1

DON’T WORRY, BE HAPPY:

THE MODERATING ROLE OF COLLECTIVISM ON THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADVERSITY AND HAPPINESS

ABSTRACT

Evidence on the relationship between adversity and happiness is mixed, hinting that there

are situational or individual factors that account for the variability in results. We contend that

adverse situations undermine happiness, but that this effect is attenuated by a collectivist

orientation. We tested these assertions by means of three separate studies that contrasted

happiness with wealth, environment, and cultural orientation. On the first study, we conducted

regression analyses and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) using data on happiness, wealth,

violence and culture from 197 countries. On a second study, we conducted a meta-analysis of

empirical studies exploring the relationship between wealth and happiness in developing

countries. On the final study, we conducted an experiment to assess the effect of violence

manipulation on happiness, and how this effect is moderated by individuals’ collectivism or

individualism. Taken together, our results support the hypothesized relationship between

adversity and happiness, and the moderating effect that collectivism has on such relationship.

KEYWORDS

Happiness, adversity, collectivism.

2

INTRODUCTION

There is abundant evidence on the relationship between economic well-being and happiness

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Mentzakis & Moro, 2009; Michaelson

et al., 2009). Many studies, however, indicate that this relationship is not direct. Returns in

happiness diminish as people accumulate more possessions (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000a; Van

Boven, 2005), hinting that there are cultural or individual moderators at play. We contend that

wealth is in fact related to happiness, especially if you are not wealthy. More specifically, we

propose that it is poverty, rather than richness, which clearly relates to happiness, given that

adverse situations such as poverty or social turmoil have an undermining effect on happiness.

This negative relationship, however, is attenuated by culture, and collectivist people achieve

higher levels of happiness than individualist people under adverse conditions. To test these

assertions, we conducted analyses of variance (ANOVAs) using data on happiness, wealth,

violence and collectivism from 197 countries; we ran a meta-analysis of empirical studies on

wealth and happiness in third-world countries; and we contrasted violence, happiness and

collectivism at an individual level. Our results support the hypothesized relationship between

adversity and happiness, and the moderating effect that collectivism has on such relationship.

1. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Happiness is associated with objective self-assessments that result in feelings of well-being

(Veenhoven, Linley, & Joseph, 2004). Consistent with previous studies (Steel & Ones, 2002), we

deem subjective well-being (SWB) and life satisfaction as proxies of happiness.

3

1.1 Wealth versus Happiness

Happiness can be understood as a positive self-evaluation of a person’s life (Diener et al.,

1995) that results from feeling in control (Reich & Diener, 1994). In a materialist world, being in

control implies having the means to do it. Research, therefore, tend to approach happiness in a

utilitarian fashion that attributes a causal effect of wealth on happiness (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999,

2000b). Results are mixed, however, and happiness is not proportional to wealth; there is a

threshold past which no further improvement results from higher incomes (Easterlin, 1974,

2001). At low income levels, material well-being does contribute to increased happiness (Van

Boven, 2005), perhaps by satisfying basic needs (Maslow, 1962). Once basic needs are fulfilled,

however, higher-order needs become salient, which could account for the diminishing returns.

1.2 Adversity versus Happiness

Material things also help people cope with adverse situations. After 9/11, for instance, US

citizens bought goods in record quantities (Arndt, Solomon, Kasser, & Sheldon, 2004). The

pleasure obtained from shopping served a coping purpose, in lieu of social behaviors that could

have been expected from less materialistic people. Interestingly, despite their high living

standards, Americans score consistently lower than many poorer or more violent countries

(Diener et al., 1995; Inglehart, 2007; NEF, 2007; Veenhoven & Kalmijn, 2005). It could be that

some cultural characteristics that help people cope with adversity facilitate happiness (Howell &

Howell, 2008). This calls for some research on the effect that distressful or otherwise adverse

situations have on people’s happiness, and how people deal with such adversity.

4

1.3 Collectivism versus Happiness

A better understanding of these phenomena involves studying the role of collectivism

(Hofstede, 1980, 1983, 2007; Triandis, 1989). Collectivism refers to the degree to which

individuals are integrated into groups: whereas individualist cultures have loose social ties and

everyone is expected to look after herself, collectivist cultures promote integrated groups and

loyalty. Given this bipolarity, it is tempting to assume that collectivists, surrounded by friends

and family, are happier than individualist people. Intriguingly, though, collectivists are not

necessarily happier than individualists (Diener et al., 1995). This might be better explained by

analyzing the interaction between collectivism and other factors, rather than simply looking at its

main effects. Collectivism works as a survival mechanism in poor countries, helping people cope

with adverse situations (Ahuvia, 2002; Graham, 2009). In wealthier countries, however, a

collectivist orientation could be inconsistent with cultural pressures to achieve individual success.

In short, whereas collectivism contributes to happiness in poor countries, it could actually make

individualist people unhappier, especially if they have to face an adverse situation.

2. THE PRESENT RESEARCH

In short, there is a negative relationship between poverty and happiness, especially in

poor(er) nations, given the relative dissatisfaction of existentialist needs. More generally,

H1: Adversity is negatively related to happiness.

H1a: Poverty is negatively related to happiness.

H1b: Violence is negatively related to happiness.

5

As explained by hierarchical needs theories, improvements in income result in more

happiness for poor people, but increasing wealth eventually reaches a point where satisfaction of

basic needs gives way to higher-order priorities. As a result, the positive relationship between

wealth and happiness is not linear but rather a logarithmic function of wealth (Deaton, 2008;

Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008). Progressively higher income results in decreasing yields of

happiness, until a plateau is reached when no significant improvement can be achieved.

Moreover, the wider dispersion in happiness at the poorer end of the spectrum suggests

situational specificity. Given the role of collectivism as a survival mechanism, we suggest that,

H2: The negative relationship between adversity and happiness is negatively moderated

by collectivism.

H2a: The negative relationship between poverty and happiness is negatively moderated by

collectivism.

H2b: The negative relationship between turmoil and happiness is negatively moderated by

collectivism.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study 1 – Global Data Analysis

To test the hypotheses, we computed and contrasted measures on happiness, wealth,

violence, and collectivism by means of regression analysis and ANOVAs, from 197 countries.

Available data varied across variables, with a maximum of 194 measures for intentional homicide

rate (a proxy for violence) and a minimum of 65 for collectivism. Besides testing the direct effect

6

of wealth and violence on happiness, we tested for the moderation of collectivism. Descriptive

statistics, correlations, OLS regressions and ANOVAs were conducted using SAS and STATA.

Happiness (HAPP) is the criterion. Life Satisfaction (LS) was chosen as an indicator, as

measured by the Happy Planet Index (NEF, 2009). Wealth (WLTH) and Violence (VIOL) are the

predictors. Wealth was indicated by Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP) from the World

Bank’s (WB) database (WB, 2010, 2011). Violence was proxied by the Global Peace Index

(GPI), a composite measure of 23 indicators of internal and external wars, criminality, political

instability, imprisonment, military and police forces, and weapons industry (Institute for

Economics and Peace, 2011). Collectivism (COLL) is the moderator, on a 0 (most individualist)

to 100 (most collectivist) scale, from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2011).

We regressed happiness on wealth, collectivism, and their interaction (Baron & Kenny,

1986). Considering that that the relationship between wealth and happiness is better described as

a logarithmic function (Deaton, 2008; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008), the wealth term was

computed as lnWLTH (log of wealth), both for the direct relationship between wealth and

happiness as for its hypothesized interaction with collectivism. Per this model, the effect of

lnWLTH on HAPP is linear, even though the predicted effect of WLTH on HAPP is not, so an

OLS regression is an appropriate choice (UCLA, 2012). The complete equation is therefore,

(1)

Where the terms are the parameter coefficients and is the error term. Given the possible

existence of heteroskedasticity because of the cross-sectional data, the regression analysis was

corrected per White’s test (White, 1980). We also conducted ANOVAs for the standardized

values of wealth (ZWLTH) and adversity (ZADV), obtained by centering WLTH and ADV about

7

their means and dividing them by their standard deviation (SD). This facilitates interpretation of

effects by plotting the least squares means (LSM) at +/-1 SD about a mean of 0. (Dawson &

Richter, 2006; Waller, Williams, Tangari, & Burton, 2010; West, Aiken, & Krull, 1996).

Table 1 summarizes the descriptive stats and pair-wise correlations for all relevant

variables. The direct relationship between wealth and happiness is illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 1. Study 1 – Descriptive statistics.

Source: The authors.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

HAPP WLTH VIOL COLL

N 143 141 139 65

Min 2.45 0.67 1.20 9.00

Max 8.50 60.23 3.34 94.00

Mean 5.92 11.27 1.95 55.89

SD 1.37 12.06 0.46 24.35

PAIRWISE CORRELATIONS

HAPP WLTH VIOL COLL

HAPP 1

WLTH .697*** 1

VIOL -.496*** -.621*** 1

COLL -.375** -.702*** .456*** 1

Figure 1. Study 1 – Wealth versus happiness.

Source: The authors.

Table 2. Study 1 – Regression of happiness on

wealth and culture.

Source: The authors.

Model Summary*

Model N R2

Root MSE

F (3,59) P>F

1 63 .540 .623 28.04 <.0001

Coefficients (Type III SS)

Parameter Coeff Robust

std. error t-value p>|t|

Constant -.043 1.304 -.03 .9740

lnWLTH 2.231 .375 5.95 <.0001

COLL .072 .017 4.22 <.0001

lnWLTH*COLL -.023 .005 -4.43 <.0001

*Independent variable: HAPP

Figure 2. Study 1 – Happiness vs. wealth,

moderated by culture.

Source: The authors.

2

4

6

8

0 20 40 60

Hap

pin

ess

Wealth (USD$000)

5

6

7

8

250 750 1,250 1,750 2,250

Hap

pin

ess

Wealth (USD$000)

Individualism

Collectivism

8

Regressing happiness and correcting for heteroskedasticity yielded the results summarized

in Table 2. Figure 2 plots the significant coefficients in (1) at +/-1 SD values of COLL.

Conducting an ANOVA revealed a main effect of both collectivism (F(1,137)=20.85, p<.001,

n=141) and wealth (F(1,137)=34.22, p<.001, n=141) on happiness, qualified by an interaction

(F=9.86(1,137), p<.01, n=141). Amongst poor countries (ZWLTH = -1 SD), collectivists are happier

than individualists (6.18 vs. 4.65, respectively; t(140)=5.39, p<.001). For rich countries (ZWLTH =

+1 SD) there is no difference (6.82 vs. 6.77, respectively; t(140)=.18, n.s.), as shown in Figure 3.

A similar analysis of happiness on collectivism x standardized violence, revealed a main

effect of both collectivism (F(1,121)=8.87, p<.01, n=125) and violence (F(1,121)=17.06, p<.001,

n=125) on happiness, qualified by an interaction (F=7.25(1,121), p<.01, n=125). In violent

environments (ZADV = +1 SD), collectivists are happier than individualists (6.30 vs. 4.99,

respectively; t(124)=4.03, p<.001). In peaceful environments (ZADV = -1 SD) there is no

difference (6.67 vs. 6.65, respectively; t(124)=.07, n.s.). These results are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3. Study 1 – Wealth vs. happiness,

moderated by collectivism.

Source: The authors.

Figure 4. Study 1 – Violence vs. happiness,

moderated by collectivism.

Source: The authors.

Happiness is negatively related with both poverty and violence (H1, H1a and H1b).

Regression reveals a main effect of lnGDP, and an interaction between collectivism and wealth.

4.65

6.76 6.18

6.82

4

5

6

7

Poor Rich

Hap

pin

ess

Individualist

Collectivist 4.99

6.67

6.30 6.65

4

5

6

7

Violence Peace

Hap

pin

ess

Individualist

Collectivist

9

That is, collectivism attenuates the effect of poverty (H2a). Also, as predicted (Graham, 2009;

Ng, Ho, & Wong, 2003), individualism seems a better option for higher incomes. The ANOVAs

indicate that poverty and happiness are negatively related (H1a). The significant interaction

between poverty and collectivism supports H2a. Similarly, violence and happiness are negatively

related (H1b) and violence and collectivism interact (H2b). Taken together, results support H2.

3.2 Study 2 – Meta-Analysis

We also tested our hypotheses by meta-analyzing correlational studies on the relationship

between happiness and wealth in developing countries (Howell & Howell, 2008) that included

111 effect sizes from 54 countries, matched in our study to each country’s collectivism measure.

We conducted an RBNL significance test to compute confidence intervals about the mean of

adjusted correlations (Burke, 1984; Burke, Landis, & Murphy, 2003; Raju, Burke, Normand, &

Langlois, 1991). This procedure is especially appropriate to test for moderation by means of sub-

group analyses based on median-splits (Cortina, 2003; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1993).

For our analysis, we supplemented the original effect sizes (Howell & Howell, 2008) with

collectivism measures (Hofstede, 2011). The meta-analysis complied with standard meta-analytic

procedures (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001), using the VG2M validity generalization simulator (Raju et

al., 1991) with sample size and observed correlations as input. Range restriction was not relevant

for this meta-analysis so 1.0 was used as default. As the studies analyzed lacked reliability

information, the simulator estimated restriction values (Raju et al., 1991).

We tested significance by using confidence intervals about the adjusted correlation mean

(Raju et al., 1991; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1993). This approach is especially suited for dealing with

10

statistical artifacts based on a sample and for moderation testing. To test for moderation, we

generated two sub-groups by splitting the sample about the median of collectivism, and then

conducted separate meta-analyses to generate and compare confidence intervals (Cortina, 2003).

Table 3 summarizes the simulation’s results for the entire dataset; Table 4 summarizes the results

of the separate meta-analyses for each sub-group; and Figure 5 illustrates the analyses.

Table 3. Study 2 – Direct relationship between happiness and wealth.

Source: The authors.

Predictor Effect sizes

Total sample

size

Estimate of the

mean of

Standard error of the

mean of (random)

95% confidence interval for

the mean of (random)

Estimate of the

variance

of Lower limit Upper limit

Wealth (WLTH)

111 132,716 .438 .021 .398 .479 .043

Table 4. Study 2 – Wealth versus happiness, moderated by cultural orientation.

Source: The authors.

Moderator (COLL)

Effect sizes

Total sample

size

Estimate of the

mean of

Standard error of the

mean of (random)

95% confidence interval for

the mean of (random)

Estimate of the

variance

of Lower limit Upper limit

Collectivism 40 33,137 .347 .034 .280 .414 .041 Individualism 53 76,238 .490 .026 .439 .542 .035

Figure 5. Study 2 – Wealth vs. happiness, moderated by cultural orientation.

Source: The authors.

0.48

0.41

0.54

0.44

0.35

0.49

0.40

0.28

0.44

0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

Global Collectivist Individualist

Rh

o 95% C.I. upper limit

Estimate of the mean of Rho

95% C.I. lower limit

11

Estimates of the mean of support the hypothesized relationship between happiness and

wealth (H1a). Significance in each case is indicated by the confidence intervals that do not

encompass zero and by the relatively small estimates of the variance of , which indicate that

statistical artifacts account for a sizable percentage of the variance. Consistent with the

predictions, moderation testing shows a stronger mean of for individualists than for

collectivists. Moderation is evidenced by the fact that the sub-groups’ confidence intervals do not

overlap, which indicates an interaction of collectivism and wealth (H2a).

3.3 Study 3 – Experiment

We further extended our results to an individual level by conducting an experiment with

undergraduate students in a Colombian university. This experiment increased the confidence in

the results by manipulating the participants’ perception of violence. A total of 921 students

logged into an initial on-line survey; 697 respondents (56.0% female, 44.0% male) completed

this initial questionnaire; and 105 respondents (61.0% female, 39.0% male) attended an

experimental session and completed a final questionnaire. After completing the initial

questionnaire, respondents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, respectively labeled

peace and violence. Subsequently, participants attended a lab session where they were shown

trailers from a feature movie. The trailers were set up so that they were similar across conditions

in setting, characters and style, differing essentially in that one trailer referred to a peaceful event

and the other to a violent event. After viewing the trailer, participants completed a survey that

asked them about their perception of peace or violence and how happy they felt.

12

Happiness (HAPP) is the dependent variable, measured by asking respondents how happy

they regularly feel (Joseph, Linley, Harwood, Lewis, & McCollam, 2004) and by a satisfaction

with life scale (Pavot & Diener, 2008); Violence (VIOL) is the independent variable, determined

by the manipulation condition the participant was assigned to; and Collectivism (COLL) is the

moderator, measured by an interdependent self scale (Triandis, 1989; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).

Conducting an ANOVA of happiness on violence x standardized collectivism, controlling

for environmental violence, revealed a main effect of both environmental violence (F(1,104)=4.98,

p<.05, n=105) and collectivism (F(1,104)=15.58, p<.001, n=105) on happiness, qualified by aJ

interaction between violence manipulation and collectivism (F=3.68(1,104), p=.05, n=105). Slope

analysis shows that individualist people are happier in peaceful conditions than in violent

conditions (5.49 vs. 4.86, respectively; t(104)=2.30, p<.05). For collectivists, there is no significant

difference (5.88 vs. 5.98, respectively; t(104)=.35, n.s.). These results are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Study 3 – Violence vs. happiness,

moderated by individual collectivist

orientation.

Source: The authors.

The ANOVA indicates that collectivism inoculates people against violence (H2b). Most

interestingly, this relationship seems to apply not only to national collectivism and chronic

violence, but also to individual orientation and specific violent situations. The experimental

conditions not only control for main effects but also for situational specificity, increasing the

validity of this investigation, and inferring causality in the already supported relationships.

4.86

5.49

5.98 5.88

4.0

5.0

6.0

Violence Peace

Hap

pin

ess

Individualist Collectivist

13

3.4 General Discussion

Taken together, our results provide support for all the hypotheses: using current data, the

results replicate the behavior predicted by the Easterlin paradox at a national level, indicating that

there is a non-linear relationship between wealth and happiness and that collectivism helps

coping with adversity, in general, and with poverty and violence in particular.

4. CONCLUSIONS

We extended the basic thesis that collectivism helps people deal with poverty to a more

general notion, providing evidence on the role that collectivism plays in helping people achieve

happiness even when facing adverse situations. The implications of these findings are potentially

valuable for marketing, economy and other fields, aiding decision makers in fine-tuning policies

aimed at maximizing people’s well-being, within particular cultural and socio-economic contexts.

Focusing on the poorer end of the spectrum—and viewing the relationship as poverty

versus (un)happiness—helps understanding the underlying mechanisms and contributes to a

better explanation of the wealth/happiness paradox. That is, poor countries clearly reduce their

adversity (understood as poverty) as their wealth grows, which accounts for increasing happiness

as a function of national income. Given that adversity is not significantly reduced any more by

increasing income once someone is rich, it can be argued that the flattening of the curve signals a

threshold in the perception of security. It follows that in nations that are not only rich but also

peaceful increasing income becomes relatively less effective in reducing adversity and thus

money becomes ineffective in producing more happiness. Now, if economic prosperity is paired

14

with increasing turmoil, the perception of adversity might override wealth and eventually

undermine happiness, a situation likely exacerbated when individualism prevails.

This paper allows inferences on fitting an intentional collectivist approach into public

policies aimed at improving well-being. Before advancing any prescriptive recommendations,

however, future investigations should further test the hypotheses hereby discussed across varied

socio-economic strata, cultures, and adverse conditions, experimentally. This will improve

external validity and allow inferring causality on the already supported relationship between

adversity, collectivism and happiness. In short, future studies should provide additional insight

into the specificities that make it possible for some people to not worry and be happy.

REFERENCES

Ahuvia, A. C. (2002). Individualism/collectivism and cultures of happiness: A theoretical

conjecture on the relationship between consumption, culture and subjective well-being at

the national level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 23-36.

Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The Urge to Splurge: A Terror

Management Account of Materialism and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 14(3), 198-212.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). The Search for Happiness. Science & Spirit, 17(2), 28-33.

Burke, M. J. (1984). Validity generalization: A review and critique of the correlation model.

Personnel Psychology, 37(1), 93-115.

Burke, M. J., Landis, R. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2003). Methodological and conceptual challenges

in conducting and interpreting meta-analyses. In Validity generalization: A critical

review. (pp. 287-309). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cortina, J. M. (2003). Apples and Oranges (and Pears, Oh My!): The Search for Moderators in

Meta-Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 415-439.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren't we happy? American Psychologist,

54(10), 821-827.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000a). The Costs and Benefits of Consuming. Journal of Consumer

Research, 27(2), 267-272.

15

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000b). Happiness, flow, and economic equality. The American

Psychologist, 55(10), 1163-1164.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple

regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91(4), 917-926.

Deaton, A. (2008). Income, Health, and Well-Being around the World: Evidence from the Gallup

World Poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 53-72.

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of

nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 851-864.

Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical

evidence. In P. A. David & W. R. Levin (Eds.), Nations and households in economic

growth (pp. 98-125). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and Happiness: Towards a Unified Theory. The Economic

Journal, 111(473), 465-484.

Graham, C. (2009). Happiness Around the World: The Paradox of Happy Peasants and

Miserable Millionaires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply

Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories Journal of

International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.

Hofstede, G. (2007). Hofstede Scores. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. Retrieved

December 10, 2007, from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/

Hofstede, G. (2011). Hofstede Scores. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. Retrieved July 11,

2011, from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/

Howell, R. T., & Howell, C. J. (2008). The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in

developing countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 536-560.

Inglehart, R. (2007). World Values Survey Online Data Analysis. World Values Survey.

Retrieved December 10, 2007, from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/

Institute for Economics and Peace. (2011). Global Peace Index. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from

http://www.economicsandpeace.org/

Joseph, S., Linley, P. A., Harwood, J., Lewis, C. A., & McCollam, P. (2004). Rapid assessment

of well-being: The Short Depression-Happiness Scale (SDHS). Psychology and

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 77(4), 463-478.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ US: D Van Nostrand.

Mentzakis, E., & Moro, M. (2009). The poor, the rich and the happy: Exploring the link between

income and subjective well-being. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(1), 147-158.

Michaelson, J., Abdallah, S., Steuer, N., Thompson, S., Marks, N., Aked, J., et al. (2009).

National Accounts of Well-being: bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet: New

Economics Foundation.

NEF. (2007). The (Un)Happy Planet Index: An Index of Human Well-Being and Environmental

Impact. The Happy Planet Report. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?pid=225

NEF. (2009). The (Un)Happy Planet Index 2.0: Why good lives don't have to cost the Earth. The

Happy Planet Index Retrieved July 11, 2011, from

http://www.happyplanetindex.org/learn/download-report.html

16

Ng, A. K., Ho, D. Y. F., & Wong, S. S. (2003). In search of the good ife: A cultural odyssey in

the east and west. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129(4), 317-

363.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction With Life Scale and the emerging construct of

life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137-152.

Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. (1991). A new meta-analytic approach.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 432-446.

Reich, J., & Diener, E. (1994). The road to happiness. (Cover story). Psychology Today, 27(4),

32.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1993). Detecting Moderators with Meta-Analysis: An Evaluation

and Comparison of Techniques. Personnel Psychology, 46(3), 629-640.

Steel, P., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Personality and happiness: A national-level analysis. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 767-781.

Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing

the Easterlin Paradox. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity(1), 1-87.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological

Review, 96(3), 506-520.

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical

individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-

128.

UCLA. (2012). Stat Computing. Statistical Consulting Services Retrieved May 7th, 2012, 2012

Van Boven, L. (2005). Experientialism, Materialism, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Review of

General Psychology, 9(2), 132-142.

Veenhoven, R., & Kalmijn, W. (2005). Inequality-adjusted happiness in nations: Egalitarianism

and utilitarianism married in a new index of societal performance. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 6(4), 421-455.

Veenhoven, R., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Happiness as a Public Policy Aim: The

Greatest Happiness Principle. In Positive psychology in practice. (pp. 658-678). Hoboken,

NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Waller, M., Williams, B., Tangari, A., & Burton, S. (2010). Marketing at the retail shelf: an

examination of moderating effects of logistics on SKU market share. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 105-117.

WB. (2010). The Changing Wealth of Nations. World Bank Data Catalog Retrieved July 11,

2011, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

WB. (2011). GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$). World Bank Data Catalog Retrieved

July 11, 2011, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD

West, S. G., Aiken, L. S., & Krull, J. L. (1996). Experimental Personality Designs: Analyzing

Categorical by Continuous Variable Interactions. Journal of Personality, 64(1), 1-48.

White, H. (1980). Using least squares to approximate unknown regression functions.

International Economic Review, 21(1), 149.

WVS. (2009). Subjective well-being in 97 countries. In W. V. Survey (Ed.), 1995-2007 World

Values Survey: World Values Survey.