Special report : the wellbeing of Australians : groups with the highest and lowest wellbeing in Australia

Overview and Aim
1. This report concerns an analysis of the cumulative data from 15 surveys using the Personal Wellbeing Index to measure Subjective Wellbeing. The total number of respondents is about 30,000 but not all data were available for all analyses due to changing variables between
surveys.
2. The aim of this analysis is to determine those sub-groups with the highest and the lowest wellbeing.
Method
3. The definition of sub-groups is through the demographic variables of Income, Gender, Age, Household Composition, Relationship Status and Employment Status. Index domains are also included. While not every combination of demographic variables has been tested, the total number of combinations analysed was 3,277.
4. Extreme group mean scores are defined as lying above 79 points and below 70 points. These values are at least five standard deviations beyond the total sample mean score and are, therefore, extreme outliers. The minimum number of responses that could form such a group is
one. Data are accumulated across surveys for corresponding groups.
Results
5. The initial search for the most extreme groups identified the 20 highest and the 20 lowest groups with a minimum N=10. These are termed the ‘Exclusive’ groups since they were based only on the previously identified extreme scores. In order to determine the true mean of each of these groups, a further analysis incorporated all respondents who met the definition of group membership. For example, an Exclusive group defined as [male, 76+ years] would contain only the accumulation of scores from individual surveys that met the extreme score criterion (<70 or >79). The Inclusive group included the scores from all survey respondents who matched the group definition of male, 76+ years.
6. The results revealed a dominance by the domains of the Personal Wellbeing Index. The extreme high groups were predicted by high scores on all domains except safety and relationships. The low groups were defined by low scores on all seven domains.
7. A further search for extreme groups was undertaken that was restricted to the demographic descriptors. The 20 highest and 20 lowest groups were identified based on a minimum cell content of N=10. The corresponding Inclusive group means were then calculated as before.
8. In order to increase the reliability of the final groups, a minimum cell content of N=20 cases was imposed.
9. Six extreme high groups were identified. These are dominated by high income and the presence of a partner. Five extreme low groups were identified. These are dominated by very low income, the absence of a partner, and unemployment.
Conclusions
10. The conclusions drawn from these analyses are as follows:
10.1 The central defining characteristics of people forming the extreme high wellbeing groups is high household income and living with a partner.
10.2 The central defining risk factors for people forming the extreme low wellbeing groups are very low household income, not living with a partner, and unemployment.
10.3 None of these five demographic characteristics are sufficient to define extreme wellbeing groups on their own. They all act in combinations of at least two risk factors together.

Wellbeing of Australians : work, wealth and happiness : part A

The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index monitors the subjective wellbeing of the Australian population. Our first survey was conducted in April 2001 and this report concerns the 17th survey, undertaken in April 2007. Our previous survey had been conducted six months earlier in October 2006. This intervening period was relatively uneventful in terms of events likely to change population wellbeing. A new leader of the opposition Labor Party was appointed (Kevin Rudd) who seemed more likely than
his predecessors to wrest power from long-serving Prime Minister John Howard (Liberal Party) in an election to be held around the end of 2007.
Each survey involves a telephone interview with a new sample of 2,000 Australians, selected to represent the national population geographic distribution. These surveys comprise the Personal Wellbeing Index, which measures people’s satisfaction with their own lives, and the National
Wellbeing Index, which measures how satisfied people are with life in Australia. Other items include a standard set of demographic questions and other survey-specific questions. The specific topics for Survey 17 are time at work, and anticipated happiness at doubling or halving household income.

Wellbeing of Australians : carer health and wellbeing

This Report concerns the subjective wellbeing of carers in Australia. It is the product of a partnership between Carers Australia, Australian Unity, and Deakin University. All three partners were involved in all stages of the project as planning the logistics, designing the questionnaire and composing the report. Data analysis was undertaken by Deakin University while the logistics of questionnaire mailout was managed by Australian Unity and Carers Australia. The actual mailing took place from each of the state/territory Carers Associations, who used their own databases to print and affix the addresses of their members to the envelopes. Three major outcome measures have been used. The first is the Personal Wellbeing Index, which is our standard measure of wellbeing. The Index score is the average level of satisfaction across seven aspects of personal life – health, personal relationships, safety, standard of living, achieving in life, community connectedness, and future security. The other two outcome measures are sub-scales taken from the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995). This is a very well regarded scale and the sub-scales of Depression and Stress have been used for this study. A total of 10,939 questionnaires were distributed and 4,107 were returned in time for processing. This constitutes a 37.6% response rate.

Diasporic Greek-Australian writing deconstructed : challenging Europe with new voices, new perspectives

Contemporary Europe, culturally, historically and linguistically is filled with contradiction, silences and paradox.

Diasporic creative writers in Australia who are associated, either by virtue of their cultural heritage or through an intellectual engagement with Europe, can in fact provide a radical potential in contemporary European cultural analysis.

Deconstructing and interpreting narratives, prose and poetry of bilingual writers can open up unexplored areas which, up till now, have been either repressed or marginalised. This critical endeavour, drawing on recent post-colonial criticism, is a new way to interpret fiction, stories and even modern fairytales. It appears less threatening and confronting to venture into those cultural, psychological and subliminal areas which contemporary Europe perhaps wishes to forget or renounce. It is however an alternate method which can be used to compel criticism to puzzle over such areas and so open up new perspectives as well as allow for new voices.

Nation-state belonging among Asian Australians and the question of transnationalism

Research shows that migrants are likely to develop multiple attachments to local and global allegiances that lie beyond the boundaries of the nation-state. Drawing on the Asian Australian experience as a point of departure, this article explores whether Asian Australian migrants from a range of different social and cultural backgrounds are more or less likely than the rest of the Australian population to feel a sense of belonging to the nation-state. Using the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes 2003, the results show that Asian Australian migrants have similar views towards the nation-state as the rest of the Australian population. Given that research on the Asian Australian migrant experience is predominantly located in cultural studies, the results suggest the importance of using survey research as another avenue to understand the migrant experience.