Wellbeing Meta-Analysis

Wellbeing Meta-Analysis: A Worldwide Study of the
Relationship Between the Five Elements of Wellbeing and

Life Evaluation, Daily Experiences, Health, and Giving
Sangeeta Agrawal, M.S., Gallup
James K. Harter, Ph.D., Gallup
April 2011
Through advanced social and economic
analysis, Gallup helps organizations, cities,
and countries solve the world’s foremost
problems. For more information, please visit
socialandeconomicanalysis.gallup.com
or contact Sarah Van Allen at 202.715.3152
or sarah_van_allen@gallup.com.
Copyright Standards
This document contains proprietary research, copyrighted materials, and literary property of Gallup, Inc. It is for the guidance of your company only and is not to be copied, quoted, published,
or divulged to others outside of your organization. Gallup®, Wellbeing Finder™, Gallup Panel™, and Gallup Consulting® are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property
of their respective owners.
This document is of great value to both your organization and Gallup, Inc. Accordingly, international and domestic laws and penalties guaranteeing patent, copyright, trademark, and trade
secret protection protect the ideas, concepts, and recommendations related within this document.
No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of Gallup, Inc.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary �� 1

Objective��1
Methods��1
Results��1
Conclusion��2
Introduction �� 2
Wellbeing Finder��2
World Poll Methodology��2
Preparing for Data Collection��3
Translation��3
Data Collection Methodology, Study Sample, and Database��3
Meta-Analysis Variables��3
Outcome-Dependent Variables��3
Predictor Variables��5
Demographic Variables��5
Meta-Analysis, Hypothesis, Methods, and Results �� 5

Meta-Analysis��5
Hypothesis and Study Characteristics��6
Meta-Analytic Methods Used��7
Reliability Calculations��7
Results��7
Relation With Country-Level Moderator Variable��13
GDP Variable��13
References��18
Appendix A: Sample Size by Country or Region��19
Appendix B: The Gallup Panel™��21
Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.
Wellbeing Meta-Analysis: A Worldwide Study of the
Relationship Between the Five Elements of Wellbeing and
Life Evaluation, Daily Experiences, Health, and Giving
Sangeeta Agrawal, M.S., Gallup
James K. Harter, Ph.D., Gallup
Executive Summary
Objective
Wellbeing is all the things that are important to how we think about and experience our lives. Previous Gallup research
found five actionable elements that differentiate thriving lives from those spent struggling and suffering. This report
provides an international cross-validation of the five elements of wellbeing.
The purpose of this study was to:
1. estimate the relationship between each of the five elements of wellbeing — Career, Social, Financial, Physical,
and Community — and six outcome variables — present life evaluation, future life evaluation, daily wellbeing,
unhealthy days, health problems, and giving — across countries and regions worldwide
2. estimate the practical meaning of the relationship between the wellbeing elements and the outcome variables
3. examine the moderating effect of country-level GDP and location/region on the relationship between each of the
wellbeing elements and the outcome variables
Methods
The data set includes nationally representative samples of adults, aged 15 and older, in 117 countries from the Gallup World
Poll, representing more than 95% of the world’s adult population. Gallup conducted 120,239 interviews from February
2009 through March 2010 using face-to-face or telephone methodology. The Gallup World Poll survey includes a core set
of approximately 100 wellbeing items. In 2009, based on research that found five important subjective factors, or elements,
of wellbeing, Gallup added five items to the World Poll survey — one item that best explained variance in each of the five
elements of wellbeing. We statistically calculated the individual-level relationship between the five wellbeing items and the six
outcome variables, including present life evaluation, future life evaluation, daily wellbeing, number of unhealthy days in the
past 30 days, general health problems, and giving. We examined the moderation of the previously mentioned relationships
across country-level GDP and location/region categorization.
Results
Each of the five wellbeing elements explains meaningful variance in each of the six outcome variables studied. Results
indicate high generalizability, indicating that the correlations were largely consistent across different countries and areas after
controlling for demographic differences.
Respondents with higher wellbeing in all five areas reported higher present life and future life evaluations, better daily
experiences, fewer unhealthy days and health problems, and higher likelihood of giving. Those with high Career Wellbeing
Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

reported less than half as many unhealthy days and were 39% less likely to report chronic health problems than those with
low Career Wellbeing. Those with high Social Wellbeing were 17% more likely to report giving than those with low Social
Wellbeing. Those with high Financial Wellbeing reported higher life satisfaction than those with low Financial Wellbeing,
even after controlling for income and other demographics and regional differences.
Conclusion
The relationship between the five wellbeing elements and the six outcome variables at the individual level is substantial
and generalizable across countries and areas. This relationship provides further evidence of the universality of the five core
elements of wellbeing.
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to further cross-validate the five elements of wellbeing —— Career, Social, Financial,
Physical, and Community — in relation to six outcome variables — present life evaluation, future life evaluation, daily
wellbeing, unhealthy days, health problems, and giving. This study integrates two modes of Gallup wellbeing research:
one focused on in-depth measurement for individuals — Gallup Wellbeing Finder — and the other focused on broad
population reporting of wellbeing — Gallup World Poll. To capture the opinions of a wide spectrum of the global
population, we used the Gallup World Poll as the measurement vehicle. We used the Wellbeing Finder research to identify
five core World Poll items to efficiently measure the five elements of wellbeing across a broad worldwide population.
Wellbeing Finder
The goal in developing the Gallup Wellbeing Finder was to leverage current behavioral science to build a comprehensive,
reliable, valid, concise, and actionable tool that individuals could use to track their own wellbeing over time. Gallup’s team
of scientists sought to identify wellbeing dimensions that explain differences in wellbeing for people in many different life
situations and that represent actionable areas that individuals can implement for wellbeing improvement. Wellbeing is all
the things that are important to how we think about and experience our lives.
Development of the Gallup Wellbeing Finder occurred in three iterations or phases:
Phase 1: Review of historical Gallup wellbeing research
Phase 2: Gallup World Poll analysis
Phase 3: Pilot research for the Web assessment
Pilot 1: Item testing across diverse groups
Pilot 2: Refinement of measures/constructs in U.S. and international samples
World Poll Methodology

The Gallup World Poll continually surveys residents in more than 150 countries, representing approximately 98% of
the world’s adult population, using randomly selected, nationally representative samples. Gallup typically surveys 1,000
2 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

individuals in each country using a standard set of core questions that has been translated into the major languages of
the respective country. In some regions, supplemental questions are asked in addition to core questions. Face-to-face
interviews are approximately 1 hour, while telephone interviews are about 30 minutes. In many countries, the survey is
conducted once per year, and fieldwork is generally completed in two to four weeks.
Gallup is responsible for the management, design, and control of the Gallup World Poll. For the past 70 years, Gallup
has been committed to the principle that accurately collecting and disseminating the opinions and aspirations of people
around the globe is vital to understanding our world. Gallup’s mission is to provide information in an objective, reliable,
and scientifically grounded manner. Gallup is not associated with any political orientation, party, or advocacy group and
does not accept partisan entities as clients. Any individual, institution, or governmental agency can access the Gallup
World Poll regardless of nationality. The identities of clients and all surveyed respondents are confidential.
Preparing for Data Collection
Translation
The questionnaire is translated into the major languages of each country. The translation process starts with an English,
French, or Spanish version, depending on the region. A translator who is proficient in the original and target languages
translates the survey into the target language. A second translator reviews the language version against the original version
and recommends refinements. The Worldwide Research Methodology and Codebook provides additional methodological
detail for the World Poll.
Data Collection Methodology, Study Sample, and Database
The data set includes nationally representative samples of adults, aged 15 and older, in 117 countries from the Gallup
World Poll, representing more than 95% of the world’s adult population. Gallup conducted 120,239 interviews from
February 2009 through March 2010 using face-to-face or telephone methodology.
Meta-Analysis Variables
Outcome-Dependent Variables
There are six outcome-dependent variables in this analysis:
1. Present Life Evaluation (ladder scale)
Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder
represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you.
On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?

2. Future Life Evaluation (ladder scale)
Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder
represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. Just
your best guess, on which step do you think you will stand in the future, say about five years from now?
3. Daily Wellbeing
We obtained results on daily experiences based on 10 daily items (scored 0-10, where 1 is scored for each positive
experience or absence of a negative experience and 0 is scored for each negative experience or absence of a positive
experience), which when combined make up the Positive Experience Index and the Negative Experience Index to
form a composite of experiences “yesterday.”
Daily Individual Items: Positive Experience Index
Now, please think about yesterday, from the morning until the end of the day. Think about where you were, what you were
doing, who you were with, and how you felt.
A. Did you feel well-rested yesterday?
B. Were you treated with respect all day yesterday?
C. Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday?
D. Did you learn or do something interesting yesterday?
E. Did you experience the following feelings a lot of the day yesterday? How about enjoyment?
1 Yes
2 No
Daily Individual Items: Negative Experience Index
Did you experience the following feelings during a lot of the day yesterday? How about . . .
A. Physical pain
B. Worry
C. Sadness
D. Stress
E. Anger
1 Yes
2 No

4. Number of Unhealthy Days
During the past 30 days, for about how many days did poor health keep you from doing your usual activities?
5. Health Problems
Do you have any health problems that prevent you from doing any of the things people your age normally can do?
6. Giving
Have you done any of the following in the past month? How about . . . ?
A. Donated money to a charity
B. Volunteered your time to an organization
C. Helped a stranger or someone you didn’t know who needed help
1 Yes
2 No
Predictor Variables
There are five predictor variables each representing one wellbeing element.
Thinking about your life in general, please rate your level of agreement with each of the following using a five point scale, where five
means you STRONGLY AGREE and one means you STRONGLY DISAGREE.
A. I like what I do each day. (Career)
B. I have a lot of love in my life. (Social)
C. I have more than enough money to do what I want to do. (Financial)
D. My physical health is near perfect. (Physical)
E. I can’t imagine living in a better community than the one I live in today. (Community)
Demographic Variables
Demographic variables include age, gender, marital status, education, and income level.
Meta-Analysis, Hypothesis, Methods, and Results
Meta-Analysis
A meta-analysis is a statistical integration of data accumulated across numerous studies from countries where Gallup
surveys. As such, it provides uniquely powerful information because it controls for measurement and sampling errors

and other idiosyncrasies that distort the results of individual studies. A meta-analysis eliminates biases and provides an
estimate of true validity or true relationship between two or more variables. Statistics typically calculated during meta-
analyses also allow researchers to explore the presence or lack of moderators of relationships.
More than 1,000 meta-analyses have been conducted in the psychological, educational, behavioral, medical, and personnel
selection fields. The research literature in the behavioral and social sciences fields includes a multitude of individual studies
with apparently conflicting conclusions. Meta-analysis, however, allows researchers to estimate the mean relationship
between variables and make corrections for artifactual sources of variation in findings across studies. It provides a method by
which researchers can determine whether validities and relationships generalize across various situations (e.g., countries or
geographical locations).
Individual studies often contain different sample sizes and idiosyncrasies that distort the interpretation of results. Meta-
analysis is a statistical technique that is useful in combining results of studies with seemingly disparate findings, correcting
for sampling, measurement error, and other study artifacts to understand the true relationship with greater precision. We
applied Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods to partial correlations calculated from 117 countries and areas to estimate
the true relationship between the five wellbeing elements and outcome variables and to test for generalizability after
controlling for demographic differences.
Hypothesis and Study Characteristics
We examined the following hypotheses for this meta-analysis: Table 1 — Sample Characteristics of Variables in
the Model
Hypothesis 1: The five wellbeing elements will have positive
About the database n Mean SD
correlations with the following outcome variables: present Demographic variables 120,239
life evaluation, future life evaluation, daily wellbeing, and Numbers of respondents/country 117 1,028 371
giving. The five wellbeing elements will have significant Variables
negative correlations with the following outcome variables: Outcome Variables
Present life evaluation 118,895 5.40 2.16

number of unhealthy days, and health problems. Future life evaluation 109,176 6.69 2.29
Daily wellbeing 117,790 7.25 2.40

Hypothesis 2: The correlations between the five wellbeing Number of unhealthy days 94,479 2.49 5.88
elements and the six outcome variables will generalize Health problems (yes)* 119,063 0.26 0.44
across countries. That is, these correlations will not vary Giving (yes)* 117,762 0.58 0.49
Predictor Variables
substantially across countries. And, in particular, there will
Career Wellbeing 119,769 3.84 1.18
be few, if any, countries with zero correlations or those in the Social Wellbeing 119,343 4.01 1.12
opposite direction from Hypothesis 1. Financial Wellbeing 119,655 2.51 1.30
Physical Wellbeing 119,850 3.65 1.25
In total, 117 countries including 120,239 respondents were Community Wellbeing 117,833 3.31 1.37
included in the meta-analysis. Demographic Variables
Age 120,207 39.88 17.44
Appendix A includes the sample size for each country. Gender (male)* 120,239 0.47 0.50
Marital status (married)* 119,725 0.55 0.50
We calculated partial correlations, estimating the relationship Education (high school or more)* 119,755 0.64 0.48
Income (annual median household income in USD) $119,239 $7,189.03 --

of each of the predictor variables to each of these six
*Means represent proportion of respondents
outcomes after controlling for demographic differences

within each country. We entered these correlation coefficients into a database and then calculated mean validities, standard
deviations of validities, and validity generalization statistics for each of the correlations.
Meta-Analytic Methods Used
Analyses included mean observed and estimates of true score correlation, estimates of standard deviation of validities,
and corrections made for sampling error and measurement error in the dependent variables. We conducted an additional
analysis to correct for independent-variable measurement error. The most basic form of meta-analysis corrects variance
estimates only for sampling error. Other corrections recommended by Hunter and Schmidt include correction for
measurement and statistical artifacts such as range restriction and measurement error in the dependent variables gathered.
We used the Schmidt and Le meta-analysis package for our meta-analysis.
Reliability Calculations
We used two Gallup Panel surveys to calculate test-retest reliability estimates for all of the five elements of wellbeing, or
predictor variables, and four of the six outcome variables (Table 2). Gallup Panel participants completed two independent
surveys administered in January and February 2009: a wellbeing survey (n=2,307) and a health survey (n=45,980). We
matched responses for those participants who completed both surveys to calculate test-retest reliability. The average number
of days difference between the two surveys was 21 days (median=20; range=8-54), therefore these estimates of test-retest
reliability allow for correction for transient error in addition to random response error because the time period between test
and retest is less than one would expect real change to occur on the variables measured.
Results
Table 2 — Reliability Estimates
Wellbeing
Health Survey Reliability Estimate
The focus of analyses for this report is on the relationship
Survey
between the five predictor variables (wellbeing elements) and
Variables Mean SD Mean SD n Correlation
Outcome Variables various outcome variables. Table 3 provides meta-analytic and

Present life evaluation 6.83 1.80 6.99 1.70 1,628 0.710 validity generalization statistics for the relationship between
Future life evaluation 7.66 1.77 7.91 1.63 1,495 0.655
the predictor variables and each of the six outcome variables
Number of unhealthy days 1.81 2.40 1.48 2.15 990 0.603
Health problems (yes)* 350 22.3% 357 22.8% 1,567 .706*

studied. In each of the tables that follow, we provide various
Predictor Variables meta-analytic statistics. The statistics provided are as follows:
Career Wellbeing 3.58 1.07 3.71 0.98 1,573 0.611
Social Wellbeing** 3.94 0.97 4.06 1.00 1,617 0.487 Number of Respondents: number of respondents to the survey
Financial Item 2.55 1.13 2.73 1.17 1,616 0.698
Physical Wellbeing 3.19 1.07 3.25 1.12 1,619 0.721 Number of (Countries) r’s: number of correlations (countries)
Community Wellbeing*** 2.89 1.07 2.77 1.21 1,536 0.605 studied for each item
*Chronbach’s alpha
** Health survey question was different: The relationships in my life give me positive energy every day.
Mean Observed r: the sample size weighted correlation
*** Health survey question was different: I can’t imagine a stronger community than the one I live in today. of each item to the dependent variable uncorrected for
measurement error

Observed SD (standard deviation): the sample size weighted standard deviation of observed correlations corrected for the
sample size of each study
True Score Correlation: the sample size weighted correlation of each item to the dependent variable after correcting for
dependent variable measurement error and independent variable measurement error
SD of True Score Correlation: the sample size weighted standard deviation of the correlations, correcting for dependent
variable measurement error and independent variable measurement error
% Variance Acc’d for: the percentage of variance in correlations across countries accounted for by sampling error across
countries
90% CV: the 90% credibility value (10th percentile of the distribution of true validities)
Table 3 — Meta-Analysis and Validity Generalization Statistics: Relationship Between Five Wellbeing Elements
and Present Life Evaluation (partial correlations controlling for demographics)
Outcome Variable Career Social Financial Physical Community
Number of Respondents 109,516 109,168 109,426 109,541 105,455
Number of (Countries) r's 116 116 116 116 115
Mean Observed r 0.227 0.156 0.275 0.181 0.109
Observed SD 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.079 0.08
True Score Correlation 0.34 0.27 0.39 0.253 0.17
SD of True Score Correlation 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.12
% Variance Acc'd for 11.0 13.3 9.0 15.8 16.2
90% CV 0.17 0.09 0.21 0.125 0.02
Key Finding: Each of the five wellbeing elements had evidence of generalizability in relationship to respondents’ overall
present life evaluations. Financial and Career Wellbeing had the strongest true score correlations with overall life evaluations.
and Future Life Evaluation (partial correlations controlling for demographics)
Mean Observed r 0.109 0.197 0.223 0.184 0.135
Observed SD 0.081 0.09 0.10 0.073 0.09
90% CV 0.024 0.17 0.16 0.146 0.05
Key Finding: Each of the five wellbeing elements had evidence of generalizability in relationship to respondents’
life evaluation expectations for the next five years. True score correlations were strongest for Social, Financial,
and Physical Wellbeing.

and Daily Experiences (partial correlations controlling for demographics)
Mean Observed r 0.284 0.218 0.213 0.282 0.149
Observed SD 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.076 0.08
90% CV 0.27 0.20 0.17 0.27 0.08
Key Finding: Each of the five wellbeing elements had evidence of generalizability in relationship to respondents’
daily experiences. True score correlations were strongest for Career, Physical, and Social Wellbeing.
and Unhealthy Days (partial correlations controlling for demographics)
Mean Observed r -0.136 -0.066 -0.088 -0.345 -0.039
Observed SD 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.097 0.05
True Score Correlation -0.21 -0.12 -0.14 -0.523 -0.07
90% CV -0.10 0.01 -0.05 -0.347 0.02
Key Finding: The true score relationship between each of the five wellbeing elements and unhealthy days was
negative — higher wellbeing is associated with fewer unhealthy days in the last 30 days. Three of the five
wellbeing elements — Physical, Career, and Financial — had evidence of generalizability across countries in
relationship to unhealthy days. True score correlations were strongest for Physical Wellbeing.

and Health Problems (partial correlations controlling for demographics)
Mean Observed r -0.102 -0.062 -0.073 -0.370 -0.037
Observed SD 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.114 0.06
True Score Correlation -0.15 -0.11 -0.10 -0.517 -0.06
90% CV -0.06 0.00 -0.01 -0.32 0.03
Key Finding: The true score relationship between each of the five wellbeing elements and respondents’ self-
reported health problems was negative — higher wellbeing is associated with fewer health problems. Four of
the five wellbeing elements — Physical, Career, Financial, and Social — had evidence of generalizability across
countries in relationship to health problems. True score correlations were strongest for Physical Wellbeing.
and Giving (partial correlations controlling for demographics)
Mean Observed r 0.074 0.074 0.061 0.049 0.032
Observed SD 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.055 0.06
90% CV 0.02 0.00 -0.03 -0.008 -0.05
Key Finding: The relationship between each of the five wellbeing elements and respondents’ self-reported giving
in the last 30 days was positive — higher wellbeing is associated with more frequent reports of giving. Two of the
five wellbeing elements — Career and Social — had evidence of generalizability across countries in relationship
to giving. True score correlations were strongest for Career and Social Wellbeing.

Table 9 — Meta-Analytic True Score Partial Correlations With Each Element After Controlling for
Demographic Differences
Independent Variables
Outcome Variable
Career Social Financial Physical Community
Present life evaluation 0.34 0.27 0.39 0.25 0.17
Future life evaluation 0.173 0.349 0.331 0.267 0.205
Daily wellbeing 0.43 0.37 0.30 0.39 0.23
Number of unhealthy days -0.21 -0.12 -0.14 -0.52 -0.07
Health problems (yes) -0.15 -0.11 -0.10 -0.52 -0.06
Giving (yes) 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.04
Key Finding: This table summarizes the true score partial correlations for each wellbeing element and outcome
variable combination. While the magnitude of the correlations varies after controlling for demographic variables,
all of the true score correlations are in the hypothesized direction.
Practical Meaning of Effects
To understand the practical meaning of the meta-analytic partial correlations, we plotted the dependent variable
averages across the scale continuum for each wellbeing element.
Table 10 — Outcome Variables for “Like What I Do Each Day”

Outcome variables (controlling
for demographic and regional 1.00 Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5.0 Strongly agree
differences)
Daily wellbeing 5.7 5.9 6.6 7.5 7.9
Number of unhealthy days 5.1 3.9 2.9 2.0 1.9
Health problems (yes) 37.0% 34.2% 28.4% 23.3% 22.5%
Giving (yes) 54.6% 50.1% 53.4% 56.2% 64.1%
Key Finding: The difference between those with high Career Wellbeing and those with low Career Wellbeing
is 1.5 percentage points on the 0-10 life evaluation scale, 2.2 points for daily experiences on a 0-10 scale, 3.2
unhealthy days in the last 30 days, 14.5 points in reported health problems, and 9.5 points in reported giving.

Table 11 — Outcome Variables for “Lot of Love in My Life”
differences)
Giving (yes) 54.4% 49.4% 52.0% 55.7% 63.4%
Key Finding: The difference between those with high Social Wellbeing and those with low Social Wellbeing is
1.0 points on the 0-10 life evaluation scale, 1.7 points for daily experiences on a 0-10 scale, 2.1 unhealthy days in
the last 30 days, 9.8 points in reported health problems, and 9 points in reported giving.
Table 12 — Outcome Variables for “Have More Than Enough Money”

differences)
Giving (yes) 53.3% 55.7% 60.5% 62.9% 64.5%
Key Finding: The difference between those with high Financial Wellbeing and those with low Financial
Wellbeing is 1.8 points on the 0-10 life evaluation scale, 1.6 points for daily experiences on a 0-10 scale, 1.5
Table 13 — Outcome Variables for “Physical Health Near Perfect”

differences)
Giving (yes) 52.4% 53.7% 56.1% 57.8% 62.4%
Key Finding: The difference between those with high Physical Wellbeing and those with low Physical Wellbeing
is 1.2 points on the 0-10 life evaluation scale, 2.4 points for daily experiences on a 0-10 scale, 7.8 unhealthy days
in the last 30 days, 50.2 points in reported health problems, and 10 points in reported giving.

Table 14 — Outcome Variables for “Can’t Imagine a Better Community”
differences)
Giving (yes) 58.9% 53.9% 54.8% 57.5% 63.7%
Key Finding: The difference between those with high Community Wellbeing and those with low Community
Wellbeing is 0.8 points on the 0-10 life evaluation scale, 1.0 points for daily experiences on a 0-10 scale, 0.8
Relation With Country-Level Moderator Variable
We examined the moderating effect of the GDP variable to understand the variation in relationship between the five
wellbeing elements and the outcome variables. This analysis includes 104 countries because GDP values were not
available for 13 of the 117 countries surveyed.
GDP Variable
According to the World Bank, “purchasing power parity (PPP) GDP is gross domestic product converted to
international dollars using PPP rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as the U.S.
dollar has in the United States. GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers
in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is
calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of
natural resources.”
First, we calculated partial correlations, estimating the relationship between each of the five wellbeing elements and
the outcome variables within each country.
Next, we correlated country-level partial correlations and GDP. Table 15 shows the correlation between GDP and
the partial correlations across countries. For instance, the correlations between Career Wellbeing and present life
evaluation were higher in high GDP countries (r=.378) even though the correlation between Career Wellbeing and
present life evaluation was generalizable in the positive direction across countries.

Table 15 — Correlations Between GDP and Partial Correlations Across Countries and Areas
Correlations
Dependent Variables Correlation With GDP
Career Wellbeing
Partial correlation between present life evaluation and Career Wellbeing .378**
Partial correlation between future life evaluation and Career Wellbeing .277**
Partial correlation between daily wellbeing and Career Wellbeing .210*
Partial correlation between "days poor health kept from activity" and Career Wellbeing .173
Partial correlation between health problems and Career Wellbeing -.087
Partial correlation between giving/donated money/helped a stranger/volunteered time and Career Wellbeing -.195*
Social Wellbeing
Partial correlation between present life evaluation and Social Wellbeing .399**
Partial correlation between future life evaluation and Social Wellbeing .344**
Partial correlation between daily wellbeing and Social Wellbeing .121
Partial correlation between "days poor health kept from activity" and Social Wellbeing .033
Partial correlation between health problems and Social Wellbeing -.083
Partial correlation between giving/donated money/helped a stranger/volunteered time and Social Wellbeing -.087
Financial Wellbeing
Partial correlation between present life evaluation and Financial Wellbeing .448**
Partial correlation between future life evaluation and Financial Wellbeing .298**
Partial correlation between daily wellbeing and Financial Wellbeing .365**
Partial correlation between "days poor health kept from activity" and Financial Wellbeing -.037
Partial correlation between health problems and Financial Wellbeing -.187
Partial correlation between giving/donated money/helped a stranger/volunteered time and Financial Wellbeing -.033
Physical Wellbeing
Partial correlation between present life evaluation and Physical Wellbeing .424**
Partial correlation between future life evaluation and Physical Wellbeing .335**
Partial correlation between daily wellbeing and Physical Wellbeing .158
Partial correlation between "days poor health kept from activity" and Physical Wellbeing .299**
Partial correlation between health problems and Physical Wellbeing -.047
Partial correlation between giving/donated money/helped a stranger/volunteered time and Physical Wellbeing -.149
Community Wellbeing
Partial correlation between present life evaluation and Community Wellbeing .550**
Partial correlation between future life evaluation and Community Wellbeing .422**
Partial correlation between daily wellbeing and Community Wellbeing .329**
Partial correlation between "days poor health kept from activity" and Community Wellbeing -.204
Partial correlation between health problems and Community Wellbeing -.327**
Partial correlation between giving/donated money/helped a stranger/volunteered time and Community Wellbeing -.120
*p<0.01
**p<0.001
This moderation analysis indicates some moderation related to country-level GDP for 16 of the 30 partial correlations of
the paired variables. The correlations are somewhat higher within higher GDP countries, while directionally generalizable.
This is primarily the case for the life evaluation and daily experiences dependent variables, and was strongest across the
dependent variables for the Community Wellbeing element. To better understand the moderation effect, we examined
country-level variation in GDP values in 2005.

Graph 1 — GDP Distribution Across Countries
$40000
GDP per capita (in USD)
$30000
$20000
$10000
$0
Countries with GDP Countries with GDP Countries with GDP Countries with GDP
<2,000 2,000-5,000 5,000-15,000 15,000+
We divided countries into four groups based on GDP values to illustrate the variation in correlation across country-
level GDP groupings.

Table 16 — Partial Correlation Between Each Outcome and Predictor Variable Combinations, by GDP Grouping
Career Wellbeing
Average partial correlation with Career Wellbeing after GDP Group

controlling for demographic differences < 2,000 2,000-5,000 5,000-15,000 15,000+
Present life evaluation 0.204 0.196 0.233 0.285
Future life evaluation 0.180 0.181 0.186 0.244
Daily wellbeing 0.277 0.250 0.302 0.303
Number of unhealthy days -0.159 -0.121 -0.137 -0.101
Health problems (yes) -0.114 -0.080 -0.101 -0.106
Giving (yes) 0.098 0.067 0.062 0.060
Social Wellbeing
Average partial correlation with Social Wellbeing after GDP Group

Daily wellbeing 0.207 0.188 0.234 0.221
Giving (yes) 0.082 0.083 0.068 0.070
Financial Wellbeing
Average partial correlation with Financial Wellbeing after GDP Group

Daily wellbeing 0.155 0.207 0.229 0.248
Giving (yes) 0.088 0.056 0.025 0.069
Physical Wellbeing
Average partial correlation with Physical Wellbeing after GDP Group

Daily wellbeing 0.253 0.281 0.288 0.297
Giving (yes) 0.050 0.054 0.043 0.037
Community Wellbeing
Average partial correlation with Community Wellbeing GDP Group

after controlling for demographic differences < 2,000 2,000-5,000 5,000-15,000 15,000+
Daily wellbeing 0.116 0.133 0.168 0.185
Giving (yes) 0.058 0.025 0.012 0.025
Key Finding: Directionally, the partial correlations are similar within the different country-level GDP groupings,
but correlations are somewhat different. Life evaluation correlations tend to be somewhat higher for higher GDP
countries. Daily experiences and giving correlations are similar across GDP country groupings. Physical Wellbeing
and health variable correlations are stronger in lower GDP countries

Table 17 — Correlations and Mean GDP by Region
Career Wellbeing
Subregion
Average partial correlation with
Career Wellbeing after controlling for Middle East China Central and
Sub-Saharan Japan and Southern Southeast Western
demographic differences and North (includes India Latin America CIS* Eastern
Africa South Korea Asia Asia Europe
Africa Hong Kong) Europe
Mean GDP (in USD) $1,875.6 $10,051.8 $23,494.0 $2,362.1 $9,218.1 $18,541.8 $23,342.3 $6,473.8 $22,493.2 $4,405.1 $11,213.1
Present life evaluation 0.202 0.242 0.316 0.142 0.169 0.103 0.290 0.173 0.309 0.266 0.308
Future life evaluation 0.177 0.215 0.306 0.166 0.145 0.085 0.202 0.154 0.260 0.226 0.245
Daily wellbeing 0.261 0.308 0.309 0.227 0.248 0.188 0.299 0.219 0.317 0.345 0.366
Number of unhealthy days -0.153 -0.109 -0.127 -0.134 -0.106 -0.099 -0.081 -0.095 -- -0.226 -0.168
Health problems (yes) -0.113 -0.076 -0.068 -0.103 -0.071 -0.029 -0.117 -0.086 -0.118 -0.143 -0.117
Giving (yes) 0.081 0.089 0.101 0.111 0.111 0.001 0.018 0.042 0.055 0.082 0.098
Social Wellbeing
Subregion
Social Wellbeing after controlling for Middle East China Central and
Sub-Saharan Japan and Southern Southeast Latin Western
demographic differences and North (includes India CIS* Eastern
Africa South Korea Asia Asia America Europe
Mean GDP $1,875.6 $10,051.8 $23,494.0 $2,362.1 $9,218.1 $18,541.8 $23,342.3 $6,473.8 $22,493.2 $4,405.1 $11,213.1
Daily wellbeing 0.197 0.238 0.315 0.206 0.151 0.158 0.222 0.167 0.205 0.289 0.287
Health problems (yes) -0.058 -0.055 -0.023 -0.073 -0.054 0.009 -0.060 -0.057 -0.066 -0.080 -0.101
Giving (yes) 0.077 0.089 0.106 0.104 0.119 0.013 0.063 0.049 0.056 0.080 0.098
Financial Wellbeing
Subregion
Financial Wellbeing after controlling Middle East China Central and
for demographic differences and North (includes India Latin America CIS* Eastern
Mean GDP $1,875.6 $10,051.8 $23,494.0 $2,362.1 $9,218.1 $18,541.8 $23,342.3 $6,473.8 $22,493.2 $4,405.1 $11,213.1
Daily wellbeing 0.127 0.260 0.313 0.181 0.212 0.127 0.291 0.199 0.249 0.229 0.267
Giving (yes) 0.069 0.131 0.033 0.123 0.061 0.042 0.065 -0.009 0.050 0.033 0.062
Physical Wellbeing
Subregion
Physical Wellbeing after controlling for Middle East China Central and
Sub-Saharan Japan and Southern Southeast Latin Western
demographic differences and North (includes India CIS* Eastern
Africa South Korea Asia Asia America Europe
Mean GDP $1,875.6 $10,051.8 $23,494.0 $2,362.1 $9,218.1 $18,541.8 $23,342.3 $6,473.8 $22,493.2 $4,405.1 $11,213.1
Daily wellbeing 0.230 0.289 0.322 0.264 0.275 0.157 0.285 0.272 0.314 0.345 0.311
Giving (yes) 0.039 0.072 0.106 0.105 0.060 0.005 0.013 0.029 0.031 0.042 0.064
Community Wellbeing
Subregion
Community Wellbeing after controlling Middle East China Central and
for demographic differences and North (includes India Latin America CIS* Eastern
Mean GDP $1,875.6 $10,051.8 $23,494.0 $2,362.1 $9,218.1 $18,541.8 $23,342.3 $6,473.8 $22,493.2 $4,405.1 $11,213.1
Daily wellbeing 0.104 0.191 0.187 0.102 0.093 0.043 0.179 0.117 0.203 0.184 0.230
Number of unhealthy days -0.012 -0.027 -0.041 -0.024 -0.046 -0.067 0.001 -0.040 -- -0.095 -0.074
Health problems (yes) -0.004 -0.034 -0.057 -0.002 -0.042 0.005 -0.055 -0.040 -0.057 -0.075 -0.074
Giving (yes) 0.039 0.062 0.027 0.062 0.010 0.016 0.039 0.008 0.017 0.021 0.037
*Commonwealth of Independent States and nearby countries
Key Finding: While correlations vary somewhat by region, they are directionally similar across regions. This provides
further evidence of the generalizability of the five wellbeing elements.

References
Gallup. (2011, February). Worldwide research methodology and codebook. Omaha, NE: Author.
Rath, T. & Harter, J. (2010). Wellbeing: The five essential elements. New York: Gallup Press.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. A. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Iowa City, IA: Tippie
College of Business, University of Iowa.
The World Bank. (n.d.). GDP per capita, PPP (current international $). Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2009+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-
last&sort=desc

Appendix A: Sample Sizes by Country or Region
Table 18 — Sample Size by Country or Region

Country or Region Sample Size Country or Region Sample Size Country or Region Sample Size
United States 509 Niger 994 Libya 996
Egypt 1,032 Rwanda 1,000 Lithuania 498
Morocco 1,031 Senegal 995 Macedonia 1,000
Lebanon 1,005 Zambia 1,000 Malaysia 1,011
Saudi Arabia 1,021 South Korea 1,000 Mongolia 1,000
Jordan 1,001 Afghanistan 999 Montenegro 996
Syria 1,018 Belarus 1,074 Nepal 989
Turkey 996 Georgia 996 Nicaragua 1,012
Pakistan 1,972 Kazakhstan 997 Panama 1,017
Indonesia 1,078 Kyrgyzstan 1,000 Paraguay 999
Bangladesh 1,000 Moldova 999 Peru 999
United Kingdom 1,002 Russia 2,033 Portugal 997
France 1,000 Ukraine 1,072 Serbia 998
Germany 1,002 Cameroon 998 Slovenia 500
Spain 1,005 Zimbabwe 1,000 Sudan 1,000
Italy 1,005 Costa Rica 1,000 Switzerland 1,002
Poland 999 Albania 996 Tajikistan 994
Czech Republic 1,075 Algeria 1,000 Tunisia 1,004
Sweden 1,000 Argentina 1,000 Turkmenistan 1,000
Greece 1,000 Armenia 993 United Arab Emirates 1,041
Denmark 1,000 Austria 1,000 Uruguay 996
Hong Kong 755 Azerbaijan 990 Uzbekistan 993
Singapore 1,005 Bahrain 1,074 Yemen 1,000
Japan 1,000 Bolivia 997 Kosovo 975
China 3,842 Bosnia and Herzegovina 998 Somaliland region 1,000
India 2,995 Bulgaria 995 Total 120,239
Venezuela 997 Burundi 999
Brazil 1,031 Chad 998
Mexico 998 Chile 1,009
Nigeria 998 Colombia 1,000
Kenya 1,000 Comoros 1,000
Tanzania 1,000 Congo (Kinshasa) 1,000
Israel 1,000 Croatia 1,009
Palestinian Territories 995 Cyprus 500
Ghana 998 Djibouti 1,000
Uganda 1,000 Dominican Republic 1,000
Malawi 1,000 Ecuador 1,000
South Africa 1,000 El Salvador 1,006
Canada 500 Estonia 608
Philippines 1,000 Guatemala 1,011
Sri Lanka 995 Honduras 1,002
Vietnam 1,007 Iraq 995
Thailand 1,019 Ireland 500
Cambodia 1,000 Ivory Coast 1,000
Mali 999 Kuwait 1,001
Mauritania 984 Latvia 515

Table 19 — Sample Size by Worldwide Regions
Sub- Middle East China United Central and
Japan and Southeast Latin Western
Saharan and North South Asia (includes India States and CIS* Eastern
South Korea Asia America Europe
Africa Africa Hong Kong) Canada Europe
Nigeria Egypt Japan Pakistan Indonesia Hong Kong India United States Venezuela United Belarus Turkey
Kingdom
Kenya Morocco South Korea Bangladesh Singapore China Canada Brazil France Georgia Poland
Tanzania Lebanon Sri Lanka Philippines Mexico Germany Kazakhstan Czech

Republic
Ghana Saudi Arabia Afghanistan Vietnam Costa Rica Spain Kyrgyzstan Greece
Uganda Jordan Nepal Thailand Argentina Italy Moldova Albania
Malawi Syria Cambodia Bolivia Sweden Russia Bosnia and

Herzegovina
South Africa Israel Malaysia Chile Denmark Ukraine Bulgaria
Mali Palestinian Colombia Austria Armenia Croatia

Territories
Mauritania Algeria Dominican Ireland Azerbaijan Cyprus

Republic
Niger Bahrain Ecuador Portugal Mongolia Estonia
Rwanda Iraq El Salvador Slovenia Tajikistan Latvia
Senegal Kuwait Guatemala Switzerland Turkmenistan Lithuania
Zambia Libya Honduras Uzbekistan Macedonia
Cameroon Sudan Nicaragua Montenegro
Zimbabwe Tunisia Panama Serbia
Burundi United Arab Paraguay Kosovo

Emirates
Chad Yemen Peru
Comoros Uruguay
Congo
(Kinshasa)
Djibouti
Ivory Coast
Somaliland
region
21,963 17,214 2,000 5,955 7,120 4,597 2,995 1,009 18,074 11,013 14,141 14,158
*Commonwealth of Independent States and nearby countries

Appendix B: The Gallup Panel™
The Gallup Panel was created in 2004 as a proprietary, probability-based longitudinal panel of U.S. households that have
been selected using random-digit-dial (RDD) sampling methods. Panel households are recruited through an outbound
phone interview, and they agree to participate in an average of three surveys per month via phone, Web, or mail. Once
in the panel, members are not required to spend a specific predetermined amount of time as panelists. Rather, they are
encouraged to remain members as long as they are willing and interested. There are no incentives or financial rewards
for participating in the panel, though several token thank you gifts are sent throughout the year. Lastly, as with any
longitudinal design, the Gallup Panel is affected by attrition. To leave the Gallup Panel, members can call the toll-
free support phone number and request removal, or they are removed from the panel after they fail to respond to six
consecutive surveys (with a postcard prompt after the third miss). Monthly attrition rate averages between 2% and 3%.
In addition to client-sponsored research, internal profile studies are conducted every three weeks with the entire adult
panel population. These profile studies are designed to gather hundreds of behavioral, attitudinal, psychographic, and
demographic statistics from the panelists. The data collected on these profile studies are used to target individuals for
future custom research, to gain in-depth understanding of a particular industry or social issue, and to track longitudinal
changes in panelist behavior and opinions.

Wellbeing Meta-Analysis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Wellbeing Meta-Analysis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Wellbeing Meta-Analysis: A Worldwide Study of the

Relationship Between the Five Elements of Wellbeing and

Data Collection Methodology, Study Sample, and Database����������������������������������������������������������������������3

Meta-Analysis, Hypothesis, Methods, and Results ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5

Appendix A: Sample Size by Country or Region�������������������������������������������������������������������������������19

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

The purpose of this study was to:

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

Development of the Gallup Wellbeing Finder occurred in three iterations or phases:

Phase 1: Review of historical Gallup wellbeing research

Phase 2: Gallup World Poll analysis

Phase 3: Pilot research for the Web assessment

Pilot 1: Item testing across diverse groups

Pilot 2: Refinement of measures/constructs in U.S. and international samples

World Poll Methodology

2 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Preparing for Data Collection

Data Collection Methodology, Study Sample, and Database

There are six outcome-dependent variables in this analysis:

1. Present Life Evaluation (ladder scale)

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

Daily Individual Items: Positive Experience Index

A. Did you feel well-rested yesterday?

B. Were you treated with respect all day yesterday?

C. Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday?

D. Did you learn or do something interesting yesterday?

Daily Individual Items: Negative Experience Index

4 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

A. Donated money to a charity

B. Volunteered your time to an organization

C. Helped a stranger or someone you didn’t know who needed help

A. I like what I do each day. (Career)

B. I have a lot of love in my life. (Social)

C. I have more than enough money to do what I want to do. (Financial)

D. My physical health is near perfect. (Physical)

Meta-Analysis, Hypothesis, Methods, and Results

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 5

Hypothesis and Study Characteristics

giving. The five wellbeing elements will have significant Variables

negative correlations with the following outcome variables: Outcome Variables

Present life evaluation 118,895 5.40 2.16

Daily wellbeing 117,790 7.25 2.40

opposite direction from Hypothesis 1. Financial Wellbeing 119,655 2.51 1.30

Physical Wellbeing 119,850 3.65 1.25

included in the meta-analysis. Demographic Variables

Age 120,207 39.88 17.44

Marital status (married)* 119,725 0.55 0.50

Income (annual median household income in USD) $119,239 $7,189.03 --

6 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Meta-Analytic Methods Used

Outcome Variables various outcome variables. Table 3 provides meta-analytic and

Health problems (yes)* 350 22.3% 357 22.8% 1,567 .706*

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 7

Number of Respondents 109,516 109,168 109,426 109,541 105,455

Number of (Countries) r's 116 116 116 116 115

Mean Observed r 0.227 0.156 0.275 0.181 0.109

Observed SD 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.079 0.08

True Score Correlation 0.34 0.27 0.39 0.253 0.17

SD of True Score Correlation 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.12

% Variance Acc'd for 11.0 13.3 9.0 15.8 16.2

90% CV 0.17 0.09 0.21 0.125 0.02

Number of Respondents 105,455 109,516 109,516 109,516 114,408

Number of (Countries) r's 115 116 116 116 116

Mean Observed r 0.109 0.197 0.223 0.184 0.135

Data Collection Methodology, Study Sample, and Database��3

Meta-Analysis, Hypothesis, Methods, and Results �� 5

Appendix A: Sample Size by Country or Region��19

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

2 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

4 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 5

6 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 7

8 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 9

10 Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 11