Part two of this paper estimated fl

Part two of this paper estimated flourishing prevalence rates among 10,009 adult New
Zealanders, according to replications of each of the four frequently used operationalizations of
flourishing identified in part one, using the SWI variables and dataset. Results indicated there was a substantial difference in prevalence rates of flourishing depending upon the
operationalization employed, from 24% (Huppert & So), to 39% (Keyes), 41% (Diener et al.), and
47% (Seligman et al.). The low prevalence rate of flourishing from the SWI replication of Huppert
and So’s conceptualisation (24%) most likely reflects their more stringent theoretical and
conceptual criteria for flourishing: to be categorised as flourishing participants are required to
endorse the one item representing positive emotion (which only 41% of the sample did), plus
three out of four components of ‘positive functioning’, and four out of five components of
‘positive characteristics’; thereby allowing participants to score below the thresholds on only two
out of ten items. In contrast, participants could score below the thresholds on six out of 13
components in the SWI replication of Keyes’ operationalization, or seven out 15 items in the SWI
replication of Seligman et al.’s operationalization, and still be categorised as flourishing. In only
requiring an average score of 48 and above, our interpretation of Diener et al.’s operationalization
also allowed greater flexibility across components than our interpretation of Huppert and So’s
operationalization. (This is the most striking difference between these four operationalizations,
and the cause of the variation in prevalence rates.) It is important to note that the use of different
response formats in the SWI survey meant that some of the variation in prevalence rates between
our study and previous studies might be due to the use of different thresholds, making for
potentially inaccurate international comparisons. For example, New Zealand’s 24% flourishing
according to our replication of Huppert and So’s model may not be directly comparable to the
Danes’ 41% flourishing or Portugal’s 10% flourishing diagnosed using the same model (Huppert
& So, 2013). However, by applying consistent methodology for selecting thresholds across all four models in our study, we are confident that the flourishing prevalence rates according to the
four different models are comparable with each other in our study.
While related samples Cochrane’s Q tests indicated all four operationalizations were
significantly different to one another, cross tabulation analysis revealed a strong agreement
between our replications of Keyes’ and Seligman et al.’s operationalizations (81%) and Diener et
al. and Seligman et al.’s (80%). Even the least comparable operationalizations (Huppert and So
and Seligman et al.) indicated moderate agreement (74%). In the absence of an established
empirical benchmark stating what degree of agreement is meaningful, or indeed any criterion
for interpreting what these levels of agreement mean, it is hard to draw any concrete conclusions
from these findings.
The strengths and unique contributions of this study include the application of the four
operational definitions to a very large, nationally representative, sample of adults, which allows
our results to be compared to other population samples; the prospective nature of the SWI, with
two more longitudinal rounds scheduled over the next four years, allowing us to monitor the
prevalence of flourishing among New Zealand adults over time using all four
operationalizations; and the use of cross-tabulation and pairwise Cochrane’s Q tests allowing us
to calculate, for the first time, the degree of agreement between the SWI replications of the
different measures commonly employed to assess flourishing.
In terms of limitations, we experienced challenges in accurately replicating three of the four
operationalizations of flourishing using the available dataset (the FS was replicated exactly).
While the SWI’s large number of wellbeing variables (n = 87) presented us with a compelling four models in our study, we are confident that the flourishing prevalence rates according to the
four different models are comparable with each other in our study.
While related samples Cochrane’s Q tests indicated all four operationalizations were
significantly different to one another, cross tabulation analysis revealed a strong agreement
between our replications of Keyes’ and Seligman et al.’s operationalizations (81%) and Diener et
al. and Seligman et al.’s (80%). Even the least comparable operationalizations (Huppert and So
and Seligman et al.) indicated moderate agreement (74%). In the absence of an established
empirical benchmark stating what degree of agreement is meaningful, or indeed any criterion
for interpreting what these levels of agreement mean, it is hard to draw any concrete conclusions
from these findings.
The strengths and unique contributions of this study include the application of the four
operational definitions to a very large, nationally representative, sample of adults, which allows
our results to be compared to other population samples; the prospective nature of the SWI, with
two more longitudinal rounds scheduled over the next four years, allowing us to monitor the
prevalence of flourishing among New Zealand adults over time using all four
operationalizations; and the use of cross-tabulation and pairwise Cochrane’s Q tests allowing us
to calculate, for the first time, the degree of agreement between the SWI replications of the
different measures commonly employed to assess flourishing.
In terms of limitations, we experienced challenges in accurately replicating three of the four
operationalizations of flourishing using the available dataset (the FS was replicated exactly).
While the SWI’s large number of wellbeing variables (n = 87) presented us with a compelling