PsyCh Journal 10 (2021): 141–154

DOI: 10.1002/pchj.402

An Indonesian model of well-being: The integration of universal

and cultural factors

Herdiyan Maulana ,1 Nigar Khawaja,2 and Patricia Obst2

1
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia, 2School of
Psychology & Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia

Abstract: The current study examined a predictive model of both universal factors (socioeconomic, neuroticism, and extraversion) and cultur-
ally specific factors (sense of community, trust, and self-construal) towards the well-being of Indonesians. A nationally representative sample
(N = 929) was recruited across the nation to complete a survey in either online or offline format. The survey contained a measure of well-being
as well as demographic, psychosocial, and cultural variables. Analysis via hierarchical multiple regression showed that both universal and cul-
tural factors were associated with well-being in this Indonesian sample. In particular, once the cultural factors were added to the model, there
were changes in universal factor effects to well-being. The finding of this study recognized the multidimensional model of well-being and sup-
ports the importance of evaluating well-being at the dimensional level to allow for an exploration of the nuanced relationship between distinct
indicators and facets of well-being. The theoretical implications of these results and future directions were also discussed in this study.

Keywords: cultural factors; Indonesia; social factors; well-being

Correspondence Dr. Herdiyan Maulana, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Kampus D, Fakultas Pendidikan Psikologi
UNJ, Jalan Halimun No.2 Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia. Email: herdiyan-maulana@unj.ac.id
Received 29 January 2020. Accepted 9 August 2020.

Well-being is an important concept and one that all humans
strive for; it is critically important for an individual’s physi-
cal and psychosocial health (Diener, Seligman, Choi, &
Oishi, 2018). The well-being of a nation’s population is
considered as an indicator of progress and development of
the society (Veenhoven, 1984). Consensus has emerged in
the literature that well-being is a multidimensional concept,
and studies have identified a multitude of factors associated
with the dimensions of well-being (Knoop & Delle
Fave, 2013; Lomas, 2015). These studies have highlighted
a number of individual sociodemographic and personality
characteristics as factors associated with well-being. Inter-
estingly, although the majority of these studies have been
conducted in Western countries, they are considered uni-
versal in nature (Knoop & Delle Fave, 2013).
There remain few studies that have explored the rele-
vance of these universal factors to the well-being of people
in non-Western countries with strong collectivist cultures
rather than individualist. Much of the well-being research
conducted from a Western perspective has also overlooked
potential culturally specific factors that may be of impor-
tance in non-Western populations (Lu, 2005; Lu &
Gilmour, 2004). Recent theorists have postulated that uni-
versal and culturally specific factors are both important in
gaining a full understanding of the experience of well-being
in distinct cultures (Lomas, 2015). The current research
explores the influence of universal and culturally specific
factors on the well-being of Indonesians. This study would
potentially contribute to the cross-cultural psychological
theory and understanding of well-being in one of the
world’s largest non-individualist populations.
Universal and cultural factors
Well-being is a multidimensional concept (Lomas, 2015),
with physical, cognitive, social, and behavioral dimensions

© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
142
(Diener, 2009). At the physical level, it involves the pres-
ence of physical health, not only the absence of disease
(Diener et al., 2015; Diener, Pressman, Hunter, & Del-
gadillo-Chase, 2017). At the cognitive level, it consists of
thoughts and ideas associated with happiness, life satisfac-
tion, and self-worth (Marcinko, 2015). The social dimen-
sion consists of positive interactions and the quality of
relationships with others (Lu & Gilmour, 2004). While the
behavioral level encompasses actively working towards
self-fulfillment (Ryan & Deci, 2001).
According to Berry, Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen (2002),
there are a number of universal factors that contribute to
these aspects of well-being regardless of the cultural context.
Researchers have identified these universal factors in psycho-
logical states (e.g., personality and coping strategy) and
sociodemographic aspects, such as income, occupation sta-
tus, education background, and physical health (De Neve,
Christakis, Fowler, & Frey, 2012; Michalos, 2017). Fulfill-
ment of these essential needs is associated with the experi-
ence of higher levels of well-being across cultures
(Glozlah, 2015; Gori-Maia, 2013; Khodarahimi, 2015;
Khumalo, Temane, & Wissing, 2012). A regular income and
financial security are required to meet the basic needs and
the demands of everyday life (Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2005;
Oshio, Nozaki, & Kobayashi, 2011). In addition, education
provides an individual with skills that help secure a good
position in the job market (Tan, Tambyah, & Kau, 2006),
and a good marital relationship provides positive emotional
and social support (Khodarahimi, 2015).
Being free from mental and physical illnesses also
clearly contributes to well-being for all individuals
(Steptoe, Deaton, & Stone, 2015). Mental and physical
health can be influenced by psychological strengths, such
as positive coping, resilience, and an ability to engage in
self-care (Marcinko, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Personal-
ity factors, in particular extraversion and neuroticism, have
also consistently been found to be associated with well-
being across cultures (Jensen, Kirkegaard Thomsen,
O’Connor, & Mehlsen, 2020; Schimmack, Radhakrishnan,
Oishi, Dzokoto, & Ahadi, 2002; van den Berg &
Pitariu, 2005). Extraversion is commonly regarded as a
positive emotional disposition (Kim, Schimmack, Oishi, &
Tsutsui, 2017; Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000)
that helps people to openly socialize and interact with
others. In contrast, neuroticism has been negatively associ-
ated with positive emotions, leading to low levels of well-
being (Røysamb, Nes, & Czajkowski, 2018).
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
An Indonesian model of well-being
These universal factors emphasize the importance of
individual personal characteristics and economic status.
However, well-being is also a product of the interaction
between people and their sociocultural context (Knoop &
Delle Fave, 2013; Lomas, 2015). These cultural factors
encompass values and attitudes that reflect sociocultural
preferences and ideals (Berry et al., 2002). These cultural
factors may play an even more important role than univer-
sal individual factors in the well-being of non-Western col-
lectivist populations (Jetten, Postmes, & McAuliffe, 2002;
Lu & Gilmour, 2004). Cultural values, emphasizing social
responsibility, heighten the importance of the community
and family in these cultures (Lu, 2005). A sense of commu-
nity is developed through an individual’s interaction with
their community (Obst & White, 2004) and has been
shown to be a protective factor for well-being, acting as a
buffer against risk factors and challenges and enabling the
building of trust. In contrast, social trust has been found to
be associated with well-being (Jovanovic, 2016) by foster-
ing reciprocal social support (Li, Lan, & Ju, 2015; Schwarz
et al., 2010; Wakefield et al., 2017).
Indeed, self-construal, our definition of self, either being
independent or dependent on others, is deeply based in these
cultural values. Western populations’ tendency towards an
independent self-construal emphasizes the value of autonomy
and individuality. Collective cultures have a tendency of lean-
ing towards a more dependent or interdependent self-construal
with an emphasis on social connectedness (Cross, Hardin, &
Gercek-Swing, 2011; Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa,
2000). Self-construal can guide the way in which people place
value on different aspects of their life and how they define
well-being (Pilarska, 2014). The Indonesian people place a
strong emphasis on community, social trust, and group mem-
bership as key factors contributing to a meaningful life experi-
ence (Landiyanto, Ling, Puspitasari, & Irianti, 2011;
Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2014). Hence, this current research
explores the influence of the potentially important culturally
relevant factors on the well-being of Indonesians.
Indonesian perspective of well-being
Indonesia is the fourth most populated country in the world. It
is a nation with rich cultural diversity characterized by a
strong collectivist culture emphasizing social cohesion over
personal benefits and pursuits (Jetten et al., 2002). Religious
practices and values are placed as a medium through which
PsyCh Journal
quality of life can be achieved. Previous studies indicated that
religious practices were positively associated with Indone-
sians’ quality of life (Yeo, 2014) as well as with stronger
social cohesion (Yuniarti, 2006). Previous studies with the
Indonesian population have shown that socioeconomic
factors, such as income (Eggleston, Hardee, Irwanto,
Poerwandari, & Severy, 2001), employment status (Rahayu,
2016), health (Eggleston et al., 2001), and gender differences
(Landiyanto et al., 2011), are associated with well-being.
However, other studies have not fully supported these associa-
tions (e.g., Safarina, Mawarpury, & Sari, 2014; Sohn, 2013)
and have highlighted the importance of other factors, such as
religious values and principles, which influence attitudes,
values, and people’s interactions with each other (Primasari &
Yuniarti, 2012; Yeo, 2014; Yuniarti, 2006).
A recent qualitative investigation by Maulana, Obst, and
Khawaja (2018) identified material needs, social relations,
self-acceptance, and spirituality as salient factors contribut-
ing to the well-being of Indonesians. Based on this earlier
study, the researchers developed the Indonesian Well-Being
Scale (IWS; Maulana, Khawaja, & Obst, 2019). A nation-
ally representative sample (N = 1,028) from 27 cities across
Indonesia participated in the scale’s development study. The
scale was subjected to a combination of exploratory factor
analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and standard reliabil-
ity analyses (test–retest, convergent, and divergent validity).
These statistical techniques together promise a rigorous
empirical test of the respective scale. The scale yields a mul-
tidimensional measure of well-being specific to the Indone-
sian context. This culturally appropriate scale encapsulates
aspects most valued by this population and addresses prob-
lems caused by adaptation and translation of English-
language scales into other languages. The IWS measures the
dimensions of basic needs and social support, identified in
the research as universal factors. It also measures the psy-
chological traits of self-acceptance, social cohesion, and
spirituality as they apply specifically to the Indonesian cul-
ture (Maulana et al., 2019). By using an Indonesian-cul-
tural-derived measure from an Indonesian perspective, we
expect that a valid and reliable measure of well-being can be
conducted in the most culturally appropriate way.
Research aim
The current research aimed to explore the relative contribu-
tion of key universal and culturally specific factors
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
143
identified in previous studies and the well-being in a sam-
ple of Indonesians. Well-being was measured using the
IWS, the newly developed valid measure of well-being for
the Indonesian population (Maulana et al., 2019). The
research first explores the relationship of universal and cul-
tural factors with overall well-being and then for each of
the four dimensions—Basic Needs, Social Relations, Self-
acceptance, and Spirituality—measured by the IWS. Based
on the research reviewed above, it was hypothesized that
the universal factors of marital status, health, education
level, income, employment, and the personality factors of
neuroticism and extraversion would be associated with
well-being. Additionally, it was hypothesized that culturally
specific variables, such as trust, sense of community, and
self-construal, would be significantly associated with well-
being after taking into account demographics and the uni-
versal factors.
Method
Participants
Participants (N = 929) were Indonesian adults (68%
females, 32% males) from a range of ethnic groups across
Indonesia. Most of the participants (83%) lived in the cen-
tral region of the country (Java island), while the rest came
from Indonesia’s western (Sumatra) and eastern parts (Bali,
Kalimantan, Maluku, Sulawesi, and Papua). The majority
of participants were young. They were either married or
single. They primarily identified as Muslims (>90%). Most
of the participants were in paid occupations with varied
educational levels. Nearly half of the participants were from
the medium income level, while others reported high or no
income. Demographic details are provided in Table 1.
Data collection
Health, safety, and ethical clearances (approval:16000
00635) were obtained from the Queensland University of
Technology, Australia, and Universitas Negeri Jakarta,
Indonesia. The study is part of a larger study conducted as
part of the first author’s PhD dissertation over a period of
3 years where data were collected across Indonesia. Data
were collected online and through hard copy. Participants
completed a questionnaire battery available in the Indone-
sian language. Two scales that were not available in the
Indonesian language (the Brief Sense of Community Scale
and the Interpersonal Trust Scale) were back translated.
144 An Indonesian model of well-being

Table 1 surveys were recruited through local universities, local reli-

Demographic Data of Study’s Participants
gious communities, and health community centres in
Distribution, Jakarta, Indonesia. Once the participant had signed the con-
Characteristic n (%)
sent form, they were invited to complete the paper-based
Gender
Female 632 (68%) questionnaire. The participants were debriefed after they
Male 297 (32%) had completed the questionnaires and were offered a small
Age group
gift as a token of appreciation (e.g., a notebook/pen worth
Early adult (18–34 years old) 670 (71%)
Middle adult (35–54 years old) 250 (27%) $2 A.U.D.).
Late adult (>55 years old) 9 (2%)
Marital Status
Married 372 (40%) Measures
Not Married 539 (58%)
Demographic information
Widowed 18 (2%)
Location A form was provided that covered information about age,
Western region of Indonesia 92 (10%) religion, gender, physical health, education level, occupa-
Central region of Indonesia 775 (83%)
Eastern region of Indonesia 59 (7%) tion status, income level, and marital status. Physical health
Religion was rated with a single item (“How was your physical
Islam 853 (92%)
health condition for the last 2 weeks?”).
Christianity 57 (6%)
Hinduism 7 (<1%)
Buddhism 2 (<1%)
Unspecified 13 (1%) Indonesian Well-Being Scale
Highest education The IWS (Maulana et al., 2019) consists of 20 items.
Postgraduate 260 (28%)
Undergraduate 372 (40%)
Respondents respond to each item using a 5-point Likert
Primary education 288 (31%) scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale
Did not attend school 9 (1%) measures four dimensions of well-being: basic needs fulfill-
Occupation status
Paid occupation 712 (77%) ment, social needs fulfillment, self-acceptance, and spiritu-
Unpaid occupation 189 (20%) ality. There are four items measuring the fulfillment of
Unemployed 28 (3%)
Income (per month)
basic needs (e.g. “I can pay for my/children’s education”),
High standard income (above 7 million 167 (18%) six items addressing social relations (e.g. “I spend time
rupiah) with the family I live with”), five items related to self-
Medium standard income (1.5 to 7 million 418 (45%)
rupiah) acceptance (e.g. “I avoid comparing my life to others”),
Low standard income (below 1.5 million 188 (20%) and five items measuring spirituality (e.g. “God has
rupiah)
No regular income 156 (17%)
decided what is best for me”). The scale has excellent inter-
nal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .89), is positively corre-
lated with other well-being scales (the Satisfaction With
Life Scale and the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being
All participants were informed about the confidential
Scale (Stewart-Brown et al., 2011) = .44–.78), composite
nature of the study and their right to withdraw at any time
reliability (CR = .79–.94), and maximum shared variance
without penalty. Participants who were recruited online
(MSV = .20–.30) indices was satisfactory (Maulana et al.,
responded to an email advertisement and social media post
2019). The IWS is available both in the Indonesian and
inviting them to take part in the study. Participant submis-
English languages.
sion of the online survey was regarded as consent to the
research. All online participants who completed the ques-
tionnaires were offered entry into a draw to win 100,000 Personality factors
rupiah (equivalent to $10 A.U.D.) worth of phone credit Two items for each personality type were used from the
vouchers. Big Five Inventory-10 (Rammstedt & John, 2007), which
The paper-based method was used to accommodate those comprises 10 items, with two items each for five personal-
who lacked Internet access or a computer and lived in ity traits. The scale uses a 5-point Likert-type response
Jakarta. The principal author recruited two assistants to col- ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
lect the data. Participants who were offered paper-based The scale is available in the Indonesian language and has

© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
PsyCh Journal
sound test–retest reliability with Pearson coefficient corre-
lation range from .895 to .977 (Lesmana & Santoso, 2019).
The scale maintains its validity and reliability when it is
translated into a different language (Rammstedt, Kemper, &
Borg, 2013).
Adult Sources of Self-Esteem Inventory
The Adult Sources of Self-Esteem Inventory (Elovson &
Fleming, 1989) consists of 20 items assessing the salience
of both independent and dependent self-construal orienta-
tions with two subscales. A 10-point Likert scale ranges
from 0 (low importance of the statement for the respon-
dent) to 10 (higher importance of the statement for the
respondent). Sample item statements for the Independent
subscale are “Looks and physical attractiveness” and
“Earning a great amount of money and acquiring valuable
possessions,” while examples for the Dependent subscale
are “Having influence over the events or people in your
life” and “Relationships with your family, being on good
terms with your family.” The original English-language
scale was translated and adapted to Indonesian by Pekerti
and Arli (2017). The Indonesian version of the Adult
Sources of Self-Esteem Inventory has sound internal con-
sistency (Cronbach’s αs for the two factors were .80 and
.86, respectively) and meets the construct validity test (min-
imum factor loading, .60; Pekerti & Kwantes, 2011).
Brief Sense of Community Scale
The Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS) developed by
Peterson et al., (2008) was used to measure the participants’
sense of community. This scale consists of eight items that
examine the sense of community based on four underlying
dimensions (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). These dimensions
are Need Fulfillment, Membership, Influence, and Emo-
tional Connection. Respondents were asked to respond to
questions about their community/neighborhood (e.g., “I can
get what I need in this neighbourhood”). The scale uses a
5-point Likert-type response ranging from strongly disagree
(0) to strongly agree (5). The scale had satisfactory validity
and reliability levels in the original version (Cronbach’s
α = .92; Peterson et al., 2008) as well as in a different lan-
guage (e.g., German; comparative fit index = .994; Tucker–
Lewis index = .988; root-mean-square error of approxima-
tion = .042; Wombacher, Tagg, Bürgi, & MacBryde, 2010).
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
145
Interpersonal Trust Scale
Interpersonal trust was assessed with two items: “How
much do you trust people in your hometown?” and “How
much do you trust people in general?” The scale was devel-
oped by Jovanovic (2016) and both items have been
reported to have a significant correlation (r = .86) and are
significantly associated with subjective well-being. Both
items were rated on an 11-point Likert scale, ranging from
0 (do not trust at all) to 10 (trust completely). This scale
has been translated and adapted into the Indonesian lan-
guage and cultural context. The scale has acceptable inter-
nal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .88).
Results
Preliminary analyses
All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version
25.00. There were no missing values in the data. Data were
subjected to standard statistical assumption checks, includ-
ing normality, linearity, and homogeneity. The White and
Breusch–Pagan tests on the total well-being score indicated
that heteroscedasticity was present (p < .001; Astivia &
Zumbo, 2019). To correct the data for the heteroscedasticity
breach, a robust standard error using a heteroscedasticity-
consistent covariance matrix approach with HC4-type esti-
mator was used. All scales were checked for internal consis-
tency by using Cronbach’s α. All scales have sound internal
consistency. The intercorrelations among all variables were
tested using the bivariate Pearson correlation and are pro-
vided in Table 2. The correlation analysis revealed small to
moderate relationships between universal and cultural fac-
tors. Low to moderate correlations between universal factors
and well-being were identified. Marital status, health, and
extraversion were positively and strongly correlated with
well-being. As expected, neuroticism was negatively corre-
lated with well-being and its indicators. Similar patterns
applied to the remaining well-being indicators with the
exception of spirituality, whereas most of the universal fac-
tors (gender, education level, age group, marital status,
income, and occupation) had weak or no correlation to well-
being.
Hierarchical multiple regression on well-being
total score
A hierarchical multiple regression was run to first examine
the relationship between universal and cultural factors
146
(independent variables) and well-being (dependent variable)
(see Table 3). At Step 1, universal factors (gender, educa-
tion level, age group, marital status, health, income, occu-
pation status, extraversion, and neuroticism) were entered.
At Step 2, cultural factors (trust, sense of community, inde-
pendent self-construal, and dependent self-construal) were
added to examine the additional variance explained by
these factors. The overall model accounted for 48% of the
well-being variance and a number of factors emerged as
significant contributors of that variance. However, their
contributions indicated by beta weight varied.
The universal factors (gender, education level, age group,
marital status, health, income, occupation status, extraver-
sion, and neuroticism) accounted for 32% of the variance
in well-being, F(9, 919) = 49.78, p < .001. As seen in
Table 3, marital status, health, income, and extraversion
were positively associated with well-being, while neuroti-
cism was negatively associated with well-being. Universal
factors remained significantly associated with well-being
even when the cultural factors were added. The addition of
trust, sense of community, independent self-construal, and
dependent self-construal at Step 2 accounted for an addi-
tional 16%, F(13, 915) = 68.93, p < .001, of the variation
in well-being. As expected, independent self-construal was
negatively associated with well-being, while sense of com-
munity and dependent self-construal were the greatest fac-
tors associated with well-being.
Hierarchical multiple regression predicting well-
being indicators
A set of dummy variables—gender (1 = male, 0 = female),
occupation status (1 = no occupation, 2 = unpaid occupa-
tion, and 3 = paid occupation), and marital status (1 = mar-
ried, 0 = not married)—were constructed to address the
issue of whether different responses for gender, occupation,
and marital status would have an impact on well-being. A
second set of multiple regression analyses was conducted
on the four separate dimensions of the IWS (Basic Needs,
Social Needs, Self-acceptance and Spirituality; see
Table 4). Similar to above, the universal factors (gender,
education level, age group, marital status, health, income,
occupation status, extraversion, and neuroticism) were
entered at Step 1 and the culturally specific factors (trust,
sense of community, independent self-construal, and depen-
dent self-construal) at Step 2.
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
An Indonesian model of well-being
Basic Needs
The overall model, including all universal and cultural vari-
ables, accounted for 27% of the variability in the Basic
Needs dimension. The universal factors entered at Step
1 accounted for 23%, F(9, 919) = 30.52, of the variation in
the aspects of basic needs. As seen in Table 4, as expected,
income was the strongest factor associated with basic needs
in Step 1, while neuroticism was negatively associated with
basic needs. When trust, sense of community, and indepen-
dent and dependent self-construal were added at Step 2, all
of these variables remained significant. The addition of
these variables in Step 2 accounted for an additional 4%, F
(13, 915) = 26.74, p < .001, of the variation in basic needs.
As seen in Table 4, sense of community was the strongest
cultural factor correlating with basic needs.
Social Relations
The total model (including all universal and cultural vari-
ables) accounted for 34% of the Social Relations varia-
tion, while the universal factors entered in Step
1 accounted for 20%, F(9, 919) = 25.90, of the variation
in Social Relations. In Step 1, marital status, health, and
extraversion were positively correlated with higher
Social Relations scores. The addition of trust, sense of
community, and self-construal in Step 2 accounted for a
further 14%, F(13, 915) = 37.45, p < .001, of the vari-
ance in Social Relations. Once culturally specific factors
were considered in this step, the universal factors
remained significant although there was a noticeable
decrease on the effect of these factors on Social Rela-
tions. Among the culturally specific factors, both sense
of community and dependent self-construal took the
largest variant in the Social Relation domain.
Self-acceptance
The total model (including all universal and cultural vari-
ables) accounted for 35% of the Self-acceptance domain.
The universal factors entered in Step 1 accounted for 28%,
F(13, 923) = 28.47, of the variation in Self-acceptance. In
this step, marital status, health, and extraversion were posi-
tively associated with Self-acceptance, while neuroticism
was negatively correlated. When culturally specific factors
were entered at Step 2, all of these variables remained sig-
nificant on Self-acceptance except for extraversion. The
addition of trust, sense of community, and self-construal at
Step 2 increases the variance in Self-acceptance by 7%,
 PsyCh Journal

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations for All Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Independent variables
1 Gender 0.32 0.46 —
2 Education level 4.61 1.21 .04 —
3 Age group 1.94 1.06 .10** .43*** —
4 Marital status 0.40 0.48 .11*** .41*** .65*** —
5 Health 3.62 0.87 .01 .08** .07* .08** —
6 Income 2.19 1.53 .22*** .59*** .47*** .36*** .08** —
7 Occupation status 2.75 0.49 .07** .42*** .28*** .22*** .07* .57*** —
8 Extraversion 3.46 0.81 .05* .03 .13*** .13*** .20*** .06* .04 —
9 Neuroticism 2.77 0.78 −.07* −.11*** −.17*** −.16*** −.22*** −.15*** −.11*** −.33*** —
10 Trust 37.28 11.20 .05 .02 .12*** .08** .22*** .08** .03 .20*** −.15*** —
11 Sense of community 28.03 4.79 .09*** .07* .18*** .18*** .21*** .14*** .10*** .35*** −.25*** .37*** —
12 Independent 92.00 14.58 −.02 −.00 −.07* −.08** .08** .02 .02 .24*** −.07** .26*** .20*** —
13 Dependent 67.64 8.49 −.00 .09** .08** .12*** .14*** .10*** .11*** .31*** −.20*** .25*** .30*** .61*** —
Dependent variables
14 Well-being 80.25 9.09 .01 .19*** .26*** .30*** .34*** .26*** .14*** .37*** −.36*** .30*** .50*** .19*** .46*** —
15 Basic needs 14.39 2.81 .05 .30*** .23*** .24*** .17*** .40*** .21*** .18*** −.25*** .21*** .28** .17*** .24*** .59*** —
16 Social relations 24.07 3.51 −.01 .09** .15*** .20*** .28** .12** .08** .35*** −.22*** .23*** .46*** .19*** .39*** .76*** .28*** —
17 Self-acceptance 18.74 3.32 .06* .13*** .27*** .28*** .33*** .20*** .13* .27*** −.38*** .23*** .36*** .05* .31*** .77*** .35*** .41*** —
18 Spirituality 23.04 .03 .09** .14*** .16 .03 .00 .25*** .18*** .30*** .12*** .35***

© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
3.04 −.08** −.17*** .69*** .15*** .41*** .42*** —
N = 929.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
147
148 An Indonesian model of well-being

Table 3
Results from Final Model of Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Universal and Cultural Factors Overall to Well-Being
B SEB β 95% CI sr ΔR2
Step 1 Universal factors .32
Gender −1.50 0.54 −.07** −2.57 −0.43 −.07
Education level −0.14 0.26 −.02 −0.66 0.37 −.01
Age group −0.11 0.32 −.01 −0.52 0.75 .01
Marital status 3.29 0.68 .17*** 1.95 4.63 .13
Physical health 2.31 0.29 .22*** 1.74 2.88 .21
Income 0.99 0.23 .16*** 0.52 1.46 .13
Occupation status −0.49 0.61 −.02 −1.70 0.71 −.02
Extraversion 2.67 0.32 .24*** 2.03 3.31 .22
Neuroticism −2.16 0.34 −.18*** −2.83 −1.49 −.17
Step 2 Universal factors .16
Gender −1.58 0.50 −.08** −2.52 −0.64 −.07
Education level −0.05 0.22 −.00 −0.49 0.39 −.00
Age group −0.05 0.34 −.00 −0.73 0.62 .00
Marital status 2.28 0.66 .12*** 0.97 3.59 .09
Physical health 1.68 0.28 .16*** 1.13 2.23 .15
Income 0.91 0.21 .15*** 0.48 1.33 .10
Occupation status −1.06 0.52 −.05 −2.09 −0.02 −.04
Extraversion 1.11 0.34 .10*** 0.44 1.78 .08
Neuroticism −1.46 0.30 −.12*** −2.06 −0.85 −.11
Culturally specific factors
Trust 0.04 0.02 .06* 0.00 0.09 .05
Sense of community 0.52 0.05 .27*** 0.40 0.63 .23
Independent −0.08 0.02 −.13*** −0.12 −0.04 −.09
Dependent 0.36 0.04 .34*** 0.28 0.44 .25
Note. Parameter estimates with robust standard errors using HC4 method. N = 929.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

F (13, 915) = 39.06, p < .001. Overall, all cultural factors
in Step 2 were positively associated with Self-acceptance,
except for trust.
Spirituality
The total model (including universal and culturally specific
variables) accounted for 20% of the variance in the Spiritu-
ality dimension. The universal factors entered in Step
1 accounted for 10%, F(9, 919) = 12.09, of the variation
in Spirituality. In this step, extraversion provides the larg-
est variant to Spirituality, while gender and marital status
were negatively correlated. When cultural factors were
entered at Step 2, there was a significant decrease in each
extraversion and marital status on Spirituality, while gender
differences remained significant on Spirituality (see
Table 4). The addition of trust, sense of community, and
self-construal added another 10%, F(13, 915) = 19.19,
p < .001, of the variance in Spirituality. Overall, all cul-
tural factors in Step 2 were positively associated with Spir-
ituality, except for trust.
Discussion
The present study first aimed to investigate the relationship
between universal and culturally specific factors with well-
being and its dimensions using the IWS (Maulana et al.,
2019). The addition of the cultural factors added signifi-
cantly to the prediction of variance in well-being over the
demographic and universal factors. These findings align with
the universal and relativism model of well-being (Lomas,
2015) and provide evidence for the distinct influence of fac-
tors across different dimensions of well-being in the Indone-
sian context (Sohn, 2013; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2014).
Findings suggest that level of income, marital status,
health, and extraversion are important variables to consider
when evaluating general well-being. As expected, to some
extent, cultural factors played an important role in such
relationships. These findings so far are in line with previous
studies conducted in Indonesia (e.g. Rahayu, 2016) and
other Asian countries (e.g. Singapore; Ng, 2015).
Indonesia’s collectivistic culture is noted for its strong
social support systems and group cohesion (Jetten et al.,

© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
 PsyCh Journal

Table 4
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Well-Being Indicators
Basic needs Social relations Self-acceptance Spirituality
Dependent variables B [95% CI] β ΔR2 B [95% CI] β ΔR2 B [95% CI] β ΔR2 B [95% CI] β ΔR2
Step 1
Universal factors .23 .20 .28 .10
Gender −0.28 [−0.64, 0.07] −.04 −0.46 [−0.91, −0.01] −.06** 0.00 [−0.40, 0.41] .00 −0.75 [−1.17, −0.34] −.11***
Education level 0.17 [0.00, 0.35] .07* −0.06 [−0.28, 0.15] −.02 −0.16 [−0.35, 0.03] −.05 −0.10 [−0.30, 0.09] −.04
Age group −0.10 [−0.31, 0.10] −.04 −0.01 [−0.28, 0.25] −.00 0.30 [0.06, 0.54] .09** −0.06 [−0.31, 0.18] −.02
Marital status 0.45 [0.01, 0.90] .08 0.98 [0.42, 1.53] .13** 0.96 [0.45, 1.47] .14*** 0.88 [0.36, 1.39] .14***
Health 0.25 [0.07, 0.44] .08*** 0.82 [0.57, 1.06] .20*** 0.90 [0.68, 1.11] .23*** 0.33 [0.11, 0.55] .09**
Income 0.64 [0.49, 0.80] .35*** 0.14 [−0.05, 0.34] .06 0.13 [−0.04, 0.31] .06 0.06 [−0.11, 0.24] .03
Occupation type −0.31 [−0.71, 0.09] −.05 −0.05 [−0.56, 0.45] −.00 0.09 [−0.36, 0.55] .01 −0.22 [−0.69, 0.24] −.03
Extraversion 0.32 [−0.11, 0.53] .09* 1.18 [0.91, 1.45] .27*** 0.41 [0.17, 0.65] .10*** 0.74 [0.50, .99] .20***
Neuroticism −0.51 [−0.73, −0.29] −.14*** −0.27 [−0.56, 0.00] −.06 −1.08 [−1.34, −0.83] −.25*** −0.28 [−0.54, 0.02] −.07*
Step 2
Universal factors .04 .14 .07 .10
Gender −0.30 [−0.64, 0.04] −.05 −0.50 [−0.92, −0.09] −.06** −0.02 [−0.40, 0.36] −.00 −0.75 [−1.14, −0.36] −.11***
Education level 0.20 [0.03, 0.36] .08* −0.02 [−0.22, 0.17] −.00 −0.13 [−0.32, 0.05] −.05 −0.08 [−0.27, 0.10] .03
Age group −0.12 [−0.33, 0.08] −.04 −0.06 [−0.31, 0.18] −.02 0.24 [0.01, 0.47] .07* −0.10 [−0.33, 0.13] −.03
Marital status 0.41 [−0.02, 0.84] .07 0.64 [0.12, 1.16] .08** 0.65 [0.17, 1.14] .09** 0.57 [0.08, 1.07] .09**
Health 0.14 [−0.04, 0.33] .04 0.60 [0.38, 0.83] .15*** 0.75 [0.54, 0.96] .19*** 0.18 [−0.03, 0.39] .05
Income 0.61 [0.46, 0.76] .33*** 0.11 [−0.06, 0.29] .05 0.12 [−0.04, 0.29] .05 0.05 [−0.11, 0.22] .02
Occupation type −0.36 [−0.75, 0.02] −.06 −0.26 [−0.72, 0.20] −.03 −0.05 [−0.48, 0.38] −.00 −0.38 [−0.82, 0.05] −.06
Extraversion 0.04 [−0.17, 0.26] .01 0.60 [0.33, 0.86] .13*** 0.10 [−0.14, 0.34] .02 0.36 [0.11, 0.61] .09***
Neuroticism −0.43 [−0.64, −0.21] −.12*** −0.03 [−0.29, 0.23] −.00 −0.90 [−1.15, −0.66] −.21*** −0.09 [−0.34, 0.15] −.02

© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Cultural factors
Trust 0.01 [0.00, 0.03] .07* 0.00 [−0.01, 0.02] .01 0.01 [−0.00, 0.03] .05 0.01 [−0.00, 0.02] .04
Sense of community 0.07 [0.03, 0.11] .13*** 0.22 [0.17, 0.26] .30*** 0.11 [0.07, 0.15] .16*** 0.10 [0.06, 0.15] .17***
Independent 0.01 [−0.00, 0.02] .05 −0.02 [−0.03, −0.00] −.08** −0.04 [−0.05, −0.02] −.17*** −0.03 [−0.04, −0.01] −.15***
Dependent 0.02 [0.00, 0.05] .07* 0.11 [0.08, 0.14] .27*** 0.10 [0.07, 0.13] .26*** 0.12 [0.09, 0.14] .33***
N = 929.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
149
150
2002; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2014). Indonesians tends
to put the interests of family members and others at the
core when assessing quality of life (Jaafar et al., 2012). A
slight increase of effect was found on universal factors in
relation to well-being when cultural factors were accounted
for. This might suggest that for Indonesians, both social
and cultural norms explain more of the variance in well-
being compared to universal factors alone.
Further, it is also interesting to note that this study
showed slightly different patterns between different factors
and well-being dimensions. The findings elucidated that the
role of income was stronger for Basic Needs compared to
other well-being dimensions. Parallel to existing literature
(Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2005; Hagerty & Veenhoven, 2003),
higher income does increase the perception of well-being
because people have a better chance of meeting their basic
needs. With the high number of people living just above
the poverty line (40%) in Indonesia, and a wide social gap
(Statistics Indonesia, 2016), it is unsurprising that income
becomes one of the most important resources in achieving
a satisfactory life in such society (Frey & Stutzer, 2000).
As expected, once cultural factors were considered, the
effect of income to basic needs remained stable.
Compared to other well-being dimensions, Social Rela-
tions appeared to be the most influenced dimension when
cultural factors were taken into account. The findings indi-
cate that the effect of universal factors on social relations
decreased when the cultural factors, which focused on
sense of community and dependent self-construal, were
added in the model. Sense of community and self-construal
appear to play important roles in people’s life experience
(Cross, Gore, & Morris, 2003; Pilarska, 2014), including
how they evaluate the quality of their social relations. This
suggests that Indonesians are likely to provide stronger
evaluations of their well-being if, in addition to the univer-
sal factors, they are attached to their community, are mar-
ried, have good health, and are identified as extraverts. This
finding indicated the strong association between the social
dimension of well-being and cultural factors. Although it
has been marked as fundamental to well-being across cul-
tures (e.g. Li et al., 2015; Wakefield et al., 2017), having
positive social relations in the Indonesian context was
found to be very culturally specific. As a strong collectivis-
tic society, the social connection was very much expressed
as a two-way process, both as a feeling of being supported
by others (e.g. community) and a strong feeling of being
responsible for others’ needs as well, not only in the family
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
An Indonesian model of well-being
context, but also in the broader community sense (Jetten
et al., 2002; Yuniarti, 2006). This is consistent with the
cultural-relativism perspective asserting sociocultural fac-
tors that underpin the mechanism of how well-being is
evaluated and shapes what is considered important by an
individual in their life (Lomas, 2015).
Furthermore, findings of this study indicate that self-
acceptance was strongly associated with having good health
and less neuroticism. However, adding cultural factors into
the model assisted in understanding the role of self-
acceptance as part of the well-being dimension. This find-
ing is consistent with previous studies by Maulana
et al. (2018) and Yuniarti (2006) showing that self-
acceptance in Indonesians is likely to be associated with
self-awareness and how they perceive life, which is
strongly associated with their sociocultural context. It is
interesting to note that, contrary to Ryff’s (1989) concep-
tions, which attribute self-acceptance to be more
individual-oriented, this study’s findings suggest that the
strengthening of an individual’s acceptance is developed
from a will to abide by social norms through engaging
more with the community.
This study’s findings indicate that the spirituality dimen-
sion of well-being was not contingent upon any universal
factors, except for gender, marital status, and extraversion.
Cultural factors of sense of community and dependent self-
construal provide positive associations with spirituality,
which means that becoming increasingly involved with the
community and being considerate of others led to a greater
sense of spirituality in the Indonesian setting. As a collec-
tivist society with a strong religious tradition, spirituality is
greatly linked with an individual’s social function (Jaafar
et al., 2012). Contrary to most Western societies, in which
spirituality is often placed in a personal domain, Indone-
sians practice religious values to improve social connected-
ness and to fulfill the expectations of others (Yeo, 2014).
This finding is parallel with that of Kwon (2008), who indi-
cates that spirituality is expressed in different ways in the
United States compared to Korea due to different cultural
perspectives. All of these cultural traits are likely to have
an influence on the way people perceive well-being as
including factors associated with it. Overall, cultural factors
have been found to be important in clarifying the associa-
tion between universal variables and well-being.
Figure 1 summarizes the key findings of this study.
Given the intersection of the universal and culturally spe-
cific factors, we can distinguish the value of the
PsyCh Journal
Figure 1. Diagram showing the interaction between well-being with universal and cultural factors.
multidimensional approach of well-being. This model
would have important ramifications in the future. In partic-
ular, this model offers an alternative multidimensional
framework of well-being in a non-Western social context
that is characterized by a combination of common universal
factors and sociocultural context variables that are not
available in the existing well-being model.
Theoretical and practical implications
The concept of well-being is complex and requires further
refinement, especially in the cross-cultural context
(Knoop & Delle Fave, 2013). The current findings support
the application of Lomas’s (2015) universal relativism
model in extending understanding about the underlying
associations between universal factors, cultural factors, and
the distinct dimensions of well-being in the Indonesian
context. In addition, this current study affirms the
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
151
multidimensional nature of well-being. This current study
is unique in examining the contribution of both universal
and cultural factors to distinct dimensions of well-being rel-
evant to the Indonesian population. In practice, these find-
ings support the use of multidimensional measures of well-
being as they are applied in the IWS (Maulana et al.,
2019). Further, it would facilitate the development of more
effective programs to enhance well-being in Indonesia
based on a combination of universal and cultural aspects.
Limitations and future research
It must be noted that the current study used a cross-
sectional design. Therefore, no causal relationship can be
inferred. A large longitudinal study would be an important
next step to build research evidence for the factors that pre-
dict well-being in an Indonesian context. Although a large
convenience sample was used in this study, it must be noted
152
that most of the participants (83%) were educated and from
the central part of Indonesia (Java island). A more stratified
sample technique can be applied in the future to achieve a
better representation of Indonesia’s diverse population.
Conclusion
This study sheds light on universal and cultural factors
associated with well-being in the Indonesian context. These
links were examined in depth using the IWS, which aims
to ensure that a culturally sensitive approach to well-being
is present. Two distinct groups of variables were identified
reflecting the idea of universal and cultural determinants of
well-being. A number of universal factors, such as gender,
marital status, health, and income, were linked to well-
being in various ways. The findings showed that the addi-
tion of cultural factors, including sense of community, trust,
and dependent self-construal, impacted the way universal
factors contribute to well-being. Some associations of these
universal factors remained important, while others became
less significant. Overall, this study recognizes the idea that
cultural factors determine how people judge their life and
further how they may attenuate other variables that are
linked to well-being. It is important to note that this study
also supports the importance of measuring well-being at
the dimensional level to allow for an exploration of the
nuanced relationship between distinct indicators and facets
of well-being as well as to help clarify factors that might be
underrepresented in Western studies.
Disclosure of conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
related to this manuscript.
References
Astivia, O. L. O., & Zumbo, B. D. (2019). Heteroskedasticity in
multiple regression analysis: What it is, how to detect it and
how to solve it with applications in R and SPSS. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 24(1), 2. https://doi.org/
10.7275/q5xr-fr95
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R.
(2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications
(2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cross, S. E., Gore, J. S., & Morris, M. L. (2003). The relational-
interdependent self-construal, self-concept consistency, and
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85
(5), 933–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.933
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
An Indonesian model of well-being
Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The
what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142–179. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.85.5.933
De Neve, J. E., Christakis, N. A., Fowler, J. H., & Frey, B. S.
(2012). Genes, economics, and happiness. Journal of Neurosci-
ence, Psychology, and Economics, 5(4), 193–211. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0030292
Diener, E. Berlin, Germany: Springer; (2009). Social Indicators
Research Series. Vol. 37. The science of well-being: The col-
lected works of Ed Diener. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-
2350-6
Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2015). Subjective well-being and human
welfare around the world as reflected in the Gallup World Poll.
International Journal of Psychology, 50(2), 135–149. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12136.
Diener, E., Pressman, S. D., Hunter, J., & Delgadillo-Chase, D.
(2017). If, why, and when subjective well-being influences
health, and future needed research. Applied Psychology: Health
and Well-Being, 9(2), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.
12090
Diener, E., Seligman, M. E., Choi, H., & Oishi, S. (2018). Happi-
est people revisited. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13
(2), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617697077
Eggleston, E. W., Hardee, E. L., Irwanto, K.,
Poerwandari, E. K., & Severy, L. J. (2001). Measuring
women’s psychological well-being in Indonesia. Women &
Health, 32(4), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v32n04_02
Elovson, A. & Fleming, J. (1989). The Adult Sources of Self-
Esteem Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, California State
University, Los Angeles, CA.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2005). Income and well-being: An empiri-
cal analysis of the comparison income effect. Journal of Public
Economics, 89(5–6), 997–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpubeco.2004.06.003
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institu-
tions. Economic Journal, 110(466), 918–938. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1468-0297.00570
Glozlah, F. N. (2015). Exploring Ghanaian adolescents’ meaning
of health and well-being: A psychosocial perspective. Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being,
10(1), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v10.26370
Gori-Maia, A. (2013). Relative income, inequality and subjective
well-being: Evidence for Brazil. Social Indicators Research,
113(3), 1193–1204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0135-4
Hagerty, M. R., & Veenhoven, R. (2003). Wealth and happiness
revisited: Growing national income does go with greater happi-
ness. Social Indicators Research, 64(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1024790530822
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. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.164
Jensen, R. A., Kirkegaard Thomsen, D., O’Connor, M., &
Mehlsen, M. Y. (2020). Age differences in life stories and neu-
roticism mediate age differences in subjective well-being.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.
1002/acp.3580
PsyCh Journal
Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). ‘We’re all indi-
viduals’: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels
of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 32(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.65
Jovanovic, V. (2016). Trust and subjective well-being: The case of
Serbia. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 284–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.061
Khodarahimi, S. (2015). The role of marital status in emotional
intelligence, happiness, optimism and hope. Journal of Com-
parative Family Studies, 46, 351–371. https://doi.org/10.3138/
jcfs.46.3.351
Khumalo, I., Temane, Q., & Wissing, M. (2012). Socio-
demographic variables, general psychological well-being and
the mental health continuum in an African context. Social Indi-
cators Research, 105(3), 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-010-9777-2
Kim, H., Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Tsutsui, Y. (2017). Extra-
version and life satisfaction: A cross-cultural examination of
student and nationally representative samples. Journal of Per-
sonality, 86(4), 604–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12339
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture,
emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the
United States. Cognition & Emotion, 14(1), 93–124. https://
doi.org/10.1080/026999300379003
Knoop, H. H. & Delle Fave, A. Dordrecht: Springer; (Eds.).
(2013). Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology.
Vol. 3. Well-being and cultures: Perspectives from positive psy-
chology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4611-4
Kwon, S. Y. (2008). Well-being and spirituality from a Korean
perspective: Based on the study of culture and subjective well-
being. Pastoral Psychology, 56, 573–584. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11089-008-0134-1
Landiyanto, E. A., Ling, J., Puspitasari, M., & Irianti, S. E.
(2011). Wealth and happiness: Empirical evidence from Indo-
nesia. Chulalongkorn Journal of Economics, 23, 1–17.
Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50012/
Lesmana, T., & Santoso, R. (2019). Karakteristik Kepribadian, Harga
Diri dan Gaya Hidup Hedonisme Pada Mahasiswa Konsumen
Starbucks [Personality characteristics, self-esteem and lifestyle
hedonism in Starbucks-consuming students]. Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku,
3(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.25077/jip.3.1.59-71.2019
Li, Y., Lan, J., & Ju, C. (2015). Self-esteem, gender, and the rela-
tionship between extraversion and subjective well-being. Social
Behavior and Personality, 43(8), 1243–1254. https://doi.org/10.
2224/sbp.2015.43.8.1243
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.
https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v5i4.437
Lu, L. (2005). In pursuit of happiness: The cultural psychological
study of SWB. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 47, 99–112.
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happi-
ness: Individual oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 5(3), 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-004-8789-5
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L.
(2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of
extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 79
(3), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.452
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
153
Maulana, H., Khawaja, N., & Obst, P. (2019). Development and
validation of the Indonesian Well-Being Scale. Asian Journal
of Social Psychology, 22(3), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ajsp.12366
Maulana, H., Obst, P., & Khawaja, N. (2018). Indonesian perspec-
tive of well-being: A qualitative study. Qualitative Report, 23
(12), 3136–3152. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/
vol23/iss12/18/
Marcinko, I. (2015). The moderating role of autonomous motiva-
tion on the relationship between subjective well-being and
physical health. PLoS One, 10(5), e0126399. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0126399
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community:
A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14
(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629
Michalos, A. C. Berlin: Springer; (2017). Connecting the Quality
of Life Theory to Health, Well-being and Education: The
Selected Works of Alex C. Michalos. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-51161-0
Ng, W. (2015). Processes underlying links to subjective well-
being: Material concerns, autonomy, and personality. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 16, 1575–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-014-9580-x
Obst, P. L., & White, K. M. (2004). Revisiting the Sense of Com-
munity Index: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 32(6), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jcop.20027
Oshio, T., Nozaki, K., & Kobayashi, M. (2011). Relative income
and happiness in Asia: Evidence from nationwide surveys in
China, Japan, and Korea. Social Indicators Research, 104(3),
351–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9754-9
Pekerti, A. A., & Arli, D. (2017). Do cultural and generational
cohorts matter to ideologies and consumer ethics? A compara-
tive study of Australians, Indonesians, and Indonesian migrants
in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 387–404.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2777-z
Pekerti, A. A., & Kwantes, C. T. (2011). The effect of self-
construals on perceptions of organizational events. Interna-
tional Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 11(3), 303–323.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595811413101
Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., & McMillan, D. W. (2008). Valida-
tion of a Brief Sense of Community Scale: Confirmation of the
principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community
Psychology, 36(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20217
Pilarska, A. (2014). Self-construal as a mediator between identity
structure and subjective well-being. Current Psychology, 33(2),
130–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9202-5
Primasari, A., & Yuniarti, K. W. (2012). What make teenagers
happy? An exploratory study using indigenous psychology
approach. International Journal of Research Studies in Psy-
chology, 1(2):53–61. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsp.2012.v1i2.80
Rahayu, T. P. (2016). The determinants of happiness in Indonesia.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 393. https://
doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p393
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in
one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five
Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.
02.00
154
Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., & Borg, I. (2013). Correcting Big
Five personality measurements for acquiescence: An
18-country cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personal-
ity, 27(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1894
Røysamb, E., Nes, R. B., & Czajkowski, N. O. (2018). Genetics,
personality and wellbeing. A twin study of traits, facets and life
satisfaction. Scientific Reports, 8, 12298. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41598-018-29881-x
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human
potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonia
well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations
on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Safarina, N. A., Mawarpury, M., & Sari, K. (2014). Kesejahteraan
Subjektif Pada Penderita Diabetes Mellitus Tipe II Berdasarkan
Tingkat Pendidikan [Subjective well-being of type II diabetes
mellitus patients based on education level]. Jurnal Psikologi
Integratif, 2(1). (in Indonesian). 62–70.
Selvam, S. G., & Collicutt, J. (2013). The ubiquity of the charac-
ter strengths in African traditional religion: A thematic analysis.
In Well-being and cultures (pp. 83–102). Springer, Dordrecht.
Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., &
Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-
being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 582–593. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.582
Schwarz, B., Albert, I., Trommsdorff, G., Zheng, G., Shi, S., &
Nelwan, P. R. (2010). Intergenerational support and life satis-
faction: A comparison of Chinese, Indonesian, and German
elderly mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41,
706–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110372197
Sohn, K. (2013). Sources of happiness in Indonesia. Singapore
Economic Review, 58(2), 1350014. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S0217590813500148
Statistics Indonesia (2016). Statistical yearbook of Indonesia 2016.
Central Jakarta, Indonesia: BPS Republik Indonesia (Statistics
Indonesia). Retrieved from https://www.bps.go.id/publication/
2016/06/29/7aa1e8f93b4148234a9b4bc3/ statistikindonesia-2016
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective well-
being, health, and ageing. Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0
© 2020 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
An Indonesian model of well-being
Stewart-Brown, S. L., Platt, S., Tennant, A., Maheswaran, H.,
Parkinson, J., Weich, S., … Clarke, A. (2011). The warwick-
edinburghh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): a valid and
reliable tool for measuring mental well-being in diverse
populations and projects. Journal of Epidemiology and Com-
munity Health, 65(Suppl 2), A38–A39, 198. https://doi.org/10.
1136/jech.2011.143586.86
Sujarwoto, S., & Tampubolon, G. (2014). Decentralisation and
citizen happiness: A multilevel analysis of self-rated happiness
in Indonesia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(2), 455–475.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9518-3
Tan, S. J., Tambyah, S. K., & Kau, A. K. (2006). The influence
of value orientations and demographics on quality-of-life per-
ceptions: Evidence from a national survey of Singaporeans.
Social Indicators Research, 78(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11205-005-7158-z
van den Berg, P. T., & Pitariu, H. (2005). The relationships
between personality and well-being during societal change.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39(1), 229–234. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.007
Veenhoven, R. The Netherlands: Springer Science & Business
Media; (1984). Conditions of happiness. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-94-009-6432-7
Wakefield, J. R. H., Sani, F., Madhok, V., Norbury, M.,
Dugard, P., Gabbanelli, C., … Poggesi, F. (2017). The relation-
ship between group identification and satisfaction with life in a
cross-cultural community sample. Journal of Happiness Stud-
ies, 18(3), 785–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9735-z
Wombacher, J., Tagg, S. K., Bürgi, T., & MacBryde, J. (2010).
Measuring sense of community in the military: Cross-cultural
evidence for the validity of the Brief Sense of Community
Scale and its underlying theory. Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 38(6), 671–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20388
Yeo, P. L. (2014). Religiosity, personality, and subjective well-
being among Muslim adults in Indonesia (Doctoral dissertation,
Regent University, VA). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/
openview/754f9077e0f9083aca990815aa9c8628/1?pqorigsite=
gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Yuniarti, K. W. (2006). The magical strength of Nrimo and
Gotong-royong: A quick response report following the May
27, 2006 earthquake in Yogyakarta. Anima Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 24(3), 201–206. Retrieved from http://anima.ubaya.ac.id/
class/openpdf.php?file=1371801925.pdf