Promoting excellence in science and technology
PDF file of entire paper: Print-quality (393K)
K08004; Online publication date 30 May 2008
Received 12 February 2008; accepted 24 April 2008
Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 2008, Vol. 3: 57–72
1177–083X/08/0301–57 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 2008
Kōtuitui
New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online
Applying the International Wellbeing Index to investigate subjective wellbeing of New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage
Alexandra Ganglmair-Wooliscroft
Rob Lawson
Department of Marketing
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
aganglmair@business.otago.ac.nz
Abstract The International Wellbeing Index (IWI), a global measure for investigating subjective wellbeing, consists of a Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and a National Wellbeing Index (NWI). The index is applied to the two largest ethnic populations in New Zealand—New Zealanders with European heritage and New Zealanders with Maori heritage. Psychometric characteristics of the IWI for both subsamples compare favourably to those found in other countries. However, for both subsamples, the absolute value of reported subjective wellbeing is lower than expected. Consistent with other social indicators, New Zealanders with Maori heritage show even lower values of PWI and NWI than New Zealanders with European heritage.
Keywords subjective wellbeing; International Wellbeing Index
INTRODUCTION
Subjective wellbeing, the investigation of a person’s subjective quality of life, is one of psychology’s contributions to the broad field of quality of life (Diener 1984; Diener & Fujita 1995; Burroughs & Rindfleisch 2002; Cummins & Nistico 2002; Efklides & Tsorbatzoudis 2006). The indicator is frequently used in aggregate form to investigate perceived levels of quality of life within a country or make comparisons between countries. The current research investigates the reported wellbeing of different ethnic groups within New Zealand by exploring subjective wellbeing of those with European heritage and those with Maori heritage.
Ethnicity in New Zealand has been discussed from various angles, taking a sociological (e.g., Spoonley et al. 1982, 1996; Novitz & Willmott 1989; Castles & Spoonley 1997; Fleras & Spoonley 1999; Cheyne et al. 2005), psychological (e.g., Liu et al. 1999; Harrington & Liu 2002), or Maori (e.g., Walker R 1992, 2004; Smith 1999) perspective. This research is rooted in the psychological literature stream of subjective wellbeing.
The concept of subjective wellbeing gained prominence in the 1960s as social scientists became increasingly dissatisfied with macroeconomic indicators of human welfare (Wilkie & Moore 1999; Burroughs & Rindfleisch 2002). In comparison to gross domestic product (GDP), the most important, objective indicator of wealth, which has been not suitable to measure the “goodness of a society” (Cummins et al. 2003b: 159), subjective wellbeing is concerned with “how and why people experience lives in positive ways” (Diener 1984: 542). Major research into the area of wellbeing was first conducted in America by Andrews & Withey (1976) and Campbell et al. (1976) and has since led to the development of a multitude of measures. Within this array of instruments, some build on the domain-based approach used by Andrews & Withey (1976) while others emphasise the overall satisfaction with “life as a whole” (e.g., Pavot & Diener 1993). Recent research tends to favour the domain-based approach as a minimum number of life domains emerge that elicit more specific information about the components that influence satisfaction with life as a whole (Cummins et al. 2003b).
This study uses the International Wellbeing Index (IWI) (Cummins et al. 2003b). The index comprises two sub-indices representing Personal Wellbeing (PWI) and National Wellbeing (NWI), with the psychometric properties of both indices having been tested extensively (Cummins et al. 2003a; Lau et al. 2005; Tiliouine et al. 2006). The aim of the index is to provide a theoretically sound, brief and standard tool to investigate subjective wellbeing (Australian Centre on Quality of Life n.d.; Lau et al. 2005), a concept that is increasingly used to compare perceived quality of life across nations (Diener et al. 1995; Veenhoven 1996; Cummins et al. 2003b; Lau et al. 2005), providing additional information to the established comparison of countries according to their GDP.
Previous studies have applied the IWI to investigate subjective wellbeing in countries with either mainly Western or non-Western cultures (Cummins et al. 2003a,b; Lau et al. 2005; Tiliouine et al. 2006). This study adds to this research stream by investigating wellbeing in a country with a unique blend of Western and non-Western influence, thereby adding to the limited research on interactions between cultures within a society (Harrington & Liu 2002).
Ethnic background has traditionally been a base variable for planning and policy making in New Zealand (Johnston 1982). Social policy, the “actions that affect the well-being of members of a society through shaping the distribution of and access to goods and resources in that society” (Cheyne et al. 2005: 3), has, just as in many other countries around the world, long been a key issue in New Zealand (Johnston 1982; Cheyne et al. 2005).
The New Zealand Government collects information about the quality of life of New Zealanders, often in the form of objective indicators (see, e.g., Ministry for Social Development 2003, 2007; Statistics New Zealand 2006; TNS New Zealand 2007). The Social Report (Ministry for Social Development 2003, 2006, 2007) includes 10 domains consisting of mainly objective (e.g., life expectancy, participation in education, employment) and some subjective indicators (e.g., satisfaction with perceived work-life balance, loneliness). When looking at ethnic subgroups, one can see that in recent years a number of indicators have improved considerably for New Zealanders with Maori heritage (Ministry for Social Development 2003, 2006, 2007). Even so, this ethnic group still rates lower than New Zealanders with European heritage on all but four indicators (participation in tertiary education, in physical activity, in cultural and arts activity, and regular contact with friends and family). A similar result can also be found in other research (Sibley & Liu 2004; Anderson et al. 2006; Statistics New Zealand 2006).
One of the two overarching social policy goals stated by the New Zealand Government are “achieving and sustaining improvements in social wellbeing for all New Zealanders” (Office of the Minister for Social Development and Employment 2004: 5). The government report further provides detailed policy suggestions regarding specific aspects such as knowledge and skills, employment, economic standard of living, health, social cohesion, safety, civil and political rights, national identity, leisure and recreation, and physical environment (Office of the Minister for Social Development and Employment 2004). These areas overlap considerably with the facets of perceived quality of life investigated in the IWI.
There have been, and still are, a variety of government initiatives across a range of policy areas (including education, employment, health, housing, and social welfare) designed to improve the situation of Maori (Centre for Social Research and Evaluation 2004; Ministry for Social Development 2007).
The Quality of Life Survey (TNS New Zealand 2007), based on a partnership between the 12 largest city councils and the Ministry of Social Development, includes a variety of subjective and objective indicators to investigate quality of life, particularly in urban New Zealand. The investigated domains are health and wellbeing, community, crime and safety, education and work, built environment, culture and identity, and democracy. Results of the survey generally ascribe to the New Zealand population a high level of quality of life. However, due to the nature of the questions and the style of answer categories, the current research should be able to provide more detailed analysis of key dimensions of subjective wellbeing.
Considering this situation, it would be reasonable to expect differences in subjective wellbeing between New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage. To examine this proposition we conducted a range of separate analyses, treating them as independent samples within the dataset acquired for this study.
THE INTERNATIONAL WELLBEING INDEX
The International Wellbeing Index (IWI) is the international application of the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. The Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI), an overall measure of personal life satisfaction, employs the theoretical principle of deconstruction to arrive at the minimum number of factors characterising aspects of life (International Wellbeing Group 2005; Lau et al. 2005). The domains are broad and semi-abstract in order to facilitate cross-cultural application and represent the first-level deconstruction of Life as a Whole (Cummins et al. 2003b; International Wellbeing Group 2005): Standard of Living, Health, Achieving in Life, Personal Relationships, Safety, Community-connectedness, and Future Security (International Wellbeing Group 2005). Each domain is investigated with one question on a 0–10 (11-point) scale ranging from completely dissatisfied to completely satisfied (International Wellbeing Group 2005). The questions are:
How satisfied are you with:
… your standard of living
… your health
… what you are achieving in life
… your personal relationships
… how safe you feel
… feeling part of your community
… your future security
When the seven facets of PWI are regressed onto satisfaction with Life as a Whole, each factor contributes significantly—except for Safety, which does not add any information in Western countries but remains in the measure as it is important in other contexts (Cummins et al. 2003a). The adjusted R 2 is typically around 50% (Lau et al. 2005; Cummins pers. comm. Feb 2006), with satisfaction with Standard of Living, Achieving in Life, and Personal Relationships consistently found to be the best predictors.
The PWI in Australia as well as a number of other Western countries lies consistently around 75%, and results of all Australian surveys conducted since 2001 vary by only 2.7% (Lau et al. 2005). This value as well as the high stability are consistent with a number of previous studies conducted in the Western world that find a mean score of 75 ± 2.5% of the scale score maximum (%SM) (Cummins et al. 2003a,b). Cummins & Nistico (2002) explain this phenomenon with the Theory of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis, which “proposes that SWB [subjective wellbeing], under normal circumstances, is actively controlled and maintained within a limited positive range by a set of psychological devices and personality” (Lau et al. 2005: 406). “The normative range of life satisfaction population mean scores within Western nations” (Cummins & Nistico 2002: 38) lies within 70–80%SM and a population mean around 70%SM seems to be the “line of resistance” (Cummins 2003: 241). Below this level an increasing proportion of the population appears to experience homeostatic failure (Cummins pers. comm. Jul 2006).
The NWI originally consisted of three domains (Cummins et al. 2003b) but has been expanded to the following six domains (Tiliouine et al. 2006): the Economic Situation, State of the Environment, Social Conditions, Government, Business, and National Security. As with the PWI, each item is measured on a single 11-point scale ranging from completely dissatisfied to completely satisfied. The NWI questions are:
How satisfied are you with:
... the economic situation in ...
... the state of the … environment
... the social conditions in ...
... the government in ...
... business in ...
... national security in ...
In comparison to the PWI, the NWI recorded in Australia is a relatively low 57%SM (Cummins et al. 2003b). The predictive power of the six domains included in the NWI is also smaller—the six domains explain only around 11% of satisfaction with Life as a Whole—as satisfaction with Economic Conditions, Social Conditions, and Business are the best predictors (Cummins et al. 2003b).
DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
This study is based on data collected as part of the New Zealand Consumer Lifestyles Study (Todd et al. 2000; Lawson et al. 2006). The study is conducted every 5 years and includes over 500 questions regarding New Zealander’s attitudes, opinions, and interests on a large range of topics including social and political issues, consumption and media habits, self identity, product ownership, and travel behaviour as well as values. The IWI (PWI and NWI) was included for the first time in 2005.
The data collection took place in November when 10 000 questionnaires were sent to a sample of the New Zealand population age 18 years and over. The sampling frame was a commercially acquired list of names and addresses from NZ Post designed to be representative of New Zealand in terms of sex and location. A single reminder was issued 2 weeks after posting the questionnaire and 3556 completed responses were returned for analysis. This response rate was consistent with two previous iterations of this study and it is in line with the responses achieved by the New Zealand Election Study (Vowles et al. 2002) who employed a similarly long survey.
Respondents in this survey were asked to indicate their ethnicity as being of European or of Maori heritage. While self-identification of ethnicity might be context dependent (Statistics New Zealand 2005), people are believed to provide ethnicity responses that “best reflect how they identify themselves relative to what they understand to be the purpose of the information” (Didham et al. 2005: 4). While self-identified ethnicity is not suitable to reflect the complex dynamic and potentially situation-based ethnic identification on an individual level, it is considered useful on an aggregate level (Walker U 2001) and is frequently used in research investigating ethnic subgroups (Liu et al. 1999; Harrington & Liu 2002; McPherson et al. 2003; Sibley & Liu 2004).
Out of the 3556 valid responses, 78% of respondents considered themselves New Zealanders with European heritage and 8% New Zealanders with Maori heritage (2769 respondents and 289 respondents, respectively), relating to an over-representation of the first group and an under-representation of the second group in comparison to the New Zealand Census 2006 (Statistics New Zealand 2006), a response pattern not unusual for survey work in New Zealand. For example, the New Zealand Election Survey received a 27% response rate from Maori compared to the 34% response rate for the pre-election survey and 44% response rate post-election (Vowles et al. 2002). A check for non-response bias was made by collecting a further 100 completed questionnaires through a drop-off and collect method in two Dunedin suburbs with demographic characteristics representative of the city as a whole. Answers from these respondents were checked against other Dunedin respondents to the mail survey and no evidence of any systematic bias could be ascertained. Table 1 gives a breakdown of the major features of the sample.
This article concentrates on these two major ethnic subgroups. Table 1 shows that those in the sample with Maori heritage were younger, overly represented in lower income brackets, and less likely to be married (more likely to live with a partner and being single) than those with European heritage. There were also relatively more part-time employees and less self-employed people amongst the New Zealand Maori subsample. All these features are consistent with results from the New Zealand Census 2006.
INTERNATIONAL WELLBEING INDEX FOR NEW ZEALANDERS WITH EUROPEAN AND WITH MAORI HERITAGE
Before overall results for the Maori and the New Zealand subsample are discussed, psychometric characteristics of PWI and NWI for both scales are examined and further tests conducted to establish psychometric consistency across the two sub-scales (Lau et al. 2005; Tiliouine et al. 2006). Before the IWI was developed, data were standardised into units of percentage of sample maximum (%SM) on a 1–100 distribution suggested by Cummins et al. (2003b). Reporting results as %SM has become standard within IWI research as it allows comparison with other measures that use a different number of answer categories. For the 0–10 scale used here, the standardisation in %SM merely implies shifting the decimal point, with 7.5 becoming 75%SM, for example (Cummins pers. comm. Jul 2006). PWI and NWI are then calculated by averaging the scores of respondents over the seven (PWI) and six (NWI) domains included in the respective scales (mean values and standard deviations will be discussed later in the article).
Consistency, internal reliability and validity for the two subsets
The psychometric properties of the individual sub-scales and the consistency between the two sub-scales have been examined using the protocol suggested by Cummins et al. (2003b), Lau et al. (2005), and Tiliouine et al. (2006). The consistency of PWI and NWI between the two subgroups has been investigated in Table 2. For both subsamples, satisfaction with Standard of Living, Achieving in Life, Personal Relationships, and Safety lie above the PWI mean score; satisfaction with Health, Feeling part of your Community, and Future Security lie below the PWI mean score. For the NWI, satisfaction with Economic Situation, State of the Environment, Business, and National Security in NZ are above the mean NWI value; satisfaction with Social Conditions and Government in NZ lie below the mean NWI value. The rank order of the domain for the NWI and PWI for the two subgroups is also very similar, the only difference being some equal rankings for those of Maori origin and the fifth and sixth NWI ranking domain being swapped in that sample. This generally consistent pattern, in terms of extent of difference between each domain and the total PWI score, provides some support for cross-cultural construct validity (Lau et al. 2005).
Reliability of the IWI for the two groups was investigated using Cronbach’s alpha, item-total correlations and inter-item correlation for PWI and NWI. The Cronbach’s alpha for PWI and NWI is very similar for the two subgroups, with 0.83 and 0.85 for the New Zealand European and New Zealand Maori subgroups. For the NWI, the values are 0.85 and 0.88, respectively.
The item-total correlation (individual domains—PWI/NWI) provide further reliability checks and are presented in Table 3. It can be seen that the correlation coefficient of individual domains with the total index are similar, particularly for the PWI index where the biggest difference is 0.04. For the NWI, the biggest difference (satisfaction with the State of the NZ Environment) is 0.11. There are subsequently also no sizeable differences for individual inter-item correlations between the two subsets.
The discriminant validity of IWI for the two subsamples was investigated using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation and multivariate regression analysis. The assumptions for PCA have been met for both subsets with a majority of inter-item correlations exceeding 0.3, and a Kaiser-Mayer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.89 and 0.87, respectively. Commonalities range from 0.41 to 0.66 for the New Zealand European subsample and from 0.43 to 0.68 for the New Zealand Maori subsample. As can be seen in Table 4, the dimensions load onto two clearly defined factors and explain 54% (NZ European) and 58% (NZ Maori) of the variance.
Finally, the predictive validity of IWI for the two subsamples has been investigated using multivariate linear regression. For the PWI, the adjusted R 2 is 0.64 for both subsamples (see Table 5). When looking at the contribution of individual domains, all except for satisfaction with Safety provide significant results in the New Zealand European sample. Satisfaction with Standard of Living provides the highest explanation (β 0.36), followed by satisfaction with Achieving in Life and satisfaction with Personal Relationships. The other three dimensions (satisfaction with Health, with Feeling part of a Community, and with Future Security) add relatively less explanation.
The data for New Zealanders of Maori heritage show a slightly different picture, with only the three generally most important dimensions contributing significantly to satisfaction with Life as a Whole: satisfaction with Standard of Living, Achieving in Life, and Personal Relationships. The beta values for satisfaction with Feeling part of your Community, Health, Future Security, and Safety are all not significant. Although these dimensions (apart from Safety) have added significantly to the understanding of satisfaction with Life as a Whole, in previous studies their contribution was generally weak (Cummins et al. 2003a,b; Lau et al. 2005; Tiliouine et al. 2006). However, some in-depth qualitative research with a sample of New Zealanders with Maori heritage may be required in order to propose an explanation for this.
Looking at the regression of individual NWI dimensions onto satisfaction with Life as a Whole, the overall picture for both subgroups is similar with an adjusted R 2 of 0.13 and 0.14 for the New Zealand European and New Zealand Maori population, respectively. As can be seen in Table 6, New Zealand Europeans and New Zealand Maoris contributions of individual domain also differ slightly. For the New Zealand European population, satisfaction with Business in NZ and satisfaction with National Security do not contribute significantly to satisfaction with Life as a Whole. For the population with Maori heritage, satisfaction with the NZ Environment does not contribute significantly. However, these dimensions were previously found to have the weakest influence on satisfaction with Life as a Whole (Tiliouine et al. 2006).
Overall, the psychometric properties of the IWI for New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage compare favourably with previous applications in other countries (Cummins et al. 2003a,b; Lau et al. 2005; Tiliouine et al. 2006; Cummins pers. comm. Jul 2006).
Results of International Wellbeing Index for the New Zealand European and New Zealand Maori subset
Table 7 presents the mean values of the PWI and NWI including individual dimensions that show a significant difference for New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage and the overall sample mean values for dimensions that are not significantly different.
New Zealanders with Maori heritage report significantly lower average values regarding their wellbeing than New Zealanders with European heritage. Maori people have an average PWI value of 64.6%, New Zealand Europeans of 67.8%, a difference of 3.2%. When individual dimensions are investigated, satisfaction with Personal Relationships shows the biggest difference, with New Zealanders with European heritage reporting an average of 73.6%, while the average for New Zealanders with Maori heritage lies at 68.2%, a difference of 5.4%. This result is unexpected in the light of Maori cultural norms emphasising communiality and warrants further research, perhaps by qualitative methods.
New Zealanders with Maori heritage also show significantly lower mean values regarding their satisfaction with Standard of Living—70.2% for New Zealand Europeans and 66.0% for New Zealand Maori, a result consistent with objective economic indicators regarding income of New Zealanders with Maori heritage (Statistics New Zealand 2006). The same picture is found for satisfaction with Feeling Safe (71.5% for New Zealand Europeans and 68.2% for New Zealand Maori)—the subjective evaluation of the dimension reflects objective indicators such as crime statistics (Ministry for Social Development 2007). The significantly lower rating of the same group regarding satisfaction with Future Security further fits this overall picture.
No significant differences between the two subgroups have been found regarding satisfaction with Health, Achieving in Life, and Feeling Part of the Community.
It could be argued that the differences in percentage points between the two subgroups regarding their personal wellbeing, including its individual dimensions, are relatively minor. However, given that the IWI generally produces very stable results over time (e.g., the Australia PWI has only fluctuated by 2.7% over 5 years; Lau et al. 2005), these differences should be noted, and they confirm that subjective wellbeing is responding consistently in relation to other social indicators (e.g., Economic Living Standard Index or Health and Knowledge and Skills, as 2 of 10 Domains of Desired Social Outcomes measured in The Social Report 2007) used by policy institutions within New Zealand (Centre for Social Research and Evaluation 2004; Ministry for Social Development 2007).
A similar result is found for the NWI, where New Zealanders with European origin report an average value of 51.9% and those with Maori heritage 49.3%, a difference of 2.6% points. Four of the six NWI domains are also rated significantly lower by New Zealanders with Maori heritage. The biggest difference between the two groups is found for satisfaction with Business in NZ. New Zealanders with Maori heritage report a mean value of 51.1%; New Zealanders with European heritage a mean value of 55.4%, a difference of 4.3%. Further, the New Zealand Maori subsample displays more concern with the State of the NZ Environment—49.7% satisfaction versus 53.3% for New Zealand Europeans. Satisfaction with the Economic Situation in NZ as well as with National Security is also rated significantly lower by New Zealanders with Maori heritage compared to New Zealanders with European heritage.
Satisfaction with Social Conditions in NZ and the NZ Government do not differ significantly between the two groups.
DISCUSSION
This study has detailed the application of the IWI (PWI and NWI) for the two largest ethnic groups in New Zealand. Overall, the psychometric characteristics of IWI for both samples compare favourably with previous applications in other countries (Cummins et al. 2003a,b; Lau et al. 2005; Tiliouine et al. 2006) and the IWI index produces psychometrically useful results (Cummins pers. comm. Jul 2006). However, both subsamples show a mean value of PWI and of satisfaction with Life as a Whole that is unexpectedly low (Cummins pers. comm. Jul 2006). Cummins’ (2003) Theory of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis suggests a value around 75 ± 2.5 for the PWI and a value between 70 and 80 is therefore generally found in Western countries (Cummins 2003; Cummins et al. 2003b). On an aggregate level, 70% appears to be a critical value, signalling a rising proportion of people within a population that are in homeostatic failure (Cummins 2003, pers. comm. July 2006). The average PWI for New Zealanders with European heritage is 68%SM; the PWI for New Zealanders with Maori heritage is 65%SM.
In his studies, Cummins (2003, pers. comm. Jul 2006) also compares the mean answers to questions relating to Life as a Whole in several Western countries including Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Ireland, Mexico, and the USA. All country means for satisfaction with Life as a Whole lie above 75. In New Zealand, the average answer to this question is 70% and 67%SM, respectively.
At first glance it therefore appears that New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage are less satisfied with their Life as a Whole, and report lower personal wellbeing, than people in a number of other Western countries, including Australia, with the latter reporting a PWI score of 75%. This is interesting, as New Zealanders are generally very proud of their country and lifestyle and consider themselves fortunate to live in “God’s own” country. Among the other questions in the lifestyle study, collected at the same time as the IWI data, is the level of agreement with the statement New Zealand is a good country to live in. This is also a question that in some way measures the satisfaction of New Zealanders with their lives. The average answer to this question is highly positive, with an average of 4.51 on a 5-point scale (equating to 88%SM).
A study conducted by Diener et al. (1995), investigating subjective wellbeing in 55 nations, offers some explanations for the New Zealand results presented here. While there was some difference in the reported subjective wellbeing between Australia and New Zealand, both countries are found in the top 10 countries in terms of subjective wellbeing; for a mean standardised subjective wellbeing scale ranging from +1.11 to –3.92, Australia places fourth with a mean standardised subjective wellbeing of 1.02 and New Zealand tenth with 0.82. A number of other Western countries investigated by Cummins et al. (2003b) and Cummins (2003) report among the highest mean standardised subjective wellbeing scores and lie slightly ahead of New Zealand (e.g., Sweden, second place; Denmark, fifth place; Canada, sixth place; and the USA, seventh place) (Diener et al. 1995). While this might explain why the IWI in New Zealand is relatively lower than in previously examined countries, it does raise some questions regarding the Theory of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis in New Zealand.
It is also possible that the rating on wellbeing questions may be due to characteristics of the New Zealand culture. New Zealanders generally consider themselves relaxed and laid-back, and in Hofstede’s cross-cultural comparison of values (Hofstede 2001) report low stress values. This might transfer to them also being more relaxed about their life. New Zealanders might not feel the urge to rate themselves a wholly satisfied 10 out of 10, but might feel perfectly happy to be merely 7 or 8 out of 10.
Another reason could be the unique combination of Western and non-Western heritage that is the foundation of New Zealand culture. In past research, non-Western cultures have reported considerably lower scores on subjective wellbeing indices, with some evidence pointing towards cultural response bias as an explanation for this observed phenomenon (Lau et al. 2005). New Zealand’s culture is a composite of Western culture—particularly English, Scottish and Irish—and Polynesian (i.e., Maori culture). The influence of these two different heritages, and their mutual influence on today’s New Zealand culture, might explain why average PWI ratings for New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage are lower than would be expected in the Western world, while at the same time higher than observed in non-Western countries (such as Hong Kong; Lau et al. 2005). The difference between New Zealanders’ subjective wellbeing and the reported wellbeing in other, related countries (e.g., Australia) is interesting and warrants further exploratory research. If systematic differences exist, it is important to understand whether they arise from conditions within societies or from different cultural interpretations of wellbeing. Besides its level of testing and application, one advantage of the IWI for cross-cultural comparisons is the relatively broad nature of the domains. In this respect it is equivalent to the approach that Schwarz has pioneered assessing values across different cultures. While the detailed interpretations differ at the local level, the broad domains are less context bound and do replicate across different cultures (Schwartz et al. 2001).
A comparison of reported subjective wellbeing between New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage shows that the former group rates significantly higher on PWI and NWI. For individual PWI domains, four out of seven are rated significantly higher by New Zealanders with European heritage (satisfaction with Standard of Living, with Personal Relationships, with Feeling Safe, and with Future Security). The non-significant results for satisfaction with Health, Achieving in Life, and Feeling part of the Community are interesting, however, as there is ongoing debate about health issues, education and employment opportunities, and the alienation of Maori people. For example, a discussion of the low health status and of related government initiatives for Maori people can be found on www.Maorihealth.govt.nz. The individual, objective indicators of the domain Health (Life expectancy, Suicide, Cigarette smoking, Obesity) in Ministry for Social Development (2007) also show New Zealanders with Maori heritage being considerably worse off than New Zealanders with non-Maori heritage. The higher than expected level of satisfaction of this ethnic group might be due to the existence of current initiatives to help in this area.
According to Ministry for Social Development (2007), New Zealanders with Maori heritage also have somewhat lower levels of social connectedness on all but one indicator (the dimension includes a mixture of objective indicators—internet access—and subjective indicators—regular contact with family/friends, trust in others, loneliness, contact with parents). In the PWI applied here, no significant difference regarding satisfaction with being part of the Community is reported.
The subjective satisfaction with the PWI dimensions Standard of Living and (to a lesser degree) Safety, however, reflect previous findings based on mainly objective indicators (Ministry for Social Development 2007), with New Zealanders with Maoris heritage reporting significantly lower satisfaction than New Zealanders with European heritage. (Comparisons with TNS New Zealand (2007) are somewhat difficult as questions were asked on a 5-point scale and no mean values are available.)
For the NWI, a similar picture emerged, with four out of six dimensions being rated significantly higher by New Zealanders with European heritage. Only the two dimensions that received the lowest satisfaction ranking out of all dimensions—satisfaction with Social Conditions in NZ and with Government—are not significantly different in the two ethnic subgroups.
One particular feature should be noted in relation to satisfaction with Government, which was the lowest/second lowest rated of all the items. The survey took place approximately 1 month after the New Zealand general election in 2005. The results of the election were not clear-cut and it took the largest political party (Labour) some time to form a stable coalition arrangement allowing it to continue in Government. In effect, what resulted could have been described as a second-best arrangement for many voters, and certainly a considerable disappointment for a large minority who had voted for a change of administration (along with hoped-for tax cuts). The low satisfaction score on this item would seem to be consistent with other political indicators and will affect the summed NWI. It could also possibly be linked to the lower than expected overall rating.
CONCLUSION
The current research shows that the IWI in New Zealand produces valid psychometric results. However, for both ethnic subgroups investigated here, the actual value, particularly of the PWI, is lower than expected. A number of explanations have been offered, including the comparison standards used in previous studies with countries reporting higher subjective wellbeings, New Zealanders’ generally relaxed attitude, tendency to understatement, and the unique composition of New Zealand culture as a blend of Western and non-Western components.
The investigation of the IWI for New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage separately has shown that the former group rate their wellbeing consistently higher than New Zealanders with Maori heritage. However, when the current results on dimensions like Health are compared to existing objective indicators, the subjective evaluation of New Zealanders with Maori heritage is not as low as could be expected. The relative improvement of these aspects of life for New Zealanders with Maori heritage, found in previous research, appears to also have a positive effect on subjective evaluations of quality of life.
REFERENCES
Anderson I, Crengle S, Kamaka ML, Chen T-H, Palafox N, Jackson-Pulver L 2006. Indigenous health in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific. The Lancet 367: 1775–1785.
Andrews FM, Withey SB 1976. Social indicators of well-being: Americans percepton of quality of life. New York, Plenum Press.
Australian Centre on Quality of Life n.d. International Well-being Group. http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/inter_wellbeing/index.htm [accessed February 2007].
Burroughs JE, Rindfleisch A 2002. Materialism and well-being: a conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (December): 348– 370.
Campbell A, Convers P, Rodgers WL 1976. The quality of American life: perceptions, evaluations, and satisfaction. New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Castles S, Spoonley P 1997. Migration and citizenship; Aotearoa New Zealand. Auckland, Asia-Pacific Migration Research Network.
Centre for Social Research and Evaluation 2004. New Zealand living standards, 2004. http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/publications/csre/living-standard2004/living-standards-report.pdf [accessed February 2008].
Cheyne C, O’Brien M, Belgrave M 2005. Social policy in Aotearoa New Zealand. Australia, Oxford University Press.
Cummins RA 2003. Normative life satisfaction: measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research 64(2): 225–256.
Cummins RA, Nistico H 2002. Maintaining life satisfaction: the role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies 3(1): 37–69.
Cummins RA, Eckersley R, Lo SK, Okerstrom E 2003a. Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: cumulative psychometric record. Deakin University, Australian Centre on Quality of Life. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing.index.htm [accessed February 2008].
Cummins RA, Eckersley R, Pallant J, von Vugt J, Misajon R 2003b. Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research 64(2): 159–190.
Didham R, Potter D, Allan J-A 2005. Understanding and working with ethnicity data. http://www.stats.govt.nz/ [accessed April 2008].
Diener E 1984. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 95(3): 542–575.
Diener E, Fujita F 1995. Methodological pitfalls and solutions in satisfaction research. In: Sirgy JM, Samli CA ed. New dimensions in marketing/quality of life research. Westport, Quorum Books. Pp. 27–46.
Diener E, Diener M, Diener C 1995. Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(5): 851–864.
Efklides A, Tsorbatzoudis H 2006. Prologue to special issue: positive psychological perspective in the study of quality of life. Social Indicators Research 76(1): 1–3.
Fleras A, Spoonley P 1999. Recalling Aotearoa: indigenous politics and ethnic relations in New Zealand. New Zealand, Oxford University Press.
Harrington H, Liu JH 2002. Self-enhancement and attitudes toward high-achievers: a bicultural view of the independent and interdependent self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33(1): 37–55.
Hofstede GH 2001. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
International Wellbeing Group 2005. Personal Wellbeing Index. Deakin University, Australian Centre on Quality of Life. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeingindex.htm [accessed February 2008].
Johnston J 1982. Population. In: Spoonley P, Pearson D, Shirley I ed. New Zealand: sociological perspective. Palmerston North, Dunmore Press Ltd. Pp. 13–38.
Lau AL, Cummins RA, McPherson W 2005. An investigation into the cross cultural equivalence of the Personal Wellbeing Index. Social Indicator Research 72(3): 403–430.
Lawson R, Todd S, Evans S 2006. New Zealand lifestyle study. Dunedin, New Zealand, Marketing Department, University of Otago.
Liu JH, Wilson MS, McClure J, Higgins TR 1999. Social identity and the perception of history: cultural representations of Aotearoa/New Zealand. European Journal of Social Psychology 29: 1021–1047.
McPherson KM, Harwood M, McNaughton HK 2003. Ethnicity, equity, and quality, lessons from New Zealand. Quality and Safety in Health Care 12: 237–238.
Ministry for Social Development 2003. Social indicators for the Pacific and Maori populations. www.msd.govt.nz/.../strategic-social-policy/reducing-inequalities/socialindicators-maori-pacific.doc [accessed February 2008].
Ministry for Social Development 2006. New Zealand’s social wellbeing continuing to improve. Press release 08.08.2006. http://www.msd.govt.nz/media-information/press-releases/2006/pr2006–08–08.html [accessed February 2008].
Ministry for Social Development 2007. The social report 2007. http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz [accessed February 2008].
Novitz D, Willmott B 1989. Culture and identity in New Zealand. Wellington, GP Books.
Office of the Minister for Social Development and Employment 2004. Opportunity for all New Zealanders. Wellington, Ministry for Social Development.
Pavot W, Diener E 1993. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment 5(2): 164–172.
Schwarz SH, Melech G, Lehman A, Burges S, Harris M, Owens V 2001. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(4): 519–542.
Sibley CG, Liu JH 2004. Attitudes towards biculturalism in New Zealand: social dominance and Pakeha attitudes towards the general principles and resource-specific aspects of bicultural policy. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 33(2): 88–99.
Smith LT 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. London, Zed Books.
Spoonley P, Pearson D, Shirley I 1982. New Zealand: sociological perspective. Palmerston North, Dunmore Press.
Spoonley P, McPherson C, Pearson D 1996. Nga patai. Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa New Zealand. Palmerston North, Dunmore Press.
Statistics New Zealand 2005. Statistical standard for ethnicity 2005. http://www2.stats.got.nz [accessed April 2008].
Statistics New Zealand 2006. QuickStats national highlights, 2006 Census. http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/nationalhighlights/2006-census-quickstats-national-highlights-revised.htm [accessed February 2008].
Tiliouine H, Cummins RA, Davern M 2006. Measuring wellbeing in developing countries: the case of Algeria. Social Indicators Research 75(1): 1–30.
TNS New Zealand 2007. Quality of life survey 2006, national report. http://www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz [accessed February 2008].
Todd S, Lawson R, Jamieson T 2000. New Zealand lifestyle study: New Zealand beyond 2000. Dunedin, New Zealand, Marketing Department, University of Otago. http://divcom.otago.ac.nz/Marketing/research/consumer/index.html [accessed February 2008].
Veenhoven R 1996. Developments in satisfaction research. Social Indicators Research 37(1): 1–46.
Vowles J, Aimer P, Banducci S, Karp J, Miller R 2002. The New Zealand election study. http://www.nzes.org/exec/show/2002 [accessed April 2008].
Walker R 1992. Maori people since 1950. In: Rice GW ed. Oxford history of New Zealand. Auckland New Zealand, Oxford University Press.
Walker R 2004. Ka whawhai tonu matou = struggle without end. New Zealand, Penguin.
Walker U 2001. A question of ethnicity—one word, different people, many perceptions. New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils, Inc. for Statistics New Zealand. http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/review-measurement-ethnicity/a-question-of-ethnicity [accessed April 2008].
Wilkie WL, Moore ES 1999. Marketing’s contribution to society. Journal of Marketing 63 (special issue): 198–218.
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents in subsamples.
|
NZ European (%) |
NZ Maori (%) | |
|
Age |
||
|
Under 20 |
2 |
3 |
|
20–29 years |
22 |
33 |
|
30–39 years |
26 |
26 |
|
40–49 years |
20 |
19 |
|
50–59 years |
15 |
12 |
|
60+ years |
15 |
8 |
|
Income |
||
|
Under 30 000 |
23 |
31 |
|
30 000–49 999 |
22 |
26 |
|
50 000–69 999 |
17 |
20 |
|
70 000–89 999 |
14 |
12 |
|
90 000–109 999 |
11 |
5 |
|
Over 110 000 |
13 |
7 |
|
Marital status |
||
|
Single |
17 |
24 |
|
Married |
45 |
29 |
|
De facto |
22 |
30 |
|
Widowed |
4 |
4 |
|
Divorced/separated |
13 |
14 |
|
Employment status |
||
|
Full-time employed |
51 |
52 |
|
Part-time employed |
12 |
18 |
|
Self employed |
13 |
7 |
|
Temp. unemployed |
3 |
2 |
|
Retired |
10 |
6 |
|
Student |
3 |
6 |
|
Full-time homemaker |
7 |
9 |
Table 2 Difference between domains and Personal Wellbeing Index/National Wellbeing Index for New Zealanders with European and with Maori heritage.
|
NZ European |
|
NZ Maori | |||
|
Difference to |
Rank Order |
|
Difference to |
Rank order | |
|
PWI Standard of Living |
2.4 |
3 |
1.5 |
3 | |
|
PWI Health |
–1.1 |
5 |
–0.2 |
5 | |
|
PWI Achieving in Life |
0.4 |
4 |
1.4 |
3 | |
|
PWI Personal Relationships |
5.7 |
1 |
3.6 |
1 | |
|
PWI Safe |
3.7 |
2 |
3.6 |
1 | |
|
PWI Feeling part of Community |
–3.8 |
6 |
–2.4 |
6 | |
|
PWI Future Security |
–7.2 |
7 |
–7.4 |
7 | |
|
NWI Economic Situation |
1.0 |
4 |
0.4 |
3 | |
|
NWI State of NZ Environment |
1.5 |
3 |
0.4 |
3 | |
|
NWI Social Conditions in NZ |
–3.1 |
5 |
–2.6 |
6 | |
|
NWI Government |
–4.5 |
6 |
–1.3 |
5 | |
|
NWI Business in NZ |
3.5 |
1 |
1.8 |
1 | |
|
NWI National Security |
1.8 |
2 |
1.1 |
2 | |
Table 3 Item-total correlation for two subgroups.
|
NZ European PWI mean |
NZ Maori PWI mean |
Difference | |
|
PWI Standard of Living |
0.75 |
0.75 |
0.00 |
|
PWI Health |
0.64 |
0.65 |
–0.01 |
|
PWI Achieving in Life |
0.76 |
0.79 |
–0.03 |
|
PWI Personal Relationships |
0.69 |
0.70 |
–0.01 |
|
PWI Safe |
0.68 |
0.70 |
–0.02 |
|
PWI Feeling part of Community |
0.68 |
0.72 |
–0.04 |
|
PWI Future Security |
0.75 |
0.76 |
–0.01 |
|
NWI mean |
NWI mean |
Difference | |
|
NWI Economic Situation |
0.79 |
0.78 |
0.01 |
|
NWI State of NZ Environment |
0.72 |
0.83 |
–0.11 |
|
NWI Social Conditions in NZ |
0.80 |
0.82 |
–0.02 |
|
NWI Government |
0.76 |
0.79 |
–0.03 |
|
NWI Business in NZ |
0.73 |
0.79 |
–0.06 |
|
NWI National Security |
0.72 |
0.75 |
–0.03 |
Table 4 Principal Component Analysis for two subgroups.
|
|
NZ European |
NZ Maori | ||
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 | |
|
PWI Standard of Living |
0.74 |
0.18 |
0.17 |
0.74 |
|
PWI Health |
0.63 |
0.11 |
0.14 |
0.64 |
|
PWI Achieving in Life |
0.78 |
0.10 |
0.13 |
0.82 |
|
PWI Personal Relationships |
0.69 |
0.00 |
–0.05 |
0.71 |
|
PWI Safe |
0.64 |
0.22 |
0.21 |
0.66 |
|
PWI Feeling part of Community |
0.66 |
0.20 |
0.23 |
0.67 |
|
PWI Future Security |
0.70 |
0.30 |
0.37 |
0.69 |
|
NWI Economic Situation |
0.30 |
0.74 |
0.73 |
0.33 |
|
NWI State of NZ Environment |
0.25 |
0.68 |
0.81 |
0.16 |
|
NWI Social Conditions in NZ |
0.17 |
0.79 |
0.78 |
0.22 |
|
NWI Government |
–0.03 |
0.77 |
0.78 |
0.06 |
|
NWI Business in NZ |
0.23 |
0.71 |
0.73 |
0.28 |
|
NWI National Security |
0.10 |
0.71 |
0.78 |
0.04 |
Table 5 Regression Personal Wellbeing Index and Life as a Whole for New Zealand Europeans and New Zealand Maori.
|
|
NZ European |
NZ Maori | |||||
|
β |
σ |
sr 2* |
β |
σ |
sr 2* | ||
|
PWI Standard of Living |
0.36 |
0.00 |
7.38 |
0.30 |
0.00 |
5.08 | |
|
PWI Health |
0.05 |
0.00 |
0.18 |
–0.01 |
0.84 |
0.01 | |
|
PWI Achieving in Life |
0.28 |
0.00 |
3.91 |
0.29 |
0.00 |
3.69 | |
|
PWI Personal Relationships |
0.21 |
0.00 |
3.20 |
0.20 |
0.00 |
2.59 | |
|
PWI Safe |
–0.01 |
0.48 |
0.01 |
0.09 |
0.07 |
0.48 | |
|
PWI Feeling part of Community |
0.07 |
0.00 |
0.35 |
0.07 |
0.16 |
0.28 | |
|
PWI Future Security |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.22 |
0.09 |
0.10 |
0.37 | |
|
Adjusted R 2 |
0.64 |
0.64 |
|||||
|
Total explained unique variance |
0.15 |
0.13 |
|||||
|
Total shared variance |
0.49 |
0.52 |
|||||
* sr 2 = part correlation squared ×100. It represents unique variance.
Significant β are in bold.
Table 6 Regression National Wellbeing Index and Life as a Whole for New Zealand Europeans and New Zealand Maori.
|
NZ European |
NZ Maori | ||||||
|
β |
σ |
sr 2* |
β |
σ |
sr 2* | ||
|
NWI Economic Situation |
0.23 |
0.00 |
2.80 |
0.28 |
0.00 |
0.20 | |
|
NWI State of NZ Environment |
0.08 |
0.00 |
0.33 |
0.00 |
0.98 |
0.00 | |
|
NWI Social Conditions in NZ |
0.03 |
0.24 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.55 |
0.03 | |
|
NWI Government |
–0.12 |
0.00 |
0.87 |
–0.23 |
0.00 |
–0.17 | |
|
NWI Business in NZ |
0.17 |
0.00 |
1.70 |
0.26 |
0.00 |
0.19 | |
|
NWI National Security |
0.00 |
0.96 |
0.00 |
–0.02 |
0.83 |
–0.01 | |
|
Adjusted R 2 |
0.13 |
0.14 |
|||||
|
Total explained unique variance |
0.06 |
|
0.01 |
|
|||
|
Total shared variance |
0.07 |
|
0.13 |
||||
* sr 2 = part correlation squared ×100. It represents unique variance.
Significant β are in bold.
Table 7 Comparison of International Wellbeing Index domains for New Zealand European and New Zealand Maori subset.
|
t -value/ |
NZ European |
NZ Maori |
Score difference | |||||||||
|
|
t -value* |
d.f.** |
P value |
|
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|
|
SD | |
|
Significant results |
||||||||||||
|
Satisfaction with Life |
2.37 |
320 |
0.01 |
69.8 |
20.2 |
|
66.5 |
22.1 |
3.3 |
1.9 | ||
|
PWI mean |
3.37 |
3051 |
0.00 |
67.8 |
15.4 |
64.6 |
16.7 |
3.2 |
–1.3 | |||
|
NWI mean |
2.68 |
3051 |
0.01 |
51.9 |
15.5 |
49.3 |
16.5 |
2.6 |
–1.0 | |||
|
PWI Standard of Living |
3.08 |
339 |
0.01 |
70.2 |
20.9 |
|
66.0 |
22.0 |
4.2 |
–1.2 | ||
|
PWI Personal |
3.21 |
334 |
0.01 |
|
73.6 |
24.8 |
68.2 |
26.9 |
|
5.4 |
–2.1 | |
|
PWI Safe |
2.38 |
331 |
0.02 |
|
71.5 |
20.3 |
68.2 |
22.5 |
3.3 |
–2.2 | ||
|
PWI Future Security |
2.35 |
3030 |
0.02 |
|
60.6 |
22.8 |
57.2 |
23.7 |
|
3.3 |
–0.9 | |
|
NWI Economic Situation |
2.65 |
351 |
0.01 |
|
52.9 |
20.2 |
49.7 |
19.2 |
3.2 |
1.0 | ||
|
NWI State of NZ |
2.98 |
3030 |
0.00 |
|
53.3 |
19.6 |
|
49.7 |
20.7 |
|
3.7 |
–1.1 |
|
NWI Business in NZ |
4.01 |
3001 |
0.00 |
|
55.4 |
17.1 |
51.1 |
19.4 |
|
4.3 |
–2.3 | |
|
NWI National Security |
2.43 |
334 |
0.02 |
53.7 |
21.2 |
50.4 |
21.2 |
3.3 |
–0.1 | |||
|
Non-significant results |
||||||||||||
|
Entire population |
|
|||||||||||
|
Mean |
SD |
|||||||||||
|
PWI Health |
1.68 |
3018 |
0.09 |
|
66.6 |
|
22.5 |
|||||
|
PWI Achieving in Life |
1.66 |
3013 |
0.10 |
|
67.7 |
|
21.4 |
|||||
|
PWI Feeling part of |
1.39 |
340 |
0.17 |
|
63.7 |
20.3 |
|
|||||
|
NWI Social Conditions |
1.71 |
3020 |
0.90 |
|
49.0 |
|
20.1 |
|
|
|||
|
NWI Government |
–0.43 |
355 |
0.67 |
|
48.0 |
|
|
24.6 |
|
|
||
*Adjusted t -test has been used if assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met.
**d.f. = degrees of freedom for t -test or adjusted t -test.
This year's abstracts | Journal home page | All abstracts | Publishing home page
PDF file of entire paper: Print-quality (393K)
K08004; Online publication date 30 May 2008
Received 12 February 2008; accepted 24 April 2008
Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 2008, Vol. 3: 57–72
1177–083X/08/0301–57 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 2008
Add RSS Feed