bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2019), 22, 268–280 DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12366

Development and validation of the Indonesian Well-being Scale

Herdiyan Maulana Nigar Khawaja, and Patricia Obst
School of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia

The present study describes the development and validation of a new instrument to measure the well-being
of Indonesian people. Items were generated by taking into account the recent cross-cultural developments in
the literature. Participants (N = 1,028) from a number of provinces in Indonesia completed an online or a
paper questionnaire containing a battery of measures, including the new well-being instrument. The total
sample was randomly split into two equal groups. An exploratory factor analysis (n = 516) was conducted
on one half to explore the factor structure of the new scale, which resulted in a 24-item scale with a four-
factor solution. The four factors were (a) Basic Needs, (b) Social Relation, (c) Acceptance, and (d)
Spirituality. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the second half (n = 516), which confirmed
the four-factor structure with 20 items emerging as the best and most parsimonious fit of the data. The
psychometric properties of the final scale were tested on the whole sample. The new scale displayed sound
internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and divergent, convergent, and discriminant validity. The scale
has the potential to be used in future research which examines well-being in the Indonesia context. Future
directions and limitations of the study are discussed.

Keywords: confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, Indonesia, scale development,
well-being.

Well-being has become an important research focus over
the past three decades and has been associated with posi-
tive mental outcomes as well as general life success
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Diener,
Lucas, & Oishi, 2018). Well-being is an umbrella term
used to describe people’s evaluation of their general
quality of life (Diener et al., 2018). It is a multidimen-
sional construct that consists of both objective indicators
(e.g., demographic variables, material wealth) as well as
subjective determinants associated with cognitive and
emotional responses toward life (Diener, 2009; Huppert
& So, 2013). While it has been extensively studied in
Western nations, there has been limited research to
specifically investigate how well-being is experienced,
and appropriately measured, in non-Western populations
such as Indonesia.
Several theorists have noted the definition of well-be-
ing that has emerged from empirical work conducted in
Western nations may not accurately reflect how well-be-
ing is perceived and experienced in non-Western coun-
tries (Tov & Diener, 2009). Hence, existing well-being
Correspondence: Herdiyan Maulana, School of Psychology and
Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of
Technology, 149 Victoria Park Road, Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia. E-mail: herdiyan.maulana@hdr.qut.edu.au
Received 16 November 2018; revision 18 March 2019;
accepted 22 March 2019.
measures, which have been developed from this body of
research, may not be appropriate for non-Western popu-
lations (Lu & Gilmour, 2004; Moghal & Khanam, 2015;
Suh, Diener, & Updegraff, 2008). The development of
instruments which are sensitive to the cultural context is
therefore essential to further the study of well-being in
this context.
Measurement of Well-Being
A search of the extant literature has indicated that at
least 99 well-being measures have been developed
worldwide (Linton, Dieppe, & Medina-Lara, 2016).
While these scales cover a wide variety of contextual
differences such as developmental stage, specific psycho-
logical condition, and the theoretical underpinning of the
measure, very few account for potential variation based
on a respondent’s cultural background. Assuming that
well-being may be influenced by cultural factors, instru-
ments developed in a particular cultural context may eli-
cit responses quite distinct from what was intended.
There are several studies using existing measures which
have been translated and back-translated into the local
language; however, these studies have not examined the
cultural validity of the items themselves or the conceptu-
alisation of well-being that they intended to measure
(Kong & You, 2013; Maslovska, Voitk
ane, Miez
ıte, &
Rascevska, 2005). Recent research has demonstrated that
non-Western participants may face difficulties with

© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Indonesian Well-being Scale
translated instruments, as they fail to comprehend items
as intended (Moghal & Khanam, 2015; Waqas et al.,
2015).
Many of the existing measures take a multidimen-
sional approach to assessing well-being, aiming to
acknowledge the complexity of the construct through
incorporating both hedonic and eudaemonic perspectives
and the varied aspects of the human condition which
may influence the individual experience of well-being.
For instance, Ryff’s (1989) model of psychological
well-being captured six factors: Autonomy,
Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Self-
Acceptance, Purpose in Life, and Positive Relationships.
Next to that, the PERMA model (Seligman, 2011) cap-
tures similar dimensions of Positive Emotion,
Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and
Accomplishment. Consistent with the previous idea,
Huppert and So’s (2013) study involving 22 European
nations has indicated the importance of examining well-
being components, as they found evidence of very differ-
ent profiles across these nations. Such approaches point
to the importance of viewing well-being as a multidi-
mensional construct that is experienced differently in dif-
ferent contexts.
Although these multidimensional approaches of well-
being encompass a broad spectrum of underlying deter-
minants and expressions of well-being, there is still
potentially an element of cultural bias in favouring indi-
vidualist dimensions such as individual achievement,
emotion, and life satisfaction. Such approaches posit that
these self-orientations to positive psychological growth
and function are universally necessary to experience
well-being (Keyes, 2002; Ryff, 1989). In the case of a
social-oriented component, however, although it was
included in these models, more culturally influenced
components such as living according to important values
are not well-captured (Khaw & Kern, 2014).
Determining dimensions important to well-being in
specific cultural contexts needs to be researched from
within the cultural perspective. Existing literature has
indicated that people from non-Western populations tend
to place a higher emphasis on social factors rather than
on individualist factors as important to their experience
of well-being (Lai, Cummins, & Lau, 2013; Lun &
Bond, 2013). For example, culturally influenced factors
such as spirituality and religious attachment have been
found to be important aspects of well-being for people
from strongly religious cultures (Khaw & Kern, 2014;
Lun & Bond, 2013). However, to date, little attention
has been paid to such variations emerging from distinct
sociocultural contexts in well-being measures and mod-
els. The current study examines a well-being measure
developed for a specific culture (Indonesia) to determine
if this approach may provide a more culturally
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
269
appropriate indicator of well-being in this cultural con-
text rather than the adaptation of more general measures.
To provide contextual analysis on our study, we
would like to base our research assumption on the uni-
versal-relativistic point of view. Inspired by Berry,
Berry, Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen’s (2002) work on
the concept of universal and culturally specific aspects
of psychological function and processes, Lomas (2015)
took a universal-relativistic approach to understand well-
being in a more comprehensive way. He proposed that
there are both universal-personal and cultural-context
aspects of well-being. The universal-personal factor
comprises personal qualities such as positive emotions as
well as objective material indicators such as income.
The cultural-context aspect consists of attributes that
emerge from the particular sociocultural context, such as
values or specific kinds of social relations.
Consequently, this approach allows for a more compre-
hensive approach to determine what components consti-
tute well-being across nations/cultures.
Such an approach has been previously embraced by a
number of researchers to prepare culturally inspired
well-being scales. For example, White, Gaines, and Jha
(2014) developed the inner well-being model to measure
well-being for the low socioeconomic communities of
India and Zambia. This model measures an individual’s
perception of wellness based on their respective social
domains, including their political context. In addition,
Manuela and Sibley (2013) developed the Pacific
Identity and Wellbeing Scale comprising six subscales
measuring Pacific Islander satisfaction within their social
interconnected domains (Family, Society in General,
National Identity, Group Membership, Religious, and
Connectedness to Cultural Context). Such scales have
proven effective for the examination of well-being in
these specific cultural contexts. Unfortunately, attempts
to develop a similar measure for the Indonesian cultural
context have been overlooked in the existing literature.
Well-Being in the Indonesian Context
Indonesia has the fourth-highest world population and is
the largest Muslim country in the world. Indonesian peo-
ple have a cultural heritage that is strongly influenced by
Islamic teaching and values. It is a collectivist society
characterised by a hierarchical social structure with
strong group norms and high group conformity (Jetten,
Postmes, & McAuliffe, 2002). At the same time, it is an
incredibly diverse nation, with over 300 different ethnic
groups living across 17,000 islands, speaking 700 differ-
ent languages or dialects.
There has been limited research focusing on well-be-
ing conducted with an Indonesian population; however,
findings from previous studies have indicated that in line
270
with their strong collectivist culture, Indonesians empha-
sise the presence of others as a key source of happiness
(Jaafar et al., 2012). Social support from parents, friends,
and other family members is considered an essential
aspect of well-being (French et al., 2013) as well as cit-
ing successful family relations as a major indicator of
their personal sense of well-being (Yeo, 2014).
Adherence to religious practices and other expressions of
spirituality also have been found to be important for
Indonesians’ well-being (Jaafar et al., 2012).
This current research was conducted as the second
phase of a larger research project examining the concept
of well-being in an Indonesian population. The first phase
of this research was a qualitative study which aimed to
explore the meaning of well-being in the Indonesian con-
text (Maulana, Obst, & Khawaja, 2018). Thus, findings
indicated that three key aspects constitute the experience
of well-being for the Indonesian sample. These compo-
nents were having basic needs met, good reciprocal social
relations, and holding a positive worldview, which
included self-acceptance, gratitude, and spirituality
(Maulana et al., 2018). This multidimensional expression
of well-being is in line with the current theoretical under-
standing of well-being (Diener et al., 2018). However, as
noted by Knoop and Delle Fave (2012), the dimensions of
well-being are strongly influenced by the sociocultural
context. Having basic needs such as housing, sufficient
income, access to education, and health are commonly
found in the literature as being associated with well-being
(Kahneman & Deaton, 2010). From the universal-rela-
tivism approach, having basic needs met can be viewed as
a universal personal factor and an essential contributor to
the experience of well-being (Lomas, 2015), particularly
in an economically developing society such as Indonesia
where a large part of the population comes from a low
socioeconomic background. In fact, the term well-being is
often translated as “Sejahtera” in the Indonesian language,
which is more closely linked to financial well-being than
to psychological happiness, indicating the importance of
having material needs met in this sociocultural context.
Good social relations also are commonly cited as an essen-
tial component of well-being (Diener et al., 2018) in many
kinds of literature; however, social relations have a speci-
fic cultural expression, particularly in a strong collectivist
society such as Indonesia where, for example, much
emphasis is placed on reciprocal responsibility in relation-
ships with both family members and the broader commu-
nity, giving a unique cultural expression to this
component. The most culturally specific factor to emerge
in the previous qualitative study was that of having a posi-
tive worldview, which in the Indonesian context was con-
stituted by acceptance of both the self and life
circumstances, being grateful for what you have, and a
strong sense of spirituality. Clearly, this particular positive
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Herdiyan Maulana et al.
world view is a very culturally bound theme that captures
values unique to the Indonesian sociocultural context.
In support of the inclusion of basic needs in a measure
of well-being for use in the Indonesian context, there are
a number of studies which have supported meeting basic
needs as essential to the experience of a positive life
(Costanza et al., 2007; Kahneman & Deaton, 2010).
Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2005) indicated that financial condi-
tions are closely related to life satisfaction. In addition,
Frey and Stutzer (2000) revealed that individual people
from middle-income nations tend to put more importance
on their financial status as a key resource of a satisfied
life. Meeting daily material needs for many Indonesians
is a challenging task, with approximately 40% of the
population of 252 million living just above the national
poverty line (Statistik, 2016). Hence, Landiyanto, Ling,
Puspitasari, and Irianti (2011) suggested that being able
to have their basic needs met is clearly an important
aspect of the experience of well-being in this context
and warrants measurement in any indicator of well-being
in the Indonesian population.
The second dimension of Indonesian well-being was
satisfaction with social relations. Evidence for the impor-
tance of maintaining healthy social relations with others in
contributing to a satisfying life has been found in many
studies across cultural contexts, including in Indonesia
(Primasari & Yuniarti, 2012; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon,
2014). As a strong collectivist society, the Indonesian peo-
ple place strong emphasis on social connection as an
important aspect of life. Other research in the Indonesian
context has indicated that positive mutual relationships are
an essential aspect of a meaningful life (Rahayu, 2016;
Schwarz et al., 2010). The cultivation of mutual relation-
ships provides individuals with important emotional and
instrumental supports (Schwarz et al., 2010), such as
social trust and feelings of security (Rahayu, 2016), which
then lead to an enhanced sense of well-being.
Furthermore, a unique finding from the previous quali-
tative exploration was the importance of a positive
worldview, the essence of which was very specific to the
Indonesian culture (Maulana et al., 2018). One key
aspect of this positive worldview was the unconditional
acceptance of their life. Unlike the self-acceptance con-
cept in Ryff’s (1989) theory of psychological well-being,
which emphasized the awareness of individual strength
and weaknesses, self-acceptance in this particular context
was more about acceptance of the circumstances of indi-
viduals’ lives and the ability to accept life’s challenges.
This concept is seen in many Indonesian cultural refer-
ences such as the Javanese terms Nrimo, commonly used
to express a sincere, self-accepting attitude (Yuniarti,
2009), and Ikhlas, a Malay Indonesian term used to indi-
cate an accepting attitude with a full submission to what
God decides is best. Eisenberg, Liew, and Pidada (2001)
Indonesian Well-being Scale
found that Indonesians tend to attenuate their emotional
expressions to ensure that they are not perceived as
impolite and lacking control but rather as accepting of
their life and self. Gratitude was another key aspect of a
positive worldview to emerge in the qualitative study as
a major component of well-being. Gratitude for what
you have is an important moral value within Islamic
teachings. Studies (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang,
2002; Washizu & Naito, 2015) have shown that gratitude
also has been linked to well-being in the collectivistic
community. Several items were generated to assess these
concepts of acceptance of life and gratitude.
Finally, as a society that strongly emphasises religious
values, it is unsurprising that spirituality has been shown
in numerous studies to be an important aspect of
Indonesian society (Lun & Bond, 2013; Rahayu, 2016).
Affiliation with religious teaching and values may help
to maintain stronger social connections in a highly reli-
gious society (Alawiyah & Held, 2015) and establish a
sense of security (Primasari & Yuniarti, 2012). Although
Indonesia is a predominately Muslim society, there are a
number of other religions practised there; hence, in the
current study, spirituality rather than adherence to any
particular religion was assessed.
Aim of the Study
Although there is a slowly developing body of research
into well-being in Indonesia to date (Alawiyah & Held,
2015; Jaafar et al., 2012), there is a limited number of
well-being measures developed specifically for this con-
text. Previous studies have used translated instruments
originally developed by Western researchers; however, it
is clear that such measures may reflect a cultural bias in
the expression of well-being that is not sensitive to the
Indonesian perspective (Hambleton & Kanjee, 1995;
Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011). To enhance our under-
standing of well-being in the Indonesian population in a
culturally appropriate and comprehensive manner, a psy-
chometrically sound instrument developed in the
Indonesian sociocultural context is needed. The develop-
ment of such a measure may have important implications
for building a body of research that is dedicated to
understanding the experience and factors associated with
well-being in a specific cultural context.
Method
Participants
Participants were 1,028 (68% females, 32% males)
Indonesian adults, recruited from 24 provinces, with var-
ious ethnic populations using online and paper-based
approaches. The online and offline demographic
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
271
responses on key variables did not differ, so they were
combined in the following participant description. The
majority (67%) were aged between 18 and 34 years.
Forty-one percent of participants were married, 58%
were not married, and 1% identified as “other.” Ninety-
one percent had at least two children, and 9% had more
than two. Participants predominantly identified as
Muslim (92%), with Christian (6%), Hindu (0.9%), and
Buddhist (0.1%) denominations as well. One third of the
participants had completed postgraduate degrees (29%),
undergraduate degrees (40%), and primary school (30%);
very few reported no schooling (1%). Over half reported
working full-time (51%), with others working part-time
(30%), studying (14%), home duties (4%), or being
unemployed (1%). Nearly half of the participants (45%)
reported earning an average monthly income (1.5–7 mil-
lion rupiah), 20% reported having a higher than standard
monthly income (˃7 million rupiah), 19% were in a
low-income category (paid ˂1.5 million rupiah), and
15% had no regular income. Participants were invited to
participate in a test-retest study after a 1-week interval.
Fifty-nine participants agreed to take part in the second
session of the survey using an offline method.
Measures
Both online and paper-based surveys consisted of an infor-
mation sheet, a consent form, demographic questions, the
Indonesian Well-being Scale (IWS), and translated ver-
sions of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener
et al., 1985), the Warwick-Edinburg Mental Wellbeing
Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007), and the Kessler
Psychological Distress Scale (K10; Kessler et al., 2002).
The SWLS
The SWLS was originally developed by Diener et al.
(1985) to assess personal life satisfaction and was later
refined by Kobau, Sniezek, Zack, Lucas, and Burns
(2010). The scale is comprised of five questions that
appraise an individual’s general life satisfaction (e.g.,
“In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”) and uses a
Likert scale of 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 5 (highly sat-
isfied) (Kobau et al., 2010). The scale has demonstrated
good internal consistency, a = .88, and satisfying test-
retest reliability over time (Kobau et al., 2010). In addi-
tion, the scale has been used widely across cultures with
a sound psychometric result (Aishvarya et al., 2014).
The WEMWBS
The WEMWBS (Tennant et al., 2007) consists of 14
items measuring an individual’s sense of well-being. The
scale examines respondents’ general evaluation about
272
life (e.g., “I have had the energy to spare” and “I have
been feeling loved”), which captures a general sense of
personal well-being. Respondents indicate their answer
using a Likert scale of 5 (all of the time) to 1 (none of
the time) (Tennant et al., 2007). This scale has been
used with non-Western populations such as the Chinese
and the Pakistanis, and has been found to have good
internal consistencies for both cultural groups, a > .90
(Bartram, Sinclair, & Baldwin, 2013).
The K10
The K-10 consists of 10 items intended to provide a general
measure of distress based on inquiry into depressive and anx-
iety symptoms (Kessler et al., 2002). The questions are
designed to identify distress symptoms over the recent 4-
week period, rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(None of the time) to 5 (all of the time). The sum of all 10
items provides a total score ranging from 10 to 50. The gen-
eral cutoff level for the scale uses the following four criteria:
A score of 10 to 19 is likely to be well, 20 to 24 is likely to
have mild distress, 25 to 29 is likely to have moderate dis-
tress, and 30 to 50 is likely to have severe distress. The scale
has adequate psychometric properties, a = .86, within the
non-Western sample (Sulaiman-Hill & Thompson, 2010).
The IWS
The IWS is a well-being self-report instrument devel-
oped for the Indonesian general population. The initial
scale consisted of 33 favourable items asking the respon-
dent’s sense of well-being in five different domains;
Basic Needs (BN), Social Relation (SN), Acceptance
(SA), Gratitude (GR), and Spirituality (SP). IWS items
were rated on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). The IWS is available in the
Indonesian Bahasa and English languages.
Procedure
IWS item generation. Based on the findings of the
qualitative study (Maulana et al., 2018), 50 items were
developed to tap the constructs identified as important
factors of well-being in the Indonesian context; these
were (a) Fulfilling Basic Needs, (b) Maintaining Good
Social Relations, (c) Acceptance of Life and Self, (d)
Gratitude, and (e) Spirituality. Ten items were developed
for each factor, using simple language to ensure that
they were appropriate for all social/economic and educa-
tion levels. All items were developed in the Indonesian
language, with the final English version of the scale
translated by the bilingual principal researcher. The
item-development process was based on the existing
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Herdiyan Maulana et al.
well-being questionnaires, the results of the previous
qualitative study, and the language used by the partici-
pants in that study. For example, the item “I spend time
with the family I live with” (Item SN 2) was taken
directly from a participant’s comment.
Twenty-nine Indonesian experts from varied back-
grounds were invited through e-mail to evaluate the 50-
item pool in terms of their language and appropriateness
to the Indonesian sociocultural context. The experts rated
each item from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating an
item with good clarity and appropriateness. Their
responses were analysed using the statistical formula of
Aiken’s V. Aiken’s V was applied to examine a scale’s
content validity coefficient by comparing a number of
reviewers’ comment on an item (Penfield & Giacobbi,
2004). This formula has been used widely in psychomet-
ric research and proven to be an adequate approach to
evaluate an item’s content validity (Retnawati, 2016).
The analysis result showed that most of the questions
had an item-relevance coefficient value above .70, which
indicated that the item was easily understood and rele-
vant. In addition, the experts also were invited to pro-
vide written feedback about the items. Redundant items
were dropped or revised. Final revisions led to a 33-item
IWS, with responses recorded on a Likert scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Data collection. Health, safety, and ethical clearance
were obtained from Australian and Indonesian institu-
tions. Data were collected through online and paper-
based surveys. All participants were informed about the
confidential nature of the study and their right to with-
draw without any penalty. The questionnaire pack con-
sisted of information about the study and a short
debriefing section. Participants were recruited through e-
mail advertisements and social media platforms, inviting
them to participate in the study and providing a link to
the online survey. Participant submission of the online
survey was regarded as consent to participate in the
research.
The paper survey was used to include participants
who lacked Internet access. Participants were recruited
through the university campus, local religious communi-
ties, and health community centres in Jakarta. Once par-
ticipants signed the consent form, they were invited to
complete the paper-based questionnaire. At the end of
the survey, they were invited to participate in the second
part, which is a follow-up to examine the scale’s test-ret-
est reliability. Participants were asked to generate a code
(the first letter of their name, the first letter of their
mother’s name, and the date and month of their birth-
day) in the survey sheet, which can be used to match
their responses at Times 1 and 2.
Indonesian Well-being Scale
Study design. The total data (N = 1,028) were ran-
domly divided into two sample sets. The first data set
(n = 512) was subjected to an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) to identify the underlying factor structure of the
scale. The second data set (n = 516) was used for a con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) to provide a more
detailed test of the questionnaire. The third set of analy-
ses on the complete sample (n = 1,017) examined the
psychometric properties of the scale, internal consistency
using Cronbach’s a and convergent and discriminant
validity of the scale through correlations between the
IWS and other scales (Satisfaction With Life Scale,
Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-being Scale, and
Kessler Psychological Distress Scale-10). Finally, the
correlational analysis was used to check the scale’s tem-
poral stability with a small group (n = 59) of the larger
sample who agreed to complete the IWS for a second
time 1 week later.
Results
Statistical Assumptions
Preliminary assumption checks were applied to the data
by using IBM SPSS Version 23 (Brisbane, Australia).
There were no missing data for the IWS. Any missing
data on other scales such as the SWLS, the WEMWBS,
and the K10 were deleted. Data were normally dis-
tributed for the IWS, with only a small negative skew
on some factors deemed an accurate reflection of the
respondents’ characteristics.
EFA
The 33 items of the IWS were subjected to EFA using
IBM SPSS Version 23. An iterative process was under-
taken to achieve the best factor structure. A Keiser-
Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy confirmed the
scale’s factorability, a = .90, with Bartlett’s test of
v2(528, n = 512 ) = 8899.06, p < .001 confirming the
satisfactory correlation matrix. The initial EFA resulted
in six factors with eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of
1 which explained 53.69% of the total variability.
However, two factors had a low number of items with
high cross-loading on other factors.
As we had generated a large pool of items for the
express purpose of statically examining the strength of
the items, we excluded any cross-loading items in the
next EFA process. In addition, items that loaded <.30 on
any factor or that cross-loaded at more than .30 on two
or more factors were removed, and the EFA was run
again on the reduced item pool. The final EFA iteration
was conducted on the 24 remaining items which loaded
on four clear factors (see Table 1) with eigenvalues over
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
273
Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and accounted for 60.58% of the
variance. The four-factor solution was further evidenced
by the scree plot test, reproduced correlation, and a
Horn’s parallel analysis with a bootstrapping which con-
firmed that the first four eigenvalues (7.56, 3.20, 2.19,
and 1.58) from the actual data were greater than those
obtained from the simulation data.
The 24-item scale with four factors was labelled the
IWS. The four factors were labelled Spirituality, Positive
Social Relations, Basic Needs, and Acceptance. Each
item was labelled based on their initial domain category
(e.g., SP1 stands for Item 1 in the Spirituality aspect;
SN2 stands for Item 2 in the Social Relation aspect).
Factor 1, Spirituality, consisted of six items and
accounted for 31.50% of the variance. It assessed the
positive effect of praying (SP2, SP5), a sense of God’s
help (SP3, SP4), attachment to God (SP6), and gratitude
(GR3). Factor 2, Social Relations, consisted of six items
and accounted for 13.34% of the variance. This factor
measured whether people spent time with their family
(SN2), provide and receive emotional support from fam-
ily (SN3, SN4), attachment to family (SN5, SN6), and
know others in their neighbourhood (SN7). Factor 3,
Basic Needs, consisted of five items and accounted for
9.20% of the variance. Items loading on this factor
assessed whether respondents can afford basic life neces-
sities such as daily transportation (BN2), health (BN3),
education (BN4), and emergency services (BN5), and
have a little money spare for saving (BN6). Factor 4,
Acceptance, consisted of seven items and explained
6.60% of the variance. Items loading on this factor
assessed people’s acceptance of life (SA1, SA2), life sat-
isfaction (SA3), confidence in life (SA4, SA5), happiness
(SA6), and optimism (SA7).
CFA
A CFA with maximum likelihood estimation was con-
ducted to confirm the factor structure of the 24-item IWS.
To evaluate the model fit, widely accepted fit indices were
used, such as the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–
Lewis index (TLI), the incremental fit Index (IFI; near or
above .95), values of standardised root mean residual
(SRMR; values at or below .08), and a confidence interval
of root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; at or
below .06) (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
As seen in Table 2, the fit indices of 24 items margin-
ally deviated from the suggested standard (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Inspection of the modification indices
suggested that four items (GR3, BN3, SA1, and SA2)
were problematic, as they shared error with other factors
or had low factor loadings. Thus, these items were
removed to improve the model fit. Alternative CFA anal-
ysis on a different number of factor variations of the
274 Herdiyan Maulana et al.

Table 1
Item Content and Factor Loadings for the Indonesian Well-being Scale (24 items)a

Factor

Social Basic Self-

No Item Spirituality Relation Needs Acceptance h2

Spirituality (SP)
SP2 Praying helps me to stay positive .85 .10 .03 .21 .79
SP3 God helps me to overcome my problems .83 .16 .01 .18 .76
SP4 God has decided what is best for me .85 .14 .04 .16 .77
SP5 Praying helps me to stays calm .82 .11 .01 .22 .74
SP6 Even in a difficult time, God is with me .81 .14 .01 .19 .72
GR3 I thank my family/parent for their help and supportb .61 .21 .01 .27 .51
Social Relation (SN)
SN2 I spend time with the family I lived with (e.g., parent, children, .11 .59 .16 .16 .42
grandparents, or relatives)
SN3 My family supports me (e.g., give motivation, spirit, and courage) .11 .55 .00 .19 .35
SN4 I support my family .14 .72 .17 .11 .59
SN5 My parents/family are there for me when I need them .18 .71 .08 .16 .58
SN6 I am there for my parents/family when they need me .06 .74 .05 .06 .57
SN7 I personally know most of the people in the neighbourhood .11 .56 .17 .18 .39
Basic Needs (BN)
BN2 I can afford for the transportation cost (e.g., paying the bus fee, .04 .11 .72 .08 .54
fuel, for own vehicle)
BN3 I have money to see a doctor or buy medicineb .02 .08 .79 .11 .65
BN4 I can pay for my/children education (e.g., school/university fee, .01 .11 .79 .17 .67
uniforms, & books)
BN5 I have some money for emergencies or difficult time .05 .08 .59 .13 .38
BN6 I can spare money for secondary needs (e.g., recreation) .01 .10 .53 .13 .31
Acceptance (SA)
SA1 I am happy to accept my life as it isb .11 .26 .13 .35 .22
SA2 I try to enjoy my lifeb .25 .11 .08 .57 .41
SA3 In general, I am satisfied with my life .06 .25 .27 .49 .38
SA4 I avoid comparing my life to others .16 .14 .16 .68 .54
SA5 Life is not a burden for me .22 .06 .15 .56 .40
SA6 I am happy with my life .27 .18 .03 .66 .55
SA7 I am not upset if I do not get what I want .18 .26 .21 .52 .42
Eigenvalues 7.56 3.20 2.19 1.58

Note. Factor loading >.30 are printed in bold.

a
n = 512.
b
Items not included in the final version of the Indonesian Well-being Scale.

scale also was conducted, and the four-factor solution
with 20 items remained the best and most parsimonious
fit of the data (for the final scale, see the Appendix). In
addition, as seen in Figure 1, all 20 items were strongly
related to their latent factor.
Internal Consistency and Temporal Stability
Coefficient a for the 20 items of the IWS was .89, which
indicated an excellent internal consistency as a total
measure of well-being. Cronbach’s a for the Spirituality
factor was .94, Social Relation was .85, Basic Need
was .80, and Acceptance was .79. Bivariate correlation
of .92, p < .001, between the 20-item total IWS score at
Times 1 and 2 indicates that the scale has good temporal
stability. The test-retest correlations for the Spirituality,
Social Relation, Basic Needs, and Acceptance subscales
were .78, .88, .88, and .87, respectively. The total scale
and the four factors of the IWS showed high levels of
stability over the 1-week interval and displayed strong
internal consistency.
Validity Tests
Validity testing of the IWS was performed in two ways:
(a) First, Pearson correlations were used to check the

© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Indonesian Well-being Scale
Table 2
Fit Indices for the Hypothesised Four-Factor Model
and Alternative Models
v2 (df) CFI TLI SRMR IFI RMSEA
Four factors 799.4 .92 .91 .03 .92 .06
with 24 (246)
items
Four factors 375.4 .96 .96 .02 .96 .05
with 20 (164)
items
One factor 2766.48 .57 .52 .12 .57 .17
with 20 (170)
items
Note. CFI = confirmatory factor analysis; TLI = Tucker–Lewis
Index; SRMR = standard root mean residual; IFI = incremental
fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
convergent and discriminant validity of the IWS with
other related scales, and (b) a set of estimations on average
variance (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and maxi-
mum shared variance (MSV) were examined. The Pearson
coefficient indicated significant correlations between over-
all IWS score and subscales, with the SWLS, the
WEMWBS, and the K10 (see Table 3). The two existing
well-being scales (the SWLS and the WEMWBS) had a
positive correlation with the overall IWS score. In addi-
tion, to examine the discriminant validity, the IWS was
compared with the K10. The cutoff criteria of K10
(Kessler et al., 2002) were used to identify four different
levels of distress. The one-way analysis of variance result
suggested that there was a significantly different level of
IWS scores across four distress-level groups, F = 72.20,
p = <.001, df = 3. Based on the post hoc inspection, par-
ticipants who scored high on the IWS fell into the “likely
to be good” category, and those with a low score on the
IWS fell in the “high-distress” category. As a result, the
distress scale (the K10) demonstrated a negative correla-
tion with the IWS, supporting the discriminant validity of
the IWS.
Further, the results of CR and AVE as well as MVE
estimates on four dimensions of the IWS showed that
acceptable reliability indices were achieved for all four
scales, CR: range = .79–.94, AVE: range = .44–.78, and
MSV: range = .20–.30. As a result, convergent validity
of the IWS was established. Taken together, these results
provide strong evidence for both the validity and relia-
bility of the IWS.
Discussion
The objective of this study was to develop and validate
the IWS using a national-level sample. Each step of
scale development was undertaken with scientific rigour.
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
275
Items were initially generated based on the outcomes of
previous qualitative research (Maulana et al., 2018) and
relevant empirical as well as theoretical literature, then
tested through advanced psychometric techniques. The
final 20-item scale measures respondents’ perception of
well-being through four different domains (Spirituality,
Positive Social Relation, Basic Needs, and Acceptance).
These dimensions of the IWS align with emerging litera-
ture on well-being in the cross-cultural context.
Whereas a number of these dimensions are consistent
with existing models of well-being, the current research
supports Lomas’s (2015) view of universal and cultural
dimensions in the experience of well-being. The current
findings show that universal personal factors such as
basic social needs and positive social relations, which
feature strongly in many multidimensional models of
well-being (Diener et al., 2018; Huppert & So, 2013), as
well as culturally specific factors such as spiritually and
acceptance underpin the experience of well-being in the
Indonesian context. The meaning ascribed to positive
social relations did emerge as having a particular cultural
expression in this study, with a family obligation as well
as a broader community aspect (neighbourhood). In addi-
tion, the emergence of self-acceptance was an important
culturally specific dimension of well-being that also was
supported by the findings of the current research. Rather
than the individualist notion of self-acceptance of per-
sonal qualities seen in the traditional model (Ryff,
1989), acceptance in the Indonesian context emerged
rather as acceptance of life circumstances. In addition,
the spirituality factor captured some of the more esoteric
dimensions of the traditional models encompassing pur-
pose and meaning in life, but again rather than gained
from personal achievement in the Indonesian context,
this aspect was derived through a spiritual engagement.
Hence, these results provide strong evidence for the need
of a measure of well-being embedded within the nuances
of this cultural context. These dimensions of the IWS
are discussed in more detail next.
Dimensions of the IWS
The first factor, Spirituality, evaluates the extent to
which religious practice and belief in God enable people
to attain positive well-being. A high score on this com-
ponent indicates satisfaction with their sense of spiritual-
ity. Being grateful to parents and family for their
support also fell onto this factor, which may be due to
the strong connection between religion and family in the
Indonesian cultural context. Spirituality itself is highly
relevant to Indonesian culture, as it is a society with a
strong religious orientation. Cohen (2002) suggested that
a sense of spirituality assists people’s coping strategies
and leads them to achieve well-being. This factor is
276 Herdiyan Maulana et al.

0.11 SP2

0.08 SP4 0.88

0.91
0.08 SP3 0.92 Spirituality
0.87
0.12 SP5 0.91

0.09 SP6

0.51

0.32 SN2

0.44 SN3 0.71

0.63
0.18 SN4 0.83 Social 0.40
0.87 Relation
0.13 SN5 0.67
0.75
0.41 SN7

0.26 SN6
0.57 0.22

0.30 SA3

0.48 SA4 0.66

0.62 0.36
0.37 SA6 0.66 Acceptance
0.76
0.33 SA7 0.59

0.56 SA5
0.55

0.29 BN2
0.69
0.38 BN4
0.78
Basic Needs
BN5 0.76
0.39
0.69
0.51 BN6

Figure 1 Confirmatory factor analysis of the 20-item Indonesian Well-being Scale (with standardized parameter
estimates).

© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Indonesian Well-being Scale
Table 3
Correlation Coefficients Between the Indonesian Well-being Scale, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS), the
Warwick-Edinburg Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWS), and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)
Pearson correlation coefficient
Scales Basic Needs (BN) Social Relation (SN)
SWLS .45a .43a
WEMWBS .39a .43a
K10 .33a .30a
Note. p < .001.
a
consistent with past research on the factors associated
with well-being, particularly in a nation where society is
characterised by a stronger level of religiousness adher-
ence (Lun & Bond, 2013). Moreover, as a collectivist
society strongly affiliated with religious values, spiritual-
ity provides stronger social support and a sense of secu-
rity for Indonesians (Alawiyah & Held, 2015; Primasari
& Yuniarti, 2012).
The second factor, Positive Social Relations, measures
a respondents’ satisfaction with their social interaction
with significant others (e.g., family, neighbours). A high
score on this factor indicates a high level of satisfaction
and reciprocity in their relations with family and com-
munity. Consistent with the country’s collectivistic cul-
ture, maintenance of positive social relations is an
important value of the Indonesian culture (Jetten et al.,
2002). Positive social relations comprise instrumental
and emotional supports received and given from and to
family members, which is strongly linked to well-being
in the Indonesian context (Landiyanto et al., 2011;
Rahayu, 2016). Note that this factor emphasized a two-
way, mutual connection between respondents and others.
Hence, for Indonesians, maintaining positive social rela-
tions is not only reflected through receiving support but
also comes in the form of an eagerness to provide sup-
port to others. This finding is consistent with other
research in well-being, such as Diener et al.’s (2018)
recent study indicating that reciprocal social relations are
an essential determinant of well-being.
The third factor, Basic Needs, refers to one’s subjec-
tive evaluation of capacity to afford daily life necessi-
ties. This factor also included the respondents’ ability to
address the basic needs of their significant others (e.g.,
children). A high score on this factor indicates people’s
subjective feeling of being able to afford their primary
needs as well as the needs of their significant others.
Again, the importance of basic needs by looking after
others emphasises the collectivist character of Indonesian
society (Jetten et al., 2002). Fulfillment of basic needs
provides opportunities to experience a better quality of
life. The association of basic needs and well-being is
consistent with much of the literature in this area
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
277
Acceptance (SA) Spirituality (SP) Total IWS
.66a .33a .65a
.53a .34a .59a
.41a .22a .44a
(Biggeri & Mehrotra, 2011; Taylor, 2011). Costanza
et al. (2007) noted the importance of this factor in help-
ing to understand the concept of well-being in a more
comprehensive and practical manner.
The final factor of IWS, Acceptance, represents one’s
personal attitude toward self. It reflects the unique
respondent’s ability to unconditionally accept his or her
life circumstances. High scores on this factor indicate a
higher level of acceptance. Acceptance has been shown
to be an effective coping strategy for Indonesians
(Yuniarti, 2009). It helps people to accept life challenges
by accepting both themselves and their life conditions,
instead of negatively judging themselves or their lives
(Harrington & Loffredo, 2010). Moreover, Boehm,
Lyubomirsky, and Sheldon (2011) emphasized this
aspect of well-being in Asian samples, as research has
indicated that an attitude of acceptance in the pursuit of
a more stable state of well-being is common in Asian
populations.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
As well-being research in diverse cultures continues to
grow, it is necessary to develop culturally appropriate
instruments to assess well-being within specific cultures.
The IWS is an important addition to the cross-cultural
well-being literature. It highlights both the multidimen-
sional nature of well-being and supports the research
suggesting that well-being is culturally bound and needs
to be contextualised. The IWS consists of universal key
components of well-being, such as basic needs and
social support, as well as components specific to the
Indonesian context, such as positive psychological traits
of acceptance and spirituality.
The findings of this research provide further evidence
for the need for a more contextual approach to and an
understanding of well-being. Existing theories and mea-
sures, while supporting the multidimensional understand-
ing of well-being, have tended to place individualist
qualities at their centre. The cultural-relativistic approach
by Lomas (2015) offers a theoretical standpoint for
upcoming research into well-being, but allows for a
278
broader conceptual dimension of well-being, involving
universal dimensions as well as dimensions particular to
the respective cultural perspective.
The IWS is unique to the Indonesian context, as the
items were developed and tested in the Indonesian set-
ting. As well-being research in Indonesia is growing, the
current research provides evidence for the validity of the
IWS as a self-report measure to examine well-being in
an Indonesian general population. Data collected from
this scale could be helpful for researchers and govern-
ment institutions to guide policy development and refine
interventions related to well-being. Although the scale
was developed specifically for use in an Indonesian con-
text, the scale also could be expanded for use within a
society with a similar sociocultural context.
Limitations and Future Research
This study presents a rigorously developed and validated
well-being instrument for the Indonesian general popula-
tion. We used a large, representative sample of participants
from a wide range of demographics. However, a majority
of participants were from Java Island (80%) and had a high
educational background. Future studies involving a more
stratified sample of Indonesian ethnicity and regions would
add further evidence for the validity of this newly devel-
oped scale. The small sample (n = 59) of the test-retest
respondents needs to be noted when generalising these
findings. As such, further verification of the scale’s reliabil-
ity should be performed using a larger sample size with
more heterogeneous characteristics. In addition, although
online and paper-based data collection methods were used,
it is difficult to determine whether response bias and social
desirability affected the results. Therefore, it is recom-
mended that future studies incorporate social desirability
measures. This article presents preliminary research on the
IWS scale, which has highlighted its potential. Further
research is needed to continue to examine and provide evi-
dence for its psychometric properties across the Indonesian
archipelago.
Conclusion
This study was undertaken to develop a culturally appro-
priate well-being measure for use with an Indonesian
population. The current finding is promising and indi-
cates that the IWS is a psychometrically sound instru-
ment with a great deal of potential to build well-being
research in the Indonesian context.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Indonesian Endowment
Fund for Education (LPDP) as a part of the first author’s
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Herdiyan Maulana et al.
doctoral study scholarship at the School of Psychology
and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology,
Australia. Currently, the first author works as a lecturer
at the Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Negeri Jakarta.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that there is no potential conflict of
interest in this article.
References
Aishvarya, S., Maniam, T., Karuthan, C., Sidi, H., Jaafar, N. R. N., &
Oei, T. P. S. (2014). Psychometric properties and validation of the
Satisfaction with Life Scale in psychiatric and medical outpatients in
Malaysia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55, S101–S106. doi: 10.1016/
j.comppsych.2013.03.010
Alawiyah, T., & Held, M. L. (2015). Social capital promoting health
and well-being among Indonesian women. Affilia, 30, 352–362. 10.
1177/0886109915572842
Bartram, D. J., Sinclair, J. M., & Baldwin, D. S. (2013). Further
validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale
(WEMWBS) in the UK veterinary profession: Rasch analysis.
Quality of Life Research, 22, 379–391. 10.1007/s11136-012-0144-4
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002).
Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambrige,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Biggeri, M., & Mehrotra, S. (2011). Child poverty as capability
deprivation: How to choose domains of child well-being and poverty. In
M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability
approach (pp. 46 – 75). London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boehm, J. K., Lyubomirsky, S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). A
longitudinal experimental study comparing the effectiveness of
happiness-enhancing strategies in Anglo Americans and Asian
Americans. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 1263–1272. doi:10.1080/
02699931.2010.541227
Cohen, A. B. (2002). The importance of spirituality in well-being for
Jews and Christians. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 287–310.
doi:10.1023/A:1020656823365
Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., . . .
Gayer, D. E. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating
opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological
Economics, 61, 267–276. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.023
Diener, E. (2009). The science of well-being: The collected works of
Ed Diener (Vol. 37). New York, NY: Springer Science & Business
Media. doi:/10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and open
questions in the science of subjective well-being. Collabra:
Psychology, 4(1), 15. doi:10.1525/collabra.115
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49
(1), 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Eisenberg, N., Liew, J., & Pidada, S. U. (2001). The relations of
parental emotional expressivity with the quality of Indonesian
children’s social functioning. Emotion, 1(2), 116–136. doi:10.1037/
1528-3542.1.2.116
Indonesian Well-being Scale
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2005). Income and well-being: An empirical
analysis of the comparison income effect. Journal of Public
Economics, 89, 997–1019. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.06.003
French, D. C., Eisenberg, N., Sallquist, J., Purwono, U., Lu, T., &
Christ, S. (2013). Parent–adolescent relationships, religiosity, and the
social adjustment of Indonesian Muslim adolescents. Journal of
Family Psychology, 27, 421-430. doi:/10.1037/a0032858
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions.
Economic Journal, 110, 918–938. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00570
Hambleton, R. K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of
cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test
adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(3),
147–157. doi:/10.1027/1015-5759.11.3.147
Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). Insight, rumination, and self-
reflection as predictors of well-being. Journal of Psychology, 145(1),
39–57. doi:10.1080/00223980.2010.528072
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application
of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social
Indicators Research, 110, 837–861. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0030-z
Jaafar, J. L., Idris, M. A., Ismuni, J., Fei, Y., Jaafar, S., Ahmad, Z., . . .
Sugandi, Y. S. (2012). The sources of happiness to the Malaysians
and Indonesians: Data from a smaller nation. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 65, 549–556. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.164
Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). ‘We’re all
individuals’: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels
of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 32, 189–207. doi:10.1002/ejsp.65
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation
of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 16489–16493. doi:10.1073/pnas.
1011492107
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K.,
Normand, S. L., . . . Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales
to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific
psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976. doi:10.
1017/S003329170200607
Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing
to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43,
207–222. doi:10.2307/3090197
Khaw, D., & Kern, M. (2014). A cross-cultural comparison of the
PERMA model of well-being. Undergraduate Journal of Psychology
at Berkeley, University of California, 8, 10–23.
Knoop, H. H., & Delle Fave, A. (Eds.). (2012). Well-being and
cultures: Perspectives from positive psychology (Vol. 3). Dordrecht:
Springer Science & Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4611-4
Kobau, R., Sniezek, J., Zack, M. M., Lucas, R. E., & Burns, A. (2010).
Well-being assessment: An evaluation of well-being scales for public
health and population estimates of well-being among US adults.
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2, 272–297. doi:10.
1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01035.x
Kong, F., & You, X. (2013). Loneliness and self-esteem as mediators
between social support and life satisfaction in late adolescence.
Social Indicators Research, 110(1), 271–279. doi:10.1007/s11205-
011-9930-6
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
279
Lai, L. C., Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. L. (2013). Cross-cultural
difference in subjective well-being: Cultural response bias as an
explanation. Social Indicators Research, 114, 607–619. doi:10.1007/
s11205-012-0164-z
Landiyanto, E. A., Ling, J., Puspitasari, M., & Irianti, S. E. (2011).
Wealth and happiness: Empirical evidence from Indonesia.
Chulalongkorn Journal of Economics, 23, 1–17.
Linton, M. J., Dieppe, P., & Medina-Lara, A. (2016). Review of 99
self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: Exploring
dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open, 6,
e010641. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010641
Lomas, T. (2015). Positive cross-cultural psychology: Exploring
similarity and difference in constructions and experiences of well-
being. International Journal of Well-Being, 5(4), 60–77. doi:10.5502/
ijw.v5i4.437
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness:
Individual oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 5, 269–291. 10.1007/s10902-004-8789-5
Lun, V. M. C., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Examining the relation of religion and
spirituality to subjective well-being across national cultures. Psychology
of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 304–315. doi:10.1037/a0033641
Manuela, S., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). The Pacific Identity and
Wellbeing Scale (PIWBS): A culturally-appropriate self-report
measure for Pacific peoples in New Zealand. Social Indicators
Research, 112(1), 83–103. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0041-9
Maslovska, K., Voitk
ane, S., Miez
ıte, S., & Rascevska, M. (2005).
Reliability and validity of the adaptation of the Satisfaction With Life
Scale in Latvia. Baltic Journal of Psychology, 6(2), 120–127.
Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&
AuthType=ip,sso&db=afh&AN=59732935&site=ehostlive&scope=site
Maulana, H., Obst, P., & Khawaja, N. (2018). Indonesian perspective
of well-being: A qualitative study. The Qualitative Report, 23, 3136
– 3152. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss12/18
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). The
grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 112–127. doi:10.1037//
0022-3514.82.1.112
Moghal, F., & Khanam, S. J. (2015). Development of ICP Subjective
Well-Being Scale (SWBS). Pakistan Journal of Clinical Psychology,
14( 2), 3–25. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
1771722384?accountxml:id=13380
Penfield, R. D., & Giacobbi, J. P. R. (2004). Applying a score
confidence interval to Aiken’s item content-relevance index.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8, 213–
225. doi:10.1207/s15327841mpee0804_3
Primasari, A., & Yuniarti, K. W. (2012). What make teenagers happy?
An exploratory study using indigenous psychology approach.
International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 1(2), 53–
61. doi:10.5861/ijrsp.2012.v1i2.80
Rahayu, T. P. (2016). The determinants of happiness in Indonesia.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 393–404. doi:10.
5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p393
Retnawati, H. (2016). Proving content validity of self-regulated
learning scale (The comparison of Aiken index and expanded
Gregory index). REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 2,
155–164. doi:10.21831/reid.v2i2.11029
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on
the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality
280
and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.
6.1069
Schwarz, B., Albert, I., Trommsdorff, G., Zheng, G., Shi, S., & Nelwan, P.
R. (2010). Intergenerational support and life satisfaction: A comparison
of Chinese, Indonesian, and German elderly mothers. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 41, 706–722. doi:10.1177/0022022110372197
Seligman, M. E. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of
happiness and well-being. Policy, 27(3), 60–61.
Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and
validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care
research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in
Clinical Practice, 17, 268–274. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
Statistik, B. P. (2016). Indikator kesejahteraan rakyat 2016 [Welfare
indicators 2016]. Jakarta. Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia [Central
Agency on Statistic-Indonesia]. Available at https://www.bps.go.id/
publication/2016/11/23/f6d6e8896c13653e09ae0862/indikator-keseja
hteraan-rakyat-2016.html
Suh, E. M., Diener, E., & Updegraff, J. A. (2008). From culture to
priming conditions: Self-construal influences on life satisfaction
judgments. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 3–15.
doi:10.1177/0022022107311769
Sujarwoto, S., & Tampubolon, G. (2014). Decentralisation and citizen
happiness: A multilevel analysis of self-rated happiness in Indonesia.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 455–475. doi:10.1007/s10902-014-
9518-3
Sulaiman-Hill, C. M., & Thompson, S. C. (2010). Selecting
instruments for assessing psychological wellbeing in Afghan and
Kurdish refugee groups. BMC Research Notes, 3, 237. doi:10.1186/
1756-0500-3-237
Taylor, D. (2011). Wellbeing and welfare: A psychosocial analysis of
being well and doing well enough. Journal of Social Policy, 40,
777–794. doi:10.1017/S0047279411000249
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s website.
© 2019 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Herdiyan Maulana et al.
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S.,
. . . Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental
Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 63. doi:10.1186/1477-
7525-5-63
Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Culture and subjective well-being. In E.
Diener (Ed.), Culture and well-being(pp. 9 – 41). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2352-0_2
Waqas, A., Ahmad, W., Haddad, M., Taggart, F. M., Muhammad, Z.,
Bukhari, M. H., . . . Rizvi, Z. A. (2015). Measuring the well-being of
health care professionals in the Punjab: A psychometric evaluation
of the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale in a Pakistani
population. PeerJ, 3, e1264. doi:10.7717/peerj.1264
Washizu, N., & Naito, T. (2015). The emotions sumanai, gratitude, and
indebtedness, and their relations to interpersonal orientation and
psychological well-being among Japanese university students.
International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice,
Consultation, 4, 209–222. doi:10.1037/t42955-000
White, S. C., Gaines, S. O., Jr., & Jha, S. (2014). Inner well-being:
Concept and validation of a new approach to subjective perceptions
of wellbeing—India. Social Indicators Research, 119, 723–746.
doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0504-7
Yeo, P. L. (2014). Religiosity, personality, and subjective well-being
among Muslim adults in Indonesia (Order No. 3667902). Available
from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1647264696). [Cited April 30, 2018.] Retrieved from https://gatewa
y.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/
1647264696?accountxml:id=13380
Yuniarti, K. W. (2009). The magical strength of Nrimo and Gotong-
Royong: A quick response report following the May 27, 2006
earthquake in Yogyakarta. Anima Indonesian Psychological Journal,
24, 201–206.