Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 16 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 16 Report 16.0 October 2006

Part A: The Report “The Wellbeing of Australians – Mortgage Payments and Home Ownership”

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 6071 3 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 16, Report 16, October 2006

Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................................xi 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 16 and Survey 15 .............................................................................4

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.8.1. 2.9. 2.10. 2.10.1. 2.10.2. 2.10.3.

Overview.................................................................................................................................................4 Personal Wellbeing Domains ..................................................................................................................7 Life as a Whole .....................................................................................................................................15 National Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................17 Life in Australia ....................................................................................................................................23 Australian Wellbeing Summary ............................................................................................................23 Discussion of the Changes in Personal and National Wellbeing...........................................................25 Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack............................................................................................................25 Satisfaction with Safety and Terrorist Attack Probability.....................................................................29 State Comparisons.................................................................................................................................30 Normative Data .....................................................................................................................................31 Normative Data from Individual Scores ...............................................................................................31 Normative Data using Survey Mean Scores as Data (N=16) ................................................................34 Relationships Between the Indices........................................................................................................36

3.

Household Income...............................................................................................................................41

3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.1.6. 3.1.7. 3.2. 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.4. 3.4.1. 3.4.2. 3.5. 3.5.1. 3.5.2. 3.6. 3.6.1. 3.6.2. 3.7. 3.8. 3.8.1. 3.8.2. 3.9. 3.9.1. 3.9.2.

Income and Wellbeing ..........................................................................................................................42 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................42 Personal Domains..................................................................................................................................44 Domain Discrimination with Income ....................................................................................................45 Personal Wellbeing Index Changes Across Surveys x Income .............................................................46 National Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................46 National Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................46 Terrorist Attack Probability ..................................................................................................................47 Income and Gender ...............................................................................................................................47 Income and Age ....................................................................................................................................49 Income x Age x Gender ........................................................................................................................50 Income and Household Composition ....................................................................................................51 Income x Household Composition x Gender ........................................................................................52 Composition of the lowest income group: Household Composition x Age (26-55y) ..........................52 Income and Relationship Status ............................................................................................................53 Income x Relationship Status x Gender ................................................................................................54 Composition of the lowest income 26-55y group in terms of Relationship Status and Age .................54 Income and Work Status .......................................................................................................................55 Income x Work Status x Gender ...........................................................................................................56 Composition of the lowest income, 26-55 group, in terms of Age and Work Status ............................56 Regression of PWI Domains against Life as a Whole...........................................................................56 Testing Homeostasis .............................................................................................................................58 Wellbeing Variation Within Income Groups using Combined Survey Data.........................................58 Differential Personal-National Income Sensitivity ...............................................................................59 Normative Values..................................................................................................................................60 Normative Data for Individual Scores...................................................................................................60 Normative Data for Group Means.........................................................................................................60

4.

Gender..................................................................................................................................................68

4.1. 4.2. 4.2.1. 4.2.2.

Overall Distribution ..............................................................................................................................68 Gender and Wellbeing...........................................................................................................................68 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................68 Personal Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................69


i

Table of Contents Continued

4.2.3. 4.2.4. 4.2.5. 4.2.6. 4.2.7. 4.3. 4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.4. 4.4.1. 4.5. 4.5.1. 4.6. 4.6.1. 4.7. 4.7.1. 4.7.2. 4.8. 4.8.1. 4.8.2.

Domain Stability Across Surveys x Gender..........................................................................................72 New Domain of Spiritual/Religious Satisfaction ..................................................................................73 National Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................73 National Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................74 Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack............................................................................................................75 Gender and Age ....................................................................................................................................75 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................75 Gender x Age: Domains.......................................................................................................................76 Gender and Household Composition ....................................................................................................79 Gender x Household Composition x Age..............................................................................................81 Gender and Relationship Status ............................................................................................................82 Gender and Relationship Status x Household Composition..................................................................83 Gender x Work Status ...........................................................................................................................83 Gender x Age x Employed (Full-time)..................................................................................................86 Normative Data Based on Individual Scores.........................................................................................87 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................87 Age Norms (individual scores) .............................................................................................................88 Normative Data based on Survey Mean Scores ....................................................................................90 Personal Wellbeing Index and Domains ...............................................................................................90 Normative: Gender x Age ....................................................................................................................91

5.

Age........................................................................................................................................................95

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. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9.

Distribution Overall ..............................................................................................................................95 Age and Wellbeing................................................................................................................................95 Personal Wellbeing Index .....................................................................................................................95 Age x Surveys .......................................................................................................................................95 Personal Wellbeing Domains ................................................................................................................98 Life as a Whole ...................................................................................................................................100 National Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................100 National Wellbeing Domains ..............................................................................................................100 National Survey Specific.....................................................................................................................101 Age and Household Composition .......................................................................................................102 Age and Relationship Status ...............................................................................................................104 Age and Work Status ..........................................................................................................................106 Normative Data Generated from Individual Scores ............................................................................107 Normative Domain Scores (raw data) .................................................................................................108 Normative Data from Survey Mean Scores (N=15)............................................................................109 Normative Domain Scores (Survey Mean Scores : N=16)..................................................................110

6.

Household Composition....................................................................................................................114

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. 6.4.1. 6.4.2. 6.4.3. 6.4.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.6.1. 6.6.2.

Distribution Overall ............................................................................................................................114 Household Composition and Wellbeing..............................................................................................114 Personal Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................114 Personal Domains................................................................................................................................116 Life as a Whole ...................................................................................................................................118 National Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................118 National Wellbeing Domains ..............................................................................................................118 Life in Australia ..................................................................................................................................119 National Survey-Specific Aspects: Terrorist Attack ...........................................................................119 Household Composition and Relationship Status ...............................................................................120 Household Composition x Work Status ..............................................................................................122 Household Composition x Unemployment .........................................................................................122 Living Alone x Work Status................................................................................................................123 Sole Parents x Work Status .................................................................................................................123 Sole Parents x Part-time Work Status x Income .................................................................................124 Regressions .........................................................................................................................................124 Normative Data ...................................................................................................................................125 Individual Values ................................................................................................................................125 Sample Mean Values...........................................................................................................................127


ii


7.

Marital Status ....................................................................................................................................133

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. 7.5. 7.6. 7.6.1. 7.6.2.

Marital Status and Wellbeing..............................................................................................................133 Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys)...................................................................................133 Personal Wellbeing Domains ..............................................................................................................133 Life as a Whole ...................................................................................................................................135 National Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................135 National Wellbeing Domains ..............................................................................................................136 Life in Australia ..................................................................................................................................137 Likelihood of Terrorist Attack ............................................................................................................137 Work Status.........................................................................................................................................138 Marital Status x Work Status x Income...............................................................................................139 Part-time Volunteering........................................................................................................................140 Regressions of Personal Wellbeing Index Domains Against Life as a Whole ....................................141 Normative Scores ................................................................................................................................141 Normative Ranges from Individual Values.........................................................................................141 Normative Ranges form Survey Mean Scores ....................................................................................142

8.

Work Status .......................................................................................................................................145

8.1. 8.2. 8.2.1. 8.2.2. 8.2.3. 8.2.4. 8.2.5. 8.2.6. 8.3. 8.3.1. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6. 8.7. 8.7.1. 8.7.2. 8.8.

Overall Distribution ............................................................................................................................145 Work Status and Wellbeing.................................................................................................................145 Full-time Work Status: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys) .............................................146 Personal Domains................................................................................................................................146 Domain profile of Full-time work-status groups.................................................................................147 Life as a Whole ...................................................................................................................................151 National Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................151 National Domains................................................................................................................................152 Looking for Work ...............................................................................................................................152 Personal Wellbeing Index ...................................................................................................................152 Part-time Voluntary Work...................................................................................................................154 Employment Status x Gender..............................................................................................................154 Unemployment and Income: Personal Wellbeing Index Domains.....................................................155 Normative Data ...................................................................................................................................157 Normative Data Based on Individual Scores.......................................................................................157 Normative Data Based on Survey Mean Scores..................................................................................157 Regressions .........................................................................................................................................158

9.

Health and Body Mass Index ...........................................................................................................162

9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. 9.5.1. 9.5.2. 9.6.

Height, Weight and Body Mass Index ................................................................................................162 Gender x Height, Weight, and BMI ....................................................................................................165 Income.................................................................................................................................................167 Relationship Status..............................................................................................................................172 Physical Pain .......................................................................................................................................173 Pain x Gender......................................................................................................................................173 Pain x Age...........................................................................................................................................174 Medical or Psychological Condition ...................................................................................................176

10.

Life Events .........................................................................................................................................180

10.1. 10.1.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.3.1. 10.4. 10.4.1. 10.4.2. 10.4.3. 10.5.

Occurrence of Personal Life Events....................................................................................................180 Gender and Life Event Frequency ......................................................................................................182 Relationship Between Life Events and Wellbeing Moderated by Income ..........................................184 Life Event Frequency x Age ...............................................................................................................186 Income and Life Event Frequency ......................................................................................................186 Perceived Intensity of Life Events ......................................................................................................187 Household Income and Life Event Intensity .......................................................................................188 Gender and Life Event Intensity ........................................................................................................188 Age and Life Event Intensity ..............................................................................................................188 Days of the Week ................................................................................................................................189

11.

Home Payments.................................................................................................................................192

11.1. 11.1.1.

Paying Mortgage or Rent ....................................................................................................................192 Household Income ..............................................................................................................................193


iii


11.1.2. 11.1.3. 11.1.4. 11.1.5. 11.1.6. 11.2.

Gender.................................................................................................................................................195 Age......................................................................................................................................................195 Household Composition......................................................................................................................196 Marital Status ......................................................................................................................................197 Work Status.........................................................................................................................................197 Worry About Making Payments .........................................................................................................198

12.

Home Location ..................................................................................................................................201

12.1. 12.2. 12.3. 12.4. 12.5. 12.6. 12.7.

Total Travel Time ...............................................................................................................................201 Gender.................................................................................................................................................202 Type of Activity ..................................................................................................................................202 Living Area .........................................................................................................................................203 Travel Time x Living Area..................................................................................................................203 Travel Time x Income .........................................................................................................................203 Living Closer to Nature.......................................................................................................................204

13.

Insights into Homeostasis .................................................................................................................209

13.1. 13.2. 13.3. 13.4. 13.5.

Health Satisfaction ..............................................................................................................................209 Relationship Satisfaction.....................................................................................................................214 Standard of Living Satisfaction...........................................................................................................216 Combined Data ...................................................................................................................................216 Standard of Living Satisfaction...........................................................................................................218

Appendix A1 .......................................................................................................................................................220 A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4

References to the Text.........................................................................................................................220 Previous Reports on the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index ...............................................................220 Item Data Screening: (Survey 16 October 2006) ................................................................................223 Data Screening Case Log: S16............................................................................................................224

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.


iv

Index of Tables Table 2.1: Means and standard deviations of the 16th survey................................................................................. 4 Table 3.1: Income Frequency (Survey 16)........................................................................................................... 41 Table 3.2: The Cost of Each PWI Increment ....................................................................................................... 43 Table 3.3: Rank Order of Domains ...................................................................................................................... 46 Table 3.4: PWI and NWI Change with Income (Individual data: Surveys 7-16)................................................ 59 Table 4.1: Domain Changes >2.0% Between Adjacent Surveys within each Gender ......................................... 72 Table 4.2: Range (2SD) of Personal Wellbeing Mean Scores over Surveys, 1-13 .............................................. 90 Table 5.1: Mean Domain Score Changes for 76+y (Personal Wellbeing Index) ................................................. 97 Table 6.1: Regressions: Live alone and never married ..................................................................................... 124 Table 8.1: Looking for Work: Distribution ........................................................................................................ 145 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 ...................................................................... 185 Table 11.1: Wellbeing of people Paying Mortgage or Rent............................................................................... 192

See Part B for Appended Tables.


v

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: Proportion of the sample who have the Spiritual/Religious experience .......................................... 14 Figure 2.11: Strength of Spiritual/Religious vs. Personal Wellbeing Index......................................................... 14 Figure 2.12: Satisfaction with Life as a Whole................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2.13: Satisfaction with the Economic Situation in Australia ................................................................. 17 Figure 2.14: Satisfaction with the State of the Natural Environment in Australia ......................................... 18 Figure 2.15: Satisfaction with the Social Conditions in Australia..................................................................... 19 Figure 2.16: Satisfaction with Government in Australia................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.17: Satisfaction with Business in Australia ......................................................................................... 21 Figure 2.18: Satisfaction with National Security................................................................................................ 22 Figure 2.19: Satisfaction with Life in Australia ................................................................................................. 23 Figure 2.20: Percentage who think a terrorist attack is likely .............................................................................. 25 Figure 2.21: Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack ...................................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.22: Likelihood of Terrorist Attack x Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys 9-15) ................... 26 Figure 2.23: Likelihood of Attack x Personal Wellbeing Index Showing 2SD Below the Mean ........................ 27 Figure 2.24: Personal Wellbeing Index x Attack Probability x Life Events ........................................................ 28 Figure 2.25: State x Grouped Surveys (Personal Wellbeing Index)..................................................................... 30 Figure 2.26: Frequency Distribution of Personal Wellbeing Index...................................................................... 31 Figure 2.27: Frequency Distribution of ‘Life as a Whole’................................................................................... 32 Figure 2.28: Normative Range for Individual Data: Personal Wellbeing Index............................................... 32 Figure 2.29: Normative Range for Individual Data: National Wellbeing Index ............................................... 33 Figure 2.30: Normative Range for Life as a Whole and Life in Australia ........................................................... 33 Figure 2.31: Life as a Whole vs. Life in Australia: Survey Means ..................................................................... 34 Figure 2.32: Normative Range for Group Data: Personal Wellbeing Mean Scores (N=16) ............................. 34 Figure 2.33: Normative Range: National Wellbeing Mean Scores (N=14)....................................................... 35 Figure 2.34: Normative Range of Life as a Whole and Life in Australia.......................................................... 36 Figure 3.1: Income and the Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys) ..................................................... 42 Figure 3.2: The cost of purchasing a percentage point of personal wellbeing ..................................................... 43 Figure 3.3: The Influence of Household Income to create differences within the Personal Domains ................. 45 Figure 3.4: Income x National Economic Situation (combined data) .................................................................. 47 Figure 3.5: Income x Terrorist attack beliefs (Survey 16) ................................................................................... 47 Figure 3.6: Gender x Household Income (combined data) .................................................................................. 48 Figure 3.7: Income x Age (combined data).......................................................................................................... 49 Figure 3.8: Income x Age x Gender (combined data) .......................................................................................... 50 Figure 3.9: Income x Household Composition: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined Surveys 9-12) ............. 51 Figure 3.10: Income x Household Composition x Gender: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined Surveys 9-12) ............................................................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 3.11: Income x Relationship Status ........................................................................................................ 53 Figure 3.12: Income x Relationship Status x Gender........................................................................................... 54 Figure 3.13: Income x Work Status (combined data)......................................................................................... 55 Figure 3.14: Income x Work Status x Gender...................................................................................................... 56 Figure 3.15: The Proportion of Unique and Shared Variance by Income ............................................................ 57 Figure 3.16: The Proportion of Unique/Shared Variance by Household Income ................................................ 57 Figure 3.17: Domain Variance Contributions x Income ...................................................................................... 58 Figure 3.18: Variation in Personal Wellbeing Index Within Income Groups Using Individual Scores (S9S16) ............................................................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 3.19: Personal Wellbeing Index Range Calculated from Individual Scores........................................... 60 Figure 3.20: Personal Wellbeing Index Range Calculated from Survey Mean Scores...................................... 61 Figure 3.21: Correspondence Between the Whole Sample Normative Range and the Income Specific Normative Range (Combined surveys) ....................................................................................................... 61 Figure 3.22: Age .................................................................................................................................................. 62 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, Survey 16, Report 16, October 2006

vi

Index of Figures Continued

Figure 3.23: Household Structure ........................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 3.24: Relationship Status .......................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 3.25: Work Status (Full-time)................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 4.1: Gender x Survey: Personal Wellbeing Index ................................................................................. 68 Figure 4.2: Satisfaction with Safety across all Surveys ....................................................................................... 69 Figure 4.3: Gender x Survey (Safety and Personal Wellbeing Index) ................................................................. 70 Figure 4.4: Gender x Survey (Relationship Satisfaction)..................................................................................... 70 Figure 4.5: Gender x Survey (Future Security Satisfaction) ................................................................................ 71 Figure 4.6: Gender difference in Spiritual/Religious Fulfilment ......................................................................... 73 Figure 4.7: Gender x National Wellbeing Index x Survey................................................................................... 73 Figure 4.8: Gender x Survey (Economic Situation) ............................................................................................. 74 Figure 4.9: Gender x Survey (National Security)................................................................................................. 74 Figure 4.10: Gender x Age: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys).................................................... 75 Figure 4.11: Gender x Age: Female PWI minus Male PWI (combined data)................................................ 76 Figure 4.12: Gender x Age: Standard of Living (combined data)..................................................................... 76 Figure 4.13: Gender x Age: Health (combined surveys).................................................................................... 77 Figure 4.14: Gender x Age: Relationships (combined surveys) ......................................................................... 78 Figure 4.15: Gender x Age: Safety (combined surveys)..................................................................................... 78 Figure 4.16: Gender x Age: Community Connection (combined surveys)....................................................... 79 Figure 4.17: Gender x Living Alone: Personal Wellbeing Index ..................................................................... 80 Figure 4.18: Gender x Sole Parents x Survey (Personal Wellbeing Index).......................................................... 80 Figure 4.19: Age x Sole Parent x Gender (PWI) ................................................................................................ 81 Figure 4.20: Age x Lives Alone x Gender (Personal Wellbeing Index) .............................................................. 81 Figure 4.21: Age x Lives with Other Adults x Gender (Personal Wellbeing Index) .......................................... 81 Figure 4.22: Gender x Relationship Status (Personal Wellbeing Index).............................................................. 82 Figure 4.23: Gender x Divorced x Household Composition................................................................................ 83 Figure 4.24: Fulltime employed x Gender: Personal Wellbeing Index ............................................................... 84 Figure 4.25: Full-time Home or Family Care x Gender: Personal Wellbeing Index........................................... 84 Figure 4.26: Work status (F/T) x Gender Differences (Personal Wellbeing Index)............................................. 85 Figure 4.27: Gender x Age x Work Status (Full-time)......................................................................................... 86 Figure 4.28: Gender Normative Data for Individuals: Personal Wellbeing Index............................................ 87 Figure 4.29: Gender x Age: Normative Data for Individuals: Personal Wellbeing Index ............................... 88 Figure 4.30: Gender x Age: Highest Margins of the Normal Range Calculated from Individuals .............. 88 Figure 4.31: Gender x Age: Lowest Extent of the Normative Range Calculated from Individuals ............. 89 Figure 4.32: Index and Domains: Normative Personal Wellbeing................................................................... 90 Figure 4.33: Normative Gender x Age................................................................................................................. 91 Figure 5.1: Age: Personal Wellbeing Index (Survey 16 vs. Normative Data)................................................... 95 Figure 5.2: Age x Survey (Personal Wellbeing Index) ........................................................................................ 95 Figure 5.3: Age x Survey: 76y+ and Two Domains............................................................................................ 97 Figure 5.4: Age: Satisfaction with Health (Survey 15) ....................................................................................... 98 Figure 5.5: Age: Satisfaction with Relationships (Survey 15)............................................................................ 99 Figure 5.6: Age: Satisfaction with Community Connection (Survey 15) .......................................................... 99 Figure 5.7: Satisfaction with Government (Survey 16)...................................................................................... 100 Figure 5.8: Satisfaction with Government x Age (all surveys) .......................................................................... 100 Figure 5.9: Satisfaction with the Environment x Age (Survey 16). ................................................................... 101 Figure 5.10: The perceived probability of a terrorist attack in the near future (Survey 16)............................... 101 Figure 5.11: Age x Household Composition (cumulative data)......................................................................... 102 Figure 5.12: Age x Relationship Status: Personal Wellbeing Index (cumulative data)..................................... 104 Figure 5.13: Never Married: Personal Wellbeing x Proportion of Each Age Cohort Living Alone ........... 105 Figure 5.14: Age x Work Status (Personal Wellbeing Index)............................................................................ 106 Figure 5.15: Normative Range for Each Age Group Derived from the Scores of Individuals (Personal Wellbeing Index)...................................................................................................................................... 107 Figure 5.16: Age x Satisfaction with Health: Normative Raw Data............................................................... 108 Figure 5.17: Age x Satisfaction with Relationships: Normative Raw Data ................................................... 108 Figure 5.18: Normative Range for each age group derived from the survey mean scores (Personal Wellbeing Index: N=15) .......................................................................................................................... 109 Figure 5.19: Age x Satisfaction with Health: Survey Mean Scores................................................................ 110 Figure 5.20: Age x Satisfaction with Relationships: Survey Mean Scores .................................................... 110 Figure 6.1: Household Composition: Personal Wellbeing Index [combined data]......................................... 114 Figure 6.2: Effects of Children on Adult Wellbeing....................................................................................... 115 Figure 6.3: Live Alone: Domain vs. Normative Data (Strength of Satisfaction) ............................................. 116 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, Survey 16, Report 16, October 2006

vii

Index of Figures Continued

Figure 6.4: Live with Partner in the Absence/Presence of Children............................................................. 117 Figure 6.5: Comparison between living with partner only and sole parents ...................................................... 118 Figure 6.6: Household Composition: National Wellbeing Index.................................................................... 118 Figure 6.7: Household Composition: Terrorist Attack Probability Strength ............................................... 119 Figure 6.8: Household Composition x Relationship Status: Personal Wellbeing Index................................ 120 Figure 6.9: Live Alone x Relationship Status x Income: Personal Wellbeing Index......................................... 121 Figure 6.10: Sole Parent x Relationship Status x Income: Personal Wellbeing Index...................................... 121 Figure 6.11: Household Composition x Unemployment: Personal Wellbeing Index ....................................... 122 Figure 6.12: Living Alone x Work Status (Personal Wellbeing Index)............................................................. 123 Figure 6.13: Sole Parents x Work Status (Personal Wellbeing Index) ............................................................. 123 Figure 6.14: Sole Parents x Part-time Work Status x Income........................................................................... 124 Figure 6.15: Live alone normative data ............................................................................................................. 125 Figure 6.16: Live with partner normative data................................................................................................... 125 Figure 6.17: Sole parent normative data ............................................................................................................ 126 Figure 6.18: Live with partner and children normative data .............................................................................. 126 Figure 6.19: Live with parents normative data................................................................................................... 126 Figure 6.20: Live with other adults normative data ........................................................................................... 127 Figure 6.21: Live alone normative data ............................................................................................................. 127 Figure 6.22: Live with partner normative data................................................................................................... 127 Figure 6.23: Sole parent normative data ............................................................................................................ 128 Figure 6.24: Live with partner and children normative data .............................................................................. 128 Figure 6.25: Live with parents normative data................................................................................................... 128 Figure 6.26: Live with other adults normative data ........................................................................................... 129 Figure 7.1: Marital Status: Personal Wellbeing Index.................................................................................... 133 Figure 7.2: Marital Status: Relationship Satisfaction ..................................................................................... 134 Figure 7.3: Marital Status: Health Satisfaction ............................................................................................... 134 Figure 7.4: Widows: Personal Wellbeing Index Domains ................................................................................ 135 Figure 7.5: Marital Status: Community Connection Satisfaction .................................................................. 135 Figure 7.6: Marital Status: National Wellbeing Index .................................................................................... 136 Figure 7.7: Marital Status: National Security.................................................................................................. 136 Figure 7.8: Marital Status: Life in Australia.................................................................................................... 137 Figure 7.9: Marital Status x Perceived Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack (from 0-100).................................. 137 Figure 7.10: Marital Status x Full-time Employment: Personal Wellbeing Index.......................................... 138 Figure 7.11: Marital Status vs. Employed/Unemployed: Personal Wellbeing Index ..................................... 138 Figure 7.12: Marital Status vs. Full-time Home or Family Care........................................................................ 139 Figure 7.13: Divorced x Work Status x Income ................................................................................................ 139 Figure 7.14: Marital Status x Part-time Volunteering (Personal Wellbeing Index) ........................................... 140 Figure 7.15: Marital Status Normative Ranges for Personal Wellbeing Index (individual data)....................... 141 Figure 7.16: Marital Status Normative Ranges for Personal Wellbeing Index (survey mean scores) ............... 142 Figure 8.1: Work Status: Personal Wellbeing Index (combined data)............................................................ 146 Figure 8.2: Work Status: Satisfaction with Health (Combined Data)............................................................. 146 Figure 8.3: Work Status: Full-time Employed x Personal Domains (Combined Data)................................... 147 Figure 8.4: Work Status: Full-time Retired x Personal Domains (Combined Data) ......................................... 147 Figure 8.5: Work Status: Semi-retired x Personal Domains (Combined Data)................................................. 148 Figure 8.6: Work Status: Full-time Volunteers x Personal Domains (Combined Data) ................................. 148 Figure 8.7: Work Status Full-time Home or Family Care (Combined Data).................................................. 149 Figure 8.8: Work Status Full-time Students x Personal Domains (Combined Data) ....................................... 149 Figure 8.9: Work Status: People who are Unemployed x Personal Domains (combined data) ...................... 150 Figure 8.10: Unemployed x $S3,S4,S5,S6,S8

63 61 Strength of Satisfaction

>S2

59 57 55 S1 Apr 2001

63

S2 Sept 2001

S3 Mar 2002

S4 Aug 2002

S12 Aug 2004

S13 May 2005

S14 Oct 2005

S5 Nov 2002

S6 Mar 2003

S7 Jun 2003

S8 Aug 2003

S9 Nov 2003

>S3,S5, S8 >S4, S6

61 Strength of Satisfaction

>S2

59 57 55 S10 Feb 2004

S11 May 2004

S15 May 2006

S16 Oct 2006

Figure 2.2: National Wellbeing Index

The National Wellbeing Index also fallen by 1.1 percentage points since Survey 15, and this is a significant change. This is the second consecutive fall and the National Wellbeing Index is now 2.2 points lower than it was one year ago. However, it remains significantly higher than it was at Survey 2. 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

Section 2 A Comparison Between Survey 16 and Survey 1 continued

2.2. Personal Wellbeing Domains Standard of Living The personal domains have generally remained stable since the last survey. The only ones to show a significant change are satisfaction with standard of living, which has risen, and personal safety, which has fallen. 80

>S2,S4,S5,S10,S11

79 78 Strength of 77 satisfaction 76

>S1

75 74

80 79 Strength of satisfaction

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

78 77

>S1

76 75 74 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

S16 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.3: Satisfaction with Standard of Living

Satisfaction with standard of living has numerically risen 1.6 points (significant) since Survey 15 (Table A2.1). This rise has reversed a downward tend since May 2005 (S13). Factors contributing to this earlier fall have been a sharp rise in petrol prices just prior to Survey 14 and a rise of 0.25 points in interest rates just prior to Survey 15. It may be that people have once again adapted to their new economic situation, which they still rate as better than at 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 Satisfaction 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 75 of Satisfaction 74 73 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

S16

Figure 2.4: Satisfaction with Health

Satisfaction with health has risen by a non-significant 0.4 points since Survey 15. It remains not different (+1.1 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 also only marginally significant (Table A 2.1). It is evident that satisfaction with personal health is little 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 >S1

75 Strength 74 of 73 satisfaction 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 of satisfaction

74 73 72 71 70 S16

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.5: Satisfaction with What you are Currently Achieving

Achieving in life has risen by a non-significant 0.9 points since Survey 15. 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 15 is 72.75 (SD = 0.59). 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 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

82 80

>S2,S3,S4,S5 >S1

Strength 78 of satisfaction 76 74 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

S16 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.6: Satisfaction with Relationships

Satisfaction with relationships has fallen by a non-significant 0.2 points since Survey 15 and remains no different from Survey 1. 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 not statistically changed since then. 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, but the domain was again briefly elevated during the period of the Olympics. 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


S2,5

78

>S1

77 76 75 74 73 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

S16

Figure 2.7: Satisfaction with How Safe you Feel

Satisfaction with personal safety has fallen by a significant 1.2 points since Survey 15 (Table 2.1). This is the third fall since Survey 12 (August 2004) and the total drop over this period has been a significant 2.3 points. However, it remains higher than most surveys in 2001-2002 (Table A2.1). The major rise followed the defeat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq at Survey 7 and has been maintained ever since. This sustained rise may be linked to the positive feelings of relief following the defeat of Hussein without unleashing weapons of mass destruction, and subsequently our increasingly strong American alliance. The rise during the Olympics (S12) 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). It is interesting to relate these data on safety to the sense of terrorist threat that is felt by the population. Since Survey 9 (November 2003) we have asked people ‘whether they think a terrorist attack is likely in Australia in the near future’ and, if they say ‘Yes’, we ask about the strength of their belief that such an attack will occur. These data are combined with the population levels of ‘Satisfaction with Safety’ in Table A2.9. It can be seen that safety correlates negatively with the percentage of people who think an attack is likely (r = -.39) but not with the strength of belief among those respondents who think an attack likely (r = -.15). The correlation of -.39 explains only about 16% of the variance between these two measures, which is a small but significant degree of co-variation. Other factors that will be contributing variance to safety are homeostasis, personal circumstances and, quite possibly, the sense of security offered by an effective wellbeing military force and alliance with the USA. The latter influence, exemplified by the rise in safety at Survey 7 (defeat of Hussein) may represent a constant background factor onto which the fluctuations in terrorist attack probabilities are imposed.


11


One implication of these results is that the elevation of terrorist attack fears through issuing terrorist alerts, harms the safety satisfaction, and thereby compromises the overall wellbeing of vulnerable members of the population (see Figure 2.22). Community

Strength of satisfaction

74 73 72 71 70 69 68

>S4,S5,S11 >S1

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


72 71

>S4,S5,S11 >S1

70 69 68 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

S16

Figure 2.8: Satisfaction with Feeling Part of Your Community

People’s satisfaction with feeling part of their community has fallen by a non-significant 0.1 points since Survey 15. The value is once again not different from Survey 1. Apart from the Olympic period elevation (S12), 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 defeat of Hussein (S9), then dissipated only to be recharged once again following the second Bali bombing (S14). 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

>S4 >S1

Strength 71 of 70 satisfaction

>S2

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

71

>S1

70

>S2

69 68 S16

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.9: Satisfaction with Future Security

Satisfaction with future security fell strongly and significantly by 2.2 points between Surveys 14 and 15. In Survey 16 it has stabilized at this new low level. The domain is no different from Survey 1 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 correlation between the survey mean scores for safety and future security is r = .77. The range of scores is 4.4 points between September 2001 (S2:68.6) and August 2004 (S12:Olympics:73.0).


13


Spiritual/Religious For the first time, Survey 16 asked about this dimension of life as ‘How satisfied are you with your spiritual fulfilment or religion. The proportions of the sample who answered in response to this item are shown in Table A2.14 and below. 100 90 80 70 60 % of sample 50 40 30 20 10 0

88.1

11.9

Do not have the Spiritual/Religious experience

Have the Spiritual/ Religious experience

Figure 2.10: Proportion of the sample who have the Spiritual/Religious experience

While 11.9 percent of the sample respond that they do not have the Spiritual/Religious experience, there is another 3.2% who respond that they are zero satisfied with this experience. These are two very different groups of people as seen by matching of the strength of the Spiritual/Religious experience to the Personal Wellbeing Index. This is shown in Table A2.16 and below. 82 80

80.0

78 76 74 PWI

77.6 74.7

Normative range

74.3

76.4

75.6

73.0

72

73.4

73.3

72.5

70 68.2

68 66

64.5

64.6

64

64.8

62 60 100% N

48.0%

40.2%

11.8% 228

63

17

25

26

45

432

120

220

289

197

277

No S/R

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Strength of S/R experience

Figure 2.11: Strength of Spiritual/Religious vs. Personal Wellbeing Index

This figure shows the relationship between the Spiritual/Religious experience and personal wellbeing. These can be summarised as: 1.

People who have no spiritual/religious experience have normal levels of wellbeing.

2.

People who rate their spiritual/religious experience as providing zero levels of satisfaction or a strength of satisfaction rated at either 2 or 3 have very low personal wellbeing (N=114 : 6.7% of the spiritual/religious experience).


14


3.

The normal-range Personal Wellbeing Index of people who rate their spiritual/religious experience as 1/10 is anomalous and may be unreliable due to the small number of respondents (N=17).

4.

The Personal Wellbeing Index of the spiritual/religious group does not enter the normal range until people rate their level of satisfaction as 8/10.

5.

The proportion of the whole sample who have the spiritual/religious experience and below normal Personal Wellbeing Index is 48.0%. The proportion with the experience and normal or above normal Personal Wellbeing Index is 40.2%.

An important question when attempting to interpret these results is whether people under strong homeostatic challenge are more likely to seek a spiritual/religious experience. This requires further analysis. The three groups of Spiritual/Religious experience are shown in relation to the Personal Wellbeing Index domains in Table A2.14. From this it can be seen that: 1.

No differences are evident in Standard of Living or Safety.

2.

For each of the other 5 domains, the zero Spiritual/Religious satisfaction group are lower than the other two groups.

Conclusion:

People who have Spiritual/Religious beliefs and who regard themselves as zero satisfied with these beliefs, are likely to have very low wellbeing. The wellbeing of ‘believers’ only reaches that of ‘nonbelievers’ when the strength of satisfaction with their beliefs reaches 8/10. 2.3. Life as a Whole “How satisfied are you with your Life as a Whole?” 80 >S2,S4

79 Strength 78 of satisfaction 77

>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 satisfaction 77

>S2,S4

>S1

76 75 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

S16 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.12: Satisfaction with Life as a Whole


15


Satisfaction with life as a whole has risen by a non-significant 0.9 points since Survey 15. It is once again significantly 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 Hussein had been defeated it was no different from Survey 1 once again. Since Survey 12 it seems to have stabilized at about 77 points which is marginally significantly higher than at Survey 1. 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 fallen sharply since October 2005. As a result, the Personal Wellbeing Index and almost all of the domains are now no different from their level five years ago at Survey 1. It appears that the long, sustained rise in population wellbeing, triggered by the events of September 11, is now over. The Personal Wellbeing Index has returned to its baseline. What, exactly, has sustained this rise is uncertain, but our guess is it has involved a combination of contained external threat matched by a strengthened American alliance, and good economic conditions. No doubt this analysis will be sharpened with future data. The only domain to remain higher than baseline is Safety. This is despite the fear of local terrorist attacks working to reduce satisfaction with safety. This may be a function of the American alliance but it may also be fuelled by perceptions of competence in the military and the police to deal with difficult situations. In terms of the military, Australian troops are playing an increasingly active role as peace-keepers within the Pacific region, with troops deployed in New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and East Timore. The Australian police have uncovered recent terrorist threats and, working with other authorities, have successfully prevented a recurrence of the Sydney ‘race riots’ of November 2005. There is, thus, a sense that potential threats are being effectively managed. 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.


16


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


>S2 60 >S1

55 50 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

S16 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.13: Satisfaction with the Economic Situation in Australia

Satisfaction with the economic situation has risen by a non-significant 0.5 points since Survey 15 and 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).


17


“How satisfied are you with your state of the Natural Environment in Australia?” 63


61

>S5

59

>S1

57 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

63


61

>S5

59

>S1

57 55 S16

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Intense media coverage of ‘global warming’

Figure 2.14: Satisfaction with the State of the Natural Environment in Australia

Satisfaction with the state of the environment has fallen by a significant 3.1 points since Survey 15. It is now a significant 2.1 points below its value at Survey 1 (57.99 points). This is the only domain to have fallen below the level of Survey 1 values in any survey. Prior to this most recent measurement the domain was very stable, fluctuating by only 3.0 points over the entire time-series. While the satisfaction with the natural environment has, on occasion, moved to be significantly higher than Survey 1, the reasons for this are unclear. In this context of stability, the current fall of 3.1 points since Survey 15 is both remarkable and attributable. In the period since the last survey Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been released and widely discussed in Australia. Moreover, in the few months prior to Survey 16 the media had repeatedly featured ‘global warming’ and the various doomsday scenarios. Thus it appears that this negative publicity has changed people’s perception of the degree to which they feel satisfied with the natural environment. This decreased level of satisfaction is interesting for two reasons. First, it is one of the few times we have been able to link a change in a particular domain to a national phenomenon (negative publicity). Second, it reinforces the separate performance of objective and subjective variables. The actual state of the natural environment has not changed discernibly since the previous survey. The range is 5.1 points between October 2006 (S16:55.8) and November 2003 (S9:5 months/following the Iraq War: 60.9).


18


“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

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

S16 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Introduction of new antiunion industrial relations laws

Figure 2.15: Satisfaction with the Social Conditions in Australia

Satisfaction with social conditions fallen by a non-significant 0.5 points since Survey 15, to be again no different from Survey 1. This continues the fall recorded at Survey 15 and means that in the year since October 2005 satisfaction with Social Conditions has fallen by a massive 3.1 points. 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 reached this level again at Survey 14. It is currently at its second-lowest value yet recorded. It is possible that this fall has been influenced by the new Industrial Relations laws that came into effect shortly before Survey 15. The range of values is 3.8% between April 2001 (S1:59.3) and August 2004 (S12 - Olympics and S14:63.1).


19


“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


56

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


52 50 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

Oct

Jan

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

2006

2006

Oly mpics

S16

Tsunami

Figure 2.16: Satisfaction with Government in Australia

Satisfaction with Government is now at its lowest level since these surveys began some 5.5 years ago. The 0.7 point fall since Survey 15 is non-significant but the change over the past 18 months, since May 2005, is a significant decrease of 2.7 points. Satisfaction with Government appears to rise in times of national threat. If this is correct, it explains the elevated satisfaction with Government in September 2001 (S2) as 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 overthrow of Hussein (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 (authority) 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 6.1 points between October 2006 (S16:52.6) and September 2001 (S2:58.7).


20


“How satisfied are you with Business in Australia?” 64 62

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


60 >S2 58 56 54

64

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,S7,S8 >S3, S4

62

>S6


60 >S2 58 56 54 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

S16 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.17: Satisfaction with Business in Australia

Satisfaction with Business has fallen by 1.1 points (non-significant) since Survey 14, but remains higher than three previous surveys. 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).


21


“How satisfied are you with National Security in Australia? 70


>S3,S8,S11 >S4 >S5

65

>S6 60

>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 Strength of satisfaction

>S4

65

>S5 >S6 60

>S2

55 S16

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.18: Satisfaction with National Security

Satisfaction with national security has fallen by a non-significant 0.6 points since Survey 15. It remains higher than it was at the time of three 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).


22


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


>S7, S8, S9 >S2

80 75

>S1

70 65 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

S16 Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Figure 2.19: Satisfaction with Life in Australia

Satisfaction with this single global item has not changed significantly over the past 3.5 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 numerically fallen across all domains since Survey 14. Three of the six domains (Environment, Social Conditions and Government) are no different from their level in Survey 2. The largest fall since the previous survey is in satisfaction with Social Conditions which has dropped by 2.6 points. It is possible that this is linked to the recent introduction of the new Industrial Relations laws. 2.6. Australian Wellbeing Summary A possible sociobiological explanation for this overall 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:


23


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 Olympic 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 lower 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.


24


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 Survey 13, the rises associated with the Olympics proved highly transitory. 2.7. Discussion of the Changes in Personal and National Wellbeing 1.

Both negative international events, such as terrorist attacks and war, and positive international events such as the Olympics, cause wellbeing to rise.

2.

In more general terms, these wellbeing measures attest to the remarkable stability of the Indexes. Over the five 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.

3.

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.

4.

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, some observations can be made. On the negative side some fairly major events, such as the major corporate collapses that occurred prior to the March 2002 (S3) survey, failed to counteract the general rise in national wellbeing, which included increased satisfaction with business. On the positive side, changes in satisfaction with Government and the Natural Environment seem more definitely to be linked with specific events.

2.8. Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack 80 73.4

% of people who think a terrorist attack is likely

70.1 70

August Second Bali Bombing

64.1 59.7

60

54.9 48.3

50

59.9

61.9

↓

40 Nov 2003 (S9)

Feb 2004 (S10)

May 2004 (S11)

Aug 2004 (S12)

May 2005 (S13)

Oct 2005 (S14)

May 2006 (S15)

Oct 2006 (S16)

Figure 2.20: Percentage who think a terrorist attack is likely

When asked whether they thought a ‘terrorist attack is likely in Australia in the near future’ 61.9% responded ‘Yes’ (Table A2.1). This represents about the same number who responded ‘Yes’ in May 2006.


25


69.9

S10

64 63

62.6

62.4

Aug 2004 (S12)

May 2005 (S13)

61.3

62 61 60 Nov 2003 (S9)

Feb 2004 (S10)

May 2004 (S11)

Oct 2005 (S14)

May 2006 (S15)

Oct 2006 (S16)

Figure 2.21: Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack

Among the people who said ‘Yes’, the strength of belief that such an attack will occur (Table A2.1) is also about the same as it was in May 2006. However, it remains significantly higher than it had been over the period February 2004 to May 2005. Figure 2.22 has been prepared on the basis of the accumulated data shown in Table A2.3. 50

N

183

333

481

2094

1344

1699

1505

578 856 15.7% of total ‘Yes’

82 80

Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

77.5

78

76.2

76.0

76 74

74.3 72.4

74.2

73.7

72

76.5

74.5

74.1

Normative Range

73.4 71.8

70 68 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Likelihood of a terrorist attack

Figure 2.22: Likelihood of Terrorist Attack x Personal Wellbeing Index (combined surveys 9-15)

Using the PWI mean scores in Table A2.3 and Figure 2.22, 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

73

Major Events Preceding Survey Survey Date

Athens

Asian

Second

Oly mpics

Tsunami

Bali

IR

Bombing

Law s

New

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

Feb

May

Aug

Dec

May

Oct

March

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

2006


S15

S16

37


2. The National Wellbeing Index has fallen a significant 1.1 points since May 2006, but it remains higher than at Survey 2. >S3,S4,S5,S6,S8

63 61 Strength of Satisfaction

>S2

59 57 55 S1 Apr 2001

S2 Sept 2001

S3 Mar 2002

S4 Aug 2002

S12 Aug 2004

S13 May 2005

S14 Oct 2005

S5 Nov 2002

S6 Mar 2003

S7 Jun 2003

S8 Aug 2003

S9 Nov 2003

>S3,S5, S8

63

>S4, S6 61 Strength of Satisfaction

>S2

59 57 55 S11 May 2004

S10 Feb 2004

S16 Oct 2006

S15 May 2006

3. People who have no Spiritual/Religious experience have normal levels of wellbeing. People who have a Spiritual/Religious experience need to have a level of satisfaction with this experience that is at least 8/10 to lie within the normal range of wellbeing. This constitutes 40.2% of people with the experience. 82 80

80.0

78 76 74 PWI

77.6 74.7

Normative range

74.3

76.4

75.6

73.0

72

73.4

73.3

72.5

70 68.2

68 66

64.5

64.6

64

64.8

62 60 100% N

48.0%

40.2%

11.8% 228

63

17

25

26

45

432

120

220

289

197

277

No S/R

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Strength of S/R experience


38


4. Satisfaction with the National Environment in Australia has fallen by a massive and significant 3.1 points since May 2006. It is now at a level lower than it was in April 2001 63


61

>S5

59

>S1

57 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

63


61

>S5

59

>S1

57 55 S16

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2006

2006

Intense media coverage of ‘global warming’

5. Satisfaction with Government remains at one of its lowest levels over the past five years. 60 58 Strength of satisf action

56

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


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


56

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


52 50 S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

Feb

May

Aug

Oct

Jan

May

Oct

May

Oct

2004

2004

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

2006

2006

Oly mpics

S16

Tsunami


39


6. The percentage of people who consider that there will be a terrorist attack ‘in the near future’ has risen by 2.0% since May 2006.

80 73.4

% of people who think a terrorist attack is likely

70.1 70

August Second Bali Bombing

64.1 59.7

60

54.9

↓

48.3

50

61.9

59.9

40 Nov 2003 (S9)

Feb 2004 (S10)

May 2004 (S11)

Aug 2004 (S12)

May 2005 (S13)

Oct 2005 (S14)

May 2006 (S15)

Oct 2006 (S16)

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

7. People who regard the probability of a terrorist attack as 9 or 10/10 (15.7% of the total sample) have lower than normal wellbeing).

50

N

183

333

481

2094

1344

1699

1505

578 856 15.7% of total ‘Yes’

82 80


77.5

78

76.2

76.0

76 74

74.3 72.4

74.2

73.7

72

76.5

74.5

74.1

Normative Range

73.4 71.8

70 68 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Likelihood of a terrorist attack

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


40

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 16) Survey 16

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

Cumulative (Survey 7-16) 2146 3064 4576 3157 1712 763 651 16,069

% of respondents to this question 13.4 19.1 28.5 19.6 10.7 4.7 4.1

N 146 257 120 421 381 243 145 1,713

% of respondents to this question 7.3 12.8 6.0 22.8 12.2 5.7 6.8 85.6% of respondents answered this question

The data in Table 3.1 are derived from Table A3.1. It can be seen that the sample for Survey 16 is considerably wealthier than the running average. This was not the case in Survey 15 where the sample proportions matched the averages quite closely. The reason for this current change is not known but it should bias the overall Personal Wellbeing Index to be higher than it would have been with a regularly proportioned sample. 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

74.0

m&f > $15-30

72.5

72

m&f < $15,000

70 69.5 68 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 15-16 1-2 10-11 12-13 5-6 12-13 4-5 10-11 11-12 12-13 14-15 6-7 11-12 12-13 11-12 12-13 13-14

Male +4.18 +1.90 -1.94 +0.89 +2.08 -2.06 -1.72 +2.69 -3.15 -0.35 +0.53 +0.75 -2.04 -1.13 +1.51 +0.17 -2.04 +1.07 -2.42 +2.46

Female +1.72 +3.08 -2.06 +2.42 +0.12 -2.07 -2.09 -1.03 -4.95 -2.32 -2.24 +2.88 -3.97 -3.21 +2.43 +3.64 -3.97 +3.75 -3.21 +0.62

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

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

It emphasizes the extraordinary stability of these measures of gender mean scores for domains. With one exception, no domain change between adjacent surveys has exceeded 3.8 points. Of the total 210 comparisons, (2 genders x 15 adjacent survey comparisons x 7 domains) only 20 (9.5%) have varied by >2%.

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 notable that the change has occurred equally within both genders.

4.

Of, these major changes, 8/20 (40%) 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 2x4x7 (26.6%) 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.


72

Section 4 Gender continued

6.

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

4.2.4.

New Domain of Spiritual/Religious Satisfaction

This new domain shows higher satisfaction for females. 71.3

72

Strength of satisfaction w ith spiritual/ religious fulfilment

70 68 66

64.0

64 62 60 Male

Female

Figure 4.6: Gender difference in Spiritual/Religious Fulfilment

4.2.5.

National Wellbeing Index Male

Female

63 62

60.4

60

59.8 58.8

59

60.0

60.8

61.6

61.4

62.5

61.2

61.0

61.3

61.8

62.2

60.9

60.6

60.6

62.9 62.2

62.2

61.3

61 NWI

62.8

62.4

61.0

61.5

60.9

60.5

60.6

60.2

59.2

58.5

58 57 S1 Apr 01

S2 Sept 01

S3 Mar 02

S4 Aug 02

S5 Nov 02

S6 Mar 03

S7 Jun 03

S8 Sept 03

S9 Nov 03

S10 Feb 04

S11 May 04

S12 Aug 04

S13 May 05

S14 Oct 05

S15 May 06

Survey

Key: There are no values for Survey 1. Shaded boxes indicate a gender difference

Figure 4.7: Gender x National Wellbeing Index x Survey

Both genders have shown a steady fall in the National Wellbeing Index since Survey 12 (Olympics). The female value is now a non-significant 0.4 points above its level at Survey 2. The male value is also now not significantly above Survey 2 even though it is 2.5 points above that initial level. There have been four occasions when the gender difference has been marginally significant (Table A4.2). On one occasion (Survey 3) females>males, and on the three other occasions males>females. 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.


73

S16 Oct 06


4.2.6.

National Wellbeing Domains

Two national domains show an interaction with gender across surveys. Satisfaction with economic situation is shown below. Male

70

Female 67.7

68

Strength

64.5

64.0

63.2

63.9

64

of

62

satisfaction

situation

56

65.0

65.3

69.2

67.5

68.3 67.9

65.7

67.2

67.8 65.9

65.5

65.1

66.2

67.0 M>S3

66.5 64.7

65.0

65.1

57.8

58

economic

64.5

67.1

>S2

60

w ith

66.0

65.6

66

67.0

58.2 54.9

>S1

54 52

52.0

50 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

S16

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

01

01

02

02

02

03

03

03

03

04

04

04

05

05

06

06

Surv ey

Figure 4.8: Gender x Survey (Economic Situation)

This figure shows the remarkable rise in satisfaction with the Economic Situation over the period between Survey 1 and Survey 3. Since that time female satisfaction has remained stable while male satisfaction has continued to rise, with its current level being the second highest on record. While at Survey 1 females>males, since Survey 4 the direction of difference has been in the opposite direction. The current gender difference of 3.3 points is the highest yet recorded. The second national domain to show a gender x survey interaction is National Security shown below. Male

70

Female

68

66.6 66.1

66 Strength

64

of

62

satisfaction w ith

63.8 62.7

63.9

58

security

56

65.0

62.3

61.3 60.8

57.5

60.7

64.3

63.3

63.3

64.1

M>S3

65.5 66.0

64.1

66.8

67.0

64.6

63.6

60

national

64.9

65.9

65.1

63.1

63.5

63.1

>S2

60.5

57.1

>S1

54 52 50 S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

S16

Apr

Sept

Mar

Aug

Nov

Mar

Jun

Aug

Nov

Feb

May

Aug

May

Oct

May

Oct

01

01

02

02

02

03

03

03

03

04

04

04

05

05

06

06

Surv ey

Key: There are no values for Survey 1. Shaded boxes indicate a gender difference

Figure 4.9: Gender x Survey (National Security)


74


4.2.7.

Likelihood of a Terrorist Attack

Table A4.1 shows no gender difference in the perceived likelihood of a terrorist attack. 4.3. Gender and Age 4.3.1.

Personal Wellbeing Index

Gender differences with age

Table A4.3 shows no age-related change among males between Surveys 15 and 16. Table A4.4 provides the Gender x Age analysis using the entire database from all surveys. The combined PWI data are shown below (minimum N=858 for Male 76+y).

Males

Females

80 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

77.7

78 76

74.2

75.0

75.1

75.9

72

73.9

77.7

74.6

76.4

75.2

74 73.4

73.4

78.8

73.2 mf

mf

70 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age Key: Ages linked by are significantly different for males (m) and for females (f). Shaded boxes denote a significant gender difference.

Figure 4.10: 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 (significant only for females), 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 not quite significant (p = .07) (Table A4.14). As can be seen from Figure 4.10 differences between genders (shaded) are significant only between the older age groups. There is no gender difference within the youngest (.01 point) group. The most interesting aspect of this comparison is the systematic change in the gender difference with age, as shown below.


75


3 Gender PWI difference (Fem ale m inus m ale)

1.7

2

1.6

1.5

1.2

1.2

66-75

76+

0.7

1 0.2 0 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

Age

Figure 4.11: 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. This lack of a gender difference at 18-25y is so anomalous that Table 4.4 presents these data across all surveys for verification. As can be seen, not one survey has produced a significant gender difference at this age. Report 11.0 investigated whether this marked gender difference for the two youngest groups applies to the individual domains. Figure 4.12 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. 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 Male

Female

86

83.7

84 82 Strength of satisfaction (Standard of living)

80

80.1

78 76

78.6

78.5 78.4

74

76.2 75.3

72

76.9 75.6

74.3

78.7

79.3

81.9 m&f > 18-25 f m

75.1

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 36-45 for males (m) and for females (f). Shaded boxes denote a significant between-group difference.

Figure 4.12: 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 A4.14) and there is no gender x age interaction. 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


76


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 4.12 is also shown by the domains of Achievements and Community Connectedness (Table A4.14). The other domains, however, exhibit a rather different pattern as follows: 80 78 Strength of satisfaction (Health)

76 74

Males

79.2

Females

78.5

f 26-35 76.3

75.4

m >46-55

74.6 73.4

72

74.1 72.6 72.6

72.6

71.7 70.9

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 4.13: Gender x Age: Health (combined surveys)

Satisfaction with health shows a significant gender x age interaction (p=.000). At 18-25 years satisfaction with health is higher for males (Table A4.14 : p=.002 Minimum N=1,419). 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 2.9 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 66 years and older there is no gender difference in health satisfaction.


77


Males 86

Females

f> 56-65

85.5 83.6

84 82

f> 18-25

80

Strength of satisfaction (Relationships)

78

m> 56-65

81.8 80.7

77.7

83.6

77.3

79.7

81.2

79.3 79.2

77.1

m> 26-35

76.5

76

m> 18-25

74 72

73.3

70 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

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 4.14: Gender x Age: Relationships (combined surveys)

Even though the gender difference is significant at each age group (minimum N = 732), there is no significant interaction. Males 82 Strength of satisfaction (Safety)

80

80.2

79.4

79.0

78.7

78.9

Females

77.7

78.5

78 76

79.3

77.1

77.0

77.5

77.8 75.8

76.6

74 72 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Figure 4.15: Gender x Age: Safety (combined surveys)

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=915). 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=.001) and is shown in Figure 4.16 below (minimum cell size = 912).


78


Males

Females 77.0

78 76

f >36-45

74 Strength of satisfaction (Com m unity)

71.7

72 70 68 66 64

f >26-35 f >18-25

73.0 71.6 69.0

69.0

m >46-65 m >18-25

67.9

65.3 64.2

74.8

73.8

71.2

77.3

64.4

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 4.16: 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 within the 18-25y group. Moreover, whereas females show a marked 3.7 poiint increase in satisfaction from 18-25 to 26-35, males show no change (0.2 points). Over the following decade, however, male satisfaction increases by 3.7 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 Composition Table A4.5 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 A4.17) for those living with their partner only (77.7 points) and for those living with their partner and children (77.5 points). This equally applies to males (76.7 and 76.1 points respectively). Females living as sole parents (69.6 points) or with other adults (72.3 points) lie below the normative range. This also applies for males (71.0 and 71.2 points respectively). The type of household composition that has the strongest differential gender effect is living alone, as shown below.


79


78 77 76


75 74 73 72 71 70

Normal range male

Normal range female 73.8

75.8

77.3

73.8

72.6

70.0

69 68 67 66 Male

Female

Figure 4.17: 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 just within their normal range. This is not so for males who live alone. Their Personal Wellbeing Index value is 2.6 points below their normal range and 3.8 points below the level of singleliving 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 (A4.5). These are shown below: Male

78

Female 76.4

76 Norm al range


71.8

71.4

72 70

73.6 73.2

69.7

69.2 68.2

71.8 70.1

70.1

69.1

73.4

71.3 70.3

69.6

67.2

68

65.4

66 64 9

10

11

12 (Olympics)

13

14

15

16

Survey

Figure 4.18: 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.


80


4.4.1.

Gender x Household Composition x Age

Of special interest is the relative wellbeing deficit suffered by those groups scoring 56-65

85.5 83.6

84

f> 18-25

82 Strength of satisfaction (Relationships)

80

m> 56-65

81.8 79.7

80.7 77.7

78

83.6

77.3

81.2

79.3 79.2

77.1

m> 26-35

76.5

76

m> 18-25

74 73.3

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.

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

Live Alone

78 77 76 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

Normal range male

75 74 73 72 71 70

77.3

Normal range female 73.8

75.8

73.8

72.6

70.0

69 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.

Sole Parents Male

78

Female 76.4

76 Norm al range


71.8

71.4

72 70

73.6 73.2

69.7

69.2 68.2

71.8

69.1

73.4

71.3 70.1

70.1

70.3

69.6

67.2

68

65.4

66 64 9

10

11

12 (Olympics)

13

14

15

Survey

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


93

16


8. In terms of the lowest margin of the normal distribution, the risk of depression (scores S1

>S1

73.8

70.2

78.1

78.6

75.7

75.3 73.2

70

85.0

83.2

81.3

75

65

87.8

87.0


Relationships

70.6

71.4

73.2

71.3

71.0

67.1

69.9

69.5

72.3 68.0

66.2

60 S1 Apr 01

S2 Sept 01

S3 Mar 02

S4 Aug 02

S5 Nov 02

S6 Mar 03

S7 PostIraq War

S8 Aug 03

S9 Nov 03

S10 Feb 04

S11 May 04

S12 Aug 04

S13 May 05

S14 Oct 05

S15 May 06

S16 Oct 06

Figure 5.3: Age x Survey: 76y+ and Two 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). However, over the past 2.5 years it has remained at a level not statistically different from Survey 1. The rise in relationship satisfaction has been more persistent and has remained fairly consistently above Survey 1. It is not at all clear why only the most elderly group is affected in this way. This is discussed in depth in Report 15.0.


97

Section 5 Age continued

5.2.3.

Personal Wellbeing Domains

Most of the domains show the same pattern of age-related increase as shown in Figure 5.1 (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 16 are shown below in relation to age-normative data for groups (Table A5.31). Age-specific normative range for group mean scores 82

78.2

80

78.3

78.2

78

80.0

74.2

75.6

74

T

Value for Survey 16

X

Age-specific normative mean

78.5

77.5

76.5

76


80.8

74.9

73.4

74.5

73.6 75.7 74.0

76.2

73.4

73.4

72

72.3

72.6

72.3

71.4

70.7

70

76.7

76.0

69.1

68 66 64 62 60

60.0

58 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Figure 5.4: Age: Satisfaction with Health (Survey 15)

In terms of normative data, the cell size is N=16 (Table A5.33). The incremental decrease in health satisfaction as evidenced by the normative values, referenced from the 18-25y group is as follows: (a)

Health satisfaction is significantly lower in the 36-45y group.

(b)

It falls again (36-45 > 46-55y) in the next age bracket.

(c)

Thereafter it shows no significant change. However, this is due largely to the increased standard deviations within the older age groups. As can be seen, the mean level of health satisfaction continues to gradually decrease.


98


The results in relation to normative Relationships (Table A5.33) are as follows: 92 90 88

Age-specific normative range for group mean scores T

Value for Survey 16

X


84.0 81.1

86

80.5

84

81.1


80

89.3

71.2

78.6

78 76

82.7

76.6

80.7

80.9

80.8

79.7

79.4

77.9

77.9

75.8

76.3 75.0

74 72

84.5 82.4

78.5

79.2

75.3

75.0

85.4 83.7

72.0

70 68 66 64 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Figure 5.5: Age: Satisfaction with Relationships (Survey 15)

It is notable that three of the four youngest groups have low levels of relationship satisfaction in Survey 16, and the value for the youngest group actually lies below the normal range. The results in relation to Community Connection (Table A5.35) are shown below: Age-specific normative range for group mean scores

82 80 78

T

Value for Survey 16

X


73.6

76

72.5


76.5 80.9

67.9

72

72.5

69.0

78.8

76.1 74.6

75.1

72.6

72.5

71.4 67.9

70 62.3 68

69.4

68.1

69.9

64.5

64.7

64 62

67.8

67.3

66.9

66

71.3

70.6

70.2

61.3

60 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Figure 5.6: Age: Satisfaction with Community Connection (Survey 15)

All groups lie within their normal ranges. However, the 18-25y group is again very low.


99


5.2.4.

Life as a Whole

This increases with age in much the same pattern as for the Personal Wellbeing Index in Figure 5.1. 5.2.5.

National Wellbeing Index

The National Index shows no age-related differences (Table A5.1). 5.2.6.


Two national domains show an age-related difference. The first is Government (Table A5.1). 64 62 60 Strength of satisfaction

58

57.3

>36-45

56

54.2

53.2

53.0

52.9

54 52

51.1

50.1

50 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Figure 5.7: Satisfaction with Government (Survey 16)

76+ years 64

62.7

61.7

62.0

62

62.4 61.0

62.0

62.3

61.4

58.9


18-25 years

58

61.9 61.4

59.8

57.9

56

57.5

54.6

54

53.8

53.7

53.4

52

53.2 52.9

50

50.9

50.3

49.4

48.2

48

54.2

53.5

53.2

46.8

46 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Survey

Figure 5.8: Satisfaction with Government x Age (all surveys)

These are drawn from Table A5.3 and the following observations pertain: 1.

The oldest group are substantially and significantly more satisfied with Government than the youngest group. This is consistent with age-enhanced conservatism. However, the value for Survey 16 is the lowest yet recorded, being 3.5 points below the level at Survey 1. Whether this signals a new trend requires further data. The precipitous fall of 7.2 points has also brought the two extreme age groups back together once again, being separated by just 1.3 points.

2.

The degree of variation for the old group (range 8.1 points) is much the same as for the youngest group (range 7.8 points), but they have moved in opposite directions over the past five years.

The second national domain to show an age-related difference in Survey 16 is Satisfaction with Environment. As indicated in Chapter 2, this change is novel, in that the domain has remained


100


generally stable over the years but has now fallen, presumably in response to the strong media messages concerning global warming over the past six months and, possibly, Australia’s worsening drought. However, as the figure below shows (Table A5.1) this fall has been confined to the middleage groups. Environm ent

64

62.1

62 59.7

60 Satisfaction w ith environment

Normative range

58.2

57.5

58

57.2 56.8

55.6

56

54.4 53.0

54 52 50 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Figure 5.9: Satisfaction with the Environment x Age (Survey 16).

It is not clear why the people aged 36-45 should be differentially affected in this way. 5.2.7.

National Survey Specific

Over the six surveys Survey 9 to Survey 14 there was no reliable age-related difference in the perceived likelihood of a terrorist attack. In Survey 15 a difference emerged for the first time (Table A5.1; A5.4) and this has been sustained. % w ho think an attack is likely 66

72

64.7 70.4

64 % w ho think an attack is likely

Probability of an attack

63.5

62.3

70

69.6

62

67.5

60 58

63.1 60.2

68 66.6

66.8 57.5

65.5

66 64

56

62.9

Estimated probability of an attack

62

54 52

50.5

60 58

50 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Figure 5.10: The perceived probability of a terrorist attack in the near future (Survey 16)

These data are drawn from Table A5.1. It can be observed that more people in the middle-age groups consider a terrorist attack ‘in the near future’ to be likely and, for those who hold this view, the strength of their conviction is stronger than the oldest and youngest group.


101


5.3. Age and Household Composition The cumulative data from Surveys 9-14 are presented in Table A5.6. The trends in personal wellbeing are shown below in the context of the age-specific normative range (Table A5.29). Partner only Partner plus children

84

Lives alone

83

Parents

82

80.8

Other adults

81

Sole parent

80

79.8

79

77

77.6

77.2

76.8

76.7

76.2


75 74 73

76.2 75.2

75.9

75.3

75.5

75.0 74.9

78.2 77.6

AGE-SPECIFIC NORMATIVE RANGE

75.4

74.8

72.4

71.2

70.3 69.7

69.2

70.5

69.3

70.2

69

72.4

71.7

71.3

71.8

70

68

78.4 77.1

77.0

75.0

72 71

78.5

78.4

78

69.1 68.9

68.0

67

67.4

67.2

66

66.4

65 64

Values for normative range

76.0 72.1

76.0 72.6

76.0 72.6

75.6 72.3

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

77.4 73.7

79.1 74.8

82.0 74.5

56-65

66-75

76+

Upper Lower

Age

Figure 5.11: Age x Household Composition (cumulative data)

The normative-range data based on survey mean scores have been taken from Table A5.29 and the Age x Household data from Table A5.6. 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 5.11 are as follows: (a)

People living with their partner alone, or living with their partner and children, are statistically indistinguishable up to age 56-65. However, at 66-75y the addition of children reduces wellbeing to the bottom of the normal range. People aged 66-75y living with their partner and children constitute 4.3% of this age group. This is a curious result because the oldest group living with children show a significant rise in wellbeing. It is possible that for the oldest group


102


the burden of care has shifted to the children whereas at 66-75y the older adults are still responsible for providing the care, commonly in a low-income household since both older adults will likely have retired from work. (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. However, the situation changes quite dramatically at 56-65y at which age the wellbeing of this group actually exceeds the normal range. It could, possibly, coincide with the parents moving to live with their adult children.

(d)

People who live with other adults who are neither their partner nor their parent, have consistently low personal wellbeing at ages S1

73.8

70.2

71.4

73.2

71.3

70.6

71.0

67.1

72.3

69.5

69.9

68.0

66.2

60 S1 Apr 01

S3 Mar 02

S2 Sept 01

S4 Aug 02

S5 Nov 02

S6 Mar 03

S7 PostIraq War

S9 Nov 03

S8 Aug 03

S10 Feb 04

S11 May 04

S12 Aug 04

S16 Oct 06

S15 May 06

S14 Oct 05

S13 May 05

Satisfaction with relationships remains higher than at Survey 1.

4. The only National domain of Government is at its lowest level yet recorded for the 76+y group.

76+ years 64

62.7

61.7

62.0

62

62.4 61.0

62.0

62.3

61.4

58.9


18-25 years

58

61.9 61.4

59.8

57.9

56

57.5

54.6

54

53.8

53.2 52.9

50

50.9

50.3

49.4

48.2

48

54.2

53.5

53.2

53.7

53.4

52

46.8

46 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Survey

Satisfaction with Government has fallen sharply for the oldest group.


111

16


5. Satisfaction with environment has fallen in Survey 16 for people aged 36-65 years only. The reason for this selectivity is not known.

Environm ent

64

62.1

62 60 Satisfaction w ith environment

59.7 Normative range

58.2

57.5

58

57.2 56.8

55.6

56

54.4 53.0

54 52 50 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Satisfaction with the environment has fallen for people aged 36-65.

6. In the middle age, people who do not live with a partner are at risk of low wellbeing.


84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64

Lives alone Parents Other adults 78.4 77.1 75.0

75.0

Agespecific normative range

78.5 78.2

75.4

74.8

71.8 71.3 71.2

72.4

72.4

71.7 69.7

70.2

70.5 69.3

67.2

67.4

66.4

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Middle-age people without partners are at risk of low wellbeing.

7. Living with your children as a sole parent from 66 years and older is good for your wellbeing. Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64

Sole parent

77.6 75.3

70.3 69.2

68.9

69.1 68.0

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Sole parents age 66+ years have normal level wellbeing.


112



9. Unemployment has a devastating effect on personal wellbeing beyond 25 years of age.

84

Unemployed

82


80 78 76 Strength 74 of satisfaction 72 (PWI) 70

70.8

68

68.4

66 65.1

64 62 Values for normative range

63.6

64.3

76.0 72.1

76.0 72.6

76.0 72.6

75.6 72.3

77.4 73.7

79.1 74.8

82.0 74.5

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Upper Lower

Age

The relationship between unemployment and wellbeing is age-dependent.

10. The average wellbeing of married people varies by 2.5 points across the age-range. The wellbeing of people who are divorced varies considerably, being lowest at 4655y and returning to the normal range only at 76+ years.

Married 84

Divorced

82 80 78 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

79.5 77.0

77.4

77.0

77.4

76.7

78.2

76 74


74.5

72 70.2

70 68

69.0

69.2 67.5

66

66.5

64

Values for normative range

76.0 72.1

76.0 72.6

76.0 72.6

75.6 72.3

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

77.4 73.7

79.1 74.8

82.0 74.5

56-65

66-75

76+

Upper Lower

Age

Married people show very little variation in wellbeing across the age-range.


113

6. Household Composition 6.1. Distribution Overall The data for this chapter were derived from the following question: “I am going to ask who lives in your household. Please indicate from the list I will read who lives with you. N (Survey 16) 298 589 629 109 67

No one, you live by yourself You live with your partner (only) With partner and child (only) With one or both of your parents (only) With adults who are neither your partner nor parent (only)

% (Survey 16 15.5 30.6 32.6 5.7 3.5

% combined 17.3 30.7 31.5 6.2 4.1

The proportions above are very similar to the combined survey data (Table A6.1). Since people can make multiple category nominations, the further break-down of these categories is provided in Table A6.2. This table shows each unique category. It is notable that the highest proportion of respondents (62.2%) live either with their partner alone (30.7%) or with their partner and one or more children (31.5%). The third most common form of household composition is people living alone (17.3%). 6.2. Household Composition and Wellbeing 6.2.1.

Personal Wellbeing Index

The data for Survey 15 are presented in Table A6.3. The figure below relates the Personal Wellbeing Index calculated from combined data (Table A6.4).


80 78 76 74 72

78.7

77.2

77.1

76.8 74.5

74.3

74.0

73.2

71.3

73.4 70.8

70 68 66 Partner and parents

Partner only

Partner children and other adults

Partner and children

Partner and other adults

Parents and children

Partner, children and parents

Parents only

76.4

Normative Range 72.0

Alone

Other adults and children

Other adults

70.0

Sole parents

69.3

Depression risk

Parents and other adults

Figure 6.1: Household Composition: Personal Wellbeing Index [combined data]

Several aspects of this figure can be noted as follows: (a)

The normative range has been calculated from the survey mean scores (Chapter 2). It represents the range within which we have 95% confidence of finding the mean of any future general population survey.

(b)

The ‘Threshold for depression risk’ is set at a value of 70. This is an approximate value derived from other research which shows that groups that fall below this level have a higher proportion of people who are depressed than groups that lie within the normative band. It can be seen that sole-parents (6.7% of the sample) and people living with other adults (4.1% of the sample) have a mean score which lies at this threshold. People who live with their parents and other adults lie below this threshold (0.4% of sample).


114

Section 6 Household Composition continued

(c)

There is an 9.4 percentage point difference between the highest and the lowest groups. This is a substantial range. Whether these differences can be explained by demographic factors cannot yet be determined since the cell sizes of the extreme groups are as yet too small to be reliably split (Table 6.2).

(d)

The groups with the highest wellbeing are those people living with both their partner in any combination with other people. Heading this list is Partner and parent(s). However it is interesting that only 0.4% of the total sample live in these circumstances, indicating the extraordinary dominance of the nuclear family.

(e)

The presence of children has a variable effect on adult wellbeing, depending on the other people present in the household and household income (see also Chapter 3).

80.0 77.2 75.0 Strength of satisfaction (PWI) 70.0

76.8 73.2

74.3

72.0 70.0

70.8

71.3

Other adults only

Plus children

65.0 Alone

Plus children

Live as a single adult

Partner only

Plus children

Live w ith a partner

Parents only

Plus children

Live w ith parents

Live w ith other adults

Figure 6.2: Effects of Children on Adult Wellbeing

With no other adult present, the influence of children is demonstratively negative, with the wellbeing of single parents (single adult: plus children: 70.0) being into the territory of high risk for depression. Their wellbeing is 2.0 points lower than people who live alone. The wellbeing of both groups however, is highly income dependent (Chapter 3).

In the presence of a partner, the additional negative influence of children is nonsignificant (-0.4 points).

In the presence of parents, the addition of children raises wellbeing by +1.1 points. However, this may be due to age differences since the ‘Parents only’ group may comprise mainly young adults who have not yet left home.

In the presence of other adults, the addition of children makes little difference (+0.5 points).

In summary, as a simple demographic, the addition of children to a household has little impact on parental wellbeing. This is, however, powerfully moderated by income (Chapter 3). Essentially, children drain the parental resources and this is most evident in low income households. (f)

Of the six ‘partner’ groups, four lie above the normative range (76.4). Living with other adults in addition to partner reduces wellbeing by 2.7 percentage points over living with partner alone. Whether this is due to reduced relationship resources or financial resources cannot yet be reliably determined.


115


(g)

Living with parents allows normative range wellbeing except when other adults also live in the household. This reduces wellbeing by 3.9 percentage points from living with parents alone.

(h)

Living with other adults who are neither a partner nor parent is generally bad for wellbeing. Of the five relevant groups three lie well below the normative range. The presence of a partner counteracts this tendency.

(i)

People who live alone have a level of wellbeing that lies 1.4 points below the normative range.

6.2.2.

Personal Domains

Table A6.3 shows the domain data from Survey 15. Table A6.4 shows, from the combined survey data, that all of the domain differences follow much the same pattern as Figure 6.1. However, within the groups who do not generally do as well as the ‘partnered’ groups there is considerable domain variation. This is shown for people (N = 2,293) who live alone below. Normative range from survey mean scores


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

T

People who live alone

75.2 72.0

81.8

76.3 71.2

73.0

Living Standard

Health

74.9

73.8 71.9

Achieving

81.1

77.2

71.1 75.8

76.3 75.2

PWI

78.0

79.2

69.9

69.9 72.3

72.9

68.6

68.1

69.1

Relations

Safety

Community

Future Security

Figure 6.3: Live Alone: Domain vs. Normative Data (Strength of Satisfaction)

It can be seen that the domains values for the people who live alone are generally below the normative ranges for the population. Overall, the Personal Wellbeing Index lies 1.4 points below the normative range. The major deficits among the domains are with relationships (-8.1 points) and health (-1.6 points). Satisfaction with relationships is so severely deficient for the people in this group it is probably pulling satisfaction with the other domains down. In particular, this may be causing minor health issues to seem important through the lack of close friend or partner with whom such matters can be discussed. However, four of the domains do not differ from population norms (standard, safety, community and future). The other interesting comparison is in relation to the people living with their partner in the presence or absence of children. This is shown in Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5 below.


116


Normative range from survey mean scores


88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66

S z

Absence of children Presence of children 86.1

83.9 81.8 80.4

80.2 81.1 79.2

77.2 76.8

77.1 76.3

77.8

77.2

76.3

74.9 75.8

75.2

74.9 74.7 73.8

73.0

79.1

73.1

74.5 71.9

71.9

72.9

72.3 71.9

71.9 68.6

68.1

. PWI

Standard of Living

Health

Achieve

Relations

Safety

Community

Future Security

Figure 6.4: Live with Partner in the Absence/Presence of Children

The overall pattern shows that living with a partner is generally advantageous to wellbeing, but that the addition of children diminishes that advantage. This is significant in the case of two domains as Living Standard (-2.6 points) and Relationships (-2.2 points). However, this is different for the domain of health satisfaction. Here, the partner alone causes no change from the population average, whereas partner and children causes a significant rise in satisfaction (+2.4 points). It may be the case that the responsibility of child care causes parents to be more positive about their own health. In any event, it is this domain that prevents the overall Personal Wellbeing Index from being significantly different between the two groups. It also appears to be an example of Domain Compensation involving the domain of Health. The other comparison of interest involves sole parents. The contrast between someone living only with their partner or only with children is very stark and shown in Figure 6.5. This is based on 1,021 Sole Parents (Table A6.4). As might be expected, the largest deficit is in the domain of Relationships (9.5 points below the normative range). Moreover, all other domains except Safety and Community also lie below the range. There is no evidence of domain compensation.


117



S Live with partner only. z Sole parents.

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

86.1

80.4

81.8 79.2

77.2 76.3

74.7

75.2

73.8

73.0

81.1

77.2

75.8

74.9 75.2

71.9

72.6

70.6

70.0

74.9

76.3

79.1

71.9

70.1

73.1 72.3

72.9

68.6

68.1

68.5

67.1

65.0

PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

Relations

Safety

Community

Future Security

Figure 6.5: Comparison between living with partner only and sole parents

The major advantage of living only with a partner is clearly in the domain of relationships, where couples have a level of satisfaction that is 4.4 points above the normal range for this domain. Couples also have high satisfaction with their Standard of Living and Future Security. Sole parents show the reverse profile, with the most devastated domain being relationships that lies 10.1 points below the normal range. It is interesting to note that this disparity from normal is far higher than for Standard of Living (4.6 points below the normal range) even though the majority of these people are on low incomes. This is consistent with the view that the most important factor missing from these people’s lives is an intimate relationship with another adult. 6.2.3.

Life as a Whole

This shows much the same pattern as the Personal Wellbeing Index (Table A6.4). People who live only with their partner have a significant 3.0 point advantage over partner plus children. 6.2.4.

National Wellbeing Index 65

60.1

62.6

62.3

Norm ative Range

58.1

Strength 60 of 55 satisfaction (NWI) 50

63.2 59.1

63.9 57.1

45 Alone

Partner only

Sole parent

Partner and children

Parents

Other adults

Figure 6.6: Household Composition: National Wellbeing Index

It is notable that all groups fall within the normal range (Table A6.4). However, the three groups living with a partner or parents have a higher National Wellbeing Index than all of the other three groups. 6.2.5.


These generally follow the same pattern as shown by the National Index (Table A6.4).


118


6.2.6.

Life in Australia

While the pattern of inter-group differences in Table A6.4 is similar to that of the National Index, the substantially higher scores recorded for Life in Australia than for Life as a Whole (around 18 points higher) seems to have attenuated the extent of the differences. While the highest and lowest groups differed by 5.1 percentage points on the National Index, this is reduced to 2.6 points for Life in Australia. It may be that ‘Life in Australia’ evokes some common abstract patriotism that becomes weakened when the item refers to some more specific aspect of national functioning, as in the national domains. Maybe this abstract dimension could be better tapped by asking ‘How satisfied are you with Australia as a whole?’. 6.2.7.

National Survey-Specific Aspects: Terrorist Attack

Table 2.1 shows that there was a generally maintained sense of an imminent terrorist attack during Survey 16 compared with the previous survey (Table A6.3). Figure 6.7 below shows this in relation to the normal range for attack probability for each household composition group (Table A6.6) using the group mean scores over the past surveys as data (Table A6.8). It can be seen that the current estimate of attack likelihood falls in the middle of the range for all groups.

Perceived strength of terrorist attack probability

79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45

Normative range from survey mean scores 74.4

T

Survey 15 75.0 72.8

69.9

69.8

67.0

59.1

68.7

66.2

64.2

64.6

64.3

63.9

58.5

58.9

58.5

59.0 52.5

Alone

Partner only

Sole parent

Partern and children

Parents

Other adults

Figure 6.7: Household Composition: Terrorist Attack Probability Strength

The normative range has been calculated from mean scores for each of the groups over the past surveys (Table A6.6). It is evident that the ‘Other adult’ group has varied between these seven surveys more than the other groups. The reason for this is not known.


119


6.3. Household Composition and Relationship Status Table A6.7 provides the comparative data. 80 77.6

78

77.7

77.1

77.0 75.0

76 S t re ngt h of s a t is f a c t io n ( P WI)

75.4

75.0

74

76.4 73.4

72.5

72 70

70.0

69.6

69.2

68.8

Nev er

Separated

Div orced

68 66 64 62

Married

Widow ed

Married

Defacto

married

N

32

820

Nev er

Div orced

Married

Defacto

married 201

615

870

3853

Liv es alone

633

86

Nev er married

40

4335

378

26

Liv es w ith partner only

Liv e w ith partner plus

no-children

children

80 78

77.4

76.5

76.2

76.4

76 73.2

74

72.6

72 S t re ngt h of s a t is f a c t io n ( P WI)

73.4 70.5

70.8

70 68

66.8

67.9

68.1

67.2

66 64 62

Married

Nev er

Separated

Div orced

Widow ed

Married

Defacto

married

N

202

112

Nev er

Separated

Div orced

Widow ed

27

74

48

married 214

327

Sole parent

142

121

52

571

Liv es w ith other adults

Figure 6.8: Household Composition x Relationship Status: Personal Wellbeing Index

(a)

If people are living with their partner and children, they have a +2.0 point advantage if they are married rather than defacto. In the absence of children, married couples have a significant +2.7 point advantage over defacto. This difference is caused primarily by the married group with the values for the two defacto groups being much the same. In the absence of children, the married group has the highest SWB (77.7 points) of any of these groupings. Thus, the addition of children, as a drain on household resources, has more potential to reduce this exceptionally high wellbeing towards the normal range (-0.7 points).

(b)

Widows living either alone or with other adults have high wellbeing. These people tend to be elderly with a low but secure income through either a pension or superannuation. However, widowed sole parents lose 3.9 points over widows who live alone, to lie just below the normative range.

(c)

People who have never married and who have moved away from their parents without a partner, have low wellbeing. It does not make much difference whether they live alone (69.6) or with other adults (70.5).

(d)

As expected, people who are separated or divorced have low wellbeing. However, it is interesting that, compared with living alone, the wellbeing of both groups marginally decreases


120


still further in the presence of children (separated -1.3 points; divorced -1.6 points). These differences are not significant. These Household Composition x marital status groups are separated by income Tables A6.8A6.14. Divorced

Separated

Never married

Widow ed

80 78

76.3

76.3

76.9

76

76.5

74 PWI

72.3

72 69.3

70.8 70.9

68.8

68

64

73.4

70.7

70

66

74.3

66.0 64.3

70.5

68.5 64.1

62 Divorced/Separated

65

63.6 60.2

60 Married

Defacto

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 64.9% of the sample comprises people in a relationship, the overall normal range is dominated by such people. This raises the need to create normative ranges for each marital group, and this has been done (Tables A7.18 to A7.29). 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 (Table A7.2). 78 76 Strength of satisfaction (Health)

75.9

76.2 75.1

> Divorced/Widow

74

72.1

72.0

72

69.6

70 68 Married

Defacto

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).


134

Section 7 Marital Status continued


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

78.4 81.7

79.9 76.7

79.2 76.4 73.4

72.1

81.0

77.0

75.0 75.7

76.2 73.8

75.3

79.5

75.7

75.5

75.0

72.3

71.9

72.8

68.6

PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

Relations

Safety

Community

68.1

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 Strength of satisfaction (Community Connection)

> married

75.5

72.7 > all below

72 70

72.3 Normative range

68.1

68

66.8

66.0

66

68.6

64.9

64 62 60 58 Married

Defacto

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.

National Wellbeing Index

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


135


66 64

63.1

62.7 > all below

Strength 62 of satisfaction 60 (NWI)

> all below

60.3

Normative range

58.4

57.8

58

63.1

59.0

57.4

56 Married

Defacto

Never married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.6: Marital Status: National Wellbeing Index

It is notable that only the married and widowed groups lie within the normative range on this, more distal, variable. This general pattern is similar to that shown in relation to the Personal Wellbeing Index except for people in a defacto relationship, who have a lower level. 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.


The national domains (Table A7.2) show a significant pattern of difference that resembles Figure 7.6 with the exception of National Security. 68 66.1

65.2

66 Strength of satisfaction (National Security)

< Divorced/ separated 64.8

63.3

64

61.7

62

61.1

60 58 Married

Defacto

Never married

Separated

Divorced

Widow

Figure 7.7: Marital Status: National Security

This domain of National Security shows no difference between married and never married (Table A7.2). The reason for this differential domain sensitivity is not known.


136


7.1.6.

Life in Australia 90 > Married

Strength 85 of satisfaction (%) 80

83.8

85.9 > all below

81.3 80.7

80.6

Defacto

Never Married

79.6

75 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 (Table A7.2). There is a remarkable lack of variation between these groups (6.3 points) compared with the Personal Wellbeing Index (9.0 points). 7.1.7.

Likelihood of Terrorist Attack

The perceived likelihood of a terrorist attach does not differ between the marital groups for Survey 16 (Table A7.1). However, the combined data (Table A7.2) show differences as below: % expecting an attack 65 % expecting an attack

Perceived likelihood of an attack 64.4

64.1

66.8 62.1

60 65.1

68

67.2

66.8 63.6

62.7

66

64.2

65 64

< defacto, divorced 62.9

56.1

55

67

63 62

Perceived likelihood of a terrorist attack

61 50

60 Married

Defacto

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 (56.1% compared with 64.1% of Married). However, of those who do consider an attack likely, the defacto and divorced groups consider the probability to be higher than the widows. This relatively lower sense of perceived threat by the widows is consistent with their generally higher wellbeing (Figure 7.1).


137


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 77.6

78

76.4

75.2

76


Norm ative Range

74

72.8

73.4

71.7

72

70.3

70.2

70 68 N

(3199)

(583)

(1019)

(184)

(345)

(88)

Married

Defacto

Never Married

Separated

Divorced

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. It is notable that only 10.1% of the widowed group are full-time employed compared with 52.1% of the married group.

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

77.6

75 71.2 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

76.5

Normative range

71.7

70.3

73.4

70.2

70 65.2 65 59.6

60 55 N

57.7

(3199)

(172)

(1019)

(190)

(184)

(28)

(345)

(63)

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Married

Never married

Separated

Divorced

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


138


From the above figure it can be seen that the effects of unemployment impact negatively both on people who are married (-6.4 points), never married (-6.5 points), separated (-12.6 points), or divorced (-10.6 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 as both an emotional and a financial resource. Subjective wellbeing in relation to full-time home or family care are shown below.

PWI

80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 N

78.3

76.8 74.4

76.4

Normative range

64.8

73.4

63.0

63.6

(852)

(83)

(49)

(37)

(69)

(28)

Married

Defacto

Never Married

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 (15.3 points) of any marital status comparison. While the two groups with partners approximate the top of the normal range, widows lie 1.9 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

Divorced 80 75 70 PWI

66.9

55

72.7

67.5

76.4 73.4

71.5

68.3

65 60

69.7

Norm al range

73.7

64.7 59.6

50 $150K) is too small for the data to be reliable (N=9), their mean is 78.6 points (Table A7.11).


139


Divorced people engaged in fulltime home care are still way below the normal range with an income of $15-30K, 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. 7.4. Part-time Volunteering Total sample 80

Part-time volunteers

78.7

78.0

77.3 74.7

75

76.7

75.8

76.4 73.6

73.4

Normal range 73.4

71.4

PWI 70

69.7

68.5

68.3

65 N

(8687) (1291)

(1120) (90)

(2581) (215)

Married

Defacto

Never Married

(483)

(55)

Separated

(1132) (169)

(1094) (232)

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 (+4.9 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 relative 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 4.9 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 14.9 8.0 8.3 11.4 14.9 21.2

The following conclusions may be drawn:


140


(1)

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

(2)

People in a married relationship are about twice as likely to be part-time volunteers as people in defacto relationships. This may be because the married group is older.

(3)

Widows have the highest proportion of part-time volunteers. Again this is likely due to their older age.

7.5. Regressions of Personal Wellbeing Index Domains Against Life as a Whole These regression are presented in Tables A7.12 to A7.17. With the exception of Widows, these results are very similar to one another. The total R2 ranges from .43 (Separated and Widows) to .51 (Divorced). The total unique variance ranges from 12.6% (Widows) to 15.4% (Married), while the total shared variance ranges from 27.6% (Separated) to 36.8% (Divorced). The pattern of domain contribution is also very similar, with the largest unique variance coming from Standard of Living, and the smallest from Safety, which is always non-significant. It can be concluded that the Personal Wellbeing Index works in much the same way between these marital groups. 7.6. Normative Scores 7.6.1.

Normative Ranges from Individual Values

These combined survey data are provided in Tables A7.18 to A7.23.

PWI

105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35

103.0 99.1

97.3

77.4

97.1

74.9

55.7

71.5

98.0

98.1

68.6

68.4

76.5

52.5

50.1

45.9 39.2 Married

Defacto

Never married

Separated

38.6 Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.15: Marital Status Normative Ranges for Personal Wellbeing Index (individual data)

These ranges are consistent with homeostatic theory. In conditions of no systematic threat to wellbeing (Married, Defacto, Widow) the distribution approximates the positive range from 50 to 100. However, in the presence of systematic threat (Never Married, Separated, Divorced) the top of the range remains intact at about 100, while the bottom of the range falls substantially below 50. This indicates the presence, within each of these distributions, of people who are resilient and who continue to hold their wellbeing within their set-point range, thereby keeping the top of each range normatively close to 100. Also within these distributions, however, are people whose SWB homeostasis has failed and who have low wellbeing as a consequence. These people extend the tail of the distributions down to lie below 50.


141


7.6.2.

Normative Ranges form Survey Mean Scores

These data, comprising the mean values from 10 surveys, are found in Tables A7.24 to A7.29. The results for the Personal Wellbeing Index are shown below. 80

79.0

78.3 77.4 76.4

78 76

76.4

74 PWI

76.4

75.0

74.0

73.5

72

73.7

73.8 71.1

71.5

70

69.1

68

68.6

68.3

66

65.6

64

63.6

62 Married

Defacto

Never married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Figure 7.16: Marital Status Normative Ranges for Personal Wellbeing Index (survey mean scores)

The extent of variation in these ranges indicates the relative stability of each group mean between surveys. This stability is a function of two forces. One is the sample size, with larger sample sizes giving greater stability. The other is the degree to which each group is affected by general factors such as world or national events. The mean sample sizes for survey range from about 1,100 (Married) to 60 (Separated). And, indeed, these two groups have the smallest x 2SD range (1.96 points) and largest range (10.08 points) respectively. However, there is more to this differential range than simply sample size. The top of these two ranges differ by 4.6 points while the bottom of the ranges differ by 12.8 points. In other words, there appears to be a systematic propensity for the separated group mean score to vary in a downward, than in an upward direction. This may indicate a differential group response to public events.


142


Dot Summary Points for Relationship Status 1. People who are married have a significantly (2.6 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 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

76 74 72 70 68 66 N

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.

Relationship status 77.3

76.7

> Defacto 74.7

76.4 Normative Range 73.4

> Never married 71.4

> Separated/divorced 68.3

68.5

(8687)

(1120)

(2581)

(483)

(1132)

(1094)

Married

Defacto

Never Married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

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 is only evidenced by people aged between 26-65 years. Younger and older people who have never married have normal levels of wellbeing. See Chapter 5 for a full discussion.

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 78.4 81.7

79.9 76.7

79.2 76.4 73.4

72.1 76.2 73.8

75.3

79.5

81.0

77.0

75.0 75.7

75.7

75.5

75.0

72.8

72.3

71.9

68.6

PWI

Living Standard

Health

Achieving

Relations

Safety

Community

68.1

Future Security

Widows have low health satisfaction and yet have high wellbeing.

80 78 Strength of satisfaction (PWI)

Fulltime employed

77.6

76.4

75.2

76

Norm ative Range

74

72.8 71.7

72

70.3

70.2

70 68 N

(3199)

(583)

(1019)

(184)

(345)

(88)

Married

Defacto

Never Married

Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

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


143

73.4


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

77.6


76.5

Normative range

71.7

71.2

70.3

73.4

70.2

70 65.2 65 59.6

60 55 N

57.7

(3199)

(172)

(1019)

(190)

(184)

(28)

(345)

(63)

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Fulltime employed

Unemployed

Married

Never married

Separated

Divorced

Marriage buffers the effects of unemployment

5. Even though people who are divorced and have a full-time well-paid job, their average level of wellbeing remains below the normal range.

Divorced x Work Status Fulltime Employed

Fulltime Home Care

Fulltime Retired

Divorced 80 75 70 PWI

66.9

76.4 73.4

Norm al range

73.7

69.7

72.7

67.5

71.5

68.3

65

64.7

60

59.6

55 50

S1

82.2 80.8 74.2

73.7

71.5

71.2

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

S15 May 06

S16 Oct 06

Figure 10.11: 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, pS1

Section 10 Life Events continued

10.4.1. Household Income and Life Event Intensity No income group differences in intensity have been found (Table A10.12) for sad events. A weak inverse relationship between income and intensity of happy events is evident. 10.4.2. Gender and Life Event Intensity Tables A10.13 and A10.14 show that for both males and females, the recalled intensity of happy, but not the intensity of sad events, correlates significantly with the Personal Wellbeing Index. This is consistent with homeostasis theory. The gender difference for the intensity of both happy and sad events is significant (Female > Male) (Table A10.15). This is a consistent finding across surveys. 84.0

85

Male

Female

80.0 80 Intensity of feeling %

72.9

75

70.3

70 65 60 Happy Event

Sad Event

Figure 10.12: 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 A10.15). 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 A10.16 shows the combined data from Surveys 1-16. This analysis shows a significant influence of age for the intensity of happy but not sad events, and no interaction between age and surveys. The result for happy events (Table A10.16) is shown below.


188


84 83.3 Intensity of happy event

83.3

83 82.0

81.7

82 81.0

80.9

81

80.4

80 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

Age

Figure 10.13: Intensity of Happy Events x Age

This is a curious pattern, with maximum intensity experienced at 26-35 and 76+ years. The reason for this pattern is not clear. 10.5. Days of the Week These data have been taken from Table A10.20. 75.3

75 75 75 PWI

74.9

74.9

74.9

74.8

75

74.8 74.6

75 74 74 Mon

Tues

Wed

Thur

Fri

Sat

Sun

Day of the w eek

Figure 10.14: Daily Personal Wellbeing Index (Combined data)

It is evident, that across the whole sample, there is no systematic change in wellbeing between the days of the week. Table A10.20 splits these data according to work status. Again, there is no systematic change in wellbeing for any of the work-status groups.


189


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

24.3

23.2

22.4

22 20 Happy

Sad

Happy

Males

Sad

Females

Females report more sad events in their lives than males.

4. 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

51.0

54.7 49.1

45 % reporting a personal event

51.1

50.0

46.8

40 35

30.0

31.3

30

27.8

29.8

29.0

27.8

25 20

21.0

23.3

21.4

21.3

15

21.0

19.1

42.4

27.5

14.9

10 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

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


190

76+


5. 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

29.7 27.7

% reporting 25 an 20 event

Sad

Happy

32.2

30

23.4

21.2

25.9

26.4

25.2

24.3

17.6

15 10

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 16 Part A

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 16 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 14 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 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 ...

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 ...

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

Understanding children's perspectives on wellbeing - The Australian ...

Understanding children's perspectives on wellbeing - The Australian ...

The Personal Wellbeing Index: Psychometric ...

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 16 Part A