Cross-cultural difference in subjective wellbeing: cultural response bias as an explanation

This study investigates whether the Australian-Chinese differences in subjective wellbeing (SWB) can be attributed to cultural response bias (CRB) caused by the influence of Chinese culture. Four samples are compared: Australians, first generation Chinese immigrants, second generation Chinese immigrants, and Hong Kong Chinese. It is hypothesized that the effects of CRB on means scores and variance will be the highest for Hong Kong Chinese, followed by Australian Chinese immigrants and second generation, and the lowest for Australians. These predictions were generally supported. Income is used as a covariate to test whether the predicted pattern of results remain unchanged. The result was affirmative. CRB is thus verified as contributing to the SWB difference between the Australians and Hong Kong Chinese. The implications of these findings are discussed

The contribution of job and partner satisfaction to the homeostatic defense of subjective wellbeing

Two studies investigate subjective wellbeing (SWB) homeostasis. The first investigates the contribution of job satisfaction (JS) and partner satisfaction (PS) to the homeostatic defense of SWB. The extant model of homeostasis does not include either variable. The second study investigates the relationship between Homeostatically Protected Mood (HPMood) and other factors involved in the homeostatic model. It has been proposed that HPMood is the basic, biologically determined, positive mood that saturates SWB and other related variables, and forms the basis of the SWB set-point. Thus, if HPMood is an individual difference and it perfuses other homeostatic variables, then HPMood should be responsible for much of the shared variance between such variables. Two comparative samples are involved. One is a group of 171 Hong Kong Chinese recruited through convenience sampling. The other is a group of 343 Australians recruited via a general population survey. Results indicate that both JS and PS predict significant variance in Global Life Satisfaction beyond the existing factors in the homeostatic model. It is also found that, after controlling for the effect of HPMood, the strength of correlations between SWB and other homeostatic variables is significantly diminished. The implications of these findings are discussed.<br /

Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment

Background, aim and scope: Assuming that the goal of social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is to assess damage and benefits on its &lsquo;area of protection&rsquo; (AoP) as accurately as possible, it follows that the impact pathways, describing the cause effect relationship between indicator and the AoP, should have a consistent theoretical foundation so the inventory results can be associated with a predictable damage or benefit to the AoP. This article uses two concrete examples from the work on SLCA to analyse to what extent this is the case in current practice. One considers whether indicators included in SLCA approaches can validly assess impacts on the well-being of the stakeholder, whereas the other example addresses whether the &lsquo;incidence of child labour&rsquo; is a valid measure for impacts on the AoPs.Materials and methods: The theoretical basis for the impact pathway between the relevant indicators and the AoPs is analysed drawing on research from relevant scientific fields.Results: &nbsp; The examples show a lack of valid impact pathways in both examples. The first example shows that depending on the definition of &lsquo;well-being&rsquo;, the assessment of impacts on well-being of the stakeholder cannot be performed exclusively with the type of indicators which are presently used in SLCA approaches. The second example shows that the mere fact that a child is working tells little about how this may damage or benefit the AoPs, implying that the normally used indicator; &lsquo;incidence of child labour&rsquo; lacks validity in relation to predicting damage or benefit on the AoPs of SLCA.Discussion: New indicators are proposed to mitigate the problem of invalid impact pathways. However, several problems arise relating to difficulties in getting data, the usability of the new indicators in management situations, and, in relation to example one, boundary setting issues.Conclusions: The article shows that it is possible to assess the validity of the impact pathways in SLCA. It thereby point to the possibility of utilising the same framework that underpins the environmental LCA in this regard. It also shows that in relation to both of the specific examples investigated, the validity of the impact pathways may be improved by adopting other indicators, which does, however, come with a considerable &lsquo;price&rsquo;.Recommendations and perspectives: It is argued that there is a need for analysing impact pathways of other impact categories often included in SLCA in order to establish indicators that better reflect actual damage or benefit to the AoPs.<br /