Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 110, Issue 1, pp 171–186 | Cite as

Homeorhesis and Indication of Association Between Different Types of Capital on Life Satisfaction: The Case of Greeks Under Crisis

  • Epaminondas Efst PanasEmail author
Article

Abstract

Research on subjective well-being (SWB) for western nations has been growing for the last 30 years. So far there has not been any study of Subjective Well-Being in the case of Greece. This study is the first attempt to quantify the SWB in Greece which is in a state of deep economic and values crisis. For this purpose the Personal Well-being Index (PWI) developed by Cummins et al. (2002) and used by the International Well-being Group has been applied. Additionally this study attempts to give answers to two research questions: (i) what is the effect of economic crisis on PWI and as a consequence on the homeostasis hypothesis? (ii) is there any indication of association between different types of capital (built, natural, human, and social capital) and domains of life satisfaction? A cross-sectional survey of 1,216 participants included sociodemographic variables, questions relating to dimensions or domains of personal well-being, and questions pertaining to built, human, natural and social capital. Based on cross-sectional data, statistical analyses were performed for the whole sample and for men and women to account for gender differences. Descriptive, correlation, factor and regression statistical techniques were used. Regression models were used to determine, which types of capital variables had a statistically significant association with each domain of life satisfaction. The statistical results of this study demonstrate the reliability and validity of the Greek adaptation of the Cummins questionnaire. Significant differences are found between men and women in personal well-being index score. The results support the hypothesis that the economic crisis has an impact on personal well-being. It is, therefore, possible that such an impact affects the state of homeostasis. This suggests that other mechanisms such as homeorhesis may be applicable in explaining the behavior of the state of personal well-being index. Different types of capital and domains of life satisfaction are found to be positively related. These findings must be considered in light of cross-sectional limitations. This study evaluated the psychometric characteristics of the Greek version of the Cummins questionnaire. The PWI results are not within the range of normative data for western nations. This is an interesting and important result: it shows that the economic crisis matters significantly for personal well-being. The statistical results of this study offer an indicational support for the role of types of capital on domains of life satisfaction. Since we are using cross-sectional data, no causal inferences can be drawn.

Keywords

Life satisfaction Domain satisfaction Homeostasis Homeorhesis Types of capital (human, built, social, natural) Capabilities 

References

  1. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  2. Bubolz, M. M., Eicher, J. B., Evers, S. J., & Sontag, M. S. (1980). A human ecological approach to quality of life: Conceptual framework and results of a preliminary study. Social Indicators Research, 7, 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Collados, C., & Duane, T. P. (1999). Natural capital and quality of life: A model for evaluating the sustainability of alternative regional development paths. Ecological Economics, 30, 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costanza, R., Farley, J. & Templet, P. (2002). Background: Quality of life and the distribution of wealth and resources. In R. Costanza & S. E. Jorgensen (Eds.) Chow G. C. (1960): Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica, 28, 591–605.Google Scholar
  6. Costanza, R., Fisher, B., & Ali, S. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 61, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costra, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the trail on the gold standard for subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins, R. A. (1998a). The second approximation to an international standard of life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 43, 307–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins, R. A. (1998b). The second approximation to an international standard of life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 well-being indicators: Social indicators research series (pp. 7–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective well-being. The Australian unity well-being index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cummins, R. A., Lau, A., & Davern, M. (2009). Homeostatic mechanisms and subjective well-being. In K. C. Land (Ed.), Handbook of social indicators and quality-of-life-studies. Springer: New York and London (in press).Google Scholar
  17. D’Hombres, B., Rocco, L., Suhrcke, M., & McKee, M. (2007). Does social capital determine health? Evidence from eight transition countries. Joint Research Centre: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science In The Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale: A measure of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldsmith, E. (2008). The way: An ecological world-view. University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  25. Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis. Putting ancient wisdom and philosophy to the test of modern science. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  26. Headey, B., Holstrom, E., & Wearing, A. (1985). Models of well-being and ill-being. Social Indicators Research, 17(3), 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-being, social capital and public sector. What’s new? The economic Journal, 116, 34–35.Google Scholar
  28. Kahn, R. L., & Prager, D. J. (1994). Interdisciplinary collaborations are a scientific and social imperative. The scientist 8 (14).Google Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Foundations of hedonic psychology: Scientific perspectives on enjoyment and suffering. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S. V., & Kim, D. (2008). Social capital and health. In I. Kawachi, S. V. Subramanian, & D. Kim (Eds.), Social capital and health. New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mulder, K., Costanza, R., & Erickon, J. (2006). The contribution of built, human, social and natural capital to quality of life in intentional and unintentional communities. Ecological Economics, 59, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Review, 66, 273–300.Google Scholar
  34. O’Neill, R. V., DeAngelis, D. L., Waide, J. B., & Allen, T. F. H. (1986). A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Offer, A. (2006). The challenge of affluence. Self-control and well-being in the United States and Britain since 1950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  37. Robinson, T. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation in measure of personality and social psychological attitudes. Calif, San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.Google Scholar
  39. Shah, H., & Marks, N. (2004). A well-being manifesto for a flourishing society. London: New Economics Foundation.Google Scholar
  40. Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (1995). The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 249–274). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  41. Temple, J. (2000). Growth effects of education and social capital in the OECD countries. Paris OECD, 2000 (ECO/WKP (2000)36).Google Scholar
  42. van Teijlinger, E., & Hundley, V. (2002). The importance of pilot studies. Nursing Standard, 16, 33–36. Google Scholar
  43. Vemuri, A. W., & Costanza, R. (2006). The role of human, social, built and natural capital in explaining life satisfaction at the country level: Toward a national well-being index (NWI). Ecological Economics, 58, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waddington, C. H. (1975). The evolution of an evolutionist. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  45. Waddington, C. H. (1977). Tools for thought. Frogmore: Paladin.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294–306.Google Scholar
  47. Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Isuma. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Head of Department of StatisticsAthens University of Economics BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations