing Index are not simply due to a differential gender response bias to questions of satisfaction.


59


4.2.5.

National Wellbeing Domains

The only national domain to show an interaction with gender across surveys is satisfaction with economic situation, shown below. Male

70

Female 67.7

68 65.6

66

64.5

64.0

63.2

63.9

64 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

62 60

64.5

65.7 65.1

65.3

65.0

67.5

69.2 67.9 67.2

67.8 65.5

66.2

65.9

>S2 58.2

54.9

>S1

54 52

52.0

50 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

S11

S12

S13

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

2001

2001

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

S14

Survey

Figure 4.4: Satisfaction with Economic Situation x Gender

4.2.6.

Survey-specific National Aspects

Table A4.1 shows a gender difference in the strength of feeling that a terrorist attack in Australia is likely, with females rating the probability as higher. This is the first time such a gender difference has appeared. 4.3. Gender and Age 4.3.1.

M >S3

66.5

64.7

57.8

58 56

67.0

66.0

67.1

Personal Wellbeing Index

Gender differences with age

Table A4.3 provides the Gender x Age analysis using the entire database from all surveys. The combined PWI data are shown below (minimum N=748 for Male 76+y).


60


Males

Females 79.1

80

77.6

78 Stre ngth of s atis faction (PWI)

76.3

76 74 72

75.4

75.3

78.1

74.8

76.4

74.3

f

75.0

74.0

73.2

m

73.5

73.4

70 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age Key: Values above these lines are significantly higher than Survey 1 for males (a) and for females (b). Shaded boxes denote a significant between-group difference.

Figure 4.5: Gender x Age: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys)

For both genders there is a highly consistent age-related change in the Personal Wellbeing Index. The initial rise in wellbeing occurs at 56-65 years, at which age the Personal Wellbeing Index rises higher than the younger age-groups. A second rise occurs at 66-75y, and a third rise at 76+ years. Further discussion of these changes is provided in the chapter on Age. The pattern of age-related change in the Personal Wellbeing Index is different between genders, with the age x gender interaction being significant (p=.011). As can be seen from Figure 4.5 differences between genders (shaded) are significant only between the intermediate age groups. There is no gender difference within the youngest (.08 points) or oldest (0.84 points). The most interesting aspect of this comparison is the systematic change in the gender difference with age, as shown below. 3 Ge nde r PWI 2 diffe re nce (Fe m ale m inus 1 m ale )

2.1

2.0 1.3

1.3

1.2

46-55

56-65

66-75

1.0

0.3

0 18-25

26-35

36-45

76+

Age

Figure 4.6: Gender x Age: Female PWI minus Male PWI (combined data)

There is a very systematic pattern of gender difference in personal wellbeing that emerges initially, and most strongly, within the 26-35y groups, and thereafter diminishes, to bottom-out at 76+ years. Report 11.0 investigated whether this marked gender difference for the two youngest groups applies to the individual domains. Figure 4.7 in that report revealed that the apparent simplicity of the sudden increase in the magnitude of gender differences from 18-25 to 26-35 years is not replicated at the level of domains. While three domains (eg. Standard of Living) show the same pattern as the overall Personal Wellbeing Index, others show no age-related change (Relationships) or even the reverse pattern (Future Security). No simple pattern can be discerned.


61


The reason for the sudden appearance of a gender wellbeing difference at 26-35 years remains mysterious. 4.3.2.

Gender x Age: Domains

Standard of Living

Strength of satisfaction (Standard of living)

Male

86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68

Female

83.6

78.5 78.5

76.6 74.9

18-25

26-35

76.7

75.5 74.0

36-45

82.0

80.2

78.7

m&f > 18-25

79.3

78.0

f

74.9

46-55 Age

m

56-65

66-75

76+

Key: Values above the trend-lines are significantly higher than 36-45 for males (m) and for females (f). Shaded boxes denote a significant between-group difference.

Figure 4.7: Gender x Age: Standard of Living (combined data)

With the exception of the youngest group, females tend to be more satisfied with their standard of living than males. However, the age-trends for standard of living are very similar for both genders (Table A4.5). From an initial value of 78.5 points, satisfaction for both genders falls significantly to reach a low at 36-45 years. It does not significantly rise until 56-65 years, at which age it reaches a level of equivalent to the 18-25y group. The level of satisfaction continues to increase until, at 76+ years, it exceeds both the 18-25y level and the 56-65y level. This pattern is remarkable in the extent to which it is the reverse of household income. The middleage groups have the highest income, and the oldest groups have the lowest income. Whether this pattern is caused by child-related expenditure is worthy of future investigation. The pattern of Figure 4.7 is also shown by the domains of Achievements and Community Connectedness (Table A4.4). The other domains, however, exhibit a rather different pattern as follows: 80 78 Strength of satisfaction (Health)

76 74

Males

79.4

Females

78.7

f 26-35

75.9

75.4

74.8 74.0

m >46-55

73.2

72

73.1

73.1 72.6

71.5 71.3

70 68 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age Key: Values above the trend-lines are significantly higher than the designated groups for males (m) and for females (f). Shaded boxes denote a significant between-group difference.

Figure 4.8: Gender x Age: Health (combined surveys)


62


Satisfaction with health shows a significant gender x age interaction (p=.000). At 18-25 years satisfaction with health is higher for males (Table A4.4 : p=.005 Minimum N=1,080). Thereafter the two genders show a very different pattern of change. Male health satisfaction shows an immediate drop of 3.5 points between 18-25 and 26-35 years. Thereafter it stabilizes, only to fall significantly again at 46-55 years. Female satisfaction, on the other hand, remains steady over the 18 to 45 years, until falling sharply by 3.0 points at 46-55 years. From that age it gradually decreases, also at about 1 percentage point per decade. The reason for the drop in female health satisfaction at 46-55 years is probably associated with the onset of menopause. The reason for the fall in male satisfaction at 26-35 years may reflect decreasing physical fitness which affects males more than females over this age-range. From 56 years and older there is no gender difference in health satisfaction. 86

Males

f> 56-65

Females 85.7

84.2 84 82 Strength of satisfaction (Relationships)

80

83.8

82.6

m> 56-65

f> 18-25 81.5

80.2

81.7

79.7

78.5

80.0

78

76.9

76.7

m> 26-35

77.0

76

m> 18-25

74 72

73.4

70 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age Key: Values above the trend-lines are significantly higher than the designated age groups for males (m) and for females (f). Shaded boxes denote a significant between-group difference.

Figure 4.9: Gender x Age: Relationships (combined surveys)

Even though the gender difference is significant at each age group (minimum N = 732), there is also a significant interaction (p = .04). The gender difference is clearly diminishing with age, from 5.1 points at 18-25 years to 1.9 points at 76+ years. Males

Females

82 80 Strength 78 of satisfaction 76 (Safety) 74

79.9

78.8

78.7

76.9

77.4

78.5

78.7

77.5

77.1

79.0 78.3

76.6 75.5

75.4

72 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Figure 4.10: Gender x Age: Safety (combined surveys)


63


As with Relationships, there is a significant gender x age interaction (p=.005) reflecting convergence between the genders with increasing age. Gender difference in satisfaction with safety does not occur beyond 66 years (Minimum N=731). Across the ages, both genders show their lowest level of safety satisfaction quite late in life, at 56-65 years for females and 66-75 years for males. This trend then reverses, with safety rising for the oldest groups. The other gender x age interaction occurs for Community (p=.000) and is shown in Figure 4.11 below (minimum cell size = 729). Males

Females 77.3

78 76

f >36-45

74 Strength of satisfaction (Com m unity)

71.9

72 70 68 66 64

f >26-35 f >18-25

75.1

74.2 73.0

71.2

m >46-65

71.4 68.9

69.1

m >18-25

67.7

65.2 64.5

76.9

64.2

62 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Key: Values above the trend-lines are significantly higher than the designated groups for males (m) and for females (f). Shaded boxes denote a significant between-group difference.

Figure 4.11: Gender x Age: Community Connection (combined surveys)

While both genders show increasing satisfaction with Community Connection as they get older, there is no gender difference either within the 18-25y group or within the 76+y group. Moreover, whereas females show a marked 4.3% increase in satisfaction from 18-25 to 26-35, males show no change (0.3 points). Over the following decade, however, male satisfaction increases by 3.5 points. In sociobiological terms, it is possible that the 18-35y period covers the ‘breeding years’ during which men are more concerned with providing for their immediate family while females are more concerned with creating mutually supportive ties with other mothers for the purpose of joint child care and protection. Thus, the initial rise in satisfaction with Community Connection is delayed in males with respect to females. It could also be tied to an earlier age for marriage by females. 4.4. Gender and Household Structure Table A4.6 indicates higher personal wellbeing for females who live alone, with their partner, and with their partner and children. Female wellbeing is above the gender-specific normative range (Table A4.12) for those living with their partner only (77.9 points) and for those living with their partner and children (77.6 points). This equally applies to males (76.8 and 76.1 points respectively). Females living as sole parents (70.4 points) or with other adults (72.2 points) lie below the normative range. This also applies for males (70.2 and 70.9 points respectively). The type of household structure that has the strongest differential gender effect is living alone, as shown below.


64


78 77

Stre ngth of s atis faction (PWI)

76 75 74 73

Normal range male

72 71 70 69

70.2

Normal range female 74.5

75.9

77.3

74.0

72.5

68 67 66 Male

Female

Figure 4.12: Gender x Living Alone: Personal Wellbeing Index

While both males and females who live alone experience a relatively low level of wellbeing, the level of females lies within their normal range. This is not so for males who live alone. Their Personal Wellbeing Index value of 70.2 is 2.1 points below their normal range and 3.8 points below the level of single-living females. This low level for males indicates a higher than normal risk of depression. One of the remarkable differences between Survey 12 and other data are seen in relation to sole parents (A4.6). These are shown below: Male

78

Female 76.3

76 Norm al range

73.6 73.2

74 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

72 70

71.8

71.4 69.7

69.2

73.0

71.8 70.1

70.1

69.1

68.2 67.2

68 66 9

10

11

12 (Olympics)

13

14

Survey

Figure 4.13: Gender x Sole Parents x Survey (Personal Wellbeing Index)

It is possible that the Olympics provided a common topic of conversation, entertainment, and shared pride. These, in turn, eased the burden of child-care. 4.4.1.

Gender x Household Structure x Age

In order to examine the differential effects of gender on these data, Table A4.7 has been prepared. As yet some of the cells sizes are too small to be considered reliable. However, the data do comprise the aggregate of four surveys, and this increases their robustness. Of special interest is the relative wellbeing deficit suffered by those groups scoring 56-65

f> 18-25

82

80.2

81.5

Strength of 80 satisfaction (Re lations hips )78

81.7

79.7

78.5

80.0 76.9

m> 26-35

77.0

76.7

76

m> 18-25

74

Age

73.4

72 70

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Males have particularly low satisfaction with relationships at 18-25 years.

78 77

6. Males who live alone have lower personal wellbeing than females.


Live alone

76 75 74 73

Normal range male

72 71 70 69

70.2

Normal range female 74.5

76.0

77.5

74.0

72.3

68 67 66 Male

Female

Males who live alone have lower wellbeing than females who live alone.

7. The wellbeing of sole-parents rose to lie at the lower margin of the normal range during the Olympics. The burden of child-care seemed to have been temporarily eased by the shared experience between the parents and their children.

Male

78

Female

Sole parents

76 Norm al range 74 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

70

71.8

71.4

72

69.7

69.2

76.3

73.6 73.2

73.0

71.8

70.1

70.1 69.1

68.2 67.2

68 66 9 Survey

10

11

12 (Olympics)

13

14

The Olympics raised the wellbeing of sole parents to lie within the normal range


78

5. Age 5.1. Distribution Overall The sample is well represented in all age groups for Survey 13 (Table A5.1). The minimum number of respondents is in the 76+y group (N=81) and the maximum in the 36-45y group (N=423). 5.2. Age and Wellbeing 5.2.1.

Personal Wellbeing Index Survey 13

Normative age-group mean


80 78 76

75.4

74.4 73.9

75.7

74.7

74.4

74.2

74.2

74.7

75.8

75.7

78.0

77.0

78.7

74 72 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Figure 5.1: Age: Personal Wellbeing Index (Survey 13 vs. Normative Data)

All age groups in Survey 14 (Table A5.1) scored within 1.3 points of their normative levels (Table A5.25). 5.2.2.

Age x Surveys

Figure 5.2 shows the changes in Personal Wellbeing Index that have occurred for the youngest and the oldest group. 18-25y 81

76+y

80.9

S1

73.8

70.2

70.6

71.4

73.2

71.3

71.0

67.1

69.9

69.5

66.2

60 S1 A pril 2001

S2 September 2001

S3 March 2002

S4 August 2002

S5 November 2002

S6 March 2003

S7 Post-Iraq War

S8 A ugust 2003

S9 November 2003

S10 February 2004

S11 May 2004

S12 A ugust 2004

S13 May 2005

S14 Oct 2005

Figure 5.4: Age x Survey: 76y+ and Four Domains

Both of these domains have shown substantial change, with a range of 9.5 points for health and 9.7 for relationships. The changes in health satisfaction are remarkable because, for the population as a whole, this domain has been the most consistent showing no significant change between surveys (Chapter 2). While it is


81

Section 5 Age continued

no longer different from Survey 1 this is mainly due to the small N=81 and high standard deviation (20.97). It seems to have stabilised over the last 18 months at about five points higher than Survey 1. The rise in relationship satisfaction has been more persistent and has remained fairly consistently above Survey 1 since Survey 3 (3.5 years). It is not at all clear why only the most elderly group is affected in this way. Could it be because more of them are living alone than the other age groups? The data from Table A5.5 (Report 12.0) indicate that the proportion of people living alone in each age group are as follows: 18-25y (8.6%) 26-35y (10.2%) 36-45y (8.9%) 46-55y (13.5)

56-65y (20.5%) 66-75y (30.3%) 76+ (49.8%)

These proportions are consistent with some influence that operates on people who live alone masquerading as an age-effect. But testing for this is not simple. People who live alone were not identified in the first survey. Moreover, the number of young people who live alone is too small to be reliable for individual surveys. So an indirect test of this hypothesis must be devised. These are: 1.

The effect should be absent in people who are 76y+ and who live with their partner.

2.

Since the effect is not evident in people younger than 56 years, these people who live alone can be combined from the four age groups 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55. These people should show the effect, while a similarly-generated group of people who live only with their partner should not.

These hypotheses remain to be tested.


82


5.2.3.

Personal Wellbeing Domains

Most of the domains show the same pattern as shown in Figure 5.5 (Table A5.1). However, Achieving in Life shows no change and Health decreases with age. These results are consistent with previous surveys. The data for Health satisfaction in Survey 13 are shown below in relation to agenormative data (Table A5.18). Age-specific normative range 82

81.0

80

78.8

78.2

78.2

78.5

78

Value for Survey 14

X

Age-specific normative mean

78.2 77.4

76

76.7

77.1

76.3

76.2

76.2

75.3

75.8

Stre ngth of s atis faction (He alth)

T 80.3

74

75.0

74.5

74.0

72

72.3

73.6

72.8 71.4

72.3

71.5

69.5

70

70.5 69.6

68 66

65.3

64 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Figure 5.5: Age: Satisfaction with Health (Survey 14)

In terms of normative data, the minimum cell size is N=1,766 (Table A5.18). The incremental decrease in health satisfaction benchmarked to the 18-25y groups is as follows: 0.82, 1.47, 4.26, 4.63, 5.27, 6.60. This is evidence of a gradual decrease in health satisfaction that plateaus between 45 and 65 years, but otherwise decreases at a rate of about 1 point per decade. In terms of Survey 14 data, the values show a steeper decrease than the normative range due to higher values in the youngest groups. 5.2.4.

Physical Pain

The age x pain data for Survey 14 are provided in Table A5.11 and for the combined surveys in Table A5.16. There is a big difference in the association of pain and wellbeing between the oldest and the youngest groups. 82

80.7

18-25 years

80.6

80

79.4

78

77.2


76.1

77.3

76 74

75.1

75.9

76.6 75.6 Normative range 73.4

74.6

74.1

72 70

76+ years

79.7

70.5

71.0

68

67.1 66.7

66

65.7

64 62 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Pain

Figure 5.6: Oldest and Youngest Groups (Pain)


83


It is evident that the effect of pain to reduce wellbeing is much more pronounced in the youngest group. This is consistent with a progressive decoupling of pain and wellbeing as people age, as confirmed by Tables A5.7 to A5.11. Here it can be seen that while the relationship is fairly substantial in the youngest groups mean = -.36) it is much attenuated in the oldest group (mean = -.12). This represents a reduction in shared variance from 13.0% to 1.4%. It is evidently adaptive to allow such dissociation to occur in the presence of accumulating chronic pain. 5.2.5.

Life as a Whole

This increases with age in much the same pattern as for the Personal Wellbeing Index in Figure 5.1. 5.2.6.


The National Index shows no age-related differences (Table A5.1). 5.2.7.

National Wellbeing Domains Government 68

Business 66.4

65.8

66

64.6

63.5

63.4

64

61.0

62

59.8

Strength 60 of satisfaction 58 56

54.4

54.6

54.0

54 52

63.5

55.6

51.8 50.3

50 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Figure 5.7: Age: National Wellbeing Index domains (Survey 14)

While Social Conditions, Government and Business all show a significant trend with age (Table A5.1), the trends are in opposite directions. Satisfaction with Government substantially increases with age, while satisfaction with Business and Social Conditions shows a dip in middle age before rising again. 5.2.8.

National Survey Specific

Over the past six surveys there has been no reliable age-related difference in the perceived likelihood of a terrorist attack.


84


5.3. Age and Household Structure The cumulative data from Surveys 9-14 are presented in Table A5.3. The trends in personal wellbeing are shown below in the context of the age-specific normative range (Table A5.31). Partner only Partner plus children

84

Lives alone

83

Parents

82 81

Other adults

80

Sole parent

80.0 79.3

79 78

77.6

77 76 Stre ngth 75 of 74 s atis faction (PWI) 73

76.1

75.3 75.0 75.6

77.1 77.0

78.9

76.4

AGE-SPECIFI NORMATIVE RANGE

75.6

73.4 72.2

72.3 71.2

71.8

70.5 69.6

70 69

76.7 76.7

75.9

78.3

74.6

72 71

77.4

76.9

79.7 79.2 79.0

69.9

69.5

69.4 69.2

69.0

69.9 68.8

68

67.0

67 67.3

67.1 66 65 64.7

64

76.7 71.2

76.4 72.0

76.0 72.7

75.5 72.8

77.2 74.2

78.9 75.0

83.7 72.1

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Upper Lower

Age

Figure 5.8: Age x Household Structure (cumulative data)

The normative-range data based on survey mean scores have been taken from Table A5.25 and the Age x Household data from Table A5.3. What is most striking from this Figure is the very small number of data-points that lie within the normative range. This indicates a broad dichotomy within the population as people who live with a partner and people who do not. While this dichotomy is less clear cut in the youngest group (18-25y) and people older than 56 years, it applies very strongly to the middle age groups. It appears that having a partner to live with, between the ages of 26-55 years, is a crucial ingredient for personal wellbeing. Other observations in relation to Figure 5.8 are as follows: (a)

People living with their partner alone, or living with their partner and children, are indistinguishable up to age 56-65. Beyond that, the addition of children reduces wellbeing to below the normal range. People aged 66-75y living with their partner and children constitute 4.8% of this age group. It is likely that some of these parents are caring for a child who is disabled.


85


(b)

Living alone is a poor option for people younger than 66 years. It is likely that people with low wellbeing live alone either because they have recently broken from a relationship or because they cannot find a partner to live with them. The former reason could account for the very low levels of wellbeing in people aged 36-65 years who live alone.

(c)

Living with parents is a good option for people aged 18-25, but not generally thereafter. In our society it is relatively unusual for people older than 26 years to be living with their parents. This group will include people who are unable to find a cohabiting partner, who lack the financial or other resources to move elsewhere, or who have returned to their parents following a broken relationship.

(d)

People who live with other adults who are neither their partner nor their parent, have consistently low personal wellbeing at ages 1.96 (Pallant, 2001). We offer a speculative reason for this pattern of change as follows: There are two major forces at play, and between them they have to achieve two major goals: These are: a.

The maintenance of SWB by the homeostatic system.

b.

Reflecting on and learning about the environment in relation to particular situations that are harmful.

To this end, we propose an interaction between the two systems of wellbeing and illbeing that works as follows: During youth, the general situation that confronts the organism can be described in the following terms: a.

The organism has a need to learn about aspects of environment that may damage its ability to maintain normal levels of SWB.

b.

The organism is physically resilient. It mends fast from physical damage and carries no chronic sources of disability or pain.

c.

Pain, either physical or emotional, has the purpose of withdrawing the organism from the offending source and, through simple operant learning, the organism learns to avoid such situations in the future. This is a capacity utilised by all animals. But the process of withdrawal can have added benefit for an animal if it has a period of quiet introspection concerning the events that have taken place.

Such action requires not only a level of cognitive development that would support such introspection, but also a behavioural state of low arousal that would facilitate such introspective activity. This state could be achieved by reciprocally linking illbeing and wellbeing. Then, as illbeing went up due to some negative experience, wellbeing would come down and, in the process, change motivation in accordance with Fredrickson’s model of Broaden and Build. According to this theory, for which there is much supporting empirical data, a state of high wellbeing causes the organism to be outward-


89


looking, exploratory, and gregarious. In this state animals experience new and challenging situations thereby increasing their stores of knowledge and adaptive strategies. In states of low wellbeing, on the other hand, animals become ruminative and introspective, analysing the source of their misery for clues as to why their particular situation arose. While this strategy may be of little use to snails, it increases the power of the learning experience for animals with substantial powers of cognition. It encourages the ruminative exploration of the antecedent circumstances thereby allowing a shift from reflexive avoidance to planned avoidance, and even consideration of how a similar situation might be exploited to one’s own benefit on a future occasion. However, this mechanism only works in the short-term. It is dependant on the period of reduced positive affect being long enough to allow reflective rumination, but not so long that the person is incapacitated from engaging in the necessary tasks of life. It is, thus, not suited to old age. As people age their bodies become less resilient. They are more easily damaged and take longer to mend. Additionally, they tend to accumulate various chronic medical conditions, some of which cause persistent pain or disability. Under such conditions, where there is a chronic source of illbeing, it is maladaptive to also chronically reduce wellbeing. It is more adaptive to reduce the strength of coupling between the two systems, thereby allowing the presence of normal level SWB even in the presence of illbeing. The only cost associated with such decoupling is that the people concerned would be less inclined to ruminate and plan after having experienced negative events. But perhaps this strategy has lost its advantage in old age anyway. The negative experiences are far less likely to be novel than they were in youth. Moreover, if previous periods of ruminative analysis failed to prevent the recurrence of such events, it is unlikely that further ruminative periods will confer much advantage. For similar reasons, there is a progressive decoupling of the states of illbeing from one another. In particular, pain becomes progressively isolated as an emotional state, and especially from the cognitive awareness of depression as measured in this survey. There are a number of predictions that arise from this model and these are discussed in Report 12.0.


90


5.6. Age and Work Status Full-time employed 84

Full-time home Full-time study

82

82.4

Unemployed Full-tim e re tire d

80

81.1 79.9

79.5

Semi-retired

79.2 78.6

78

77.0

76

Stre ngth 74 of s atis faction (PWI) 72

75.2

72.0

73.2

72.6

71.7

76.7 76.3

75.6

75.7

74.7

74.7

74.4

73.5 73.4

76.1

75.5

75.7

AGE-SPECIFIC NORMATIVE RANGE

71.8 70.7

70

68.3

68.7

68

66 65.8 64

64.5

64.4

62

76.7 71.2

76.4 72.0

76.0 72.7

75.5 72.8

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

77.2 74.2

78.9 75.0

83.7 72.1

56-65

66-75

76+

Upper Lower

Age

Figure 5.12: Age x Work Status (Personal Wellbeing Index)

While most groups lie within the age-normative range (Table 5.14), the following are exceptions: (a)

People who are unemployed lie within the normative range at 18-25y. Beyond that age their personal wellbeing shows a marked deterioration and remains well below normal up to 56-65y. Beyond this age, people without paid employment would usually describe themselves as retired rather than unemployed.

(b)

The wellbeing of full-time students is normative provided they are young (18-25y). Thereafter their wellbeing lies towards the bottom of the normal range.

(c)

Early retirees (46-55y) have below normal wellbeing.

5.7. Normative Data Generated from Individual Scores Table A5.28 has been constructed by averaging the Personal Wellbeing Index values of all individuals who fall within each age-range across all surveys. The minimum N=1,533 (76+ year group). These results are shown in Figure 5.13.


91


110 100 Stre ngth of s atis faction (PWI)

97.0

97.6

51.3

51.1

18-25

26-35

99.2

99.9

100.5

101.0

101.3

48.4

50.9

53.1

56.0

46.7 36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

90 80 70 60 50 40

Ye ars

Figure 5.13: Normative Range for Each Age Group Derived from the Scores of Individuals (Personal Wellbeing Index)

There are three interesting features of these data as follows: (a)

They are very regular in two respects. First the range of two standard deviations for the entire database (N=22,219) conforms almost precisely with the theoretical normal range of 50-100 points. The top of the empirical range (Table A5.30) averages 99.3 points and the bottom averages 50.8 points. Second, the differences between the ranges of the seven age groupings is just 2.9 points (from 45.8 : 18-25y to 51.7 : 46-55y). The correlation between the mean and standard deviation across the seven age groups is .198 (NS).

(b)

The base of the ranges show a dip in the 36-55y age groups. This indicates a downward extension of the Personal Wellbeing Index and indicates a higher than usual (compared with the other age groups) proportion of the sample experiencing homeostatic failure (individual values Never married

77.1

75 68.9

70

Normative Range

> Divorced/Separated 63.6

65 60.7

60 Married

Def acto

Never Married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.2: Marital Status: Relationship Satisfaction

It is interesting to observe that, with the exception of the widows, all other groups lie outside the ‘normal’ range for relationship satisfaction. Moreover, given that 64.7% of the sample comprises people in a relationship, the overall normal range is dominated by such people. This raises the possibility of the creation of a normative range for each marital group separately. It is notable that people who have never married have higher relationship satisfaction than both separated and divorced. The consequences of marriage breakdown are severe indeed. Another domain that differentiates married and widowed is Health. 78 76 Stre ngth of s atis faction (He alth)

75.9

76.4

75.4

74

> Divorced/Widow 72.8

72.1

72 69.2

70 68 Married

Def acto

Never married

Separated

Divorced

Widow

Figure 7.3: Marital Status: Health Satisfaction

The relatively lower satisfaction for widows is most likely due to their age and the burden of accumulated medical conditions, most particularly conditions that yield pain, such as arthritis (see Chapter 9). However, the Widows compensate by having higher satisfaction with both Community Connection and Future Security than the Married group (Table A7.2).


110

Section 7 Marital Status continued

Stre ngth of s atis faction

90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58

79.4

80.4 76.9

79.6

81.3

79.0 76.3 74.8

73.0

72.1

75.7

75.2

73.1

75.1

81.0

77.1

76.1

75.4 74.3 72.5

72.3

68.6

PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

Relations

Saf ety

Community

73.1

67.4

Future Security

Figure 7.4: Widows: Personal Wellbeing Index Domains

Despite having higher than average Personal Wellbeing Index, the level of satisfaction with health is below normal. This exemplifies the relative unimportance of health as a determinant of SWB provided that other domains can compensate. 78 76 74 Stre ngth of s atis faction (Com m unity Conne ction)

> married

75.4

73.1 > all below

72 70

72.5 Normative range

68.1

68

68.6

66.9

66.2

65.3

66 64 62 60 Married

Def acto

Never married

Separated

Divorced

Widow

Figure 7.5: Marital Status: Community Connection Satisfaction

In the domains of Community Connection and Future Security, Widows have higher levels of satisfaction than Married. 7.1.3.

Life as a Whole

This shows a similar pattern to Figure 7.1. 7.1.4.


Figure 7.6 shows the combined data from Table A7.2.


111


66 64

63.3

63.1

63.9

> all below

Stre ngth 62 of s atis faction 60 (NWI)

60.3

58.1

57.8

58

Normative range

> all below 58.0

57.1 56 Married

Def acto

Never married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.6: Marital Status: National Wellbeing Index

It is notable that all groups lie within the normative range on this, more distal, variable. However, the group showing a very different level of satisfaction, compared with the Personal Wellbeing Index, is people in a defacto relationship. Their level of national wellbeing does not differ from people who are separated or divorced. The reason for this is not known. 7.1.5.

National Wellbeing Domains

The national domains (Table A7.2) show a significant pattern of difference that resembles Figure 7.6 with the exception of National Security. 68 Stre ngth of s atis faction (National Se curity)

< Divorced/ separated

66.2

66

64.9

64

65.0

63.1

62

61.2

61.2

Separated

Divorced

60 58 Married

Def acto

Never married

Widow

Figure 7.7: Marital Status: National Security

This domain of National Security shows no difference between married and never married. The reason for this differential domain sensitivity is not known.


112


7.1.6.

Life in Australia 90 86.5

> Married Stre ngth 85 of s atis faction (%) 80

84.0

> all below

81.2

81.0

81.2

80.2

75 Married

Defacto

Never Married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.8: Marital Status: Life in Australia

Married and widowed have higher satisfaction with Life in Australia than the other groups, and Widows have higher satisfaction than married. 7.1.7.

Likelihood of Terrorist Attack

The perceived likelihood of a terrorist attach does not differ between the marital groups (Table A7.1). However, the combined data (Table A7.2) show differences as below: 68 62.8 67

65

> Married, Never Married, Widow ed 66.1

66 Lik e lihood of a te rroris t attack

67.2

66.9

61.9 60.9

65

61.4

60

63.9 64

58.5

64.2

63

55

55.4

% e xpe cting an attack

62.0

62 61

50

60 Married

Def acto

Never Married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.9: Marital Status x Perceived Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack (from 0-100)

Relatively few people within the Never Married group regard such an attack as likely (55.4% compared with 62.8% of Married). However, of those who do consider an attack likely, the Divorced group give it the highest level of probability (67.2 Divorced vs. 62.0 Widowed).


113


7.2. Work Status The pattern of wellbeing for people in full-time employment is shown in Table A7.3 for the combined samples below. 80 77.7


75.3

76

76.3 Norm ative Range

74

73.0

72.3

72.1 72 70.5

70.1

Separated

Divorced

70 68 Married

Def acto

Never Married

Widow ed

Figure 7.10: Marital Status x Full-time Employment: Personal Wellbeing Index

The following observations can be made as: 1.

The fact of full-time employment is not of itself sufficient to bring the wellbeing of people who are separated, divorced or never married into the normal range.

2.

Widows engaged in full-time work have a level of wellbeing well below the widows as a total group. This is probably because they tend to be younger than the average widow, with less time elapsed since the death of their partner, and may also be employed due to necessity rather than choice.

The data presented in Table A7.3, also show how the negative effects of unemployment are somewhat buffered through marriage (Figure 7.11). The combination of divorce and unemployment is devastating for personal wellbeing. 80

77.7

75

71.5

Stre ngth of70 s atis faction (PWI) 65

76.3

Normal range

72.1

70.5

73.0

70.1

66.8

60

58.1

57.7

55 Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Married

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Never married

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Separated

Unemployed

Divorced

Figure 7.11: Marital Status vs. Employed/Unemployed: Personal Wellbeing Index

From the above figure it can be seen that the effects of unemployment impact negatively both on people who are married (-6.3 points), never married (-5.6 points), separated (-11.2 points), or divorced (-13.4 points). Clearly, however, the effects of unemployment are far less severe for people who are married, whose wellbeing lies close to the lower margin of the normative range. This is due to the buffering influence of marriage from both an emotional and a financial aspect.


114


The data in relation to full-time home or family care are shown below.

PWI

80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60

80.0 77.0

75.6

76.3

Normative range

73.0

65.9

Married

Def acto

Never Married

63.0

62.3

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.12: Marital Status vs. Full-time Home or Family Care

This Figure shows the largest range of personal wellbeing (17.0 points) of any marital status comparison. While the two groups with partners approximate the top of the normal range, widows lie 3.7 points above the range. All other non-partner groups are very low indeed, with values that indicate a high probability of depression. 7.3. Marital Status x Work Status x Income Fulltime Employed

Fulltime Home Care

Fulltime Retired

80 76.3

75 70.2

70 PWI

65

67.0

Norm al range 73.5

73.0

71.9

68.2 61.3

60 55

73.3

64.5

65.7

56.5

50 $150K) is too small for the data to be reliable (N=6), their mean is 79.5 points (Table A7.10). Divorced people in fulltime home care are still way below the normal range with an income of $3160K, while divorced people who have retired enter the normal range at this income level. Presumably the resource needs of the latter group are much less.


115


7.4. Part-time Volunteering Total sample

Part-time volunteers

79.0

80

78.5

77.5

76.9

76.8 75.0

76.3

74.3

75

73.5

Normal range 73.0

71.7

PWI

69.0

70

69.5 68.1

65 Married

Def acto

Never Married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.14: Marital Status x Part-time Volunteering (Personal Wellbeing Index)

Across all groups, part-time volunteers have marginally higher wellbeing than the total comparison group (Table A7.4). The largest effect (+4.5 points) is for people who have separated, which is sufficient to take them into the normal range. This may represent a novelty effect if more people in this group have recently adopted volunteering due to a recent separation. It is notable that the advantage is much reduced for people who have divorced (+1.4 points). This difference, between the separated and divorced groups is very interesting. The 1.4 point advantage for the divorced group is consistent with the 1-2 point advantage for the other groups. But the 4.8 point advantage for the separated group is very much more substantial. An explanation may be as follows: (a)

People with high SWB set-points tend to volunteer. Thus, the general 1-2 point advantage across the marital groups reflects this difference.

(b)

The impact of volunteering on wellbeing is greatest in the early stages. At this time new relationships are forming and positive feedback is likely to be highest. Thus, the additional 2-3 points displayed by the separated group shows the novelty effect of volunteering.

If this interpretation is correct, the implication is that people engaged in part-time voluntary work should change the group to whom they are offering their services on a regular basis. The proportion of each martial group who engage in part-time voluntary work is as follows: Married Defacto Never married Separated Divorced Widowed

% of part-time volunteers 15.6 8.5 8.6 13.8 15.0 21.5

There is no simple association between the probability of volunteering and having or not-having a partner.


116


Dot Summary Points for Relationship Status

1. People who are married have a significantly (2.5 point) higher wellbeing than people in a defacto relationship. In part this may be due to lower household income for the defacto group.

80 78

Relationship status

77.5

76

76.9

> Def acto

75.0

Stre ngth 74 of s atis faction 72 (PWI)

76.3

> Never married

73.0

71.7

Normative Range

> Separated/divorced

70

69.0

68.1

68 66

Widows have an average level of wellbeing that lies above the normal range. This is very different from many other countries where widows have reduced wellbeing.

Married

Def acto

(6721)

(825)

Never Married (1991)

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

(354)

(854)

(911)

The wellbeing of people who are married or widowed lies above the normal range.

People who have never married have a level of personal wellbeing that lies between people who remain married and those who have separated or divorced. However, this is age dependent and likely reflects the accumulation of people with naturally low levels of wellbeing in the nevermarried group. 2. Widows have relatively low health satisfaction. This is probably due to the burden of accumulated medical condition, that yield pain, such as arthritis.


Despite this, their overall wellbeing lies above the normal range. This is due to compensating high levels in other domains.

3. The fact of full-time employment is not, of itself, able to bring all marital status groups into the normal range. Thus, the idea that work, of itself, has some intrinsic value to enhance personal wellbeing is not supported.

90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58

Widows 79.4

80.4 76.9

81.3

79.6

79.0 76.3 72.1

74.8

73.0

75.7

75.2

73.1

81.0

77.1

75.1

76.1

75.4 74.3

73.1

72.5

72.3

68.6

PWI

Living Standard

Health

A chieving

Relations

Safety

Community

67.4

Future Security

Widows have low health satisfaction and yet have high wellbeing.

80 78 Stre ngth of s atis faction (PWI)

Fulltime employed

77.6 75.4

76


74

72.4

72.0 72 70.5

70.2

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

(148)

(301)

(79)

70 68 Married

Def acto

(2757)

(497)

Never Married (869)

Fulltime employment fails to compensate for the lack of a partner.


117

73.0


4. The negative effect of unemployment on wellbeing is partially buffered through marriage. However, the combination of separation/divorce and unemployment is devastating, yielding one of our lowest group mean scores for personal wellbeing (56.8).

Unemployment 80

77.7

75 Stre ngth of70 s atis faction (PWI) 65

76.3

Normal range

72.1

71.5

70.5

73.0

70.1

66.8

58.1

60

57.7

55 Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Marriage buffers the effects of unemployment Married

5. Part-time volunteers have higher wellbeing than non-volunteers. The group to benefit most are people who are separated. This, may imply that the positive effect of volunteering is most evident in the early stages and dissipates as the activity become routine.

Never married

Total sample

Separated

Divorced

Part-time volunteers

79.1

80

78.6

77.5

76.9

76.5

76.3

75.0

74.1

75

73.8

Normal range 73.0

71.7

PWI

69.0

70

68.1

69.1

65

(P/T)

Married

Def acto

(1049)

(70)

Never Married (172)

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

(49)

(128)

(196)

Part-time voluntary work is associated with higher wellbeing.


118

8. Work Status “I am going to ask about your work status. Please tell me which of the following categories best applies to you at the present time. Are you in ---

Full time paid employment Full time retired Semi retired Full time volunteer Full time home or family care Unemployed Full time study Total

Survey 14 N 919 343 43 12 128 110 68 1623

Combined Surveys 9-14 N % Total 4692 47.4 2875 29.0 304 3.1 58 0.6 1037 10.5 467 4.7 474 4.8 9907 100

% Total 56.4 21.3 2.7 0.7 7.9 6.7 4.3 100

[If employed] (a)

Have you been in the Work for the Dole Program sometime during the past year?

(b)

Are you currently in the Work for the Dole Program? Survey 14 % of all N unemployed 5 7.1 2 2.9 63 90.0 70 100

Work for the dole program Yes: During past year Yes: Current No: (all other unemployed) Total

Combined Surveys 13-14 % of all N unemployed 8 7.0 5 4.3 102 88.7 115 100

Please tell me whether either of the following part-time categories applies to you at the present time. Are you ---

Part time paid work Part time voluntary work Part time paid & voluntary work Part time study Total

Survey 14 N % Total Sample 365 45.9% 240 30.2% 57 7.2% 133 16.7% 795 100.0%

Combined Surveys 9-14 N % Total Sample 1905 41.7% 1670 36.6% 379 8.3% 610 13.4% 4564 100.0%

“Are you looking for work?” Looking for Work? Yes No Total

Survey 14 N % Total Sample 270 13.73% 1697 86.27% 1967 100%

Combined Surveys 9-14 N % Total Sample 1363 11.60% 10387 88.40% 11750 100%

The above data, taken from Table A8.1, A8.2, A8.3 and A8.4 indicate a high degree of congruence between the proportion of people in each work status category in Survey 14 and the combined data from Surveys 9-14. An exception is fewer people full-time retired. 8.1. Overall Distribution The basic statistics are provided above and elaborated in Table A8.5 which combines full-time and part-time work. It is interesting that 13.7% of the sample are looking for work. This is 2.1% higher than the average across surveys (11.6%) and far higher than the proportion of the sample who are unemployed 6.7%. Thus, this category includes people who are under-employed or in part-time work.


119

Section 8 Work Status continued

8.2. Work Status and Wellbeing Data are taken from Table A8.7. 8.2.1.

Full-time Work Status: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys)


82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66

79.2 76.6

75.5

76.3


76.3

74.1

73.0

66.5 Full-time paid

Full-time retired

Semiretired

Full-time volunteer

Full-time home

Full-time student

Unemployed

Figure 8.1: Work Status: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined data)

Most groups approximate the normal range (Table A8.7). The exceptions are people who are fulltime volunteers, who have a very high wellbeing, and people who are unemployed who have lower wellbeing, as expected. 8.2.2.

Personal Domains

The personal domains (Table A8.7) generally show the same pattern as Figure 8.1 with the exception of Health which is below the normal range for people in Fulltime retirement. 80 78 76 Stre ngth of s atis faction (He alth)

78.7 77.0 Norm al range 70.8

74 72 70 68 66

73.0

74.5

75.9 75.7 73.1

66.8

64 62 60 Fulltime paid

Fulltime retired

Semiretired

Fulltime volunteer

Fulltime home

Fulltime student

Unemployed

Figure 8.2: Work Status: Satisfaction with Health (Combined Data)

These data from Table A8.7 indicate the lack of congruence between overall feelings of wellbeing and satisfaction with health. People who are full-time retired have a level of personal wellbeing that lies above the normal range (Figure 8.1) even though their health satisfaction lies below the normal range (Figure 8.2). The reverse is true of full-time students, who have the highest levels of health satisfaction but a Personal Wellbeing Index that lies only at the bottom of the normal range. This shows the invalidity of Health Related Quality of Life as a measure of overall wellbeing.


120


8.2.3.

Domain profile of Full-time work-status groups

The domain profile for Full-time Employed (N = 4,692) is as follows: 84 82

81.3

80

77.7

79.0

78 Stre ngth of s atis faction

76

77.0

75.5 76.3

74.0

74.8 73.1

73.0

72

81.0

77.1 75.7

74

79.8

78.8

75.1

74.3 73.1

72.5

72.3

70

69.8

68.7 68.6

68

67.4

66 PWI

Living Standard

Health

A chieving

Relations

Safety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.3: Work Status: Full-time Employed x Personal Domains (Combined Data)

This domain profile is remarkable in so far as all domain values fall within the normal range except Health which lies +1.3 points higher. The domain profile for Full-time Retired (N = 2,875) is as follows: 84 81.6

82

81.3

80.1 80 78

79.0

77.4

76.6

77.1

76.3

Stre ngth 76 of s atis faction 74

75.7

75.1

74.8 73.1

73.0

72

81.0

74.3

72.6

70.8

73.1 72.5

72.3

71.4

73.1

70 68.6

68

67.4

66 PWI

Living Standard

Health

A chieving

Relations

Saf ety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.4: Work Status: Full-time Retired x Personal Domains (Combined Data)

Most notable in this group is health satisfaction that lies 2.3 points below the normative range. Yet this group has a level of subjective wellbeing that lies slightly (0.3 points) above the normal range Figure 8.1. This attests to the invalidity of the domain of health as a measure of perceived life quality within this group. Thus, measures of Health Related Quality of Life will seriously underestimate the perceived life quality of people who have retired from work.


121


The domain profile for Semi-retired (N = 304) is as follows: 84 82 79.8

78.4

80

81.3

81.0 78.5

79.0

78

76.3

77.1

76.3


75.7 74.8

72

73.5

73.0 73.1

73.0

75.1 74.3

73.1

71.6 72.5

72.3

71.4

70 68.6

68

67.4

66 PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

Relations

Saf ety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.5: Work Status: Semi-retired x Personal Domains (Combined Data)

With the exception of Health, that lies -0.1 points below the normal range, all other domains are normative. The domain profile for the Full-time Volunteers (N=58) is as follows: 90

Domain-specific normative range

88 86 84

83.1

82.9

82 Stre ngth of s atis faction

80

81.3 79.2

78

79.0 76.3

76

74.5 74.8

74

75.7 73.1

73.0

72

81.0

79.5

78.3 74.1

77.1 75.2

75.1

74.3

73.1

72.5

72.3

70 68.6

68

67.4

66 PWI

Living Standard

Health

A chieving

Relations

Saf ety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.6: Work Status: Full-time Volunteers x Personal Domains (Combined Data)

It is notable that despite the spectacular performance of Living Standard (+4.1 points above the normal range and Community (+7.0 points) three of the domains (health, achieving, and safety) lie only within the normal range. It is particularly interesting that ‘what you are currently achieving in life’ is within the normal range. There are two observations as: (1)

If these people have a naturally high set-point, as is likely, then in relative terms, their sense of achievement is letting them down. This may point to the reason they are volunteers, to attempt to remedy this situation.

(2)

The fact of being a full-time volunteer is not, of itself, able to take satisfaction with personal achievement above the normal range. In fact, the mean value for this domain (74.1) is almost identical to that of people who are full-time employed (74.0: Table 8.3).


122


The domain profile for Full-time Home or Family Care (N = 1,037) is as follows: 84 82.1

82

81.3

80 78 Stre ngth of s atis faction

79.0 75.2

76

76.3

77.7 75.9

75.8

77.1

75.7

75.1

74.8

74

73.0

72

81.0

73.1

74.3

72.2

73.1

72.5

72.3 70.5

70 68.6

68

67.8 67.4

66 PWI

Living Standard

Health

A chieving

Relations

Saf ety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.7: Work Status Full-time Home or Family Care (Combined Data)

All domains are approximately normative. The domain profile for Full-time Students (N = 467) is as follows: 84 82 80


78 76 74 72 70 68

81.3 79.0 74.1

76.3

79.7

78.7

76.0

75.7

74.8

73.4

73.1

73.0

75.1

74.5

81.0

77.1 74.3

73.1

72.5

72.3

68.9 68.6 65.2

66 64 62 60 PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

Relations

Saf ety

Community

67.4

Future Security

Figure 8.8: Work Status Full-time Students x Personal Domains (Combined Data)

The Personal Wellbeing Index of students lies towards the bottom of the normal range. It is notable that the two domains that involve interaction with other people are below normal (Relationships -2.6% points; Community -3.4 points). These deficits are marginally compensated by higher than normal health satisfaction (+3.0 points). This profile may mean that the Personal Wellbeing Index of full-time students is particularly vulnerable to poor health. The domain profile for People who are Unemployed (N = 474) is as follows:


123


84 82 80 78 76 74 Stre ngth 72 of 70 s atis faction 68 66 64 62 60 58

Domain-specific normative range 81.3 79.0 76.3 74.8

73.0 66.5

77.1

75.7

75.1

73.1 67.3

81.0 76.9 74.3

68.0

66.8

73.1

72.5

72.3

68.6

67.4

63.4 60.0

PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

59.1 Relations

Safety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.9: Work Status: People who are Unemployed x Personal Domains (Combined Data)

The domains are quite uniformly below normal with the exception of Safety. The reason this domain is protected is not known, but it is notable that all of the Work-Status sub-groups have normative safety satisfaction. This normal-range value of safety shows that people are responding reliably to the index and not simply engaging a negative response-set. 8.2.4.

Life as a Whole

This shows the same pattern as Figure 8.1.. 8.2.5.

National Wellbeing Index 66 63.3

64 62

63.3

61.9

62.8 61.6

61.1

63.9 Normal range


57.0

57.1

56 54 52 Full-time paid

Full-time retired

Semiretired

Full-time volunteer

Full-time home

Full-time student

Unemployed

Figure 8.10: Work Status: National Wellbeing Index

All groups, including unemployed, approximate the normative range. 8.2.6. National Domains The general pattern is similar to Figure 8.10.


124


8.3. Looking for Work 8.3.1.

Personal Wellbeing Index 78 76 Stre ngth 74 of 72 s atis faction 70 (PWI) 68 66 64

75.9

76.3

Norm ative Range

71.5

Looking

Not looking

73.0

66.3

66.7

Looking

Not looking

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Figure 8.11: Looking for Work: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined data)

Table A8.8 and A8.9 show the Personal Wellbeing Index and distribution of people looking/not looking for work. Tables A8.10 and A8.11 show these data for people either in full-time work or umemployed. It is evident that the 9.0% of people who are employed full time and looking for work have a level of personal wellbeing that is 1.5 points below the normative range and 4.4 points below those not looking at work. It is also notable that whether people who are unemployed are actually looking for work or not makes no reliable difference to their subjective wellbeing. 90 88 86 84 82 Stre ngth of s atis faction (PWI)

81.3

80 78

78.2 75.9

76

77.3

76.3

75.7 74.8

74

81.0

77.1

74.8 75.1

73.1

73.0

72

80.0

78.8

79.0

74.3 70.2

70

69.0

68

68.6

66 PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

73.1

72.5

72.3

Relations

Saf ety

Community

67.4 Future Security

Figure 8.12: Work Status: Full-time Employed not Looking for Work (PWI)

Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.13 show the domain performance of fulltime employed who are/are not looking for work. The people employed full-time who are not looking for work have normal-range domains, with the exception of Health, which is higher than normal. Figure 8.13, in constrast, shows that for people who are looking for work, only the domains of Health and Safety remain within the normal range.


125



Points change from not-look ing

90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60

81.3 79.0 76.3

74.7

73.1

71.5

75.7 74.8

73.0

75.6

81.0 78.1

77.1

75.1

73.1

74.3

73.1

72.5

72.3

68.6

66.8

65.8

65.5

67.4

-4.4

-5.1

-2.6

-8.0

-3.2

-1.9

-3.5

-4.4

PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

Relations

Saf ety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.13: Work Status: Full-time Employed Looking for Work

By far the largest fall is the domain ‘Achieving in life’ which differs by 8.0 points between those looking, and not looking, for work. No doubt this is one of the main reasons these people are seeking to change their employment. It also signals that the low value for this domain may be central in driving the other domains, and therefore the PWI, down below normal. Many employed people gain a great sense of ‘purpose in life’ from their employment, and having a sense of purpose is central to wellbeing. This domain profile may be diagnostic of employees who are likely to take an alternative job if the opportunity arises.


90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58

81.3 79.0 76.3

75.7 74.8

73.0

77.1

75.1

73.1

81.0 75.7 74.3

68.8

68.8

68.6

66.7 63.9

Living Standard

Health

67.4

63.6 60.5

PWI

73.1

72.5

72.3

Achieving

60.2 Relations

Saf ety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.14: Work Status: Unemployed not Looking for Work

Figure 8.14 and Figure 8.15 show the different profile of people who are unemployed and not looking or looking for work.


126



Points change from not-look ing

90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56

81.3 79.0 76.3

75.7 74.8

73.0

81.0 78.1

77.1

75.1

73.1

74.3

73.1

72.5

72.3

69.6 68.6

67.4

65.9

66.3

67.4

63.1 60.0 57.9 -0.4

-2.9

+5.7

-0.5

-1.4

+2.4

-0.5

-2.3

PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

Relations

Saf ety

Community

Future Security

Figure 8.15: Work Status: Unemployed Looking for Work

The most obvious difference between these two groups is that the people who are unemployed and looking for work have far higher (+5.7 points) satisfaction with their health. The direction of causation here is uncertain, but it may be the case that people with very poor health are less likely to look for work. Two matters are notable in relation to this as: (a)

The people looking for work still have a level of health satisfaction that is 3.5 points below the normal range.

(b)

Despite the big difference in the health satisfaction of these two groups, the Personal Wellbeing Index does not differ between them. this is due to compensatory rises in the other domains for the low-health group, with the exception of safety which remains within its normative range.

8.4. Part-time Voluntary Work 80 78 76 Stre ngth of s atis faction (PWI)

77.7 75.5

78.9 76.6

76.3 74.2

75.2

75.8 74.1

76.3

74.7 Normal range

74

73.0

72 70

68.4

68

66.5

66 64 Total V ol

Total V ol

Total V ol

Total V ol

Fulltime employed

Fulltime retired

Semi-retired

Fulltime home

Total

Vol

Fulltime student

Total V ol Unemployed

Figure 8.16: Full-time Work Status vs. Part-time Volunteer

These data come from Tables A8.7 and A8.13. It can be seen that the only groups to show a reliable increase in their Personal Wellbeing Index associated with volunteering are fulltime employed (+2.2 points), fulltime retired (+2.3 points) and unemployed (+1.9 points). The association with volunteer work has no reliable effect for people in full-time home care or fulltime students, while for people who are semi-retired the association is actually negative (-2.1 points) It may be that the semi-retired people would prefer not to be retired and find volunteer work, which they have adopted as a substitute


127


activity, unrewarding. Full-time students, on the other hand, may be so engaged in their studies and social life that volunteer work makes no additional contribution to their wellbeing. 8.5. Unemployment and Income: Personal Wellbeing Index Domains Table A8.15 and A8.16 show the effects of income on the Personal Wellbeing Index domains of people who are unemployed. The combined data are shown below. 80 75 70 PWI

65 60 55 50

80

62.1

Standard Points of living

65 60 55 50

$15-30

$31-60

Standard of living normative range

59.9

S1

79.5

72.7

70.9

71.6

82.3 72.0

83.5

73.7

>S1

71.5

60 S1 Apr 01

S2 Sept 01

S3 Mar 02

S4 Aug 02

S5 Nov 02

S6 Mar 03

S7 Jun 03

S8 Aug 03

S9 Nov 03

S10 Feb 04

S11 May 04

S12 Aug 04

S13 May 05

S14 Oct 05

Figure 10.10: Intensity of Recent Personal Events

Most obviously from these data, the perceived strength of a happy event exceeds that of a sad event. For example, using the data from Survey 6, t(1072)= 10.19, p Male) (Table A10.14). This is a consistent finding across surveys.


153

Section 10 Life Events continued

84.2

85

Male

Female

80.1 80 Intensity of feeling %

75

70.3

72.5

70 65 60 Happy Event

Sad Event

Figure 10.11: Intensity of Happiness/Sadness to a Personal Life Event

This familiar pattern of increased emotional responsiveness in females occurs for both happy and sad events (Table A10.14). It is also notable that the strength of felt sadness for both genders approximately the same value of 70% as is found for people’s sadness when recalling terrorist attacks (see Reports 2-8). It is also interesting that these two mean values of life event intensity (happy = around 80, sad = around 70) approximate the calculated normative range of 70-80 points for personal wellbeing (see Chapter 1). It seems possible that these are related and that people perceive happiness and sadness as being represented by the margins of the normative range. 10.4.3. Age and Life Event Intensity In order to examine closely the relationship between age and the experience of life event intensity, Table A10.13 shows the combined data from Surveys 1-14. For both happy and sad event intensity there is no age effect and no Age x Survey interaction.


154


Dot Point Summary for Life Events 1. About half of the sample consider that a recent life event, that has happened to them, has made them feel happier or sadder than normal. Male sad event

2. Both males and females were more likely to report a personal sad event in the period immediately following September 11. More males than normal, but not females, reported a personal happy event immediately prior to the Iraq war.

Female sad event Female happy event % of each gender reporting a personal event that m ade them happier or sadder than norm al

Male happy event

September 11

Prior Iraq War

Some international events make it more likely that people will recall significant personal events.

3. Females are more likely to recall the experience of a sad than a happy event in their lives.

29.4

30 28 Proportion reporting a life event (%)

26 24

24.4 22.7

22.2

22 20 Happy

Sad

Happy

Males

Sad

Females

Females report more sad events in their lives than males.

4. Females experience both happy events and sad events more intensely than males. This represents a pattern of enhanced emotional responsiveness for females.

84.2

85

Male

Female

80.1 80 Intensity of feeling %

75

70.3

72.5

70 65 60 Happy Event

Sad Event

Females report a greater felt intensity of both happy and sad events.


155


5. Young adults are more likely to report the experience of happy than sad events in their lives. This changes at 36-45 years. At this age and older, people are more likely to report the occurrence of a sad event.

Total events

Happy events

Sad Events

55 50

51.3

54.3

% reporting a personal event

51.3

49.2

45

50.2 46.5

40 35

30.8

30

30.1

31.3

29.7

28.4

25 20

20.5

15

20.5

23.0

27.7

27.9

18.8

21.2

20.8

42.3

14.4

10 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

The recall of happy or sad events is age-sensitive.

6. People on low incomes are more likely to report the experience of a sad than a happy event in their lives. This reflects the buffering influence of money.

35

32.4

30 % reporting 25 an 20 event 15

Sad

Happy 29.5

21.3

28.2

22.9

26.1

26.0 24.8

25.1

17.6

10

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 14 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 14 Part A

Suggest Documents

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 18.1 Part A: The Report

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 21 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 33.0 Part A: The Report

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 15 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 17 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 32.0 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 13 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 16 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 32.0 Part B: The Tables

Developing a National Index of Subjective Wellbeing: The Australian ...

Personal Wellbeing Index â Adult (PWI-A) - Australian Centre on ...

Marginalisation and wellbeing among Australian 9-14 ...

Stress and wellbeing in Australia survey 2013 - Australian ...

Stress and wellbeing in Australia survey 2013 - Australian ...

South Australian Health and Wellbeing Survey - Faculty of Health and ...

Part A 2013-14

Part A 2013-14

The Personal Wellbeing Index - CBS

a survey of Australian chiropractors

2017 wellbeing index findings summary - Santa Monica Wellbeing ...

Australian Woodsmith Index

Technical Report - The Australian Child Wellbeing Project

(wellbeing) of the Australian - Carers Australia

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 14 Part A