Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context: Concept, Measure and Index [1 ed.] 9789819965250, 9789819965267

Table of contents :
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgements
Contents
About the Author
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks
1.1 Well-Being Conceptions, Frameworks, and Theoretical Perspectives
1.2 Indian Approaches to SWB
References
2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates
2.1 SWB and Demographics
2.1.1 Age/Lifespan and SWB
2.1.2 Gender
2.1.3 Education
2.1.4 Income and SWB
2.1.5 Marriage
2.1.6 Health
2.1.7 Religion
2.1.8 Goals
2.1.9 Personality
2.1.10 Leisure
2.1.11 Profession
2.2 Culture and SWB
2.3 SWB Determinants in Nations
2.4 SWB and India
References
3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement
3.1 Types of Measures
3.2 Stability of SWB Measures
3.3 SWB Measurement and India
3.4 Concluding Thoughts…
References
4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) and Reducers (Subjective Ill-Being)
4.1 Overview of the Qualitative Study
4.2 Sample
4.3 Interview Questions
4.4 Analysis
4.4.1 Coding Process
4.4.2 Insights (Other Observations) from the Qualitative Study
4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian Context—Integrating Findings from the Three Sub-Samples
References
5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being Measure (SWBM)
5.1 The Preliminary SWBM Questionnaire
5.2 Administration of the SWBM
5.3 Factor Analysis
5.3.1 The KMO and Bartlett’s Test
5.3.2 The Scree Plot
5.3.3 Principal Axis Factoring (PAF)
5.4 Reliability Analysis of SWBM (Alpha)
5.5 SWBM After Factor Analysis
5.6 Back Translations
5.7 Sample Particulars and Administration of the Final SWBM
5.7.1 Subjective Well-Being Measure (SWBM)
5.7.2 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
5.7.3 Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
5.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity Analysis (Standardization) of the SWB Measure
5.8.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
5.8.2 Reliability Analysis
5.8.3 Validity Analysis
5.9 Demographics
5.9.1 Age
5.9.2 Gender
5.9.3 Marital Status
5.9.4 Family Type
5.9.5 Total Family Income (Per Annum)
5.9.6 Education
5.9.7 Profession
5.9.8 Work Experience
5.9.9 Area
References
6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing
6.1 Analysis of the SWB Measure
6.2 Individual Level Analysis—Profile of Factor Salience and General Analysis of the Parts
6.2.1 Profile—Factor Salience
6.2.2 General Analysis of the Parts
6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score: Proposal for a SWB Index
6.3.1 The Positive Scores (SWB)
6.3.2 The 0 Scores (FSWB)
6.3.3 The Negative Scores (SIB)
6.4 Researcher’s Insights
References
7 Conclusion
7.1 Policy Implications
7.1.1 Individual Level
7.1.2 Societal Level
7.1.3 National Level
7.2 Future Research Implications
References
Appendices
Appendix A I: List of Enhancers—Positive Determinants of SWB (Clustered)
Appendix A  II: Positive Determinants of SWB (Excluded)
Appendix B: List of Reducers—Negative Determinants of SWB (Clustered)
Appendix C: Positive Determinants Enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Urban Sample
Appendix D: Positive Determinants Enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Urban and Urban Slums Sample
Appendix E: Positive Determinants Enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Rural Sample
Appendix F: Items of the Preliminary SWBM—Complete List of Enhancers and Reducers
Appendix G: The Preliminary Questionnaire (SWBM)
Appendix H: Sample Descriptive Analysis (Phase II)
Appendix I: Items with a Very Low Frequency Dropped for Factor Analysis
Appendix J: List of Items Included in the Final Questionnaire Along with Their Factor Loadings, Previous Labels, and New Labels
Appendix K: The Three Scales (SWBM, SWLS, and PANAS) along with their Hindi Translations
Appendix L: Sample Descriptive Analysis (Phase III)
Appendix M: The Estimates of Part I of SWBM
Appendix N: The Estimates of Part II of SWBM

Citation preview

Tithi Bhatnagar

Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context Concept, Measure and Index

Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context

Tithi Bhatnagar

Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context Concept, Measure and Index

Tithi Bhatnagar Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences O. P. Jindal Global University Sonipat, Haryana, India

ISBN 978-981-99-6525-0 ISBN 978-981-99-6526-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Paper in this product is recyclable.

This book is dedicated to the amazing people who are the reason that this book has been possible. I would like to wholeheartedly dedicate this book to: my anchor, Hanumanji; the trust, understanding, and support of my best friend and husband, Vatsal; the mentorship and encouragement of Prof. M. Joseph Sirgy, to my inspiring grandparents (both maternal and paternal); the unfailing love, support, and sacrifice of my family (Mr. Rakesh and Ms. Prabha, my Parents; Mr. Deo Dutt and Ms. Nirmala, Parents-in-Law; Divya and Bhavya, my Sisters; Vibha, my Sister-in-Law; Pushkar and Gaurav , my Brothers-in-Law; and Panshul and Ishaan, my dear nephews). Thank you for goading me with vital encouragement and doubled enthusiasm and for believing in me. This book is also dedicated to the Happiness and Well-Being of all Humanity!

Foreword

There is something to be said about culture and subjective wellbeing. Specifically, the way we measure subjective wellbeing is confounded by culture. For example, research has shown that people in individualistic cultures respond differently to the very popular survey item: “How satisfied are you with life overall? 1 = Very dissatisfied, 2 = Moderately dissatisfied, 3 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = Moderately satisfied, and 5 = Very satisfied.” It turns out that people in countries dominated by an individualistic culture (e.g., mostly Anglo-Saxson countries) don’t have a problem responding to this type of life satisfaction question; and most respondents in the Anglo-Saxson countries report significantly higher life satisfaction scores compared to respondents from countries dominated by a collectivistic culture (e.g., countries in Pacific Asia, South Asia). The explanation seems to be that respondents from countries with a collectivistic culture feel uncomfortable thinking about their own lives in the absence of family and community. As such, they report a much more tempered response to the survey question. As such, many quality-of-life researchers have developed subjective wellbeing measures that are country-specific arguing that the popular measures of subjective well, considered as “universal,” are indeed “not universal.” Much of this research have been reported in academic journals such as Social Indicators Research, Journal of Happiness Studies, and Applied Research in Quality of Life (journals affiliated with the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies or ISQOLS). Over the last 30 years or so, we also witnessed a similar trend in health-related quality-of-life research. Anyone who browses through Quality of Life Research (the official journal of the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research, ISOQOL, for short) would be struck by the multitude of disease-specific healthrelated quality-of-life measures. We have subjective wellbeing measures for cancer patients, diabetics, and those afflicted with heart disease, kidney disease, respiratory disease, and so on. Again, there is something to be said about the wisdom of developing disease-specific measures of subjective wellbeing. I could also go on and on describing the proliferating research in quality of life that are specific to population segments (children, mature adults, women, the disabled, the poor, etc.), all well-conceived measurement studies. vii

viii

Foreword

Tithi Bhatnagar’s book on “Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context” is exemplary of this trend of acknowledging the nuances and idiosyncrasies of Indians. As such, she ventured to develop an India-specific subjective wellbeing measure. Her book describes the conceptualization and validation of a measure of subjective wellbeing (and ill-being) of Indians based on a representative sample of respondents across the state and socio-economic strata. The validated measure does not only capture subjective wellbeing and ill-being but also “enhancers” and “reducers” of wellbeing and ill-being (i.e., factors determined to influence the make-up of wellbeing and ill-being). The measure can be used by public policymakers, not only to monitor the health and wellbeing of the Indian population over time but also help policymakers collect data about what factors should be targeted for policy formulation and program implementation. I commend Dr. Bhatnagar’s for undertaking such a feat. The book serves both the academic community of quality-of-life researchers interested in subjective wellbeing of Indian citizens and public policymakers interested in developing policies that can enhance subjective wellbeing (and decrease ill-being) of Indians, especially in rural areas in India. Thank you, Dr. Bhatnagar, for this valuable and impactful research on quality of life. Well done! M. Joseph Sirgy, Ph.D. Virginia Tech Real Estate Professor Emeritus of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Pamplin College of Business Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) Virginia, USA Extraordinary Professor, WorkWell Research Unit, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences North West University Potchefstroom, South Africa

Preface

The term subjective well-being (SWB) refers to people’s evaluations of their lives including cognitive judgments and affective evaluations. Understanding one’s concept and level of well-being can equip an individual with the knowledge of where their happiness lies and what reduces it. We cannot obtain a perfect score on this evaluation as life has many surprises for us which can catch us off guard. This knowledge can however provide us with a greater opportunity to use our skills and use these to induce positive affect through varied activities. It helps us understand and accept ourselves as who we are. In this age of rapid transformation, societies are changing and there is chaos. A person otherwise very efficient and capable can suffer a breakdown in the absence of handling himself or herself psychologically. It is about individual well-being. Understanding this concept can be very beneficial for leading a rewarding life in every sphere of an individual’s life, both internal and external. This knowledge equips an individual with his/her well-being levels and helps them identify what is important for them to lead a good and meaningful life. It helps them realize their inner potential and the strength of their psychological treasure to mitigate life circumstances—how to develop the right approach to face and deal with adverse conditions. It is about blending the internalities and externalities for experiencing true joy and happiness, one that is not dependent upon anything the individual has no control over. The field of SWB research has evolved and matured with ample work done globally as well as in India. To achieve a global conceptualization of the concept, it is essential to understand the concept in the context of different cultures. India, being a vast and diverse country, makes it imperative to understand how most Indians understand and define their well-being and ill-being. It offers an understanding of SWB, especially in the Indian context and envisages that well-being is not merely a concept of personal growth, but is experienced when the whole society grows at large—that the interaction of the individual and society can lead to greater well-being. There is a need for a systematic study that collates earlier work and operationalizes subjective well-being (SWB) and subjective ill-being (SIB) by people themselves, and one that measures the concept in its entirety in the Indian context. This book aims to facilitate understanding SWB from an Indian perspective resulting from a systematic study. ix

x

Preface

The strength of the study lies in its scientific rigour and systematic progression. The SWBM is a profile scale that has implications both for individuals, as well as nations. The book advocates that optimization of SWB can occur when there is a balance between externalities and internalities in which the individual operates and does sense-making. With mental health becoming a major concern in the fast-growing (and post-pandemic world), understanding well-being and ill-being becomes critical. This multistudy research-based book discusses the conceptualization and validation (and standardization) of a measure basis an empirical study validated by people’s (Indian) understanding through a systematic scientific study, which has representation from Indians across the state and strata and includes rural populations too (which is a large section of Indian population). The SWB measure itself is very unique. It is a well-being-specific measure (and not measuring the concept through related constructs), which provides a composite score by tapping into both SWB and SIB (also Fuzzy SWB) and is a profile salience scale (for it can demonstrate domain hierarchy for an individual) ultimately providing an index for SWB/SIB to understand and measure SWB at collective or national levels. The standardized measure (SWBM) offers the index for policy implications at the collective level and the profile salience at the individual level. The chapters in the book range from the structure of SWB where the enhancers and reducers of SWB are discussed, to the development, standardization, and indexing of an SWB measure. Chapters 1–3 review and discuss the literature on subjective well-being (SWB) and its measurement, with a special emphasis on literature from India, and establish the rationale and relevance of the current study. Chapter 1 discusses the introductory and conceptual understanding of subjective well-being (SWB) both from the west and the east. Chapter 2 reviews and discusses the literature on the determinants of subjective well-being (SWB). Chapter 3 reviews and discusses the literature on subjective wellbeing (SWB) in terms of its measurement and establishes the rationale and relevance of an Indian-specific measure. Chapter 4 discusses how subjective well-being (SWB) and subjective ill-being (SIB) get conceptualized in the Indian context. It provides the structure of the concept with the help of a qualitative study conducted on 184 respondents across four age groups and three locales resulting in twelve enhancers (12 conceptual categories enhancing SWB—Relationships, Health, Resources, Emotions, Education, Achievement, Work, Sense of Satisfaction, Recreation, Values, Societal, and Personality) and nine reducers (9 conceptual categories reducing the experience of SWB and/or resulting in SIB—Individual Concerns, Values related issues, Emotions related issues, Achievement related issues, Health related issues, Societal related issues, Attitude related issues, Resources related issues, and Environment related issues). The focus of Chap. 5 is the SWB measure (SWBM) developed basis the findings of the exploratory study. It discusses both the preliminary SWBM developed as a 7-point scale with 110 items distributed into two parts (65 in Part I measuring cognition and positive affect and 45 in Part II measuring negative affect) administered to 1050 college students and subjected to factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring–Promax Rotation) with initial reliability of 0.90 and 0.87 for both the parts,

Preface

xi

respectively, and the final SWBM, developed as a 5-point rating scale with two parts, 32 items distributed among 5 factors (Achievement and Recognition, Camaraderie, Contentment, Relationships, and Need Fulfillment) measuring positive affect and cognition or positive factors enhancing the concept of SWB and 20 items distributed among 4 factors (Social Sensitivity, Personal Sensitivity, Disappointments, and Individual Concerns) measuring negative affect or negative factors reducing the concept of SWB. This chapter also discusses the standardization of the final SWBM. The SWBM was standardized on an analysable sample of 1272 respondents (total n = 1369) by computing the confirmatory factor analysis and establishing the reliability and validity of the measure. Chapter 6 discusses the analysis of the SWBM (SWB profile, general analysis for both Parts I and II, computation of a composite SWB score, and proposal of an SWB index). The index developed for SWB is a composite SWB score obtained by subtracting the final average score of Part II from that of the final average score of Part I and is indicative of the extent of subjective well-being or subjective ill-being or fuzzy subjective well-being, experienced by the individual at a collective level. The final chapter (Chap. 7) concludes with a highlighting of the main points and contributions of the book. It focuses on policy implications and possible directions for future research in the area. The book concludes with the proposition that no one approach to well-being is the best or true. It is subjective, so it is “to each, his/her own”. Whether it is east or west, we are responsible for our well-being. Blending different approaches and making the best use of the science of well-being can help us lead happy, fulfilling, and rewarding lives! Gurugram, India

Tithi Bhatnagar, Ph.D.

Acknowledgements

“A noble aim faithfully kept is a noble deed”. Believing in this doctrine, I began the search for well-being. It has been a wonderful journey, and I have had a tremendous learning experience during this research endeavour. Thanks to all who have been a part of this journey. This book in part is the outcome of my doctoral dissertation. I wish to accord my humble and sincere indebtedness to: my esteemed Guide, Prof. Meenakshi Gupta, for believing in my aspiration and giving me the chance to pursue my dream research; my RPC members—Prof. Sudha Shastri, Prof. Puja Purang, Prof. Mrinmayi Kulkarni, and Prof. Tanmay Bhattacharya; the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences; and to the place my soul still resides in, the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. I wish to especially thank Mr. Prabhakar Pandey and Dr. Vinod Prasad for the efficient Hindi translations, Prof. Sudha Shastri for the back translation of the SWBM; Mr. Mheto and Ms. Chetna for the Hindi typing help rendered; Dr. Neetu Choudhary for helping with STATA output; Ms. Tanni Choudhury and Ms. Drishti Kalra with proofreading; and Mr. Sunil Kumar M. V. with formatting. I wish to sincerely acknowledge the understanding, unfailing support, trust, and assurance of my dear friends who have been an emotional part of this journey: Trishna, Chhabria Family, Devnani Family, Kapil, Ashish, Sudha Di, Tanushree, Neetu, Upasna, Preeti, Sonal, Tanni, Ajita Ma’am, Manisha Ma’am, Vinod, Sara, Jeffrey, and everyone who have ever believed in me and my worth. Thanks also to my research scholars Latika, Rita, and Megha for being my introjected motivation. This work could never have been completed without the support of two people— Mr. Eisdor, our driver, and Ms. Sumaiyya, our house help. Thanks for taking care of me. I am extremely indebted to all the participants of this research for their valuable time. I also take the opportunity to thank all the heads of the institutes and the people instrumental in helping me with data collection. Special thanks are due to Prof. M. Joseph Sirgy for agreeing to write a foreword for this book. I am grateful to him for his valuable time, comments, suggestions, and forever encouragement. I wish to profusely thank Prof. Ruut Veenhoven, Dr. Robert-Biswas Diener, and Prof. Sangeetha Menon for believing in and encouraging my work. xiii

xiv

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Mr. Naveen Jindal, the founding Chancellor; Prof. (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar, the founding Vice Chancellor, and Professor of Emminence Prof. (Dr.) Sanjeev P. Sahni, Principal Director (JIBS) at the O. P. Jindal Global University, for providing a congenial environment to follow scholarly pursuits. Last, but not least, I wish to place on record my thanks to the book reviewers and sincere appreciation and gratitude to Ms. Satvinder Kaur, Senior Editor at Springer Nature Singapore, for her forever support and patient presence. Thanks to Mr. Gowrishankar Ayyasamy and team for helping with the submission and production of this book. Tithi Bhatnagar, Ph.D.

Contents

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Well-Being Conceptions, Frameworks, and Theoretical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Indian Approaches to SWB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 12 16

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 SWB and Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Age/Lifespan and SWB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 Income and SWB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5 Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.6 Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.7 Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.8 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.9 Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.10 Leisure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.11 Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Culture and SWB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 SWB Determinants in Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 SWB and India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 27 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 32 32 32 34 36 39

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Types of Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Stability of SWB Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 SWB Measurement and India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Concluding Thoughts… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 56 61 64 66 69

1

xv

xvi

Contents

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) and Reducers (Subjective Ill-Being) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.1 Overview of the Qualitative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.2 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.3 Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.4 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.4.1 Coding Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.4.2 Insights (Other Observations) from the Qualitative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian Context—Integrating Findings from the Three Sub-Samples . . . . . . 98 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being Measure (SWBM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The Preliminary SWBM Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Administration of the SWBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The KMO and Bartlett’s Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 The Scree Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Reliability Analysis of SWBM (Alpha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 SWBM After Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Back Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Sample Particulars and Administration of the Final SWBM . . . . . . . 5.7.1 Subjective Well-Being Measure (SWBM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.2 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.3 Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) . . . . . . . . 5.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity Analysis (Standardization) of the SWB Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.2 Reliability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.3 Validity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.1 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.2 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.3 Marital Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.4 Family Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.5 Total Family Income (Per Annum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.6 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.7 Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.8 Work Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.9 Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117 119 120 120 121 122 123 130 130 130 131 133 133 134 135 135 138 140 140 141 141 142 142 142 144 144 145 145 147

Contents

xvii

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Analysis of the SWB Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Individual Level Analysis—Profile of Factor Salience and General Analysis of the Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Profile—Factor Salience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 General Analysis of the Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score: Proposal for a SWB Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 The Positive Scores (SWB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 The 0 Scores (FSWB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 The Negative Scores (SIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Researcher’s Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 154

7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Individual Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Societal Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 National Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Future Research Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

177 183 184 184 185 186 188

155 155 157 159 160 161 162 171 173

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

About the Author

Dr. Tithi Bhatnagar, Ph.D. is Psychologist by training, Well-being and Happiness Researcher and Teacher by profession, and certified Positive Psychology Coach by Practice (trained with Dr. Robert Biswas-Diener, USA). Her doctoral research was in the area of Subjective Well-Being (SWB) from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. Her professional experience is a mix of industry, freelance consulting, academics, training, and advisory roles. She has served in various capacities in her previous roles, for example, working with Executive Board Members and Founders, serving on an Industry Research Board as Social Scientist, leading a University School of Humanities and Social Sciences, as Deputy Director of the Centre for Leadership and Change (CLC), and In-Charge of Capacity Building at JIBS, JGU. She has trained around 10,000 Teachers, Principals, Students, Government Officials, and Executives on several soft skills and well-being interventions based topics. She is an invited Resource Person for Faculty Development Programs on Research Methods and Positive Psychology topics. She currently works as Associate Professor at the Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences (JIBS), O. P. Jindal Global University, and is an honorary Adjunct Faculty at the National Institute of Advanced Studies Consciousness Studies Program (CSP-NIAS, IISC Campus), Bangalore. A Gold and Silver Medallist for her Masters and Bachelor respectively and an ICF Certified Coach in-training, she is a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the International Society of Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS). e-mail: [email protected] xix

List of Figures

Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 6.1

Sample Distribution Tree. Note The value given in parentheses against gender and its urban and urban slums distribution, is the number of respondents in each category . . . . . . SWB Enhancers in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SWB Reducers in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scree Plot showing Eigenvalue and Component Number for Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scree Plot showing Eigenvalue and Component Number for Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of SWB, SIB, and FSWB for the Research Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 100 101 122 123 167

xxi

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3

Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10

Positive Determinants enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Urban Sample (high-frequency determinants) . . . . . . Subjective Well-Being in India by Age—Urban Sample . . . . . . Positive Determinants enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Urban Slums Sample (high-frequency determinants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjective Well-Being in India by Age—Urban Slums Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positive Determinants enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Rural Sample (high-frequency determinants) . . . . . . Subjective Well-Being in India by Age—Rural Sample . . . . . . Positive Determinants (most frequently mentioned) of Subjective Well-Being in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positive Conceptual Categories constituting SWB Enhancers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SWB Reducers (Grouped Negative Determinants of Subjective Ill-Being) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KMO and Bartlett’s Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure Matrix for Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor Loadings for Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure Matrix for Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor Loadings for Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability Coefficient (Alpha) for Part I and Part II . . . . . . . . . Model Chi-Square and Hoelter’s Critical N Goodness-of-Fit Test for Part I of SWBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model Chi-Square and Hoelter’s Critical N Goodness-of-Fit Test for Part II of SWBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Comparisons for Model Fit Test of Part I of SWBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Comparisons for Model Fit Test of Part II of SWBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86 87

88 89 90 91 99 99 101 122 124 125 127 128 130 137 137 138 138 xxiii

xxiv

Table 5.11 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10

List of Tables

Cronbach’s Alpha for SWBM, SWLS and PANAS . . . . . . . . . . Factors and Range of Scores in SWBM (Parts I and II) . . . . . . . Example from Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Profile of Factor Salience for Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example from Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Profile of Factor Salience for Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the General Analysis of SWBM for both the Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combinations of Response Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretable Classification of a Composite SWB/SIB Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretable Classification of a Composite FSWB Score . . . . . Comparisons with the help of Examples from the Data . . . . . . .

139 154 156 156 157 157 158 160 163 164 165

Chapter 1

Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

….Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. … Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; …. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile… —Robert F. Kennedy (Remarks at the University of Kansas, 18 March 1968)

Abstract This chapter discusses the introductory and conceptual understanding of subjective well-being (SWB). The field of SWB research has evolved and matured with a lot of work done globally as well as in India. India is a vast and diverse country. It is imperative to understand how most Indians understand and define their wellbeing and ill-being. The chapter establishes the importance of understanding SWB as an important social development indicator as against economic indicators and reviews the various conceptual and theoretical frameworks available in the well-being literature, from both the West and India. Keywords Subjective Well-Being (SWB) · Subjective Ill-Being (SIB) · SWB · SIB conceptualization · SWB theories · Indian approaches to SWB · SWB and India

This interesting excerpt from Robert F. Kennedy’s speech holds relevance even after sixty-odd years. It has also been used by an eminent researcher in the field of subjective well-being, Prof. Ed Diener (2009), in his talk on “Well-being and Public Policy” hosted by the Claremont Graduate University’s School of Organizational and Behavioural Sciences entitled, “Happiness for Complete Wealth: Implications for Public Policy”. The overarching theme of his talk was the importance of measuring well-being and using it as a measure of governmental effectiveness rather than focusing solely on gross domestic product. The reason I use this quote is because © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 T. Bhatnagar, Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7_1

1

2

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

of the weight it carries. For me, it is the essence of what is important in life, which can be achieved through the knowledge of the science of subjective well-being. The implied meaning of development is usually taken as a nation’s economic development. However, this may not be completely reflective of development in the true sense. Researchers have realized the need to start thinking beyond the economic growth and material paradigm. Development researchers, be they economists or psychologists, believe that development means more than the economic aspect of the term. The popular press and social media often advocate concepts like the quality of life and subjective well-being (happiness) as important measures of development. Radical and logical thinking and advanced methodology facilitate psychologists to add substantially to the understanding of such concepts which have mostly been in the domains of philosophers, spiritual leaders, and theologians. The scientific study of subjective well-being has shown increasing interest in the past two decades as psychology progressed from radical behaviourism and an emphasis on negative states. Myers and Diener (1995) through their seminal paper asserted that psychological articles researching negative states outnumbered those examining positive states by a ratio of 17 to 1. Assertions like these laid the foundation of the Positive Psychology Movement. Seligman (2002), in his book “Authentic Happiness”, showed how positive psychology shifts the paradigm away from its narrow focus on pathology and mental illness to positive emotion and mental health. Subjective well-being (or happiness, as it is sometimes called) has been a field of interest for philosophers over the centuries, but the scientific investigation of what makes people happy spans thirty to forty years now. It was in 1967 that Wilson wrote the first broad review of SWB research done until then. At the very initial stage, several lines of research come together in the history of the field of SWB. The field of SWB has been extensively influenced by sociologists and quality-of-life researchers who conducted surveys to determine how demographic factors influence SWB (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Bradburn, 1969; Campbell et al., 1976). Another influence on the field came from researchers working in mental health. They wanted to extend the idea of mental health beyond the absence of pathology to also include the presence of happiness and life satisfaction (Jahoda, 1958). A major influence was from personality psychologists who researched the personalities of happy and unhappy people (Wessman & Ricks, 1966). Finally, social and cognitive psychologists studied how adaptation and varying standards influence people’s feelings of well-being (Brickman & Campbell, 1971; Parducci, 1995). These various types of research were integrated into the classic reviews by Diener (1984) and Veenhoven (1984). Because of these diverse influences, a variety of methods such as surveys, laboratory experiments, and intensive studies of individuals are all common in the field of SWB. Diener et al. (1999) discussed three stages of SWB research: the first stage of research focused on describing and comparing the happiness of people in various categories, especially along demographic dimensions; the second stage of research included improvement and validation of the SWB measures; research at the third stage consisted of combining process approaches with theories of the SWB measures. Today, there is voluminous literature available in the field. An excellent compilation

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

3

of SWB research can be found in various sources (e.g. to cite a few, Diener et al., 2018; Eid & Larsen, 2008; Sirgy, 2002; Veenhoven, 2017b—world database of happiness). In terms of publications, the numbers are as high as 14,000 SWB publications a year (Diener et al., 2017). Let us explore SWB from a lay-person perspective. If one were to ask what is subjective well-being? The easiest way to explain, according to me, would be to ask someone to reflect on their overall life and then assign a score on a scale of 1–10. Then make them further reflect on the reasons they gave that score and the reasons they did not give the remaining scores to their life overall. For example, if someone gave a 7 out of 10 to their overall life, why did they give a 7? It could be for n number of reasons: for example, they have a great family, their work life is doing very well, they have clarity on their goals, and so on. These reasons will be subjective and vary from person to person. This adds up to their reasons for feeling happy and satisfied with their lives. However, the remaining three scores (not assigned) are equally important. For example, there is clarity on goals but there is no access to resources, or they do not have time to pursue their hobbies which are important for their well-being. This essentially means there are positive states of mind to bank upon, but there are also negative states playing a role in adversely affecting the overall experience of positive states. Often, we like to conclude what is working and avoid what is not working. When it comes to the experience of subjective well-being or SWB as is popularly called in the well-being literature, it is equally important to understand both. We cannot have absolutes, we can only optimize SWB (also Sirgy, 2002). Life will give us surprises at the most unexpected quarters, but if we know ourselves through the science of SWB, it will be easier for us to pull ourselves to the normal thresholds and maintain our SWB levels. Let us understand what is happening here. When you are asked to choose a number from 1 to 10, the number doesn’t flash automatically in front of you. In fact, what does flash are the events that have occurred in your life over time. These can be both positive and negative. What you remember is the experience of that event, the feelings felt at that time, and the aspect of life in which this occurred. This means, it is not the event per se, but the interpretation and experience of the event that determines our levels of subjective well-being (also Lyubomirsky, 2001; Margolis & Lyubomirsky, 2018). This phenomenon can also be explained by the bidirectional spillover model (Mallard et al., 1995; also Sirgy, 2022). According to Sirgy (2002), there are different aspects into which our life is divided; these are called domains of life. These vary from person to person (e.g. work, family, social, material, and leisure, among as many others as possible). There is a domain hierarchy of sorts that is important to understand when it comes to understanding the experience of SWB. At the bottom of the pyramid are life events (they can be both positive and negative). These are hosted in life domains and help determine domain satisfaction. These domains and their respective levels of satisfaction determine the overall life satisfaction, which is the superordinate domain. There can be different forms of spillover effects among these domains—bottom-up, top-down, horizontal, and might at times compensate for each other. Events that take place in these domains may be different in effect as per the salience or prominence we assign to them. For

4

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

example: For person X, work is not a domain of importance and family is an extremely important domain. If something unpleasant occurs in the work domain, it will not have as much impact on X as something bad happening even of the least magnitude in the family domain. It is imperative to understand here that the domain salience is critical to our interpretations and feelings deciding our levels of SWB. It is not the size of the experience as much as it is about the importance we assign to it and the way we make sense of the experience that determines our SWB (also Eddington & Shuman, 2005). Another important aspect in evaluating our overall lives is the frequency of positive experiences. There is a lot of debate about which is more important in global SWB judgements. Researchers agree that while evaluating, we also decide basis the frequency of the event more often than the intensity of the event. This is because intense positive emotions are often attended by increased unpleasant affect (Diener et al., 1991; Headey & Wearing, 1989; Larsen & Diener, 1987; Schimmack & Diener, 1997; Tov, 2018). Schimmack and Diener (1997) found that in the experience of affect, there is a combination of frequency and intensity while Suh et al. (1996) have found that this impact of events on SWB is brief. The final point with regards to the 1–10 score is understanding how the human body is programmed when it comes to experiencing SWB. Sirgy (2002) calls this the “motivational tendency to optimize SWB” and draws arguments from the theory of homoeostasis (Cummins, 1998). Human beings are programmed in a way that we try to maintain affect mostly in a band of normalcy. When we are elated or ecstatic, we go above the threshold of normalcy in our experience of the affect and then we tend to come back to normalcy. Similarly, when we are depressed and extremely sad, we tend to fall much below the threshold of normalcy. But then, we tend to pull ourselves up and not remain in the depressed zone forever. In either case, we tend to remain in the band of normalcy to optimize our SWB experience. This also suggests that we have limits to experiencing satisfaction and dissatisfaction and that SWB is a relatively enduring state experienced when there is a preponderance of positive over the negative experience of affect (Kozma & Stones, 1980). It is very critical to study concepts like SWB. There is ample evidence from the literature suggesting that understanding SWB leads to several benefits (e.g. Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Knowing one’s well-being helps in leading a meaningful and rewarding life. Those who are happy experience better health and increased longevity (Danner et al., 2001), enjoy multiple advantages in comparison to lesser happy individuals as they are evaluated more positively by others, show superior performance and productivity in whatever they do, can handle complex situations better, and are less likely to show counterproductive behaviour and burnout. SWB is an important indicator of a good and evolved society that helps citizens become not just happy but more aware, empathetic, better, and responsible citizens. The ultimate goal of such societies is to be just and provide welfare and wellness for all, where all citizens can be optimally functioning and flourishing. This is the reason that gross domestic product (GDP) may not be as robust an indicator of prosperity as gross national happiness. SWB is one of the lead indicators if a Social Development Index were to be constituted. This is the reason that societies thrive and communities

1.1 Well-Being Conceptions, Frameworks, and Theoretical Perspectives

5

flourish or sustain, despite miserable living conditions. SWB research has moved far from its nascent stage today to graduate towards the level of how governance plays an important role in determining the SWB of citizens. Prominent researchers like Carol Ryff through her latest webinars advocate how SWB is affected because of inequality in societies and why it is necessary to talk about fairness, justice, inclusiveness, and equality if we wish for societies to flourish and experience SWB. It, therefore, becomes very important to study SWB within cultures and societies before concluding the global understanding of the term SWB.

1.1 Well-Being Conceptions, Frameworks, and Theoretical Perspectives Tatarkiewicz (1976) presents a detailed account of the traditions of happiness and happiness research as rooted in the discipline of philosophy. The two major approaches to happiness that have informed the science of subjective well-being are hedonism and eudaemonism. Hedonism maintains that happiness is about gaining pleasure and avoiding pain. It was Aristippus who suggested that following what accounts for immediate pleasure in an unrestrained manner is an advanced form of hedonism. Then, the Epicureans suggested a moderate form of hedonism, which maintained maximizing pleasures but with some prudence. Stoics, in contrast, believed in minimizing pain. Democritus, a pre-Socratic philosopher, believed that a happy person enjoyed life not because of wonderful things but because of his/her response to life circumstances (Tatarkiewicz, 1976). This view became stronger later when Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle posited the eudaemonic approach. Aristotle proposed that happiness is not merely about gaining pleasure and avoidance of pain. He believed that a person is truly happy when he/she is optimally functioning, that is, utilizing their optimal potential (Waterman, 1990). The eudaemonic approach laid the foundation for modern economists to assert that people make choices which help maximize utility, for example, utilitarianism, a concept given by Jeremy Bentham (Bentham & Mill, 2004; Bentham, 1890), has its roots in hedonism but with time have added the dimensions of eudaemonia to expand its meaning. Oishi and Westgate (2021) have further expanded the concept and discussed a good life in terms of a psychologically rich life. They go beyond the hedonic and eudaemonic dichotomy and advocate that a psychologically rich life is more holistic and “is best characterized by a variety of interesting perspective-changing experience”. Subjective well-being is an umbrella term which can cover many constructs within its realm, most importantly related to affect (both positive and negative) and cognition (self-evaluations of life). Neff (2010) gives a detailed account of his understanding of the differences in these concepts in his 2010 research article. I believe that SWB is an all-encompassing concept; it is whole and both hedonic and eudaemonic in its approach. It is a truly multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary concept. It is very

6

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

closely related to many other concepts but is still a distinct construct. For example, it is very often used synonymously with happiness. When we talk about happiness, our major focus is on pleasant experiences and positive affect. Quality-of-life (QOL) overlaps with SWB a lot but with the difference that it is internal causes and correlates that are in consideration when it comes to SWB and it is more of external causes and correlates that are in consideration when it comes to QOL. Satisfaction with life, on the other hand, is all about cognitive judgements and life evaluations as affect is about emotional experiences and feelings only. SWB researchers mostly agree that SWB is about global judgements of an individual’s life both, of emotional experiences and cognitive evaluations (Diener, 1984) and is made up of four components in general: greater life satisfaction, presence of frequent or greater positive affect, infrequent (or relative absence of) or lesser negative affect, and satisfaction with important life domains. Bradburn (1969) established that positive and negative affect are two separate factors and not merely polar ends of a single continuum, thus suggesting that they should be measured separately. This further suggests that happiness is not unidimensional. Life satisfaction or the cognitive component was Andrew and Withey’s (1976) contribution to the science of SWB while Campbell et al. (1976) established the fourth component of domain satisfaction. These components are further explained with more specificity (Diener, 1984; Diener, Scollon, & Lucas, 2003a, 2003b; Eddington & Shuman, 2005). Sirgy (2002) discusses the underlying constructs of these components in terms of short versus long-term, affective versus cognitive, and positive versus negative. Several competing and complementary models and theoretical frameworks explain the concept of subjective well-being. However, none of them is true in totality. The subjectivity in the concept gives a lot of importance to the individual and what is important for individual well-being. However, some universal constructs are common across the globe. These theoretical constructs are important to gain insights into the scientific understanding of the term. It is equally important to understand that SWB is studied both as an outcome (e.g. health, happiness, meaning) and as a process (e.g. mindset, stress, willpower). Before we discuss the theories of SWB, let us look at the most popular frameworks of SWB. The most common and highly cited framework is that of Ed Diener (1984), which states that SWB is composed of three components: greater satisfaction with life, the frequent experience of positive affect, and infrequent or lesser experience of negative affect. The other equally popular framework is that of psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). This framework postulates that self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth are six key constructs of positive functioning resulting in the experience of well-being. The livability theory (Veenhoven, 2000, 2014) proposes a 2 × 2 matrix. Veenhoven calls it a “fourfold matrix” and proposes “a classification based on two bi-partitions: between life ‘chances’ and life ‘results’, and between ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ qualities”. These imply four qualities of life, viz. the “livability of the environment”, “life-ability of the individual”, “external utility of life”, and “inner appreciation of life”. It is the interactions among these four conditions that contribute to well-being in life. This comes across as one of the

1.1 Well-Being Conceptions, Frameworks, and Theoretical Perspectives

7

soundest frameworks since it does not specify the necessary constructs but takes almost everything into account that could provide meaning to life and make it worth the while. Another important theoretical framework is the self-determination theory (SDT) proposed by Ryan and Deci (2000). SDT postulates three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness. It propounds that fulfilment of these needs is essential for psychological growth (e.g. intrinsic motivation), integrity (e.g. internalization and assimilation of cultural practices), and well-being (e.g. life satisfaction and psychological health), as well as the experiences of vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) and self-congruence (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). The broaden-andbuild theory (Frederickson, 2004) proposes that positive emotions broaden an individual’s “thought-action repertoire”, for example, joy is a positive emotion and it will encourage one to play or draw. This will lead to a broadened mindset as compared to the narrowed mindsets which are a result of negative emotions. These broadened mindsets promote engagement in novel and creative actions, in turn building the individual’s resources. These personal resources are very useful in times of coping successfully during adverse conditions. A very popular framework was proposed by Seligman (2011) called PERMA. This was his attempt towards understanding the meaning of human flourishing and the elements that enable it. PERMA is an acronym for the five building blocks that enable flourishing and constitute SWB. These are: Positive Emotion (P), Engagement (E), Relationships (R), Meaning (M), and Accomplishment (A). Goodman et al. (2017) found a latent correlation between PERMA-Profiler and SWB suggesting that PERMA leads to SWB. All of these frameworks have a few things in common—SWB can be constituted of several components or elements; these vary across individuals; SWB is about the preponderance of positive experience over the negative (in line with Kozma & Stones, 1980); generating positive emotions leads to experiencing greater SWB as compared to avoiding or overcoming negative emotions; one positive experience stimulates another and gets us into the virtuous cycle and brings us out of the vicious cycle. Headey (2008) asserts that an acceptable SWB theory “needs to link at least three sets of variables: stable person characteristics (including personality traits), life events and measures of well-being (life satisfaction, positive affects), and illbeing (anxiety, depression, negative affects). It also needs to be based on long-term data to account for long-term changes in SWB.” Detailed and capital accounts of theoretical models of SWB are present in the literature (for example, Das et al., 2020; Diener et al., 2018). Some of the early theories draw explanations from economic concepts and theories, some are needbased, some are psychologically grounded, and some are person-oriented. For ease of understanding, I have grouped them as follows: Need-Based Fulfilment and Action-oriented: These theories postulate that to experience well-being, the basic needs of the individuals must be met. Basic needs, however, would be defined distinctly for every individual. For one it could be food and water, and for the other, it could be growth and autonomy. Once the need is identified, it will be equally important to get into action and make efforts towards the fulfilment of these needs. These theories are the theory of human needs (Doyal &

8

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

Gough, 1991); life condition theories (having the right conditions lead to SWB); self-determination theory (SDT, Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Martela, 2016); telic theories that discuss the role of values, goals, and meaning in determining SWB, especially goal theories of SWB (Brunstein, 1993; Brunstein et al., 1998; Cantor, 1994; Carver & Scheier, 1990; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 1997; Emmons, 1986; Klug & Maier, 2015; Locke & Latham, 1990; Ryan et al., 1996; Sirgy, 2002; Spencer & Norem, 1996; Veenhoven, 1991a, 1991b); flow, which is engagement with a match between challenging activity and skill and abilities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 2014); and activity theories (Diener et al., 1997; Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2009a, 2009b; Vittersø, 2018) including the functional well-being approach (Vittersø, 2016, 2013a, 2013b). Person-Oriented: Researchers in the field have been interested in the type of people who are happy and the reasons behind their happiness. Adequate research in the field has been dedicated to the role of temperament, personality, genetics, and culture to conclude whether SWB is an enduring, stable construct or a dynamic one. SWB is moderately stable over time and determined to a large extent by genetic factors (De Neve, 1999; Lucas, 2018). Personality traits (especially the Big-5) are significantly associated with SWB, with extraversion and neuroticism as the strongest correlates of SWB and personality (De Neve & Cooper, 1998; Diener & Lucas, 1999; Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003a, 2003b; Lucas & Diener, 2008, 2015; Lucas, 2018; Goldberg, 1990; Rusting & Larsen, 1997; Seidlitz, 1993; Schmutte & Ryff, 1997; Sheldon et al., 1997; Tellegen, 1985). These theories indicate the role of our inborn predispositions in determining our SWB (Das et al., 2020; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996; Tay & Diener, 2011). They also suggest that besides “need fulfilment, personality and personality-environment fit are equally important” (Das et al., 2020). Veenhoven (2017a) asserts that several theories imply that average happiness will remain stable with time. These personal factors help determine the individual baseline or threshold of normalcy to maintain the SWB experience for people. He uses the metaphor of maintaining a normal body temperature to explain the threshold of normalcy, for example, the dynamic equilibrium model (Headey & Wearing, 1992); the opponent-process theory (Solomon & Corbit, 1974); the set-point theory (Conceição & Bandura, 2008; Lykken, 1999; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996); and the theory of homoeostasis (Cummins, 1998, 2010). Affective and Cognitive Appraisal Oriented: These theories consider evaluation as instrumental in being both a determinant and an outcome of SWB (Das et al., 2020). Additionally, this interpretation occurs at the cognitive level and also assesses the emotion for sense-making at the affective level. Many judgement standards influence the SWB of people. These are unique mental comparisons between an individual’s life expectations and circumstances or set reference points for these people which vary across individuals. At times, these can be situational or for a specific moment. These standards are not normally salient to the individual but can have a momentary influence on their SWB, as is the case in social comparison (Diener & Lucas, 2000). The social comparison theory (Brickman & Campbell, 1971; Buunk et al., 1990; Clark & Oswald, 1998; Clark et al., 2008; Diener, 1984; Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Diener & Fujita, 1997; Diener et al., 1999; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Diener,

1.1 Well-Being Conceptions, Frameworks, and Theoretical Perspectives

9

Diener, & Diener, 2009, 2009a; Diener et al., 2013; Kraus, 2018; Lyubomirsky & Ross, 1997; Michalos, 1985; Ng & Diener, 2014; Sirgy, 2002) in SWB suggests that people compare either upwards (with people better than their reference group) or downwards (with people worse than their reference group). However, this thought can put people on the hedonic treadmill (Brickman & Campbell, 1971), which keeps them chasing happiness. This theory implies that we should get into comparisons only to draw inspiration (as in upwards) or to feel grateful or get into corrective action (as in downwards). Adaptation theory proposes a response to go beyond this hedonic treadmill (Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2009a, 2009b). The concept of adaptation was first discussed by Helson (1948, 1964) who suggested that people often compare themselves with either past experiences, their experiences in other life domains, or with other people within their networks. This experience can be both positive and negative, but the affect is maintained at a neutral level. He argued for the generalization of the theory to other disciplines. According to Diener and Fujita (1997), “adaptation refers to people’s return to baseline behaviour due to habituation over time to new life events or circumstances after an initial strong reaction”. That means the stimulus is considered neutral for its value equals the adaptation level value. Research on disabled people (Allman, 1990), people living under severe life conditions (Diener & Suh, 1997), and accident victims (Silver, 1980) serve as examples of understanding adaptation theory. This is also where the set-point theory or dynamic equilibrium theory comes in. There are however limitations posed by the theory like severe life conditions will not happen all the time, so what would explain SWB then? There is scope for further research in this area. Along the lines of adaptation, the range-frequency theory (Parducci, 1968, 1995) offers an understanding of the ways people evaluate hedonic or non-hedonic incidences. In the words of Luhmann and Intelisano (2018), “according to the frequency principle, the stimulus would be evaluated positively because it is more positive than the median. According to the range principle, it would be evaluated negatively because it is more negative than the range midpoint”. Affective forecasting (Gilbert & Wilson, 2007) is another interesting phenomenon. It is the process of predicting one’s future feelings based on an analysis of the event and the sense an individual makes out of it. Wilson and Gilbert (2008) call this the “AREA (attend, react, explain, adapt) model of hedonic adaptation”. There can, however, be errors committed in affective forecasting (for a detailed account see Kurtz, 2018). Affective forecasting research has also demonstrated cross-cultural differences in prediction accuracy. For example, Lam et al. (2005) found that East Asians are likely to make more accurate predictions than their western counterparts, especially in predicting positive events. The experience of emotions (affect) is related to the “process of fulfilment, engagement, and evaluations” as are the personal evaluations (cognitive) related to the “process of fulfilment and emotions”. These are interconnected (Das et al., 2020). Let us now look at the cognitive theories, which suggest that life is simply how we interpret it and are further explained by life circumstances in terms of bottom-up (SWB is the result of positive and negative events and circumstances) and dispositional or construal or top-down (the role of our biology or temperament in mediating how we

10

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

interpret these circumstances) approaches (Diener, 1984; Lavee & Ben-Ari, 2008; Margolis & Lyubomirsky, 2018; Steel et al., 2008). Both approaches assert a positive association between general positivity and SWB (Caprara et al., 2016; Diener et al., 2000; Lauriola & Iani, 2015; Margolis & Lyubomirsky, 2018; Oishi & Diener, 2001). There are also adversity theories, which suggest that it is through suffering that we experience meaning and appropriate joy (e.g. Joseph & Linley, 2005). Eudaemonic Perspective: This perspective is explained by theories which explain the needs and qualities essentially required for growth, development, and evolution from one level to the next better one (Tov, 2018). The lay theories of internal state suggest that an enjoyable life is a happy life and emphasize the transcendence aspect of goals which envisage that a happy life is one in which a person continues to grow. Meaning is one such quintessential aspect of this perspective besides psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989) and self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000) or even flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Though meaning in life is difficult to be defined (e.g. Heintzelman & King, 2013), one definition on which researchers are in consensus is that “Lives may be experienced as meaningful when they are felt to have a significance beyond the trivial or momentary, to have a purpose, or to have a coherence that transcends chaos” (King et al., 2006 c.f. Heintzelman, 2018). The central aspects highlighted by this definition are purpose, significance, and coherence (George & Park, 2016a, 2016b; Heintzelman, 2018; Heintzelman & King, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Martela & Steger, 2016). The core of this perspective explains how people use their lived experiences to make sense of their past and imagine their futures. This in essence is about the transformative journey towards growth (Bauer et al., 2008; Loevinger, 1976; McAdams, 2001) and the reflection of positive traits as character strengths (Park et al., 2004). Evolutionary Perspective: This perspective integrates ideas from social psychology and evolutionary biology and suggests that different people have different impressions about what induces the feelings of SWB in them and these differences may vary across cultures (Kenrick & Krems, 2018). This perspective argues that unhappiness and dissatisfaction also have a purpose to serve and are equally as important as the concept of happiness and that these variations make an adaptive sense. The two ideas that intersect these two disciplines related to SWB are life history theory, which proposes that each human must constantly make decisions entailing economic exchanges (e.g. Stearns, 1992) and fundamental motives (Kenrick et al., 2010), which is a revised version of Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of motives. According to this viewpoint, SWB then is not a different goal but is an indication of “adaptive progress toward functional goals” (Griskevicius et al., 2006; Kenrick & Griskevicius, 2013; Krems et al., 2017; Miller, 2000). The central idea is that SWB will be enhanced when a person feels successful in meeting what is required and doing their best to make it happen, rather than failing at it. Balance-Oriented: The harmony and balance theories of SWB suggest that a happy life is a peaceful life in which things do not feel out of balance. The emphasis is not on the accumulation of positive experiences alone but on maintaining a balance between positive and negative experiences (Lomas, 2021). These are also reflected in the Eastern traditions of yin-yang philosophy, stoicism, and the like (Peng & Nisbett,

1.1 Well-Being Conceptions, Frameworks, and Theoretical Perspectives

11

1999; Swaminathan et al., 2021; Tsai & Park, 2014). It is in the “alignment between the individual and the transcendent, between right conduct and right order—that true harmony, peace, and joy can be found” (c.f. McMahon, 2018). Diener et al. (2015) also suggest that positive affect is related to the feeling of harmony (cited in Moore et al., 2018). These theories highlight the balance between the self and the community (Arthur & Mair, 2017; Delle Fave et al., 2016; Mccubbin et al., 2013); between multiple roles the self plays; between important life domains for an individual’s overall life satisfaction (Sirgy & Lee, 2018); between pleasure and pain (Singh et al., 2017); and while integrating various life domains (Bacon, 2009; Berzin, 1998; Chen, 2009; Delle Fave et al., 2011; Kavedžija, 2015; Sundararajan, 2015; Thin, 2018). From Economics (Economics-Oriented): Economists measure the success and growth of a nation in terms of increments in per capita income growth, though this notion is changing with the GNH movement gaining momentum. It is interesting to note how the discipline of economics lends an explanation to the understanding of SWB. One such theory related to well-being is that of utility (Bentham & Mill, 2004; Bentham, 1890). According to this theory, individuals can express preferences over commodities. Fuentes and Rojas (2001) in one of their research papers say that “from utility theory, it follows that an individual’s main objective is to achieve higher utility levels and his/her main tool is to expand the given constraint”. The microeconomic theory suggests that human well-being increases with income. This is true to a certain extent but as the saturation levels are reached, a dip in the SWB levels is observed (Easterlin, 1974; Easterlin & O’Connor, 2020). The resource profiles approach (RPA) broadens the general notion of resources in the discipline to various socially and culturally constructed analytical categories and dimensions which people use in their attempt to achieve SWB (Mc Gregor, 1998, 2004; Lawson et al., 2000; Saltmarshe, 2002). The capability approach (Sen, 1999) asserts that social institutions and functions must be evaluated to ensure that people get to choose what they value. The social production theory brings economic sciences and psychological sciences together in the understanding and explanation of SWB. Ormel et al. (1999) envisage that “people choose and substitute instrumental goals to optimize the production of their well-being, subject to constraints in available means of production”. Both economics and psychology disciplines aim for a better life for individuals. Fuentes and Rojas (2001) advocate that they must come together in the creation of a good life. An attempt has been made here to give a broad overview of the SWB theories. There might still be some that may not have been mentioned. Every theory has its advantages and disadvantages. The different theoretical perspectives elucidate that SWB has to be studied both as an antecedent and as an outcome; that any factor that affects the experience and attribution of SWB is a determinant of it; there are conflicts and overlaps among these theories; and that the cause and the process of SWB are both equally important. The science of SWB will keep evolving with changes in societies, cultures, and people’s choices and decisions. Though the core and the universality of the concept will not change, this change resulting from the changes in thought processes and behaviours will have an impact on the way SWB

12

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

will be experienced. It is therefore imperative for researchers to study every society and culture shaping the study of SWB and keep revisiting, revising, and updating these frameworks.

1.2 Indian Approaches to SWB A detailed description of the Western approaches with a general insight into how that is distinct from the Eastern approaches needs to be followed with a specific section devoted to the Indian approaches to SWB and understanding what they have to offer. Especially, when this piece of work is an attempt to contribute to the global understanding of SWB by providing insights from India using the empirical approach. What are some of the ways of life or the Indian philosophical traditions that shape the experience and appraisal of SWB among Indians is a question we must explore. Misra (2009) in his editorial article, “Self and Well–being”, in the peer-reviewed journal “Psychological Studies” describes that the Indian view on well-being holds that the physical reality is fluid, temporary, and of transitory nature. He elaborates his proposition by stating that an individual’s submission to this kind of reality would constrain him/her as it is dependent on the changing circumstances in and around the individual. This proposition implies that happiness can thus neither be possessed nor accumulated due to the ever-changing context of circumstances. Eastern spiritual traditions provide a deeper analysis of the nature of the self, the transcendent self, happiness, and of misery (Kuppuswamy, 1990a, 1990b). To understand the Indian approach to SWB, let us trace it back to the “Sankhya yoga” philosophy. According to “Sankhya yoga”, the universe is constituted of two principles—the Purusha (consciousness) and the Prakriti (matter or material). This is equated to the human body, with the mind and body as matter, which is transient and impermanent; and within the body lies our higher self, which is consciousness (Agrawal, 2020; Raina, 2016). Humans, thus are not just mortals or transient beings but are capable of self-transcendence (Hiriyanna, 2005). This consciousness within the individual is considered to be the absolute reality. Thus according to this philosophy, individuals are capable of attaining the highest goal in life, which goes beyond the manifested reality around which the individual operates and experiences (Raina, 2016; Ray, 1974). The greater the awakening of this consciousness, the lesser will be the discrepancy between the manifested and the absolute reality, and between the self and the transcendent (evolved or developed) self. The yogic traditions aid and help speed up this transition to the supreme self, which furthers the process of liberation from all worldly bondages and achieving the stage of bliss or Ananda (where happiness is not dependent upon any condition). A framework worth mentioning here comes from the Taittiriya Upanishad. This framework discusses the multilayered existence of human beings and is called the Panchkosha Framework. This is a dynamic model of five layers and can well explain happiness and well-being. These five layers or sheaths are annamaya (the physical), pranamaya (the breath), manomaya (emotions/mind), vijnanmaya (the intellect), and

1.2 Indian Approaches to SWB

13

anandamaya (eternal joy and bliss). An individual transcends these different layers with the rise in consciousness to reach the innermost layer of Anandamaya, which is of eternal joy and bliss. This is also the stage where the individual self becomes one with the true self and therefore, the universal self. Human beings seek to be happy by birth, and this framework acts as a guidelight to help them realize their potential to be ever-evolving and reach higher levels of existence by understanding the meaning of true happiness and well-being, one that is not contingent upon externalities but comes from within the individual (please refer to Bhawuk, 2008; Kumar, 2002; Salagame, 2006; Singh et al., 2013; Srivastava & Misra, 2011 for detailed accounts). Menon (1998) asserts that according to Bhagavad Gita, individuals have within themselves a larger adaptive cerebral capacity designated as a state of happiness. Individuals need to go inwards and figure out this source of happiness within. Singh et al. (2013) in line with Srivastava and Misra (2011) maintain that “this inner source of happiness is called satchitanand (sat meaning being truthful, chit referring to being aware, and ananda being the bliss)”. Kumar (2002) suggests that from a transcendent perspective, Ananda and Stithaprajna (a state of balance and equanimity) are the determining attributes of happiness and well-being in a true sense. Agrawal (2020) submits that in the search for the purusha, there is a long journey of evolution and growth. Both positive and negative experiences occur during this journey. The positive experiences are characterized as sukha, and the negative experiences are characterized as dukhas (also Singh et al., 2017). The mind (which is a construction of prakriti) comprises the three gunas: sattva, rajas, and tamas. These gunas are correlated with satchitanand (also Singh et al., 2013). The understanding of these three gunas and their relationship to happiness finds an explanation in the tripartite or TriGuna Theory. The Gita describes the three kinds of sukha (happiness) in terms of the trigunas: the sattva, that which springs from clear understanding and is like poison at first and like nectar at the end (e.g. tranquillity, goodness, compassion); the rajas, that which arises from the contact of senses and their objects and is like nectar at first, but like poison at the end (e.g. lust, misuse of power); and the tamas, that which deludes the self both at the beginning and at the end and arises from sleep, sloth and negligence (e.g. ignorance and confusion). The journey from one guna to the other is the process of experiential growth and transformation towards strengthening sattva, which frees one from all ills and bondages (Rastogi, 2019). The state of Ananda results from a greater experience of sattva (Kumar, 2010). Transcending the self to higher levels is possible through the culmination of sattva in one’s being. To rise in consciousness and experience peace, one needs to feel Ananda, which comes from being detached from the outcome or the action (also called detached attachment or anasakti—you put in the effort and do your due without getting attached to the level of being inflicted with pain). Misra (2009) states “It is only through quieting the ego that the necessary self-transformation can take place. Only then it will be possible to experience the bliss which is intrinsically present in each and every being…. the real freedom and happiness can be attained”. Patanjali is another tradition that helps understand the process and attainment of Ananda. Patanjali asserts that as emotions arise as a result of an unclear notion of atman or the self, hence, avidya or ignorance is the source of afflictions and the

14

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

root cause of man’s sufferings. Patanjali states that the appropriate analysis of the nature of suffering is what can lead us to rise above it through meditation. According to Taimni (1999), all evil tendencies are rooted in wrong habits of thoughts and attitudes, and therefore, the only effective means of overcoming them completely is to attack the trouble at its source and alter the thoughts and attitudes which underlie the undesirable manifestation. Buddhism explains that we are powerless and lack the mental discipline needed to tame and control our thoughts and emotions, which are wild and unruly. Resultantly they control us and that too through our negative impulses rather than our positive ones. For individuals to gain control over their minds, this cycle is required to be reversed. Single-pointed meditation with the practice of analytics and reasoning is combined in Buddhism and is known as vipassana or penetrative insight (Dalai Lama, 2000). Thus, positive states of mind that contribute to a sense of serenity, tranquillity, and contentment can be enhanced by recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of different types of thoughts and emotions that lead to suffering and dissatisfaction can be reduced. Many profound levels of spiritual realization are the results of knowledge, insight, and understanding. It is because of this reason that the development of insight is considered such a crucial element of the spiritual path as a whole. It is asserted in the Bhagvad Gita that one must learn to endure the dvandas or dualities with equanimity. This is the concept of sthithaprajna or being a stoic. It states that an individual should neither feel elated when things happen positively nor feel depressed when pain arises. Furthering the essentials of happiness, Sri Aurobindo (1992, 2001) explains that equality means a quiet and unmoved mind and vital. It means not to be disturbed by things that happen or that are said or done to an individual, but to look at them with a straight look, free from distortions created by personal feelings, and to try to understand the reason behind them and learn the lessons they can teach. It means self-mastery over the vital movements, not letting anger and desire or pride get hold of the emotional being and disturb the inner peace. According to him, it is not easy to have this quality in perfect measure, but one should always try more and more to make it the basis of one’s inner state and outer movements. Swami Vivekananda (1998) explains the “sameness for all” as the gist of Vedantic morality. He says that the world will change if the people living in it will change and that the world will become pure if they become pure. He further states that a mind that is the same in misery and happiness, success and defeat, is nearing a state of freedom. The Vedanta view of life is integral, and its approach to happiness is realistic (Swami Adiswarananda, 2008). According to this view, the individual is not just the soul but the body–mind–soul. Happiness depends upon the fulfilment of the needs and urges of all three aspects of our being—physical, mental, and spiritual. Vedanta maintains that happiness lies in neither, giving in or giving up, nor in escaping from problems and lays down three criteria of truth to help or guide the seeker—testimony of scripture, which works as a working hypothesis; positive reasoning, which seeks to separate the essential from the non-essential; and direct perception, which provides certainty of faith. When all three points to the same conclusion, the seeker may be

1.2 Indian Approaches to SWB

15

assured that s/he has realized the whole truth and is at peace with self and the world. This peace of mind or contentment results from its inherent strength characterized by integration, stability, temperate nature, and freedom from all forms of dependency made available through education, training, and discipline and resulting in self-awareness, self-control, and self-mastery. Powerful tools for success according to Vedanta are good interpersonal relationships, intellectual satisfaction and work that stimulates, engages, and challenges the individual (Row, 2004). Vedanta prescribes the value of gratitude or grace—being grateful for the millions of gifts one has been bestowed rather than a few things that one has been denied. According to Vedanta, this is the power of positive thinking. Spirituality is about awakening the “consciousness” that all humans have been gifted with—the consciousness to recognize the “truth” about self and relationships of the self with the people and the nature around. This consciousness helps in understanding and in becoming aware of one’s self and all things that have an impact on well-being and inner peace and happiness. Spirituality is thus, about the interior of the individual, not about what is done outside, because the quality of life depends upon how one is within one’s own self (Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev, 2000). This brief overview concludes that according to the Indian approaches, the concept of happiness lies within the individual. A state of well-being can be reached when the individual becomes one with his/her true self through reasoning, reflection, meditation, and becoming consciously knowledgeable about one’s own self and interactions with the surrounding environment. In this, it is not just important to understand one’s true self—who they are and why they exist, what is their purpose, what is important; but to equally understand who they are not and what is not important. In addition, a state of equilibrium (stoicism) has been suggested as the key to well-being. Misra (2009) has argued that the Western model of well-being is largely embedded in the concept of self-hood which has its limitations. He explains the concept of an “inclusive multilayered notion of self” in the Indian culture which “covers the physical, vital, social, mental, and blissful levels of existence and situates the discourse of self in an increasingly inclusive configuration of reality”. I propose that whether it is the Western approaches or Asian approaches (in general) or Indian approaches (in particular), SWB has to be understood in totality, respecting cultural differences. These frameworks help us to understand ourselves better and connect with others in a compassionate manner for creating a better world of happy and responsible humans. It is important to understand that the strategies of reframing, re-evaluations, and re-appraisals that need to be done to optimize SWB levels can be attained with a better understanding of the Indian approaches to SWB. A mutual appreciation for a larger good among researchers across the globe is the key. No one framework is superior, but each has its own sophistication of contribution to the science of SWB.

16

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

References Adiswarananda, S. (2008). The Vedanta way to peace and happiness. Jaico Publishing House. Agrawal, J. (2020). Änanda & sukha: Indian model of happiness and its mental health implications. MindRxiv. June 6. https://doi.org/10.31231/osf.io/g6msr Allman, A. (1990). Subjective well-being of people with disabilities: Measurement issues (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Illinois. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception of life quality. Plenum Press. Arthur, S., & Mair, V. (2017). East Asian historical traditions of well-being. In R. J. Estes & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), The pursuit of human well-being (pp. 59–82). Springer. Aurobindo, S. (1992). The synthesis of yoga. Lotus Press. Aurobindo, S. (2001). The synthesis of yoga. SABCL, 21, 681–692. Bacon, S. F. (2009). Balance. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Encyclopedia of positive psychology (pp. 94–98). Wiley-Blackwell. Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2008). Narrative identity and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 81–104. Bentham, J. (1890). Utilitarianism. Progressive Publishing Company. Bentham, J., & Mill, J. S. (2004). Utilitarianism and other essays. Penguin UK. Berzin, A. (1998). Developing balanced sensitivity: Practical Buddhist exercises for daily life. Snow Lion. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2008). Anchoring cognition, emotion and behavior in desire: A model from the Bhagwad-Gita. In K. R. Rao, A. C. Paranjpe, & A. K. Dalal (Eds.), Handbook of Indian psychology (pp. 390–413). Cambridge University Press India Pvt Ltd. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine. Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Apley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). Academic Press. Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070. Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grässman, R. (1998). Personal goals and emotional wellbeing: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.494 Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., Van Yperen, N. W., & Dakof, G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1238–1249. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. Russell Sage Foundation. Cantor, N. (1994). Life task problem solving: Situational affordances and personal needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 235–243. Caprara, G. V., Eisenberg, N., & Alessandri, G. (2016). Positivity: The dispositional basis of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 353–371. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35. Chen, S. X. (2009). Harmony. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Encyclopedia of positive psychology (pp. 464– 467). Wiley-Blackwell. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144. Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). Comparison-concave utility and following behaviour in social and economic settings. Journal of Public Economics, 70(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0047-2727(98)00064-4

References

17

Conceição, P., Bandura, R. (2008). Measuring subjective wellbeing: a summary review of the literature. United nations development programme (UNDP) development studies, working paper. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Ed.). (2014). Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer. Cummins, R. A. (1998). The second approximation to an international standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 43, 307–334. Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9167-0 Dalai Lama. (2000). Transforming the mind (Translated by Jinpa G.T.). Thorsons. Danner, D. D., Snowden, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 801–813. Das, K. V., Jones-Harrell, C., Fan, Y., Ramaswami, A., Orlove, B., & Botchwey, N. (2020). Understanding subjective well-being: Perspectives from psychology and public health. Public Health Reviews, 41(1), 1–32. DeNeve, K. M. (1999). Happy as an extraverted clam? The role of personality for subjective wellbeing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 141–144. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182. Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological selection and optimal experience across cultures. Springer. Delle Fave, A., et al. (2016). Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–30. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. Diener, E. (2009). Public policy and measuring well-being. Talk delivered at Claremont Graduate School. Accessed at http://www.myhappy.com/article/2009/01/25/ed-diener-talks-at-cla remont-about-public-policy-and-measuring-well-being on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 19:00 Hrs. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851–864. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (2009a). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. In Culture and well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener, Social indicators research series (Vol. 38, pp. 43–70). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2352-0 Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1997). Social comparisons and subjective well-being. In B. Buunk & F. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 329–357). Erlbaum. Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., & Oishi, S. (2017). Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 58(2), 87. Diener, E., Kanazawa, S., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2015). Why people are in a generally good mood. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 235–256. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). Russell-Sage. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis, & J. M. HavilandJones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 325–337).

18

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2009b). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. In The science of well-being (pp. 103–118). Springer. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003a). Personality, culture and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective wellbeing: An interdisciplinary perspective. International series in experimental social psychology (pp. 119–139). Pergamon Press. Diener, E., Scollon, C., & Lucas, R. E. (2003b). The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and Gerontology, 15, 187–219. Diener, E., Scollon, N. C. K., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Positivity and the construction of life satisfaction judgments: Global happiness is not the sum of its parts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010031813405 Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25–41. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276. Diener, E., Tay, L., & Oishi, S. (2013). Rising income and the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 267. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908. 2019.1584083 Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human needs. Macmillan. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth (pp. 89–125). Academic Press. Easterlin, R. A., & O’Connor, K. (2020). The Easterlin Paradox. Available at SSRN 3743147. Eddington, N., & Shuman, R. (2005). Subjective well-being (happiness). Continuing Psychology Education, 6. Eid, M., & Larsen, R. J. (Eds.). (2008). The science of subjective well-being. Guilford Press. Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068. Fredrickson B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512 Fuentes, N., & Rojas, M. (2001). Economic theory and subjective well-being: Mexico. Social Indicators Research, 53, 289–314. George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2016a). Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology, 20, 205–220. George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2016b). The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. Journal of positive psychology, 1–15. Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317, 1351– 1354. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6). Goodman, F., Disabato, D., Kashdan, T., & Kauffman, S. (2017). Measuring well-being: A comparison of subjective wellbeing and PERMA. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–12. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1388434 Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 63–76.

References

19

Headey, B. (2008). The set-point theory of well-being: Negative results and consequent revisions. Social Indicators Research, 85(3), 389–403. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Longman Cheshire. Heintzelman, S. J. (2018). Eudaimonia in the contemporary science of subjective well-being: Psychological well-being, self-determination, and meaning in life. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2013). On knowing more than we can tell: Intuitive processes and the experience of meaning. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 471–482. Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014a). Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69, 561–574. Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014b). (The feeling of) Meaning-as-information. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 153–167. Helson, H. (1948). Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychological Review, 55, 297–313. Helson, H. (1964). Current trends and issues in adaptation-level theory. American Psychologist, 19, 26–38. Hiriyanna, M. (2005). Outlines of Indian philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass. Jahoda, M. (1958). Current conceptions of positive mental health. Basic Books. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 262–280. Kavedžija, I. (2015). The good life in balance: Insights from aging Japan. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.14318/hau5.3.008 Kennedy, R. F. (1968, March). Remarks at the University of Kansas. Retrieved from http://www.jfk library.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/RFKSpeech68M ar18UKansas.htm, October 6, 2009, 14:50 Hrs. Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292–314. Kenrick, D. T., & Griskevicius, V. (2013). The rational animal: How evolution made us smarter than we think. Basic Books. Kenrick, D. T., & Krems, J. A. (2018). Well-being, self-actualization, and fundamental motives: An evolutionary perspective. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J., & Del Gaiso, A. K. (2006). Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 179–196. Klug, H. J. P., & Maier, G. W. (2015). Linking goal progress and subjective well-being: A metaanalysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9493-0 Kozma, A., & Stones, M. J. (1980). The measurement of happiness: Development of the memorial university of Newfoundland scale of happiness (MUNSH). Journal of Gerontology, 35, 906–912. Kraus, M. W. (2018). Beggars do not envy millionaires: Social comparison, socioeconomic status, and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Krems, J. A., Kenrick, D. T., & Neel, R. (2017). Individual perceptions of self-actualization: What functional motives are linked to fulfilling one’s full potential? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(9), 1337–1352. Kumar, S. K. (2002). An Indian conception of well-being. In European Positive Psychology Proceedings (pp. 124–35). Kumar, S. K. (2010). Indian indigenous concepts and perspectives: Developments and future possibilities. In G. Misra (Ed.), Psychology in India: Theoretical and methodological developments (Vol. 4). Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt Ltd.

20

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

Kuppuswamy, B. (1990a). Feelings and emotions. Konark Publishers. Kuppuswamy, B. (1990b). Patanjali on emotions. Konark Publishers. Kurtz, J. L. (2018). Affective forecasting. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Lam, K. C. H., Buehler, R., McFarland, C., Ross, M., & Cheung, I. (2005). Cultural differences in affective forecasting: The role of focalism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1296–1309. Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review. Journal of Research on Personality, 21, 1–39. Lauriola, M., & Iani, L. (2015). Does positivity mediate the relation of extraversion and neuroticism with subjective happiness? PLoS ONE, 10, e0121991. Lavee, Y., & Ben-Ari, A. (2008). The association of daily hassles and uplifts with family and life satisfaction: Does cultural orientation make a difference? American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 89–98. Lawson, C. W., McGregor, J. A., & Saltmarshe, D. K. (2000). Surviving and thriving: Differentiation in a peri-urban community in Northern Albania. World Development, 28(8), 1499–1514. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice-Hall. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. Jossey-Bass. Lomas, T. (2021). Life balance and harmony: Wellbeing’s golden thread. International Journal of Wellbeing, 11(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v11i1.1477 Lucas, R. E. (2018). Exploring the associations between personality and subjective wellbeing. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2008). Personality and subjective well-being. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 171–194). The Guilford Press. Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2015). Personality and subjective well-being: Current issues and controversies. Personality processes and individual differencesIn M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 577–599). American Psychological Association. Luhmann, M., & Intelisano, S. (2018). Hedonic adaptation and the set point for subjective wellbeing. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Lykken, D. (1999). Happiness: The nature and nurture of joy and contentment. St. Martin’s Griffin. Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186–189. Lyubormisky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239–249. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803. Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparisons: A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1141–1157. Mallard, A. G. C., Lance, C. E., & Michalos, A. C. (1995). Test of the direction of the relationships between overall life satisfaction and life facet satisfaction for college students in ten countries. In H. L. Meadow, M. J. Sirgy, & D. Rahtz (Eds.), Developments in quality-of-life studies in marketing (Vol. 5, pp. 121–126). Academy of Marketing Science and the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies. Margolis, S., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2018). Cognitive outlooks and well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 531–545. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370. McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5, 100–122.

References

21

Mccubbin, L. D., Mccubbin, H. I., Zhang, W., Kehl, L., & Strom, I. (2013). Relational well-being: An indigenous perspective and measure. Family Relations, 62(2), 354–363. McGregor, A. (1998, April). A poverty of agency: Resource management amongst poor people in Bangladesh. In European network of Bangladesh studies workshop. McGregor, A. (2004). Researching well-being: Communicating between the needs of policy makers and the needs of people. Global Social Policy, 4(3). McMahon, D. M. (2018). From the paleolithic to the present: Three revolutions in the global history of happiness. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Menon, S. (1998). The ontological pragmaticity of karma in Bhagawadgita. Journal of Indian Psychology, 16, 44–52. Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413. Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. Doubleday. Misra, G. (2009). Self and well-being. Psychological Studies, 54(2), 85–86. Moore, S. M., Diener, E., & Tan, K. (2018). Using multiple methods to more fully understand causal relations: Positive affect enhances social relationships. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 239–263). Springer. Neff, D. (2010). Exploring the meaningfulness and relevance of subjective well-being for India. Indian Journal of Human Development, 4(2), 329–350. Ng, W., & Diener, E. (2014). What matters to the rich and the poor? Subjective well-being, financial satisfaction, and postmaterialist needs across the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(2), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036856 Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2001). Re-examining the general positivity model of subjective well-being: The discrepancy between specific and global domain satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 69, 641–666. Oishi, S., & Westgate, E. C. (2021, August 12). A psychologically rich life: Beyond happiness and meaning. Psychological Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev 0000317 Ormel, J., Lindenberg, S., Steverink, N., & Verbrugge, L. M. (1999). Subjective well-being and social production functions. Social Indicators Research, 46(1), 61–90. Parducci, A. (1968). The relativism of absolute judgments. Scientific American, 219(6), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1268-84 Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications. Erlbaum. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–7542. Raina, M. K. (2016). The levels of human consciousness and creative functioning: Insights from the theory of Pancha Kosha (Five sheaths of consciousness). The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 48(2). Rastogi, M. R. (2019). Triguna theory: Its implications for counselling. Indian Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 126–132. Ray, N. (1974). An approach to Indian art. Panjab University. Row, J. (2004). Beyond Harvard: Lessons from the world’s oldest management school. Vedanta Mission. Mumbai, India.

22

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to positive and negative affect: A test of two theoretical models. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(5), 607–612. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565. Ryan, R. M., & Martela, F. (2016). Eudaimonia as a way of living: Connecting Aristotle with selfdetermination theory. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 109–122). Springer International Publishing. Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 7–47). Guilford Press. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727. Sadguru, J. V. (2000). Dhyanalinga: The silent revolution. Isha Foundation. Salagame, K. K. (2006). Happiness and wellbeing in Indian tradition. Psychological Studies, 51(2), 105–112. Saltmarshe, D. (2002). The resource profile approach: A Kosovo case study. Public Administration and Development, 22, 179–190. Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (1997). Affect intensity: Separating intensity and frequency in repeatedly measured affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1313–1329. Schmutte, P. S., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: Re-examining methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 549–559. Seidlitz, L. (1993). Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness as related to subjective wellbeing. Presented at 6th Meet. International society for the study of individual differences, Baltimore, MD. Seligman, M. E. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. Simon and Schuster. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourishing. A new understanding of happiness and well-being and how to achieve them. Nicholas Brealey. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). “Trait” self and “true” self: Cross-role variation in the big five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393. Silver, R. L. (1980). Coping with an undesirable life event: A study of early reactions to physical disability (Unpublished doctorate dissertation). Northwestern University. Singh, K., Khari, C., Amonkar, R. S., Arya, N. K., & Kumar, S. K. (2013). Development and validation of a new scale: Sat-Chit-Ananda Scale. International Journal on Vedic Foundations of Management, 1(2), 102–122. Singh, K., Raina, M., & Sahni, P. (2017). The concept and measure of Sukha Dukha: An Indian perspective on well-being. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 19(2), 117–132. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sirgy, M. J. (2022). Psychology of wellbeing certificate Webinar 10: Integrative models of wellbeing. Uploaded on 3 May 2022 and Accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOV6bcWPRG0 on 9 June 2022 at 12:18 am.

References

23

Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D.-J. (2018). The psychology of life balance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119–145. Spencer, S. M., & Norem, J. K. (1996). Reflection and distraction: Defensive pessimism, strategic optimism, and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 354–365. Srivastava, A. K., & Misra, G. (2011). Cultural perspectives on nature and experience of happiness. In A. K. Dalal & G. Misra (Eds.), New directions in health psychology (pp. 109–131). Sage. Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161. Suh, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1091–1102. Sundararajan, L. (2015). Understanding emotion in Chinese culture: Thinking through psychology. Springer. Swaminathan, J. J., Crea, G., & Formella, Z. (2021). Sense of balance in Indian conceptualisation of psychological well-being. Studia Ecologiae Et Bioethicae, 19(4), 55–68. Taimni, I. K. (1999). The science of yoga: The yoga-sutras of Patanjali in Sanskrit. Quest Books. Tatarkiewicz, W. (1976). Analysis of happiness. Martinus Nijhoff. Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 354–365. Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706). Erlbaum. Thin, N. (2018). Qualitative approaches to culture and well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Tov, W. (2018). Well-being concepts and components. In Handbook of subjective well-being (pp. 1– 15). Noba Scholar. Tsai, J., & Park, B. (2014). The cultural shaping of happiness the role of ideal affect. In J. Gruber and J.T. Moskowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion. Oxford University Press. Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Reidel. Veenhoven, R. (1991a). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1–34. Veenhoven, R. (1991b). Question on happiness: Classical topics, modern answers, and blind spots. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 7–26). Pergamon Press. Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(1), 1–39. Veenhoven, R. (2014). Livability theory. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer. Springer Reference Series (pp. 3645–3647). ISBN 978-94007-0752-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1669 Veenhoven, R. (2017a). Greater happiness for a greater number: Did the promise of enlightenment come true? Social Indicators Research, 130(1), 9–25. Veenhoven, R. (2017b). World database of happiness, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed on July 21, 2022, at: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl Vittersø, J. (2013a). Feelings, meanings, and optimal functioning: Some distinctions between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 39–55). American Psychological Association. Vittersø, J. (2013b). Functional well-being: Happiness as feelings, evaluations and functioning. In S. David, I. Boniwell, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 227–244). Oxford University Press. Vittersø, J. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of eudaimonic well-being. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-42445-3 Vittersø, J. (2018). Do it! Activity theories and the good life. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com.

24

1 Subjective Well-Being: Introduction and Conceptual Frameworks

Vivekananda, S. (1998). Thoughts on the Gita. Advaita Ashram Publication Department. Waterman, A. S. (1990). The relevance of Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia for the psychological study of happiness. Theoretical Philosophical Psychology, 10, 39–44. Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and personality. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Explaining away: A model of affective adaptation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 370–386. Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294–306.

Chapter 2

Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Abstract This chapter reviews and discusses the literature on the determinants of subjective well-being (SWB). Demographics play an important role in the understanding of SWB, though the effect sizes have usually been found to be low and mostly insignificant. Nevertheless, they are critical in understanding the role context plays in determining SWB. The chapter systematically reviews and discusses some important causes and correlates of SWB, how culture shapes concepts of SWB, and what insights national samples offer to enhance this understanding. This discussion is further enriched by a discussion of research undertaken in the Indian context. Keywords Subjective Well-Being (SWB) · SWB Research in India · SWB Determinants · SWB Determinants in Nations · SWB Determinants in India · Demographic · SWB Causes and Correlates · Culture and SWB · SWB and India

I was first introduced to the term subjective well-being (SWB) in the early 2000s. There was so much scope to study and explore in the field. It was an emerging field with information in the form of journal articles or edited volumes and practically no systematic work from India. By the time I defended my doctoral dissertation in 2010, the field had started shaping up with yet, very few studies from India. Today, as I review research in SWB, I am awestruck by the amount of work done in the field. There, however, is still scope for more systematic research from the Indian subcontinent. Interestingly, most of the work done in India is either indigenous or empirical (exploring relationships among variables) in nature and hardly looks at the SWB processes and outcomes. Further, each work reads as a stand-alone work, indicating the lack of a consolidated body of work. Scientific investigations are dynamic in nature and keep on developing and evolving. Though SWB is more or less stable, changes in societies, preferences, and changes due to pandemics might have implications on understanding the concept thoroughly. It is, therefore, imperative to keep checking the pre-existing body of knowledge against the latest understandings and nuances of any phenomenon of scientific interest. There is substantial research conducted to understand the causes and correlates of SWB. Several large sample studies and related systematic research form the basis © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 T. Bhatnagar, Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7_2

25

26

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

of the conclusions drawn from research on the causes and correlates of SWB (e.g. Bradburn, 1969; Campbell et al., 1976; Cantril, 1965; Inglehart, 1990; Veenhoven et al., 1994; Wilson, 1967). These studies suggest that demographic and environmental factors affect happiness at varying levels but to a lesser extent than personality (Eddington & Shuman, 2005). However, most studies conclude that the effect sizes are usually very small. Demographics account for nearly less than 20% variance in SWB levels (Campbell et al., 1976; Wang & VanderWeele, 2011); external circumstances account for around 15% (Argyle, 1999); and transient factors like current mood or weather conditions affect life satisfaction judgments (Schwarz & Strack, 1991). However, SWB has mostly been found to be moderately stable across situations and life spans (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Diener & Larsen, 1984; Magnus & Diener, 1991). Researchers have done systematic and meta-analytical reviews on the relationship between SWB and demographics. To write everything here would be like reinventing the wheel, which is neither wise nor desirable. Two sources exemplary of such reviews are in the form of a peer-reviewed journal article (Das et al., 2020) and the handbook of well-being (Diener et al., 2018). Das et al. (2020) have classified their review into seven sections: “basic demographics (gender, age, and race/ethnicity); socioeconomic status (income, education, employment, family structure, and immigration status); health and functioning (general or self-reported health, diseases, mental and physical disability, obesity, sleep deprivation, and physical activity); personality (the Big Five personality traits and nuanced traits, such as self-efficacy, optimism, and self-esteem); social support (the number of contacts, quality of contacts, friends, family, family satisfaction, social satisfaction, and discrimination); religion and culture (conceptualization of SWB, formulation of comparison standards, religiosity, and visits to houses of worship like mosques, temples, synagogues); and geography and infrastructure (conditions at various levels of disaggregation, including nation, region, community, neighbourhood, and home, and access to infrastructures such as food, water, sanitation, transportation, greenery, leisure, and ecosystems)”. Diener et al. (2018) have author-dedicated individual chapters to demographics (lifespan; gender; race; religion; marriage), life domains (the work-family interface; leisure; positive emotions, meaning, purpose, social relationships; and physical health), and resources (time, money; income; social comparisons, socioeconomic status; healthy social bonds; social capital, pro-social behaviours; meaning; employee well-being, performance, job demands-resources; wisdom; romantic relationships; and resilience). The handbook furthers that all these lead to positive outcomes like healthier and longer lives, positive affect enhancing social relationships, work performance, optimal levels of happiness, and the like. Various researchers have contributed to the understanding of the correlates of subjective well-being. Here is a summary of the major findings of the most common correlates studied:

2.1 SWB and Demographics

27

2.1 SWB and Demographics 2.1.1 Age/Lifespan and SWB Age and SWB relationship though usually stable over time cannot be easily generalized as it varies according to the study context (Deaton, 2018; Kulkarni, Kulkarni, & Gaiha, 2021). Most researchers support the U-shape curve relationship between age and SWB (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2004; Das et al., 2020; Hayo & Seifert, 2003; Lansford, 2018; Stone et al., 2020; Wang & Vander Weele, 2011). However, some researchers support an inverted U-shape curve, for example, the kind of happiness measure used (Easterlin, 2006). This relationship is influenced by country differences in terms of national wealth (Deaton, 2018; Lansford, 2018; Steptoe et al., 2015). Studies have shown a positive, negative, or no relationship between age and SWB with a focus on absolute age. Studies have focused on the process of ageing and suggest that different predictors lead to consequences of well-being across lifespan stages (Casas & González-Carrasco, 2019; also see Lansford, 2018; Das et al., 2020 for a detailed account). Life satisfaction mostly increases (at least does not decline) with age (Butt & Beiser, 1987; Diener & Suh, 1998; Herzog & Rodgers, 1981; Horley & Lavery, 1995; Inglehart, 1990; Larson, 1978; Okma & Veenhoven, 1996; Stock et al., 1983; Veenhoven, 1984). Whereas pleasant affect and emotional intensity tend to decline with age (Diener et al., 1985). People overcome adversities (Brandtstadter & Renner, 1990) and readjust their goals as they age. This helps in decreasing the goals and circumstances gap with age (also Ryff, 1991). However, this relation between circumstances and SWB is mediated by expectations (Campbell et al., 1976; Rapkin & Fischer, 1992). Research suggests that a life-cycle effect exists on household SWB (Kulkarni, Kulkarni, Imai, & Gaiha, 2021) and family relationships are critical for SWB at every stage (Lansford, 2018).

2.1.2 Gender Sex differences in SWB are generally small or non-existent. Studies are typically conducted on large samples in the West (Inglehart, 1990; Michalos, 1991). The findings related to the relationship between gender and SWB are mixed. There are some studies showing men reporting significantly higher levels of SWB (Haring et al., 1984; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009), while some showing women reporting significantly higher levels of SWB (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2004; Clark et al., 2001; Diener et al., 1997; Fujita et al., 1991; Tay et al., 2014; Wang & VanderWeele, 2011), and some studies showing no significant difference among the genders (Okun & George, 1984) after controlling for demographic variables (detailed review can be found in Batz & Tay, 2018). Women have also been found to report higher negative affect (Chou, 1999; Das et al., 2020). This can be attributed to the socialization patterns and women being more open to emotional expressions of both positive

28

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

and negative affect (Zuckerman, 2017). That is also the reason that the variance in happiness due to gender is much lesser (1%) compared to the “variance in the intensity of emotional experiences” (13%) (Fujita et al., 1991). It can thus be summarized that all things being equal, both men and women share similar relations to SWB (Chou, 1999). Any difference can be attributed to “biological, individual, and environmental factors” (Batz & Tay, 2018).

2.1.3 Education The relationship between education and SWB is found to be significant and positive but with a small effect size (Campbell et al., 1976; Cantril, 1965; Diener et al., 1993, 1997; Guardiola & Guillen-Royo, 2015; Jin et al., 2020; Wang & VanderWeele, 2011; Witter et al., 1984). Education correlates with SWB generally and is specifically higher for lower incomes (Campbell, 1981; Diener et al., 1993); poor nations (Veenhoven, 1994); occupational status and income (Campbell, 1981; Witter et al., 1984); and during a crisis and high levels of unemployment (Guardiola & Guillen-Royo, 2015). Significant urban–rural SWB differences were found due to educational levels (Jin et al., 2020). Studying this relationship has likely implications for understanding the goal–achievement gap.

2.1.4 Income and SWB Income positively influences SWB (Clark et al., 2001; Cramm et al., 2010; Das et al., 2020; Wang & Vander Weele, 2011). The indirect impact of wealth through positive means like improvement in health or life expectancy and the adverse impact of wealth like environmental degradation have both been studied (Senik, 2014). Income has also been shown to have a weak relationship with SWB (Aknin et al., 2009; Guardiola & Guillen-Royo, 2015). Well-being rises with income, but there is no evidence that there is a satiation point above which income is no longer related to well-being (Sacks et al., 2012). It has been found that value for money-based goals relates to lesser satisfaction with life, even when income is controlled (Crawford, 1998; Richins & Dawson, 1992) and that interindividual differences like “one’s life circumstances, roles, and values” might moderate the “effect of money on SWB” (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Schöllgen et al., 2019). Income changes at the national and personal levels demonstrate less effect on SWB (Diener & Suh, 1997). Excessive desire for money can be detrimental to SWB. The relation between personal income and SWB is explained as the extent to which external resources can be bought for optimal functioning (Cummins, 2000; Diener et al., 2013). Income trajectories and sources of income examined suggest that higher stability in income leads to higher SWB and vice versa and that the source of income matters (Schöllgen et al., 2019). Employment status, especially during a crisis, is

2.1 SWB and Demographics

29

a strong determinant of SWB (Guardiola & Guillen-Royo, 2015). Unemployment adversely impacts SWB and aspects of self and mental health (Campbell et al., 1976; Frey & Stutzer, 2010; Lamu & Olsen, 2016; Lee & Browne, 2008). A weak and complex association between income inequalities and SWB suggests that the relationship between income inequalities and SWB is moderated by a nation’s economic development and not influenced by the assessment measures, geographic regions, or how the inequality was operationalized (Ngamaba et al., 2018). Income effects are mostly global with very less effects “of national social comparisons” (Diener et al., 2013). A high correlation has been observed between national happiness and national income (Veenhoven, 1991; Veenhoven & Vergunst, 2014). It has, therefore, been argued that happiness is based on the fulfilment of basic and psychological needs provided by income (Tay et al., 2018). The nature of governance (e.g. egalitarian treatment and less corruption) also determines the relationship between national wealth and SWB (Diener et al., 1995). Additionally, the income-SWB association appears to be stronger in men as compared to women (Zyphur et al., 2015).

2.1.5 Marriage Married people are likely to experience higher SWB than their unmarried counterparts (Coombs, 1991; Diener et al., 1997; Diener, Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 2000a, 2000b; Easterlin, 2003; Haring-Hidore et al., 1985; Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Lee & Ono, 2012; Myers, 2000; Nelson-Coffey, 2018; Wang & VanderWeele, 2011; Williams, 2003; Wood et al., 1989). There is consistency in these findings “across studies and cultures” (Diener, Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 1998; Glenn, 1975; Gove & Shin, 1989; Haring-Hidore et al., 1985; Lee & Ono, 2012; Mastekaasa, 1995; White, 1992). However, research also suggests that those in unhappy marriages report lower levels of SWB as compared to those who are unmarried (Williams, 2003). This implies that it is not just marriage or living with a partner, but the quality of the marital relationship (Campbell et al., 1976; Das et al., 2020; George & Landerman, 1984; Kamp Dush et al., 2008; Lamu & Olsen, 2016; Mhaoláin et al., 2012; Michalos, 1980; Proulx et al., 2007), selection effects, and the benefits of marriage (Mastekaasa, 1995), which are important predictors of SWB. There is a significant correlation between marriage and SWB (even on controlling age and income, e.g. Glenn & Weaver, 1979; Gove et al., 1983); however, there can be a variation in the influence basis of age and gender (Li & Fung, 2014). Further, the possibility of marriage can be significantly predicted by happiness (e.g. Harker & Keltner, 2001) and life satisfaction (e.g. Luhmann et al., 2013) levels, and that “happiness precedes both getting married and having children” (Kim & Hicks, 2016; Luhmann et al., 2013; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Nelson-Coffey, 2018).

30

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

2.1.6 Health Evidence suggests that self-reported physical health is correlated with SWB (Campbell et al., 1976; Cross et al., 2018; George & Landerman, 1984; Lamu & Olsen, 2016; Lee & Browne, 2008; Zautra & Hempel, 1984) but not physician-reported objective health (Watten et al., 1997). This implies that more than actual, it is the perception of health which determines the impact on SWB. Poor health is found to be negatively correlated with health (Mehnert et al., 1990). It is imperative to control for negative affect in these studies to ensure that the impact is due to the presence of positive affect and not the absence of negative affect (Cross et al., 2018; Pressman & Cohen, 2005).

2.1.7 Religion The relationship between religion and SWB tends to be positive with a small effect size (Diener et al., 2011; Ellison, 1991; Ellison et al., 1989; Graham & Crown, 2014; Hackney & Sanders, 2003; Kim-Prieto & Miller, 2018; McIntosh et al., 1993; Myers, 2000; Newman & Graham, 2018; Oishi & Diener, 2014; Pollner, 1989; Poloma & Pendleton, 1991). The effect also “depends upon the level of analysis” and shows a weak but positive correlation between religiosity and SWB among non-western nations as well (Newman & Graham, 2018; Tay et al., 2014). Religiosity is positively related to SWB and negatively to negative feelings across religions (e.g. Diener & Clifton, 2002) and nations (e.g. Diener et al., 2011; Figley et al., 2010; Krause et al., 1999; Ng & Fisher, 2016; Rosmarin et al., 2009). The relationship between religiosity and SWB is found to be mediated by “social support, feelings of respect, and meaning in life” along with whether or not one lives in a religious society and moderated by “difficult life circumstances” (Diener et al., 2011 in Kim-Prieto & Miller, 2018). It has also been found to buffer the “effect of some stressors on depression” and aggravate the effect of others (Strawbridge et al., 1998). Religion can also serve as a source of negative feelings and negative effects (e.g. Cohen et al., 2006; Exline, 2002; Ginges et al., 2009; Kim-Prieto & Miller, 2018; Krause & Wulff, 2005; Smith et al., 2003). There is, however, a need for more systematic research to understand the effect of the predictive characteristics of religion on SWB.

2.1.8 Goals There is a close association between goals and SWB (e.g. Brunstein, 1993; Carver & Scheier, 1990; Diener, 1984; Emmons, 1986; Klug & Maier, 2015; Locke & Latham,

2.1 SWB and Demographics

31

1990). Sirgy (2002) suggests that goals are not just about achievement or goal attainment. It is about a process that starts from goal selection to goal implementation to goal progress (Klug & Maier, 2015; Liberman & Dar, 2009; Little, 2005; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001) and finally goal attainment. Goals that are intrinsically motivated, autonomous, and self-concordant (chosen by an individual for themselves) have a relatively stronger relation to higher levels of SWB than those that are not (Brunstein, 1993; Brunstein et al., 1998; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Sheldon, 2014). Goals that satisfy basic needs result in the experience of higher levels of SWB (Brunstein et al., 1998; Carver & Baird, 1998; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Kasser & Ryan, 1993), and their failure would lead to lower levels of SWB (Sheldon et al., 2010). Sirgy (2002) and Kaftan and Freund (2018) provide a detailed account of goal characteristics and their effect on the experience of SWB.

2.1.9 Personality There were 137 traits DeNeve and Cooper (1998) identified to correlate with SWB. Among these, the Big 5 are the most researched and theoretically sound traits in SWB literature. Extroversion is found to be significantly and positively related to pleasant affect (Fujita, 1991), and neuroticism and negative affect are highly correlated (Fujita, 1991). Both extroversion and neuroticism are strong predictors of the experience of positive and negative affect respectively over a stable period (Costa, 1994; Costa & McCrae, 1980; Costa et al., 1987; Fujita & Diener, 2005; Headey & Wearing, 1992; Magnus & Diener, 1991). The remaining three traits need more research. Both conscientiousness and agreeableness are moderately related to SWB, and openness to experience has not been found to relate to either positive or negative affect or life satisfaction (e.g. Gottfredson, 1994). However, temperament plays a role and is recommended to be studied (e.g. Diener et al., 1992; Holder et al., 2012; Pavot et al., 1990; Watson & Clark, 1997). Temperament has a genetic base and can influence the experience of SWB (Baker et al., 1992; Davidson & Fox, 1982; Kagan, 1994; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996; Tellegen et al., 1988). Nevertheless, individual differences have been found to be the most stable predictors of SWB (Diener et al., 1999; Lucas, 2018; Lucas & Diener, 2015; Steel et al., 2008). Some other interesting studies besides many others involve traits like self-esteem, optimism, self-efficacy, and positive illusions. Self-esteem is not a global SWB correlate. It is a strong SWB predictor in Western nations (e.g. Lucas et al., 1996) but shows a weak correlation for women in collective cultures (Diener & Diener, 1995). Similarly, it predicts life satisfaction in America but more relationship harmony in Hong Kong (Kwan et al., 1997). Optimists tend to see the positive aspects in all situations and are solutions-focused. Optimism is found to correlate with all aspects of SWB (Lucas et al., 1996; Scheier & Carver, 1985, 1993; Scheier et al., 1986). Self-efficacy or feeling efficacious, especially in the areas one feels are of utmost relevance is a strong predictor of SWB (Feasel, 1995). Self-efficacy has been found to

32

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

partially mediate the relationship between meaning in life and subjective well-being (Wang et al., 2021). People with a positive cognitive disposition tend to remember and imagine situations positively. These can at times be self-deceptions. However, many a time they serve to foster SWB by successfully adjusting to adverse situations (seeErez et al., 1995; Lightsey, 1994; Taylor & Armor, 1996; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Seidlitz & Diener, 1993). The caution though for individuals high on positive illusions is that they must not be cut out from reality and be prepared to make efforts in the right direction or their SWB can be compromised.

2.1.10 Leisure Research suggests that the level of leisure activities and leisure satisfaction is correlated with SWB. The type of activity plays an important role in determining the strength of effect because watching television idling off is not the same as playing a sport of one’s interest (Biddle & Mutrie, 1991; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Heady, Holmstrom & Wearing, 1985; Kuykendall et al., 2015; Kuykendall et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2014; Veenhoven & coworkers, 1994). The term that has been used synonymously with leisure in further chapters of this book is recreation.

2.1.11 Profession Research on profession and SWB suggests that profession can be both an antecedent and a consequent of SWB. Some studies envisage that professional fulfilment determines SWB (Oliveira-Silva et al., 2021), while others claim that it is in fact, SWB that affects professional engagement and fulfilment (Graham & Shier, 2010; Huang, 2018). Work is related to SWB (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Ford et al., 2018; Scitovsky, 1976) as it can be a source of positive stimulation, identity, and purpose. Job Satisfaction is positively correlated with higher levels of life satisfaction (Tait et al., 1989) and vice versa (Stones & Kozma, 1986). Conversely, unemployment shows a low correlation with SWB (Clark, 1998; Diener et al., 1997; Frey & Stutzer, 2002; Gerlach & Stephan, 1996; Oswald, 1997; Platt & Kreitman, 1985; Wang & VanderWeele, 2011).

2.2 Culture and SWB SWB is a culturally sensitive concept. Factors determining SWB may be different across societies (Kitayama & Markus, 2000; Tov & Diener, 2007). Culture studies refer to a “universalist position”, which states that there are some basic and discrete emotions that appear in all cultures (e.g. Church et al., 2013; Ekman & Friesen, 1971;

2.2 Culture and SWB

33

Plutchik, 1980; Scollon et al., 2004). Evidence suggests that pleasant and unpleasant experiences are universal (Tov & Diener, 2007), and extraversion is related to the frequency of positive affect (Diener et al., 2017; Schimmack et al., 2002); however, specific emotions vary across cultures (Diener et al., 2004; Tov & Diener, 2009). The nomenclature of feelings is also different for different cultures, and the role of language is important (Diener et al., 2017). The emotion of pride offers a good example (Diener et al., 2004; Scollon et al., 2004; Shaver et al., 1992). To illustrate with my research, the Hindi “word translation” for proud is ghamand/ahankara which is a negative emotion and not a positive one as in the Western nations. Therefore, the “meaning translation” garv was included in a Hindi translation of PANAS in my research (Bhatnagar, 2010). Another similar example is from the research of Wierzbicka (1986), where it was observed that the word “disgust” doesn’t have a substitute in the Polish language. These differences can be attributed to the practising cultural norms of the place (Kitayama & Markus, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1994; Menon & Shweder, 1994; Ruby et al., 2012; Scollon et al., 2004). It is interesting to note here that there are sub-cultural differences between cultures. India serves as an excellent example of the practice of sub-cultural norms and their varying impact on the experience of SWB. Further, research also needs to focus on how emotions are practised in different cultures rather than focusing solely on their presence in a specific culture (Mesquita et al., 1997; Tov & Diener, 2007). The values that are important for an individual are critical to his/her SWB, irrespective of cultural and social norms. For example, autonomy may be a strong predictor of SWB in individualistic societies (e.g. Oishi, 2000), but it is important to differentiate it from independence and individuation (Chirkov et al., 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Oishi (2000) maintains that “personal goals aligned with cultural values lead to both happiness and meaning”. The relationship between self and SWB varies across cultures. For example, in many Asian cultures, predominantly in India happiness is not just personal but is inclusive of significant others and correlated with it (Bhatnagar, 2010; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Misra, 2009). Japan serves as another example as with an emphasis on interdependence, a self-critical tendency is valued (Brown & Kobayashi, 2002, 2003; Heine, 2003). In general, the influence of social relationships on SWB varies across cultures (also Oishi et al., 2003, 2004). Biswas-Diener (2018) explains the role of culture in the happiness of small societies where relationships are very important. The Western models or approaches are more about the environment in which the individual operates and how sense-making or cognitive interpretations influence their SWB judgments, whereas the Eastern approaches focus on and define well-being in terms of maintaining a balance and harmony within and figuring out a middle path (Delle Fave et al., 2011, 2016; Lomas, 2021; Sundararajan, 2015; Thin, 2018; Tsai & Park, 2014; Wong, 2011). Research also illustrates how personal accomplishments and freedom are more related to pleasant affect in the USA and European countries and social harmony or relationship harmony and balance in Asian countries (Diener et al., 2017; Kwan et al., 1997; Pflug, 2009; Suh et al., 1998; Tov & Nai, 2018; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009).

34

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Research in the field also shows that individualists and collectivists construct their life satisfaction judgments in different ways (Biswas-Diener et al., 2005; Diener et al., 1997, 2017; Suh et al., 1998). Diener and Scollon (2003) state that the conditions in society do make a difference to SWB, with very poor nations, as well as with those in disarray from upheavals such as revolution or dramatic political change, showing the lowest levels of SWB. Cross-cultural findings in SWB research suggest that people in poor nations show average SWB scores, while citizens of wealthier nations show higher SWB (Diener et al., 1995). It is critical to take due precautions on which unique and culturally sensitive factors to be considered while making cross-cultural comparisons (Tov & Diener, 2007). Oishi et al. (2013) contend that much of the mean level differences are likely to occur because of different circumstances among nations and not just because of variations in culture (Diener et al., 2017). For example, the construal of SWB meanings among children was found to be based on the conceptions of their experiences, both independent and interdependent. The study also observed that their concepts were well grounded in their respective cultures (Exenberger et al., 2019), substantiating the argument that cultural perspectives are important to consider. The cultural differences in SWB can be attributed to the different response styles of people from different cultures. For example, adherence to humility norms in terms of selecting a mid-point most of the time or reflecting positivity bias or social desirability bias in responses (e.g. Diener et al., 1995; Diener et al., 2000a, 2000b; Johnson et al., 2005; Smith, 2004; Veenhoven, 2001).

2.3 SWB Determinants in Nations Large data studies tend to give insights into important factors influencing and predicting SWB in general and for nations, in particular (Ngamaba, 2017). The results from these surveys generally agree that developed nations perform better on SWB as compared to their poor counterparts (Helliwell et al., World Happiness Report 2016; Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index (2015); Biswas-Diener & Diener, 2001, 2006; Neff, 2010). Let us look at some examples. Determinants of SWB were studied as part of a large survey data in Spain from 2013 to 2018 (Arrondo et al., 2021). The data comes from two time periods, one from 2013 (grave economic crisis resulting from the 2008 global financial crisis) and the other one from 2018 (fast economic recovery phase). They found that unemployment adversely impacts SWB even more during the economic crisis, and social connections and health status predict SWB especially when the economy is well functioning. An interesting finding was related to gender effects. Women were happier than men in 2013 and had a decrease in 2018 suggesting an increase in life expectations for themselves. A survey-based study in 55 countries by Diener, Diener, & Diener (2009) found high income, individualism, human rights, and societal equality demonstrated a strong correlation with each other and with SWB; while cultural homogeneity,

2.3 SWB Determinants in Nations

35

income growth, and income comparison were low and inconsistently related with SWB. The World Value Survey (2010–14) comprising 85,070 participants from 59 nations was subjected to a “cross-sectional multilevel random effects model nested by country” demonstrated that SWB varies across nations. The determinants predicting SWB were “health status, (household) financial satisfaction, freedom of choice, GDP per capita, income scale, the importance of friends, leisure, being females, weekly religious attendance, unemployment and income inequality” though the effect sizes were small (Ngamaba, 2017). Pflug (2009) studying the lay beliefs on happiness among 57 German and 44 Black South African students found that “satisfaction, contentment, positive affect, social relationships, freedom, and the opposite of unhappiness” emerged as the common themes, while surprising events emerged as an additional theme for German students. A systematic literature review for Malaysia (Azizan & Mahmud, 2018) suggests that personality, health, religion, income, and employment status are the prominent SWB determinants. Determinants predicting higher SWB among urban Chinese (China General Social Survey) include “female gender, high-income class, marriage, employment, fashionable consumption, less sense of relative deprivation, and party membership”. Political status and education have also been found to have an impact on the experience of SWB (Wang & VanderWeele, 2011). Burger et al. (2020) used the Gallup World Poll to differentiate happiness levels among 150 countries around the world and investigate if these differences are due to “person-based or place-based factors”. They found that happiness levels were higher for urban participants. Biswas-Diener et al. (2015) studied the “curious case of Bhutan”. They compared 11 countries with Bhutan on four domains—“Psychological, Social, Environmental, and Income and Material well-being”. They found that Bhutan fared the best in environmental, moderately high on social, and fairly low on psychological well-being. The findings of this study imply that there is no one way of measuring happiness or SWB. It depends upon how individuals and societies define SWB or happiness for themselves. Culture can combine with determinants to decide how they will affect SWB. Veenhoven (2018) has very aptly summarized his findings from the world database of happiness (a tremendous storehouse of information on all aspects of happiness around the globe), in his review chapter in the Handbook of Well-Being (Diener et al., 2018). He suggests that there is sufficient evidence available from research on happiness from almost all countries (except North Korea) to assert that happiness differs substantially within nations. He concludes that the findings show “the following patterns: (a) life satisfaction differs much across nations, (b) average life satisfaction has risen over the past decade in most nations, while inequality in life satisfaction in nations decreased, (c) several societal determinants of life- satisfaction have been identified, many of which are part of modernity, and (d) high life satisfaction in a nation has several positive effects and pursuit of greater happiness fits as such with wider policy aims”. He explains the variation in the findings through his

36

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

livability (external living conditions, for example, wealth, freedom, equality, security, institutional quality, and modernity) versus life-ability (self-direction, mental health, personality, trust, values) framework. He maintains that the key determinant of happiness within nations is the freedom of choice. This choice entails choosing from external opportunities, the internal capability to choose (from awareness and availability of alternatives, and the mental strength to make the choice). The freedom of choice is facilitated by an open and more independent environment that policies and governments provide to their citizens to opt for living their best lives and bringing them out of conditions that make them unhappy (also Sen, 1999; Veenhoven, 1999).

2.4 SWB and India Biswas-Diener et al. (2012) have very beautifully remarked, “India is an interesting test case for happiness. It is a unique society because of its unusual history, rapid economic growth, large population, and its ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity”. With many sub-cultures, the cultural ethos of India has a lot to offer to the understanding of SWB/happiness. Research has been conducted in the space of SWB, but it is limited and scattered. There is a need for more nuanced literature that is needed to understand the process, antecedents, and consequences of SWB in India. Well-being in the Indian context has been defined mainly in terms of health, meditation, yoga, and spiritual wellness (Kumar & Kumar, 2013; Rao, 2014; Sharma et al., 2008; Sinha, 1990; Sinha & Tripathi, 2001). Many researchers in the field relate the concept to the one as defined in the scriptures and religious texts of Hindus (e.g. Dalal & Misra, 2001; Misra, 2009; Salagame, 2017; Singh et al., 2013, 2017). Other researchers in the field have explored the relationship of well-being with variables such as marital adjustment (Nathawat & Mathur, 1993); emotional intelligence and locus of control (Kulshrestha & Sen, 2006); transactive memory and self-construal (Ghosh, 2008); life satisfaction with grit, positive affect, and happiness (Singh & Jha, 2008) and effect of money lowering life satisfaction during uncertainty (Mukherjee et al., 2014); positive writing (Nath & Pradhan, 2011); positive affect, health, and well-being and mediating role of psychological resilience (Nath & Pradhan, 2012); quality of life (Agarwal et al., 2019; Verma, 2008); adaptation (Neff, 2009); structure of SWB among millennials (Suar et al., 2019); the mental health of school children (Singh & Junnarkar, 2015), and adolescents (Singh et al., 2017); gratitude interventions (Khanna & Singh, 2016); tri gunas as a personality factor (Khanna et al., 2013); social class (Spears, 2016; Kulkarni, Kulkarni, Imai, & Gaiha, 2021); perceived change in SWB at the household level (Kulkarni, Kulkarni, Imai, & Gaiha, 2021); time spent with friends and family (Chadda & Deb, 2013; Kulkarni, Kulkarni, Imai, & Gaiha, 2021); meaning in life (Mathur & Sharma, 2014; Sharma & Patra, 2014; Pinjarkar & Mehrotra, 2014; Salagame, 2017); psychological capital with SWB, mentoring, and educational encouragement (Khan, 2013); mindfulness (Bajaj & Pande, 2016); temperament (Holder et al., 2012); belongingness in interpersonal relationships (Afroz & Tiwari, 2019); religion and spirituality (Ramesh et al., 2013); flow

2.4 SWB and India

37

(Sahoo & Sahu, 2009); demographics (Singh &Yu, 2010; Hafen et al., 2011; Holder et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2012; Sood & Gupta, 2012; Singh, Kaur, Singh, & Junnarkar, 2014; Singh, Ruch, & Junnarkar, 2014); character strengths (Choubisa & Singh, 2011; Mehrotra et al., 2015); growth post adverse circumstances (Bhushan & Kumar, 2012; Sharma & Choudhary, 2013); psychological capital (Gupta & Singh, 2014; Rathi, 2011) besides many more (also see Ghosh & Deb, 2016 for a comprehensive review). Psychological studies (a springer publication and the official journal of the National Academy of Psychology, India) had a dedicated volume (59, issue 2, 2014) on positive psychology and its relation to Indian Psychology. The volume was edited by Misra (2014) and a target article by Rao (2014). Around 17 articles were woven around the theme of understanding positive psychology from Indian perspectives and reflecting on the synergies between the two disciplinary lenses for arriving at convergence and mutual reinforcement. The volume strived to understand happiness from an Indian approach (understanding self, self-transcendence, control of the mind, compassion) and highlighted learnings as takeaways from the best of both approaches. Most of these studies have measured SWB through life satisfaction, affect scales, and quality of life. The findings suggest that positive psychology constructs in general, and SWB in particular, are usually positively related to positive affect and life satisfaction. Empirical work done in the field mostly happened post-2010, until then the traditional approach to SWB was dominating SWB research in India. I began my work in the area in early 2003 with the assumption that parameters that define SWB in the west may not necessarily define it in the east. The cultural studies in SWB research and my findings assert this assumption. That was when I believed that it was important to understand SWB by exploring the respondents’ worldviews. There are hardly any systematic qualitative explorations in the field in India to give us rich accounts of the understanding of SWB. Explorations available are mostly those based on student samples (e.g. Sharma & Patra, 2014; Suar et al., 2021). This study thus is very important and fundamental in understanding SWB from the Indian perspective. Recently, two such studies have been published (Singh, Bandyopadhyay, & Saxena, 2022; Singh, Saxena, & Mahendru, 2022). However, these studies were conducted on participants from Delhi NCR and Bhopal (northern and central India with mostly one or couple of cities), which serves as a limited subset not necessarily representative of the Indian population. The themes obtained are mostly around human ties, the meaning of happiness mostly in terms of low arousal positive emotions, need fulfilment, health, and leisure and how unfavourable circumstances can hinder the experience of SWB. There are also analyses available from large-scale survey data, for example, the happy planet index, world value survey, world database of happiness, and Gallup world poll among many others. Findings converge on the role and importance of cultural differences while also agreeing on the fact that most nations share the understanding of SWB in terms of the positive and negative affect and satisfaction with life.

38

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

A pan-India analysis of SWB was carried out based on panel survey data spanning 2005 to 2012 (Kulkarni, Kulkarni, & Gaiha, 2021; Kulkarni, Kulkarni, Imai, & Gaiha, 2021). The focus of this study was however on economic well-being. They found that besides affluence and employment, “age, gender, health, caste, schooling, trust, generosity and nutrition are other important covariates” of SWB among Indians. They concluded their study with the need to strengthen policies towards healthy ageing and the implications of this strengthening. In another study, they also suggest that changes in SWB in economic aspects are positively related to people’s trust in state governments (Kulkarni et al., 2022). The World Value Survey (2006) found income, class, and caste as important covariates of SWB. Though education and age were also important, but not at the village level. The strong effects of caste and class implied the influence of stratification in Indian society. Caste is important in the Indian context for it determines many critical resources for people and in turn influences their SWB (Bosher et al., 2007; Neff, 2010). There are very few studies with caste as a variable. It is a salient construct in the Indian context and needs to be studied more when it comes to the SWB experience of people. There is sufficient SWB research conducted in relation to income. It has been found that though happiness and life satisfaction distribution is related, it is not uniform in relation to the rise in income. SWB levels for Indians are determined by varying degrees of their socioeconomic status like “education, social class, religion, age, marital status and health, but not much with employment and gender” (Lakshmanasamy, 2021). Agrawal et al. (2011) explored SWB in an urban South Indian sample. They found that the participants demonstrated above-average levels of SWB (positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction). The other socioeconomic correlates of SWB (though with minimal effect sizes) found were more years (age), higher level of education, being married, higher levels of income, and full-time employment. Religion was found to be significantly related to negative affect. Important predictors of positive affect were education and income; age, income, employment status, and religion for negative affect; and income, age, and education for life satisfaction. There were differences found between men and women on these correlates. The findings of this research have been generalized to Indians, which in a way is fair given its sophisticated statistical analysis. However, the fact remains that there are further sub-cultural variations among the four zones in India. It is imperative to do a holistic analysis to conclude SWB in India. The research endeavour here is to enrich the well-being literature not only at the national but also at the global level. The exploratory study (discussed in a subsequent chapter) is one of the major contributions of this book as it describes the Indian conception of SWB and enriches the global literature in the field of SWB research. The strength of this conceptualization lies in the fact that these domains have emerged from people’s responses across sections of society with a representative sample. It helps to conclude that though most of the SWB determinants are similar across cultures and societies, the way they operate and contribute to the

References

39

processes and outcomes of SWB may slightly differ for different cultures and have some determinants specific to that cultural context.

References Afroz, S., & Tiwari, P. S. N. (2019). Role of family belongingness in subjective well-being of male, female and third gender of Uttar Pradesh (India). IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review, 7(5), 830–836. Agarwal, S., Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2019). Testing the reciprocal relationship between quality of work life and subjective well-being: A path analysis model. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 11(2), 140–153. Agrawal, J., Murthy, P., Mariamma, P., Mehrotra, S., Thennarasu, K., John, P. J., Girish, N., Thippeswamy, V., & Isaac, M. (2011). Socio-demographic correlates of subjective well-being in urban India. Social Indicators Research, 101, 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-0109669-5 Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., & Dunn, E. W. (2009). From wealth to well-being? Money matters, but less than people think. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 523–527. Argyle, M. (1999). Causes and correlates of happiness. In D. Kahneman, E, Diener, & N Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 353–373). Russell Sage. Arrondo, R., Cárcaba, A., & González, E. (2021). Drivers of subjective well-being under different economic scenarios. Frontiers in Psychology, 3470. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=3743147#:~:text=The%20Easterlin%20Paradox%20states%20that. [Accessed June 8, 2022 at 7:47 pm]. Azizan, N. H., & Mahmud, Z. (2018). A systematic review on determinants of subjective well-being. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 3(7). https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v3i7.1228 Bajaj, B., & Pande, N. (2016). Mediating role of resilience in the impact of mindfulness on life satisfaction and affect as indices of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 63–67. Baker, L. A., Cesa, I. L., Gatz, M., & Mellins, C. (1992). Genetic and environmental influences on positive and negative affect: Support for a two-factor theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 158–163. Batz, C., & Tay, L. (2018). Gender differences in subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Bhatnagar, T. (2010). Subjective well-being in the Indian context: Concept, measure and index (Doctoral dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (India)). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2010, 28720816. Bhushan, B., & Kumar, J. S. (2012). A study of posttraumatic stress and growth in tsunami relief volunteers. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 17(2), 113–124. Biddle, S., & Mutrie, N. (1991). Psychology of physical activity and exercise. Springer/Tavistock/ Routledge. Biswas-Diener, R. (2018). The subjective well-being of small societies. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2001). Making the best of a bad situation: Satisfaction in the slums of Calcutta. Social Indicators Research, 55(3), 329–352. Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2006). The subjective well-being of the homeless, and lessons for happiness. Social Indicators Research, 76(2), 185–205. Biswas-Diener, R., Diener, E., & Lyubchik, N. (2015). Wellbeing in Bhutan. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(2). Biswas-Diener, R., Tay, L., Diener, E. (2012). Happiness in India. In Happiness across cultures (pp. 13–25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2700-7_2

40

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Biswas-Diener, R., Vittersø, J., & Diener, E. (2005). Most people are pretty happy, but there is cultural variation: The Inughuit, the Amish, and the Maasai. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-5683-8 Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1359–1386. Bosher, L., Penning-Rowsell, E., & Tapsell, S. (2007). Resource accessibility and vulnerability in Andhra Pradesh: Caste and non-caste influences. Development and Change, 38(4), 615–640. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine. Brandtstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.5.1.58 Brown, J. D., & Kobayashi, C. (2002). Self-enhancement in Japan and America. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 145–168. Brown, J. D., & Kobayashi, C. (2003). Motivation and manifestation: Cross-cultural expression of the self-enhancement motive. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 85–88. Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070. Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grässman, R. (1998). Personal goals and emotional wellbeing: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.494 Burger, M. J., Morrison, P. S., Hendriks, M., & Hoogerbrugge, M. M. (2020). Urban-rural happiness differentials across the world. World Happiness Report, 2020, 66–93. Butt, D. S., & Beiser, M. (1987). Successful aging: A theme for international psychology. Psychology and Aging, 2(1), 87. Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: Recent patterns and trends. McGraw-Hill. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. Russell Sage Foundation. Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press. Carver, C. S., & Baird, E. (1998). The American dream revisited: Is it what you want or why you want it that matters? Psychological Science, 9(4), 289–292. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35. Casas, F., & González-Carrasco, M. (2019). Subjective well-being decreasing with age: New research on children over 8. Child Development, 90(2), 375–394. Chadda, R. K., & Deb, K. S. (2013). Indian family systems, collectivistic society and psychotherapy. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(2). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.105555. PMID: 23858272; PMCID: PMC3705700. Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Ulas, K. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97–110. Chou, K.-L. (1999). Social support and subjective well-being among Hong Kong Chinese young adults. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160(3), 319–331. Choubisa, R., & Singh, K. (2011). Psychometrics encompassing VIA-IS: A comparative crosscultural analytical and referential reading. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37(2), 325–332. Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Locke, K. D., Zhang, H., Shen, J., de Jesús Vargas-Flores, J., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Curtis, G. J., Cabrera, H. F., & Mastor, K. A. (2013). Need satisfaction and well-being: Testing self-determination theory in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(4), 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112466590 Clark, A. E. (1998). The positive externalities of higher unemployment: Evidence from household data. Research Paper (CNRS and LEO-CRESEP, Université d’Orléans, France). Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Sanfey, P. (2001). Scarring: The psychological impact of past unemployment. Economica, 68(270), 221–241.

References

41

Cohen, A. B., Malka, A., Rozin, P., & Cherfas, L. (2006). Religion and unforgivable offenses. Journal of Personality, 74, 85–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00370.x Coombs, R. H. (1991). Marital status and personal well-being: A literature review. Family Relations, 40, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/585665 Costa, P. T. (1994). Traits through time, or the stability of personality: Observations, evaluations, and a model. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, (August 12–16). Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extroversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the neo personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Zonderman, A. (1987). Environmental and dispositional influences on well-being: Longitudinal follow-up of an American national sample. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 299–306. Cramm, J., Møller, V., & Nieboer, A. (2010). Improving subjective well-being of the poor in the Eastern Cape. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(7), 1012–1019. Crawford, E. G. (1998). Can money buy happiness? (Honors Thesis). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Cross, M. P., Hofschneider, L., Grimm, M., & Pressman, S. D. (2018). Subjective well-being and physical health. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010079728426 Dalal, A. K., & Misra, G. (Eds.). (2001). New directions in Indian psychology. In Social psychology (Vol. 1). Sage Publications. Das, K. V., Jones-Harrell, C., Fan, Y., Ramaswami, A., Orlove, B., & Botchwey, N. (2020). Understanding subjective well-being: Perspectives from psychology and public health. Public Health Reviews, 41(1), 1–32. Davidson, R. J., & Fox, N. A. (1982). Asymmetrical brain activity discriminates between positive versus negative affective stimuli in human infants. Science, 218, 1235–1237. Deaton, A. (2018). What do self-reports of wellbeing say about life-cycle theory and policy? Journal of Public Economics, 162, 18–25. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182. Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological selection and optimal experience across cultures. Springer. Delle Fave, A., et al. (2016). Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–30. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169. Diener, E., & Clifton, D. (2002). Life satisfaction and religiosity in broad probability samples. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 206–209. Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663.

42

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851–864. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (2009). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. In Culture and well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener, Social indicators research series (Vol. 38, pp. 43–70). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2352-0 Diener, E., Gohm, C., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1998). Do the effects of marital status on subjective well-being vary across cultures? Manuscript submitted for publication. Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000a). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 419–436. Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., & Oishi, S. (2017). Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 58(2), 87. Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1984). Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral and cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 871–883. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1985). Age and sex effects for emotional intensity. Developmental Psychology, 21, 542–546. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Fujita, F. (1992). Extraversion and subjective well-being in a U.S. national probability sample. Journal of Research in Personality., 26, 205–215. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The Relationship between Income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research, 28, 195–223. Diener, E., & Scollon, C. (2003, October). Subjective well-being is desirable, but not the Summum Bonum. Paper presented at the University of Minnesota during Interdisciplinary Workshop on Well-Being, Minneapolis. Retrieved from http://www.tc.umn.edu/~tiberius/workshop_papers/ Diener.pdf. Accessed on June 20, 2009 at 18:00 hrs. Diener, E., Scollon, N. C. K., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Suh, E. M. (2000b). Positivity and the construction of life satisfaction judgments: Global happiness is not the sum of its parts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010031813405 Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216. Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). Subjective well-being and age: An international analysis. In K. W. Schaie & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics (Vol. 8, pp. 304–324). Springer. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25–41. Diener, E., Tay, L., & Myers, D. G. (2011). The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1278–1290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024402 Diener, E., Tay, L., & Oishi, S. (2013). Rising income and the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 267. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908. 2019.1584083 Diener, M. L., Fujita, F., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2004). Culture and emotional experience. Manuscript submitted for publication. Easterlin, R. A. (2003). Explaining happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 11176–11183. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1633144100 Easterlin, R. A. (2006). Life cycle happiness and its sources: Intersections of psychology, economics, and demography. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(4), 463–482. Eddington, N., & Shuman, R. (2005). Subjective well-being (happiness). Continuing Psychology Education, 6.

References

43

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 17, 124–129. Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 80–99. Ellison, C. G., Gay, D. A., & Glass, T. A. (1989). Does religious commitment contribute to individual life satisfaction? Social Forces, 68, 100–123. Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068. Erez, A., Johnson, D. E., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Self-deception as a mediator of the relationship between dispositions and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 597–612. Exenberger, S., Banzer, R., Christy, J., Höfer, S., & Juen, B. (2019). Eastern and Western children’s voices on their well-being. Child Indicators Research, 12(3), 747–768. Exline, J. J. (2002). Stumbling blocks on the religious road: Fractured relationships, nagging vices, and the inner struggle to believe. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327965PLI1303_03 Feasel, K. E. (1995). Mediating the relations between goals and subjective well-being: Global and domain-specific variants of self-efficacy. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Illinois. Figley, C. R., Chapman, P. L., Ashkanani, H., Al Naser, F., & Donnelly, E. A. (2010). Well-being in a deeply religious society in the shadows of war: Results of a household survey of Kuwaitis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010. 01064.x Ford, M., Wang, Y.-R., & Huh, Y. (2018). Work, the work-family interface, and subjective wellbeing. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 402–435. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2010). Happiness and economics. Princeton University Press. Fujita, F. (1991). An investigation of the relation between extroversion, neuroticism, positive affect, and negative affect. Master’s thesis, University of Illinois. Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: Stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 158. Fujita, F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: The case for emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 427–434. Gallup-Healthways. (2015). The state of global well-being: 2014 country well-being rankings. Gallup-Healthways Well-being Index. George, L. K., & Landerman, R. (1984). Health and subjective well-being: A replicated secondary data analysis. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 19, 133–156. Gerlach, K., & Stephan, G. (1996). A paper on unhappiness and unemployment in Germany. Economics Letters, 52(3), 325–330. Ghosh, A. (2008). Transactive memory, self-construal and subjective well-being in a group of Indian couples. Interpersona, 2(2), 173–192. Ghosh, A., & Deb, A. (2016). Positive psychology progress in India: Accomplishments and pathways ahead. Psychological Studies, 61(3), 113–125. Ginges, J., Hansen, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2009). Religion and support for suicide attacks. Psychological Science, 20, 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02270.x Glenn, N. D. (1975). The contribution of marriage to the psychological well-being of males and females. Journal of Marriage and Family Relations, 37, 594–600. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). A note on family situation and global happiness. Social Forces, 57, 960–967. Gottfredson, G. (1994, August 12–16). The person in person-environment interactions. In 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

44

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Style, C. B. (1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 122–131. Gove, W. R., & Shin, H. (1989). The psychological well-being of divorced and widowed men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 122–144. Graham, C., & Crown, S. (2014). Religion and wellbeing around the world: Social purpose, social time, or social insurance? International Journal of Wellbeing, 4, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5502/ ijw.v4i1.1 Graham, J. R., & Shier, M. L. (2010). The social work profession and subjective well-being: The impact of a profession on overall subjective well-being. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(5), 1553–1572. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp049 Guardiola, J., & Guillen-Royo, M. (2015). Income, unemployment, higher education and wellbeing in times of economic crisis: Evidence from Granada (Spain). Social Indicators Research, 120, 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0598-6 Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2014). Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between leadership and creative performance behaviors: Empirical evidence from the Indian R&D sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1373–1394. Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and mental health: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/14685906.t01-1-00160 Hafen, C. A., Singh, K., & Laursen, B. (2011). The happy personality in India: The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 807–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-0109228-4 Haring, M., Stock, W., & Okun, M. (1984). A research synthesis of gender and social class as correlates of subjective well-being. Human Relations, 37(8), 645–657. Haring-Hidore, M., Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., & Witter, R. A. (1985). Marital status and subjective well-being: A research synthesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 947–953. Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.112 Hayo, B., & Seifert, W. (2003). Subjective economic well-being in Eastern Europe. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(3), 329–348. Headey, B. W., Holmstrom, E. L., & Wearing, J. H. (1985). Models of well-being and ill-being. Social Indicators Research, 17, 211–234. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Longman Cheshire. Heine, S. J. (2003). Self-enhancement in Japan? A reply to Brown & Kobayashi. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 75–84. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2016). World Happiness Report 2016, Update (Vol. I). Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Herzog, A. R., & Rodgers, W. L. (1981). Age and satisfaction: Data from several large surveys. Research on Aging, 3, 142–165. Holder, M. D., Coleman, B., & Singh, K. (2012). Temperament and happiness in children in India. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2), 261–274. Horley, J., & Lavery, J. J. (1995). Subjective well-being and age. Social Indicators Research, 34, 275–282. Huang, P. H. (2018). Subjective well-being and the law. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University Press. Jin, Y., Li, Z., & An, J. (2020). Impact of education on Chinese urban and rural subjective well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105505. Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264–277.

References

45

Kaftan, O. J., & Freund, A. M. (2018). The way is the goal: The role of goal focus for successful goal pursuit and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Kagan, J. (1994). Galens prophecy. Basic Books. Kamp Dush, C. M., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 607–627. https://doi. org/10.1177/0265407505056438 Kamp Dush, C. M., Taylor, M. G., & Kroeger, R. A. (2008). Marital happiness and psychological well-being across the life course. Family Relations, 57, 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413729.2008.00495.x Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410–422. Khan, A. (2013). Predictors of positive psychological strengths and subjective well-being among North Indian adolescents: Role of mentoring and educational encouragement. Social Indicators Research, 114(3), 1285–1293. Khanna, P., & Singh, K. (2016). Effect of gratitude educational intervention on well-being indicators among North Indian adolescents. Contemporary School Psychology, 20(4), 305–314. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40688-016-0087-9 Khanna, P., Singh, K., Singla, S., & Verma, V. (2013). Relationship between Triguna theory and wellbeing indicators. International Journal of Yoga-Philosophy, Psychology and Parapsychology, 1(2), 69–74. Kim, J., & Hicks, J. A. (2016). Happiness begets children? Evidence for a bi-directional link between well-being and number of children. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 62–69. https://doi. org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1025420 Kim-Prieto, C., & Miller, L. (2018). Intersection of religion and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (2000). The pursuit of happiness and the realization of sympathy: Cultural patterns of self, social relations, and well-being. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 113–161). MIT Press. Klug, H. J. P., & Maier, G. W. (2015). Linking goal progress and subjective well-being: A metaanalysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9493-0 Krause, N., Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Liang, J., & Sugisawa, H. (1999). Religion, social support, and health among the Japanese elderly. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 405–421. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2676333 Krause, N., & Wulff, K. M. (2005). Church-based social ties, a sense of belonging in a congregation, and physical health status. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1501_6 Kulkarni, V.S., Kulkarni, V.S., & Gaiha, R. (2021). Subjective Well-being in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 56(22). https://www.epw.in/journal/2021/22/special-articles/subjective-wellbeing-india.html. Accessed on Monday 16 May 2022 at 10:25 am IST. Kulkarni, V., Kulkarni, V., Imai, K. S., & Gaiha, R. (2021). Changes in subjective versus objective well-being in India. University of Pennsylvania Population Center Working Paper (PSC/PARC), 2021-71. https://repository.upenn.edu/psc_publications/71 Kulkarni, V., Kulkarni, V., Imai, K. S., & Gaiha, R. (2022). Change in subjective well-being, affluence and trust in state governments in India. University of Pennsylvania Population Center Working Paper (PSC/PARC), 202294. https://repository.upenn.edu/psc_publications/94 Kulshrestha, U., & Sen, C. (2006). Subjective well-being in relation to emotional intelligence and locus of control among executives. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 32(2), 93–98. Kumar, A., & Kumar, S. (2013). Karma yoga: A path towards work in positive psychology. Indian Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.105511

46

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Kuykendall, L., Boemerman, L., & Zhu, Z. (2018). The importance of leisure for subjective wellbeing. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., & Ng, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective well-being: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 364–403. Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanation for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038–1051. Lakshmanasamy, T. (2021). Subjective well-being in India: Socioeconomic and demographic determinants and differentials. Indian Journal of Mental Health, 8(1), 70–83. Lamu, A. N., & Olsen, J. A. (2016). The relative importance of health, income and social relations for subjective well-being: An integrative analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 152, 176–185. Lansford, J. E. (2018). A lifespan perspective on subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Larson, R. (1978). Thirty years of research on the subjective well-being of older Americans. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 109–125. Lee, A., & Browne, M. O. (2008). Subjective well-being, sociodemographic factors, mental and physical health of rural residents. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 16(5), 290–296. Lee, K. S., & Ono, H. (2012). Marriage, cohabitation, and happiness: A cross-national analysis of 27 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 953–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2012.01001.x Li, T., & Fung, H. F. (2014). How avoidant attachment influences subjective well-being: An investigation about the age and gender differences. Aging and Mental Health, 18, 4–10. Liberman, N., & Dar, R. (2009). Normal and pathological consequences of encountering difficulties in monitoring progress toward goals. In G. B. Moskowitz & H. Grant (Eds.), The psychology of goals (pp. 277–303). Guilford Press. Lightsey, O. W. (1994). Thinking positive as a stress buffer: The role of positive automatic cognitions in depression and happiness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 325–334. Little, B. R. (2005). Personality science and personal projects: Six impossible things before breakfast. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004. 09.003 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice-Hall. Lomas, T. (2021). Life balance and harmony: Wellbeing’s golden thread. International Journal of Wellbeing, 11(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v11i1.1477 Lucas, R. E. (2018). Exploring the associations between personality and subjective wellbeing. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2015). Personality and subjective well-being: Current issues and controversies. Personality processes and individual differencesIn M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA Handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 577–599). American Psychological Association. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. Luhmann, M., Lucas, R. E., Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2013). The prospective effect of life satisfaction on life events. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1948550612440105 Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186–189. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803. Magnus, K., & Diener, E. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of personality, life events, and subjective well-being. Paper presented at the sixty-third annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

References

47

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 89–130). American Psychological Association. Mastekaasa, A. (1995). Age variations in the suicide rates and self-reported subjective well-being of married and never married persons. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 21–39. Mathur, R., & Sharma, S. (2014). A correlational study of positive concomitants of well-being. IIS University Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 23–35. McIntosh, D. N., Silver, R. C., & Wortman, C. B. (1993). Religion’s role in adjustment to a negative life event: Coping with the loss of a child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 812–821. Mehnert, T., Krauss, H. H., Nadler, R., & Boyd, M. (1990). Correlates of life satisfaction in those with disabling conditions. Rehabilitation Psychology, 35, 3–17. Mehrotra, S., Tripathi, R., & Banu, H. (2015). Assessment of character strengths: Preliminary report on a vignette-based measure. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 38(3), 151–160. Menon, U., & Shweder, R. A. (1994). Kali’s tongue: Cultural psychology and the power of shame in Orissa, India. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 241–284). American Psychological Association. Mesquita, B., Fridja, N. H., & Scherer, K. R. (1997). Culture and emotion. In J.W. Berry, P. Dasen, & Saraswath (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 255–297). Allyn & Bacon. Mhaoláin, A. M. N., Gallagher, D., Connell, H. O., Chin, A. V., Bruce, I., Hamilton, F., Teehee, E., Coen, R., Coakley, D., Cunningham, C., Walsh, J. B., & Lawlor, B. A. (2012). Subjective wellbeing amongst community-dwelling elders: What determines satisfaction with life? Findings from the Dublin healthy aging study. International Psychogeriatrics, 24(2), 316–323. Michalos, A. C. (1980). Satisfaction and happiness. Social Indicators Research, 8(4), 385–422. Michalos, A. C. (1991). Global report on student well-being. Springer. Misra, G. (2009). Self and well-being. Psychological Studies, 54(2), 85–86. Misra, G. (2014). Editorial. Psychological Studies, 59(2), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646014-0263-9 Mukherjee, S., Nargundkar, M., & Manjaly, J. A. (2014). Monetary primes increase differences in predicted life-satisfaction between new and old Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs). Psychological Studies, 59(2), 191–196. Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56 Nath, P., & Pradhan, R. K. (2011). Positive writing and positive wellbeing: Issues and implications. Indian Journal of Health and Well-Being, 2(1), 61–64. Nath, P., & Pradhan, R. K. (2012). Influence of positive affect on physical health and psychological well-being: Examining the mediating role of psychological resilience. Journal of Health Management, 14(2), 161–174. Nathawat, S. S., & Mathur, A. (1993). Marital adjustment and subjective well-being in Indianeducated housewives and working women. Journal of Psychology, 127. Neff, D. (2009). The satisfied poor: Evidence from south India. Brooks World Poverty Research Institute, Working paper series no. 71, University of Manchester. Neff, D. (2010). Exploring the meaningfulness and relevance of subjective well-being for India. Indian Journal of Human Development, 4(2), 329–350. Nelson-Coffey, S. K. (2018). Married…with children: The science of well-being in marriage and family life. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com.

48

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Newman, D. B., & Graham, J. (2018). Religion and well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Newman, D. B., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Leisure and subjective well-being: A model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 555–578. Ng, E. W., & Fisher, A. T. (2016). Protestant spirituality and well-being of people in Hong Kong: The mediating role of sense of community. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11, 1253–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-015-9435-6 Ngamaba, K. H. (2017). Determinants of subjective well-being in representative samples of nations. European Journal of Public Health, 27(2), 377–382. Ngamaba, K. H., Panagioti, M., & Armitage, C. J. (2018). Income inequality and subjective wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 27, 577–596. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1719-x Oishi, S. (2000). Goals as cornerstones of subjective well-being. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 87–112). MIT Press. Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2014). Residents of poor nations have a greater sense of meaning in life than residents of wealthy nations. Psychological Science, 25, 422–430. Oishi, S., Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Cross-situational consistency of affective experiences across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 460–472. Oishi, S., Graham, J., Kesebir, S., & Galinha, I. C. (2013). Concepts of happiness across time and cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/014 6167213480042 Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., & Colcombe, S. J. (2003). The contextual and systematic nature of life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 232–247. Okma, P., & Veenhoven, R. (1996). Is a longer life better? Happiness of the very old in 8 European countries. Manuscript in preparation. (Reference taken from Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302). Okun, M. A., & George, L. K. (1984). Physician-and self-ratings of health, neuroticism and subjective well-being among men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(5), 533–539. Oliveira-Silva, L. C., & Porto, J. B. (2021). Subjective well-being and flourishing at work: The impact of professional fulfilment. Ram. Revista De Administração Mackenzie, 22(1), 1–24. Oswald, A. J. (1997). Happiness and economic performance. Economic Journal, 107, 1815–1831. Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extroversion and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1299–1306. Pflug, J. (2009). Folk theories of happiness: A cross-cultural comparison of conceptions of happiness in Germany and South Africa. Social Indicators Research, 92(3), 551–563. Pinjarkar, R., & Mehrotra, S. (2014). Meaning in life and well-being in the lives of college going Indian youth. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 40(2), 237. Platt, S., & Kreitman, N. (1985). Parasuicide and unemployment among men in Edinburgh 1968–82. Psychological Medicine, 15, 113–123. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. Harper & Row. Pollner, M. (1989). Divine relations, social relations, and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 92–104. Poloma, M. M., & Pendleton, B. F. (1991). The effects of prayer and prayer experiences on measures of general well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 71–83. Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 925–971. Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2007.00393.x

References

49

Ramesh, M. G., Sathian, B., Sinu, E., & Rai, K. S. (2013). Efficacy of Rajayoga meditation on positive thinking: An index for self-satisfaction and happiness in life. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2013/5889.3488 Rao, K. R. (2014). Positive psychology and Indian psychology in need of mutual reinforcement. Psychological Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-013-0228-4 Rapkin, B. K., & Fischer, K. (1992). Framing the construct of life satisfaction in terms of older adults’ personal goals. Psychology and Aging, 7, 138–149. Rathi, N. (2011). Psychological well-being and organizational commitment: Exploration of the relationship. Working Paper No.106/2011. Amrita School of Business. Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303–316. Rosmarin, D. H., Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2009). The role of religiousness in anxiety, depression, and happiness in a Jewish community sample: A preliminary investigation. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 12, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670802321933 Ruby, M. B., Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Villa, C., & Silberstein, O. (2012). Not all collectivisms are equal: Opposing preferences for ideal affect between East Asians and Mexicans. Emotion, 12(6), 1206–1209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029118 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Ryff, C. D. (1991). Possible selves in adulthood and old age: A tale of shifting horizons. Psychology and Aging, 6, 286–295. Sacks, D. W., Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2012). The new stylized facts about income and subjective well-being. Emotion, 12(6), 1181–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029873 Sahoo, F. M., & Sahu, R. (2009). The role of flow experience in human happiness. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(special issue), 40–47. Salagame, K. K. (2017). Meaning and well-being: Indian perspectives. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 30(1), 63–68. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30. Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, S. S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257–1264. Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.582 Schöllgen, I., Kersten, N., & Rose, U. (2019). Income trajectories and subjective well-being: Linking administrative records and survey data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4779. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one’s life: A judgment model of subjective wellbeing. In F. Strack & M. Argyle (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–47). Pergamon. Scitovsky, T. (1976). The joyless economy: The psychology of human satisfaction. Oxford University Press. Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Emotions across cultures and methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304–326. Seidlitz, L., & Diener, E. (1993). Memory for positive versus negative events: Theories for the differences between happy and unhappy persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 654–664. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. Senik, C. (2014). Wealth and happiness. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(1), 92–108. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/43664595

50

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Sharma, M. C., & Choudhary, M. A. (2013). Positive psychology: An approach to rehabilitation of trafficked victims. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 410. Sharma, R., Gupta, N., & Bijlani, R. L. (2008). Effect of yoga-based lifestyle intervention on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Physiological Pharmacology, 52(2), 123–131. Sharma, P., & Patra, S. (2014). Exploring college student’s conception of happiness. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 393. Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation: A prototype approach. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion. Review of personality and social psychology (No. 13, pp. 175–212). Sage. Sheldon, K. M. (2014). Becoming oneself: The central role of self-concordant goal selection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/108886831 4538549 Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., Ferguson, Y., Gunz, A., Houser-Marko, L., Nichols, C. P., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2010). Persistent pursuit of need-satisfying goals leads to increased happiness: A 6-month experimental longitudinal study. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11031-009-9153-1 Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.152 Singh, K., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Saxena, G. (2022). An exploratory study on subjective perceptions of happiness from India. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 823496. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2022.823496 Singh, K., & Jha, S. D. (2008). Positive and negative affect, and grit as predictors of happiness and life satisfaction. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(Special Issue), 40–45. Singh, K., & Junnarkar, M. (2015). Correlates and predictors of positive mental health for school going children. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 82–87. Singh, K., Kaur, J., Singh, D., & Junnarkar, M. (2014). Sociodemographic variables affecting wellbeing: A study on Indian rural women. Psychological Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646014-0239-9 Singh, K., Khari, C., Amonkar, R. S., Arya, N. K., & Kumar, S. K. (2013). Development and validation of a new scale: Sat-Chit-Ananda Scale. International Journal on Vedic Foundations of Management, 1(2), 102–122. Singh, K., Raina, M., & Sahni, P. (2017). The concept and measure of Sukha Dukha: An Indian perspective on well-being. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 19(2), 117–132. Singh, K., Ruch, W., & Junnarkar, M. (2014). Effect of the demographic variables and psychometric properties of the personal well-being index for school children in India. Child Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9264-4 Singh, K., Saxena, G., & Mahendru, M. (2022). Revisiting the determinants of happiness from a grounded theory approach. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-12-2021-0236 Singh, A. K., Singh, S., & Singh, A. P. (2012). Does trait predict psychological well-being among student of professional courses? Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 38(2), 234–241. Singh, K., & Yu, X. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian students. Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 23–30. Sinha, D. (1990). Concept of psychological well-being: Western and Indian perspective. NIMHANS Journal, 8(10), 1–11. Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (2001). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In A. K. Dalal & G. Misra (Eds.). New directions in Indian psychology (pp. 241–256). Social Psychology, 1. Sage Publications. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

References

51

Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 50–61. Smith, T. B., McCullough, M. E., & Poll, J. (2003). Religiousness and depression: Evidence for a main effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 614–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.614 Sood, S., & Gupta, R. (2012). A study of gratitude and well-being among adolescents. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(5), 35–38. Spears, D. (2016). Caste and life satisfaction in rural north India. In Economic and political weekly, January 23. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161. Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0 Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2009). The paradox of declining female happiness. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(2), 190–225. Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., Haring, M. J., & Witter, R. A. (1983). Age and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. In R. J. Light (Ed.), Evaluation studies: Review annual (Vol. 8, pp. 279–302). Sage. Stone, A. A., Broderick, J. E., Wang, D., & Schneider, S. (2020). Age patterns in subjective wellbeing are partially accounted for by psychological and social factors associated with aging. PLoS ONE, 15(12), e0242664. Stones, M. J., & Kozma, A. (1986). “Happy are they who are happy…” a test between two causal models of relationships between happiness and its correlates. Experimental Aging Research, 12(1), 23–29. Strawbridge, W. J., Shema, S. J., Cohen, R. D., Roberts, R. E., & Kaplan, G. A. (1998). Religiosity buffers effects of some stressors on depression but exacerbates others. Journal of Gerontology: Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53, 118–126. Suar D., Jha, A. K., Das, S. S., & Alat, P. (2019). The structure and predictors of subjective well-being among millennials in India. Cogent Psychology, 6(1). Suar, D., Jha, A. K., Das, S. S., Alat, P., & Patnaik, P. (2021). What do millennials think of their past, present, and future happiness, and where does their happiness reside? Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 34(3), 345–361. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493. Sundararajan, L. (2015). Understanding emotion in Chinese culture: Thinking through psychology. Springer. Tait, M., Padgett, M. Y., & Baldwin, T. T. (1989). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction: A reexamination of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 502–507. Tay, L., Ng, V., Kuykendall, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Demographic factors and worker well-being: An empirical review using representative data from the United States and across the world. In The role of demographics in occupational stress and well-being (pp. 235–283). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Tay, L., Zyphur, M., & Batz, C. L. (2018). Income and subjective well-being: Review, synthesis, and future research. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Taylor, S. E., & Armor, D. A. (1996). Positive illusions and coping with adversity. Journal of Personality, 64, 873–898. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

52

2 Subjective Well-Being: Determinants and Correlates

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1031–1039. Thin, N. (2018). Qualitative approaches to culture and well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2007). Culture and subjective well-being. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 691–713). Guilford. Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Culture and subjective well-being. In Culture and well-being (pp. 9– 41). Springer. Tov, W., & Nai, Z. L. S. (2018). Cultural differences in subjective well-being: How and why. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Subjective well-being and life satisfaction (pp. 50–73). Routledge. Tsai, J., & Park, B. (2014). The cultural shaping of happiness the role of ideal affect. In J. Gruber, & J. T. Moskowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion. Oxford University Press. Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in East and West: Themes and variations. Emotion, 9, 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015634 Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Reidel. Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1–34. Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Tests of the theory that a better society does not make us any happier. Social Indicators Research, 32, 101–162. Veenhoven, R. (1999). Quality-of-life in individualistic society: A comparison in 43 nations in the early 1990’s. Social Indicators Research, 48, 157–186. Veenhoven, R. (2001). Are the Russians as unhappy as they say they are? Comparability of selfreports across nations. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 111–136. Veenhoven, R. (2018). Subjective well-being in nations. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com. Veenhoven, R., et al. (1994). World database of happiness: Correlates of happiness. Erasmus University. Veenhoven, R., & Vergunst, F. (2014). The Easterlin illusion: Economic growth does go with greater happiness. International Journal of Happiness and Development, 1, 311–343. Verma, S.K. (2008). Working and non-working rural and urban elderly: SWB and QOL. Indian Journal of Gerontology, 22(1). Wang, P., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2011). Empirical research on factors related to the subjective well-being of Chinese urban residents. Social Indicators Research, 101(3), 447–459. Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wu, S., Xiao, W., Wang, Z., Li, F., Liu, X., & Miao, D. (2021). Effects of meaning in life on subjective well-being: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 49(4), 1–11. Watson, K., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extroversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Hohnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). Academic Press. Watten, R. G., Vassend, D., Myhrer, T., & Syversen, J. L. (1997). Personality factors and somatic symptoms. European Journal of Personality, 11, 57–68. White, J. M. (1992). Marital status and well-being in Canada. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 390–409. Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Human emotions: Universal or culture-specific? American Anthropologist, 88, 584–594. Williams, K. (2003). Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary examination of gender, marriage, and psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 470–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519794 Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294–306. Witter, R. A., Okun, M. A., Stock, W. A., & Haring, M. J. (1984). Education and subjective wellbeing: A meta-analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6, 165–173. Wong, P. T. P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology, 52(2), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022511

References

53

Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 249. Zautra, A., & Hempel, A. (1984). Subjective well-being and physical health: A narrative literature review with suggestions for future research. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 19(2), 95–110. Zuckerman, M., Li, C., & Diener, E. F. (2017). Societal conditions and the gender difference in well-being: Testing a three-stage model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 329–336. Zyphur, M. J., Li, W. D., Zhang, Z., Arvey, R. D., & Barsky, A. P. (2015). Income, personality, and subjective financial well-being: The role of gender in their genetic and environmental relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1493.

Chapter 3

Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

Abstract This chapter reviews and discusses the literature on subjective well-being (SWB) in terms of its measurement and establishes the rationale and relevance of an Indian-specific global measure. Many scales have been developed for measuring subjective well-being. Some of the indigenous scales are based on and borrowed from ancient Indian wisdom, spiritual texts, or Western scales validated in the Indian context, or subjective well-being defined and measured as wellness, or through related constructs like satisfaction with life scale. This chapter will briefly discuss these and try to establish the relevance of the subjective well-being measure through extant literature review and assert how the pre-existing body of knowledge furthered by the present research aids in the comprehensive understanding and measurement of not only SWB but also subjective ill-being (SIB) through a systematic approach rooted in data. Keywords Subjective well-being (SWB) · Subjective ill-being (SIB) · Structure of SWB · Enhancers · Reducers · SWB research in India · SWB Measurement · Types of SWB Measures · Stability of SWB Measures · Objective SWB Measurement · Subjective Self-Report SWB measures · Non-verbal Measures of SWB · SWB Measurement in India

SWB is both a process and an outcome. The understanding of the components, causes, and correlates of SWB facilitates the measurement of this concept, which may not be easy but is also not impossible. Different life circumstances affect people in different ways (Lucas, 2018). This essentially implies that life evaluations will be subjective and SWB focuses on tapping into these subjective evaluations for life judgments. There is a fair amount of research available concerning the measurement of SWB, and concerns regarding its reliability and validity. Detailed and critical accounts can be found in the handbook of well-being (Diener et al., 2018); the world database of happiness (e.g., Veenhoven, 2017); review on types of measures (Pavot, 2018; Scollon, 2018; Sirgy, 2002), besides others. The field has also entertained debates around the different types of measures, for example, reflective versus formative, objective versus subjective, and single items versus multiple items in establishing

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 T. Bhatnagar, Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7_3

55

56

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

which would be the best way to capture SWB. If you visit the world database of happiness, in that itself after the exclusion criteria, there are around 25,000 measurement tools mentioned. Large-scale surveys, e.g., Gallup World Poll, World Value Survey, and the like, are conducted to understand global SWB. The World Happiness Report is another important source of understanding SWB findings. It becomes difficult to understand which is the best, to ascertain if we at all need all these measures and if we do, why we need more measures. Researchers agree that there is no one or the best way to measure SWB; a combination of different types of measures gives a composite picture of an individual’s well-being. In addition, we may not always need new measures, but measures should be culturally and contextually sensitive to reflect the correct assessment of SWB levels (also Neff, 2010). In addition to using diverse assessment methods, researchers need to use both pleasant and unpleasant affect measures, because both are major components of SWB (Diener, 2000; Diener et al., 2017; Tay et al., 2014). Bradburn and Caplovitz (1965) discovered that these two types of emotions, formerly believed to be polar opposites, form two separable factors that often correlate with different variables. Indeed, their findings provided a major impetus to study positive well-being, rather than assuming that it is only the absence of ill-being. However, these components are not just separate based on factor analysis, but also in the way they influence other factors or are influenced by them. Therefore, it is important to measure different aspects of SWB and not just one or two (Tay & Diener, 2011). The strength of the SWB Measure proposed in this research (book) lies in the different aspects it measures to give a complete picture of an individual’s well-being.

3.1 Types of Measures Substantial research has been focused on developing and validating measures of subjective well-being. The most frequently used subjective measures of SWB are selfreports where an individual reports about their levels of happiness or SWB. There are also informant reports or objective measurements (involving real-time data or significant others) of SWB, for example experience sampling or day reconstruction. SWB has also been captured through informal or non-verbal measures like smiling or biological measures. Every measure has its advantage and disadvantage. There are issues related to the measurement of SWB; however, these measures have also demonstrated a certain degree of stability and validity, which makes them appropriate for assessment, especially in the case of large-scale surveys (Diener & Scollon, 2003). The way people make judgments and respond to self-reports is interesting. Robinson and Klein (2018) have discussed three models of well-being judgments: integrative (Campbell et al., 1976), constructivist (Schwarz & Strack, 1999), and direct retrieval (Fazio, 1995). The integrative model posits that while making selfassessments of their life, people evaluate their life domains and review each life domain by comparing progress in it against standards and averaging their experience to make their response. The constructivist model posits that people may not

3.1 Types of Measures

57

always know how happy they are or what their level of SWB is. They often respond according to what comes to their mind then, which could result in the influence of priming effects. For example, the initial response of many people when asked during in-depth interviews about their happiness was that they never reflected upon the question. It took some time for them to respond and the skill of the researcher to elicit the right information from them (Bhatnagar, 2010). Evidence also suggests that people can pull relevant information about their lives independent of contextual or priming effects (Schimmack & Oishi, 2005). The direct retrieval model posits that people who are aware of their happiness can retrieve this information directly without much deliberation time when asked about life evaluations. This model supports the claim that measures of life satisfaction have some degree of stability. Veenhoven (2017) in the world database of happiness distinguishes the findings obtained through acceptable measures as distributional and correlational. Distributional findings denote the happiness levels of people in a certain population arrived through a mean score while correlational findings are those that are obtained through measures of association on the related constructs that correlate with these levels of happiness. The findings suggest that the average happiness levels “have risen in most developed nations over the last decade”. Sirgy (2002) suggests that the many measures of SWB can be possibly organized by distinguishing between reflective and formative indicators of this construct. Reflective measures capture “manifestations of SWB”, for example, the Cantril Ladder (Cantril, 1965), the Life Satisfaction Rating (Neugarten et al., 1961), the Delighted-Terrible Scale (Andrews & Withey, 1976), the Eurobarometer (Inglehart, 1977), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985), and the Congruity Life Satisfaction Measure (Meadow et al., 1992; Sirgy et al., 1995a). Formative measures capture the “causes of SWB”, which are implicit in the definition and operationalization of the construct and are more diagnostic in nature, for example, the Quality-of-Life Index (Ferrans & Powers, 1985), the Quality-of-Life Inventory (Frisch, 1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1998), the Need Hierarchy Measure of Life Satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 1995b), the ComQuality of Life—A5 (Cummins et al., 1994), and the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (Greenley et al., 1997). In early research on SWB measures, researchers generally relied on only a single self-report item to measure every construct (Andrews & Withey, 1976). Recent measures of SWB, however, contain multiple items (e.g., the Positive and Negative Affect Scale, PANAS; Watson et al., 1988; the Satisfaction with Life Scale; Pavot & Diener, 1993). Although the psychometric properties of these scales tend to be strong, they provide only one approach to assessing SWB. One can read Pavot (2018) for detailed cataloguing of self-report measures. He has classified these measures based on measures in Veenhoven’s (2017) world database of happiness. These measures range from being single item to multi-item to being context-specific or measures related to other SWB constructs. Single-item measures cover either all domains of SWB (e.g., Fordyce’s SingleItem Happiness Question, 1977; Delighted-Terrible Scale; Andrews & Withey, 1976) or one specific facet (e.g., Self-Anchoring Ladder, SAL; Cantril, 1965). Pavot (2018) suggests that SAL is one of the most popular large-scale survey tools and has been

58

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

used by Gallup Survey and as source data for the world happiness report sponsored by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The advantage of these measures is they are very user-friendly for large-scale surveys. They have demonstrated decent reliabilities (Alwin, 2007; Anusic & Schimmack, 2016; Cheung & Lucas, 2014; Lucas, 2018; Lucas & Donnellan, 2007, 2012; Schimmack & Oishi, 2005). However, a single item does not always ensure the coverage of all aspects of SWB. Multi-item measures capture SWB as comprehensive (e.g., the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire, OHQ; Hills & Argyle, 2002; the Subjective Happiness Scale, SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), affect (e.g., the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale, BABS; Bradburn & Caplovitz, 1965; Bradburn, 1969; the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, PANAS; Watson et al., 1988 with an adjustable timeline; the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience, SPANE; Diener, Wirtz et al., 2010b), and satisfaction (e.g., the Satisfaction With Life Scale, SWLS; Diener et al., 1985). These measures demonstrate decent psychometric properties when correlated with other measures of SWB and have been widely used in research studies. For instance, researchers have suggested frequent use of SPANE for its strong psychometric characteristics and theoretical basis (e.g., Rice & Shorey-Fennell, 2020). The advantage of using only one type of measure lies in the breadth covered in the specific areas of life and that the analysis gives both the individual score for each domain as well as a composite/overall SWB score. The disadvantage is that it captures only one aspect, for example, in the case of SWLS, only the cognitive aspects of SWB are captured and not the affect or structure of SWB. Though most of the measures generalize to all samples across demographics and cultures, there are some specific measures developed, for example, in the context of age (e.g., the Philadelphia Geriatric Center’s Morale Scale, PGC Morale Scale: Lawton, 1972, 1975; the Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale: Huebner, 1991; the Sense of Well-being Inventory, SWBI: Catalano et al., 2010; Chapin et al., 2004). Measures of related constructs are often required to establish the validity of the measure in concern along with examining their association with each other. Some popular examples of such measures are the Flourishing Scale (FS: Diener, Wirtz et al., 2010b), which is an 8-item 7-point response scale evaluating areas significant to psychological well-being or the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT: Su et al., 2014) which has 18 sub-scales that assess a broad range of domains. Single- and multiple-item measures generally perform similarly when validated (Cheung & Lucas, 2014; Lucas, 2018). However, researchers need to exercise discretion when deciding upon the appropriateness of the measure they select. For example, Cummins et al. (2010) have precautioned against scales that bring all distinct constructs together to measure SWB when they should be measured separately (e.g., the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire, OHQ; Hills & Argyle, 2002). They suggest that the composite score obtained from the elements of such distinct scales can result in imprecise measurement and inaccurate interpretations and conclusions. Diener et al. (2009) have similarly raised concerns about the content validity of such measures.

3.1 Types of Measures

59

Researchers agree that self-report measures can pose limitations despite the adequate evidence available in favour of them. Due to these limitations of selfreports, there are several non-traditional measures of SWB (see Scollon, 2018 for a detailed review). Let’s explore some of these below: Biological Measures strongly correlate with happiness (Phan et al., 2002; Murphy et al., 2003; Urry et al., 2004; Feldman Barrett & Wager, 2006; Vytal & Hamann, 2010; Suardi et al., 2016). Smiling predicts well-being (Harker & Keltner, 2001), life satisfaction (Seder & Oishi, 2012), and teaching performance (Scollon et al., 2016). Memory measures demonstrate the preponderance of positive memory recall over negative in the case of happy people, and this finding correlates with self-reports of life satisfaction (Seidlitz & Diener, 1993). The experience sampling method (ESM) samples the affect, behaviours, and time which respondents report by writing about activities engaged in, the situation, and the feelings one experiences, thus providing information on the way SWB varies across situations and time (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Kahneman, 1999). This helps in avoiding retrospective distortion (Hoorn, 2007; Oishi, 2002; Robinson et al., 1998; Scollon et al., 2004). ESM shows a positive correlation with self-report measures of SWB (Scollon et al., 2004) and yields high-reliability coefficients due to the strength of relying on repeated measures. Owing to the reactivity effects, ESM can change people’s SWB during the study (Conner & Reid, 2012). The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM: Kahneman et al., 2004) unlike the ESM is a one-time measure. The focus is on the “detailed moment-by-moment reconstruction of the previous day’s activities”. The advantage of the measure lies in minimizing memory biases. DRM responses have correlated with other measures (e.g., Bylsma et al., 2011; Daly et al., 2011; Kahneman et al., 2004; Srivastava et al., 2008) and with different cultures (Caballero et al., 2014; Mellor-Marsa et al., 2015). Research suggests that DRM has demonstrated both long-term (Hudson et al., 2016) and short-term (Krueger & Schkade, 2008) stability. DRM can be compared to global measures of life satisfaction and is also correlated with informant reports (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016) and is relatively and moderately stable over time (see Lucas, 2018). The U index (for unpleasant or undesirable) measures the proportion of the time spent by an individual in an unpleasant state. Feelings for each respondent can be computed through an ordinal measure and averaged for a sample of individuals (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006). Informant Reports are responses from significant others that help triangulate the true happiness levels of an individual. Evidence suggests a moderate correlation between self-reports and informant reports (e.g., Koydemir & Schütz, 2012; Schneider & Schimmack, 2010; Zou et al., 2013) and that the more the number of respondents and items, the more the convergence value (Sandvik et al., 1993). These measures have been used to study the well-being of primates (Robinson et al., 2016; Weiss et al., 2006) as well as across cultures (e.g., Saeki et al., 2014). The findings from cross-cultural studies suggest that there are cultural variations in measuring

60

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

SWB. These measures would not apply to people who are either unclear or distant from their actual mental states or self-awareness. Neither would they, nor would their significant others be able to report their true levels of SWB. Researchers need to be cautious in identifying such respondents. Implicit Measures are reaction time measures, that is how quickly an individual responds to positive, negative, or a particular type of stimuli. For example, the implicit association test (IAT: Greenwald et al., 1998) measures unconscious racial bias, and implicit life satisfaction (ILS: Kim, 2004) measures “an individual’s automatic evaluation of his or her life”. The advantage of these measures lies in that they can overcome the social desirability bias, though these are not completely unsusceptible to conscious control and have shown a fair amount of internal consistency (Kim, 2004);however, they do not correlate with life satisfaction or explicit measures as the two are independent processes (e.g., Jang & Kim, 2011; see also Scollon, 2018). Big Data has become very popular in recent times. Researchers interested in measuring happiness through content available on social media networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram (e.g., Redi et al., 2015; Seder & Oishi, 2012), Twitter (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2013), or Google Search (e.g., Ford et al., 2017) often make use of these measures to scoop the required information. Big data is often voluminous (Laney, 2001). The positive and negative information people write to their feeds often correlates with world events (e.g., Kramer, 2010). They are advantageous in the sense that large-scale data is readily accessible and it helps in overcoming methodological shortcomings (Scollon, 2018). The disadvantage may be that the available information may not represent the true picture of SWB, but what the individual chooses to paint for themselves (e.g., Ruths & Pfeffer, 2014; Wang et al., 2014) or does so due to the positive content social media bias (e.g., Liu et al., 2015); response rate can be another concern while validating with self-reports (e.g., Yang & Srinivasan, 2016); privacy (even if indirectly) can be compromised and data can be misused (also Gumbus & Grodzinsky, 2016). It is therefore warranted that researchers judiciously use these measures. Scollon (2018) advocates that psychologists must work together with related professionals like ethicists, social media experts, and users to establish norms for making the best use of big data. Qualitative Data is an equally important way of measuring SWB. Interviewing people helps in understanding the context of people in their own words and doing a deep dive into their understanding and causes of their SWB. They may come across as being too invasive and time-consuming, but if done properly, they can be rich and trustworthy sources of understanding SWB and its process (see, for example, Baumeister, 1991; Bhatnagar, 2010; Delle Fave et al., 2016). Researchers assert that these measures could be combined with self-reports to comprehensively understand SWB levels.

3.2 Stability of SWB Measures

61

3.2 Stability of SWB Measures Researchers need to be careful while using only self-report measures, though they demonstrate decent levels of stability. People can be influenced, and human behaviour itself is very dynamic in nature. Many researchers have discussed these issues at length (e.g., Campbell, 1981; Cummins et al., 2010; Pavot, 2018; Schwarz & Strack, 1999; Sirgy, 2002; Tov & Diener, 2007). Cummins et al. (2010) suggest that scale weightings, proxy reports, and data cleaning are three major concerns in SWB measurement and their evaluations. There can be potential threats and contextual vulnerabilities involved in SWB measurement that can affect the validity of the measure (Schwarz & Strack, 1999; Tov & Diener, 2007). Tov and Diener (2007) argue that translation can be a challenge in crosscultural research if done poorly and with inadequate methodological rigour. They suggest that establishing that it is the effect of translation that explains the cultural differences seems implausible (e.g., Biswas-Diener et al., 2004; Diener et al., 2004; Shao, 1993). Many other biases or issues in SWB measurement have been studied besides these, for example, mood and situational influence (e.g., Diener, 2000; Ross et al., 1986; Schwarz & Clore, 1983; Schwarz & Strack, 1999; Schwarz et al., 1987; Sirgy, 2002); biases related to interview or questionnaire format (e.g., Schuman & Presser, 1981; Sirgy, 2002; Smith, 1979; Strack et al., 1987, 1988); ordering of items and other artefacts influencing reports of SWB (e.g., Diener, 2000; Schwarz & Strack, 1999); social desirability (e.g., Davies et al., 2015; Diener, 2000; Schwarz & Strack, 1991; Sirgy, 2002; Smith, 1979); memory biases (e.g., Kahneman, 1999; Kahneman et al., 1993; Redelmeier & Kahneman, 1996; Schwarz & Strack, 1991; Sirgy, 2002; Strack et al., 1985, 1988); biases related to the standard of comparison (Sirgy, 2002; Strack et al., 1985); biases related to scaling effects (Schwarz & Hippler, 1987; Schwarz & Strack, 1991; Sirgy, 2002); and temporal stability problems (Glatzer, 1984 in Sirgy, 2002). Kahneman and Krueger (2006) suggest that the type of response of an individual is also a matter of the kind of personality s/he has. On the same line, Robinson and Clore (2002) noted that different processes are likely used to make judgments about one’s current affective experience, one’s very recent affective experiences, and one’s affective experience from far in the past. Pavot (2018) highlights that internal reliability or Cronbach’s Alpha is difficult to compute in single-item scales. Most of these measures are based on assumptions of people’s ability to make accurate and honest global judgments of their lives, and that these are stable across years. These assumptions can pose both threats and challenges in front of researchers. Researchers need to ensure that these assumptions are tested against strict and valid criteria; that they are corrected for biases, and that problems if any are counterbalanced. An effective way of ensuring greater attention to accurate and authentic measurement is the replication of measurement studies. It ascertains that a measure

62

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

claimed as a global measure of SWB doesn’t apply to just one context or type of sample but to a diversified and more representative sample, and one that banks upon cultural differences. Researchers who have defended the use of self-reports believe that most of the selfevaluations through self-report measures are systematic, meaningful, and personally relevant and thus take care of momentary influences (Oishi et al., 2004; Schimmack et al., 2002). Criticisms of SWB measures are not wholly justified as self-reports of happiness tend to be prompt, with low non-response and high temporal stability; with little evidence to indicate that self-reports of happiness are confounded by stereotypical responses; that the criticism of people overstating their happiness is also unjustified (Veenhoven, 1984, 1991); and the effect of affect and mood is also generally very small (Eid & Diener, 2004; Lucas & Lawless, 2013). Error is estimated to account for half the variance in life satisfaction (Andrews & Withey, 1976). Veenhoven (1991) has explained that there could be various causes for the error. Firstly, some people may not have a particular opinion in mind and thus, employ an instant (re) assessment, which is then influenced by situational characteristics. Secondly, those who do have a particular opinion will mainly hold a rather overall view of how happy they are and will not think in terms of a point scale. Hence, their precise score may vary. Thirdly, the process of retrieval of information itself involves some uncertainty. Further, evidence counters the criticism that SWB measures are influenced by the questions immediately preceding their administration (Kammann, 1983; Kammann et al., 1979). Social desirability is suggested as a substantive personality characteristic which enhances well-being, rather than being a response artefact and source of error variance (Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 1991). Subjective well-being variables reflect the actual conditions in a person’s life. A change in these conditions results in a change in people’s set points and SWB levels (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016; Cummins, 2003; Diener et al., 2015a; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996; Robinson & Klein, 2018; Watson, 2000). Measuring these conditions and making inferences requires these measures to be trustworthy and demonstrate some degree of stability in them. Evidence suggests that there is some degree of stability in these conditions and SWB measures are expected to be relatively stable over time. SWB constructs are also influenced by a variety of stable personality factors, a finding that supports the notion that SWB should be relatively stable (Diener & Lucas, 2000) because adult personality is very stable (Costa & McCrae, 1988). There are debates about whether SWB should be considered a trait or a state (Veenhoven, 1994, 1998; Stones et al., 1995; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996; Ehrhardt et al., 2000) in the literature. However, research suggests that SWB is moderately stable across situations (Diener & Larsen, 1984) and the lifespan (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Magnus & Diener, 1991). Hence, as we move through life our goals and needs change, but SWB remains somewhat stable. People, in general, tend to remain the same way as they are when it comes to life satisfaction and SWB (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996; Robinson & Klein, 2018; Watson, 2000).

3.2 Stability of SWB Measures

63

There is considerable evidence that SWB variables do exhibit some degree of stability. Stability over time was first studied by Hartmann (1934) using a singleitem scale which showed equivalent temporal stability to multi-item measures (see Uchida & Oishi, 2016 for details). Magnus and Diener (1991) found that life satisfaction scores exhibited stability coefficients of 0.58 over 4 years. Even in the case of different methods of assessment being used to measure life satisfaction, for example, self-reports and informant reports (also convergence validity evidence like Costa & McCrae, 1980; Pavot & Diener, 1993; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), the stability coefficient was found to be high (also Diener et al., 2003; Schneider & Schimmack, 2009; Uchida & Oishi, 2016). The stability coefficients of life satisfaction reports in a large, nationally representative German panel study were found to be 0.27 across 10 years (Ehrhardt et al., 2000). In general, SWLS has yielded high convergent and discriminant validity and high test–retest reliability (Diener et al., 2013; Pavot & Diener, 1993). Research shows that positive and negative affect scores are also somewhat stable over time. The 6–7 year stability coefficients in the range of 0.36–0.46 for positive affect and negative affect were found in a student sample (Watson & Walker, 1996) and 6-year stability coefficients in the 0.50 range were found in an adult sample (Costa & McCrae, 1988). However, stability cannot be explained solely based on self-concept or response artefacts (Diener et al., 2003). Well-being measures, though stable, are sensitive to changing life circumstances. Using the 15-year German panel study, Ehrhardt et al., (2000) showed that life satisfaction scores increased following marriage and decreased following widowhood or unemployment. This explains the influence of life circumstances on life satisfaction scores. Satisfaction scores in the study were a very stable pre-and post-occurrence period of the event suggesting that relative satisfaction scores are stable even during changing life circumstances (also Clark et al., 2002). Another way to examine the stability of SWB constructs is to look at persons across situations. If well-being reflects a person’s evaluation of his or her life as a whole, scores would not be expected to be completely determined by changing situational factors. Diener and Larsen (1984) examined this question by asking participants to complete mood reports multiple times a day for multiple days. They found that positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction were very stable even across diverse situations. Thus, it is observed that well-being is not completely determined by situational factors. A substantial proportion of the variance in well-being reports is stable across situations and even over long periods of time. To some extent, the consistency of well-being may vary across cultures (Diener et al., 2003; Heine et al., 1999). For instance, there is less consistency in affect in samples from Japan than there is in samples from the USA (Oishi et al., 2004). Though more research is needed in this direction, researchers need to interpret the stability and consistency data cautiously until they can determine the factors that moderate the extent to which people are stable over time and across situations. Further, global SWB measures that capture experiences in the individual’s context predicting a broad range of outcomes that makes the most sense in his/her life are better as compared to experiential measures where contextualization is missing

64

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

(Diener & Tay, 2014; Lucas, 2018). The advantage of experiential measures lies in using them to assess patterns in affective experience and changes therein over the short term. However, they lose out to global measures when the stability of SWB measures is concerned. Individuals tend to report greater variability and impact of situational effects when asked to report multiple times as compared to a single occasion (Baird & Lucas, 2011; Lucas, 2018). Uchida and Oishi (2016) assert that the psychometric evidence or stability of the measures of SWB is well demonstrated when correlated with other types of measures, for example, establishing discriminant validity from optimism (Lucas et al., 1996); convergence with daily diary reports, random-moment reports, and interview ratings (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009; Sandvik et al., 1993); experience sampling method with the SWLS (Schimmack, 2003); smile intensity in Facebook profile photos (Seder & Oishi, 2012); and self-other reports of life satisfaction compared to the self-informant report on Big Five personality traits (Vazire, 2006). Basis the Measurement of SWB, reliable inferences can be made when the measurement artefacts are appropriately evaluated, proper controls have been maintained, a combination of measures optimally utilizing their advantages has been employed, and conclusions obtained are similar in nature considering different contexts.

3.3 SWB Measurement and India Researchers agree that it is important to have culture-specific measures. All assessments may not be necessarily applicable to all contexts (also Pandey, 2011). The Indian contribution to the assessment of positive psychology constructs is limited, for example, the Subjective Well-being Inventory (SUBI: Nagpal & Sell, 1985 for the World Health Organization (WHO) and a more health-oriented measure of SWB, where health is defined as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being); the subjective well-being measure (SWBM as shared in detail in later chapters, Bhatnagar, 2010); personal goal survey (Rao & Mehrotra, 2010); a vignette-based measure of the 24 character strengths or VIA (Mehrotra et al., 2012); the short version of the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM, Miret et al., 2012); a PsyCap measure (Gupta & Singh, 2014); mental health-focused measures (e.g., Mehrotra et al., 2000; Snodgrass et al., 2017); and the web-based positive psychological intervention for Indian students (Choubisa & Singh, 2018). There have been several attempts made at the validation and contextualization of standardized tools in the Indian context, for example, Singh et al. (2014) validated the Personal Well-being Index (PWI-SC; Cummins & Lau, 2005) for school children in India; Singh and Yu (2010) found the reliability coefficients for the CD-RISC similar in the Indian and original samples, however, a four-factor structure was more applicable in the Indian sample. Besides, Western researchers have also attempted validation of standardized tools on the Indian population, for example, McIntyre et al. (2020) validated the Personal Well-being

3.3 SWB Measurement and India

65

Index (PWI, Cummins & Lau, 2005) on 2004 Indian adults and found it psychometrically robust to be used on the Indian sample. They found that the spirituality or religion of the respondents was an important contributor to their level of life satisfaction. Singh et al. (2016) have discussed in the form of a book the development and validation of many positive psychology constructs like “resilience, flow, mindfulness, spirituality, and intrapersonal and interpersonal strengths” along with their Hindi translations. Hindi translation of standardized scales and their validation is one contribution of Indian researchers to SWB measurement (e.g., Bhatnagar, 2010; Singh & Choubisa, 2009; Singh et al., 2014, 2016). Many scales have been constructed using indigenous constructs and validated with existing SWB measures. Most of the constructs in these measures have their theoretical base in ancient Indian texts like the philosophy of Vedanta or Bhagavad Gita. For example, the measure of sukha and dukha (Singh et al., 2017); the measure of absolute bliss and consciousness, the Sat-Chit-Ananda Scale and revalidation of this scale (Singh et al., 2014, 2016); measure for vices, the Vikaras Hindi Scale (Sharma & Singh, 2016); and measure of non-attachment, the Anasakti scale (Singh & Raina, 2015). These measures are mostly validated using other related constructs like flourishing, satisfaction with life, positive and negative affect, positive and negative experiences, and Mental Health Continuum among others. They are significantly and positively correlated with the positive constructs and significantly negatively correlated with negative affect and negative experience. They usually demonstrate high reliability and validity coefficients, for example, the internal consistency values for sukha were 0.86 and for dukha were 0.91. However, the claims on the robustness of these measures can be challenged on two concerns: the sample size and the representation of the Indian sample. The sample size in most of these studies ranges from approximately 300–1000 participants and that too from mostly northern India (particularly Delhi NCR) within mostly the urban settings or at least semi-urban. India is a diverse country and needs a bigger representation in terms of the North–East–West–South zones, representing not just urban or semi-urban, but also urban slums as well as rural populations. It would not be justified to equate semi-urban with rural. There is a pertinent distinction between indigenous and Indian. This distinction is essential to the current discussion. Stewart (2018) very aptly defines the term: “The word ‘indigenous’ refers to the notion of a place-based human ethnic culture that has not migrated from its homeland, and is not a settler or colonial population. To be indigenous is therefore by definition different from being of a world culture, such as the Western or Euro-American culture”. This means that concepts coming from ancient Indian wisdom, texts, or folklore are all indigenous. To test whether these constructs define well-being is completely justified. However, to claim that Indians only think or understand SWB in these terms would be a little of an overstatement. Many people may not have their worldview understanding and perspectives typically rooted in these concepts. They may be guided more by their daily experience and interpretations.

66

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

It is thus important to first understand how people evaluate their lives, make sense of the experience of SWB, and then have a measure which is the result of items rooted in the theory and practice of the science of SWB based on people’s responses. The interpretations can nevertheless be guided and informed by indigenous concepts. A look at all the Indian scales envisages that the major criticism would be that they are, or just focusing on the indigenous constructs or taking from scriptures or validating scales from the western context in the Indian context. All of that is important, but then that would not maybe suffice and talk about what is well-being. There must be a scale which can be represented at the global level which takes the usual methodology into account as well as talks about the India-specific constructs. This scale makes a contribution in that sense. The bright side of SWB measurement is that well-being can be measured, if not directly, certainly indirectly. Of course, the measurements will each have their own strengths and weaknesses. However, the psychometric properties of self-reports ensure that they give a fair picture of people’s happiness. The science of psychometrics, especially with increased sophistication in analysis and test construction, informs that a standard tool will take care of chance or random errors as well as measurement errors. It will also take care of the several response artefacts and biases ensuring consistency (reliability), accuracy (validity), and usefulness (for a detailed account of what needs to be considered for designing future measures, please see Pavot, 2018). Researchers strongly recommend the need to develop culturally sensitive tools (e.g., Neff, 2010), the use of longitudinal research designs, and the administration of a combination of different types of measures to give a holistic and comprehensive understanding of SWB. It is recommended that these measures are developed using appropriate sample sizes, consistent methods across time and surveys, and considering potential mediating variables (Diener, et al., 2013). Evidence suggests that SWB measures can represent significant life experiences (e.g., Tov & Diener, 2007; Vittersø, et al., 2002; Wu & Bond, 2006); hence, they lay a strong foundation for appropriate policy formulations at both global and national levels.

3.4 Concluding Thoughts… This section deliberates upon some concluding thoughts from Chaps. 1, 2, and 3. It additionally talks us through a brief review of SWB policy and interventions and establishes the relevance and rationale of the work and arguments shared through this book. The pace of the world today sort of compels people to follow an unending race of different pursuits often misleading them into their understanding of their SWB. They sacrifice moments for future aspirations, and consequently their SWB. Research has demonstrated sufficient evidence to establish that wealth and economic growth are

3.4 Concluding Thoughts…

67

not the mere parameters of happiness and SWB, and they certainly do not enhance it beyond a point. It is important to be aware of what constitutes the individual’s notion of well-being in their own context. SWB is in a true sense an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary concept that has applications in almost all fields (Diener et al., 2017). It is important to understand this concept in both global as well cultural contexts and consider the different situations and circumstances that can have an influence. It helps policymakers formulate relevant and appropriate policies for their citizens in their contexts and make policies effective. An understanding of the science of SWB will further help them evaluate the efficiency of their programmes (Neff, 2010; Ngamaba, 2017). There is sufficient evidence from research to conclude: (a) GDP is not the best indicator to understand how a nation is faring (Oishi et al., 2011, 2012); (b) fair and effective governance plays an important role in influencing levels of SWB of its citizens (e.g., Diener et al., 2010a; Diener et al., 2015a, 2015b; Helliwell et al., 2014; Radcliff, 2013; Tay et al., 2014); (c) favourable policies have a positive impact on SWB (MacKerron & Mourato, 2009, 2013; Oishi et al., 2012; Boarini et al., 2012; Myrskyla & Margolis, 2013; Oishi & Diener, 2014; Oishi et al., 2018); (d) inequalities can be a serious threat to SWB and needs to be eliminated (e.g., Wang & VanderWeele, 2011); (e) happy citizens, in turn, can enhance the economy and promote freedom and equality in a nation (Veenhoven, 2018). Evidence recommends that high SWB leads to several beneficial outcomes, including health and longevity, supportive social relationships, work productivity, and citizenship (for reviews, see De Neve et al., 2013; Tenney et al., 2015; other examples: Cunningham, 1988; Diener & Seligman, 2002; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Whelan & Zelenski, 2012; Luhmann et al., 2013; Diener et al., 2015a). There is sufficient research to establish that it is the generation of positive affect and not the mere overcoming of the negative affect that enhances SWB. Thus, it is the positive aspects of SWB that explain and result in its beneficial effects. The only word of caution here is to be clear about the distinction between positivity and toxic positivity. Excess of everything ought not to be recommended, nor putting all happiness in only a few aspects of life (Sirgy, 2002; Biswas-Diener et al., 2005; Pressman & Cohen, 2005; De Neve et al., 2013; Diener et al., 2017; Sirgy & Lee, 2018). The key to enhanced well-being is balance. There is a lot of work done on SWB interventions and happiness and public policy (Uchida & Oishi, 2016). Meta-analytical evidence asserts that SWB interventions are effective (Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009). SWB can be optimized through strategies (for details, please see Sirgy, 2002) and evidence-based interventions (for details, please see Diener et al., 2017; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2019). Sirgy (2002) suggests personal growth strategies within (intra-domain) and between (inter-domain) life domains that can be manipulated to optimize well-being and live a fulfilling life. He furthers his argument by stating that a balance between the two is the key to making them work successfully. Diener et al. (2017) have reviewed several interventions like cultivating gratitude (e.g., Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Seligman et al., 2005), executing kindness (e.g., Sheldon et al., 2012), visualizing the best future self (e.g., Boehm et al., 2011), applying character strengths (e.g., Seligman et al.,

68

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

2005), and “spending money on others (Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008)”, besides many others. These are all very effective, user-friendly, and low-cost interventions. There are other interventions that are more time-and-resource-intensive, for example, hope therapy (Cheavens et al., 2006), well-being therapy (Fava & Tomba, 2009), and Enduring Happiness and Continued Self-Enhancement (ENHANCE: Heintzelman et al., 2020). Lyubomirsky and Layous (2013) have developed a “positive-activity model” to identify the characteristics of the kind of activities and attributes of people that comprise efficacious SWB interventions. These include people characteristics like being motivated, making efforts in activities to be happy, and believing that happiness is achievable, and their efforts will be successful (refer to Diener et al., 2017 for references). Longer-duration interventions (e.g., Bolier et al., 2013) and interventions with variety (e.g., Hausmann et al., 2014; Sheldon et al., 2012) have been found to be more effective. The impact, however, is contingent upon the amount of interest in a particular activity (e.g., Lyubomirsky et al., 2005), the “person-activity fit” (Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013), and the cultural context (Layous et al., 2013). The effectiveness of interventions is also influenced by individual differences, demographics (Boehm et al., 2011; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), and persistence in terms of developing these as a habit through practice (e.g., Lyubomirsky et al., 2011). Though SWB has been widely investigated in individualistic societies, there is a need to understand the constituents of SWB in oriental and eastern cultures (e.g., Exenberger et al., 2019) along with understanding the SWB of marginalized and special population groups. The focus of SWB research has largely been on happiness, life satisfaction, positive and negative affect, goals, and values. The measures used in such studies are mainly happiness and life satisfaction scales. However, these constructs are not the only ones conceptualizing subjective well-being in the holistic sense. SWB incorporates various components, viz. close relationships, responsibilities to one’s community, work, enjoyment and recreation, marital stability, better health, less job turnover, greater work productivity, responsible behaviour, and many more. It is time that research is conducted to understand the concept in totality and measures are developed that map not just one or two components of SWB, but all components that come under the broad spectrum of the construct. There is a necessity to understand the concept of SWB in India. Indian society by and large is collectivist (Triandis & Bhawuk, 1997). This research, therefore, assumes that parameters that define the concept of well-being in the West may not necessarily be determining it in the Indian context. The objective of the present research is to explore the concept of SWB in the Indian context by identifying the SWB Enhancers (SWB) and Reducers (subjective ill-being; SIB). Researchers have discussed sufficiently the causes and correlates of SWB, but very few researchers have discussed the determinants that reduce SWB. I believe that it is equally essential to understand and define what reduces the level of SWB (the component of lesser unhappiness, those inducing negative affect or subjective ill-being) and therefore aim to arrive at a holistic conceptualization of SWB in the Indian context. A standardized measure developed (along with a translated version) based on such a strong theoretical basis would best represent the concept in the Indian context. The SWB Measure discussed

References

69

in the subsequent chapters serves this purpose. The sub-scales aid in the obtaining of a profile salience at the individual level, and the index helps in understanding SWB (SIB and Fuzzy SWB) at the collective or national levels. According to my search in July 2022, a Google Scholar search gives approximately 3,740,000 results in 0.03 seconds for the keyword subjective well-being globally. If we narrow the search to subjective well-being in the Indian context, we still get around 662,000 search results in 0.08 seconds. Though interestingly, most of the studies for the Indian context come across as either done in collaboration with international researchers or empirical studies taking some variables into account. There are almost negligible studies done in a systematic manner towards conceptual understanding. One of the pioneering studies done in the Indian context was my doctoral dissertation (Bhatnagar, 2010). A recent publication focuses on the lay conceptions of happiness (discussed in earlier sections of the chapter). Interestingly, the researchers claim this is a new study contributing to the literature from India without any reference to the 2010 study available on google scholar. Kulkarni, Kulkarni, Imai, and Gaiha (2021) assert that despite an enormous body of SWB research in the last two decades or so, there is almost none from India. Studies like these bear testimony to the scattered and non-systematic research approach in the Indian context and establishes the need to publish one study which is not just systematic and representative across sections of society but also fulfils the need for a consolidated, comprehensive, and coherent work in the field in the Indian context. The mean levels and scales used in quantitative research may not give the complete picture always. There is a huge scope for a deep dive into the respondents’ narrative accounts of what exactly is happening in the field, the process, and outcomes of SWB, and the experience and attribution of SWB. How do different age groups and people from different socioeconomic backgrounds differ? There are many more questions besides this that still need to be answered. SWB literature from India is quite scattered, and there is a critical need for consolidating SWB literature from the subcontinent. It is, therefore, imperative to first explore what Indians understand from SWB. Superimposing models and frameworks and testing them in a particular context are justified but given a rich account of cultural variation in the SWB research, it is equally important to explore the concept for that particular context first. This study is an attempt to answer some such questions and provide a consolidated account of SWB research, particularly in the Indian context.

References Alwin, D. F. (2007). Margins of error: A study of reliability in survey measurement. Wiley. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception of life quality. Plenum Press. Anusic, I., & Schimmack, U. (2016). Stability and change of personality traits, self-esteem, and wellbeing: Introducing the meta-analytic stability and change model of retest correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 110(5), 766–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000066

70

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2011). “ … And how about now?” Effects of item redundancy on contextualized self-reports of personality. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1081–1112. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. Guilford Press. Bhatnagar, T. (2010). Subjective well-being in the Indian context: Concept, measure and index (Doctoral dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (India)). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2010. 28720816. Biswas-Diener, R., Diener, E., & Tamir, M. (2004). The psychology of subjective well-being. Daedalus, 133(2), 18–25. Biswas-Diener, R., Vittersø, J., & Diener, E. (2005). Most people are pretty happy, but there is cultural variation: The Inughuit, the Amish, and the Maasai. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-5683-8 Boarini, R., Comola, M., Smith, C., Manchin, R., & De Keulenaer, F. (2012). What makes for a better life? The determinants of subjective well-being in OECD countries–Evidence from the Gallup World Poll (No. 2012/3). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9b9ltjm937-en. Boehm, J. K., Lyubomirsky, S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). A longitudinal experimental study comparing the effectiveness of happiness-enhancing strategies in Anglo-Americans and AsianAmericans. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 1263–1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010. 541227 Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 119. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine. Bradburn, N., & Caplovitz, D. (1965). Reports of happiness. Aldine. Bylsma, L. M., Taylor-Clift, A., & Rottenberg, J. (2011). Emotional reactivity to daily events in major and minor depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120(1), 155. Caballero, F. F., Miret, M., Olaya, B., Perales, J., López-Ridaura, R., Haro, J. M., Chatterji, S., & Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. (2014). Evaluation of affect in Mexico and Spain: Psychometric properties and usefulness of an abbreviated version of the day reconstruction method. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), 915–935. Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: Recent patterns and trends. McGraw-Hill. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. Russell Sage Foundation. Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press. Catalano, D., Kim, J. H., Ditchman, N. M., Shin, H. U., Lee, J., & Chan, F. (2010). The sense of well-being inventory as a quality of life measure for people with spinal cord injury. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 16(2), 57–72. Chapin, M. H., Miller, S. M., Ferrin, J. M., Chan, F., & Rubin, S. E. (2004). Psychometric validation of a subjective well-being measure for people with spinal cord injuries. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(19), 1135–1142. Cheavens, J. S., Feldman, D. B., Gum, A., Michael, S. T., & Snyder, C. R. (2006). Hope therapy in a community sample: A pilot investigation. Social Indicators Research, 77, 61–78. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11205-005-5553-0 Cheung, F., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23(10), 2809–2818. Choubisa, R. & Singh, K., (2018). Development and validation of a web-delivered positive psychological intervention in an Indian milieu: Lessons from a limited pilot randomized controlled trial. Cogent Psychology, 5(1). Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2002). Unemployment alters the set-point for life satisfaction. In Ed Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being, the collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 67–100). Social indicators research series, Springer Netherlands. Conner, T. S., & Reid, K. A. (2012). Effects of intensive mobile happiness reporting in daily life. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 315–323.

References

71

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extroversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the neo personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books. Cummins, R. A., Mellor, D., Stokes, M., & Lau, A. (2010). Measures of subjective wellbeing. Rehabilitation and Health Assessment: Applying ICF Guidelines, 409–426. Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64, 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024712527648 Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. (2005). Personal wellbeing index–school children. School of Psychology, Deakin University. Cummins, R. A., McCabe, M. P., Romeo, Y., & Gullone, E. (1994). The comprehensive quality of life scale: Instrument development and psychometric evaluation on tertiary staff and students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 372–382. Cunningham, M. R. (1988). What do you do when you’re happy or blue? Mood, expectancies, and behavioral interest. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0099 2357 Daly, M., Delaney, L., Doran, P. P., & MacLachlan, M. (2011). The role of awakening cortisol and psychological distress in diurnal variations in affect: A day reconstruction study. Emotion, 11(3), 524. Davies, S. E., Connelly, B. S., Ones, D. S., & Birklund, A. S. (2015). The general factor of personality: The ‘big one’, a self-evaluative trait, or a methodological gnat that won’t go away? Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 13–22. Delle Fave, A., et al. (2016). Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–30. De Neve, J. E., Diener, E., Tay, L., & Xuereb, C. (2013). The objective benefits of subjective wellbeing. In J. Helliwell, R. Layard, & J. Sachs (Eds.), World happiness report 2013 (pp. 54–79). UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, & J. M. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 325–337). Guilford. Diener, E., & Scollon, C. (2003, October). Subjective Well-Being is Desirable, but Not the Summum Bonum. Paper presented at the University of Minnesota during Interdisciplinary Workshop on Well-Being, Minneapolis. Retrieved from http://www.tc.umn.edu/~tiberius/workshop_papers/ Diener.pdf. Accessed on June 20, 2009. Diener, M. L., Fujita, F., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2004). Culture and emotional experience. Manuscript Submitted for Publication. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (2009). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. In Culture and well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener, Social indicators research series (Vol. 38, pp. 43–70). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2352-03. Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2014). Review of the day reconstruction method (DRM). Social Indicators Research, 116(1), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0279-x. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2015b). National accounts of subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 70, 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038899. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2019). Well-being interventions to improve societies. Global Happiness Council, Global Happiness and Well-being Policy Report (pp. 95–110). Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

72

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., & Oishi, S. (2017). Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 58(2), 87. Diener, E., Kahneman, D., Tov, W., & Arora, R. (2010a). Income’s association with judgments of life versus feelings. In E. Diener, J. F. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp. 3–15). Oxford University Press. Diener, E., Kanazawa, S., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2015a). Why people are in a generally good mood. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 235–256. Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1984). Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral and cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 871–883. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Gallagher, D. (1991). Response artifacts in the measurement of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 35–56. Diener, E., Scollon, C., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and Gerontology., 15, 187–219. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 80–83. Diener, E., Tay, L., & Oishi, S. (2013). Rising income and the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 267. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908. 2019.1584083 Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010b). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319, 1687–1688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150952. Ehrhardt, J. J., Saris, W. E., & Veenhoven, R. (2000). Stability of life-satisfaction over time: Analysis of change in ranks in a national population. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 177–205. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65, 245–277. Exenberger, S., Banzer, R., Christy, J., Höfer, S., & Juen, B. (2019). Eastern and Western children’s voices on their well-being. Child Indicators Research, 12(3), 747–768. Fava, G. A., & Tomba, E. (2009). Increasing psychological well-being and resilience by psychotherapeutic methods. Journal of Personality, 77, 1903–1934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494. 2009.00604.x Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247–282). Erlbaum. Feldman Barrett, L., & Wager, T. D. (2006). The structure of emotion evidence from neuroimaging studies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 79–83. Ferrans, C. E., & Powers, M. J. (1985). Quality of life index: Development and psychometric properties. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(1), 15–24. Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1097. Ford, M. T., Jebb, A., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2017). Internet searches of negative emotions: An indicator of subjective well-being and predictor of health outcomes across US States and metro areas. Manuscript Submitted for Publication. Fordyce, M. W. (1977). The happiness measures: A sixty-second index of emotional well-being and mental health. Unpublished manuscript. Edison Community College. Frisch, M. B. (1992). Use of the quality-of-life inventory in problem assessment and treatment for cognitive therapy of depression. In A. Freeman & Dattilio (Eds.), Comprehensive casebook of cognitive therapy (pp. 27–52). Plenum.

References

73

Frisch, M. B. (1994b). Manual for the quality of life inventory TM (QOLITM). National Computer Systems. Frisch, M. B. (1994a). Quality of life inventory TM (QOLITM). National Computer Systems. Frisch, M. B. (1993). The quality of life inventory: A cognitive-behavioral tool for complete problem assessment, treatment planning, and outcome evaluation. Behavior Therapist, 16, 42–44. Frisch, M. B. (1998). Quality of life therapy and assessment in health care. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 19–40. Glatzer, W. (1984). Lebenszufriedenheit und alternative Masse subjektiven Wolhlbefindens. In W. Glatzer and W. Zapf (Eds.), Lebensqualitat in der Bundersrepublik. Campus Verlag. Greenley, J. R., Greenberg, J. S., & Brown, R. (1997). Measuring quality of life: A new and practical survey instrument. Social Work, 42, 244–254. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Gumbus, A., & Grodzinsky, F. (2016). Era of big data: Danger of discrimination. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45(3), 118–125. Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2014). Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between leadership and creative performance behaviors: Empirical evidence from the Indian R&D sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1373–1394. Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.112 Hartmann, G. W. (1934). Personality traits associated with variations in happiness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29, 202–212. Hausmann, L. R., Parks, A., Youk, A. O., & Kwoh, C. K. (2014). Reduction of bodily pain in response to an online positive activities intervention. The Journal of Pain, 15, 560–567. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2014.02.004 Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X. 106.4.766 Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Lutes, L. D., Wirtz, D., Kanippayoor, J. M., Leitner, D., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2020). ENHANCE: Evidence for the efficacy of a comprehensive intervention program to promote subjective well-being. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(2), 360. Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., Grover, S., & Wang, S. (2014). Good governance and national wellbeing: What are the linkages? OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 25. Paris, France: OECD. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: A compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), 1073– 1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00213-6 Hoorn, A.V. (2007, April). A short introduction to subjective well-being: It’s measurement, correlates and policy uses. Prepared for the International Conference, “Is happiness measurable and what do those measures mean for policy?” Rome “Tor Vergata”, Italy. Retrieved from http:// www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/39/38331839.pdf. Hudson, N. W., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2016). Day-to-day affect is surprisingly stable: A two-year longitudinal study of well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(1), 45–54. Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the student’s life satisfaction scale. School Psychology International, 12(3), 231–240. Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton University Press. Jang, D., & Kim, D. (2011). Increasing implicit life satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.2.229

74

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). Russell Sage Foundation. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401–405. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780. Kammann, R. (1983). Objective circumstances, life satisfaction and sense of well-being: Consistencies across time and place. New Zealand Psychologist, 12, 14–22. Kammann, R., Christie, D., Irvine, R., & Dixon, G. (1979). Properties of an inventory to measure happiness (and psychological health). New Zealand Psychologist, 8, 1–9. Kim, D. (2004). The implicit life satisfaction measure. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 236–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00148.x Koydemir, S., & Schütz, A. (2012). Emotional intelligence predicts components of subjective wellbeing beyond personality: A two-country study using self-and informant reports. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(2), 107–118. Kramer, A. D. (2010). An unobtrusive behavioral model of gross national happiness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 287–290). ACM. Krueger, A. B., & Schkade, D. A. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1833–1845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.12.015 Kulkarni, V., Kulkarni, V., Imai, K. S., & Gaiha, R. (2021). Changes in subjective versus objective well-being in India. University of Pennsylvania Population Center Working Paper (PSC/PARC), 2021–71. https://repository.upenn.edu/psc_publications/71. Laney, D. (2001). 3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety. META Group Research Note, 6(70), 1. Lawton, M. P. (1972). The dimensions of morale. In D. Kent, R. Kastenbaum, & S. Sherwood (Eds.), Research, planning and action for the elderly (pp. 144–165). Behavioral Publications. Lawton, M. P. (1975). The Philadelphia geriatric center morale scale: A revision. Journal of Gerontology, 30(1), 85–89. Layous, K., Lee, H., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Culture matters when designing a successful happiness-increasing activity: A comparison of the United States and South Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 1294–1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113487591 Liu, P., Tov, W., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., & Qiu, L. (2015). Do Facebook status updates reflect subjective well-being? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(7), 373–379. Lucas, R. E. (2018). Exploring the associations between personality and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). How stable is happiness? Using the STARTS model to estimate the stability of life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1091–1098. Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Estimating the reliability of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from four national panel studies. Social Indicators Research, 3, 323–331. Lucas, R. E., & Lawless, N. M. (2013). Does life seem better on a sunny day? Examining the association between daily weather conditions and life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 872–884. Luhmann, M., Lucas, R. E., Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2013). The prospective effect of life satisfaction on life events. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1948550612440105 Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186–189.

References

75

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155. Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emotion, 11, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022575 Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803. Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive activities increase well-being? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/096372141 2469809 MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2009). Life satisfaction and air quality in London makes a better life? The determinants of subjective well-being in OECD countries. Ecological Economics, 68, 1441–1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.10.004 MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environmental Change, 23, 992–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010 Magnus, K., & Diener, E. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of personality, life events, and subjective well-being. Paper presented at the sixty-third annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. McIntyre, E., Saliba, A., & McKenzie, K. (2020). Subjective wellbeing in the Indian general population: A validation study of the Personal Wellbeing Index. Quality of Life Research, 29, 1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02375-7 Meadow, H. L., Mentzer, J. J., Rahtz, D. R., & Sirgy, M. J. (1992). A life satisfaction measure based on judgment theory. Social Indicators Research, 26(1), 23–59. Mehrotra, S., Rao, K., & Subbakrishna, D. K. (2000). Factor structure of the mental health professionals stress scale (MHPSS) among clinical psychologists in India. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 46(2), 142–150. Mehrotra, S., Tripathi, R., & Banu, H. (2012). Assessment of character strengths: Preliminary report on a Vignette-based measure. The Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 39, 163–172. Mellor-Marsa, B., Miret, M., Abad, F. J., Chatterji, S., Olaya, B., Tobiasz-Adamczyk, B., Koskinen, S., Leonardi, M., Haro, J. M., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. & Caballero, F. F. (2015). Measurement invariance of the day reconstruction method: Results from the COURAGE in Europe project. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1–19. Miret, M., Caballero, F. F., Mathur, A., Naidoo, N., Kowal, P., et al. (2012). Validation of a measure of subjective well-being: An abbreviated version of the day reconstruction method. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43887. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043887 Murphy, F. C., Nimmo-Smith, I. A. N., & Lawrence, A. D. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of emotions: A meta-analysis. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(3), 207–233. Myrskyla, M., & Margolis, R. (2013). Parental benefits improve parental well-being: Evidence from a 2007 policy change in Germany. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Nagpal, R. & Sell, H. (1985). Subjective well-being. SEARO, World Health Organization. Neff, D. (2010). Exploring the meaningfulness and relevance of subjective well-being for India. Indian Journal of Human Development, 4(2), 329–350. Neugarten, B. L., Havighurst, R. J., & Tobin, S. S. (1961). The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 16, 134–143. Ngamaba, K. H. (2017). Determinants of subjective well-being in representative samples of nations. European Journal of Public Health, 27(2), 377–382. Oishi, S. (2002). Experiencing and remembering of well-being: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1398–1406. Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2014). Residents of poor nations have a greater sense of meaning in life than residents of wealthy nations. Psychological Science, 25, 422–430.

76

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

Oishi, S., Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Cross-situational consistency of affective experiences across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 460–472. Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., & Diener, E. (2011). Income inequality and happiness. Psychological Science, 22, 1095–1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417262 Oishi, S., Kushlev, K., & Schimmack, U. (2018). Progressive taxation, income inequality, and happiness. American Psychologist, 73(2), 157. Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2012). Progressive taxation and the subjective well-being of nations. Psychological Science, 23, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611420882 Pandey, S. (2011). Positive psychology: Blending strengths of western, eastern and other indigenous psychologies (2011). In Presented at 1st International Conference on “Emerging Paradigms in Business & Social Sciences” (EPBSS-2011), organized by Middlesex University, Dubai, Nov 22–24, 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2150585. Accessed on October 5, 2022. Pavot, W. (2018). The cornerstone of research on subjective well-being: Valid assessment methodology. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172. Phan, K.L., Wager, T.D., Taylor, S.F., & Liberzon, I. (2002). Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: A meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI. Neuroimage, 16, 331–348. Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 925–971. Radcliff, B. (2013). The political economy of human happiness: How voters’ choices determine the quality of life. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139344371 Rao, D., & Mehrotra, S. (2010). Personal goal survey development and preliminary trial in the Indian community. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 36(1), 133–145. Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain, 66(1), 3–8. Redi, M., Quercia, D., Graham, L., & Gosling, S. (2015). Like partying? Your face says it all. Predicting the ambiance of places with profile pictures. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 347–356). Rice, S. P. M., & Shorey-Fennell, B. R. (2020). Comparing the psychometric properties of common measures of positive and negative emotional experiences: Implications for the assessment of subjective wellbeing. Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 4, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41 543-020-00025-1 Robinson, L. M., Waran, N. K., Leach, M. C., Morton, F. B., Paukner, A., Lonsdorf, E., Handel, I., Wilson, V. A., Brosnan, S. F., & Weiss, A. (2016). Happiness is positive welfare in brown capuchins (Sapajus apella). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 181, 145–151. Robinson, M. D., & Klein, R. J. (2018). What do subjective well-being judgments mean? Sources and distinctions, processes and mechanisms. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960. Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Shields, S. A. (1998). The gender heuristic and the database: Factors affecting the perception of gender-related differences in the experience and display of emotions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 206–219. Ross, M., Eyman, A., & Kishchuck, N. (1986). Determinants of subjective well-being. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison (pp. 78– 103). Erlbaum. Ruths, D., & Pfeffer, J. (2014). Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 346(6213), 1063–1064.

References

77

Saeki, M., Oishi, S., Maeno, T., & Gilbert, E. (2014). Self–informant agreement for subjective well-being among Japanese. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 124–128. Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. Journal of Personality, 61(3), 317–342. Schimmack, U. (2003). Affect measurement in experience sampling research. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(1), 79–106. Schimmack, U., & Oishi, S. (2005). The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 395–406. Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.582 Schneider, L., & Schimmack, U. (2009). Self-informant agreement in well-being ratings: A metaanalysis. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 363–376. Schneider, L., & Schimmack, U. (2010). Examining sources of self-informant agreement in lifesatisfaction judgments. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrp.2010.01.004 Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments in question form, wording, and context. Academic Press. Schwartz, H., Eichstaedt, J., Kern, M., Dziurzynski, L., Lucas, R., Agrawal, M., Park, G., Lakshmikanth, S., Jha, S., Seligman, M., & Ungar, L. (2013). Characterizing geographic variation in well-being using tweets. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 583–591). Schwarz, N., & Hippler, H. J. (1987). What response scales may tell your respondents. In H. J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social information processing and survey methodology. Springer Verlag. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, mis-attribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 574–579. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one’s life: A judgment model of subjective wellbeing. In F. Strack & M. Argyle (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–47). Pergamon. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). Russell Sage Foundation. Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Kommer, D., & Wagner, D. (1987). Soccer, rooms, and the quality of your life: Mood effects on judgments of satisfaction with life in general and with specific life domains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 69–79. Scollon, C. N., Sim, J. H., Shin, J., Koh, S, & Stevens, S. (2016). Smiling in photographs predicts work performance in an Asian business school. Manuscript Under Review. Scollon, C. N. (2018). Non-traditional measures of subjective well-being and their validity: A review. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Emotions across cultures and methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304–326. Seder, J. P., & Oishi, S. (2012). Intensity of smiling in Facebook photos predicts future life satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 407–413. Seidlitz, L., & Diener, E. (1993). Memory for positive versus negative events: Theories for the differences between happy and unhappy persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 654–664. Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

78

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

Shao, L. (1993). Multi-language comparability of life satisfaction and happiness measures in mainland China and American students (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Sharma, S., & Singh, K. (2016). Development and validation of Vikaras Hindi Scale. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 19(5), 420–432. Sheldon, K. M., Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Variety is the spice of happiness: The hedonic adaptation prevention (HAP) model. In I. Boniwell & S. David (Eds.), Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 901–914). Oxford University Press. Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20593 Singh, K., & Choubisa, R. (2009). Psychometric properties of Hindi translated version of Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS). Journal of Indian Health Psychology, 4(1), 65–76. Singh, K., Mitra, S., & Khanna, P. (2016). Psychometric properties of Hindi version of peace of mind, harmony in life and sat-chit-ananda scales. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(1), 58–64. Singh, K., & Raina, M. (2015). Development and validation of a test on Anasakti (non-attachment): An Indian model of well-being. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 18(9), 715–725. Singh, K., Raina, M., & Sahni, P. (2017). The concept and measure of Sukha Dukha: An Indian perspective on well-being. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 19(2), 117–132. Singh, K., Ruch, W., & Junnarkar, M. (2014). Effect of the demographic variables and psychometric properties of the personal well-being index for school children in India. Child Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9264-4 Singh, K., & Yu, X. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian students. Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 23–30. Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D.-J. (2018). The psychology of life balance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sirgy, M. J., Cole, D., Kosenko, R., Meadow, H. L., Rahtz, D., Cicic, M., Jin, G. X., Yarsuvat, D., Blenkhorn, D. L., & Nagpal, N. (1995b). Developing a life satisfaction measure based on need hierarchy theory. In M. J. Sirgy & A. C. Samli (Eds.), New dimensions of marketing and quality of life (pp. 3–26). Greenwood Press. Sirgy, M. J., Cole, D., Kosenko, R., Meadow, H. L., Rahtz, R. D., Cicic, M., Jin, G. X., Yarsuvat, D., Blenkhorn, D., & Nagpal, N. (1995a). A life Satisfaction measure: Additional validational data for the congruity life satisfaction measure. Social Indicators Research, 34, 237–259. Smith, T. W. (1979). Happiness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 18–30. Snodgrass, J. G., Lacy, M. G., & Upadhyay, C. (2017). Developing culturally sensitive affect scales for global mental health research and practice: Emotional balance, not named syndromes, in Indian Adivasi subjective well-being. Social Science & Medicine, 187, 174–183. Srivastava, S., Angelo, K. M., & Vallereux, S. R. (2008). Extraversion and positive affect: A day reconstruction study of person-environment transactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1613–1618. Stewart, G. (2018). What does ‘indigenous’ mean, for me? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(8), 740–743. Stones, M. J., Hadjistavopoulo, T., Tuuko, H., & Kozma, A. (1995). Happiness has trait-like and state-like properties: A reply to Veenhoven. Social Indicators Research, 36, 129–144. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Schwarz, N. (1987). The context paradox in attitude surveys: Assimilation or contrast. Zuma Arbeitsbericht, 7. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 429–442.

References

79

Strack, F., Schwarz, N., & Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, mood, and mode of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1460–1469. Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of the comprehensive inventory of thriving (CIT) and the brief inventory of thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6, 251–279. Suardi, A., Sotgiu, I., Costa, T., Cauda, F., & Rusconi, M. (2016). The neural correlates of happiness: A review of PET and fMRI studies using autobiographical recall methods. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(3), 383–392. Tay, L., Ng, V., Kuykendall, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Demographic factors and worker well-being: An empirical review using representative data from the United States and across the world. In The role of demographics in occupational stress and well-being (pp. 235–283). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 354–365. Tenney, E., Poole, J., & Diener, E. (2015). Subjective well-being and organizational performance. In A. Brief & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. JAI Press. Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2007). Culture and subjective well-being. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 691–713). Guilford. Triandis, H. C., & Bhawuk, D. P. (1997). Culture theory and the meaning of relatedness. Uchida, Y., & Oishi, S. (2016). The happiness of individuals and the collective. Japanese Psychological Research, 58, 125–141. Urry, H. L., Nitschke, J. B., Dolski, I., Jackson, D. C., Dalton, K. M., Mueller, C. J., Rosenkranz, M. A., Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Davidson, R. J., (2004). Making a life worth living neural correlates of well-being. Psychological Science, 15(6), 367–372. Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 472–481. Veenhoven, R. (1998). Two state-trait discussions on happiness: A reply to stones et al. Social indicators Research, 43, 211–225. Veenhoven, R. (2017). World database of happiness, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl. . Accessed on July 21, 2022. Veenhoven, R. (2018). Subjective well-being in nations. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Reidel. Veenhoven, R. (1991). Question on happiness: Classical topics, modern answers, and blind spots. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 7–26). Pergamon Press. Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Tests of the theory that a better society does not make us any happier. Social Indicators Research, 32, 101–162. Vittersø, J., Røysamb, E., & Diener, E. (2002). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: Exploring its diverse meaning and relation to economic wealth. In E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), The universality of subjective wellbeing indicators (pp. 81–103). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vytal, K., & Hamann, S. (2010). Neuroimaging support for discrete neural correlates of basic emotions: A voxel-based meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2864–2885. Wang, N., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., & Rust, J. (2014). Can well-being be measured using Facebook status updates? Validation of Facebook’s Gross National Happiness Index. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 483–491. Wang, P., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2011). Empirical research on factors related to the subjective well-being of Chinese urban residents. Social Indicators Research, 101(3), 447–459. Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. Guilford Press.

80

3 Subjective Well-Being: Measurement

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Watson, D., & Walker, L. M. (1996). The long-term stability and predictive validity of trait measures of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 567–577. Weiss, A., King, J. E., & Perkins, L. (2006). Personality and subjective well-being in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 501. Whelan, D. C., & Zelenski, J. M. (2012). Experimental evidence that positive moods cause sociability. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/194 8550611425194 Wu, W. C. H., & Bond, M. H. (2006). National differences in predictors of suicide among young and elderly citizens: Linking societal predictors to psychological factors. Archives of Suicide Research, 10, 45–60. Yang, C., & Srinivasan, P. (2016). Life satisfaction and the pursuit of happiness on Twitter. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0150881. Zou, C., Schimmack, U., & Gere, J. (2013). The validity of well-being measures: A multipleindicator-multiple-rater model. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1247.

Chapter 4

SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) and Reducers (Subjective Ill-Being)

Abstract This chapter discusses how Subjective Well-Being (SWB) and Subjective Ill-Being (SIB) get conceptualized in the Indian context, it provides the structure of the concept with the help of a qualitative study. The conceptualization or structure is based upon an exploratory study conducted upon 184 respondents across four age groups [children (n) = 46, adolescents and young adults (n) = 46, middle-aged (n) = 48, and older adults (n) = 44] and across different locales [urban, urban slums, and rural]. The respondents were interviewed on a three-item open-ended questionnaire based on (Diener in Psychological Bulletin 95:542–575, 1984) SWB framework—on greater satisfaction with life (cognition), frequent positive affect, and infrequent or lesser negative affect. Their responses were recorded, transcribed, and content analysed for the themes that resulted in the understanding of the “Enhancers” (total of 12 conceptual categories enhancing SWB–Relationships, Health, Resources, Emotions, Education, Achievement, Work, Sense of Satisfaction, Recreation, Values, Societal, and Personality) and “Reducers” (total of 9 conceptual categories reducing the experience of SWB and/or resulting in SIB–Individual Concerns, Values related issues, Emotions related issues, Achievement related issues, Health related issues, Societal related issues, Attitude related issues, Resources related issues, and Environment related issues). The operationalization of the determinants in these two main themes may not necessarily be the opposite of each other. Keywords India/Indian/Indian context · Indigenous · SWB Conceptualization (India) · SWB Structure (India) · SWB Determinants (India) · Enhancers · Reducers · Content Analysis · Thematic Analysis · Culture · SWB and India · SWB Demographics (India) · SWB Urban India · SWB Urban Slums India · SWB Rural India · SWB Children · SWB Adolescents and Young Adults · SWB Middle Age · SWB Elderly

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 T. Bhatnagar, Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7_4

81

82

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

4.1 Overview of the Qualitative Study An exploratory study was undertaken on a sample of 184 individuals across the different age groups and locales of the society to explore the factors that determine SWB among Indians and to conceptualize the concept of SWB by identifying domains enhancing or reducing the individual’s concept of well-being.

4.2 Sample 184 individuals from urban (U), urban slums (US), and rural (R) India (n for U = 90, US = 30, R = 64) were interviewed on a three-item open-ended questionnaire based on Diener’s (1984) framework of SWB—on greater satisfaction with life (cognition), frequent positive affect, and infrequent or lesser negative affect. Area and snowball sampling were used to identify and interview respondents. Purposive sampling was used majorly as respondents were divided (almost equally) into four representative groups based on age (which also is representative)–children (CH or G-1: ages 9&10), adolescents and young adults (A & YA or G-2: ages 14–24), middle-aged (MA or G-3: ages 35–45), and older adults (EL or G-4: ages 60 years & above). Data for urban slums and rural children and adolescents were collected from schools after taking prior permission from the concerned authorities. Distribution based on gender and assumed socio-economic status (SES) was almost the same in all the groups. SES does not comprise an important variable for this qualitative study. However wherever required, it is discussed for the sake of necessity or understanding and based on the researcher assumption–thus, the use of the term “assumed”). The data were collected until saturation was reached. Theoretical sampling was observed to finalize the data set. Theoretical sampling is used usually to ascertain that the data collected is appropriate and no new insights are emerging out of the data for a comprehensive understanding (Charmaz, 2006; Flick, 2009; Lawrence & Tar, 2013; Tie et al., 2019). Participant interview responses were recorded, transcribed, and content-analysed. The details of the overall sample have been given in Fig. 4.1.

4.3 Interview Questions Extant literature in the field suggests that each of the components of SWB such as positive affect, lack of negative affect, and life satisfaction show some degree of independence (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Diener et al., 2003a; Lucas et al., 1996). Therefore, they should be measured and studied independently. Keeping this into consideration, an open-ended three items semi-structured interview protocol was developed,

4.3 Interview Questions

83

Fig. 4.1 Sample Distribution Tree. Note The value given in parentheses against gender and its urban and urban slums distribution, is the number of respondents in each category

84

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

and interviews were conducted to conceptualize SWB in the Indian context. The following questions were asked to the respondents: . What in general gives you happiness? . What type of things or experiences (emotional/material) lead to your greatest well-being? . What makes you feel unpleasant/unhappy/sad? The questions were translated into Hindi (also the official language of India (Gusain, 2012)) as well for the understanding of people, especially from the urban slums and rural areas. These questions were given to a Hindi expert, and later to an English language expert for translation and back translation. Evidence suggests that it is possible to translate the questions used to measure well-being into different languages and retain the same meaning (Inglehart & Klingenann, 2000; Shao, 1993). Thus, an alternate Hindi form of the questions was prepared which effectively helped the researcher during data collection. Member checking was done to ensure quality and check for translation accuracy.

4.4 Analysis After establishing rapport with the respondents and seeking their consent to participate, they were asked three open-ended questions. Their responses were recorded and later transcribed for the content to be analysed and for themes to emerge (also see Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017). Content analysis is singular in the sense that both word count (frequency) and extraction of categories and themes are possible through this analytical method (Krippendorff, 2004, 2013, 2018; Neuendorf, 2002, 2017; Berg, 2001; Burnard, 1991; Catanzaro, 1988; Downe-Wambolt, 1992; Bengtsson, 2016). The initial result sheets were prepared separately for each age group based on the frequency scores. The codes basis the condensation process helped in identifying the determinants of SWB and these were identified group-wise for all the three sub-samples respectively. An integrated result sheet was then prepared for every sub-sample (location) based on the result sheets of all four age groups, prioritizing the determinants from general to specific (most common to specific determinants). Finally, findings from the three locations were integrated into one result sheet based on the frequency scores, prioritizing the determinants in descending order. Their similarity based on response meanings (content) or operationalization generated the conceptual categories, which enabled the conceptualization of SWB and SIB in the Indian context (the two major themes). The obtained 12 conceptual categories are the “Enhancers” (that enhance subjective well-being) and 9 conceptual categories that reduce it, called the “Reducers”. This conceptualization provides a structure of SWB and SIB in the Indian context. A complete list of Enhancers and Reducers is given in Appendix A.I and B.

4.4 Analysis

85

It is important to mention here that the first two questions regarding positive affect and life satisfaction (cognition) were analysed together.

4.4.1 Coding Process A list of the determinants of subjective well-being was prepared from the literature. This was done to maintain the standard nomenclature of similar determinants (if applicable in the cultural context with similar connotations). This was, however, a very initial list with limited known determinants across the globe. This list was further developed (revised and with using new labels where required) basis the study data. A coding schedule and manual were also prepared. This ensured that there were no overlaps between the codes and that these codes did not induce intra-coder variability in the data analysis. Line-by-line and word-by-word coding was conducted for the interviews. Once the data was coded, the explanations and patterns of the data facilitated the conceptual categories to emerge. For example (from an interview excerpt), the respondent said, “I feel very happy when mummy loves me, she prepares my favourite dish and brings me lovely toys. I feel loved and cared for”. This sentence was coded for parental love and affection. Another respondent said, “…when we go to our grandparents and spend time together with family, it is all joy and happiness….”. This sentence was coded for family togetherness. Another example from a teacher respondent, “I feel very emotional, mostly with joy, when my students come and recognize me as their teacher, their appreciation makes me happy”. This was coded for appreciation. These similar codes in meaning and intent of the respondents’ responses were put together in the conceptual category of Emotions, where emotion operationalizes as the feelings of an individual, like love or joy, and happiness experienced by appreciation as an emotion. The same process was followed for all the categories. The operationalization of the conceptual categories for enhancers and reducers (following as a description after Figs. 4.2 and 4.3) is consolidated information of the respondents’ coded responses. Individual working files with comprehensive meanings from the entire qualitative data were created from which this consolidation has been done. (Note: Consolidation summarizes the meaning and essence of respondents’ responses. The example mentioned from the conceptual category, emotions, illustrates the process. Appendix C, D, and E give an idea of the word counts and distribution. However, anyone interested in the details of the respondent responses can contact me separately.) Memo writing and data analysis were done simultaneously. Field notes were written during data collection (either during the data collection process, in the time gap between two interviews, or after immediately coming back from the field) and analytical memos were noted during analysis. The essence of these memos (written using reflexivity and interpretivity) has been captured in the insights and observation section of the chapter.

86

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

A person is described as enjoying a high level of SWB if s/he is satisfied with her/ his life, frequently experiences positive emotions and rarely feels negative emotions (Diener, 1984). One defining characteristic of SWB is that it is evaluated based on the individual’s assessment of life. The determinants that characterize people’s evaluations of their lives are critical to the understanding of the concept. The literature on SWB suggests that positive and negative emotions should be assessed separately because they often correlate with different variables (see Diener & Scollon, 2003). The results from the current data support this suggestion as the findings envisage the fact that the absence of what makes one happy and satisfied may not necessarily lead to one’s unhappiness, thus rejecting the bipolar nature of the two affects. Additionally, responses on Positive Affect and Life Satisfaction showed a pattern of commonality but the responses on Negative Affect showed a lot of individual-specific variation. Findings–Urban (Sub-sample I) Table 4.1 shows high-frequency determinants enhancing the concept of subjective well-being for sub-sample I. Table 4.1 suggests that relationship is the most frequently mentioned determinant among other important determinants of well-being, which are: health (both physiological and psychological), values, achievement, emotions, and recreation. Several other determinants were obtained from the sub-sample (see Appendix C for a complete list of determinants). However, these determinants were not mentioned frequently and thus, do not seem to dominantly emerge for the respondents from sub-sample I considering the criterion of commonality. Individual Concerns, values related, and emotion related issues constitute the important negative determinants responsible for reducing the individual’s concept of well-being for respondents from sub-sample I. Table 4.2 highlights the age-specific findings from the urban sample. Some other observations basis refection and memo writing from this sub-sample are: Table 4.1 Positive Determinants enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Urban Sample (highfrequency determinants) Sr. No

Name of the Determinant

G-1 Children n = 22

G-2 Adolescents and Young Adults n = 24

G-3 Middle Aged n = 24

G-4 Older Adults n = 20

Total n = 90

1

Relationship

20

21

24

19

84

2

Health

19

20

19

13

71

3

Values

8

18

19

17

62

4

Achievement

19

21

16

5

61

5

Emotions

16

17

16

9

58

6

Recreation

17

15

15

5

52

4.4 Analysis

87

Table 4.2 Subjective Well-Being in India by Age—Urban Sample Findings—Urban Sample Age Groups

Important Positive Determinants

Children

•Health .Relationship .Achievement

Important Negative Determinants .Individual Concerns .Values related issues

Specific Mentions .Competence .Acceptance .Reinforcement (Reward/ Encouragement) .Creativity

.Emotions related issues Adolescents & Young Adults

.Relationship .Values .Achievement .Pro-Social Behaviour

Middle Age

.Relationship

Older Adults

.Relationship

.Personality .Self Confidence .Self-Reflection .Self-Efficiency .Learning (from one's mistakes) .Leadership .Devotion/Dedication .Self-Identity .Self .Work Productivity .Realization of one's Abilities .Social Influence .Adjustability .Good Quality of Life .Balanced Approach .Determination .Self-Actualization .Social Work .Trust .Wit and Humour

Specifically Not Mentioned .Money .Marriage .Peace/Spiritualism .Employment .Sense of Satisfaction .Support .Positive Thinking .Interpersonal Relationships

.Appreciation

. Children from affluent urban families do not seem to mention material things, money or employment at their age. They probably take these things for granted and assume that all people have them just as they have what they want. On the contrary, these very things mean a lot to their urban slum counterparts. Children from the urban slums or rural areas seem to know the value of these things due to deprivation and hard living conditions. Responses like justice, concentration, creativity, and personality were found to be specific to the children from an affluent background. A possible explanation can be that having met the basic necessities of life, these children are able to think of other things that are required for their wellbeing, whereas children who have to struggle for their day-to-day requirements seem to be most dependent upon their basic necessities for their well-being. . Responses like personality, status, values, freedom, intelligence/intellect, concentration/focus, self-respect, determination, positive attitude/thinking, leadership,

88

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

devotion, self-realization, and self-identity have been found to be specific to the affluent urban respondents. . Emotions was not mentioned by male affluent urban respondents. . Money was mentioned as most important by affluent urban male. . Education was least frequently mentioned by affluent urban males. Findings—Urban Slums (Sub-sample II) Table 4.3 shows high frequency determinants enhancing the concept of subjective well-being for the urban slums sample. Table 4.3 suggests that relationship is the most frequently mentioned determinant among other important determinants of well-being, which are: health, emotions, education, employment/career, sense of satisfaction, money, material possessions, recreation, and achievement. Several other determinants were obtained from the sub-sample (see Appendix D for a complete list of determinants). However, these determinants were not mentioned frequently and thus, do not seem to emerge as very important for the respondents from the urban slums considering the criterion of commonality. Individual Concerns and Emotion related issues constitute the important negative determinants responsible for reducing the individual’s concept of wellbeing for urban slum respondents. The findings of this study show differences in responses between sub-samples II and I. Table 4.4 highlights the age-specific findings from the urban slums sample. Some other observations worth sharing from this sub-sample are: Table 4.3 Positive Determinants enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Urban Slums Sample (high-frequency determinants) Sr. No

Name of the Determinant

G-1 Children n=8

G-2 Adolescents & Young Adults n=6

G-3 Middle Aged n=8

G-4 Older Adults n=8

Total n = 30

1

Relationship

8

6

8

8

30

2

Health

8

5

7

8

28

3

Emotions

8

6

6

7

27

3

Education

8

6

6

7

27

3

Employment/ Career

8

6

7

6

27

4

Sense of Satisfaction

7

4

8

7

26

4

Money

8

4

7

7

26

5

Material Possessions

7

3

7

7

24

6

Recreation

8

6

3

5

22

7

Achievement

7

6

2

0

15

4.4 Analysis

89

Table 4.4 Subjective Well-Being in India by Age—Urban Slums Sample Findings—Urban Slums Sample Important Important Specific Specifically Not Age Groups Positive Negative Mentions Mentioned Determinants Determinants .Relationship .Reinforcement .Hard "Work Children .Health (Rewards/ .Understanding .Emotion Encouragement) .Adjustability .Education .Adaptability .Employment .Good/Happiness .Money of Others .Recreation .Sense of Satisfaction .Material Possessions .Achievement .Dreams Adolescents .Relationship .Emotions .Good & .Education Behaviour Young .Individual .Employment Concerns .Equality Adults .Recreation .Achievement .Health Middle Age .Relationship .Sense of Satisfaction .Health .Employment .Money .Material Possessions .Relationship Older .Health Adults .Emotion .Education .Sense of Satisfaction .Money .Material Possessions

.Emotions related issues

.Time .Intelligence/ Management Intellect .Being Responsible .Self Confidence .Security

-

.Appreciation .Goal .Nature

Other Remarks .Values not mentioned by female slum children

.Values not mentioned by slum respondents (both males and females) .Material possessions not mentioned by slum females .Material Possessions rated highest by female slum respondents .Employment/Career and Emotions rated comparatively higher by slum respondents .Achievement not mentioned by any respondent .Money rated as most important by slum female respondents .Employment rated highest by slum females

. Surprisingly, none of the respondents from urban slums have mentioned basic necessities as an important SWB-determinant. . Material possessions have been mentioned with a higher frequency (F) in the case of urban slum respondents (F = 24) as compared to the affluent urban respondents. . The determinant material possessions has been mentioned comparatively with the highest frequency by middle-aged urban slum female respondents (F = 4, 100%). . Respondents living in the urban slums are possibly limited in their activity areas. Here activity area would mean anything that an individual engages in. Due to a lack of resources, their activity areas become restricted and hence, what is meant by a good life for them is being happy by securing the necessities that can enable them to lead a relatively comfortable life. Thus, determinants such as education,

90

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

employment, money, and material possessions become very important for their SWB. Findings—Rural Sample (Sub-sample III) Table 4.5 shows high-frequency determinants enhancing the concept of subjective well-being for the rural sample. Table 4.5 suggests that relationship is the most frequently mentioned determinant among other important determinants of well-being, which are: health, money, education, employment, material possessions and basic necessities, sense of satisfaction, and emotions. Several other determinants were obtained from the sub-sample (see Appendix E for a complete list of determinants). However, these determinants were not mentioned frequently and thus, do not seem to be very important for the respondents from the urban slums considering the criterion of commonality. Individual Concerns, emotion related, and achievement related issues constitute the highly reported negative determinants responsible for reducing the individual’s concept of well-being for these respondents. Table 4.6 highlights the age-specific findings from the rural sample. Some other observations worth sharing from this sub-sample are: . Adolescents and young adults have specifically mentioned determinants such as people in society, understanding, and motivation. One possible explanation could be that this is the age of turbulence and tumult. Adolescence is the phase of turbulence where a child goes through many physical, psychological, and emotional changes (Maithly & Saxena, 2008). This is the stage where there are lots of aspirations and a wish to prove oneself. Generally, people do not seem to understand the Table 4.5 Positive Determinants enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Rural Sample (highfrequency determinants) Sr. No

Name of the Determinant

G-1 Children n = 16

G-2 Adolescents & Young Adults n = 16

G-3 Middle Aged n = 16

G-4 Older Adults n = 16

Total n = 64

1

Relationship

14

16

13

16

59

2

Health

16

13

14

16

59

3

Money

16

12

14

14

56

4

Education

12

14

13

14

53

5

Employment

14

10

16

11

51

6

Material Possessions and Basic Necessities

15

13

11

8

47

7

Sense of Satisfaction

8

12

9

10

39

8

Emotions

12

11

4

6

33

4.4 Analysis

91

Table 4.6 Subjective Well-Being in India by Age—Rural Sample Findings—Rural Sample Age Groups

Important Positive Determinants •Health Children •Money •Achievement •MP/BN •Employment •Relationship •Recreation Adolescents •Relationship •Education & Young •Health Adults •MP/BN •Achievement Middle Age •Employment •Health •Money •MP/BN •Relationship •Education •WB of one’s Children •Relationship Older •Health Adults •Money •Education •WB of one's Children

Important Negative Determinants

Specific Mentions •Happiness •Cleanliness

•Individual Concerns

•Emotions related issues

Specifically Not Mentioned •Values •Peace •Self -Reliance •Hard Work

•Self -Respect • Resources •Self Confidence •People in Society •Understanding •Motivation •Long/Meaningful Life •Individual Contribution to social WB •Fate/Luck

•Assets •Time •Achievement •Religion & Religiousness related issues •Blessings & Good Wishes •Experience •Social Norms •Forgiveness

Other Remarks

•Employment rated as very important determinant by rural children respondents

•Employment rated as the most important determinant •Relationship rated higher by female as compared to male respondents

•Sense of •Recreation •Appreciation Satisfaction rated higher by female • Festivals as compared to male respondents •Achievement rated as important determinant by children and adolescents & young adults. For middle aged and elderly achievement of children becomes more important

views and ideas of adolescents and young adults. Thus, people who understand them and motivate them seem to be contributing to enhancing their SWB. . Children, and adolescents and young adults have mentioned achievement as an important determinant. For middle-aged and older adult respondents, the achievement of their children becomes important. It has been observed that achievement is an important determinant in contributing towards the subjective well-being of children and adolescents & young adults. Middle-aged people and older adults, however, have been found to experience well-being when their children are wellsettled in life, when they are happy and/or when they achieve something. If these

92

.

.

.

.

.

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

age groups are evaluated separately, then the frequencies indicate that achievement (F = 29) is not one of the most frequently reported determinants, which contribute towards rural subjective well-being. But if the scores of these two determinants {achievement (F = 29) and well-being of one’s children (F = 26)} are added, then this determinant becomes the fourth most important determinant (F = 55) of subjective well-being of rural respondents after relationship (F = 59), health (F = 59), and money (F = 56). Interestingly, married female respondents have mentioned their husbands’ achievement as a determinant of their well-being, though the reverse of this has not been observed. This can be attributed to the socialization pattern in the Indian context. This observation is also a probable indication of the collective concept of SWB in the Indian context where an individual experiences well-being when it is experienced by one and all in the family. The results obtained seem to be quite relevant when seen in the light of the rural context. Lack of facilities and resources make determinants like money, education, employment, and even basic necessities as prominent determinants of subjective well-being. These are much in contrast to the urban sample where determinants like values, emotions, and recreation are more prominent than the common determinants in both sub-samples such as relationship and health. The mention of education (F = 12) as an important determinant by children from rural backgrounds implies the importance it holds in their life. They are well aware of the fact that it is only by being educated that they can improve the conditions of their life (e.g. Scheier & Carver, 1993; King & Hicks, 2007). The fieldwork suggests that children of 9 or 10 years of age are too young to accept the harsh realities of life. Gaining knowledge solely seems to give them hope for a better tomorrow and a promise of employment. Their lives are so full of disadvantages that they realize the importance of money at such a tender age when they should be free from all worries. Children from rural areas have mentioned employment (F = 14) among the most prominent SWB determinants. The importance of the determinant employment might not be very relevant at this age, but these children realize the importance of employment because that appears to be the source of income and improved quality of life. Children from rural areas also seem to be aware of the problems their families face when their parents are jobless. In such circumstances, children are deprived even of the basic necessities of life and thus, a very high frequency obtained for this determinant is not surprising. Employment has been mentioned as the most important and equally highest determinant by all rural middle-aged respondents (F = 16, 100%) (see Ehrhardt et al., 2000; Clark, Georgellis, Lucas, & Diener, 2002; Van Bruggen in Diener & Rahtz, 2000 & McKee-Ryan, Wanberg & Kinicki, 2005). In the middle age, employment and money (F = 14) seem to be very important in determining the concept of subjective well-being. People seem to be more family-oriented in a seemingly collectivist society like India. The researcher has observed that most of the families in the rural setting are joint families. Middle age seems to be the most crucial years of an individual’s life from the perspective of responsibilities that s/he has to bear

4.4 Analysis

93

towards family life. Employment appears to be an important means that enables her/him to carry out this responsibility. It is mostly the middle-aged people who bear the responsibilities of the entire household, meet the social requirements and take care of the young and old in the family. This possibly explains the necessity and importance given to the determinants employment and money by them. . It has been observed that none of the rural respondents has mentioned career as an SWB-determinant. They have only mentioned employment (F = 51, n = 64). This finding is quite self-explanatory. There is a lot of unemployment in rural areas; thus, it is quite difficult to get work regularly. Each day appears to be a constant struggle for basic necessities for the villagers. Under such conditions, it is very likely to understand the need for, and the importance given to any kind of employment available. This reason also explains why respondents do not report career as a positive determinant of SWB. The other reason for not mentioning a career could be a lack of information and awareness about career opportunities. . The respondents from the rural area seem to gain happiness from simple things that life can provide for them and do not get upset over trivial things that they do not seem destined to (also see Lyubormisky, 2001). They seem to be satisfied with whatever little they have and derive positive affect from that. Thus, a sense of satisfaction or contentment (F = 39) is very frequently mentioned in the rural sample. To quote from the interview of one of the respondents, “You wish for and want many things, but what’s the sense if you cannot get it, so it’s best to be content… be happy and feel good about what you have. Being satisfied serves like a balance between what you want and what is difficult to get”.

4.4.2 Insights (Other Observations) from the Qualitative Study . Tables 4.1, 4.3, and 4.5 suggest that some positive determinants of SWB are very sub-sample-specific. This means that some determinants have been mentioned by respondents from only one sub-sample and some determinants have not been mentioned by respondents from that sub-sample. – Positive determinants such as success, smooth life, support, interpersonal relationships, inspiration from others, self, work productivity, exploration of new things, self-reflection, competence, realization of one’s abilities, selfefficiency, social influence, quality of life, personal space, social work, justice, concentration/focus, self-realization, balanced approach, courage, freedom, patience, simplicity, regularity, creativity, leadership, devotion/dedication, self-identity, trust, wit and humour, and self-actualization are mentioned specifically by respondents from sub-sample I (urban). Experience and self-respect are determinants that have not been mentioned by respondents from sub-sample I.

94

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

– Determinants such as goal, social status, recognition (accomplishment and acknowledgement), growth (progress/self-growth), intelligence/intellect, reinforcement (rewards/encouragement), good/happiness of others, being responsible, dreams, good behaviour, equality, and security are mentioned specifically by respondents from sub-sample II (urban slums). Both, urban and urban slum respondents have mentioned determinants like reinforcement (rewards/encouragement), time management and choice and ability to take/ make decisions. – Determinants such as worshipping and having faith in God, festivals, assets, happiness, time, religion and religiousness, cleanliness, social norms, and forgiveness are mentioned specifically by respondents from sub-sample III (rural). Surrounding environment, positive attitude/thinking, aspiration, personality, determination, learning (from one’s mistakes), acceptance (acceptability) and adjustment (adjustability) are determinants that have not been mentioned by respondents from sub-sample III. – Relationship and health have been mentioned as the first two most important determinants in all the sub-samples with the highest frequencies for both the determinants (in line with Argyle 1987, Myers 1999). However, the difference in frequencies has been found in the case of determinants like money, material possessions and basic necessities, education, values, achievement and employment. All these determinants (except values and achievement) have been found to have much higher frequencies in the case of the rural respondents as compared to the urban respondents. Values and achievement have been found to have higher frequencies in the case of urban respondents. . Health (F = 43), relationship (F = 42), achievement (F = 42), recreation (F = 38), emotions (F = 36), material possessions and basic necessities (F = 32), education (F = 28), money (F = 27) and employment/career (F = 24) are the prominent determinants enhancing SWB in children (n = 46) whereas Individual Concerns and Achievement related issues are the prominent determinants reducing SWB in children. Determinants such as relationship (F = 22), recreation (F = 21) and material possessions, and basic necessities (F = 17) have higher frequencies in the case of male respondents (n = 24) whereas determinants such as achievement (F = 22) and education (F = 15) have higher frequencies in case of female respondents (n = 22) of this age group. Employment/career (F = 12 for both males and females) is equally important for both male and female respondents from this age group. . Relationship (F = 43), achievement (F = 40), health (F = 38), emotions (F = 34), money (F = 31), education (F = 31), recreation (F = 30), values (F = 27), employment/career (F = 25), material possessions and basic necessities (F = 23), and sense of satisfaction (F = 23) are the prominent determinants enhancing SWB in adolescents and young adults (n = 46) whereas Individual Concerns and Emotion related issues are the prominent determinants reducing SWB in adolescents and young adults. Determinants such as money (F = 18), sense of satisfaction (F = 13), and employment/career (F = 12) have higher frequencies

4.4 Analysis

95

in the case of adolescent and young adult male respondents (n = 23) whereas determinants such as emotions (F = 20) and education (F = 14) have higher frequencies in case of female respondents (n = 23) of the group. Relationship (F: Males = 22, Females = 21), achievement (F = 20 for both males and females), health (F = 19 for both males and females), marriage (F = 4 for both males and females), and goal (F = 4 for both males and females) are equally important for both male and female respondents from this age group. . Relationship (F = 45), well-being of one’s children (F = 40), health (F = 40), money (F = 35), employment/career (F = 30), values (F = 29), marriage (F = 27), education (F = 27), sense of satisfaction (F = 27), emotions (F = 26) and material possessions, and basic necessities (F = 26) are the prominent determinants enhancing SWB in the middle ages (n = 48) whereas Individual Concerns and Emotion related issues are the prominent determinants reducing SWB in the middle ages. Differences in determinants such as relationship, health, employment/career, marriage, recreation, and emotions have been obtained for the genders. Employment/career (F = 18) has a higher frequency in the case of middle-aged male respondents (n = 24) whereas relationship (F = 24), health (F = 22), money (F = 19), emotions (F = 14), marriage (F = 15), and recreation (F = 11) have higher frequencies in case of middle-aged female respondents (n = 24). Material possessions and basic necessities (F = 13 for both males and females), achievement (F = 9 for both males and females), and pro-social behaviour (F = 8 for both males and females) are equally important for both male and female respondents from this age group. . Relationship (F = 43), health (F = 37), well-being of one’s children (F = 35), sense of satisfaction (F = 32), peace/spiritualism/faith (F = 32), values (F = 28), money (F = 28), employment/career (F = 26), education (F = 26), and emotions (F = 23) are the prominent determinants enhancing SWB in older adults respondents (n = 44) whereas Individual Concerns and Values related issues prominently reduce SWB in older adults respondents. Determinants such as values (F = 15), money (F = 15), employment/career (F = 15) and material possessions, and basic necessities (F = 12) have higher frequencies in the case of older adults male respondents (n = 23) whereas determinants such as well-being of one’s children (F = 19), peace/spiritualism/faith (F = 14), and emotions (F = 15) have higher frequencies in case of female respondents (n = 21) of the group. Relationship (F: Males = 22, Females = 21) and health (F: Males = 18, Females = 19) are equally important for both male and female respondents from this age group. . Although the determinants of SWB are the same for all the age groups in general, the priority keeps on changing as per the age and locality one lives in. The findings show that the difference obtained on determinants between the age groups on employment/career (F: G-1 = 24, G-2 = 25, G-3 = 30, G-4 = 26), well-being of one’s children (F: G-3 = 40, G-4 = 35) and material possessions and basic necessities (F: G-1 = 32, G-2 = 23, G-3 = 26, G-4 = 21) seem to be quite relevant in the light of the prevailing living conditions of an individual. To illustrate,

96

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

achievement is an important positive determinant for children (F = 42), adolescents and young adults (F = 40) but for middle-aged and older adults respondents (F for achievement: G-3 = 18, G-4 = 5), it is the achievement of their children {well-being of one’s children (F = 40 and 35 respectively)} that is an important positive determinant. A probable explanation in the Indian context could be that the focus of the individual shifts from self to children with an increase in age. In the middle ages, there are other worries besides one’s children that keep the individual busy. However, sixty and above seems to be the age when the individual is mostly concerned about the well-being of his/her children (their achievements and settlement in life). . Other such examples from the data are: – Recreation is a frequently mentioned determinant by children and adolescents & young adults whereas it has a comparatively low frequency in the case of middle-aged and older adults respondents (F: G-1 = 38, G-2 = 30, G-3 = 19, G-4 = 10). – The determinant emotions is a very important determinant for adolescents & young adults (F = 34) as compared to the other respondents. – Money (F = 35) and employment/career (F = 30) are very important determinants for middle-aged respondents as compared to the respondents from the other three age groups. Marriage (F = 27) is one of the frequently mentioned determinants only in the case of middle-aged respondents as compared to respondents from all other age groups. – The determinant material possessions and basic necessities are not a top frequency determinant for the older adults respondents (F = 21). On the contrary, sense of satisfaction (F = 32), and peace/spiritualism/faith (F = 32) are one of the most important determinants for the older adults respondents. . It has thus, been observed that though determinants are common across age groups, the priority given to the most frequently mentioned determinants changes across age groups. For positive determinants, relationship and health (also achievement and well-being of one’s children) are common determinants across ages and locales. Besides relationship, health, achievement, and wellbeing of one’s children; recreation (F = 38) and emotions (F = 36) are the most important determinant for children, money (F = 31) and emotions (F = 34) are the most important determinant for adolescents and young adults, money (F = 35) and employment/career (F = 30) have been found to be amongst the topmost determinants for middle ages and sense of satisfaction (F = 32) and peace/spiritualism/faith (F = 32) have been found to be amongst the topmost determinant for older adults respondents. These findings seem to be quite self-explanatory. They seem to hint towards the shift in the preferences of the individual with changes in age. . Similarly, in the case of the negative determinants, Individual Concerns, Emotions related issues, and Values related issues are the most prominent

4.4 Analysis

97

reducers (clusters of determinants) of SWB in all age groups, except for children. For children, Achievement related issues are the most prominent reducer of SWB. Health related issues are an important reducer in the case of older adults respondents and Societal related issues have been found to be prominent in the case of middle-aged respondents, besides Individual Concerns, Emotions related issues, and Values related issues. . Health has been explained as both physiological and psychological health. It has been used in terms of the importance of health for both self and family. . Achievement appears to be a very important determinant right from children to older adults. It could, however, have a different meaning for different types of people belonging to different strata and different ages. It has been explained in terms of day-to-day achievements to the achievement of greater life goals. Achievement has been used in terms of both, the achievement for the self as well as that of others who are close to the individual. It means fulfilment of one’s ambitions and professional success. Achievement has been explained not only in terms of academic success but in terms of discipline, the ability to do hard work, and the ability to be focused as well. . When people talk about their well-being they take into account not only themselves but their surroundings and relatives. This observation applies to both achievement and relationship. In the words of a respondent, “Subjective well-being is not merely a concept of personal growth, but it is experienced when the entire society grows at large”. People in a collectivistic culture are more likely to consider whether it is more appropriate for them to be satisfied and consider the well-being of their family more when deciding if they are satisfied (see Oishi, 2000). . Education shows a high frequency in the case of rural respondents (F = 53, n = 64), high in the case of urban slum respondents (F = 27, n = 30) and comparatively lower for urban respondents (F = 33, n = 90). . The frequency of money (F = 14) is highest in the case of rural older adults respondents. . Money (F = 121) has been mentioned as an important positive determinant by a majority of the respondents in the entire sample. However, respondents also strongly feel that money is not everything and is in no way the only determinant of SWB. . Employment has been mentioned by almost all children respondents from the rural (F = 14) as well as urban slum sub-sample (F = 8, 100%), whereas it has been mentioned with a low frequency in the case of the urban children respondents (F = 2). . The determinant, well-being of one’s children, is frequently mentioned by respondents from urban slums as compared to rural respondents. Respondents from the urban sample have least frequently mentioned it. Though parents from the rural sample seem to be worried for their children, there are social norms and traditions that bind people in the rural context (see D. Sinha in Dalal & Misra, 2001). Slums seem to be highly sensitive in the context of bringing up children. The fast-changing life of the metro cities, parents not being able to give quality time

98

.

.

. .

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

to their children, unaccounted adverse exposure at early ages, poverty, miserable living conditions and social differences could be the probable reasons for worry of urban slum-dwelling parents. Thus, it becomes a very important determinant that enhances and reduces the subjective well-being of these respondents. Parents seem to experience high subjective well-being when their children do well in life and lead a good life. The responses of people living in slums are somewhat similar to the responses obtained from the rural respondents (e.g. Diener, Sandvik, Seidlitz, & Diener, 1993). This is probably because most of the people, who migrate from villages and are poor, come to the city and live in slums. They also carry their culture along and live according to their social norms. The living conditions of the place, minimum facilities, and the close-knit society are somewhat similar to the rural areas (Saraswathi & Dutta in Misra, 1990). However, there is an exception in the urban slums. People living in the urban slums are exposed to big city life and the modern world. They have access to knowledge and information as compared to the rural people and seem to be aware of the wide gap between the haves and the have-nots. Thus, youngsters—who are very ambitious—have a high probability of taking on the wrong means to fill this gap at times. This could be one reason that the determinant values, has not been mentioned by urban slum adolescent and young adult respondents. It seems that children have very simple emotions. They are not in the stage where they can express their feelings properly. It has been observed through this exercise that children from an advantaged background can express themselves better as compared to those from a disadvantaged one. The researcher has observed through this study that Indians do not seem to introspect much—they don’t reflect upon, and thus seem to be unaware of their potential and reasons for their happiness and unhappiness. The findings of this study indicate that context is very important in determining SWB and similar conditions in life often form similar viewpoints.

4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian Context—Integrating Findings from the Three Sub-Samples The qualitative study has facilitated the conceptualization of subjective well-being— clusters of determinants (codes) that form conceptual categories of two main emerging themes—Enhancers (SWB) and clusters of determinants (codes) that form conceptual categories of Reducers (reducing SWB or resulting in SIB). Determinants have been clustered into their respective categories based on the operationalization of responses. The most important (non-clustered) positive determinants of the total sample (n = 184) of the present study are shown in Table 4.7. The clustered determinants

4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian …

99

constituting Enhancers have been presented in Table 4.8. The negative determinants have been clustered into nine categories of Reducers (right at the start due to high subjectivity and lack of noticeable commonality). These have been shown in Table 4.9. Table 4.7 Positive Determinants (most frequently mentioned) of Subjective Well-Being in India Sr. No Name of the Determinant

Urban Urban slums Rural Total n = 90 n = 30 n = 64 n = 184

1

Relationship

84

30

59

173

2

Health

71

28

59

158

3

Money

39

26

56

121

4

Emotions

59

27

33

119

5

Education

33

27

53

113

6

Achievement

61

15

29

105

6

Employment/Career

27

27

51

105

7

Material Possessions and Basic Necessities 31

24

47

102

8

Sense of Satisfaction

35

26

39

100

9

Recreation

52

22

23

97

10

Values

62

11

21

94

Table 4.7 shows the most frequently mentioned positive determinants obtained from the qualitative study. These have been further clustered into 12 (positive) conceptual categories of “SWB Enhancers” based on their operationalization as presented in Table 4.8. Table 4.8 Positive Conceptual Categories constituting SWB Enhancers

Sr. No

Domain

Total no. of responses

1

Relationship

385

2

Resources

238

3

Health

233

4

Achievement

199

5

Emotions

160

6

Sense of Satisfaction

157

7

Education

129

8

Societal

126

9

Values

122

10

Work

109

11

Recreation

104

12

Personality

68

100

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

Table 4.8 shows the SWB Enhancers and their distribution according to the frequency of responses. (For a complete list of coded determinants and conceptual categories see Appendix A.I). Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of the 12 SWB Enhancers in the Indian context. The major positive categories are relationships, emotions, and health.

Fig. 4.2 SWB Enhancers in India

Table 4.9 shows the 9 SWB Reducers and their distribution according to the frequency of responses. (For a complete list of coded determinants, and conceptual categories see Appendix B). Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of the 9 negative SWB Reducers in the Indian context. The major Reducer conceptual category is Individual Concerns.

4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian … Table 4.9 SWB Reducers (Grouped Negative Determinants of Subjective Ill-Being)

101

Sr. No

Domain

Total no. of responses

1

Individual concerns

353

2

Values related issues

138

3

Emotion related issues

136

4

Achievement related issues

82

5

Health related issues

80

6

Societal related issues

78

7

Attitude related issues

39

8

Resource related issues

20

9

Environment related issues

5

Fig. 4.3 SWB Reducers in India

Operationalization of SWB Enhancers: (The number in the parentheses indicates the number of determinants in each conceptual category) . Relationship (11): Relationship comprises affiliation (attachment, basically familial), well-being of one’s children, togetherness, marriage, understanding self and others, support, interpersonal relationships, blessings and good wishes, acceptability (both for self and others), good or happiness of others and affection.

102

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

. Resources (4): Resources include money, material possessions and basic necessities, natural and man-made resources and assets (property). . Health (3): Health comprises both physiological and psychological health. It also includes peace of mind, spiritualism, faith and desire for long and meaningful life. . Achievement (9): Achievement refers to the feeling of happiness experienced by achieving something, especially when achieving a self-concordant goal. It comprises success (professional), aspirations, setting and achieving goals, self-reliance (standing on one’s own feet), gaining recognition and acknowledgement, making accomplishments, attention, concentration, focus, motivation, reinforcement, reward, encouragement, and competence. . Emotions (2): Emotions mean the feelings of an individual, like love or joy. It also includes happiness experienced by appreciation. . Sense of Satisfaction (4): Sense of satisfaction means the internal sense of satisfaction obtained when an individual does something s/he feels good about, by leading a smooth life with minimum struggles, by experience—that comes with age and teaches lessons of life, through small things in the external environment of an individual that contribute to a feeling of well-being and by being in the presence of nature. It also refers to contentment in general. . Education (3): Education refers to the importance of being educated to lead a well-being life, to growth (self-growth or progress) and learning. . Societal (8): This conceptual category comprises pro-social behaviour, social life of an individual, people in the society who contribute to the positive affect of an individual, social status, reputation, earning a name in the society, individual contribution towards societal development or social well-being, social comparisons, social work, and following social norms. . Values (4): Values comprise individual, social, cultural, and moral values. It also includes other values such as hard work, being a responsible individual, and trust. . Work (3): Work refers to the importance and necessity of employment and a career for higher SWB. It also refers to the profession of an individual and work productivity. . Recreation (3): Recreation means amusement, enjoyment, entertainment, festivals, and engagement in interesting activities. . Personality (12): Personality refers to the basic personality traits of an individual. It includes self-efficiency or reliance, self-respect, positive attitude or thinking, the way of life an individual leads, self-respect, self-confidence, the ability of an individual to adjust or adapt, concept of self, determination, personal space, self-actualization, and self-identity. Operationalization of SWB Reducers: (The number in the parentheses indicates the number of determinants in each category) . Individual Concerns (61): comprise determinants such as feeling bad or unpleasant because of ill-treatment, confrontations, death, unfulfilled desires or expectations, comparisons, criticism, unhealthy competitions, demands and

4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian …

.

.

. .

.

103

tensions in relationships, interference in personal life by others, misunderstandings, misconceptions, doing something against one’s wish or being unable to do something that one wishes to do, profession related constraints (for example, an individual who has potential to do something but is unable to do so due to administrative constraints), uncleanliness, dependency, unemployment, insincerity, carelessness, helplessness, ill-intentions, problematic spouse, excessive and undue pressures, ineffective interpersonal relationships, inability to express or understand, committing mistakes, old age problems, punishments, refusals, unnecessary complications, involvement in controversies, compromises, sub-standards, insecurity, problems of adolescence, hard luck, routine life, bad news, being devoid of freedom—especially that of expression, marriage, jealousy, being the cause of spoiling someone’s work, being disturbed while sleeping, crying, hiding facts, sadness caused by not being able to study, lack of tolerance, not getting desired things on time, difference of opinion, state of uncertainty, phobias, frustration, retrospection, excessive use of technology, hassles in life (sudden accidents, change in plans), hatred, spicy food, heat, after thoughts and self-blaming, ego, lack of contentment, and over expectation from oneself. Values related Issues (23): comprise determinants such as lying, dishonesty, pretension, teasing, cheating of any kind, treachery, discourteousness, snatching, stealing, backbiting, disrespect, use of abusive language, selfishness (as in not helping others), doing something wrong, feeling ashamed upon the realization of mistakes, pride, boasting, bullying, taunting, change in social and moral values in the society, blind copying of the western culture, loss of values or value deterioration, lack of humanity (riots, animosity), encouraging the use of unfair means, inequality, drinking, illegitimate or immoral work, indiscipline, corruption, violence, child abuse (involvement of small children in criminal activities), people’s sadness, violation of rules, uncleanliness, and harsh hard labour. Emotion related Issues (19): include determinants such as sorrows and sufferings of others (self, family, children and significant others), hurting someone (especially parents), being hurt (mentally, emotionally), being cheated and humiliated, breaking relationships, parting from loved ones, sincere efforts not recognized or appreciated, no proper reciprocation in friendship/relationship, being scolded without fault, crying, loneliness, neglect by parents, anger, mocking, wounded animals, comparison among siblings, expectations not being fulfilled by parents, distrust of loved ones, insecurity (fear of losing someone), feelings not understood, and to be known as/to know an orphan. Achievement related Issues (2): include determinants such as failures, disappointments, loss (of any kind), and unfulfilled desires. Health related Issues (4): comprise determinants such as physiological ailments/ illness/ill-health of self, family members or significant others, physical hurts, accidents, mental pain or conflicts, tensions, depression and seeing physically disadvantaged/challenged people. Societal related Issues (11): include the deplorable condition of people in society, social plight, disgusting social scene (poverty, begging), adverse conditions, social comparisons, unemployment, illiteracy, social evils like injustice, inequality, caste

104

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

system, communalism, communal riots, racial discrimination and dowry system, social disasters, accidents or incidents, natural calamities (like drought), governmental policies and system (which troubles people more than it helps them), politicians and politics, disparity and inequality in the distribution of money or educational facilities, corruption, manipulation, favouritism, misuse of power, prevailing lifestyle, violation of social norms (being against caste system and religious texts), anti-social behaviour, and superstitions. . Attitude related Issues (17): include determinants such as uncaring attitude of people, irresponsible behaviour, ignoring and interfering attitude (parents not listening to their child’s wish), unnecessary interference by others, ungratefulness, selfishness, treacherous people, doing things that give sorrow to self as well as others, misbehaving, people who have a habit of fighting, pessimistic attitude (people with negative thinking), complexes (superior/inferior), unnecessary arguments (people who argue, even if they are wrong), people having no respect for time or mismanagement of time, people who run after money, show-offs and double standards, being unnecessarily troublesome, self-praising attitude (people who feel only what they say and feel is correct and keep on appreciating themselves), deliberately doing things that are against the laws of Nature and norms of the society, lazy behaviour (not wanting to work), unjustified acts, and people who hoard material things for the sake of maintaining their status. . Resource related Issues (5): include determinants such as lack of basic necessities, resources or material comforts (not even having the bare minimum of what is required in life), lack of money (being broke), lack of resources leading to helplessness, break-in studies (not being able to study due to family and financial problems), lack of facilities as in inflation (rise in prices) and wastage or misuse of resources. . Environment related Issues (4): include determinants such as environmental conditions, something sad happening in and around the individual’s surroundings, pollution, and the rainy season (for children—as it acts as a hazard in their outdoor playing). Extant literature suggests different frameworks of SWB. Dr. Robert BiswasDiener in his courses on Well-Being and Applied Positive Psychology asserts that these frameworks serve as markers but none of them is the only one that explains the nature of the concept in totality or is the only true framework explaining SWB. Ed Diener (2013) maintains that “SWB is not just causal, for example causing health or good relations; it also causes them. The implication of this is that society needs happy and ethical people, people with high SWB. This is important too”. Conceptualization of SWB through the present study facilitates the understanding of the concept of SWB (what determines SWB) and provides a structure of SWB, especially in the Indian context through the two major themes–the enhancers and reducers. There is a dominance of positive over negative domains (also Bradburn, 1969) in the SWB dialogues, however, the understanding of SWB is incomplete without measuring the

4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian …

105

negative factors as well. The findings confirm that positive and negative affect are not simply polar ends of a single continuum, they need to be measured separately. Most of the research conducted in the field defines “happiness” and “life satisfaction” as measures of subjective well-being. Happiness is often used synonymously with the term subjective well-being. I see that connection and overlap, but I believe that happiness is more about the short-term and momentary pleasures, without undermining the fact that long-lasting happiness derived out of fulfilment and bliss is as much a part of it. SWB, to me, is an umbrella concept that includes all essential ingredients that result in a rewarding life and one which is defined by the individual for themselves. SWB is a multi-faceted, umbrella concept, which is determined by several determinants that cluster into important aspects of life. SWB is not defined by positive determinants enhancing an individual’s concept of well-being alone. SWB is derived in the real sense when the effect of negative determinants is reduced. These findings support the classic understanding of SWB research. SWB is an individual’s evaluation of his/her life by himself or herself. There are three components of well-being–satisfaction with life (cognition), presence of pleasant affect, and absence or low unpleasant affect (affect) (Diener, 1984). The three questions asked in the interviews were based on these components and the findings have established that they are valid components of SWB even in the Indian context as well. Frequency of the affect contributes more when reporting well-being than intensity (Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot, 1991; Thomas & Diener, 1990; Tov, 2018)—it could be because intense positive emotions are often attended by increased unpleasant affect (Larsen & Diener, 1987). There are cultural variations that exist in the understanding of the concept of SWB (Biswas-Diener, Vittersø, & Diener, 2009; Diener et al., 2017). To conceptualize SWB, it is important to know whether well-being is an affect one feels or cognition one perceives and evaluates. The present study suggests that SWB as a concept is a combination of both. Individuals experience affect in various domains of life both positively and negatively, which in turn, affects their perceptions and evaluations. The operationalization of the obtained categories suggests that some of these are very specific to the Indian context, for instance, internal sense of satisfaction or societal. Likewise, the negative categories or reducers also include several determinants which would otherwise be not or rarely found in the literature, for example, social evils like caste system, communalism, dowry system, corruption, and violation of social norms in the societal category. The present research asserts that the conceptualization of SWB is incomplete without the knowledge of SWB reducers because it is not necessary that the presence of what enhances SWB, the absence of the same would naturally reduce it. For some respondents, intellectual pursuits and not material attainment could ultimately lead to their well-being. In the words of a respondent, “Money is important in terms of material comforts in the house and all that goes along with that but is not everything. After a certain period, it all comes to a saturation point and one starts feeling that this is not the ultimate goal of life”. This can be explained by

106

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

the Easterlin Paradox (Easterlin, 1974; Easterlin & O’Connor, 2020). This evokes a realization in the individual that there are other things besides money that lead to subjective well-being. It has been observed that our happiness is often enhanced when we pursue activities that provide us with meaning and pleasure and also that help others (George, 1991; Schueller & Seligman, 2010; Wang et al., 2021). Intellectual pursuits thus become important for providing satisfaction, in terms of satisfaction of understanding–understanding of self, others, and the world around the individual. This understanding is developed not only by reading books alone but also through the ability to introspect and reflect on whether the individual could achieve what s/he had set out to achieve. This ultimately leads to contentment, which is the highest state an individual can reach—that of being a stoic (Stoicism or equanimity from the ancient Indian text, Shrimad Bhagavad Gita). In the words of a respondent, “It is believed that one should not only be content with what one has but also know about his abilities and then desire according to what one deserves. Over expectations should not be there because not being able to achieve what one can not achieve, leads to frustration and other mental problems. Hence, contentment is the best approach towards leading a good and meaningful life”. This finds explanation in the Harmony or Balance theories discussed in the SWB literature as well (Nima et al., 2020a, 2020b; Delle Fave et al., 2016). Research has shown a very low correlation between income and SWB (Diener & Diener, 2002; Lucas & Schimmack, 2009; Tay, Zyphur, & Batz, 2018) and also between education and SWB in the United States (Diener, Sandvik, Seidlitz & Diener, 1993). Interestingly, in line with the assertions of Tay, Zyphur and Batz (2018) on the functional view of income and its relationship to SWB, we see that money emerges as a dominant determinant in determining SWB of Indians irrespective of its being mentioned as not being everything for a happy life. The context becomes very important when discussing the concept of well-being as happiness itself is a contextual state. The event preceding this state of mind is very important and may vary between two points in time. Individuals’ responses to subjective well-being questions may vary with their circumstances and other factors (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Context also impacts the experience of well-being (Li & Cheng in Demir (eds.), 2015; Genç & Arslan, 2021). The findings bring out certain differences from the existing literature. Relationships in the west are mostly defined as quality social relationships, positive or intimate relationships with others, interpersonal work relationships, and/or peer relationships. In India, relationships are more personal or familial relationships. Examples of life domains from the West include work, family, leisure, health, community, social, cultural, and so on (Sirgy, 2002); the six constructs, viz., autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, mastery, and positive relatedness that define psychological well-being (PWB) (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), both theoretically and operationally specify what promotes emotional and physical health and material wellbeing, health, productivity, relationships, safety, community, emotional well-being (Cummins, 1996, 1997). Lack of satisfaction in these life domains generally results in

4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian …

107

lower levels of SWB. Determinants like work productivity, job satisfaction, temperament and personality comparison standards, engagement in interesting activities, responsibility to one’s community and responsible behaviour are more important determinants of SWB in the West, whereas these are reported with lower frequencies in the Indian context. The explanation could be that when a person is striving to meet his/her basic needs it is very difficult for him/her to think of higher-order needs. For example, how can an unemployed think of greater work productivity? For him/ her getting employed will be more important. This is further verified through the observation that respondents from the advantaged section seem to be more oriented towards peace/spiritualism and self-actualization. This is probably because they have the basic comforts of life. The less advantaged section of the society seems to be in the quest to meet their daily needs. There is a clear emphasis on the role of culture in understanding SWB. Sense of satisfaction and spiritualism are particularly interesting determinants to be discussed in the Indian context. Well-being is often used as a synonym for health or spiritual well-being in the Indian context (Sinha & Tripathi, 2001). Spiritual progress is considered to be well-being in the real sense—an individual should learn and develop in the way that s/he can control her/his mind, it enables the individual not to give importance to disturbances created by the mind—in other words, an individual should try to become a stoic. In the words of a respondent, “This acts like a philosophical antidote, for example, teaching oneself that mishappenings are part of life, thus, lamentation is a waste of energy. This in turn leads to the state of self-actualization”. This can be explained through the concept of stithapragya or being a stoic. It can also be explained through the Indian approach, which states that satisfaction or contentment is the ultimate duty of an individual—“santosh param dharma”. This implies taking the middle path—not being too happy or too sad (Sinha & Tripathi in Dalal & Misra, 2001). The Panchakosha Framework, mentioned in the ancient Indian text (Taittiriya Upanishad, a “Vedic era Sanskrit text”) asserts that the innermost circle of the five, anandamaya or eternal bliss and joy (Raina, 2016) connects an individual to the universe/greater good/collective well-being. It emphasizes being one with the universe to experience the ultimate sense of well-being. The Sankhya theory discusses the interplay, as well as the transformation of three forms of energy, called gunas, viz., sattva (low-arousal positive emotions like calm and peace), rajas (low and high arousal negative emotions like impatience, jealousy), and tamas (high-arousal negative emotions like anger and brutality). The individual has the power to convert these high-arousal negative emotions into positive emotions through the demonstration of strong will (Rastogi, 2019; Singh et al., 2017). Therefore, these three gunas represent varying stages of human growth. The higher the level of Sattva, the higher the experience of Ananda (Kumar, 2008). This Ananda is well-being, the innermost layer of the Panch Kosha (5 cells), anandamaya kosha. Indians are believed to be collectivists (Chadda & Deb, 2013; Sinha, 1984). Indian society appears to be very cohesive and interlinked where personal happiness is inseparable from others’ happiness (Misra, 2009). Misra (2009), states that happiness and well-being may be treated as ongoing processes of expansion that lead towards

108

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

communion. Though modernization and westernization have been responsible for bringing substantial changes in our country, we have retained many characteristics of the past that may be called Indian, and we essentially have to go back in time if we want to develop them (Kumar in Rao, Paranjpe & Dalal, 2008). These differences are expected given the cultural differences and the context in which an average person lives his/her life. But it is not necessary that people, in general, are unhappy. The emergence of conceptual categories such as sense of satisfaction, relationships (mostly familial), and prioritizing relationships over materialism serves as evidence for the fact that the concepts of SWB or happiness are not contingent on a Nation’s wealth (see also Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996; Suh et al., 1998; Diener, et al., 2009; Senik, 2014). The biggest strength of a collectivist culture is the moral support of the family, the strong ties that lessen the rate of suicides and enhance happiness. Mishra (2010) describes the cultural notions of well-being as the concept of extended self, which is not similar to the individual self but one that extends to the significant others. The connotation implied here is that of “the relational self in the eco-cultural context”, which essentially means that one is happy, one grows along with their significant others and not in isolation. This also explains how the conceptualization differs in its understanding—well-being in the east has more to do within than being dependent on externalities. The experience of both SWB and SIB in terms of enhancers and reducers can be triangulated and explained through the theoretical perspectives from SWB literature as well. The preference given to determinants based on location, age or income status can be explained in the sense that the objects for utility hold more importance to individuals than those with less utility (theory of utility as explained in Fuentes & Rojas, 2001), for example, the importance of education in the rural sample or unemployment for rural children. When the respondents are striving to meet their daily needs, they become very practical and do not dream of unrealistic things. The more an individual is deprived of something, the greater is the yearning for that thing (theory of human needs—Doyal & Gough, 1991; Sen, 1999; Veenhoven, 1991). Thus, the not-so-very important factor, money (in the urban sample) becomes very important in the rural scenario. For an individual to think of higher-order needs, it is important for him/her to satisfy the basic or primary needs. Determinants obtained like unemployment and material possessions for the urban slum or rural samples and self-actualization for the urban sample can be explained through this. These findings also get support from the Indian approaches, for example, the Vedanta view of life, which states that happiness depends upon the fulfilment of the needs and urges of all three aspects of our being–physical, mental, and spiritual. Several models or frameworks that enable the understanding and conceptualization of SWB and its components have been discussed in the SWB literature—for example, the hierarchical model of happiness (Diener et al., 2003b); SWB and its elements; the domain hierarchy (Sirgy, 2002); the well-being conceptual framework (McGregor, 2004); theory of homeostasis (Cummins, 1995, 2010, 2014); context theories of SWB (as explained in Das et al., 2020); activity, adaptation, telic theories (Diener et al., 2018); PERMA (Seligman, 2011, 2018), psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989), flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990); broaden-and-build (Fredrickson, 2004).

4.5 Towards the Conceptualization of SWB in the Indian …

109

Elements discussed in these theories can help to explain the experience of SWB in terms of both processes as well as consequents. To illustrate an example from the data, achieving self-concordant goals leads to the experience of SWB can be explained by telic theories (Diener et al., 2003a, 2003b) and through the concept of autonomy (SDT: Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryff, 1989). Several indigenous models/frameworks (Indian approaches/ancient Indian wisdom) besides the ones discussed in the preceding paragraphs, also help to understand how the experience of well-being construes among individuals. For example, the general model of psychological processes and desire (Bhawuk, 2008, 2011). This model, though very different from the present conceptualization, is an Indian approach and gives some insights into conceptualizing well-being. In this model, positive and negative affect have been defined in terms of the achievement and nonachievement of desire respectively. It also suggests that even positive affect ultimately leads to unhappiness. This leads to self-reflection, which through meditation finally leads to an individual reaching the state of stithaprajna or stoicism. This model can help in the understanding of the reasons behind some of the present findings. For example, people remain satisfied and contented with their lives by accepting situations as they are and do not fall below the threshold of sadness. However, it may be noted that unfulfilled desires or expectations in the present conceptualization are just one of the determinants reducing SWB. The concept of sukha and dukha (Misra, 2017; Singh et al., 2017) demonstrate similarity to the experience of positive and negative affect. Sukha is experiencing pleasant and happy emotions, while dukha is experiencing sad and unpleasant emotions. The true experience of sukha is linked to evolving at the highest levels of human growth and ultimately to salvation. According to Bhagavad Gita, true happiness lies within. For an individual to be happy, one has to look inwards. This happiness is called satchitananda (Srivastava & Misra, 2011) Singh et al. (2017) define satchitananda as “sat meaning being truthful, chit referring to being aware, and ananda being the bliss”. This can be achieved by raising one’s consciousness levels. Further, according to Vedanta, self-mastery is dependent on self-awareness—connecting the self to the true self, the focus of the “universal self”, that which witnesses consciousness in all living beings. This can be linked to the concept of compassion in Buddhism or of Vaisudhaiv Kutumbakam in the Hindu Philosophy. Interestingly, the western and eastern conceptual explanations do demonstrate overlaps and similarities. But how the concept is understood and practiced has cultural influences. It is because of the ingrained training in the Indian way of living a happy and rewarding life or understanding the essence of well-being for oneself that determinants such as blessings and good wishes, acceptability (both for self and others), good or happiness of others and affection, peace of mind, spiritualism, faith and desire for long and meaningful life, and sense of satisfaction become important in this discussion. The focus is more inwards when we talk about true happiness or bliss. The argument here is that we cannot reach it until we understand the externalities and the relation of self to its external world. This clarity and interaction of the

110

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

individual with the environment and dynamics within which they operate will help in self-awareness, acceptance, and experience of SWB. The concern not only for psychological theorists but also for humanity at large is the study of the relations between personal well-being and the broader issues of the collective wellness of humanity. It is believed that the impact of SWB will have many implications for policy planners, health care providers, trainers, and economists. The strength of this work lies not only in the explanation of the concept of SWB but in emphasizing and explaining the concept of SIB as well. The knowledge of SWB and SIB can help prevent suicides and depression. The knowledge of the level of SWB, if utilized right from childhood, can help the child grow into a happy adult. The knowledge of SWB can help advance an individual’s mental, emotional, and spiritual qualities, which are essential for individual happiness and responsible citizenship. Indian social life is experiencing a social and cultural change. Under such circumstances, people have less time for reflection and introspection. The knowledge of SWB can facilitate the harnessing of one’s emotions and thoughts in the right direction and contribute to living a more rewarding life. This research has facilitated the development of an SWB measure and index (Bhatnagar, 2010) that can help design frameworks that give an impressive account of how well a nation and its citizens are doing on SWB. I believe that a major limitation of such studies is that the questions probe deep into the personal lives of people, and people at times become very emotional, or at other times would not be willing to respond. This makes such research time-consuming. Nevertheless, such research is required in today’s complex and dynamic times. Further studies can be conducted using more sophisticated designs. For example, longitudinal studies can contribute a lot to the understanding of levels of SWB at different ages. Future research can be done to study whether some determinants of SWB obtained are more important in predicting an individual’s overall well-being or in predicting domain-specific well-being. This research also has cross-cultural implications. Research on SWB has traditionally been a search for who, what, and how of happiness—that is—who is happy, what makes people happy, and how the various components of happiness relate to each other. SWB in India is not about personal growth, but about the growth of the society at large. The essence of the study can be summarized in the words of anonymous respondents as follows: “Contribution, to the best of individual capacity, towards societal development is well-being”. “When one is allowed to be oneself, pursue things of some significance and struggle to achieve the pursued, life becomes meaningful and beautiful and that is well-being”. “Being happy, making others happy is what well-being is all about”. “Well-being is the result of the peace of mind”. “There should be no unnecessary complications in life–the simpler the life, the higher the well-being”.

References

111

“The interaction between the individual and the society would lead to greater well-being”. “Being happy in whatever one has is well-being in the true sense”.

References Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception of life quality. Plenum Press. Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nursing Plus Open, 2, 8–14. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Bhatnagar, T. (2010). Subjective well-being in the Indian context: Concept, measure and index (Doctoral dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (India)). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2010. 28720816. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2008). Anchoring cognition, emotion and behavior in desire: A model from the Bhagwad-Gita. In K. R. Rao, A. C. Paranjpe, & A. K. Dalal (Eds.), Handbook of Indian psychology (pp. 390–413). Cambridge University Press India Pvt Ltd. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2011). A process model of desire. In Spirituality and Indian psychology (pp. 111– 125). Springer. Biswas-Diener, R., Vittersø, J., & Diener, E. (2009). Most people are pretty happy, but there is cultural variation: The Inughuit, the Amish, and the Maasai. In Culture and well-being (pp. 245– 260). Springer. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine. Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11(6), 461–466. Catanzaro, M. (1988). Using qualitative analytical techniques. Nursing Research: Theory and Practice, 437, 456. Chadda, R. K., & Deb, K. S. (2013). Indian family systems, collectivistic society and psychotherapy. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(2). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.105555. PMID: 23858272; PMCID: PMC3705700. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage. Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2002). Unemployment alters the set-point for life satisfaction. In Ed Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being, the collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 67–100). Social Indicators Research Series, Springer Netherlands. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial. Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179–200. Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–332. Cummins, R. A. (1997). Assessing quality of life. In R. Brown (Ed.), Quality of life for people with disabilities (pp. 116–150). Stanley Thornes. Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9167-0 Cummins, R. A. (2014). Robert A. Cummins: Pioneer on subjective wellbeing homeostasis. Applied Research Quality Life, 9, 461–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9299-1 Dalal, A. K., & Misra, G. (Eds.). (2001). New directions in Indian psychology. Social psychology 1. Sage Publications.

112

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

Das, K. V., Jones-Harrell, C., Fan, Y., Ramaswami, A., Orlove, B., & Botchwey, N. (2020). Understanding subjective well-being: Perspectives from psychology and public health. Public Health Reviews, 41(1), 1–32. Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Wissing, M. P., Araujo, U., Castro Solano, A., Freire, T., Hernández-Pozo, M. D. R., Jose, P., Martos, T., Nafstad, H. E., Nakamura, J., Singh, K., & Soosai-Nathan, L. (2016). Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 30. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. Diener, E. (2013). ‘The new science of happiness’ at happiness & its causes 2013. https://www.you tube.com/watch?v=EdxbmVbr3NY uploaded on 4 November 2013. Accessed on Monday 16 May 2022 at 9:43am IST. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (2009). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. In Culture and well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener, Social Indicators Research Series (Vol. 38, pp. 43–70). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2352-0 3 Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., & Oishi, S. (2017). Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 58(2), 87. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003a). Personality, culture and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. nobascholar.com. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective wellbeing: An interdisciplinary perspective. International series in experimental social psychology (pp. 119–139). Pergamon Press. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research, 28, 195–223. Diener, E., & Scollon, C. (2003, October). Subjective well-being is desirable, but Not the Summum Bonum. Paper presented at the University of Minnesota Interdisciplinary Workshop on WellBeing, Minneapolis. Diener, E., Scollon, C., & Lucas, R. E. (2003b). The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and Gerontology, 15, 187–219. Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313–321. Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human needs. Macmillan. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth (pp. 89–125). Academic Press. Easterlin, R. A., & O’Connor, K. (2020). The Easterlin Paradox (online) papers.ssrn.com. Ehrhardt, J. J., Saris, W. E., & Veenhoven, R. (2000). Stability of life-satisfaction over time: Analysis of change in ranks in a national population. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 177–205. Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93–99. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative fourth edition. SAGE Publications. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512 Fuentes, N., & Rojas, M. (2001). Economic theory and subjective well-being: Mexico. Social Indicators Research, 53, 289–314.

References

113

Genç, E., & Arslan, G. (2021). Optimism and dispositional hope to promote college students’ subjective well-being in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 5(2), 87–96. George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive moods on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299–307. Gusain, L. (2012). The effectiveness of establishing Hindi as national language. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 13(1), 43–50. Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 165–183). MIT Press. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410–422. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280–287. Kings, L. A., & Hicks, J. A. (2007). Whatever happened to “what might have been”? American Psychologist, 62(2), 625–636. Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. Krippendorf, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications. Kumar, S. K. K. (2008). Indian thought and tradition: A psychohistorical perspective. In K. R. Rao, A. C. Paranjpe, & A. K. Dalal (Eds.), Handbook of Indian psychology (pp. 19–52). Cambridge University Press India Pvt Ltd. Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review. Journal of Research on Personality, 21(1), 1–39. Lawrence, J., & Tar, U. (2013). The use of grounded theory technique as a practical tool for qualitative data collection and analysis. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 11(1), 29–40. Li, T., & Cheng, S. T. (2015). Family, friends, and subjective well-being: A comparison between the West and Asia. In M. Demir (Ed.), Friendship and happiness. Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-94-017-9603-3_14 Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1996). Discriminant validity of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. Lucas, R. E., & Schimmack, U. (2009). Income and well-being: How big is the gap between the rich and the poor? Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 75–78. Lyubormisky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239–249. Maithly, B., & Saxena, V. (2008). Adolescent’s educational status and reasons for dropout from the school. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 33, 127–128. McGregor, A. (2004). Researching well-being: Communicating between the needs of policy makers and the needs of people. Global Social Policy, 4(3). McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C., & Kinicki, A. (2005). Psychological and physical wellbeing during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 53–76. Misra, G. (2009). Self and well-being. Psychological Studies, 54(2), 85–86. Misra, G. (2010). The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for well-being. In Personality, human development, and culture (pp. 111–128). Psychology Press. Misra, G. (2017). Nature and nurture of well-being. In K. Ravichandra, C. Beena & R. Regani (Eds.), Psychological well-being: Correlational and intervention studies (Vol. 1). Global Vision Publishing House. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). Defining content analysis. Content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.

114

4 SWB Conceptualization: Enhancers (Subjective Well-Being) …

Nima, A. A., Cloninger, K. M., Lucchese, F., Sikström, S., & Garcia, D. (2020a). Validation of a general subjective well-being factor using classical test theory. Peer Journal, 8, e9193. Nima, A. A., Cloninger, K. M., Persson, B. N., Sikström, S., & Garcia, D. (2020b). Validation of subjective well-being measures using item response theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3036. Raina, M. K. (2016). The levels of human consciousness and creative functioning: Insights from the theory of Pancha Kosha (Five Sheaths of Consciousness). The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 48(2). Rastogi, M. R. (2019). Triguna theory: Its implications for counselling. Indian Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 126–132. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727. Saraswathi, T. S., & Dutta, R. (1990). Poverty and human development: Socialization of girls among the urban and rural poor. In G. Misra (Ed.), Applied social psychology in India (pp. 141–169). Sage Publications. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30. Schueller, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. (2010). Pursuit of pleasure, engagement, and meaning: Relationships to subjective and objective measures of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 253–263. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourishing. A new understanding of happiness and well-being and how to achieve them. Nicholas Brealey. Seligman, M. (2018). PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 333–335. Senik, C. (2014). Wealth and happiness. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(1), 92–108. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/43664595 Shao, L. (1993). Multi-language comparability of life satisfaction and happiness measures in mainland China and American Students (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Singh, K., Raina, M., & Sahni, P. (2017). The concept and measure of sukha dukha: An Indian perspective on well-being. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 19(2), 117–132. Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (2001). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In A. K. Dalal & G. Misra (Eds.), New directions in Indian psychology. Social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 241–256). Sage Publications. Sinha, J. B. P. (1984). Towards partnership for relevant research in the third world. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 169–178. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Srivastava, A. K., & Misra, G. (2011). Cultural perspectives on nature and experience of happiness. In A. K. Dalal & G. Misra (Eds.), New directions in health psychology (pp. 109–131). Sage. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493. Tay, L., Zyphur, M., & Batz, C. L. (2018). Income and subjective well-being: Review, synthesis, and future research. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. nobascholar.com. Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. Sage Open Medicine, 7, 205031211882292. https://doi.org/10.1177/205031211882 2927 Thomas, D., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 291–297.

References

115

Tov, W. (2018). Well-being concepts and components. In Handbook of subjective well-being (pp. 1– 15). Noba Scholar. Van Bruggen, A. C. (2000). Social participation and subjective well-being of long- term unemployed: Why is paid work so hard to substitute for? In E. Diener & D. R. Rahtz (Eds.), Advances in quality of life theory and research (pp. 159–181). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wu, S., Xiao, W., Wang, Z., Li, F., Liu, X., & Miao, D. (2021). Effects of meaning in life on subjective well-being: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 49(4), 1–11.

Chapter 5

Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being Measure (SWBM)

Abstract Subjective well-being (SWB) measures are important as they assess wellbeing from the perception of the respondents. This chapter discusses the SWB Measure (SWBM) that has been developed based on the findings of the exploratory study undertaken on 184 participants’ responses on both cognitive and affective components that determine their concept of SWB. The preliminary SWBM was developed as a 7-point scale with 110 items distributed into two parts (65 in Part I measuring cognition and positive affect and 45 in Part II measuring negative affect). It was administered to 1050 college students and subjected to factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring–Promax Rotation) with initial reliability of 0.90 and 0.87 for both parts, respectively. The final SWBM was developed as a 5-point rating scale with two parts. Part I consisted of 32 items distributed amongst 5 factors (Achievement and Recognition, Camaraderie, Contentment, Relationships, and Need Fulfilment) measuring positive affect and cognition, or positive factors enhancing the concept of SWB. Part II consisted of 20 items distributed amongst 4 factors (Social Sensitivity, Personal Sensitivity, Disappointments, and Individual Concerns) measuring negative affect or negative factors reducing the concept of SWB. The SWBM has been standardized on an analysable sample of 1272 respondents (total n = 1369) across ages and locales of society—age groups from children to older adults; income group = 0 INR to 36 Crores INR per annum; locales: urban, urban slums, rural; and respondents from 87 odd professions. The SWBM was standardized by computing the confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis, and validity analysis that is by validating it against the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., Journal of Personality Assessment 49:71–75, 1985) and PANAS (Watson et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:1063–1070, 1988). The CFA suggested an adequate fit for the SWBM; the measure showed high reliability (0.915 and 0.925 for both parts respectively). Discriminant construct validation of the SWBM showed a weak and non-significant relationship with PANAS (the value of r for SWBM Part I with PANAS (NA) = − 0.010 and that for SWBM Part II with PANAS (PA) was − 0.048.) and SWLS (value of r for Part II and SWLS = 0.054). Keywords Psychometrics · Scale Development · Translation · Back Translation · SWB Measure · SWBM · Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) · Confirmatory Factor Analysis · EFA · CFA · SWBM Reliability · SWBM Validity · SWBM © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 T. Bhatnagar, Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7_5

117

118

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

Characteristics · Enhancers (SWB Part I) · Reducers (SWB Part II) · SWB Measurement · SWBM Items · SWBM Factors · Hindi Translation SWBM · Hindi Translation SWLS · Hindi Translation PANAS · Standardized SWB Measure

New measures of SWB should be theoretically sound, which means that they should be informed and driven by theory and empirical research on its structure (Veenhoven, 1997; Kahneman, 1999; Keyes et al., 2002; Kashdan, 2004; Lyubomirsky, 2001). The SWBM demonstrates this robustness as suggested in the literature. The SWBM has a greater representation of different age groups and locations. The interviews are (semi) structured in SWBM, the conceptual categories (of clustered determinants) obtained through exploration are more meaningful, and the items are a result of the responses of what people think and feel. The items are not hypothetical, and the conceptual categories are obtained from the field and not literature. The size of the sample for the entire study is extensive, serving the purpose of the measure’s psychometric requirements. Additionally, the SWBM identifies the reducers, which are an outcome of the negative determinants reducing the concept of an individual’s well-being, as equally important. It treats them as a separate component, as mentioned in the literature. The analysis of the SWBM enables the researcher to arrive at a gradual and systematic empirical explanation of the concept of subjective ill-being (SIB) (discussed in the next chapter). Meaningful factors have been extracted as a result of principal axis factoring (PAF) using promax rotation, the standardization, and analysis of the SWBM (as discussed in the next chapter) further establishes SWBM as an effective and sophisticated tool for measuring SWB—both, at the individual and collective levels. The SWB measure is a global measure developed to map the individual’s level of his/her well-being or ill-being. This measure is an outcome of the enhancers and reducers, which have emerged from the qualitative study that analyses the respondents’ self-evaluations. The study also observes that the frequency of affect is more important than the intensity when reporting well-being by the respondent and that the presence of one affect may not necessarily mean the absence of the other and vice-versa. The conceptualization of SWB and SIB serves as a strong basis for the construction of a measure which is designed to: • Have a wide range of SWB and SIB determinants clustered in specific life domains of an individual. • Be a well-being-specific measure (and not measure the concept through related constructs). • Be a generalized well-being measure for people of all ages across the section of the society, irrespective of gender or socio-economic status (SES). • Give a composite score by tapping into both SWB and SIB (along with Fuzzy SWB/SIB). • Be a profile salience scale—it can demonstrate factor salience/hierarchy for an individual.

5.1 The Preliminary SWBM Questionnaire

119

• Have predictive properties to draw a profile of factor salience for a respondent and make him/her aware of the factors enhancing the level of well-being and the ones reducing his/her level of well-being. • Provide an Index for SWB/SIB to understand and measure SWB/SIB at collective or national levels. • Help the respondent understand himself/herself better by being aware of the individual level of well-being in the society or nation one lives in. The twelve Enhancers and nine reducers discussed in the previous chapter are a result of the clusters of determinants obtained through the content analysis (codes and conceptual categories) of the qualitative study. These conceptual categories emerge from the operationalization of responses of the 184 respondents. There are 66 positive determinants distributed among the twelve enhancers. 32 determinants have been excluded due to negligible (poor) frequencies (frequencies less than 6, presented in Appendix A I and II, and Appendix B). Statements in the SWBM are based on determinants clustered into both enhancers and reducers, respectively.

5.1 The Preliminary SWBM Questionnaire The objective of this measure is to get an insight into the understanding of the factors that are important for enhancing the concept of well-being and identify the ones that play a prominent role in the reduction of this concept. Acquiring this knowledge through self-assessment can facilitate the efforts towards overcoming the negative factors by concentrating more on the positive ones, thus, resulting in being happier. This measure further demonstrates policy-level implications. To develop such a measure, it was deemed necessary to, first, understand the concept of SWB in the Indian context. The SWBM, at the preliminary stage, was a 7-point Likert-type scale with a response range from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”. The items were taken verbatim from the interviews of the respondents. There were 110 items in the SWBM—65 items (1 item from each positive determinant) from the 12 enhancers forming Part I of the scale; and 45 items, 5 items from each of the 9 reducers, forming the Part II of the scale (the complete list of items as per the categories of the SWBM has been presented in Appendix F). The items in the scale were randomized (taking one item from each category) from the enhancers and reducers to avoid having them in order. This was done for both parts. There was a separate answer sheet provided to the respondents to mark their responses which contained a general profile seeking information on demographics as the first page. (The preliminary questionnaire or SWBM has been given in Appendix G).

120

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

5.2 Administration of the SWBM The SWBM was administered to 1050 college students as phase II of the study. These students included undergraduates and postgraduates from the city of Mumbai. A series of studies within the field of SWB have revealed that student samples give proper estimates of the general population, for example, MacConville and Cooper (1992), Headey and Wearing (1989), and Vitterso (2001); Vitterso et al., 2002). The administration was done mostly in the classroom setting, after seeking prior permission from the concerned authorities. The respondents were given general instructions before the administration began; at the end of which, both the SWBM and the answer sheets were collected. The demographic characteristics of the sample have been presented in Appendix H. The average age of the sample was 22 years. As per the information mentioned, the percentage of males in the sample was 59.3 (n = 600) and that of females was 38.9 (n = 393). 88.3% (n = 894) of the sample were unmarried, 7.4% (n = 75) were married and 0.3% (n = 3) were divorced. 46% (n = 466) of the sample were undergraduates and 52.8% (n = 534) were postgraduates. Out of the sample of 1050, a sample of 1011 students was considered for analysis. 39 questionnaires were discarded as there were ≥ 10 missing answers. The nature of the sample was cosmopolitan, hence representative. The data were coded, and factor analysed using SPSS.

5.3 Factor Analysis In the process of the development of the final SWBM, factor analysis was the first step. The data were initially analysed using a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), with both varimax and promax rotations for each part of the SWBM. The various indicators of factorability obtained were found to be good, and the residuals indicated that the solution was a good one. Interestingly, the factor solution confirmed to the original determinant allocation to the conceptual categories to a great extent. Thirteen components with eigenvalues greater than one were obtained for Part I (Enhancers) and seven components were obtained for Part II (Reducers). However, the PCA (with either varimax or promax rotations) was not successful in giving very meaningful clusters of determinants in the respective categories for either of the parts. To determine the number of factors to be extracted, it was important to look for simple structures, in which each factor loaded highly to only one factor. Given that the measure was developed basis a theoretical framework from the qualitative study, the items in the SWBM had a probability of being correlated to some extent. The data thus was factor analysed through means of the Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) technique using both the rotations for each of the two parts. The promax rotation finally, allowed the factors to be correlated with one another.

5.3 Factor Analysis

121

It was observed that there were some items which were not fitting into the factors and posed difficulties in the factor analysis. Hence, such items were later eliminated from the analysis (a list of these items has been given in Appendix I). The data was again subjected to factor analysis, using all possible combinations of techniques and rotations. After a series of alternative factor analytic techniques, the analysis was zeroed down to principal axis factoring (PAF) using promax rotation, as it gave the most meaningful set of items for the respective factors. Also, the number of items was reduced for the final SWB measure to 52, as compared to the earlier version comprising 110 items (to 32 items from 65 items for Part I, and 20 items from 45 items for Part II respectively). The factor labels are a representation of all determinants the items are measuring and one that best captures the essence of the factor according to the respondent data. This labelling is based on the data (and the items based on the verbatims of respondents from the qualitative study) and may not literally be explanations from the literature or from the previous study, it is how the data is behaving and makes sense in the given context. To illustrate, Factor I which is Achievement and Recognition, consists of 10 determinants ( from the enhancers): appreciation, achievement, aspiration, goal, self-reliance, recognition (accomplishment/acknowledgement), external environment, hard work, status, and self-efficiency. All these items load the maximum onto this factor. “Goal” here is not measured as the process of goal (as explained in Chap. 2), but “goal” as a part of “achievement and recognition”, which further measures subjective well-being. Let’s look at the different parameters to appreciate our factors.

5.3.1 The KMO and Bartlett’s Test The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure is a test of how adequate and appropriate the data for factor analysis is. This test measures whether the sample is adequate for each variable as well as for the overall model. The values vary between 0 and 1, and those closer to 1 are considered better. A value of 0.6 is a suggested minimum. Bartlett’s test of sphericity helps us to decide whether our data set is appropriate to undergo a factor analysis. It tests the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. This null hypothesis must be rejected. It checks for any redundancy between the variables that can be presented with as few numbers of factors as possible.

122

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

Table 5.1 KMO and Bartlett’s Test Part I

Part II

0.930

0.914

Approx. Chi-Square

8418.189

4968.973

df

528

190

Sig

0.000

0.000

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett’s test of sphericity

Table 5.1 suggests that both the parts of SWBM show very high values for the KMO measure and significant values for Bartlett’s test, thus meeting the initial requirements for factor analysis.

5.3.2 The Scree Plot The scree plot graphs the eigenvalue against the factor number. Scree Plot

10

Eigenvalue

8

6

4

2

0 1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

Factor Number Fig. 5.1 Scree Plot showing Eigenvalue and Component Number for Part I

29

31

33

5.3 Factor Analysis

123

Scree Plot

7 6

Eigenvalue

5 4 3 2 1 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Factor Number Fig. 5.2 Scree Plot showing Eigenvalue and Component Number for Part II

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show these eigenvalues for Part I and II, respectively. The suggested factors have eigenvalues above 1.00 and the scree plot also shows that from the factor where the line is almost flat, each successive factor is accounting for smaller and smaller amounts of the total variance.

5.3.3 Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) Principal axis factoring (PAF) is a form of factor analysis which seeks the least number of factors which can account for the common variance (correlation) of a set of variables, whereas the more common principal components analysis (PCA) in its full form seeks the set of factors which can account for all the common and unique (specific plus error) variance in a set of variables. PAF uses a PCA strategy but applies it to a correlation matrix in which the diagonal elements are not 1’s, as in PCA, but iteratively derived estimates of the communalities (R2 of a variable using all factors as predictors). Further, PAF is best suited for exploring factors in case of a pre-existing theoretical base (Akhtar-Danesh, 2017; Pett et al., 2003). This is also the reason why this technique has been most apt in the case of the present research. The number of factors obtained for Part I was 6 and that for Part II was 4. The cut-off was taken as 0.3. The sixth factor of Part I comprised only one item, R7 (interpersonal relationships). This item was not fitting into any factor, and neither

124

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

was its meaning covered by any other factor. This factor was thus eliminated. Hence, the total number of factors for Part I is 5 and the total number of items in Part I is 32. The total number of factors for Part II is 4 and the number of items for Part II is 20. The findings have been presented in Tables 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 (the component matrix and factor loadings for parts I and II through promax rotation by PAF).

5.3.3.1

Principal Axis Factoring Using Promax Rotation—Part I

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 show the structure matrix and the factor loadings for each of the 6 factors. Table 5.2 Structure Matrix for Part I Factor 1

2

3

4

5

6

R1

0.259

0.146

0.245

0.584

0.179

0.195

R2

0.411

0.204

0.482

0.431

0.227

0.258

R3

0.357

0.278

0.444

0.235

0.150

0.334

R4

0.404

0.297

0.452

0.529

0.237

0.405

R5

0.321

0.426

0.357

0.139

0.062

0.390

R6

0.399

0.225

0.414

0.507

0.127

0.433

R7

0.294

0.210

0.273

0.266

0.176

0.537

H1

0.348

0.296

0.494

0.292

0.224

0.161

H2

0.236

0.368

0.424

0.247

0.105

0.234

RE1

0.200

0.292

0.443

0.218

0.039

0.129

RE2

0.372

− 0.012

0.244

0.217

0.601

0.182

RE3

0.340

0.456

0.399

0.228

0.027

0.293

E1

0.259

0.172

0.344

0.458

0.284

0.131

E2

0.567

0.099

0.544

0.430

0.494

0.309

ED1

0.338

0.250

0.410

0.352

0.327

0.002

A1

0.537

0.122

0.559

0.468

0.461

0.140

A2

0.604

0.267

0.612

0.342

0.351

0.244

A3

0.662

0.212

0.422

0.331

0.331

0.200

A4

0.670

0.320

0.337

0.299

0.328

0.187

A5

0.603

0.309

0.478

0.290

0.191

0.284

A6

0.744

0.140

0.525

0.461

0.353

0.502

W1

0.407

0.091

0.398

0.374

0.545

0.144

SS1

0.387

0.270

0.590

0.193

0.372

0.201

SS4

0.542

0.397

0.475

0.267

0.233

0.263 (continued)

5.3 Factor Analysis

125

Table 5.2 (continued) Factor 1

2

3

4

5

6

REC1

0.236

0.298

0.368

0.274

0.362

0.317

V1

0.351

0.446

0.514

0.328

0.161

0.232

V2

0.561

0.506

0.414

0.287

0.198

0.042

S1

0.335

0.490

0.435

0.285

0.109

0.260

S2

0.206

0.657

0.302

0.227

0.111

0.146

S3

0.326

0.483

0.335

0.275

0.057

0.217

S4

0.662

0.091

0.428

0.383

0.372

0.386

P1

0.475

0.282

0.500

0.312

0.289

0.301

P2

0.468

0.440

0.436

0.142

0.169

0.197

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization Table 5.3 Factor Loadings for Part I Factors --->

1

2

3

R1

4

5

0.584

R2

0.482

R3

0.444 0.529

R4 0.426

R5 R6

0.507 0.537

R7 H1

0.494

H2

0.424

RE1

0.443

RE2

0.601 0.456

RE3 E1 E2

0.458 0.567 0.410

ED1 A1

0.559

A2

0.612

A3

6

0.662

A4

0.670

A5

0.603 (continued)

126

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

Table 5.3 (continued) Factors --->

1

A6

0.744

2

3

W1 0.542

REC1

0.368 0.514 0.561

S1

0.490

S2

0.657

S3

0.483

S4

0.662

P1 P2

6

0.545

V1 V2

5

0.590

SS1 SS4

4

0.500 0.468

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 show that the number of factors extracted is 6 and the number of items in them is 32. These items have been, however, distributed in the following 5 factors (as the only item in the 6th factor has been eliminated) in the final scale (a complete list of items included in the final questionnaire along with their factor loadings, previous labels, and new labels has been presented in Appendix J):

Factor 1: Achievement and Recognition This factor consists of 10 determinants (enhancers): appreciation, achievement, aspiration, goal, self-reliance, recognition (accomplishment/acknowledgement), external environment, hard work, status, and self-efficiency.

Factor 2: Camaraderie This factor consists of 5 positive SWB determinants (enhancers): understanding, resources, pro-social behaviour, societal, and people in the society.

Factor 3: Contentment This factor consists of 11 positive SWB determinants (enhancers): well-being of one’s children, marriage, health, peace of mind/spiritualism, money, education, success, sense of satisfaction, recreation, values, and personality.

5.3 Factor Analysis

127

Factor 4: Relationships This factor consists of 4 positive SWB determinants (enhancers): affiliations (attachments), togetherness, support, and emotions.

Factor 5: Need Fulfilment This factor consists of 2 positive SWB determinants (enhancers): material possessions and basic necessities, and employment/career. Note: There is a variation in the number of determinants in the two factors mentioned above and in what the respective table shows. This is because the determinant has been shifted from another factor as it is fitting better in that particular factor (for example, the determinant achievement has been shifted to factor 1 from factor 3). This is permissible by the rule of the thumb as the loadings for the determinant are high on both factors.

5.3.3.2

Principal Axis Factoring Using Promax Rotation—Part II

Tables 5.4 and 5.5 show the structure matrix and the factor loadings for each of the 4 factors. Table 5.4 Structure Matrix for Part II Factor 1

2

3

4

I1

0.383

0.438

0.371

0.318

I2

0.691

0.346

0.267

0.338

I3

0.469

0.473

0.352

0.391

I4

0.138

0.440

0.572

0.491

V1

0.499

0.400

0.391

0.161

V2

0.591

0.412

0.348

0.260

V3

0.279

0.217

0.216

0.549

V4

0.397

0.364

0.602

0.195

E1

0.575

0.367

0.262

0.283

E2

0.391

0.656

0.420

0.313

E3

0.275

0.521

0.465

0.292 (continued)

128

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

Table 5.4 (continued) Factor E4

0.385

0.413

0.555

0.281

A1

0.411

0.643

0.486

0.323

A2

0.274

0.594

0.539

0.381

A3

0.208

0.377

0.386

0.547

A4

0.165

0.525

0.694

0.423

H1

0.463

0.661

0.335

0.234

H2

0.631

0.516

0.282

0.399

H5

0.401

0.309

0.213

0.558

S1

0.494

0.375

0.186

0.315

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization

Table 5.5 Factor Loadings for Part II Factors --->

1

I1 I2

2

3

0.438 0.691 0.473

I3

0.572

I4 V1

0.499

V2

0.591 0.549

V3 0.602

V4 E1

0.575

E2

0.656

E3

0.521 0.555

E4 A1

0.643

A2

0.594 0.547

A3 A4

0.694

H1 H2

0.661 0.631 0.558

H5 S1

4

0.494

Tables 5.4 and 5.5 show that the number of factors extracted is 4 and the number of items in them is 20 (a complete list of items included in the final questionnaire

5.3 Factor Analysis

129

along with their factor loadings, previous labels, and new labels has been presented in Appendix J). These 4 factors are:

Factor 1: Factors Related to Social Sensitivity This factor consists of 6 determinants (reducers): fighting/conflicts, dishonesty/lies/ break of trust, loss of values in the changing society, sorrows and problems of self and others, sufferings due to ill-health and deplorable condition of people in society, and social plight (with special reference to poverty, unemployment, and corruption).

Factor 2: Factors Related to Personal Sensitivity This factor consists of 7 determinants (reducers): ill-treatment (like being scolded without any fault, screaming), death, being hurt emotionally, children related issues (like their problems, not doing well in life), failures and disappointments, and illhealth of self/family/others.

Factor 3: Disappointments This factor consists of 3 determinants (reducers): hypocrisy/pretension/deception, breaking of relationships/ parting or separating from dear ones, and being unsuccessful.

Factor 4: Factors Related to Individual Concerns This factor consists of 4 determinants (reducers): unfulfilled desires/expectations (this determinant has been shifted from factor 3—as it is fitting better in this factor, and as the loadings for this determinant are high on both the factors—this is permissible by the rule of the thumb), teasing, loss, and physical hurts/accidents (as in the sight of a wound). Note: There is a variation in the number of determinants in the two factors mentioned above and in what the respective table shows. This is because the determinant has been shifted from another factor as it is fitting better in that particular factor. This is permissible by the rule of the thumb as the loadings for the determinant are high on both factors.

130

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

5.4 Reliability Analysis of SWBM (Alpha) Reliability is the consistency of a measure. Cronbach’s alpha is the most common form of internal consistency reliability coefficient, testing the extent to which multiple indicators for a latent variable belong together (Table 5.6). Table 5.6 Reliability Coefficient (Alpha) for Part I and Part II

Part I

Part II

No. of Cases

930

923

No. of Items

32

20

Alpha

0.9024

0.8714

The reliability analysis shows a high alpha of 0.90 for Part I and 0.87 for Part II of the SWBM.

5.5 SWBM After Factor Analysis The final SWBM is a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses varying from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” (the response type was changed to a 5-point scale as it appeared to be a better option during data collection in phase II of the study). This is also a profile scale, with two parts–Part I (measuring positive affect and cognition) and Part II (measuring negative affect). It has 52 items–32 in Part I and 20 in Part II. The items in both parts are positively worded, hence, no negative scoring is required (the final SWBM has been presented in Appendix K).

5.6 Back Translations Once the SWBM was ready, a Hindi form of the SWBM along with the other two scales, Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) and PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) was prepared. This was done with a specific effort: that it conveyed the spirit of each item in terms of the language used by the common people, especially, in the urban slums and rural areas. The three scales were given to two professionals: one a linguist, and the second, a professional translator. Post the translation, back translations were done with the help of an English language expert, and the version which was closest to the original items in the respective scales was considered. The three questionnaires along with their Hindi versions have been presented in Appendix K.

5.7 Sample Particulars and Administration of the Final SWBM

131

The SWBM appears to be an effective SWB measure due to its advantages as has been cited at the beginning of this chapter. The measure needs to meet its psychometric requirements before proposing and promoting it as a measure for mapping SWB levels. Although the development of the measure is an outcome of a systematic (culture-specific) study and does have some uniqueness in that context, it would be interesting to administer it to various cultures and find out if the measure has the attribute of generalizability and whether it can be recommended as a global SWB measure. However, before any of that, the SWBM needed to be standardized and analysed. Post the preliminary SWBM study in phase II, which helped in the development of the final SWB Measure, another study was undertaken to standardize the measure and attempt a method for the computation of a composite well-being score and its interpretation.

5.7 Sample Particulars and Administration of the Final SWBM The final SWBM, along with SWLS and PANAS, was administered to 1369 respondents from the cross-section sample of the society—across ages and locales, for generalization. Area sampling was done for the study. The sample was collected personally—in a door-to-door manner in the rural (R) and urban slums (US). Key personnel were identified who facilitated the process of data collection. In some cases, snowball sampling was also done. Sampling, in the case of the urban (U) location, was much more organized as it was mostly collected from educational institutions and organizations, by taking prior permission. Strict care was taken by the researcher not to distort the language and meaning of the items while explaining them to the respondents. The applicable version (English/Hindi) was used to ensure the measurement rigour throughout the sample (urban n = 478, 37.6%; urban slum n = 408, 32.1%; and rural n = 386, 30.3%). The test was administered by explaining to the respondents how to fill up the questionnaire along with other necessary instructions. (The final questionnaire comprised all 3 scales along with their instructions in both languages and has been presented as Appendix K). 97 questionnaires were discarded due to incomplete responses. The study data were collected in three phases. The first phase, which comprised the qualitative data was conducted between 2004 and 2006. The second phase of data comprising students for finalizing SWBM using the preliminary SWBM was collected between 2006 and 2007, and this data from the third or final phase to standardize the SWBM and index it, was collected between 2007 to early 2009. The states travelled to for data collection were Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Karnataka. The entire city of Mumbai (in Maharashtra) was extensively covered for the urban and urban slum data. The best part of this data collection was offered in terms of

132

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

the cosmopolitan culture the city offers. A large section of the respondents (irrespective of the location) was in the city because of employment and had their native place in various states of the country. Though they migrated to the economic capital of India (Mumbai) for work, they are well connected to their roots where their (extended) families belong and follow the culture and traditions of their state of birth and upbringing. The states the respondents came from included Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana), Assam, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerela, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Delhi. Even, the second phase of the study had students from over 25 states of India. This sample thus was representative of India. The analysable sample comprised 27.9% children (n = 355), 26.8% adolescents and young adults (n = 341), 27.7% middle-aged (n = 352), and 17.6% older adults (n = 224) respondents, out of which 50.6% (n = 644) were male and 49.3% (n = 627) were female (1 respondent did not mention the gender). Information was also collected on other demographic variables such as marital status, the type of family they belonged to, total family income (per annum), education, profession, and work experience. The percentages and number of respondents for each of these demographic variables (except profession) have been given in Appendix L. There were respondents from 87 odd professions and hence, the profession has not been analysed in the present study. Income had to be analysed in two ways–reported income (RI) and estimated income (EI). The field experience envisaged that income seems to be a sensitive issue in the Indian context with people hesitant in declaring their income to strangers during the administration of surveys, two methodologies were thus employed. It was also observed at the initial stage of data collection, that either people were reporting unbelievably lower income, for example, a diamond merchant reported a total family income of 1 lakh Indian rupees (INR) per annum; or that they were not aware of the same: for example, children would not be aware of their parents’ income but depending upon their schooling (the type of school or the fee structure) their income class or category has been estimated. Examples like this have validated the use of the observation method and the need to estimate income. Thus, income has been estimated based on the kind of job, the designation of the respondent and the organization that s/he is working in, the pay package drawn, the locality in which the respondent resides, his/her lifestyle, the facilities in his/her house and as reported by significant others. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) were used along with the Subjective Well-being Measure for construct validation. Below is a brief description of the three scales.

5.7 Sample Particulars and Administration of the Final SWBM

133

5.7.1 Subjective Well-Being Measure (SWBM) The final SWBM is a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses varying from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”. The scale comprises two parts. Part I consists of 32 items distributed amongst 5 factors (Achievement and Recognition, Camaraderie, Contentment, Relationships, and Need Fulfilment) measuring positive affect and cognition, or positive factors enhancing the concept of SWB. Part II consists of 20 items distributed amongst 4 factors (Social Sensitivity, Personal Sensitivity, Disappointments, and Individual Concerns) measuring negative affect or negative factors reducing the concept of SWB. Scoring: A score of 5 was given for “Strongly Agree”, 4 for “Agree”, 3 for “Undecided”, 2 for “Disagree”, and 1 for “Strongly Disagree” for all the items in both the parts, respectively. Though the scoring procedure remains the same for both parts, the interpretations are reversed. For example, a score of 5 obtained on Part I would mean a very high concept of SWB, while a score of 5 obtained on Part II would mean just the opposite, that is, a high concept of SIB.

5.7.2 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is a global measure of life satisfaction developed by Diener et al. (1985). Life satisfaction is one of the factors of the general construct of subjective well-being. The SWLS consists of 5 items that are in the response range of 1–7, where 1 is “Strongly Disagree” and 7 is “Strongly Agree”. The SWLS has been psychometrically tested in numerous studies (Lewis et al., 1995 and Lucas et al., 1996). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) as an estimate of reliability is consistently high, and generally exceeds values of around 0.80 (Diener et al., 1985 and Lewis et al., 1995). “It is important from a theoretical perspective that the scale is temporally stable but still sensitive enough to detect significant changes in the individual’s life satisfaction” (Hultell & Gustavsson, 2008). This issue has mostly been tested by studying the test–retest reliability of the SWLS. The results indicate that the SWLS is quite stable over shorter periods (Diener et al., 1985) but varies when the length of the period increases (Diener et al., 1985). Concerning the validity of the SWLS, its convergent and discriminant validity has been evaluated and the findings show that the SWLS correlates with other scales measuring subjective well-being, but remains a separate construct (Diener et al., 1985, Lucas et al., 1996; and Pavot & Diener, 1993). For most people, life satisfaction depends on doing well in major areas of life. People who score high in life satisfaction usually feel that life is meaningful and have goals and values that are important to them.

134

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

Scoring: A score of 7 was given for “Strongly Agree”, 6 for “Agree”, 5 for “Slightly Agree”, 4 for “Neither Agree nor Disagree”, 3 for “Slightly Disagree”, 2 for “Disagree”, and 1 for “Strongly Disagree”. The scores are added to have a composite score (range 5–35), divided into 7 categories and interpreted as “Extremely Satisfied” (score range: 31–35), “Satisfied” (26–30), “Slightly Satisfied” (21–25), “Neutral”— an equal mix of satisfied and dissatisfied (20), “Slightly Dissatisfied” (15–19), “Dissatisfied” (10–14), “Extremely Dissatisfied” (5–9). The higher the score, the higher the satisfaction with life.

5.7.3 Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) The 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), developed by Watson et al. (1988) with a sample of undergraduate students and validated with adult populations, comprises two mood scales, one measuring positive affect, and the other measuring negative affect. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = “Very Slightly” or “Not at All” to 5 = “Extremely”, to indicate the extent to which the respondent has felt this way in the indicated time frame. The authors have used the scale to measure affect at—this moment, today, the past few days, the past week, the past few weeks, the past year, and generally (on average). The alpha reliabilities for both scales are high, generally ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 for positive affect (PA), and from 0.84 to 0.87 for negative affect (NA). The correlation between the NA and PA scales is generally low, ranging from − 0.12 to − 0.23 or − 0.05 to − 0.35 (Watson & Clark, 1994). The discriminant values also indicate quasi-independence (Watson et al., 1988). The “Past Week” period (n = 1521 undergraduates, alpha 0.88 {M = 32.4, SD = 7.3} for positive affect and 0.85 {M = 20.4, SD = 7.0} for negative affect respectively, and scale inter-correlation = − 0.14) has been used for the current study. It is noteworthy that the reliabilities of the scales are essentially unaffected by the time instructions used or by the type of subject population (student, adult, or patient) that is assessed. Scoring: A score of 5 was given for “Extremely”, 4 for “Quite a Bit”, 3 for ‘Moderately’, 2 for “A Little”, and 1 for “Very Slightly or Not at All”. The scores on the 10 positive items (item numbers 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19) and 10 negative items (item numbers 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20) are added separately to arrive at two scores ranging from 10 to 50. A high PA score reflects a state of high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable engagement. In contrast, NA is a general dimension of subjective distress subsuming a variety of aversive mood states, and a high NA score indicates more distress (Watson et al., 1988).

5.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity Analysis …

135

5.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity Analysis (Standardization) of the SWB Measure Post data collection and entry of scores, the SWB Measure was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis, and validity analysis. The results show that the measure has a good model fit, is highly stable, and measures what it purports to measure.

5.8.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) A common factor analysis, also called principal axis factoring (PAF) using SPSS was conducted on the preliminary SWB Measure before the first-order CFA was conducted on the final SWB Measure (the measurement model) using AMOS (Appendix M and Appendix N; also validated with Stata). This has facilitated the examination of factor loadings of each indicator variable and has aided the determination of these loadings on their respective latent variable (factor) as predicted by the SWBM.

5.8.1.1

Estimates of the Model

Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) analysis shows high critical ratio values for the standardized regression weights of all items for both parts, which implies that all values are significant. The only exception is the last factor of Part I–Need Fulfilment. This factor has only two items in it and hence CFA could not be carried out on it.

5.8.1.2

Model Fit

Model chi-square, Hoelter’s Critical N, NFI, CFI, IFI, and RMSEA were considered. The selection was done mostly keeping in mind the requirement of the study in terms of parameters like the sample size, estimation procedure, and model complexity. Most of the values obtained reflected a well-fitting model. Means and intercepts were used while calculating the model fit due to missing values in the data.

Goodness-of-Fit Tests Based on Predicted Versus Observed Covariances (Absolute Fit Indexes) Model Chi-Square: The chi-square values for the model in consideration (the present measurement model) are significant for all indicators on all latent variables for both

136

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

parts. The reason for this could be the large sample size, due to which the occurrence of a Type II error (rejecting something true) is much more likely. Hoelter’s Critical N: It is issued to evaluate the adequacy of the sample size. The values support the adequacy of the sample.

Goodness-of-Fit Tests Comparing the Given Model with a Null or an Alternative Model This set of the goodness-of-fit measures compares the researcher’s model to the fit of another model, usually the independence model. AMOS computes all measures in this set. The Normed Fit Index, NFI: “also known as the Bentler-Bonett normed fit index, or simply Delta1. “Normed” implies the range from 0 to 1, with 1 as a perfect fit. NFI reflects the proportion by which the researcher’s model improves the fit compared to the null model. By convention, NFI values above 0.95 are good, between 0.90 and 0.95 acceptable, and below 0.90 indicate a need to re-specify the model. NFI may underestimate fit for small samples (Ullman, 2001)” (c.f. http://faculty.chass.ncsu. edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm, 6.8.09, Thursday, 12.30 h; Garson, 2020.). The Comparative Fit Index, CFI: “also known as the Bentler Comparative Fit Index, compares the existing model fit with a null model which assumes the latent variables in the model are uncorrelated (the “independence model”). CFI is similar in meaning to NFI but it penalizes for sample size. CFI and RMSEA are among the measures least affected by sample size (Fan et al., 1999). CFI varies from 0 to 1. CFI close to 1 indicates a very good fit. By convention, CFI should be equal to or greater than 0.90 to accept the model, indicating that 90% of the covariation in the data can be reproduced by the given model. Bentler (1990) has suggested that the CFI should be the index of choice”. (c.f. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm, 6.8.09, Thursday, 12.30 h.; Garson, 2020). The Incremental Fit Index, IFI: “is also known as Bollen’s IFI, BL89 or Delta2 (∆2). It was developed by Bollen (1989) to address the issues of parsimony and sample size, which were known to be associated with the NFI. Not surprisingly, the findings of IFI are consistent with that of the CFI in reflecting a well-fitting model as its computation is the same as the NFI, except that degrees of freedom are taken into account. By convention, IFI should be equal to or greater than 0.90 to accept the model. IFI can be greater than 1.0 under certain circumstances” (http://fac ulty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm, 6.8.09, Thursday, 12.30 h.; Garson, 2020). Results in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 show that the values of IFI are consistent with CFI, thus reflecting a well-fitting model. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSEA: RMSEA is a popular measure of fit, partly because “it does not require comparison with a null model and also as RMSEA has a known distribution related to the non-central chi-square

5.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity Analysis …

137

distribution” (c.f. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm, 6.8.09, Thursday, 12.30 h.; Garson, 2020). It is one of the fit indices which are less affected by sample size, though it overestimates the goodness-of-fit for the smallest sample sizes (Fan et al., 1999). By convention, RMSEA values less than 0.05 constitute a close fit (Pituch & Stevens, 2016); values less than 0.08 give a fair fit, whereas values greater than 0.10 are representative of a poor fit and are not acceptable (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The 0.08–0.10 range is termed a mediocre fit (Mc Callum et al., 1996). Further, Hu and Bentler (1999) have suggested RMSEA < = 0.06 as the cutoff for a good model fit. Table 5.7 shows that the chi-square values for all factors are high and therefore, all p values are significant. Hoelter’s Critical N also has high values (Hoelter = > 200). The only exception is that of factor 5 (Need Fulfilment) with two items, upon which the test could not be carried out. Table 5.7 Model Chi-Square and Hoelter’s Critical N Goodness-of-Fit Test for Part I of SWBM Factors (default model)

CMIN

Hoelter

NPAR

CMIN

DF

P

CMIN/DF

0.05

0.01

Achievement and Recognition

30

239.310

35

0.000

6.837

265

305

Camaraderie

15

19.893

5

0.001

3.979

708

964

Contentment

33

147.535

44

0.000

3.353

522

592

Relationships

12

19.815

2

0.000

9.908

385

591

Table 5.8 Model Chi-Square and Hoelter’s Critical N Goodness-of-Fit Test for Part II of SWBM Factors (default model)

CMIN

HOELTER

NPAR

CMIN

DF

Social Sensitivity

18

72.408

9

P 0.000

CMIN/DF 8.045

0.05

0.01

297

381

Personal Sensitivity

21

84.402

14

0.000

6.029

357

439

Individual Concerns

12

22.914

2

0.000

11.457

333

511

Table 5.8 shows that the chi-square values for all factors are high and therefore, all p values are significant. Hoelter’s Critical N also has high values (Hoelter = > 200). The only exception is that of factor 3 (Disappointments) with two items, upon which the test could not be carried out.

138

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

Table 5.9 Baseline Comparisons for Model Fit Test of Part I of SWBM Factors (default model)

NFI

CFI

IFI

RMSEA

Achievement and Recognition

0.918

0.929

0.929

0.068

Camaraderie

0.979

0.984

0.984

0.048

Contentment

0.928

0.948

0.948

0.043

Relationships

0.956

0.960

0.960

0.084

Table 5.9 shows an excellent fit for factor 2, Camaraderie (NFI, CFI, IFI > 0.95 and RMSEA < 0.05); a good fit for factor 3 (NFI, CFI, IFI > 0.90 and RMSEA < 0.05), and an adequate fit for factor 1, Achievement and Recognition (NFI, CFI, IFI > 0.90 and RMSEA < 0.08). High NFI, CFI, and IFI values (NFI, CFI, IFI > 0.95) suggests excellent fit for factor 4 (Relationships) with an adequate fit value for RMSEA (RMSEA < 0.08). The only exception is that of factor 5 (Need Fulfilment) with two items, upon which the test could not be carried out. Table 5.10 Baseline Comparisons for Model Fit Test of Part II of SWBM Factors (default model)

NFI

CFI

IFI

RMSEA

Social Sensitivity

0.969

0.972

0.972

0.074

Personal Sensitivity

0.965

0.970

0.970

0.063

Individual Concerns

0.977

0.979

0.979

0.091

The high NFI, CFI, and IFI values in Table 5.10 suggest an excellent fit for factors 1 (Social Sensitivity), 2 (Personal Sensitivity), and 4 (Individual Concerns) with NFI, CFI, and IFI > 0.95. The values of 0.074 and 0.063 for RMSEA (that is, < 0.08), for factors 1 and 2 respectively, suggest an adequate fit and the value of RMSEA for factor 4 (RMSEA = 0.091, which is in the range of 0.08−0.10) suggests a mediocre fit. The only exception is that of factor 3 (Disappointments) with two items, upon which the test could not be carried out. The first-order CFA model achieved acceptable goodness-of-fit estimates for the total sample. The CFA suggests that the measurement model fits the data well and that all the indicators of items have conformed to their respective factors.

5.8.2 Reliability Analysis Reliability is the consistency or repeatability of a measure. Cronbach’s alpha is the most common form of internal consistency reliability coefficient, testing the extent to which multiple indicators for a latent variable belong together. It varies from 0 to 1. A common rule of thumb is that the indicators should have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7 to judge the set as reliable. A set of items may be below 0.7 on Cronbach’s

5.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity Analysis …

139

alpha, yet various fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis will be above the cutoff (usually 0.9) levels. The alpha value may be low because of the lack of homogeneity of variances among items and it is also lower when there are fewer items in the scale or factor (http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm, 6.8.09, Thursday, 12.30 h.). Table 5.11 Cronbach’s Alpha for SWBM, SWLS and PANAS Measure/Scale

Part/Factor

No. of Items

Cronbach’s Alpha (based on standardized items)

Subjective Well-Being Measure (SWBM) Part I

Achievement and Recognition (I)

10

0.824

Camaraderie (II)

5

0.693

Subjective Well-Being Measure (SWBM) Part II

SWBM

Contentment (III)

11

0.751

Relationships (IV)

4

0.587

Need fulfilment (V) 2

0.560

SWBM–Part I

32

0.915

Social Sensitivity (I)

6

0.826

Personal Sensitivity 7 (II)

0.816

Disappointments (III)

3

0.639

Individual Concerns (IV)

4

0.730

SWBM–Part II

20

0.925

Part I and II

52

0.941

5

0.683

Positive Affect (PA)

10

0.820

Negative Affect (NA)

10

0.819

PANAS (PA & NA)

20

0.807

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

Table 5.11 shows that the SWBM has high alpha values. The factors with a lesser number of items have relatively lower alpha coefficients, though they are all above 0.5. The overall values are quite high, which is indicative of SWBM being a highly reliable measure. The SWLS values are relatively lesser for the present research, though not low. PANAS alpha coefficients are high and in line with what has been mentioned in the literature.

140

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

5.8.3 Validity Analysis Validity is the degree to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure. The research on the discriminant validity of SWB components shows that these components are not only theoretically distinct but also empirically separable (Diener et al., 2003). The SWBM, thus, has been subjected to construct validation by establishing discriminant evidence. Construct validity refers to the degree to which the test scores can be interpreted as reflecting a particular psychological construct (Furr & Bacharach, 2008). Discriminant evidence (validity) is the degree to which test scores are uncorrelated with tests of unrelated constructs (Furr & Bacharach, 2008). It refers to the principle that the indicators for different constructs should not be so highly correlated as to lead to the conclusion that they measure the same thing. Part I of SWBM has been correlated with PANAS (NA) and Part II of SWBM with PANAS (PA). These are unrelated scales. Both the parts of SWBM have also been correlated with SWLS. A low (or non-significant) relationship between Part I (Positive Factors) of SWBM and PANAS (NA) and Part II (Negative Factors) of SWBM and PANAS (PA) would demonstrate discriminant validity for the measure. The coefficients of correlations have been computed using SPSS. The correlation obtained between Part I of SWBM and PANAS (NA) and that for Part II of SWBM and PANAS (PA) are very low, negative and non-significant (r = − 0.010 and − 0.048 respectively). Also, the correlation values obtained between Part I of SWBM and PANAS (PA) and that for Part II of SWBM and PANAS (NA) are low and nonsignificant (r = 0.041 and 0.006 respectively). This suggests a lack of evidence for convergent validity. There is some significant discriminant evidence between both the parts of the SWBM (r = 0.539**) as well. The correlation obtained between Part II of SWBM and SWLS is also found to be very low and non-significant (r = 0.054) and that between Part I of SWBM and SWLS is also very low, however, significant (r = 0.157**). The correlation between PANAS (PA) and PANAS (NA) is very low, yet significant (r = 0.126**). The correlations obtained between SWBM and PANAS and, SWBM and SWLS confirm the expected weak relationships between them and provide evidence of the discriminant validity of the SWB Measure. These values indicate that SWB is a distinct construct from life satisfaction and affect (both, positive and negative).

5.9 Demographics Let’s get an idea (basic) of how demographic variables are linked to the SWB and satisfaction with life in the Indian context through our study sample.

5.9 Demographics

141

5.9.1 Age Indian sample also seems to support the U-curve theory of age and SWB/SWL. Children are found to have the highest level of SWB (Mean = 0.24, n = 355) as compared to adolescents and young adults (Mean = 0.23, n = 341) and older adults (Mean = 0.20, n = 224) respondents. Middle-aged respondents (Mean = 0.19, n = 352) are found to have the lowest level of SWB. These findings may be because it is in middle age that an individual has a lot of responsibilities to fulfil and is constantly struggling to cope with situations. Whereas they are relatively free to do what they want to in childhood or old age. With regards to the SWLS scores, children are most satisfied with their lives (Mean = 26.93), followed by older adults (Mean = 25.27) and middle-aged (Mean = 23.72) respondents. The least satisfied found are the adolescents and young adults (Mean = 23.14). This could be because adolescents are at a juncture in life where there is a lot of confusion and they do not know what they want from life. They are struggling for achievement and face failure many times (Maithly & Saxena, 2008). Also, there is a desire to establish themselves and settle in life (Diener & Suh, 1998; Carstensen, 1998; Mroczek & Kolarz, 1998; Dasgupta & Majumdar in Diener & Rahtz, 2000; Bass, 1995 and Hoorn, 2007). The findings of the study suggest that there is a continuous effort for adapting to life events across age spans.

5.9.2 Gender Differences between men and women are found to be very small or non-existent (Inglehart, 1990). These findings hold in the Indian context as well. However, in the present study, a difference has been obtained between the sexes. Males (Mean = 0.26, n = 644) are at a comparatively higher level of SWB than their female counterparts (Mean = 0.18, n = 627) whereas females are more satisfied with life (Mean = 25.03) as compared to the males (Mean = 24.46) Findings from Wood et al. (1989) in Batz & Tay, 2018 support the above finding on females. There could be a possibility that females experience greater negative affect or SIB as they are more expressive and emotional as compared to men, who are taught to control their emotions. 62% of the sample in the current study belongs to the rural and slum areas, where man is mostly the bread earner. He tries to provide for his family to the best of his capacity, while women are taught to be content with what they have and manage what is available. This explains women have higher satisfaction with life as compared to men. These findings differ from the findings obtained by Diener and Suh (1997) and Dasgupta & Majumdar (in Diener & Rahtz, 2000) as they did not find gender differences in their research. The findings of this study are in contrast with what has been discussed by Van Hoorn (2007). He states that women generally report higher SWB scores than men do. The findings of the present research seem to have cross-cultural implications which can be studied in future.

142

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

5.9.3 Marital Status Differences have been obtained in the levels of SWB for marital status. Unmarried/ single respondents show a relatively higher level of SWB (Mean = 0.268, n = 573) as compared to others. Here, unmarried respondents include children as well. Amongst the respondents of marriageable age, married respondents (Mean = 0.191, n = 593) have been found to have a comparatively higher level of SWB (also Agrawal et al., 2011; Cao et al., 2015; Diener et al., 2000; Glenn & Weaver, 1979; Gove et al., 1983) as compared to widows or widowers (Mean = 0.164, n = 62) (also Clark et al., 2002; Ehrhardt et al., 2000). The respondents who are separated or divorced are found to have the least level of SWB (Mean = 0.072, n = 6) (also Hoorn, 2007; Kalmijn, 2009). These findings can be well explained in the Indian context. Married people have a sense of social security, and this enhances their SWB. Over the past decades, a change has come in society because of education. People have become more caring about the widows or widowers in their families and encourage them to lead a good and happy life; consequently, they start moving in life (even though they do feel depressed a lot of times) with the help of support from family and friends. Separated or divorced people experience low levels of SWB as they are not easily accepted in society. Thus, they seem to experience low levels of SWB. An intriguing finding is that respondents who have not mentioned their marital status (Mean = − 0.004, n = 38) show SIB.

5.9.4 Family Type The findings show respondents who have not mentioned their family type (Mean = 0.52, n = 15) as ones having the highest level of SWB for the sample. Respondents living in a joint family (Mean = 0.24, n = 252) have a high level of SWB than those who live in a nuclear family (Mean = 0.21, n = 732) set-up. This could be because people who live in a joint family have a lot of emotional support. The ones living in extended families show the least level of SWB (Mean = 0.20, n = 273). A possible reason for this finding could be that expectations amongst family members are usually very high in an extended family. This might burden them emotionally and reduce their SWB.

5.9.5 Total Family Income (Per Annum) The findings of the present research are very intriguing regarding the relationship between income levels and SWB and between income levels and satisfaction with life. Two approaches have been used to understand this relationship–reported income (RI) and estimated income (EI). It has been found that respondents who did not report

5.9 Demographics

143

their income have shown the highest SWB (Mean = 0.33, n = 237) and SWLS (Mean = 25.73) scores. In the case of estimated income, the “Not Mentioned” category has been found to have the least SWB (Mean = 0.02, n = 34) and SWLS (Mean = 23.18) scores. Though it is difficult to make sense of the ‘not mentioned’ category of response, the analysis, in general, indicates that estimated income is a better approach for income analysis. The present findings point out that the mean difference obtained for SWB or SWLS scores for various income groups is very less. However, these differences lead to some interesting observations. The study suggests that SWB increases with an increase in the income level but ultimately decreases in the case of the very highincome group (Mean SWB for RI = 0.28, n = 36 and Mean SWB for EI = 0.19, n = 148). The highest mean SWB score has been obtained for the high-income group regarding both reported (Mean = 0.30, n = 151) as well as estimated (Mean = 0.34, n = 182) income. The lowest mean SWB score (Mean = 0.12) has been obtained for the low-income group regarding both reported (n = 199) as well as estimated (n = 185) income. This implies that income seems to be an important SWB determinant, but only up to a certain extent (Diener & Diener, 2000). Fluctuations in the mean scores of satisfaction with life among different income groups have been observed in the present research. The values point to two important findings. One, unlike SWB, SWLS scores are found to be highest for the very highincome group (Mean (RI) = 25.39 and Mean (EI) = 26.40). However, they are found to be the least for the very low-income group (Mean (RI) = 23.86 and Mean (EI) = 24.16). This implies that satisfaction with life increases with an increase in the income level and decreases with a decrease in the income level. Two, the above implication does not give the complete picture, for example, respondents from the low-income group have higher satisfaction with life (Mean (RI) = 25.03, Mean (EI) = 25.23) as compared to respondents from the higher middle-income group (Mean (RI) = 24.72, Mean (EI) = 24.76) who show low satisfaction with life. These findings have a lot of implications for further research in terms of understanding the relationship between income levels and these two constructs more scientifically. The findings also show differences in the SWB and the level of satisfaction with life scores. Based on the comparison between the reported and estimated incomes, the lower-middle-income group shows a difference in the levels of SWB (Mean (RI) = 0.19, n = 123 and Mean (EI) = 0.14, n = 96) and satisfaction with life (Mean (RI) = 24.59, Mean (EI) = 24.53). Thus, SWB is higher as compared to satisfaction with life. In the lower-income group, the mean difference based on the two approaches, SWB (Mean RI and Mean EI = 0.12) is lesser as compared to that obtained in satisfaction with life (Mean (RI) = 25.03, Mean (EI) = 25.23) (Biswas-Diener & Diener, 2001 and Dasgupta & Majumdar in Diener & Rahtz, 2000). This finding is similar in both cases (reported as well as estimated incomes). The difference in the level of SWB and level of satisfaction has also been observed in the very high-income group. They show a decrease in SWB scores but a high increase in satisfaction with life scores. The reverse is the case with very low-income

144

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

groups. This finding contrasts with Richins and Dawson (1992). They found that people who value money more than other goals are less satisfied with their standard of living and with their lives; the lower-middle-income group is the only group with a similar level of both SWB and satisfaction with life. The findings suggest that though income does not play a decisive role in determining the level of SWB (Aknin et al., 2009; Clark et al., 2008; Diener et al., 1993, 1997; Easterlin, 1974; McBride, 2001; Tay et al., 2018), it does play an important role in determining satisfaction with life (for example, Agrawal et al., 2011; Cummins, 2000; Diener & Diener, 1995; Hagerty & Veenhoven, 2003; Sacks et al., 2012; Veenhoven, 1991; Veenhoven & Vergunst, 2014).

5.9.6 Education Research shows that the difference in the mean levels of education is very small (Diener et al., 1993). It has been found in the present study that postgraduates (Mean = 0.30, n = 85) and graduates (Mean = 0.29, n = 52) with a professional or technical degree or diploma have a comparatively higher level of SWB. Respondents with super specialization (e.g. M.Phil., Ph.D., Post-Doctoral) in their respective fields (Mean = 0.27, n = 30) also have been found to have a relatively high level of SWB. These findings can be explained based on what Scheier and Carver (1993) have discussed. They state that an individual greatly increases SWB by being optimistic about the future. This implies that individuals do higher studies mostly for a better future and in this process enhance their SWB. Striving towards their goal (be it striving for a better future or the desire of learning or acquiring knowledge) provides for their personal fulfilment and enhances their SWB. (Guardiola & Guillen-Royo, 2015; King & Hicks, 2007). The least level of SWB was obtained for illiterates (Mean = 0.05, n = 97) and literates (Mean = 0.15, n = 7). This finding is in line with the findings obtained by Campbell’s (1981) research where he found that college graduates reported greater SWB than those with no high school education (also Jin et al., 2020).

5.9.7 Profession The respondents in the present study belong to some 87 odd professions. An interesting observation is that some professions are very area-specific, for example, the housemaid or domestic assistant is one profession that seemed to be absent in the rural sample. Another insight from the study is that certain things are very context-specific when it comes to profession and SWB. This suggests that the meaning and construal of context may be a major factor in the construal of the concept of SWB. SWB is quite subjective, thus it is expected to be affected by personality and by interpretive and reporting styles (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Thus, the kind of professional training an

5.9 Demographics

145

individual gets, or the situation the individual is in, affects the responses and interpretations of the individual; for example, a doctor disagrees with feeling unhappy when seeing somebody wounded (also Okun & George, 1984). Professional fulfilment has been found to predict higher subjective well-being and flourishing at work (OliveiraSilva & Porto, 2021). However, it may not always be that a profession impacts SWB, but SWB can impact professional engagement or performance (Graham & Shier, 2010; Huang, 2018).

5.9.8 Work Experience The difference obtained in the mean levels of SWB and work experience in the present study is very small. The respondents having a work experience between 21 and 30 years (Mean = 0.24, n = 99) have been found to have a high level of SWB and respondents between 61 and 70 years (Mean = 0.03, n = 3) have been found to have a low level of SWB. A possible reason could be that young adults have a lot of enthusiasm when they begin working. It is these initial years that induce a sense of purpose and well-being into them. However, the number of years does not appear to be important in the later stages.

5.9.9 Area The findings obtained in the present research show that the respondents from the rural area (Mean = 0.27, n = 386) have been found to have a comparatively higher sense of subjective well-being than their urban counterparts (Mean = 0.26, n = 478). A probable explanation could be that the respondents from the rural area seem to gain happiness from simple things that life can provide for them and do not get upset over trivial things that they do not seem destined to (also see Lyubormisky, 2001). Rural respondents usually perform better on SWB than their urban counterparts (Burger et al., 2020). The level of SWB of slum respondents (Mean = 0.109, n = 408) is much smaller as compared to the other two areas. The findings are the same for the slum respondents with regards to satisfaction with life as well (Mean = 23.94); however, they are reversed in the case of the other two areas–urban (Mean = 25.17) and rural (Mean = 25.05). A possible reason is that in the urban area, plenty is available, people generally get what they want, and their wants keep increasing. The rural people seem to be quite content and seem to understand the reality of life. The concept of simplicity or leading a simple life is important and though deprived of a lot, these people can manage with whatever is available. The main problem is the people living in slums. They are aware of their rights and needs due to mass media and exposure

146

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

to city life. The gap between what they have and what they want to have is high, and hence their level of aspiration rises. This goal-achievement gap could be a possible reason that these people do not seem to be very happy. The findings of the demographic analysis suggest that though demographic variables account for very less variation in the levels of SWB, they are significant background factors to be understood to assess the level and reasons for SWB or SIB. The findings also indicate that the mean levels of satisfaction with life are comparatively higher for the demographic characteristics of the sample than the mean levels of SWB. In conclusion, both early and contemporary researchers see the experience of positive and negative affect as being independent of each other (Arthaud-Day et al., 2005; Bradburn, 1969; Diener & Emmons, 1985). Diener (1984) proposed the structure of SWB as having three components, which comprise both affect (greater positive and infrequent or lesser negative) and cognition. The proposition of the measurement of both aspects seems appropriate for the SWBM as the structure has been derived from the questions based on Diener’s (1984) framework. For example, people who seem to have high satisfaction with life, a high score on PANAS-PA and less on PANASNA still have a low level of SWB. This implies that although happiness reflects in the individual’s responses, there is a lack of certain things which would result in enhancing an individual’s SWB. The present research has not only been successful in conceptualizing SWB but also attempts to conceptualize subjective ill-being (SIB) and various levels of the two constructs. The SWBM has yielded a good model fit as per the CFA, and very high alpha value(s) (reliability). The different factors can be considered as separate scales. The validity analysis is what seems to be interesting and worth discussing here. Part I of the SWBM, which measures the positive factors (constituting positive affect and cognition), demonstrates a weak, insignificant, and negative correlation with PANAS-NA; similar are the values obtained between SWBM Part II (measuring negative affect) and PANAS-PA (refer to the Validity Analysis section above). There is a significant yet weak correlation between SWBM Part I and SWLS and SWBM Part II is not significantly related to SWLS. This supports the assertion that positive and negative affect are to be measured separately and explains why there is a weak correlation between SWBM and SWLS or PANAS, which are widely used as measures of SWB. The explanation further lies in the conceptualization of SWBM. SWBM essentially comprises the positive factors (positive affect and cognition) and negative factors (negative affect) unlike PANAS, heavily an affect scale; or SWLS, which is an evaluative (cognitive) approach. This implies that to reach an understandable SWB score both are required and not just one. It is important to note here that the difference between these well-being measures is not in the measurement but in the conceptualization. Equally important is to understand that SWBM treats the concept of happiness (as both short-term or momentary as well as long-term) and/or satisfaction with life as a sub-part of the umbrella concept of SWB. Are we then talking about the attribution or experience? SWLS and PANAS are about measuring the actual experiences of happiness, whereas SWBM is more about the causes of wellbeing. One possible reason for this could be that people do not introspect generally,

References

147

and therefore it is usually more about their understanding of what makes them happy and satisfied, rather than the actual experience and articulation of it. The “http://wor lddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl” can provide rich research literature in support of the findings. Another possibility could be socialization; the way Indians are trained and rooted in traditions or indigenous approaches—to be satisfied with what one has or to just feel fine and keep telling oneself that “this is destiny”, or that “life is transient”, or “this too shall pass”. The sense of well-being is thus enhanced to some extent. It may not be completely a false belief and may be a strategy to experience well-being, but it may also not be an actual experience of well-being. Further, the distinction between reflective and formative measures of well-being is worth discussing. Reflective measures capture manifestations of SWB, while formative measures capture the causes of SWB which are implicit in the definition and operationalization of the construct (Sirgy, 2002, 2013). The measured concept is reflected in all different indicators in the case of the reflective measures, whereas each indicator contributes specifically to the latent or measured concept in the case of the formative indicators and is not interchangeable (Coltman et al., 2008). The support from the theoretical premise often characterizes the formative measures. SWBM is more of a formative measure and more suited for measuring SWB in the way the study is designed, and the construct is conceptualized (unlike SWLS, which is a reflective measure of well-being). The SWBM yields a score and a salience profile at the individual level, and the interpretation of the level of well-being/illbeing/fuzzy (SWBM Index) has implications at the collective level. The next chapter discusses the analysis, profiling, and indexing of the SWBM.

References Agrawal, J., Murthy, P., Mariamma, P., Mehrotra, S., Thennarasu, K., John, P. J., Girish, N., Thippeswamy, V., & Isaac, M. (2011). Socio-demographic correlates of subjective well-being in urban India. Social Indicators Research, 101, 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-0109669-5 Akhtar-Danesh, N. (2017). A comparison between major factor extraction and factor rotation techniques in Q-methodology. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(04), 147. Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., & Dunn, E. W. (2009). From wealth to well-being? Money matters, but less than people think. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 523–527. Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., Mooney, C. H., & Near, J. P. (2005). The subjective wellbeing construct: A test of its convergent, discriminant, and factorial validity. Social Indicators Research, 74(3), 445–476. Bass, S. A. (1995). Older and active: How Americans over 55 are contributing to society. Yale University Press. Batz, C., & Tay, L. (2018). Gender differences in subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2001). Making the best of a bad situation: Satisfaction in the slums of Calcutta. Social Indicators Research, 55, 329–352. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.

148

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage. Burger, M. J., Morrison, P. S., Hendriks, M., & Hoogerbrugge, M. M. (2020). Urban-rural happiness differentials across the world. World Happiness Report, 2020, 66–93. Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: Recent patterns and trends. McGraw-Hill. Cao, Y., Krause, J. S., Saunders, L. L., & Clark, J. M. (2015). Impact of marital status on 20-year subjective well-being trajectories. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 21(3), 208–217. Carstensen, L. L. (1998). A life-span approach to social motivation. In J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span (pp. 341–364). Cambridge University Press. Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2002). Unemployment alters the set-point for life satisfaction. In Ed Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being, the collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 67–100). Social indicators research series, Springer Netherlands. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 95–144. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Veniak, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010079728426 Dasgupta, S. K., & Majumdar, S. (2000). Sense of well-being and perceived quality of life in Calcutta. In E. Diener & D. R. Rahtz (Eds.), Advances in quality of life theory and research (pp. 65–79). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin., 95, 542–575. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2000). New directions in subjective well-being research: The cutting edge. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27(1), 21–33. Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663. Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Diener, E., Gohm, C., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 419–436. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research, 28, 195–223. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216. Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). Subjective well-being and age: An international analysis. In K. W. Schaie & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics (Vol. 8, pp. 304–324). Springer. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25–41. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth (pp. 89–125). Academic Press. Ehrhardt, J. J., Saris, W. E., & Veenhoven, R. (2000). Stability of life-satisfaction over time: Analysis of change in ranks in a national population. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 177–205.

References

149

Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56–83. Furr, M. R., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Sage Publications Inc. Garson, D. G. (2020). Multilevel modeling: Applications in STATA®, IBM® SPSS®, SAS®, R & HLM™. Sage. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). A note on family situation and global happiness. Social Forces, 57, 960–967. Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Style, C. B. (1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 122–131. Graham, J. R., & Shier, M. L. (2010). The social work profession and subjective well-being: The impact of a profession on overall subjective well-being. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(5), 1553–1572. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp049 Guardiola, J., & Guillen-Royo, M. (2015). Income, unemployment, higher education and wellbeing in times of economic crisis: Evidence from Granada (Spain). Social Indicators Research, 120, 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0598-6 Hagerty, M. R., & Veenhoven, R. (2003). Wealth and happiness revisited—Growing national income does go with greater happiness. Social Indicators Research, 64, 1–27. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well- being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739. Hoorn, A. V. (2007, April). A short introduction to subjective well-being: it’s measurement, correlates and policy uses. Prepared for the international conference, “Is happiness measurable and what do those measures mean for policy?” Rome, Tor Vergata, Italy. Retrieved from http://www. oecd.org/dataoecd/16/39/38331839.pdf. Accessed on May 21, 2009. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Huang, P. H. (2018). Subjective well-being and the law. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Hultell, D., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the satisfaction with life scale in a Swedish nationwide sample of university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1070–1079. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University Press. Jin, Y., Li, Z., & An, J. (2020). Impact of education on Chinese urban and rural subjective well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105505. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). Russell Sage Foundation. Kalmijn, M. (2009). Country differences in the effects of divorce on well-being: The role of norms, support, and selectivity. European Sociological Review, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp035 Kashdan, T. B. (2004). The assessment of subjective well-being (issues raised by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire). Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1225–1232. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0191-8869(03)00213-7 Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022. King, L. A., & Hicks, J. A. (2007). Whatever happened to “what might have been”? American Psychologist, 62(2), 625–636. Lewis, C. A., Shevlin, M. E., Bunting, B. P., & Joseph, S. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the satisfaction with life scale: Replication and methodological refinement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 304–306. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1996). Discriminant validity of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. Lyubormisky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239–249.

150

5 Development and Standardization of the Subjective Well-Being …

MacConville, C., & Cooper, C. (1992). The structure of mood. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 909–919. Maithly, B., & Saxena, V. (2008). Adolescent’s educational status and reasons for dropout from the school. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 33, 127–128. Mc Callum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. McBride, M. (2001). Relative-income effects on subjective well-being in the cross-section. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 45, 251–278. Mroczek, D. K., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1333–1349. Okun, M. A., & George, L. K. (1984). Physician and self-ratings of health, neuroticism and subjective well-being among men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 533–539. Oliveira-Silva, L. C., & Porto, J. B. (2021). Subjective well-being and flourishing at work: The impact of professional fulfilment. Ram. Revista De Administração Mackenzie, 22(1), 1–24. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R. & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/978 1412984898. Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (6th ed.). Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303–316. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. Sacks, D. W., Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2012). The new stylized facts about income and subjective well-being. Emotion, 12(6), 1181–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029873 Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sirgy, M. J. (2013). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective. Springer, Netherlands. Tay, L., Zyphur, M., & Batz, C. L. (2018). Income and subjective well-being: Review, synthesis, and future research. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771). Allyn & Bacon. Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1–34. Veenhoven, R. (1997). Advances in understanding happiness. Revue Quebecoise De Psychologie, 18, 29–79. Veenhoven, R., & Vergunst, F. (2014). The Easterlin illusion: Economic growth does go with greater happiness. International Journal of Happiness and Development, 1, 311–343. Vitterso, J. (2001). Personality traits and subjective well-being: Emotional stability, not extraversion, is probably the important predictor. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 903–914. Vitterso, J., Roysamb, E., & Diener, E. (2002). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: Exploring its diverse meaning and relation to economic wealth. In E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), The universality of subjective wellbeing indicators (pp. 81–103). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X manual for the positive and negative affect schedule—Expanded form. University of Iowa.

References

151

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 249.

Chapter 6

Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

Abstract SWBM purports to enable individuals to understand themselves better by identifying the salient aspects of life enhancing and reducing their concept of SWB and contributing to societal and national well-being. This chapter discusses the analysis of the SWBM (SWB profile, general analysis for both Parts I and II, computation of a composite SWB score, and proposal of a SWB index). The index developed for SWB is a composite SWB score obtained by subtracting the final average score of Part II from that of the final average score of Part I and is indicative of the extent of subjective well-being or subjective ill-being or fuzzy subjective wellbeing, experienced by the individual at a collective level. About 50% of the sample fell into the low SWB category basis this study. The idea behind the SWBM is to enable individuals to understand themselves better and apply this understanding towards their well-being—being happier and more satisfied. Keywords SWBM · SWB Measurement (India) · SWB Profile · SWB Index · SWB National Measurement · SWB Levels of Indians · SWB Profile Salience (India) · Subjective Ill-Being (SIB) · Fuzzy SWB · SWB Demographics (India) · SWLS Demographics (India) · SWB Urban–Urban Slums–Rural India

The determinants of subjective well-being reflect the actual conditions in an individual’s life. Reports of SWB are likely to change through changes in these conditions. However, SWB measures are also expected to be relatively stable over time because there is stability in these conditions to some extent. Furthermore, SWB constructs are influenced by a variety of relatively stable personality factors (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Butkovic et al., 2012; Lucas in Diener et al., 2018), a finding that supports the notion that SWB should be relatively stable (Diener & Lucas, 2000; Lucas in Diener et al., 2018). To resolve this dilemma, the subjective wellbeing measure (SWBM) was standardized and shows robust psychometric properties (detailed in the previous chapter). However, once the score on well-being levels is obtained, the question is how to interpret this score; what does the score mean and what implications it has? The present chapter aims to discuss the analysis, profiling, and indexing of the SWBM.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 T. Bhatnagar, Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7_6

153

154

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

6.1 Analysis of the SWB Measure The SWBM is a 5-point scale developed to map the level of an individual’s well-being and is designed in such a way that it can identify the salient factors enhancing and reducing the concept of the individual’s well-being. This scale has been developed based on the conceptualization of subjective well-being resulting from the responses obtained from 184 respondents across ages, gender, and locales (as discussed in Chap. 4). To reiterate, the scale consists of two parts. Part I consists of 32 items distributed among 5 factors (that assess various determinants) measuring positive affect and cognition or positive factors (enhancers) that enhance the concept of SWB. Part II consists of 20 items distributed among 4 factors (that assess various determinants) measuring negative affect or negative factors (reducers) that reduce the concept of SWB. The scoring remains the same for both parts—5 for “Strongly Agree” and 1 for “Strongly Disagree”, though interpretations are reversed. A detailed description of these factors, the determinants they measure, and the number of items in them has been presented in Appendix J. Table 6.1 Factors and Range of Scores in SWBM (Parts I and II) Part

Factor No

Factor Description

I—Positive Factors

No. of Items

Possible Range of Raw Score (RS)

Possible Range of Average Score (AS)

32

32–160

1–5

I

Achievement and Recognition

10

10–50

1–5

II

Camaraderie

5

5–25

1–5

III

Contentment

11

11–55

1–5

IV

Relationships

4

4–20

1–5

V

Need Fulfilment

2

2–10

1–5

20

20–100

1–5

I

Social Sensitivity

6

6–30

1–5

II

Personal Sensitivity

7

7–35

1–5

III

Disappointments

3

3–15

1–5

IV

Individual Concerns

4

4–20

1–5

II—Negative Factors

Table 6.1 shows the factors, the number of items in each factor, and the possible range of raw and average scores. The scale has a twofold objective. The first one is at the individual level (to give a profile of factor salience for an individual and a general analysis for both parts), and the second one is at the collective level (to arrive at a composite SWB score which serves as an index). Kozma and Stones (1980) mentioned that a global score can be obtained by subtracting negative affect scores from the positive affect scores.

6.2 Individual Level Analysis—Profile of Factor Salience and General …

155

However, the distribution of items, factors, and range of scores as seen in Table 6.1 shows that coming up with a meaningful and interpretable composite well-being score is not very easy. An effort has been made through this research to achieve the twofold objective of the measure with the help of examples from the data collected.

6.2 Individual Level Analysis—Profile of Factor Salience and General Analysis of the Parts The analysis in this section is further divided into two parts: the first describes the method of profiling salient factors, and the latter describes the general analysis for both parts.

6.2.1 Profile—Factor Salience The scores obtained on every item have been added for each factor (for both the parts) ∑ separately ( {X 1 + X 2 + · · · }) to profile the salient factors of an individual’s well-being. It was important to arrive at a common representative score, to draw comparisons among the factors, because the number of items distributed in the factors is not the same. This has been done by averaging the raw score obtained on each factor for both parts (as discussed in the formulae below and explained by the example that follows), APF =

∑

X/NF

(6.1)

X/NF

(6.2)

and ANF =

∑

where, APF = ANF ∑ = = X= NF =

Average of Positive Factor Average of Negative Factor Sum of Total of Raw Scores obtained on the respective Factor No. of Items in the respective Factor.

156

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

Table 6.2 Example from Part I Factors

Sr. No

I

II

III

IV

V

1

5

5

5

2

3

2

5

5

5

5

4

3

4

4

5

4

4

5

5

4

4

5

4

5

5

6

5

5

7

5

5

8

4

5

9

4

4

10

4

5

11

5

Total

45

24

53

15

7

Average (APF1-5 )

4.5 (APF1 )

4.8 (APF2 )

4.81 (APF3 )

3.75 (APF4 )

3.5 (APF5 )

Table 6.2 shows the average scores of the respective factors in Part I from an illustration taken from the data. Table 6.3 Profile of Factor Salience for Part I Rank

Sr. No

Factor

Factor Description

No. of Items

RS

AS

1

1

III

Contentment

11

53

4.81

2

II

Camaraderie

5

24

4.8

2

3

I

Achievement and Recognition

10

45

4.5

3

4

IV

Relationships

4

15

3.75

4

5

V

Need fulfilment

2

7

3.5

Table 6.3 shows the factor salience for respondent X (taken from the sample). Contentment is the most important positive factor enhancing the respondent’s SWB.

6.2 Individual Level Analysis—Profile of Factor Salience and General …

157

Table 6.4 Example from Part II Factors

Sr. No

I

II

III

IV

1

4

4

3

2

2

4

2

4

1

3

4

4

4

2

4

4

5

5

4

4

6

5

3

7

4

4

Total

25

26

11

9

Average (ANF1–4 )

4.166 (ANF1 )

3.71 (ANF2 )

3.66 (ANF3 )

2.25 (ANF4 )

Table 6.4 shows the average scores of the respective factors in Part II from an illustration taken from the data. Table 6.5 Profile of Factor Salience for Part II Rank

Sr. No

Factor

Factor Description

No. of Items

RS

AS

1

1

I

Social Sensitivity

6

25

4.16

2

2

II

Personal Sensitivity

7

26

3.71

3

3

III

Disappointments

3

11

3.66

4

4

IV

Individual Concerns

4

9

2.25

Table 6.5 shows the factor salience for respondent X (taken from the sample). Social Sensitivity is the most important negative factor reducing the respondent’s SWB. Tables 6.3 and 6.5 show how the profiles of factor salience can be drawn, for both the parts separately, for the respondent.

6.2.2 General Analysis of the Parts After averaging the totals of each factor for both parts, the next step was to compute a comparable score for both Parts I and II. It was important to arrive at a comparable score because of the unequal number of factors for both parts (5 for Part I and 4 for Part II). Therefore, initially, the averages of each factor were summed for both Parts I and II separately, APF = ANF = where,

∑ (APF1 + APF2 + · · · APF5 ) for Part I ∑

(ANF1 + ANF2 + · · · ANF4 )for Part II

(6.3) (6.4)

158

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

∑

= Sum of APF = Sum of Average of Positive Factors (1–5) & ANF = Sum of Average of Negative Factors (1–4) Taking from the mentioned example (substituting for Formulae 6.3 and 6.4), APF = 4.5 + 4.8 + 4.81 + 3.75 + 3.5 = 21.36 ANF = 4.16 + 3.71 + 3.66 + 2.25 = 13.78 Later, the total of averages obtained on each part was divided by its respective number of factors to arrive at a comparable (average) score. Inequalities in the parts were, thus, taken care of. Therefore, ∑ Af PF = APF/NF PI (6.5) and Af NF =

∑

ANF/NF PII

(6.6)

where, Af PF = A ∑f NF = ∑ APF and ANF = N F PI and N F PII =

Final Average of Positive Factors Final Average of Negative Factors Sum of Averages for Parts I and II respectively No. of Factors in Parts I and II respectively

Taking from the mentioned example (substituting for Formulae 5 and 6), Af PF = 21.36/5 = 4.27 Af NF = 13.78/4 = 3.44 Two comparable scores have been obtained for every respondent with the help of the above-mentioned calculations. These scores have enabled the researcher to arrive at the desired composite SWB score, which has been discussed in the latter part of the SWBM analysis. Table 6.6 Summary of the General Analysis of SWBM for both the Parts Part I

Example of Part I

Part II

Example of Part II

No. of Items

32

32

20

20

Raw Score

32–160 (Range)

144 (Obtained)

20–100 (Range)

71 (Obtained)

Average Score

5–25 (Range)

21.36 (Obtained)

4–20 (Range)

13.78 (Obtained)

Average of Average Scores 1–5 (Final Average or Af PF (Range) and Af NF)

4.27 (Obtained)

1–5 (Range)

3.44 (Obtained)

6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score …

159

Table 6.6 shows that by merely looking at the values obtained because of the general analysis, of the possible range of maximum and minimum scores, an idea of the level of an individual’s concept of well-being or ill-being (concept of reduced well-being) can be arrived at. However, these separate values are not interpretable and sufficient in providing a composite well-being score. The method used to arrive at that score has been discussed in the following section of the analysis.

6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score: Proposal for a SWB Index The higher the score obtained in Part I of the SWBM, the higher the concept of an individual’s well-being (positive factors enhancing the concept of SWB); and the higher the score obtained in Part II, the higher the concept of an individual’s ill-being (negative factors reducing the concept of SWB). It is further proposed that SWB is equal to the mean difference obtained, by subtracting the final mean score of negative factors (Part II or Af NF) from the final mean score of positive factors (Part I or Af PF), and that a range of several combinations of response scores is possible through these two scores (Af PF and Af NF). It is quite likely that subtracting Af NF from Af PF can result in scores that have negative values. This will happen when the score obtained by the respondent in Part II (negative factors) is higher than the score obtained in Part I (positive factors). This is the condition of subjective ill-being (SIB). The strength of SWBM lies in the fact that the scale does not only emphasize wellbeing in terms of the positive factors (positive affect and cognition) but also considers the negative factors (negative affect) and gives a global score that is computed by considering both the scores and is a representation of both the factors. This results in three types of conditions—positive scores (subjective well-being or SWB), 0 scores (fuzzy concept of SWB or FSWB), and negative scores (subjective ill-being or SIB). These three conditions are further classified into categories which depict the level of SWB or SIB based on the possible combinations. The assessment of being in a condition of SWB or SIB or even FSWB can be calculated with the help of the following formula (in reference to the given condition), SWB = Af PF − Af NF(when Af PF > Af NF)

(6.7)

SIB = Af PF − Af NF(when Af PF < Af NF)

(6.8)

FSWB = Af PF − Af NF(when Af PF = Af NF)

(6.9)

where, SWB/SIB/FSWB = Subjective Well − Being/Subjective Ill

160

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

− Being/Fuzzy concept of SWB Af PF = Final Average of Positive Factors (Part I) Af NF = Final Average of Negative Factors (Part II) Taking from the mentioned example (substituting for Formula 6.7), SWB = 4.27 − 3.44 = 0.83 The value of 0.83 is indicative of a positive score, i.e. a condition of SWB. However, it has no meaning or implication unless interpreted. To interpret the obtained score and assess the level of individual well-being in comparison with others, it is important to have some categories which lead to the interpretations of the score. To work on interpreting the scores, it is first necessary to understand the possible combinations of the scores. Table 6.7 Combinations of Response Scores Part I—Positive Factors: Positive Affect and Cognition (Final Average Score) Part II Negative Factors Negative Affect (Final Average Score)

1

1

2

3

4

5

01

1

2

3

4

2

−1

02

1

2

3

3

−2

−1

03

1

2

4

−3

−2

−1

04

1

5

−4

−3

−2

−1

05

Conditions of SWB or SIB or FSWB

The matrix in Table 6.7 shows the possible combinations of the mean difference of average scores obtained on both parts, which result in three types of scores, each comprising five conditions. The three types of scores (positive scores, negative scores, and 0 scores) have enabled the classification of these fifteen conditions. This classification serves as an index to understand the level of SWB or SIB or even FSWB. The three types of scores, along with their conditions, are explained as follows:

6.3.1 The Positive Scores (SWB) Positive scores are obtained given the condition that the score obtained on the positive factor is greater than the score obtained on the negative factor (Af PF > Af NF). There is a possible range of such scores. This gives rise to five conditions:

6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score …

161

1. In the case of the Ideal Score, 4 (range: 3.1–4) This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SWB is 4, i.e. the Af PF is 5 and the Af NF is 1. This is the ideal condition where the respondent has a very high concept of well-being and a very low concept of ill-being. 2. When the Mean Difference is 3 (range: 2.1–3) This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SWB is 3, i.e. when the values of Af PF are 4 or 5 and that of Af NF are 1 and 2, respectively (4–1, 5–2). This is a condition where the respondent has a high or very high concept of well-being and a very low or low concept of ill-being. 3. When the Mean Difference is 2 (range: 1.1–2) This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SWB is 2, i.e. when the values of Af PF are 3, 4, or 5 and that of Af NF is 1, 2, and 3, respectively (3–1, 4–2, and 5–3). This is a condition where the respondent has an average or high or very high concept of well-being and a very low, low, or average concept of ill-being. 4. When the Mean Difference is 1 (range: 0.1–1) This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SWB is 1, i.e. when the values of Af PF are 2, 3, 4, or 5 and that of Af NF is 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (2–1, 3–2, 4–3, and 5–4). This is a condition where the respondent has a low, average, high, or very high concept of well-being and a very low, low, average, or high concept of ill-being. 5. When the Mean Difference is in the range of 0.01–0.09 This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SWB is in the range from 0.01 to 0.09. This is when the mean difference value of Af PF and Af NF is very low. Therefore, the result is generally a very low concept of SWB.

6.3.2 The 0 Scores (FSWB) To properly interpret a test score of zero, it is important to understand which meaning is represented by that 0. A score of zero is considered an arbitrary zero because it does not truly reflect the absence of the attribute (Furr & Bacharach, 2008). This happens to be the case while computing the SWB score. For example, a very high concept of SWB (Af PF = 5) and a very high concept of SIB (Af NF = 5) would produce a score of zero. This does not mean that the individual has no concept of well-being, in fact; s/he has a very high concept of SWB. However, the effect is being nullified due to a very high concept of SIB as well. Similarly, when both the Af PF and Af NF scores are 1, the individual has a very low concept of well-being, which is nullified

162

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

by a very low concept of SIB as well. There is a fine line between the two scores concerning the interpretation, as a very low concept of SIB is somewhat an indicator of a very low condition of SWB and vice-versa. Respondents who fall into this 0 score category seem to be somewhat unsure, and thus, it should be considered a state of fuzzy well-being (FSWB). A score of zero on SWBM would be obtained given the condition that there is no mean difference between the score obtained on the positive factor and the score obtained on the negative factor. In other words, a score of 0 would be obtained when Af PF is equal to Af NF. There is a possible range of such scores. This gives rise to five conditions: 1. When both Af PF and Af NF are 1: a condition of 01 In this condition, the respondent has a very low concept of both SWB as well as SIB. 2. When both Af PF and Af NF are 2: a condition of 02 In this condition, the respondent has a low concept of both SWB as well as SIB. 3. When both Af PF and Af NF are 3: a condition of 03 In this condition, the respondent has an average concept of both SWB as well as SIB. 4. When both Af PF and Af NF are 4: a condition of 04 In this condition, the respondent has a high concept of both SWB as well as SIB. 5. When both Af PF and Af NF are 5: a condition of 05 In this condition, the respondent has a very high concept of both SWB as well as SIB.

6.3.3 The Negative Scores (SIB) Negative scores are obtained given the condition that the score obtained on the positive factor is smaller than the score obtained on the negative factor (Af PF < Af NF). There is a possible range of such scores. This gives rise to five conditions: 1. When the Mean Difference is in the range of − 0.01 to − 0.09 This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SIB is in the range from − 0.01 to − 0.09. This is when the mean difference value of Af PF and Af NF is very low. Therefore, the result is generally a very low concept of SIB. 2. When the Mean Difference is − 1 (range: − 0.01 to − 1) This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SIB is − 1, i.e. when the values of Af PF are either 1, 2, 3, or 4 and that of Af NF is 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively (1–2, 2–3, 3–4, and 4–5). This is a condition where the respondent has a very low, low, average, or high concept of well-being and a low, average, high, or very high concept of ill-being respectively.

6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score …

163

3. When the Mean Difference is − 2 (range: − 1.1 to − 2) This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SIB is − 2, i.e. when the values of Af PF are 1, 2, or 3 and that of Af NF are 3, 4, and 5, respectively (1–3, 2–4, and 3–5). This is a condition where the respondent has a very low, low, or an average concept of well-being and an average, high, or very high concept of ill-being. 4. When the Mean Difference is − 3 (range: − 2.1 to − 3) This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SIB is − 3, i.e. when the values of Af PF are 1 or 2 and that of Af NF are 4 and 5, respectively (1–4, 2–5). This is a condition where the respondent has a very low or low concept of well-being and a high or very high concept of ill-being. 5. When the Mean Difference is − 4 (range: − 3.1 to − 4) This condition is possible when the mean difference obtained for SIB is − 4, i.e. the Af PF is 1 and the Af NF is 5. This is the condition where the respondent has a very low concept of well-being and a very high concept of ill-being. The above conditions (range of scores) facilitate the classification of interpretable categories as follows: Table 6.8 Interpretable Classification of a Composite SWB/SIB Score Mean Difference

Range

Category

1

4

3.1–4

Very High SWB (VHSWB)

2

3

2.1–3

High SWB (HSWB)

3

2

1.1–2

Average SWB (ASWB)

4

1

0.1–1

Low SWB (LSWB)

5

Between 0.01 and 0.09

0.01–.09

Very Low SWB (VLSWB)

1

Between − 0.01 and − 0.09

− 0.01 to − 0.09

Very Low SIB (VLSIB)

2

−1

− 0.1 to − 1

Low SIB (LSIB)

3

−2

− 1.1 to − 2

Average SIB (ASIB)

Condition SWB (Positive Scores) Af PF > Af NF

SIB (Negative Scores) Af PF < Af NF

4

−3

− 2.1 to − 3

High SIB (HSIB)

5

−4

− 3.1 to − 4

Very High SIB (VHSIB)

164

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

Table 6.9 Interpretable Classification of a Composite FSWB Score Condition FSWB (0 score) Af PF = Af NF

1

Score

Description

Category

01

1–1 (VLSWB–VLSIB)

FSWB 1

2

02

2–2 (LSWB–LSIB)

FSWB 2

3

03

3–3 (ASWB–ASIB)

FSWB 3

4

04

4–4 (HSWB–HSIB)

FSWB 4

5

05

5–5 (VHSWB–VHSIB)

FSWB 5

The data has been aptly interpreted with the classification as shown in Tables 6.8 and 6.9. Table 6.10 draws a comparison for the three respondents taken as examples from the data set. It is indicative of the appropriateness of the categorization. This categorization seems to be logical and meaningful. For example, an individual scoring high in Part I (Af PF = 4.83) and high in Part II (Af NF = 4.8125) is certainly going to have a very low SWB, as his/her positivity is being tremendously reduced due to excessive negativity. Comparisons drawn in the above table also show a difference between categories based on obtained final average scores. Therefore, this method of arriving at an index is recommended. The purpose of the development of this index is to facilitate communication about the functioning and needs of individuals in society. The purpose of the SWB measure is to create awareness in the respondent about his/her well-being, both at the individual and collective levels and to enable the respondent to identify the salient factors enhancing or reducing the concept of his/ her well-being. The objective is to motivate and enable the individual towards overcoming negativity and focusing on the salient domains inducing greater positivity. This will enable the individual to be happier, be satisfied, and experience a high SWB. The strength of the SWBM lies in the fact that unlike measures of similar constructs in the field, it equally emphasizes both positive and negative factors (SWB and SIB), which in the present case is an outcome of systematic research. The central precept of SWB research is that though it is difficult to measure people’s cognitive and affective reactions to life as a whole or in specific domains (Diener & Suh, 1997; Pavot, 2018), SWB can directly capture people’s actual experiences, unlike economic and environmental indicators. To reiterate, SWB is a combination of both affective and cognitive components. Life satisfaction involves one’s evaluation of one’s life against some standard. Happiness, on the other hand, is more emotional. People simply report they are happy which is an emotional reaction without actually knowing why they feel the way they do (Diener et al., 2003). Researchers like Campbell (1976) and Crooker and Near (1995) have viewed life satisfaction as the cognitive element and happiness as the affective element of subjective well-being. Pavot (2018) summarizes that irrespective of the structure of subjective well-being, it will in general have at least two facets—one the “affective aspect of subjective experiences” and second the “cognitive, evaluative, or reflective aspect”.

Average Range

144

131

157

2

3

32–160

32–160

32–160

5–25 1–5

24.15

4.83

5–25 1–5

3.812

4.27

19.06

5–25 1–5

21.36

97

65

71

Part II

APF and Af PF

Raw Score Total

Raw Score Range

Part I

Raw Score Total

1

Respondent Sr. No

Table 6.10 Comparisons with the help of Examples from the Data

20–100

20–100

20–100

Raw Score Range

4.8125

19.25

3.155

12.62

3.45

13.78

ANF and Af NF

1–5

4–20

1–5

4–20

1–5

4–20

Average Range

0.0175

0.657

0.82

Difference

VLSWB

LSWB

LSWB

Interpretation/ Category

6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score … 165

166

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

Researchers in the field are interested in separately assessing domain satisfactions that are particularly relevant for the population group they are studying (also Veenhoven, 2017), for example, students may be concerned about grades and learning, whereas older adults may be more concerned about their health and social support. Thus, domain satisfaction scores may provide information about how individuals judge their overall well-being and more detailed information about specific aspects of one’s life—well or poorly. It is important to realize that the domain hierarchy reflects the domain salience of an individual. That is domains in which a person has invested a considerable amount of effort to enhance positive affect or reduce negative affect, the positive domains or factors are likely to be more elevated than the negative ones or those in which there is a less emotional investment involved (e.g. McCall & Simmons, 1978; Rosenberg, 1979; Sirgy, 2012). This salience of hierarchy further influences selfevaluations (Sirgy, 2002). Ed Diener (1984) in his classic review of SWB states that “domains that are closest and most immediate to people’s personal lives, are those that most influence their subjective well-being”. Also, “increasing the salience of the positive life domains serves to decrease the salience of the negative life domains; this, in turn, serves to decrease the negative spillover from that domain to overall life” (c.f. Sirgy, 2002). The analysis of the SWBM suggests the factor salience for both subjective wellbeing as well as for subjective ill-being. The positive factors enhancing the concept of SWB (in the order of higher mean scores) were Achievement & Recognition (with a mean value of 4.63), Contentment (4.55), Relationships (4.53), Camaraderie (4.48), and Need Fulfilment (4.38). The negative factors reducing the concept of SWB or inducing the concept of SIB (in the order of higher mean scores) were Personal Sensitivity (4.44), Disappointments (4.41), Social Sensitivity (4.37), and Individual Concerns (3.96). Achievement and Recognition in daily activities seem to be very important in inducing a positive feeling among individuals. This sense of achievement could be due to any reason—a child doing well in school, a professional getting a promotion, or a homemaker being recognized for her domestic efficiency. The other factor, which is contentment, is something very peculiar to Indian society. Even if people suffer from a lack of resources and a low quality of life, they are still contented with whatever they have. Contentment seems more important than Need Fulfilment (which emerges as the factor with the least mean scores) in enhancing the concept of well-being. It is interesting to note that relationships are not the factor with the highest scores. There is a possibility that the youth of today gives more importance to professional success and growth. They see it as the most important means to lead a quality life. Sensitive issues in the personal context (which refer to the self and significant others—family and close friends) emerge as the factor with high mean scores. Therefore, this appears to be an important factor in reducing the concept of SWB as compared to social issues. Likewise, the factor, “Disappointments” (related to the individual) has a higher mean score than “Individual Concerns” (which also involve others) which implies that Disappointments result more in reducing the concept of SWB as compared to Individual Concerns.

6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score …

167

Fig. 6.1 Classification of SWB, SIB, and FSWB for the Research Sample

Figure 6.1 shows that almost half of the respondents from the entire sample (n = 638/1272) demonstrate a low level of subjective well-being (LSWB). The next higher number of respondents (n = 245/1272) experience a low subjective ill-being (LSIB). The other two are very low subjective well-being (VLSWB, n = 150/1272) and very low subjective ill-being (VLSIB, n = 144/1272). It is indicative of the fact that people are trying to balance themselves—preventing negative affect to go below an intolerable threshold (Cummins, 1998 and Sirgy, 2002). There are more respondents from the urban area as compared to rural and slum areas in the LSWB category. The number of rural respondents experiencing VLSWB is a little lesser. It has been observed that a few older adult respondents from the rural areas experience VLSWB as compared to the greater number of slum and urban older adults. This shows that with experience people learn to maintain the threshold of SWB and prevent them from falling into a condition of SIB. There are a few respondents (n = 35/1272) who experience average SWB (ASWB), out of which a larger number belong to the rural area. About 3% of respondents of the entire sample (n = 39/1272) have a fuzzy concept of SWB condition 5 (FSWB 5), out of which most of the respondents belong to the rural area (n = 23), a few from slums (n = 8), and yet a few from urban areas (n = 8). This is a condition

168

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

of VHSWB and VHSIB. These respondents come across as being confused about their life and experience both conditions (SWB and SIB) at a high level. It is also interesting to observe that there is only one respondent who experiences HSIB. This respondent is a young urban male adult, who works in a big organization and draws a very handsome pay package. This might imply that money may not be the most responsible for enhancing the concept of well-being. Similarly, there is only one older adult (male) respondent from the slum area, who has an average SIB (ASIB). This respondent is not very happy with his circumstances and wants to go back to his native place. He feels dejected and cheated. There are also a few cases (n = 5) of the fuzzy concept of SWB condition 4 (FSWB 4—the condition of HSWB and HSIB). There is not a single respondent falling in the category of VHSIB. Eight respondents out of the entire sample experienced a condition of VHSWB. It is very interesting to note that all of them are children and belong to rural areas. These children are very happy with whatever limited means they have and do not wish for more, and their day-to-day pleasant moments add to their SWB. The findings of the SWLS show that most of the respondents (around 77%, n = 978/1272) were either slightly satisfied (n = 370) or satisfied (n = 364) or extremely satisfied (n = 244) with their lives. Some respondents (n = 165) were slightly dissatisfied with their lives, very few respondents were either dissatisfied (n = 61) or neutral (n = 52) on SWLS, and very, very few respondents (n = 16) were extremely dissatisfied with their lives. Satisfaction with life is an important component of SWB but is a distinct construct. The findings on both the SWBM and the SWLS show some sort of similarity (though not much) regarding the respondent’s evaluation of his/her life. The findings that most Indians experience LSWB are in line with the literature (see Diener et al., 1997, https://worlddatabaseofhappiness-archive.eur.nl/hap_nat/nat_fp. php?cntry=5&mode=3&subjects=320&publics=55 accessed on 5 July 2022 at 10:00 am IST; Veenhoven, 2018). Though people experience LSWB in general, they seem to be efficient enough to prevent themselves from experiencing high levels of SIB. There are a lot of problems and ample situations present in and around the individual’s environment that may induce unpleasant emotions. People with low levels of income must constantly struggle for their survival, but still, they cope with situations and try to be happy in whatever they can. People tend to be happy and prevent unhappiness in general. “Research demonstrates, however, that most people have SWB above neutral”. (c.f. Diener & Diener, 1996), for example, about 85% of people report a positive level of SWB in the USA. In some domains such as family life, even higher percentages report satisfaction (Diener et al., 1996). India is found to be in the mid-range on satisfaction (6.2) and ranks 45th on the SWLS (Veenhoven, 2007 in Farid & Lazarus, 2008; world data base of happiness). Most people appear to experience a moderately positive level of well-being; however, the levels at which they experience well-being vary. This means that SWB is under the influence of the homeostatic system designed to hold its value within a narrow, positive, and set-point range for everyone (Cummins et al., in Gullone &

6.3 Collective Level Analysis—To Arrive at a Composite SWB Score …

169

Cummins, 2002). If the salience of the positive life domains is increased, it results in a decrease in the salience of negative life domains. This subsequently serves to decrease the negative spillover from that domain to overall life (Sirgy, 2002). This strategy of optimizing SWB is based on the notion of homeostasis as given by Sirgy (2002). People with high SWB not only experience positive events more objectively, but they also seem to perceive events more positively compared to people with low SWB. It is quite probable that people who experience positive emotions intensely will likely experience negative emotions intensely. This is what leads to the condition of experiencing fuzzy subjective well-being. The findings can be explained with the help of the theories of adaptation (Diener et al., 1997, 2006) and the social production function (SPF) theory (Nieboer & Lindenberg in Gullone & Cummins, 2002). These theories explain why people are fairly satisfied with their lives even when they lack important resources. According to the adaptation theory, good and bad events temporarily affect happiness, but people quickly adapt back to hedonic neutrality. According to the SPF theory, people have multiple means for reaching their goals and they also use a variety of means simultaneously, thus building buffers against loss of subjective well-being should a particular means become inaccessible for whatever reason. People are also resourceful in substituting across different domains of life. The findings of the present research find strong explanations in the Indian approaches and traditions (discussed in the Introduction chapter) like Spirituality, Buddhism, lessons from Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, and Vedas that stress how satisfaction and stoicism can help avoid negative affect. It is about karmas, dharmas, and transcending to the levels of oneness where the pleasant and unpleasant cease to exist. Cultural differences are very important in explaining the differences in mean levels of SWB. It enables us to understand how important SWB is considered in any society. The conditions prevalent in society make a difference to SWB. The variables that most influence SWB can be moderated by culture as well. The assessment of SWB across societies is a challenge. However, the measures of SWB have some degree of cross-cultural validity (Oishi, 2018). Not only do different cultures influence levels of SWB differently, but they also have differences in their conceptualizations to some extent. These differences emerge as a result of differences in traditions and socialization patterns. The findings suggest that there may be motives that correlate universally with well-being and still other motives or goals that are culture-specific correlates of well-being (Diener et al., 2003; Tov & Diener, 2009; Tov & Nai, 2018). Material life is relatively important in the Indian context. However, it is not the only defining SWB domain in the Indian context. Some studies also show a negative correlation between materialism and well-being (e.g. Kaur & Kaur, 2016). Misra (2009) suggests that “the relationship between life satisfaction and economic growth is not linear and after a certain level, there is no corresponding increase in life satisfaction with the increase in the economic status”. Family life is very important in the Indian context (also Khan & Husain, 2010; Sooryamoorthy, 2012). Literature also suggests that relationships are generally at or very near to the top in any list of

170

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

determinants of SWB (Argyle, 1987 and Myers, 1999; Delle Fave et al., 2016) or the importance of relationships is the same across nations (Ngamaba, 2017) or that they are so important that people think about relationships while making decisions of their well-being (Anusic & Lucas, 2014; Clark et al., 2008; Luhmann et al., 2014; Myers & Diener, 1995). For example, most people stated that happiness obtained from being in the company of family and one obtained from being in the company of friends were different and further stated that family is first and friends are not always that important. Work and recreation or leisure occupy smaller portions of the distribution pie in the Indian context (refer to Fig. 2 in Chap. 4). Social life is very important in the Indian context as it is believed by many a collectivist society. The major source of happiness lies within an individual’s family. Many festivals and get-togethers act as a source of recreation and leisure. People give importance to work, but work is not as important as family. People seem to be ready to sacrifice their ambitions for their close ones. On the other hand, the west seems to be more individualist; hence, the domains like work and leisure seem to be salient (Sirgy, 2002). Most of the findings in the study can be explained through Indian approaches towards the understanding of the concept of well-being, for example, the concept of controlling one’s thoughts or mind—stithapragya or stoicism, anasakti or disengagement, meditation, and keeping a balanced approach (sama). This explanation finds support in indigenous research (e.g. Singh et al., 2013, 2017; Srivastava & Misra, 2011) and in cultural studies conducted on East Asian and Western European and Latin American cultures (e.g. Schimmack et al., 2002; Peng & Nisbett, 1999; Kitayama et al., 2000; Scollon et al., 2004; Diener et al., 2018a, 2018b; Suh & Choi, 2018; Swaminathan et al., 2021). These studies conclude that views of pleasant and unpleasant emotions might be rooted in the dialecticism of Asian philosophies, for example, in Chinese folk wisdom the two sides of a contradiction are likely in equal probability and a middle way between the two is preferable (Lomas, 2021; Swaminathan et al., 2021). To quote Kitayama et al. (2000), “East Asian emotion norms may be dialectical in the sense that a middle way between extreme pleasant and extreme unpleasant affect is considered desirable”. This is similar to the Indian balanced approach towards life as proposed by various traditions like Bhagavad Gita, Buddhism, Vedanta, and others. Literature suggests an implication for the present research that caution must be taken not to equate lower levels of well-being as experiencing ill-being. Different culture advocates different preferences for low versus high activation of positive affect (e.g. Ruby et al., 2012; Tsai et al., 2006). Balance and moderation are central to East Asian subjective well-being concepts of health (Kitayama & Markus, 2000; Misra, 2018; Srivastava & Misra, 2011). It has been established in the literature that India is a collectivist society (Chadda & Deb, 2013; Sinha, 1984; Verma, 2020). When people talk about well-being, they do not consider only themselves; they consider the happiness and well-being of their significant others too. This could be their immediate or extended family and circle of close friends. Similarly, when people talk of relationships in the Indian context, they are mostly familial relationships (also Misra, 2009). Interpersonal relationships

6.4 Researcher’s Insights

171

matter to them at a social level and not a personal level. This is also reflected in the way items are formulated, verbatim from people’s accounts. It is due to the collectivist nature of the Indian society that determinants like children’s well-being, acceptability, blessings and good wishes, helping attitude, individual contribution to the society, social work, festivals, adjustability, and many others have emerged (as discussed in Chap. 4). Although there might seem to be a trade-off with personal freedom, the strength of collectivist culture lies in the fact that the support of loved ones acts as a buffer in times of depression or SIB. The culture of the Indian society helps people to prevent a condition of high SIB even though people are found to be low on SWB on average. Last, but not least, though individualists may experience more extreme levels of SWB and there might be fewer people who are very happy among collectivists, the collectivist structure is such that it provides that there might be fewer still who are isolated and depressed (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2000; Uchida & Oishi, 2016). The concept of resource scarcity in the perception of happiness (Shin & Suh, 2017; Suh & Choi, 2018) also offers an interesting point of view.

6.4 Researcher’s Insights Certain observations from the study would be interesting to share here. . Children and adolescents and young adults have mostly strongly disagreed about the statement, “Money alone cannot guarantee a good life”, but many middleaged respondents have either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. This suggests that as age increases, people become more realistic and try to be content with whatever they have. . A 37-year-old male slum respondent showed some concern on the item, “I am unhappy when I fail on the professional front”. He elaborated that success or failure in the profession is not the main issue for him. He feels upset when he is not employed. This implies that for people—who do not have work or who have work sometimes and no work at other times—getting work becomes the priority and its stability is also very crucial to them. Success and failure come at a later stage in determining the SWB of such individuals. Items like this seem to be quite insightful and inferential. . In the process of data collection, there were times when I engaged in conversation with the respondents (especially for the purpose of building rapport). These conversations led me to some interesting insights. One such insight came from an observation made by a female rural respondent in her response to the item, “I feel bad when I don’t do well in studies”. It was found that she felt bad that she could not get formal education. Interestingly, it was observed upon probing that she did not allow her daughter to go for higher studies due to social constraints. This observation hints at the fact that reality and environment seem to play a critical

172

. .

.

.

.

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

role in compelling people to surrender to circumstances and do what they don’t want to do. This can be a reason causing the state of ill-being. A general disagreement with the item, “Outings with my friends make me happy” has been reported especially by middle-aged and older adult slum respondents. Two or more respondents from the same family participated in some cases of this study. However, they have been treated as independent samples. An interesting thing to note is that sometimes the responses of husband and wife, on similar issues that concern both alike, are also very different. This establishes the significance of subjectivity in experiencing affect. While collecting data from respondents who belonged to very low-income groups, it was often felt that for those respondents who do not even have basic necessities met or access to, it seems very difficult to relate to concepts of a good life in a more complete sense. There are differences in how emotions are clustered across cultures. In the present research, the word “proud” (garva) was observed to carry a negative connotation (ghamand) during data collection. The researcher had to explain the meaning of the translation (garva) to elicit the appropriate responses on the scale (Diener et al., 2004; Scollon et al., 2004; and Shaver et al., 1992). These cultural notions are very important in understanding SWB in cultural contexts. People, who give a lot of importance to wealth compared to close relationships or personal growth or to goals that are closely related to basic psychological Need Fulfilment, are likely to experience lower well-being. The SWB scores from the three examples (see Table 6.10) are an illustration of this explanation.

This type of research raises issues like what could be the outcomes of an individual’s well-being for significant others, for example, family or friends and who are the beneficiaries of individual well-being? Interpersonal relationships, perceptual productivity in workplaces, personality traits, and adaptability to change could be some of the outcomes of SWB. The whole idea behind the development and indexing of the SWBM is to facilitate people being aware of what is important for them to feel happy and good about and how to focus on enhancing SWB and reducing SIB. The study also emphasizes that although inherent factors play a fundamental role in SWB, individual, contextual, and situational factors are also important sources of difference in SWB scores. Research related to the conceptualization, development, and indexing of measures for well-being in specific contexts is critical to our understanding of different societies for a global and comprehensive construction of the context. Aware individuals will make happy and productive societies, which in turn will make this world a better place to live in. Every society and culture with its uniqueness and shared offerings has something to contribute to the well-being of humanity.

References

173

References Anusic, I., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Do social relationships buffer the effects of widowhood? A prospective study of adaptation to the loss of a spouse. Journal of Personality, 82(5), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12067 Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. Methuen. Butkovic, A., Brkovic, I., & Bratko, D. (2012). Predicting well-being from personality in adolescents and older adults. Journal of Happiness Studies., 13, 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902011-9273-7 Campbell, A. C. (1976). Subjective measures of well-being. American Psychologist, 31, 117–124. Chadda, R. K., & Deb, K. S. (2013). Indian family systems, collectivistic society and psychotherapy. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(2). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.105555. (PMID: 23858272; PMCID: PMC3705700). Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 95–144. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the neo personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863. Crooker, K. J., & Near, J. P. (1995). Happiness and satisfaction: Measures of affect and cognition? In H. L. Meadow & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Development in quality-of-life studies in marketing (Vol. 5, pp. 160–166). Academy of Marketing Science and the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies. Cummins, R. A. (1998). The second approximation to an international standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 43, 307–334. Cummins, R. A., Gullone, E., & Lau, A. L. D. (2002). A model of subjective well-being homeostasis: The Role of Personality. In E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), The universality of subjective wellbeing indicators: A multi-disciplinary and multi-national perspective (pp. 7–46). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Wissing, M. P., Araujo, U., Castro Solano, A., Freire, T., Hernández-Pozo, M. D. R., Jose, P., Martos, T., Nafstad, H. E., & Soosai-Nathan, L. (2016). Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 30. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis, & J. M. HavilandJones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 325–337). Guilford. Diener, M. L., Fujita, F., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2004). Culture and emotional experience. Manuscript Submitted for Publication. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill. Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist. 61(4), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.61.4.305. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018a). Advances and open questions in the science of subjective well-being. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1). Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (Eds.). (2018b). Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2000). New directions in subjective well-being research: The cutting edge. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27(1), 21–33. Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7, 181–185. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.

174

6 Subjective Well-Being Measure: Profiling and Indexing

Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25–41. Farid, M., & Lazarus, H. (2008). Subjective well-being in rich and poor countries. Journal of Management Development, 27(10), 1053–1065. Furr, M. R., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Sage Publications Inc. Gullone, E., & Cummins, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). The universality of subjective well-being indicators: A multi-disciplinary and multi-national perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kaur, H., & Kaur, R. (2016). Effects of materialism on well-being: A review. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3 (4). https://doi.org/10.25215/0304.005.(DIP: 18.01.005/20160304) Khan, A., & Husain, A. (2010). Social support as a moderator of positive psychological strengths and subjective well-being. Psychological Reports, 106(2), 534–538. Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (2000). The pursuit of happiness and the realization of sympathy: Cultural patterns of self, social relations, and well-being. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 113–161). MIT Press. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well- being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 93–124. Kozma, A., & Stones, M. J. (1980). The measurement of happiness: Development of the memorial university of Newfoundland scale of happiness (munsh). Journal of Gerontology, 35, 906–912. Lomas, T. (2021). Life balance and harmony: Wellbeing’s golden thread. International Journal of Wellbeing, 11(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v11i1.1477 Lucas, R. E. (2018). Exploring the associations between personality and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Luhmann, M., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2014). Thinking about one’s subjective wellbeing: Average trends and individual differences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 757–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9448-5 McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life. Free Press. Misra, G. (2009). Self and well-being. Psychological Studies, 54(2), 85–86. Misra, G. (Ed.). (2018). Psychosocial interventions for health and well-being. Springer India. Myers, D. G. (1999). Close relationships and quality of life. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 374–391). Russell Sage Foundation. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19. Ngamaba, K. H. (2017). Determinants of subjective well-being in representative samples of nations. European Journal of Public Health, 27(2), 377–382. Nieboer, A., & Lindenberg, S. (2002). Substitution, buffers and subjective well-being: A hierarchical approach. In E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), The universality of subjective wellbeing indicators: A multi-disciplinary and multi-national perspective (pp. 175–189). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Oishi, S. (2018). Culture and subjective well-being: Conceptual and measurement issues. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Pavot, W. (2018). The cornerstone of research on subjective well-being: Valid assessment methodology. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture dialectics and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self . Basic Books. Ruby, M. B., Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Villa, C., & Silberstein, O. (2012). Not all collectivisms are equal: Opposing preferences for ideal affect between East Asians and Mexicans. Emotion, 12(6), 1206–1209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029118

References

175

Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2002). Cultural influences on the relation between pleasant emotions and unpleasant emotions: Asian dialectic philosophies or individualism-collectivism. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 705–719. Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Emotions across cultures and methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304–326. Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation: A prototype approach. In M.S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion. The Review of personality and social psychology (No. 13, pp. 175–212). Sage. Shin, J., & Suh, E. M. (2017). Resource scarcity decreases the desirability of a happy person. Unpublished manuscript, Yonsei University. Singh, K., Khari, C., Amonkar, R. S., Arya, N. K., & Kumar, S. K. (2013). Development and validation of a new scale: Sat-Chit-Ananda Scale. International Journal on Vedic Foundations of Management, 1(2), 102–122. Singh, K., Raina, M., & Sahni, P. (2017). The concept and measure of sukha dukha: An Indian perspective on well-being. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 19(2), 117–132. Sinha, J. B. P. (1984). Towards partnership for relevant research in the third world. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 169–178. Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life. Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia. Springer Science & Business Media. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2012). The Indian family: Needs for a revisit. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43(1), 1–9. Srivastava, A. K., & Misra, G. (2011). Cultural perspectives on nature and experience of happiness. In A. K. Dalal & G. Misra (Eds.), New directions in health psychology (pp. 109–131). Sage. Suh, E. M., & Choi, S. (2018). Predictors of subjective well-being across cultures. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi:nobascholar.com). Swaminathan, J. J., Crea, G., & Formella, Z. (2021). Sense of balance in Indian conceptualisation of psychological well-being. Studia Ecologiae Et Bioethicae, 19(4), 55–68. Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Culture and subjective well-being. In Culture and well-being (pp. 9– 41). Springer. Tov, W., & Nai, Z. L. S. (2018). Cultural differences in subjective well-being: How and why. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Subjective well-being and life satisfaction (pp. 50–73). Routledge. Tsai, J., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288–307. Uchida, Y., & Oishi, S. (2016). The happiness of individuals and the collective. Japanese Psychological Research, 58(1), 125–141. Veenhoven, R. (2017). World database of happiness, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl. Accessed on July 21, 2022 Veenhoven, R. (2018). Subjective well-being in nations. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. (doi: nobascholar.com). Veenhoven, R. (2007). States of nations. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Verma, J. (2020). Collectivism in the cultural perspective: The Indian scene. In Latest contributions to cross-cultural psychology (pp. 228–241). Routledge.

Chapter 7

Conclusion

Abstract Well-Being in the Indian context has been defined mainly in terms of health, meditation, and spiritual wellness. In the last decade or so, researchers have come up with measuring well-being in terms of “sat, chit, ananda” claiming it to be the Indian concept of well-being. However, the fact remains that there is no systematic study that operationalizes subjective well-being (SWB) and subjective illbeing (SIB) by people themselves, and one that measures the concept in its entirety in the Indian context. Thus, this book is very important, different, and fundamental in understanding SWB from an Indian perspective resulting from a systematic study. The strength of the study lies in its scientific rigour and systematic progression. The SWBM is a profile scale that has implications both for individuals, as well as Nations. The whole idea behind the development and indexing of the SWBM is to facilitate people being aware of what is important for them to feel happy and good and how to focus on enhancing SWB and reducing SIB. The study also emphasizes that although inherent factors play a fundamental role in determining the experience of SWB and SIB, situational factors (individual and contextual) are also important sources of difference in SWB scores. This research highlights that for Indians, well-being is not merely a concept of personal growth but is experienced when the whole society grows at large—the interaction of the individual and society can lead to greater well-being. With mental health becoming a major concern in the fast-growing (and post-pandemic world), the understanding of well-being and ill-being become critical. The chapter focuses on policy implications and proposes that optimization of SWB can occur when there is a balance between externalities and internalities in which the individual operates and does sense-making. Keywords Balance · Internalization · SWB Policy · Implications for SWB Research

Psychologists have always aimed at helping people live more rewarding lives. There has been a paradigm shift in the field of Psychology. With the increasing interference and dependence on technology in today’s times, this field will only gain further relevance and significance. As people come to meet their basic biological needs, they become increasingly concerned with happiness and fulfilment. Positive Psychology © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 T. Bhatnagar, Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7_7

177

178

7 Conclusion

has gained momentum over time and subjective well-being is now an established and yet growing research and applied field. The concept of social development is more comprehensive than economic development; it subsumes the latter but aims at the attainment of certain wider social objectives and ideals. A meaningful programme of social development will require a series of reliable social indicators. Subjective well-being is one such important social development indicator. Subjective well-being is very critical to a democratic country like India for it is foundational to allowing people to live fulfilling lives as evaluated by themselves. Well-being researchers generally suggest that constructs related to well-being complement economic constructs like the standard of living. Most well-being researchers believe that economic growth alone is generally socially inadequate. Culture influences the experience of SWB, but it would not be completely true to say that SWB will be defined differently for different cultures. The parameters or determinants can be slightly different but usually, there are patterns of commonality, for example, relationships top the list despite differences in societies or nations. There have been arguments around well-being in favour of the western context (well-being influences and is influenced by how we interact with our environment), and the eastern context (well-being is within the individual). There have been debates about which is better. I propose that it is not about one approach being better than the other or being an alternative to the other. All these approaches should be combined to make the best of both worlds. Well-being is not merely a concept of personal growth but is experienced when the whole society grows at large—the interaction of the individual and society can lead to greater well-being. There has been a considerable amount of research that deals with issues of physical health, but there is a dearth of research in the field of psychological health. This is where the importance of SWB lies as it is the sum of physical and psychological health. The individualism-collectivism dimension plays an important role in the conceptualization of subjective well-being and hence, to achieve a global conceptualization of the concept, it is essential to understand the concept in the context of different cultures. The collective understanding of happiness has also been established to be attained through mean values at a national level. Though forces of modernization and westernization have brought substantial changes in our country, we have still retained many characteristics of the past that may be called Indian. This study attempted to understand the concept in the Indian context and has proposed and developed a SWB Measure and an index to interpret the scores obtained on the measure. This book serves two purposes: one, it consolidates the SWB literature with a special emphasis on the work done in the Indian context, and two, it discusses a complete research study that helps not only understand the concept in the Indian context but gives a context-specific standardized SWB measure that is both a profile salience measure (giving a SWB score at the individual level) and an indexed collective level measure leading to a national level understanding of SWB. To reiterate, the research was conducted in three phases. In the first phase, an exploratory study was conducted on 184 respondents across the ages (children,

7 Conclusion

179

adolescents and young adults, middle-aged, and older adults) and different locales (urban, urban slums, and rural). Their responses were recorded, transcribed, and content-analysed. The major contribution of this phase was the structure or conceptualization of SWB in the Indian context in terms of the 12 Enhancers (relationships, resources, health, achievement, emotions, sense of satisfaction, education, societal, values, work, recreation, and personality) and 9 Reducers (individual concerns, values-related issues, emotion-related issues, achievement-related issues, healthrelated issues, societal-related issues, attitude-related issues, resource-related issues, and environmental-related issues). The highlights from this study are: relationships for Indians are mostly defined as familial relationships; the presence of something leading to SWB is not a guarantee that the absence of the same will lead to SIB and vice-versa, context is important in the understanding of SWB and SIB, and when it comes to enhancers, there still exists a pattern of commonality but a high level of subjectivity is observed when it comes to reducers. The SWB measure was developed in the second phase of the research. A preliminary SWB Measure was developed as a 7-point rating scale with 110 items consisting of two parts (65 items in Part I and 45 items in Part II) based on the conceptual categories. It was administered to 1050 college students and subjected to a factor analysis (PAF–Promax Rotation). The final SWBM was developed as a 5-point rating scale with two parts–32 items for Part I measuring the positive factors and 20 items for Part II measuring the negative factors. The factor analysis yielded 5 factors (Achievement and Recognition, Camaraderie, Contentment, Relationships, and Need Fulfilment) for Part I measuring positive factors enhancing SWB and 4 factors (Social Sensitivity, Personal Sensitivity, Disappointments, and Individual Concerns) for Part II measuring negative factors reducing SWB. The initial reliability obtained for Part I and II was 0.90 and 0.87 respectively. An attempt was made in the third phase of the study to standardize the SWBM and develop an index for interpreting the SWB scores. The SWBM was administered to a sample of 1369 respondents across ages and locales. The SWBM was standardized by computing the confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis, and validating it against the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) and PANAS (Watson et al., 1988). The CFA suggested an adequate fit for the SWBM. The model chisquare and Hoelter’s critical N goodness of fit test for both Parts I and II showed high and significant values. The baseline comparisons for the model fit test of Parts I and II showed high NFI, CFI, and IFI values (> 0.90) and low to moderate RMSEA (< 0.05–0.09) values. The measure showed high reliability (0.915 and 0.925 for both parts respectively). The SWLS values were relatively lesser (r = 0.683), though not low. PANAS alpha coefficients were found to be high (PANAS = 0.807; PA = 0.820, NA = 0.819). Discriminant construct validation of the SWBM showed a weak and non-significant relationship with PANAS (the value of r obtained for SWBM Part I with PANAS (NA) was -0.010 and that for SWBM Part II with PANAS (PA) was − 0.048.) and SWLS (value of r obtained for Part II and SWLS was 0.054). The index developed for SWB was obtained by subtracting the average score of Part II from that of Part I. This index is indicative of the extent of subjective well-being or subjective ill-being or fuzzy subjective well-being experienced by an individual. The

180

7 Conclusion

demographic analysis envisaged that the mean differences of demographic variables concerning SWB were very less. The classification of levels of SWB data in the present research showed that 50% of the respondents in the entire sample experienced a low SWB (refer to Fig. 6 in Chap. 6). This study aids the understanding of SWB from the Indian perspective. The strength of the study lies in its scientific rigour and systematic progression. The present research contributes in many ways to SWB studies, especially in the Indian context. This research attempts the enrichment of the well-being literature not only at the national but also at the global level. This study attempts to empirically understand the concept of SWB. This study is the first of its kind in terms of giving importance to people’s evaluations and perceptions about their lives in the Indian context–how do Indians in general conceptualize SWB? It also contributes to the standardized and translated (Hindi) versions of the SWLS, PANAS, and SWBM. Indian researchers very often have to use scales not contextualised or developed for Indians due to the paucity of standardized Indian measures or standardized translated versions of these measures or not being published in peer-reviewed journals of repute. The standardized translated versions of SWBM, PANAS, and SWLS will help address this concern. The exploratory study is one of the major contributions of this research as it describes the Indian perspective and enriches the global literature in the field of SWB research. The researcher has attempted to conceptualize SWB in terms of Enhancers and Reducers (positive and negative). This research not only explains the concept of SWB, but it emphasizes and explains the concept of SIB as well. The research asserts that the knowledge and assessment of SWB are incomplete without the knowledge and assessment of SIB. The conceptualization of SIB is unique to this research because it is the outcome of a systematic and empirical study. Also, not many studies incorporate the same in terms of the dimensions with which it has been studied and incorporated for the present research. The profile salience and proposal of an index make the SWBM a unique measure. It works as a guideline towards the assessment and interpretation of an individual’s level of well-being. Societies across the globe are changing and India is no exception to this transformation. Urban India is undergoing a fast change due to technological advances and changing family structures, social norms, and values. The fast pace of modern life, cut-throat competition, lack of resources, and increasing inequalities constantly pose challenges to the experience of well-being. Mental health was and has become a serious concern in this environment, especially in the post-pandemic world. Despite this, Indians in general, are known to be contended in life and maintain the threshold of normalcy. That is because of the way people make sense of situations and events, which is best explained through the Indian sense of well-being. People who are running the race seem to lack the time to introspect and gain self-awareness. They lack the depth and wisdom to understand themselves and are likely to interact more with externalities trying to figure out ways to be happy. But that can be attained only through understanding self and through a process of what I would like to call a process of internalization, which can be described as the balance that a person can create between external stimuli and conscious internal response through meditation,

7 Conclusion

181

self-analysis and self-talk, introspection, reflection, self-awareness, and acceptance for acting towards optimizing subjective well-being. Let me explain with an example: Akulya is suffering from a chronic disease and is aware of what coronavirus can do to a person with a comorbid status. She is taking adequate safety measures so that she can avoid the pain and suffering that the virus can cause. She is a person who is ready to die in a go but does not want to live with a damaged organ. Despite all the care, she contracts the virus. She is extremely scared because of everything she knows. The virus is causing its characteristic anxiety. What can Akulya do? How can internalization help her? Akulya reflects on her state and introspects her feelings and thought process and realizes that her source of anxiety (the virus and its anticipated effect on her body) is not in her control. She then reflects on what is in her control—to accept that whatever effect must happen will happen, how much the virus travels and what it can attack in the body cannot be estimated by anyone. The first thing she needs to do is to stop thinking and imagining. What she can certainly do is look at her external environment and make use of the support and resources available to her. She can be in constant touch with her doctors, and educators, and take her medication diligently. She then assesses her internal resources. She can replace negative self-talk with positive self-talk making conscious efforts. She can calm her mind through meditation and try to live in the moment. She hopes for the desired and brighter future and firmly believes that nothing bad will happen. As a result, she comes out of this situation with minimal damage because of her positivity and willpower. Let’s imagine the opposite of this rosy picture. What if this didn’t work this way and damage happens? Through internalization, she can come to terms with her truth. She will have realized that even if something bad must happen, it will happen but at least she would have tried her best to accept her situation and would have worked accordingly to ensure positivity. This would help to mitigate the situation and not create unnecessary anxiety which would result in many more complications further. If happiness is a state of mind, everything is possible. That is also the Indian way of understanding and interpreting manifested reality. Everything is transient and impermanent. Whatever comes into being is fluid and dynamic and will go back to where it comes from. Then why worry? We have so many illustrations from folklore and literature, not just from India but across the globe that supports this argument. Whether it is the story of the “happy man’s shirt” as the cure for a sad king or whether it is the famous Charles Mackay poem (English folklore based), “The Miller of the Dee”. It is about being happy and contented with what you have, being true to yourself and feeling grateful for what you have and making your small contribution to others around. That sums up the idea of well-being. Another such evidence comes from research. Diener (2013) in his talk has shared an example from Robert Biswas-Diener’s happiness research in Kolkata, India. He discusses the happiness of a rickshaw driver, Monoj who earns a dollar or two generally and maybe three on a good day. He understands the difficulties because of the paucity of money. But he manages in the two dollars a day. What makes him happy is the support and love of his loved ones, especially his children. When with the extra dollar he gets a candy each for his kids. Seeing him, like always the children rush to greet him and

182

7 Conclusion

they hug. When he gives them the candy, they jump with joy and are ecstatic. They hug him again tight, and he feels happy that he made them happy. In his words as quoted by Prof. Ed Diener, “I love my wife and I love my kids and surprisingly I love my rickshaw driving, whatever others may say, and I have my religion”. Just documenting this story made me smile and happy . That is the beauty and power of SWB. What I essentially want to highlight here is that we all live in a certain way, and we all experience well-being in a certain way. So, whether we talk about the processes or outcomes, the Indian approaches do make a lot of sense, but one cannot directly reach a level of say experiencing anandmaya because one is not in that layer. We are not talking about individuals realising what is important in life, experiencing eternal bliss and joy, or talking about becoming one with the universe in one day. It is a process, which takes time for an individual to reach that stage. It is a process of growth and evolution. Though the concepts of universal joy, connecting with the larger universe, eternal joy and bliss, and compassionate well-being are all-powerful, the evolution starts from point zero and moves up to elevated levels. The major argument here is that there will be overlaps but the concept is constant, it is enduring and well-being is more of a universal concept which is experienced through both externalities and internalities. The externalities give a lot of importance to our everyday experience with well-being, whether we call those antecedents or consequents or however we may define them. The outcomes like health, family, and achievement are made up of something, for example, mindsets, stress, willpower, and more. The larger questions then are: How does one handle stress? How does one interpret daily life events? How does one deal with them? This is the point where the role of internalities begins. Whether this is through meditation, yoga, retrospection, introspection, or reflection, or all combined, to reach within, it is important to understand the external environment, pull the internal processes and bridge this gap. We have to understand that this is more like a process of evolution—one starts with interpreting, understanding, reflecting, and analysing one’s environment and circumstances and making choices that lessen the discrepancy between their current and actual self. It is only then we understand what best suits our well-being and take action. We are a product of the choices we make and our mental health and internal peace are our responsibility. This is evident through the current study with spiritualism, peace of mind, intellectual pursuits, extended self, compassion, camaraderie, and internal sense of satisfaction emerging as determinants of SWB among Indians. It is important to understand that when we talk about SWB or even happiness for that matter, we need to highlight that true happiness will not come from harming self or others, it will not come from a state of mania (bipolar disorder or manic-depressive psychosis, which are clinical in nature), neither will it come from false beliefs. How we perceive happiness is very critical to how we make sense of life events and experience them. The way Indians are socialized, and that their training is rooted in Indian traditions often comes in between their experience of SWB, for example, they often exaggerate by saying they are fine when in fact they are not. Another example is that often people give their happiness in the hands of others or significant others (people who hold importance for the individual). This can never bring happiness

7.1 Policy Implications

183

despite one coming from a culture where society determines individual behaviour. The reason is obvious—this conflicts with individual values and standards one set for their own SWB. Additionally, very often people put all their eggs in one basket, which means that they invest their happiness in one or a couple of life domains. Sirgy (2002) very aptly suggests that one should invest in as many life domains as can be lived fully. If one is not working, positive affect can be drawn from another one that is faring well in life. This essentially turns attention to two things—one, balance is critical not to only overall life but between life domains as well, and two, each domain can provide satisfaction only to a limit. That is why it is more important to be fully engaged in more than one or two life domains. The awareness with regards to both individual well-being as well as the wellbeing of an individual at the collective level (classification of categories based on the three types of scores) can be very helpful to make national-level assessments about well-being and social development. Literature suggests that despite their impressive record, Indian psychologists have not been able to contribute significantly to the formulation of national plans for development. This research tries to make a strong case towards planning and policy-making through empirical research.

7.1 Policy Implications Social indicators are powerful tools for policy-makers working to improve the wellbeing of the people they serve as they provide a deeper understanding of the issues by helping to answer well-being-related questions. Consideration of these indicators is particularly warranted due to the growing evidence that subjective well-being is a desirable goal for nations for it produces beneficial societal outcomes. SWB is both a process and an outcome, it causes and is caused by them. SWB is immensely valuable as it is critical for a good society. Diener (2006, 2013) asserts that society needs happy people. It is as important as education or ethics. People high on SWB are usually people who are positive and contributing to society. Happy and satisfied citizens are likely to be responsible citizens. This will ensure national values like trust, security, equality, and fairness and lead to good and corruption-free governance in the longer run. SWB is one of the indicators of social development and research in the field like the present one can accord directions for national development-related policy implications. The understanding of psychological principles and premises of human behaviour is crucial for the success of national-level plans or policies. The concept, measure, and index of SWB and SIB have global-level implications and are highly relevant in the Indian context as India is a developing nation. Thus, it is essential to identify and develop ways to facilitate the application of indicators to policy and practice. Some of the prospective policy implications of the present research are discussed below at three levels–individual, societal, and national. These are in line with earlier research that has indicated several policy implications of studying SWB.

184

7 Conclusion

7.1.1 Individual Level The practice of SWB begins at the individual level. . The assessment of the average factors influencing SWB or SIB can be very helpful in understanding people’s feelings and thoughts. It can give useful hints about people’s needs. Policies can be made to cater to these needs of the individuals. . This knowledge can help advance an individual’s mental, emotional, and spiritual qualities which are essential for individual happiness and responsible citizenship. . Indian social life is experiencing social and cultural change. Under such circumstances, people have less time for reflection and introspection. The knowledge of SWB can facilitate the harnessing of one’s emotions and thoughts in the right direction and contribute to living a more rewarding life. The knowledge of SWB and SIB can help prevent suicides and depression. . Intervention programmes can be developed to teach people the art of being happy and experiencing wellness most of the time. . The knowledge of the level of SWB, if utilized right from childhood, can help the child grow into a happy adult. . Intervention programmes can be designed for people falling into the FSWB and SIB categories. Interventions can be made for enhancing the SWB of these people. . This knowledge can be very effective in enhancing important areas of human interaction and behavioural deliberations such as interpersonal relationships, perceptual work productivity in workplaces, personality traits, and adaptability to change. . The individual who is high on SWB tends to believe in a fulfilling and meaningful life. S/he tries to see things from a holistic perspective. Such an individual will be more sensitive to issues like global warming and climate change. . This study gives an insight into the feelings and thoughts of the common man. The knowledge of SWB and SIB will help in forming policies that benefit people from all sections, especially those who suffer the most.

7.1.2 Societal Level The next level is the community level. A happy society is a wholesome society where citizens think about the larger good. . The indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being can be used for evaluating policies in domains such as public health, social service, recreation, work life, relationships, and environment among many more. . They can also be useful for business leaders and government officials both at the local and regional levels. . It is believed that the impact of SWB will have many implications for policy planners, healthcare providers, trainers, and economists. This information will

7.1 Policy Implications

.

. . . .

.

185

facilitate the assessment of social life and development which can lead to improved allocation of limited resources. SWB intervention programmes can be designed at the school, workplace, and community levels. This knowledge can be helpful for parents, teachers, caregivers, doctors, counsellors, therapists, and coaches. These people can be instrumental in enhancing the SWB of others around them. It is important to acquire this knowledge first to benefit others with it. The knowledge of SWB (conceptualization and measurement) can help researchers in the development of a social development index. These indicators can form the basis for making educational and health policies. Designing an educational curriculum by incorporating courses based on the assumptions of Positive Psychology right from the school level can be very helpful. The present research highlights that relationships are critical for SWB. One of the implications of these findings is in the organizational context. A lot of importance is given to motivation and innovation in today’s organizations. The knowledge of SWB can help in forming better working teams within the organization, as effective working teams are key to organizational success. SWB interventions can help attain intangible outcomes like studying and bringing marginalized groups into the mainstream and working towards sustainable goals.

7.1.3 National Level Once SWB is realised at the national level, it will eventually result in global and universal SWB. . Subjective well-being measures should be given importance while planning for the future. They may be used as input to discussions about national policies. . SWB determinants can provide an important source of information to national leaders in democratic societies about the well-being and concerns of citizens. . Globally, there is a trend in measuring SWB as an indicator of happiness. Measuring and documenting the SWB of different age levels could be a useful tool in predicting the happiness levels of future generations and intervention strategies could be formulated to improve SWB at age-appropriate levels. . SWB measures can help in designing frameworks that give an impressive account of how good a nation and its citizens are doing. . SWB indicators can measure changes and trends over time, and the overall direction of change can point to needed decisions and actions. . SWB might be useful in the assessment and prediction of objective policy outcomes and people’s preferences. . SWB Index can serve as a measure to map the welfare of people at a collective level. It can give information with regards to the level of people’s well-being or ill-being and give an insight into the implications and interventions for enhancing the SWB levels of people who have a low level of SWB. This can be materialized

186

7 Conclusion

by identifying target groups, concerns that need to be addressed, and what should be done for the betterment of these groups. Subjective well-being is reflective of the social quality of life. It has implications on trust, support, mutual respect, lack of crime and corruption, fairness, equality, and many other virtues and values which are required to lead a good life, which are influenced by others, and are not directly in the control of the individual. Research suggests that even the natural environment has a strong relationship with SWB. All of these are also measures of national well-being. Concepts like equality are important and Denmark is the best example of that. Denmark is highest in happiness because the mean difference between the richest Danes and the poorest Danes is not much. The lesser discrepancy between the haves and have-nots is reflective of an efficient and effective governance system and its impact on the happiness and well-being of its citizens, and vice-versa.

7.2 Future Research Implications SWB research (particularly in India) needs more sophisticated investigation. There is immense scope for research in the following directions: . Further studies can be conducted using more sophisticated designs. For example, longitudinal studies can contribute a lot to the understanding of levels of SWB at different ages. . Relationships of different constructs and variables can be studied in the Indian context using the structural framework of SWB as the basis. . Incorporating objective measures or non-self-report measures will result in a better understanding of the field. . This research also has cross-cultural implications. It would be interesting to research to confirm if these findings can be generalized to other societies in the world. Cultural differences in the SWB scores of the SWBM can be studied to find if the measure can be applied to the west as well (whether the measure is globally acceptable or there are significant differences in terms of factor salience and levels of SWB). . With the onset of the pandemic situation, we have become so heavily dependent upon technology and technological advancements, our everyday life is full of technology use and we are mostly on screen, our life preferences have changed, and our day-to-day activities have changed after the coronavirus scene, added to that is the advent and magnitude of artificial intelligence. The question, therefore is, does that make a difference? For example, it would be very interesting to do this kind of study again in some time to see whether people have different priorities now and whether it is more about the self, the individual self, or is it still an extended concept of self when we are more into ourselves, more with ourselves, our activities are limited to on online modus operandi. It would be interesting to

7.2 Future Research Implications

187

go deeper in exploring whether or not the way we define our SWB has changed with this change in context. . The SWBM can be studied and compared to other available measures of happiness like the quality of life, general happiness, and others. . The relationships of the factors of the SWBM with various demographic variables can be studied to ascertain if the items measuring one factor can be treated as a separate scale. This can also serve as a shorter version of the scale. . It would be interesting to study the SWB of various specific and restrictive sample groups like transgenders, homosexuals, refugees, and sex professionals. There is a need for national-level studies to be conducted in India. Big data and their analyses are important to make inferences and policies on SWB. However, given the current status of systematic and scientific research conducted in the field at the national level, in-depth explorations of SWB become equally important. This knowledge is quintessential for synthesizing and connecting findings to create a meaningful and holistic body of knowledge that goes beyond mere information collation and re-creation of what already exists. There are limitations in terms of the lack of availability of big data or in terms of effect size modality, but usually, the authenticity of the findings is also dependent upon how meticulously the research team works on the ground. This is a first-hand account of a diverse and representative sample. Though the study may not be a big data-based empirical study, it lays a very sound foundation, to begin with, especially in the Indian context. The Indian government can conduct a national-level survey and formulate policies accordingly using the SWBM. Subjective well-being will be relevant to humans as long as societies are relevant. All units of community and our existence (be it the individual, family, neighbourhood, society, tribe, nations, or cultures and sub-cultures within them) count equally and are important to understand in this pursuit. Irrespective of perspectives and traditions (whether eastern or western) the ultimate goal of well-being is to help humans attain balance. The philosophy of Ubuntu, Ying and Yang, and Stoicism all talk about the totality or balance that is important for the collective consciousness required to attain true happiness. It is important to talk about “Indian” before we talk about indigenous because not everybody reaches the highest levels of self-evolution or of connecting the self to the universe as a quick fix. It is something that takes time and is a long process. If people are more self-aware and reflective, and learn from their reflections of experiences they pace up this journey; if not it takes time. This is probably the reason that well-being in India cannot be summed up merely in terms of sukha and dukha or aasakti or anasakti and the like. It is important to talk in terms of the common language that can reach everybody, the language of science, and make it the starting point of conversation before one is ready to comprehend and make sense of metaphysical constructs explaining philosophical phenomena. Holistic well-being is critical as it emphasizes balance and harmony, whether that is between life domains or within life domains, whether it is between self and others, and whether it is between achieved and not achieved. To ultimately become one with the universe and attain true happiness, the key is to follow a blended approach that

188

7 Conclusion

takes both externalities and internalities into account. Reaching the highest levels of consciousness or attaining wisdom will help us live a positive, meaningful, and rewarding life despite the innumerable distractions in and around us. This book is a sneak peek of consolidated work on how India contributes to the literature of wellbeing, provides a comprehensive structure of SWB and SIB for Indians in terms of the enhancers and the reducers, and gives a standardized profile salience for SWB assessment. The SWB/SIB/FSWB/FSIB index contributes to assessment at the national level and has implications for policy as well as interventions.

References Diener, Ed. (2006). Guidelines for National indicators of subjective well-being and Ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(4), 397–404. Diener, E. (2013). The new science of happiness at Happiness & its Causes 2013. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=EdxbmVbr3NY. Uploaded on November 4, 2013. Accessed on May 16, 2022. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Appendices

Appendix A I: List of Enhancers—Positive Determinants of SWB (Clustered) I. Relationships (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Relationships = 385) Affiliation (Attachment) (173); Well-being of one’s Children (75); Marriage (62); Togetherness (25); Understanding (16); Support (10); Interpersonal Relationships (10); Blessings and Good Wishes (4); Acceptance (Acceptability) (4); Good/Happiness of Others (4); Affection (2). II. Resources (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Resources = 238) Money (121); Material Possessions and Basic Necessities (102); Resources (10); Assets (5). III. Health (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Health = 233) Health (158); Peace (Mental)/Spiritualism/Faith (66); Long/Meaningful Life (9). IV. Achievement (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Achievement = 199) Achievement (105); Success (23); Self-reliance (22); Aspiration (13); Goal (13); Recognition (Accomplishment and Acknowledgement) (10); Concentration/Focus (7); Reinforcement (Reward/Encouragement) (4); Competence (2). V. Emotions (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Emotions = 160) Emotions (119); Appreciation (41). VI. Sense of Satisfaction (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Sense of Satisfaction = 157) © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 T. Bhatnagar, Subjective Well-Being in the Indian Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6526-7

189

190

Appendices

Sense of Satisfaction (100); Smooth Life (8); Experience (4); External Environment/Nature (45). VII. Education (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Education = 129) Education (113); Growth (Progress/Self-Growth) (8); Learning (8). VIII. Societal (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Societal = 126) Pro-Social Behaviour (58); Societal (19); People in Society (17); Status/ Reputation/Earning Name in the Society (13); Individual Contribution towards Social Well-being (8); Social Comparisons (Inspiration from Others) (6); Social Work (4); Social Norms (1). IX. Values (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Values = 122) Values (94); Hard Work (24); Being Responsible (3); Trust (1). X. Work (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Work = 109) Employment/Career (Profession) (105); Work Productivity (4). XI. Recreation (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Recreation = 104) Recreation (97); Festivals (5); Engagement in Interesting Activities (2). XII. Personality (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Personality = 68) Personality (14); Positive Attitude/Thinking (14); Self-Respect (9); SelfConfidence (7); Determination (7); Adjustment (Adjustability/Adaptability) (6); Self (4); Personal Space (4); Self-Efficiency (1); Self-Actualization (1); Self-Identity (1).

Appendix A II: Positive Determinants of SWB (Excluded) Time Management (4); Intelligence/Intellect (5); Exploration of New Things (3); Individual Strength (3); Luck/Fate (3); Justice (3); Self-Realization (3); Balanced Approach (3); Happiness (3); Self-Reflection (2); Realization of one’s Abilities (2); Choice and Ability to take/make Decisions (2); Courage (2); Freedom (2); Patience (2); Simplicity (2); Regularity (2); Religion and Religiousness (2); Motivation (1); Learning from one’s Mistakes (1); Social Influence (1); Quality of Life (1); Creativity (1); Dreams (1); Good Behaviour (1); Equality (1); Leadership (1); Devotion/Dedication (1); Security (1); Wit and Humour (1); Cleanliness (1); Forgiveness (1).

Appendices

191

Appendix B: List of Reducers—Negative Determinants of SWB (Clustered) I. Individual Concerns (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Individual Concerns = 353) Ill-treatment (144); Fighting/Conflicts/Disputes/Confrontations/Bullying/ Hurting and Harassing others (59); Death/Committing Suicide due to problems or frustration (25); Unfulfilled desires/expectations (11); Comparison, criticism, competition (unhealthy) among people (especially in relations)/demands and tensions in relationships/Criticism of and interference/ disturbance in other’s personal life (9); Misunderstandings and Misconceptions (9); Doing something without wish or interest/Doing things one doesn’t like (6); Not able to do the desired/things one like (e.g. not being able to live each moment of life)/killing one’s desires (5); Constraints/Professionrelated constraints (where you have the potential and still you are unable to do anything due to administrative constraints) (4); Uncleanliness (4); Dependency (on others) (3); Being without work/job (unemployed, dependent/sitting idle)/(failure) (3); Insincerity/Not fulfilling the committed and denying the committed/Carelessness (3); Helplessness (3); Someone thinking wrong about one or seeing with ill intention (3); Unemployment of spouse (especially that of one’s husband)/Problems due to spouse (husband) (3); Lots of Pressure— daily meetings with guides/in school/excessive homework (3); Compulsions or forcing upon by someone/Putting pressure on an individual to get something done (3); Ineffective interpersonal relationships (3); When you can’t express (your feelings or yourself) (2); Not being able to understand (2); Committing mistakes (2); Old age problems (2); Punishments (2); Refusals (2); Unnecessary complications/Involvement in controversies (2); Applying short-cuts in life/Compromising on sub-standards (2); Someone is getting better than me (1); Problems of Adolescence (1); Hard luck (1); Routine (life) (1); Inability to travel long distances (1); Bad News (1); Being devoid of freedom, especially that of expression (1); Marriage (1); Jealousy (1); Being the cause of spoiling someone’s work (1); Someone disturbing one in sleep (1); Crying (1); Hiding of facts or things (1); (Sadness due to) Not being able to study (1); Lack of tolerance (1); When I can’t get desired things on time (1); Difference of opinion (1); State of uncertainty (1); Longevity (1); Phobias (like climbing heights) (1); Frustration (not getting fruits of your work) (1); Retrospective activities that make one shiver (1); Excessive use of technology (1); Hassles in life (sudden accident/change of plan and not being able to do the planned due to this change) (1); People’s hatred (1); Spicy food (1); Heat (1); After thoughts and self-blaming (1); Strong superego (1); Indulging in superficialities (1); Coming back after a pilgrimage (1); Rejection (disappointment/ failure) (1); Lack of contentment (1); Anxiety about more than what one can do/over expectation from oneself (1).

192

Appendices

II. Values Related Issues (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Values Related Issues = 138) Lying/Dishonesty/Breaking of trust (someone doesn’t trust you)/Breaking of promises/Pretending/Fooling/Talking nonsense/Ditching/Exaggerating/ Treachery (37); Changing value(s)less (and) society (lack of morality)/ Blind copying of the West/Loss of values/Value deterioration/Lack of values and humanity (21); Teasing (also eve teasing) (14); Hypocrisy/Pretension/ Deception/Ill-intentions/Jealousy (13); Dishonesty (especially in matters regarding money)/Using unfair means/Inequality/Injustice/Not supporting or accepting the right thing/Partiality/Cheating and forgery (8); Vices (like alcohol) or indulging in vices/Intake of alcohol and non-veg as a vice (8); Bad talks or bad things done/Being discourteous/inhuman/insincere/displaying bad behaviour/Illegitimate or immoral work (6); Snatching/Stealing (4); Backbiting (3); Fighting—riots/disputes/animosity (3); Disrespect/Indiscipline (3); Use of abusive language (2); Selfishness (not helping others) (2); Corruption (2); Violence and involvement of small children in criminal activities (2); Doing something wrong/Feeling ashamed due to conscience’s realizations (2); Pride/Boasting (2); Bullying (1); People’s sadness (empathy) (1); Teachers forcing students to take tuition setting bad example before them (1); Violation of rules (uncleanliness) (1); Harsh hard labour (1); Being a loose-tongued person (1). III. Emotion Related Issues (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Emotion Related Issues = 136) Children/self/family’s sorrows/other’s sorrows/If people around are sad, especially family members/Family problems/Other people’s sorrows/sufferings/ problems/Bad happens to others/their unhappiness (32); Hurting someone (especially parents)/Emotions are hurt/Mental hurts/Being hurt/Being cheated/Humiliating people/when something we like or love hurts (28); Children related issues (28); Breaking of relationships/Parting or separating from dear ones/Broken families/Divorce/Distance between relatives due to behavioural problems (16); Sincere efforts not recognized or appreciated (7); Unfriendliness/Unequal treatment or no proper reciprocation in friendship/If someone doesn’t like him/her or doesn’t play with him/her (6); Being scolded without any fault of yours (3); Crying (2); Loneliness/Being alone (2); If parents’ attention lessens/Neglect by Parents (2); Anger/Rage of anger leading to depression (2); Teasing/Taunting/Snatching/Mocking (1); Animal’s problems (if they are wounded) (1); Comparison among siblings (1); Expectations not being fulfilled by parents (when they break their promise) (1); Distrust of loved ones (1); Insecurity (fear of failure and fear of losing someone) (1); Someone not understanding me and my feelings (1); Someone being an orphan (1).

Appendices

193

IV. Achievement Related Issues (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Achievement Related Issues = 82) Failures and Disappointments/(loss of any kind) (78); Unfulfillable Desires (4). V. Health Related Issues (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Health Related Issues = 80) Physiological ailments/Illness/Ill-health (self/family members/others) (60); Physical hurts/Accidents (12); Mental pain or conflicts/Tensions, mental upsets/Depression (6); (Due to) Physically handicapped and disadvantaged people (2). VI. Social/Society Related Issues (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Social/Society Related Issues = 78) The deplorable condition of people in society/Social plight/conditions/ disgusting social scene (poverty, begging)/Adverse conditions/Social comparisons/Unemployment (illiteracy) (46); Social evils/(like injustice, inequality, casteism, communalism, communal riots, racial discrimination, and dowry system)/evils in society (9); Social Disasters and Accidents/Incidents (6); Natural calamities (like drought) (4); The system of the society which troubles people more than it helps them/Governmental policies and system (that cannot help eradicate politics)/Politicians and Politics (3); Disparity and inequality in the distribution of money or educational facilities (2); Corruption/ manipulation/favouritism/misuse of power and politics (2); Current lifestyle (2); Violation of social norms/being against casteism and religious texts (2); Doing things that are socially unacceptable (1); Superstition (1). VII. Attitude Related Issues (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Attitude Related Issues = 39) The uncaring attitude of people/People’s carefree behaviour/irresponsible behaviour (6); Ignoring and interfering attitude (parents not listening to child’s wish)/Unnecessary interference by others (5); Ungratefulness/Selfishness/Not helping others/treacherous people (5); Doing things that give sorrow to self as well as others/Misbehaviour (4); People who have a habit of fighting (2); Pessimistic attitude/People with negative thinking (2); Complexes (superior/ inferior) (2); Arguments/people who argue, even if they are wrong (2); Having no respect for time/Mismanagement of time (2); People who run after money (2); Show off/Double standards (1); Being unnecessarily troublesome (1); Self-praising attitude (people who feel only what they say and feel is correct) (1); Doing things against the laws of Nature and norms of society (1); Laziness (not working) (1); Unjustified acts (1); People who hoard material things for status (1).

194

Appendices

VIII. Resource Related Issues (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Resource Related Issues = 20) Lack of basic necessities/resources/material comforts, thus being unable to do even the required (8); Lack of money/Being broken (i.e. being without money) (7); Lack of resources leading to helplessness/Wastage or misuse of resources (3); Break in studies or not being able to study (due to family problems) (1); Lack of facilities (Inflation – rise in prices) (1). IX. Environment Related Issues (Total Participants: n = 184; Total No. of Responses on Environment Related Issues = 5) Environmental Conditions (2); If something bad happens in the surroundings (1); Pollution (1); Rainy season (as a hazard in playing) (1).

Appendix C: Positive Determinants Enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Urban Sample

Frequency (Word Count) Sr. No.

Name of the Determinant

G-1 Ages: 9–10 n = 16

G-2 Ages: 14–23 n = 16

G-3 Ages: 35–45 n = 16

G-4 Ages: 60 and up n = 12

Total n = 60

1

Affiliation (Attachment)

14

13

16

11

54

2

Health

15

12

11

5

43

3

Values

6

13

13

10

42

4

Achievement

13

13

10

5

41

5

Emotions

10

11

12

7

40

6

Recreation

14

9

10

3

36

7

Pro-Social Behaviour

3

14

11

5

33

8

Togetherness

0

11

8

6

25

9

Success

5

9

5

4

23

10

Well-Being of one’s Children

0

0

15

8

23

11

Money

0

11

9

1

21

12

Marriage

0

4

11

5

20

13

External Environment and Nature

4

8

3

4

19

14

Material Possessions and Basic Necessities

7

5

5

2

19

15

People in Society

3

9

2

2

16

16

Education

4

6

3

3

16 (continued)

Appendices

195

(continued) Frequency (Word Count) Sr. No.

Name of the Determinant

G-1 Ages: 9–10 n = 16

G-2 Ages: 14–23 n = 16

G-3 Ages: 35–45 n = 16

G-4 Ages: 60 and up n = 12

Total n = 60

17

Peace (mental)/Spiritualism

0

5

5

6

16

18

Employment/Career

0

5

4

4

13

19

Self-Reliance

3

3

5

1

12

20

Sense of Satisfaction

0

1

2

8

11

21

Support

0

6

1

3

10

22

Appreciation

2

5

3

0

10

23

Interpersonal Relationships

1

0

7

2

10

24

Positive Thinking

0

3

1

5

9

25

Smooth Life

3

5

0

0

8

26

Understanding

0

5

2

0

7

27

Hard work

0

3

4

0

7

28

Long/Meaningful Life

1

2

3

1

7

29

Individual Contribution towards Social Well-Being

0

0

4

3

7

30

Inspiration from Others

0

4

2

0

6

31

Resources

0

3

2

0

5

32

Aspiration

3

2

0

0

5

33

Attention

1

3

0

0

4

34

Self

0

0

4

0

4

35

Work Productivity

0

0

4

0

4

36

Personality

0

3

0

0

3

37

Exploration of New Things

1

2

0

0

3

38

Determination

0

0

0

3

3

39

Self-Confidence

0

2

0

0

2

40

Self-Reflection

0

2

0

0

2

41

Luck

0

1

1

0

2

42

Blessings and Good Wishes

1

1

0

0

2

43

Affection

2

0

0

0

2

44

Competence

2

0

0

0

2

45

Engagement in Interesting Activities

2

0

0

0

2 (continued)

196

Appendices

(continued) Frequency (Word Count) Sr. No.

Name of the Determinant

G-1 Ages: 9–10 n = 16

G-2 Ages: 14–23 n = 16

G-3 Ages: 35–45 n = 16

G-4 Ages: 60 and up n = 12

Total n = 60

46

Realization of one’s Abilities

0

0

2

0

2

47

Self-Efficiency

0

1

0

0

1

48

Learning from one’s Mistakes

0

1

0

0

1

49

Acceptance (Acceptability)

1

0

0

0

1

50

Social Influence

0

0

1

0

1

51

Adjustment (Adjustability/ Adaptability)

0

0

1

0

1

52

Quality of Life

0

0

1

0

1

53

Self-Actualization

0

0

0

1

1

Appendix D: Positive Determinants Enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Urban and Urban Slums Sample

Frequency (Word Count) Sr. No

Name of the Determinant

G-1 Ages: 9–10 n = 14

G-2 Ages: 14–23 n = 14

G-3 Ages: 35–45 n = 16

G-4 Ages: 60 and up n = 16

Total n = 60

1

Affiliation (Attachment)

14

14

16

16

60

2

Health

12

13

15

16

56

3

Sense of Satisfaction

10

10

16

14

50

4

Emotions

14

12

10

10

46

5

Education

12

11

11

10

44

6

Money

11

8

12

13

44

7

Employment/Career

10

10

10

11

41

8

Recreation

11

12

8

7

38

9

Material Possessions

10

5

10

11

36

10

Achievement

13

14

8

0

35

11

Values

4

5

11

11

31

12

Peace/Spiritualism/Faith

1

4

11

12

28

13

Marriage

4

8

8

6

26 (continued)

Appendices

197

(continued) Frequency (Word Count) Sr. No

Name of the Determinant

14

Well-Being of one’s Children

G-1 Ages: 9–10 n = 14 0

G-2 Ages: 14–23 n = 14 0

G-3 Ages: 35–45 n = 16

G-4 Ages: 60 and up n = 16

Total n = 60

12

14

26

15

Appreciation

10

4

7

0

21

16

Goal

4

8

1

0

13

17

Social Status

3

4

4

2

13

18

Personality

1

6

3

1

11

19

Social Life

0

0

6

5

11

20

Recognition (Accomplishment and Acknowledgement)

0

6

4

0

10

21

Hard Work

0

3

3

4

10

22

Aspiration

0

7

1

0

8

23

Growth (Progress/Self-Growth)

0

6

2

0

8

24

Learning

0

4

4

0

8

25

Understanding

0

4

1

3

8

26

Pro-Social Behaviour

5

0

0

3

8

27

Nature

2

2

3

0

7

28

Self-Respect

0

3

0

3

6

29

Intelligence/Intellect

1

2

0

2

5

30

External Environment

0

2

0

3

5

31

Positive Attitude/Thinking

0

2

3

0

5

32

Adjustment (Adjustability/ Adaptability)

0

1

2

2

5

33

Reinforcement (Rewards/ Encouragement)

4

0

0

0

4

34

Good/Happiness of Others

0

1

1

2

4

35

Determination

0

1

0

3

4

36

Time Management

0

0

4

0

4

37

Personal Space

0

0

2

2

4

38

Social Work

0

0

0

4

4

39

Justice

1

0

0

2

3

40

Concentration/Focus

1

2

0

0

3

41

Self-Reliance

0

1

2

0

3

42

Self-Realization

0

1

2

0

3

43

Balanced Approach

0

0

3

0

3

44

Being Responsible

0

0

3

0

3 (continued)

198

Appendices

(continued) Frequency (Word Count) Sr. No

Name of the Determinant

45

Self-Confidence

G-1 Ages: 9–10 n = 14 0

G-2 Ages: 14–23 n = 14 0

G-3 Ages: 35–45 n = 16 3

G-4 Ages: 60 and up n = 16 0

Total n = 60

3

46

Acceptance (Acceptability)

0

0

1

2

3

47

Experience

0

0

0

3

3

48

Choice and Ability to take/make Decisions

0

1

1

0

2

49

Courage

0

1

1

0

2

50

Freedom

0

1

0

1

2

51

Patience

0

0

1

1

2

52

Simplicity

0

0

0

2

2

53

Regularity

0

0

0

2

2

54

Creativity

1

0

0

0

1

55

Long life

1

0

0

0

1

56

Dreams

0

1

0

0

1

57

Good Behaviour

0

1

0

0

1

58

Equality

0

1

0

0

1

59

Leadership

0

1

0

0

1

60

Devotion/Dedication

0

1

0

0

1

61

Self-Identity

0

1

0

0

1

62

Security

0

0

1

0

1

63

Trust

0

0

0

1

1

64

Wit and Humour

0

0

0

1

1

Appendix E: Positive Determinants Enhancing Subjective Well-Being in India—Rural Sample

Appendices

199 Frequency (Word Count)

Sr. No Name of the Determinant

G-1 Ages: 9–10 n = 16

G-2 Ages: 14–23 n = 16

G-3 Ages: 35–45 n = 16

G-4 Total Ages: n = 64 60 and up n = 16

1

Affiliation (Attachment)

14

16

13

16

59

2

Health

16

13

14

16

59

3

Money

16

12

14

14

56

4

Education

12

14

13

14

53

5

Employment

14

10

16

11

51

6

Material Possessions and Basic Necessities

15

13

11

8

47

7

Sense of Satisfaction

8

12

9

10

39

8

Emotions

12

11

4

6

33

16

13

0

0

29

0

0

13

13

26

13

9

1

0

23

9

Achievement

10

Well-Being of one’s Children

11

Recreation

12

Values

0

9

5

7

21

13

Pro-Social Behaviour

5

8

5

0

18

14

Marriage

2

2

8

4

16

15

Nature

6

2

2

4

14

16

Peace

0

2

4

6

12

17

Appreciation

5

4

1

0

10

18

Worshipping and having Faith in God

0

0

2

8

10

19

Social Life

1

7

0

0

8

20

Self-Reliance

0

3

3

1

7

21

Hard Work

0

2

3

2

7

22

Resources

2

0

2

1

5

23

Festivals

1

1

3

0

5

24

Assets

0

0

0

5

5

25

Happiness

3

0

0

0

3

26

Self-Respect

0

3

0

0

3

27

Self-Confidence

0

2

0

0

2

28

Time

0

0

0

2

2

29

Religion and Religiousness

0

0

0

2

2

30

Blessings and Good Wishes

0

0

0

2

2

31

Cleanliness

1

0

0

0

1

32

People in Society

0

1

0

0

1

33

Understanding

0

1

0

0

1

34

Motivation

0

1

0

0

1 (continued)

200

Appendices

(continued) Frequency (Word Count) Sr. No Name of the Determinant

G-1 Ages: 9–10 n = 16

G-2 Ages: 14–23 n = 16

G-3 Ages: 35–45 n = 16

G-4 Total Ages: n = 64 60 and up n = 16

35

Long/Meaningful Life

0

0

1

0

1

36

Individual Contribution towards Social Well-Being

0

0

1

0

1

37

Fate/Luck

0

0

1

0

1

38

Experience

0

0

0

1

1

39

Social Norms

0

0

0

1

1

40

Forgiveness

0

0

0

1

1

Appendix F: Items of the Preliminary SWBM—Complete List of Enhancers and Reducers Positive Determinants—Enhancers I. Relationships 1. My parents mean the world to me. (Affiliation (Attachment)) 2. Parents feel happy if their children are well settled. (Well-being of one’s Children) 3. Marriage is the happiness derived from the companionship of an understanding spouse. (Marriage) 4. Being in the company of my family and friends gives me happiness. (Togetherness) 5. Understanding others as much as possible makes me happy. (Understanding) 6. Emotional support of my loved ones keeps me going in life. (Support) 7. My relationships with others is an important determinant of my wellbeing. (Interpersonal Relationships) 8. Blessings of my grandparents makes me happy. (Blessings and Good Wishes) 9. The ability to be able to accept others’ viewpoint makes me happy. (Acceptance (Acceptability)) 10. When people around me are happy, I feel happy. (Good/Happiness of Others) 11. I feel happy because my parents love me. (Affection) II. Health

Appendices

201

1. Both physiological and psychological health is important for my wellbeing in life. (Physiological and Psychological health) 2. Mental peace is how I define my concept of well-being. (Peace (Mental)/ Spiritualism/Faith) III. Resources 1. Decent amount of money is sufficient for a good life. (Money) 2. Both basic necessities and things of material comfort are necessary for my well-being. (Material Possessions and Basic Necessities) 3. Generating resources to enable a child study, makes me feel happy. (Resources) 4. I value my property assets. (Assets) IV. Emotions 1. Presents from my parents make me happy. (Emotions) 2. I feel good when I am appreciated for doing well in a given task. (Appreciation) V. Education 1. Higher education is important in the leading of a good life. (Education) 2. Personal and professional growth makes me happy. (Growth (Progress/ Self-Growth)) 3. Learning new things for self-development gives me happiness. (Learning) VI. Achievement 1. I feel happy when I get good results. (Achievement) 2. I feel happy when I am successful in accomplishing some task undertaken by me. (Success) 3. Fulfilling my ambitions gives me happiness. (Aspiration) 4. Setting and achieving professional goals gives me happiness. (Goal) 5. Being able to stand on my own feet gives me happiness. (Self-Reliance) 6. I feel happy when I am recognized for my work. (Recognition (Accomplishment/Acknowledgement)) 7. When I am given attention from my teachers and parents for faring well in studies, I feel happy. (Concentration/Focus) 8. Getting a prize or medal makes me happy. (Reinforcement (Reward/ Encouragement)) 9. Outstanding others in a competition, makes me happy. (Competence) VII. Work

202

Appendices

1. Getting a good job with a decent salary and opportunity for growth is very important for my well-being. (Employment/Career) 2. Working efficiently and productively makes me happy. (Work Productivity) 3. Utilizing my potential to excel in my profession makes me feel happy. (Profession) VIII. Sense of Satisfaction 1. I get a sense of satisfaction when I am able to do things of my interest or pursue my hobbies. (Sense of Satisfaction) 2. I feel happy when I am not over burdened by excessive work. (Smooth Life) 3. Experience plays an important role in determining my well-being. (Experience) 4. A peaceful and progressive environment gives me happiness. (External Environment/Nature) IX. Recreation 1. Outings with my friends make me happy. (Recreation) 2. Enjoying and celebrating festivals with all my relatives and family members, gives me happiness. (Festivals) 3. Playing with friends gives me happiness. (Engagement in Interesting Activities) X. Values 1. My value system is important in determining my well-being. (Values) 2. Working hard with the zeal to progress in life makes me happy. (Hard Work) 3. Being able to support my family makes me feel responsible and happy. (Being Responsible) 4. Trusting people is important to lead a meaningful life. (Trust) XI. Societal 1. Helping the needy and distressed, makes me feel happy. (Pro-Social Behaviour) 2. Seeing the growth and success of others makes me happy. (Societal) 3. My teacher, who has inspired me, understood and motivated me over the years, makes me happy. (People in the Society) 4. Getting recognition and respect in life gives me happiness. (Status) 5. My well-being is not only my personal growth but of the society at large. (Individual Contribution towards Social Well-being) 6. Not bothering about what and how much the other person has, keeps me happy. (Social Comparisons)

Appendices

203

7. Contributing toward the improvement of society leads to my well-being. (Social Work) 8. Abiding by the prevailing social norms gives me happiness. (Social Norms) XII. Personality 1. It gives me a sense of well-being if I am able to present myself effectively to others in varied situations. (Personality) 2. Being able to bear my responsibilities and not being dependent on others increase my well-being. (Self-Efficiency) 3. My self-respect determines my well-being. (Self-Respect) 4. Optimistic approach to life gives me a sense of well-being. (Positive Attitude/Thinking) 5. Having self-confidence leads to my well-being. (Self-Confidence) 6. Being flexible and adaptable makes me happy. (Adjustment (Adjustability/Adaptability)) 7. If I am happy, I can make others happy. (Positive Attitude/Thinking) 8. Listening to my conscience gives me happiness. (Self) 9. Having the will and determination to do what I want, makes me do it. (Determination) 10. Giving personal space in relations facilitates positive growth and happiness. (Personal Space) 11. Understanding myself, others and the world around me gives me satisfaction and happiness. (Self-Actualization) 12. When people accept me as I am, I feel happy. (Self-Identity) Negative Determinants—Reducers I. Individual Related Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I feel sad when someone scolds me without any fault. I don’t like when people fight. I feel low when someone dies. I am sad when I don’t get what I want. I feel less fortunate when I compare myself with others.

II. Values Related Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I am very upset with dishonest people. It shocks me to see the loss of values and inhumane attitude of people. I feel like crying when someone teases me. Hypocrite and pretentious people upset me. Using unfair means and injustice cause distress in life.

III. Emotion Related Issues 1. If people around me are sad, I feel sad. 2. I am badly hurt if someone speaks bad about me or my family.

204

Appendices

3. Parents are sad if their children don’t do well in life. 4. I feel sad when relationships break. 5. Not being recognized or appreciated for my good efforts, makes me feel unhappy. IV. Achievement Related Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I feel bad when I don’t do well in studies. I am disheartened if I fail at the professional front. I feel sad if I lose a match. I feel unhappy if I am not able to reach my goal. I am upset if I don’t succeed even after trying hard.

V. Health Related Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

If anyone in my family is not well, I feel sad. I feel bad when I see people suffering from some disease in the hospital. Tension caused by mental pain and conflicts makes me feel unpleasant. I feel sorry for the physically handicapped and disadvantaged people. The sight of a wound upsets me.

VI. Social/Society Related Issues 1. Seeing the deplorable condition of people in society like begging, poverty and unemployment makes me feel helpless. 2. Social evils like inequality and communalism are disgusting. 3. I feel unhappy when there is an accident on the road. 4. I feel sad when social disasters like Tsunami or natural calamities like flood or drought occur. 5. I feel sad to see the prevailing governmental system that is not helping people. VII. Attitude Related Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Irresponsible and uncaring attitude of people upsets me. I feel sad when my parents ignore my wishes. I don’t like people who are ungrateful and selfish. I feel ashamed when I misbehave and disappoint my parents. I feel sorry to see people with a pessimist approach toward life.

VIII. Resource Related Issues 1. I feel distressed when I am not able to do something due to lack of resources. 2. I feel helpless if I am left without money. 3. It is upsetting to see the pain and suffering of human beings due to disparity of resources. 4. I feel sad for students who are unable to continue their studies due to family problems.

Appendices

205

5. Inflation results in lack of facilities and problems for people. IX. Environment Related Issues 1. Thinking of population explosion saddens me. 2. The dismal and sad atmosphere of my surroundings makes me feel unhappy. 3. The increased pollution in environment makes me feel unpleasant. 4. Not being able to go outside due to never stopping rains makes me feel bad. 5. The unconcern of people with regards to our environment saddens me.

Appendix G: The Preliminary Questionnaire (SWBM) Instructions Subjective well-being (SWB) is your evaluation of your life—things/events that make you happy, are required for leading of a good life and things/events that make you unhappy. Below is a scale which consists of two parts. Each part consists of a set of statements. Please rate on a 7-point scale the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statements in each part as being responsible for your happiness or unhappiness leading to your sense of well-being. Do this by reading each statement and then making a tick () mark in front of the statement number in the column of your response, from numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The meaning of each of these figures is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Strongly Agree Slightly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly Disagree.

Please read all statements carefully and respond honestly to all of them on the basis of your own true beliefs. There are NO right or wrong answers. Please “tick mark” in the column of your response for each statement in the answer sheet consisting of both Parts I and II. The information provided by you is purely confidential and is being elicited for research purpose only. Part I 1. My parents mean the world to me.

206

Appendices

2. Both physiological and psychological health are important for my well-being in life. 3. Money alone cannot guarantee a good life. 4. Presents from my parents make me happy. 5. Education is important for leading a good life. 6. I feel happy when I get good results. 7. Getting a good job with a decent salary and opportunity for growth is very Important for my well-being. 8. I feel satisfied when I am able to do things of my interest or pursue my hobbies. 9. Outings with my friends make me happy. 10. My value system is important in determining my well-being. 11. Helping the needy and distressed, makes me feel happy. 12. It gives me a sense of well-being if I am able to present myself effectively to others in varied situations. 13. Parents feel happy if their children are well settled. 14. Mental peace is how I define my concept of well-being. 15. Both basic necessities and things of material comfort are necessary for my well-being. 16. I feel good when I am appreciated for doing a given task well. 17. Personal and professional growth makes me happy. 18. I feel happy when I am successful in accomplishing some task undertaken by me. 19. Working efficiently and productively makes me happy. 20. I feel happy when I am not overburdened by excessive work. 21. Celebrating festivals with all my relatives and family members, gives me happiness. 22. Working hard with the zeal to progress in life makes me happy. 23. Seeing the growth and success of others makes me happy. 24. Being able to bear my responsibilities and not being dependent on others increase my sense of well-being. 25. I feel that happiness in marriage is derived from the companionship of an understanding spouse. 26. I feel happy if I can share my resources to enable a child to study. 27. Learning new things for self-development gives me happiness. 28. Fulfilling my ambitions gives me happiness. 29. Utilizing my potential to excel in my profession makes me feel happy. 30. Experience plays an important role in determining my well-being. 31. Playing with friends gives me happiness. 32. Being able to support my family makes me feel responsible and happy. 33. My teacher, who has inspired, understood and motivated me over the years, makes me happy. 34. My self-respect determines my well-being. 35. Being in the company of my family and friends gives me happiness. 36. I value my property assets. 37. Setting and achieving professional goals gives me happiness.

Appendices

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

207

A peaceful and progressive environment gives me happiness. Trusting people is important to lead a meaningful life. Getting recognition and respect in life gives me happiness. An optimistic approach to life gives me a sense of well-being. Understanding others as much as possible makes me happy. Being able to stand on my own feet gives me happiness. My well-being is not only my personal growth but of the society at large. Having self-confidence leads to my well-being. The emotional support of my loved ones keeps me going in life. I feel happy when I am recognized for my work. Not bothering about what and how much the other person has, keeps me happy. Being flexible and adaptable makes me happy. My relationships with others is an important determinant of my well-being. When I am given attention by my teachers and parents for doing well in studies, I feel happy. Contributing towards the improvement of society leads to my well-being. If I am happy, I can make others happy. The blessings of my grandparents make me happy. Getting a prize or medal makes me happy. Abiding by prevailing social norms gives me happiness. Listening to my conscience gives me happiness. The ability to be able to accept others’ viewpoints makes me happy. Excelling over others in a competition, makes me happy. Strong will power and determination is important for my well-being. When people around me are happy, I feel happy. Personal space in relations facilitates positive growth and happiness. I feel happy because my parents love me. Understanding myself, others and the world around me gives me satisfaction and happiness. When people accept me as I am, I feel happy.

Part II 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

I feel sad when someone scolds me when I am not at fault. I get upset when people are dishonest. I feel sad when people around me are sad. I feel bad when I don’t do well in studies. I feel sad if my family member is unwell. The deplorable condition of people in society like poverty and unemployment makes me feel helpless. The irresponsible and uncaring attitude of people upsets me. I feel distressed when I am not able to do something due to lack of resources. Thinking of population explosion saddens me. I feel unhappy when I see people fight. It shocks me to see the loss of values and inhumane attitude of people. I am hurt if someone speaks ill about me or my family.

208

Appendices

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

I am disheartened if I fail on the professional front. I feel sad when I see people suffering from some disease in the hospital. Social evils like inequality and communalism are upsetting. I feel sad when my parents ignore my wishes. I feel helpless if I am left without money. The dismal and sad atmosphere of my surroundings makes me feel unhappy. I feel depressed when someone dies. I feel like crying when someone teases me. Parents are sad if their children don’t do well in life. I feel sad if I lose a match. Mental pain and conflict make me tense. I feel unhappy when there is an accident on the road. I don’t like people who are ungrateful and selfish. It is upsetting to see the pain and suffering of human beings due to disparity of resources. The increased pollution in environment makes me feel unpleasant. I am sad when I don’t get what I want. Hypocritical and pretentious people upset me. I feel sad when relationships break. I feel unhappy if I am not able to reach my goal. I feel sorry for physically handicapped and disadvantaged people. I feel sad about social disasters like Tsunami or natural calamities like flood or drought. I feel ashamed when I misbehave and disappoint my parents. I feel sad for students who are unable to continue their studies due to family problems. Being housebound due to continuous rains makes me feel bad. I feel less fortunate when I compare myself with others. Injustice distresses me. I feel unhappy when I am not being recognized or appreciated for my good efforts. I am upset if I don’t succeed even after putting in hard work. The sight of a wound upsets me. I feel sad to see the prevailing governmental system that makes things difficult for people. I feel sorry to see people with a pessimistic approach toward life. Inflation results in problems and lack of facilities for people. The lack of concern for the environment saddens me.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

Appendices

209

210

Appendices

Appendix H: Sample Descriptive Analysis (Phase II)

Statistics AGE N

Valid

998

Missing

14

Mean

22.8828

Range

28.00

Minimum

18.00

Maximum

46.00

GENDER N Valid = 1011; N Missing = 1 | Mean = 1.4243 Frequency Valid

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

600

59.3

59.3

2.00

393

38.8

38.9

98.2

3.00

18

1.8

1.8

100.0

1011

99.9

100.0

Total Missing

Percent

1.00

System

Total

1 1012

59.3

0.1 100.0

(In the above table, 1 is for males, 2 for females, and 3 for no information)

Marital Status MSCODE N Valid = 1011; N Missing = 1 | Mean = 1.1602 Frequency Valid

Cumulative Percent

1.00

894

88.3

88.4

88.4

75

7.4

7.4

95.8

3.00

39

3.9

3.9

99.7 100.0

4.00

Total

Valid Percent

2.00

Total Missing

Percent

System

3

0.3

0.3

1011

99.9

100.0

1

0.1

1012

100.0

(In the above table, 1 is for unmarried, 2 for married, 3 for no information, and 4 for divorcee)

Appendices

211

Religion RELCODE N Valid = 1011; N Missing = 1 | Mean = 1.6528 Frequency 1.00

Valid

Missing

Percent

849

Valid Percent

83.9

84.0

Cumulative Percent 84.0

2.00

37

3.7

3.7

87.6

3.00

31

3.1

3.1

90.7

4.00

12

1.2

1.2

91.9

5.00

21

2.1

2.1

94.0

6.00

6

0.6

0.6

94.6

7.00

7

0.7

0.7

95.3

8.00

37

3.7

3.7

98.9

9.00

2

0.2

0.2

99.1

10.00

1

0.1

0.1

99.2

11.00

5

0.5

0.5

99.7

12.00

1

0.1

0.1

99.8 100.0

13.00

2

0.2

0.2

Total

1011

99.9

100.0

1

0.1

System

Total

1012

100.0

(In the above table, 1 is for Hinduism, 2 is for Jainism, 3 for no information/unanswered, 4 for not applicable/does not believe in religion/atheist, 5 for Muslim/Islam, 6 for Buddhism, 7 for Sikhism, 8 for Christianity, 9 for Bohra, 10 for Punjabi, 11 for Indian, 12 for Humanity, and 13 for Zoroastrianism/Parsi.)

Domicile State DSCODE N Valid = 1011; N Missing = 1 | Mean = 7.1078 Frequency Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

1.00 (Maharashtra)

342

33.8

33.8

33.8

2.00 (Chhattisgarh)

21

2.1

2.1

35.9

113

11.2

11.2

47.1

3.00 (Rajasthan) 4.00 (Orissa)

18

1.8

1.8

48.9

5.00 (Haryana)

11

1.1

1.1

50.0

6.00 (MP)

53

5.2

5.2

55.2

7.00 (AP)

72

7.1

7.1

62.3

8.00 (UP)

78

7.7

7.7

70.0

9.00 (N. Delhi/Delhi)

31

3.1

3.1

73.1 (continued)

212

Appendices

(continued) DSCODE N Valid = 1011; N Missing = 1 | Mean = 7.1078 Frequency 10.00 (Punjab)

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

17

1.7

1.7

74.8

2

0.2

0.2

75.0

12.00 (Tamil Nadu)

20

2.0

2.0

77.0

13.00 (West Bengal)

11.00 (Manipur)

49

4.8

4.8

81.8

14.00 (Tripura)

1

0.1

0.1

81.9

15.00 (Kerala)

24

2.4

2.4

84.3

4

0.4

0.4

84.7

17.00 (Not Answered)

16.00 (Assam)

29

2.9

2.9

87.5

18.00 (Jharkhand)

18

1.8

1.8

89.3

19.00 (Bihar)

35

3.5

3.5

92.8

20.00 (Gujarat)

25

2.5

2.5

95.3

21.00 (Karnataka)

18

1.8

1.8

97.0

22.00 (Chandigarh UT)

2

0.2

0.2

97.2

23.00 (HP)

4

0.4

0.4

97.6

24.00 (Uttara(khand)nchal)

6

0.6

0.6

98.2

25.00 (India)

9

0.9

0.9

99.1

26.00 (Goa)

4

0.4

0.4

99.5

27.00 (Jammu & Kashmir)

5

0.5

0.5

100.0

1011

99.9

100.0

Total

Family Type FTCODE N Valid = 1011; N Missing = 1 | Mean = 1.2690 Frequency Valid

Cumulative Percent

76.6

76.7

76.7

2.00

200

19.8

19.8

96.4 100.0

3.00

Total

Valid Percent

775

Total Missing

Percent

1.00

System

36

3.6

3.6

1011

99.9

100.0

1

0.1

1012

100.0

(In the above table, 1 is for nuclear family, 2 for joint, and 3 for no information)

Appendices

213

Educational Qualification EDUCODE N Valid = 1011; N Missing = 1 | Mean = 1.5500 Frequency Valid

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

466

46.0

46.1

2.00

534

52.8

52.8

98.9

3.00

11

1.1

1.1

100.0

1011

99.9

100.0

Total Missing

Percent

1.00

System

1 1012

Total

46.1

0.1 100.0

(In the above table, 1 is for Undergraduates, 2 for Postgraduates, and 3 for no information)

Appendix I: Items with a Very Low Frequency Dropped for Factor Analysis Positive Determinants—Enhancers I. Relationships 8. Blessings of my grandparents make me happy. (Blessings and Good Wishes) 9. The ability to be able to accept others’ viewpoint makes me happy. (Acceptance (Acceptability)) 10. When people around me are happy, I feel happy. (Good/Happiness of Others) 11. I feel happy because my parents love me. (Affection) III. Resources 4. I value my property assets. (Assets) V. Education 1. Personal and professional growth makes me happy. (Growth (Progress/ Self-Growth)) 2. Learning new things for self-development gives me happiness. (Learning) VI. Achievement 7. When I am given attention from my teachers and parents for faring well in studies, I feel happy. (Concentration/Focus) 8. Getting a prize or medal makes me happy. (Reinforcement (Reward/ Encouragement))

214

Appendices

9. Outstanding others in a competition, makes me happy. (Competence). VII. Work 2. Working efficiently and productively makes me happy. (Work Productivity) 3. Utilizing my potential to excel in my profession makes me feel happy. (Profession) VIII. Sense of Satisfaction 2. I feel happy when I am not over burdened by excessive work. (Smooth Life) 3. Experience plays an important role in determining my well-being. (Experience) IX. Recreation 2. Enjoying and celebrating festivals with all my relatives and family members, gives me happiness. (Festivals) 3. Playing with friends gives me happiness. (Engagement in Interesting Activities) X. Values 3. Being able to support my family makes me feel responsible and happy. (Being Responsible) 4. Trusting people is important to lead a meaningful life. (Trust) XI. Societal 5. My well-being is not only my personal growth but of the society at large. (Individual Contribution towards Social Well-being) 6. Not bothering about what and how much the other person has, keeps me happy. (Social Comparisons) 7. Contributing toward the improvement of society leads to my well-being. (Social Work) 8. Abiding by the prevailing social norms gives me happiness. (Social Norms) XII. Personality 3. My self-respect determines my well-being. (Self-Respect) 4. Optimistic approach to life gives me a sense of well-being. (Positive Attitude/Thinking) 5. Having self-confidence leads to my well-being. (Self-Confidence) 6. Being flexible and adaptable makes me happy. (Adjustment (Adjustability/Adaptability))

Appendices

215

7. If I am happy, I can make others happy. (Positive Attitude/Thinking) 8. Listening to my conscience gives me happiness. (Self) 9. Having the will and determination to do what I want, makes me do it. (Determination) 10. Giving personal space in relations facilitates positive growth and happiness. (Personal Space) 11. Understanding myself, others and the world around me gives me satisfaction and happiness (Self-Actualization) 13. When people accept me as I am, I feel happy. (Self-Identity). Negative Determinants—Reducers I. Individual Related Issues 5. I feel less fortunate when I compare myself with others. II. Values Related Issues 5. Using unfair means and injustice cause distress in life. III. Emotion Related Issues 5. Not being recognized or appreciated for my good efforts, makes me feel unhappy. IV. Achievement Related Issues 5. I am upset if I don’t succeed even after trying hard. V. Health Related Issues 3. Tension caused by mental pain and conflicts makes me feel unpleasant. 4. I feel sorry for the physically handicapped and disadvantaged people. VI. Social/Society Related Issues 2. Social evils like inequality and communalism are disgusting. 3. I feel unhappy when there is an accident on the road. 4. I feel sad when social disasters like Tsunami or natural calamities like flood or drought occur. 5. I feel sad to see the prevailing governmental system that is not helping people. VII. Attitude Related Issues 1. Irresponsible and uncaring attitude of people upsets me. 2. I feel sad when my parents ignore my wishes. 3. I don’t like people who are ungrateful and selfish.

216

Appendices

4. I feel ashamed when I misbehave and disappoint my parents. 5. I feel sorry to see people with a pessimist approach toward life. VIII. Resource Related Issues 1. I feel distressed when I am not able to do something due to lack of resources. 2. I feel helpless if I am left without money. 3. It is upsetting to see the pain and suffering of human beings due to disparity of resources. 4. I feel sad for students who are unable to continue their studies due to family problems. 5. Inflation results in lack of facilities and problems for people. IX. Environment Related Issues 1. Thinking of population explosion saddens me. 2. The dismal and sad atmosphere of my surroundings makes me feel unhappy. 3. The increased pollution in environment makes me feel unpleasant. 4. Not being able to go outside due to never stopping rains makes me feel bad. 5. The unconcern of people with regards to our environment saddens me.

Appendix J: List of Items Included in the Final Questionnaire Along with Their Factor Loadings, Previous Labels, and New Labels SWBM After Factor Analysis (Part I) (Through Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation) Factor 1: Achievement and Recognition 1. I feel happy when I am appreciated for doing a given task well. (E2:16, 0.567) (Appreciation) 2. I feel happy when I get good results. (A1:6, 0.537) (Achievement) 3. Fulfilling my ambitions gives me happiness. (A3:28, 0.662) (Aspiration) 4. Achieving self-set goals gives me happiness. (A4:37, 0.670) (Goal) 5. Being able to stand on my own feet gives me happiness. (A5:43, 0.603) (SelfReliance) 6. I feel happy when I am recognized for my work. (A6:47, 0.744) (Recognition (Accomplishment and Acknowledgement)) 7. Progressive environment gives me happiness. (SS4:38, 0.542) (External Environment) 8. Working zealously makes me happy. (V2:22, 0.561) (Hard Work)

Appendices

217

9. Getting respect in life gives me happiness. (S4:40, 0.662) (Status) 10. Being able to bear my responsibilities increase my sense of well-being. (P2:24, 0.468) (Self-Efficiency). Factor 2: Camaraderie 1. Understanding others makes me happy. (R5:42, 0.426) (Understanding) 2. I feel happy if I can share my resources to enable a child to study. (RE3:26, 0.456) (Resources) 3. Helping the distressed makes me feel happy. (S1:11, 0.490) (Pro-Social Behaviour) 4. Seeing success of others makes me happy. (S2:23, 0.657) (Societal) 5. My teacher, who has inspired, understood and motivated me over the years, makes me happy. (S3:33, 0.483) (People in Society) Factor 3: Contentment 1. Parents feel happy if their children are well settled. (R2:13, 0.482) (Well-Being of one’s Children) 2. I feel that happiness in marriage is derived from the companionship of an understanding spouse. (R3:25, 0.444) (Marriage) 3. Both physiological and psychological health is important for my well-being in life. (H1:2, 0.494) (Health) 4. Mental peace is how I define my concept of well-being. (H2:14, 0.424) (Peace (Mental)/Spiritualism/Faith) 5. Money alone cannot guarantee a good life. (RE1:3, 0.443) (Money) 6. Education is important in leading a good life. (ED1:5, 0.410) (Education) 7. I feel happy when I am successful in accomplishing some task undertaken by me. (A2:18, 0.612) (Success) 8. I feel satisfied when I am able to pursue things of my interest. (SS1:8, 0.590) (Sense of Satisfaction) 9. Outings with my friends make me happy. (REC1:9, 0.368) (Recreation) 10. My value system is important in determining my well-being. (V1:10, 0.514) (Values) 11. Presenting myself effectively to others in varied situations gives me a sense of my well-being. (P1:12, 0.500) (Personality) Factor 4: Relationships 1. My parents mean the world to me. (R1:1, 0.584) (Affiliation (Attachment)) 2. Being in the company of my family and friends gives me happiness. (R4:35, 0.529) (Togetherness) 3. The emotional support of my loved ones keeps me going in life. (R6:46, 0.507) (Support) 4. Presents from my parents make me happy. (E1:4, 0.458) (Emotions)

218

Appendices

Factor 5: Need Fulfillment 1. Both basic necessities and things of material comfort are necessary for my wellbeing. (RE2:15, 0.601) (Material Possessions and Basic Necessities) 2. Both, a decent salary and opportunity for growth, in a job is important for my well being. (W1:7, 0.545) (Employment/Career) Abbreviations Used (In the Order of Appearance in the Questionnaire) FL = Factor Loading Value, E = Emotions, A = Achievement, SS = Sense of Satisfaction, V = Values, S = Societal, P = Personality, R = Relationships, RE = Resources, H = Health, E = Education, REC = Recreation, W = Work. SWBM after Factor Analysis (Part II) (Through Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation) Factor 1: Social Sensitivity 1. I feel unhappy when I see people fight. (I2:10, 0.691) (Fighting) 2. I get upset when people are dishonest. (V1:2, 0.499) (Dishonesty) 3. I feel unhappy to see the loss of values in people. (V2:11, 0.591) (Loss of Values/ Value Deterioration/Lack of Values and Humanity) 4. I feel sad when people around me are sad. (E1:3, 0.575) (Children, Self, Family’s Sorrows/Other’s Sorrows/If People around are Sad, especially Family Members) 5. I feel sad when I see people suffering from disease in the hospital. (H2:14, 0.631) (Physiological Ailments/Illness) 6. I feel unhappy when I see the deplorable condition of society. (S1:6, 0.494) (Deplorable Condition of People in Society/Social Plight/Disgusting Social Scene—Poverty/Begging/Unemployment) Factor 2: Personal Sensitivity 1. I feel sad when I am unjustly scolded. (I1:1, 0.438) (Ill-treatment [Scolding]) 2. I feel depressed when someone dies. (I3:19, 0.473) (Death) 3. I am hurt if someone speaks ill about me or my family. (E2:12, 0.656) (Emotional, Mental Hurts/Being Hurt) 4. Parents are unhappy when their children don’t do well in life. (E3:21, 0.521) (Children Related Issues) 5. I feel bad when I don’t do well in studies. (A1:4, 0.643) (Failures and Disappointment) 6. I am unhappy when I fail on the professional front. (A2:13, 0.594) (Failures and Disappointment) 7. I feel unhappy when my family member is unwell. (H1:5, 0.661) (Ill-Health of Self, Family Members or Others) Factor 3: Disappointments 1. Hypocritical and pretentious people upset me. (V4:29, 0.602) (Hypocrisy/ Pretensions)

Appendices

219

2. I feel sad when relationships break. (E4:30, 0.555) (Breaking of Relationships/ Parting or Separating from Dear Ones) 3. I am unhappy when I am not able to reach my goal. (A4:31, 0.694) (Unfulfilled Desires) Factor 4: Individual Concerns 1. I am unhappy when I don’t get what I want. (I4:28, 0.572) (Unfulfilled Desires/ Expectations) 2. I feel sad when someone teases me. (V3:20, 0.549) (Teasing [also Eve Teasing]) 3. I feel unhappy when I lose a match. (A3:22, 0.547) (Loss of any Kind [this is an e.g.]). 4. I feel unhappy when I see somebody wounded. (H5:41, 0.558) (Physical Hurts [Sight of a Wound]) Abbreviations Used (In the Order of Appearance in the Questionnaire) FL = Factor Loading Value, I = Individual Concerns, V = Values Related Issues, E = Emotion Related Issues, H = Health Related Issues, S = Society Related Issues, A = Achievement Related Issues

220

Appendix K: The Three Scales (SWBM, SWLS, and PANAS) along with their Hindi Translations

Appendices

Appendices

221

222

Appendices

Appendices

223

224

Appendices

Appendices

225

226

Appendices

Appendices

227

Appendix L: Sample Descriptive Analysis (Phase III)

Sr. Demographic Category No. Variable and its Operationalization

Description

Number of Percentage Respondents (%) (n)

1

5–14 Years

355

27.9

15–29 Years

341

26.8

2

3

Age Children (as reported by the Adolescents respondent) and Young Adults Middle Aged

30–59 Years

352

27.7

Older Adults

60–92 Years

224

17.6

Gender Male (as reported by the Female respondent) Not Mentioned Marital Status (the current status as reported by the respondent)

644

50.6

627

49.3

1

0.1

Unmarried/ Single

573

45.0

Married

593

46.6

6

0.5

62

4.9

Separated/ Divorcee Widow/ Widower Not Mentioned

4

5

Family Type (the current type of family the respondent is living in)

38

2.9

Nuclear

732

57.5

Extended

273

21.5

Joint

252

19.8

15

1.2

Not Mentioned

Total Family Income* (continued)

228

Appendices

(continued) Sr. Demographic Category No. Variable and its Operationalization

Description

Number of Percentage Respondents (%) (n)

Lower Income/Poor Reported

Very Low Income

0–50,000

385

30.3

Estimated

Very Low Income

0–50,000

443

34.8

Reported

Low Income

50,001–100,000

199

15.6

Estimated

Low Income

50,001–100,000

185

14.5

Middle Income Reported

Lower Middle Income

100,001–200,000

123

9.7

Estimated

Lower Middle Income

100,001–200,000

96

7.5

Reported

Middle Middle 200,001–500,000 Income

91

7.2

Estimated

Middle Middle Income

200,001–500,000

83

6.5

Reported

Higher Middle Income

500,001–1,000,000

50

3.9

Estimated

Higher Middle Income

500,001–1,000,000

101

7.9

High Income/Rich Reported

High Income

1,000,001–5,000,000

151

11.9

Estimated

High Income

1,000,001–5,000,000

182

14.3

Reported

Very High Income

5,000,001–360,000,000

36

2.8

Estimated

Very High Income

5,000,001–360,000,000 148

11.6

Reported

237

18.6

Estimated

34

2.7

Not Mentioned

6

Education**

Illiterate

97

7.6

Literate

7

0.6

Primary School

I–V

221

17.4

Middle School

VI–VIII

288

22.6

Secondary

(IX/X/SSC/Matric)

198

15.6 (continued)

Appendices

229

(continued) Sr. Demographic Category No. Variable and its Operationalization

Description

Number of Percentage Respondents (%) (n)

Senior Secondary

XI/XII/HSC/Inter

145

11.4

Graduation

Non-Professional/ Technical

74

5.8

Professional/Technical Postgraduation Non-Professional/ Technical

8

Professional/Technical

85

6.7

M.Phil./Ph.D./PDF/ Others

30

2.4

Vocational

(E.g., Diploma in Education, Secretarial, ITI, etc.)

8

0.6

12

0.9

660

51.9

*

Work Experience NIL/NA (the total no. of years that the respondent has 1–11 Months spent working in 1–10 Years life) 11–20 Years

Area

4.1 4.3

Super Specialization

Not Mentioned 7

52 55

(mostly in the case of students and homemakers)

4

0.3

173

13.6

81

6.4

21–30 Years

99

7.8

31–40 Years

93

7.3

41–50 Years

30

2.4

51–60 Years

15

1.2

61–70 Years

3

0.2

Not Mentioned

114

9.0

Urban

478

37.6

Slums

408

32.1

Rural

386

30.3

Total Family Income has been taken as the per annum income of all the earning members of the respondent’s family living together at the time of scale administration. It has been considered in two ways: Reported (what has been reported by the respondent) and Estimated (as observed by the researcher on the basis of the kind of job, the pay package drawn, the locality in which the candidate lives, the facilities in his/her house, and as reported by significant others ** Education is the reported qualification of the respondents—for the respondents who were not studying anymore and/or left a degree/diploma incomplete or in between, the last degree/diploma has been considered, otherwise the highest degree/diploma has been considered; for the respondents who were still pursuing their education, the pursuing courses have been considered. Also, courses like AICWA, ICWA, ACIS, CA, and CS have been in included in Professional Postgraduate category

230

Appendices

Appendix M: The Estimates of Part I of SWBM Estimates of the Model The primary focus of the estimation process is to yield parameter values such that the discrepancy (i.e. residual) between the sample covariance matrix and the population covariance matrix implied by the model is minimal. This objective is achieved by minimizing a discrepancy function, such that its minimal value (Fmin) reflects the point in the estimation process where the discrepancy between them is least or minimum. Maximum Likelihood Estimation (ML or MLE) is by far the most common method. MLE makes estimates based on maximizing the probability (likelihood) that the observed covariances are drawn from a population assumed to be the same as that reflected in the coefficient estimates. That is, MLE picks estimates which have the greatest chance of reproducing the observed data. Standardized Structural Coefficient Estimates: are based on standardized data, including correlation matrixes. Standardized estimates are used, for instance, when comparing direct effects on a given endogenous variable in a single-group study. That is the standardized weights are used to compare the relative importance of the independent variables. The interpretation is similar to regression: if a standardized structural coefficient is 2.0, then the latent dependent will increase by 2.0 standard units for each unit increase in the latent independent. In AMOS, the standardized structural coefficients are labelled “standardized regression weights”, which is what they are. Unstandardized Structural (Path) Coefficients: Unstandardized estimates are based on raw data or covariance matrixes. When comparing across groups, indicators may have different variances, as may latent variables, measurement error terms, and disturbance terms. When groups have different variances, unstandardized comparisons are preferred. For unstandardized estimates, equal coefficients mean equal absolute effects on y, whereas for standardized estimates, equal coefficients mean equal effects on y relative to differences in means and variances. When comparing the same effect across different groups with different variances, researchers usually want to compare absolute effects and thus rely on unstandardized estimates. The Critical Ratio and Significance of Path Coefficients: When the Critical Ratio (CR) is > 1.96 for a regression weight, that path is significant at the 0.05 level (that is, its estimated path parameter is significant). The Critical Ratio and the Significance of Factor Covariances: The significance of estimated covariances among the latent variables is assessed in the same manner: if they have a c. r. > 1.96, they are significant.

Appendices

231

Factor 1: Achievement and Recognition

0,

e1

1

paa1

0,

e2

1

0,

e8

1

0,

e9

1

0,

e15 1

0,

e16

1

0,

e21 1

0,

e22

1

paa2 paa8 paa9 paa15 paa16 paa21 paa22 1

0,

0,

e27

1

e281

paa27

paa28

0,

Ach. & Recog.

(Here, paa = Factor 1 (Achievement and Recognition) of Part I, Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27, and 28 are item nos. as given in the questionnaire which measure the determinants Appreciation, Achievement/Professional Success, Aspiration, Goal, Being Independent, Recognition/Accomplishment/Acknowledgement, External Environment, Hard Work, Status/Reputation/Earning Name in Society, and Self-Efficiency respectively, and e is the error term.) Maximum Likelihood Estimates (Group number 1—Default model) Regression Weights: (Group number 1—Default model) Standardized Unstandardized S. E Estimate Estimate

C. R

P

paa1