TABLE 4.
Multilevel models predicting subjective well-being.
95% CI |
|||||||
b | SE | t | p | LB | UB | r | |
Intercept | 6.83 | 0.06 | 124.09 | <0.001 | 6.72 | 6.94 | |
Age | 0.001 | 0.0003 | 3.21 | <0.001 | 0.0004 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
Gender | 0.04 | 0.005 | 7.20 | <0.001 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.017 |
Education | 0.10 | 0.002 | 40.17 | <0.001 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.093 |
Friendship | 0.25 | 0.008 | 29.51 | <0.001 | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.068 |
GDP | 0.14 | 0.04 | 3.48 | 0.001 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.477 |
GINI | –0.02 | 0.007 | –2.94 | 0.005 | –0.04 | –0.007 | –0.418 |
PDI | –0.01 | 0.004 | –2.91 | 0.006 | –0.02 | –0.003 | –0.413 |
IDV | –0.02 | 0.003 | –4.47 | <0.001 | –0.02 | –0.008 | –0.572 |
MAS | 0.004 | 0.003 | 1.41 | 0.17 | –0.002 | 0.01 | 0.215 |
UAI | –0.005 | 0.002 | –2.24 | 0.03 | –0.01 | –0.0005 | –0.331 |
LTO | –0.006 | 0.003 | –2.11 | 0.04 | –0.01 | –0.0003 | –0.314 |
IVR | 0.03 | 0.003 | 8.64 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.803 |
Age × Friendship | 0.001 | 0.0004 | 2.65 | 0.01 | 0.0003 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
Gender × Friendship | 0.02 | 0.01 | 3.68 | <0.001 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.009 |
Education × Friendship | –0.02 | 0.003 | –5.79 | <0.001 | –0.03 | –0.01 | –0.013 |
GDP × Friendship | –0.01 | 0.01 | –1.85 | 0.07 | –0.02 | 0.001 | –0.004 |
GINI × Friendship | 0.002 | 0.001 | 2.26 | 0.02 | 0.0002 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
PDI × Friendship | –0.001 | 0.001 | –1.35 | 0.18 | –0.002 | 0.0004 | –0.003 |
IDV × Friendship | 0.003 | 0.001 | 5.20 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
MAS × Friendship | 0.0004 | 0.001 | 0.76 | 0.45 | –0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
UAI × Friendship | 0.001 | 0.0004 | 3.09 | 0.002 | 0.0004 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
LTO × Friendship | 0.002 | 0.0004 | 3.52 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
IVR × Friendship | –0.002 | 0.0004 | –4.80 | <0.001 | –0.003 | –0.001 | –0.011 |
Gender: -1, male; 1, female; GDP, gross domestic product; GINI, income inequality; PDI, power distance index; IDV, individualism (higher values); MAS, masculinity (higher values); UAI, uncertainty avoidance index; LTO, long-term orientation; IVR, indulgence/restraint. Continuous variables were grand-mean centered.