The World Prefers a Calm Life, but Not Everyone Gets to Have One: Global Trends in Valuing and Experiencing Calmness in the Gallup World Poll The Journal of Positive Psychology

Abstract

Psychology has paid relatively little attention to low arousal positive states like calmness. One explanation for this lacuna is the Western-centric nature of the field, and the related suggestion that such states are undervalued in Western cultures compared to high arousal ones, in contrast to Eastern cultures, which possibly place greater value on low arousal forms. But how accurate are these generalizations? This study draws on the most globally comprehensive study to date on calmness-121,207 participants in 116 countries in the 2020 Gallup World Poll-featuring two items asking whether people: (a) prefer a calm life or an exciting life; and (b) experienced calmness yesterday. Our particular interest was in the intersection of these, such that we could categorise people in four categories of calmness: satisfied (both prefer and experience it); unwanted (experience calmness but prefer excitement); longed-for (prefer calmness but don't experience it); and unmissed (neither prefer nor experience it). The results reveal a nuanced picture that challenges certain stereotypes (e.g., calmness had no particular association with Eastern cultures), and shed new light on this overlooked topic (e.g., poorer people and countries are more likely to prefer calmness yet are less likely to actually experience it). As ever, more work is needed, but these findings provide a foundation for future research into this important phenomenon.

Full text

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
1
The World Prefers a Calm Life, but Not Everyone Gets to Have One:
Global Trends in Valuing and Experiencing Calmness in the Gallup World Poll
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Tim Lomas1, Pablo Diego-Rosell2, Koichiro Shiba1, Priscilla Standridge2, Matthew T. Lee1,
& Alden Yuanhong Lai3
1 Harvard University
2 Gallup
3 New York University
Abstract
Psychology has paid relatively little attention to low arousal positive states like calmness.
One explanation for this lacuna is the Western-centric nature of the field, and the related
suggestion that such states are undervalued in Western cultures compared to high arousal
ones, in contrast to Eastern cultures, which possibly place greater value on low arousal forms.
But how accurate are these generalizations? This study draws on the most globally
comprehensive study to date on calmness – 121,207 participants in 116 countries in the 2020
Gallup World Poll – featuring two items asking whether people: (a) prefer a calm life or an
exciting life; and (b) experienced calmness yesterday. Our particular interest was in the
intersection of these, such that we could categorise people in four categories of calmness:
satisfied (both prefer and experience it); unwanted (experience calmness but prefer
excitement); longed-for (prefer calmness but don’t experience it); and unmissed (neither
prefer nor experience it). The results reveal a nuanced picture that challenges certain
stereotypes (e.g., calmness had no particular association with Eastern cultures), and shed new
light on this overlooked topic (e.g., poorer people and countries are more likely to prefer
calmness yet are less likely to actually experience it). As ever, more work is needed, but these
findings provide a foundation for future research into this important phenomenon.
Keywords: calmness; low arousal; cross-cultural; global; Gallup

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
2
Introduction
Recent years has seen a wealth of research into happiness. Much of this has focused on a
constellation of constructs widely known as “subjective wellbeing” (SWB), following the
pioneering scholarship of Ed Diener and colleagues (Diener et al., 1999). SWB is usually
conceptualized as comprising: a cognitive component, often understood and measured using
constructs like life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985); and an affective component, generally
viewed through the prism of positive and negative affect, with an emphasis on the former
outweighing the latter in some respect (Watson et al., 1988). These are of course not the only
notions in the conceptual space of happiness. For instance, SWB is generally viewed as being
complemented by eudaimonic wellbeing, which – following Ryff (1989) – is sometimes
operationalized as “psychological wellbeing.” This is the province of desiderata like meaning
and purpose, and psychological development. Although the implication of a sharp distinction
between these two forms of wellbeing has been critiqued (Kashdan et al., 2008), most
happiness research has generally proceeded guided by this established taxonomy.
However, as in any field, academic understanding of happiness continues to evolve,
including in response to emergent critiques. A particularly powerful challenge has been the
claim that research in fields like psychology has mostly been conducted by and on people
from places that Henrich et al. (2010) influentially labelled as “WEIRD” (Western, Educated,
Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic). We might note that this critique itself is not without its
issues; subsequent work has emphasized that a binary division between places classified as
WEIRD versus non-WEIRD is unhelpful, and that these patterns are better seen as a question
of degree, with each element of the acronym constituting a spectrum upon which countries
may be variously situated (Ghai, 2021). Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that most of the
world is not as WEIRD as places like the United States, where the majority of psychological
work originates, and which therefore constrains the universality and generalizability of such
findings. This claim rests upon the well-founded and widely accepted observation that people
are shaped – for example in terms of their beliefs, values, and priorities – by their cultural
context to some degree (Lomas, 2018). Consequently, there are likely to be meaningful
differences between populations depending on the extent to which their context is indeed
WEIRD. Encouragingly though, happiness research – and academia more broadly – is now
starting to more widely acknowledge the importance of not just focusing on proto-typically
WEIRD people and places, such as the USA, and instead being more global in its outlook.
One example of such reorientation is regarding the affective dimension of SWB. One
way to understand and differentiate emotions is in terms of arousal. However, most analyses

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
3
of positive emotions have tended to focus on relatively high arousal forms. A good example
is the Gallup World Poll (GWP), which since 2005 has collected data on SWB worldwide.
With regard to positive emotions, it has consistently asked, (a) whether one felt “enjoyment”
during “a lot of the day yesterday,” and also, (b) “Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday”.
Significantly, Tsai (2007) and other cross-cultural scholars have argued that preference for, or
emphasis of, high arousal positive states (HAPS) may be a relatively Western-centric
concern, whereas Eastern cultures appear to place greater value and weight on low arousal
positive states (LAPS), such as peace and calmness. This of course does not mean that people
in Western cultures do not value or experience LAPS, and vice versa for people in Eastern
cultures with respect to HAPS: the little cross-cultural research that exists on this topic
indicates that both HAPS and LAPS are valued and experienced globally, as discussed further
below with reference to studies like Delle Fave et al. (2016) and Joshanloo (2022). However,
it is nevertheless possible that cultures can still differ in the extent to which these are valued
and experienced. Tsai describes such preferences as “ideal affect,” i.e., “the affective states
that people strive for or ideally want to feel” (p.243). Across an extensive series of studies –
detailed further shortly – Tsai and others have indeed shown that there seems to be cultural
variation in arousal preferences, with HAPS favoured more by Western people and cultures
and LAPS by Eastern ones.
Various explanations have been proposed for these trends. One interpretation is to
view these through the lens of another pattern often noted vis-à-vis East-West differences,
namely the distinction between individualism and collectivism. This binary was first brought
to attention by Hofstede (1980), who developed it initially as a societal identifier (i.e., to
differentiate cultural contexts). Subsequently, Markus and Kitayama (1991) shifted the
emphasis by viewing it more in terms of self-construal (i.e., how people view themselves). As
they put it, for example, those with a collectivist orientation have “distinct conceptions of
individuality that insist on the fundamental relatedness of individuals,” where the “emphasis
is on attending to others, fitting in, and harmonious interdependence with them” (p.224).
Subsequently, this distinction has been explored in hundreds of studies. Indeed, this literature
is now so substantial that there are many meta-analyses, not only of the distinction in general,
but of specific facets, such as its relationship to subjective wellbeing specifically (Yu et al.,
2018). That said, we might also note a strong emergent literature critiquing the disintction, or
at least querying it being simplistically mapped onto an East-West binary (Lomas et al.,
2023). Nevertheless, the relevance of this distinction is that some scholars have suggested
that HAPS may be liable to be interpreted in the East as self-aggrandizing and therefore

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
4
disruptive of social harmony, whereas LAPS may be more conducive to such harmony
(Uchida & Kitayama, 2009; Leu et al., 2011). Then, besides individualism and collectivism,
scholars have pointed towards various other cultural practices and traditions that might
account for preferences in this domain. Eastern cultures have a rich history of developing
contemplative and meditative practices, for instance, that perhaps also contribute to a greater
valorisation of LAPS (Joshanloo, 2014).
However, while there may well be merit to these explanations and interpretations, it is
also the case that research into cross-cultural nuances of positive emotions is still relatively
limited, and more work is needed to actually gather empirical data in this area. Regarding the
aforementioned scholarship into ideal affect, so far this has mostly – though not only –
focused on college students in America and China, including comparing: European American
and Chinese American adults (Tsai, Levenson, & Carstensen, 2000); European American and
Asian American college students (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006); European American and
Chinese American college-age people in heterosexual partnerships (Tsai, Levenson, &
McCoy, 2006); European American, Asian American, and Taiwanese Chinese children (Tsai,
Louie, et al., 2007); Christian and Buddhist college students in North American universities
(Tsai, Miao, & Seppala, 2007); European American, Asian American, and Hong Kong
Chinese college students (Tsai, Miao, et al., 2007); and college students in the US, UK,
France, Germany, Mexico, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea (Tsai et al.,
2016). Similar patterns have also been observed by various studies – also mostly involving
college students in America and China – including: European American and Chinese and
Taiwanese college students (Lee et al., 2013); European-American, immigrant Asian, and
Asian American college students (Leu et al., 2011); British and Taiwanese college students
(Lu et al., 2001); and college students in Belgium, Holland, Spain, Canada, China, Hong
Kong, Japan, and South Korea (Kuppens et al., 2017); and Chinese workers (Xi et al., 2021).
While these are generally excellent studies, there are of course risks in extrapolating
from these relatively specific cohorts – mainly featuring college students, who may well not
be representative of the broader population – to make broader generalisations that associate
LAPS with Eastern cultures and HAPS with Western cultures. We should emphasize that the
researchers cited above do not tend to make these kind of simplistic assertions, and are
usually cautious about generalizing beyond the populations studied; Tsai and colleagues, for
instance, are careful to speak only about specific cultures, rather than “Eastern cultures” more
broadly. However, there is still a risk of these carefully nuanced findings being generalized
by the field more widely. In so doing, we are in danger of slipping into an invidious pattern of

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
5
discourse which Said (1979) influentially denoted as Orientalism. This refers to the process
by which 19th Century thinkers in the West came to understand themselves and their society
by contrasting it with the “Other” of the Orient in various ways. More benevolent, albeit still
contentious, were forms of “Romantic Orientalism,” in which the East was viewed through a
utopian lens as superior in some way, such as wiser, less materialistic, and more spiritual
(Taylor, 2004). Then, far more troubling were discourses used to justify and rationalize
imperialism and colonialism, for instance presenting the East as inefficient and thus “in need”
of intervention by the West. Crucially, one can perhaps discern echoes of these patterns in
modern discourse which often adopts broad West versus East generalizations, including –
most relevantly here – HAPS versus LAPS (Martinez Mateo et al., 2013). There are various
issues with such generalizations. Besides the invidious history of Orientalism itself, they
homogenise and obscure the rich heterogeneity and complexity of both arenas. Indeed, to that
point, even the very notions of East and West are problematic, as we consider further in the
discussion. Moreover, to the extent that cross-cultural research tends to focus on East-West
differences, it also overlooks other important distinctions (like North versus South), and
indeed whole continents (such as Africa) (Berry, 2013).
Thus, while there is need for more work on LAPS, we should not necessarily regard
these as particularly “Eastern.” Indeed, while research on these topics is sparse – especially
on a global scale – there are suggestive indications that LAPS may be more universally
valued than is often appreciated. Prior to the work reported on in this paper, arguably the
most internationally expansive study on this topic was a survey of lay perceptions of
happiness by Delle Fave et al. (2016), involving 2,799 participants across Argentina, Brazil,
Croatia, Hungary, India, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, and
the United States. They found the most prominent psychological definition was a sense of
“inner harmony,” featuring three components: inner peace; contentment; and balance. Given
these are mostly Western countries, this finding is quite striking and contrary perhaps to some
people’s preconceptions (based on the common generalizations above). However, while its
coverage of 12 countries is more extensive than other research on this topic – although Tsai et
al.’s (2016) study, involving 10 nations, is comparable – it still represents only a fraction of
the world community. As such, more efforts are needed to explore LAPS on a global scale. In
that respect, this paper reports on one such endeavour: the Global Wellbeing Initiative, a
partnership between Gallup and Wellbeing for Planet Earth (a Japan-based research and
policy foundation) launched in 2019. This aims towards developing new items for the GWP
that reflect non-Western perspectives on wellbeing, with particular focus – given the location

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
6
of the foundation – on Eastern cultures (Lambert et al., 2020; Lomas, Ishikawa et al., 2022;
Lomas, Lai, et al., 2022).
As a result, nine new items were introduced into the GWP in 2020, two of which
pertain to calmness. The first was included within an established module of “daily emotions”
questions, which asked “Did you experience the following feelings during a lot of the day
yesterday?” (with the response options being Yes, No, Don’t Know, and Refused to Answer).
Thus, to this series was added the query “How about calmness?” In addition, an item was
added exploring preferences for LAPS versus HAPS, asking “Would you rather live an
exciting life or a calm life?” (also featuring the same response options). With this item, we
should note that although these choices were intended as proxies for a preference for HAPS
versus LAPS, this alignment is not perfect. Although calmness is an exemplar of a LAPS,
excitement is a more complex and even ambiguous construct. Although usually coded as
positive in various ways, including in terms of physiology, valence, and desirability
(Machizawa et al., 2020), it can also be read, to an extent, as an “ambivalent” or “mixed”
emotion (Moss & Wilson, 2014), since it can also include affective elements that may be
more negatively coded, such as fear or anxiety (Brooks, 2014). People may be drawn towards
risk-taking activities, for instance, such as skydiving, because they find these exciting, but
inherent in that experience is a certain degree of danger, which is exactly what makes it
exciting. Indeed, research on “edgework” suggests some people pursue self-transcendence
through risky activities that threaten the very existence or integrity of the self, which some
observers might evaluate quite negatively (Lyng, 2018). So, one could not necessarily say
excitement is an unambiguously positive emotion. Nevertheless, it is a close enough proxy
for HAPS, and makes this value-preference item an interesting question to analyse,
particularly in terms of the extent to which different cultures valorise HAPS versus LAPS.
As a final point, we were especially interested in the intersection and tension between
the two calmness items. In that respect, our paper is designed to complement – and moreover
be distinct from – a separate analysis of these two items already published as a brief report by
Joshanloo (2022), which focuses on “mental balance,” and a chapter in the 2022 World
Happiness Report by Lomas, Lai et al. (2022) on “balance and harmony.” In Joshanloo’s
paper, the first item on experienced calmness was combined with two other items pertaining
to LAPS in the GWP – one on peace and one on balance in life – to create a composite
construct of “mental balance.” This was then contrasted with the second calmness item
(preference for this versus excitement), with the analyses showing these were distinct
constructs, involving different nomological networks. The paper further explored regional

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
7
differences in regard to mental balance and preference for calmness, and also conducted
regression analyses to explore factors associated with them. In the case of Lomas, Lai et al.
(2022), their analysis mainly focused on the GWP item on balance in life similarly utilized by
Joshanloo, though it likewise also considered the two calmness and the peace items. And, as
with Joshanloo, its main prerogative was considering broad regional differences with respect
to these items, as well as exploring factors associated with them through regression analyses.
However, while these analyses are illuminating, they by no means exhaust the value
and complexity of the data for these items. Indeed, it is common to find multiple published
articles focused on the same GWP variables (e.g., life evaluation) – even in the same survey
year – which highlight and tease out different aspects of what is ultimately an incredibly rich
and comprehensive dataset. In that respect, we sought to interrogate this new calmness data
through the innovation of exploring the complex intersection of the two calmness items. In
particular, as we reflected on the nature of the items and the data collected, we developed the
idea of juxtaposing them to create four experiential categories, which we labelled: “satisfied
calmness” (people who both prefer and experience calmness); “unwanted calmness” (people
who experience calmness but prefer excitement); “longed-for calmness” (people who prefer
calmness but don’t experience it); and “unmissed calmness” (people who neither prefer nor
experience calmness). Through these four permutations, we sought to uncover nuances in the
data regarding calmness that may be hidden or overlooked when the items are just considered
independently.
Methods
Data Collection
The two calmness items were embedded within the broader 2020 GWP, a survey covering a
wide range of topics, and which usually takes 15-20 minutes over the phone for participants
to complete (involving around 60-80 items, with the number varying among respondents
based on screener questions, filters and skip patterns, as well as the fact that some modules
are only asked in a subset of countries). The GWP involves nationally representative,
probability-based samples among the adult populations, aged 15 and older, involving 1,000
people per country. In 2020, 116 countries were included, representing more than 90% of the
global adult population, with a total of 121,207 participants. For results based on the total
sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error ranges from ±1.1 to ±5.5 percentage
points at the 95% confidence level. The GWP usually involves face-to-face data collection.
However, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Gallup prepared a contingency methodology
based entirely on telephone interviewing. Thus, although some in-person interviews were

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
8
conducted in Republic of the Congo, India, Mali, Pakistan and Senegal, in most countries the
survey was conducted over mobile and landline telephones. The sampling frame therefore
represents adults aged 15 and older with access to a phone (either landline or mobile). Data
was collected between February 4th 2020 and March 4th 2021.
Transparency and Openness
The typical GWP includes surveys of at least 1,000 individuals per country. This sample size
is determined to allow a maximum confidence interval of approximately 4 percentage points,
providing enough power (β = 0.80, α= .05) to detect a group difference of approximately 9
percentage points. The study did not have any data exclusions or manipulations, and we
follow JARS (Kazak, 2018). The percentages of responses to the items, as differentiated by
country, are available in the tables in the paper. Further data, analysis code, and research
materials can be made available upon request. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics
for Windows version 25.0 (IBM Corp, 2017), R, version 4.0.0 (R Core Team, 2020) and the
package ggplot, version 3.2.1 (Wickham, 2016). This study’s design and its analyses were not
pre-registered.
Results
Country Percentages and Rankings
Our first consideration is to note the percentages of responses for both items, and the four
juxtaposed pairings. These are shown in Table 1 below, which includes: (a) the global total;
(b) Western versus Eastern regions; (c) 11 global regions aggregated in the GWP; and the
116 countries in the 2020 GWP. Beneath that, Figures 1-6 show the global distribution for the
two items and the four juxtaposed pairings.

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
9
Table 1. Regional and country rankings
Ranking
Preference
for Calmness
Experienced
Calmness
Satisfied
Calmness
Unwanted
Calmness
Longed-for
Calmness
Unmissed
Calmness
Global
Total
72.0
Global
Total
71.9
Global
Total
53.1
Global
Total
18.9
Global
Total
19.0
Global
Total
9.1
West vs East
comparison
1
Western1
Region
71.6
Western
Region
76.8
Western
Region
55.0
Western
Region
21.7
Eastern
Region
17.8
Eastern
Region
9.7
2
Eastern2
Region
69.8
Eastern
Region
72.3
Eastern
Region
52.2
Eastern
Region
20.3
Western
Region
16.6
Western
Region
6.6
Regional
Comparison
1
East Asia3
85.4
South East
Asia
84.6
East Asia
67.9
South East
Asia
26.7
South
Asia
25.6
South
Asia
20.5
2
Latin America4
82.3
Eastern Europe
81.7
Latin America
65.4
Western
Europe
24.6
Middle East /
North Africa
24.8
Sub-Saharan
Africa
8.5
3
Middle East /
North Africa5
77.3
US / Canada
79.5
Eastern Europe
60.2
South
Asia
23.3
Western
Europe
18.3
Western
Europe
8.1
4
US / Canada6
74.8
Latin America
78.9
US / Canada
59.8
Post-Soviet
Eurasia
22.3
East Asia
17.7
Middle East /
North Africa
7.5
5
Eastern Europe7
73.3
Post-Soviet
Eurasia
78.6
South East
Asia
58.0
Sub-Saharan
Africa
21.9
Sub-Saharan
Africa
17.0
Post-Soviet
Eurasia
6.6
6
Australia / New
Zealand8
72.7
East Asia
78.6
Post-Soviet
Eurasia
56.3
Eastern Europe
21.5
Latin America
16.7
Australia / New
Zealand
6.4
7
Post-Soviet
Eurasia9
71.2
Australia / New
Zealand
77.1
Australia / New
Zealand
56.2
Australia / New
Zealand
20.8
Australia / New
Zealand
16.6
US / Canada
5.4
8
Sub-Saharan
Africa10
69.8
Sub-Saharan
Africa
74.6
Sub-Saharan
Africa
52.5
US / Canada
19.8
US / Canada
15.1
South East
Asia
5.3
9
South East Asia11
68.0
Western
Europe
73.6
Middle East /
North Africa
52.5
Middle East /
North Africa
15.2
Post-Soviet
Eurasia
14.9
Eastern Europe
5.2
10
Western Europe12
67.4
Middle East /
North Africa
67.7
Western
Europe
49.0
Latin America
13.6
Eastern Europe
13.1
Latin America
4.2
11
South
Asia13
56.1
South
Asia
53.8
South
Asia
30.6
East Asia
10.9
South East
Asia
10.1
East Asia
3.4
National
Comparison
1
Congo Brazz.
96.9
Vietnam
93.4
Jamaica
76.8
Vietnam
59.3
Nepal
57.7
Israel
30.1
2
Cameroon
93.8
Jamaica
93.2
Nicaragua
76.1
Kyrgyzstan
45.1
Congo Brazz.
47.1
India
23.4
3
Tanzania
93.6
Philippines
92.7
Tanzania
75
Cambodia
43.9
Guinea
41.1
Lithuania
18.0
4
Mali
91.2
Kyrgyzstan
90.7
Dom. Rep.
73.7
Ghana
40.3
Tajikistan
35.3
Belgium
16.3

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
10
5
Hong Kong
91.2
Finland
89.6
Finland
73.4
Georgia
39.8
Benin
34.6
Pakistan
15.4
6
Myanmar
91.1
Estonia
88.4
Slovenia
72.4
Denmark
39.6
Mali
34.6
Algeria
15.4
7
El Salvador
90.3
Portugal
88.1
El Salvador
71.8
Laos
38.5
Gabon
34.4
South Africa
15.4
8
Guinea
90
Romania
88
Kosovo
71.4
Iceland
37.2
Iran
33.5
Georgia
15.4
9
Gabon
89.5
Ghana
87.5
Mongolia
71
Estonia
36.4
Cameroon
33.4
Namibia
14.2
10
Nicaragua
88.5
Slovakia
86.3
Ethiopia
70
Nigeria
34.9
Lebanon
32.3
UAE
14.1
11
Burkina Faso
88.4
Moldova
86.1
Japan
69.7
Norway
33.3
Ivory Coast
30.7
Kenya
13.8
12
Dom. Rep.
88.3
Norway
86
Hong Kong
69.5
South Africa
33.3
Burkina Faso
27.8
Lebanon
12.3
13
Mauritius
88.2
Croatia
85.9
Moldova
69
Uzbekistan
31.7
Egypt
27.4
Nigeria
12.1
14
Ethiopia
88.0
Nicaragua
85.8
Columbia
68.8
Philippines
31
India
27
Ireland
12
15
Morocco
87.1
El Salvador
85.7
N. Macedonia
68.6
Lithuania
30.1
Jordan
25.5
Zambia
11.6
16
Egypt
87.1
Mongolia
85.6
Mexico
68.5
Sweden
29.9
Spain
25.2
Cambodia
11.1
17
Columbia
87.0
Sweden
85.6
China
68
Latvia
29.8
Mauritius
24.8
Iceland
10.7
18
Nepal
86.8
Uzbekistan
85.1
Portugal
67.8
Kenya
29.4
Sri Lanka
24.5
Spain
10.1
19
Iraq
86.5
Kosovo
84.4
Ecuador
67.7
Ukraine
29.2
Israel
24
UK
10.1
20
China
86.0
Slovenia
84.3
Myanmar
67.3
Algeria
29.2
Tunisia
23.8
Laos
9.8
21
Ecuador
85.7
Indonesia
83.9
Slovakia
66.5
Czech Republic
28.3
Albania
23.8
South Korea
9.7
22
Slovenia
85.5
Netherlands
83.8
Bolivia
66.3
UAE
28.3
Pakistan
23.7
Zimbabwe
9.4
23
Japan
85.3
Hungary
83.6
Morocco
65.3
Netherlands
27.8
Myanmar
23.7
Uganda
9.3
24
Ivory Coast
85.2
Denmark
83.4
Uruguay
65.2
Croatia
27.7
Iraq
22.8
Kazakhstan
9.3
25
Jordan
85.1
Canada
83.2
Costa Rica
65.1
Switzerland
27.7
Belgium
22
Turkey
8.7
26
Peru
83.9
Dom. Rep.
83.1
Indonesia
64.9
Zimbabwe
27.7
Morocco
21.8
Denmark
8.4
27
Sri Lanka
83.8
Mexico
83.1
Senegal
64.9
Germany
27.2
Hong Kong
21.7
Ghana
8.3
28
Venezuela
83.5
N. Macedonia
82.6
Taiwan
64.6
Namibia
27
Peru
21.4
Ukraine
8.2
29
Kosovo
83.5
Czech Republic
82.4
Romania
64.3
Zambia
26.7
UK
21.3
Greece
8.1
30
Mongolia
83.3
Paraguay
82.2
Brazil
64.1
Kazakhstan
26.4
Italy
21.2
France
8.1
31
Benin
83.1
Bolivia
82.1
Poland
63.9
Pakistan
26
Turkey
20.7
Bahrain
8.1
32
Albania
83.0
Poland
82.1
Iraq
63.7
Hungary
25.6
Namibia
20.6
Nepal
8
33
Costa Rica
83.0
Japan
81.9
Mauritius
63.4
Italy
25.6
Venezuela
20.6
Italy
7.8
34
Brazil
83.0
Bangladesh
81.9
Bosnia & Herz.
63.2
UK
25.6
Greece
20.4
Switzerland
7.8
35
Senegal
82.9
Ethiopia
81.7
Venezuela
62.9
Bangladesh
24.5
Austria
20.4
Benin
7.5
36
Tunisia
82.9
Montenegro
81.7
Peru
62.5
Israel
24.2
Algeria
20
Austria
7.5
37
N. Macedonia
82.4
New Zealand
81.7
Montenegro
61.9
Canada
24
Lithuania
19.3
Thailand
7.4
38
Finland
81.8
Malaysia
80.8
Philippines
61.6
Malaysia
24
Saudi Arabia
19.3
Bulgaria
7.4
39
Tajikistan
81.7
Uruguay
80.5
Russia
61.4
New Zealand
23.8
South Korea
19.1
Cyprus
7.1
40
Mexico
81.4
Bosnia & Herz.
80.2
Chile
61.3
Romania
23.7
France
19
Latvia
7.1
41
Iran
81.4
Bulgaria
80.2
Burkina Faso
60.6
India
23.4
Malta
18.9
Czech Republic
7
42
Jamaica
81.2
Latvia
80
Cameroon
60.5
Paraguay
23.3
Brazil
18.9
Argentina
6.9
43
Bolivia
81.0
Iceland
79.6
Saudi Arabia
60.4
Turkey
22.4
Uganda
18.8
Bangladesh
6.9
44
Taiwan
80.9
Serbia
79.5
Thailand
60.3
Bulgaria
22.3
Tanzania
18.5
Iran
6.6
45
Saudi Arabia
79.7
Tanzania
79.4
United States
59.9
Cyprus
21.1
Columbia
18.2
Malaysia
6.6
46
Bosnia & Herz.
79.4
Taiwan
79.2
Egypt
59.7
Belgium
20.9
China
18
Australia
6.5

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
11
47
Moldova
79.4
United States
79
Jordan
59.6
Spain
20.7
Ecuador
18
Germany
6.5
48
Uruguay
79.4
Chile
78.9
Sri Lanka
59.2
France
20.6
Ireland
17.9
Norway
6.5
49
Malta
77.7
Germany
78.7
Albania
59.2
Serbia
20.5
Costa Rica
17.9
Saudi Arabia
6.4
50
Russia
77.3
China
78.6
Canada
59.1
Australia
20.5
Senegal
17.9
Malta
6.2
51
Slovakia
77.2
Columbia
78.5
Tunisia
59.1
Portugal
20.3
Australia
17.3
Netherlands
6.2
52
Poland
77.1
Costa Rica
78.5
Serbia
59
Greece
19.9
Bahrain
16.8
Tajikistan
6.1
53
Portugal
76.9
Russia
78.4
Paraguay
58.9
Slovakia
19.8
Zimbabwe
16.6
Indonesia
6.1
54
Thailand
76.8
Cambodia
78.4
Malta
58.8
Montenegro
19.8
Serbia
16.4
Uzbekistan
6.1
55
Chile
76.7
Argentina
78.3
Argentina
58.6
Argentina
19.7
Thailand
16.4
Kyrgyzstan
6.1
56
Montenegro
76.1
Ecuador
78.2
Bahrain
58.3
Austria
19.3
Taiwan
16.3
Guinea
6
57
Uganda
75.8
Switzerland
78
Croatia
58.1
United States
19.1
Bosnia & Herz.
16.2
Russia
5.7
58
Serbia
75.3
Kazakhstan
77.9
Hungary
58
Indonesia
19
Ethiopia
16
Chile
5.7
59
United States
75.3
Senegal
77.8
New Zealand
57.9
South Korea
19
Russia
15.9
United States
5.6
60
Bahrain
75.1
Ukraine
77.2
Bulgaria
57.9
Ireland
19
Cyprus
15.7
Iraq
5.4
61
Indonesia
74.9
Brazil
77.1
Bangladesh
57.4
Poland
18.1
Japan
15.6
Uruguay
5.3
62
Argentina
73.5
Cyprus
77.1
Uganda
57
Chile
17.6
United States
15.4
New Zealand
5.3
63
Austria
73.2
Laos
77
Malaysia
56.8
Moldova
17
Chile
15.4
Canada
5.3
64
Romania
73.1
Nigeria
76.6
Mali
56.7
Bosnia & Herz.
17
Germany
14.8
Sweden
5.1
65
Australia
73
Hong Kong
76.5
Cyprus
56.1
Russia
17
Zambia
14.8
Hungary
5
66
Lebanon
72.6
Australia
76.3
Netherlands
56
Bahrain
16.7
Argentina
14.8
Albania
4.9
67
Paraguay
72.4
Thailand
76.1
Australia
55.8
Jamaica
16.5
UAE
14.7
Peru
4.9
68
Greece
72.0
Venezuela
75.4
Sweden
55.7
Finland
16.2
Bolivia
14.7
Ivory Coast
4.8
69
Cyprus
71.8
Bahrain
75.1
Gabon
55.1
Malta
16.1
Dom. Rep.
14.7
Poland
4.8
70
France
71.2
Malta
75
Ivory Coast
54.6
Bolivia
15.8
Ukraine
14.6
Estonia
4.6
71
South Korea
71.2
Georgia
74.7
Czech Republic
54.1
Thailand
15.8
Kenya
14.5
Jordan
4.5
72
New Zealand
70.9
Saudi Arabia
74.3
Uzbekistan
53.4
Uruguay
15.3
Switzerland
14.2
Morocco
4.5
73
Canada
70.7
Zimbabwe
73.9
Austria
52.8
Lebanon
15.1
Montenegro
14.2
Taiwan
4.5
74
Bulgaria
70.3
Myanmar
73.7
Norway
52.6
Uganda
14.8
Uruguay
14.2
Vietnam
4.5
75
Hungary
69.4
Morocco
73.7
France
52.3
Mongolia
14.6
N. Macedonia
13.7
Mali
4.3
76
Malaysia
69.3
Peru
73.7
South Korea
52.1
Mexico
14.6
Paraguay
13.5
Burkina Faso
4.3
77
Spain
69.2
Zambia
73.6
Estonia
51.9
Taiwan
14.6
Laos
13.2
Senegal
4.3
78
Ireland
69.0
France
72.9
Greece
51.6
N. Macedonia
13.9
Poland
13.1
Paraguay
4.3
79
Turkey
68.9
South Africa
72.6
Germany
51.5
Saudi Arabia
13.8
Slovenia
13.1
Tunisia
4.2
80
Bangladesh
68.6
Austria
72.1
Kazakhstan
51.4
Costa Rica
13.3
New Zealand
13
Croatia
4.2
81
Croatia
68.1
Tunisia
72
Ireland
51.1
Kosovo
13
Mexico
13
Serbia
4.1
82
Italy
66.6
Iraq
71.8
Switzerland
50.3
Brazil
13
Latvia
12.8
Venezuela
4
83
Philippines
66.4
Uganda
71.8
Latvia
50.2
Senegal
12.9
Kazakhstan
12.8
Brazil
4
84
Germany
66.3
Kenya
71.7
Congo Brazz.
49.8
Tunisia
12.9
Malaysia
12.5
Montenegro
4
85
Netherlands
66.0
Sri Lanka
71.6
Guinea
48.9
Venezuela
12.5
Bulgaria
12.4
Mauritius
3.9
86
Sweden
65.0
Greece
71.5
Benin
48.5
Sri Lanka
12.4
Mongolia
12.3
Sri Lanka
3.9
87
Czech Republic
64.7
Albania
71.4
Turkey
48.2
Japan
12.2
Nicaragua
12.3
Mexico
3.9
88
Switzerland
64.5
Mauritius
71.3
Ukraine
48
Albania
12.2
El Salvador
12.2
Ecuador
3.8

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
12
89
Kazakhstan
64.3
UAE
71.3
Iran
47.9
Tajikistan
12.2
Kosovo
12.1
Egypt
3.7
90
UK
64.3
South Korea
71.2
Ghana
47.2
Iran
12
South Africa
12
Costa Rica
3.7
91
Latvia
63.0
Italy
71
Zambia
46.9
Slovenia
11.9
Canada
11.5
N. Macedonia
3.7
92
Zimbabwe
62.9
Turkey
70.6
Denmark
46.5
Peru
11.2
Hungary
11.4
Bosnia & Herz.
3.6
93
Belgium
62.8
Ireland
70.1
Tajikistan
46.4
China
10.6
Nigeria
11.3
Moldova
3.6
94
Ukraine
62.6
Jordan
70
Zimbabwe
46.3
Ecuador
10.5
Bangladesh
11.2
Kosovo
3.5
95
Uzbekistan
62.1
Egypt
68.9
Kyrgyzstan
45.6
Jordan
10.4
Slovakia
10.7
China
3.4
96
Zambia
61.7
UK
68.7
Italy
45.4
Ivory Coast
9.9
Czech Republic
10.6
Columbia
3.3
97
Norway
60.2
Burkina Faso
67.9
Spain
44
Nicaragua
9.7
Cambodia
10.5
Gabon
3.2
98
Estonia
58.9
Namibia
65.3
UK
43.`
Ethiopia
9.7
Moldova
10.3
Bolivia
3.2
99
Namibia
58.8
Cameroon
64.7
UAE
42.9
Columbia
9.7
Georgia
10
Romania
3.2
100
Pakistan
58.6
Spain
64.7
Iceland
42.4
Dom. Rep.
9.5
Netherlands
10
Slovakia
3
101
UAE
57.6
Algeria
64.6
Kenya
42.3
Benin
9.4
Croatia
9.9
Portugal
2.8
102
Kenya
56.8
Ivory Coast
64.5
Nigeria
41.7
Egypt
9.2
Indonesia
9.9
Myanmar
2.6
103
Algeria
55.4
Lithuania
62.7
Belgium
40.7
Morocco
8.4
Iceland
9.6
Slovenia
2.6
104
Denmark
54.6
Gabon
62.4
Lebanon
40.3
Iraq
8.1
Sweden
9.3
Philippines
2.6
105
India
53.2
Belgium
61.7
Laos
39.5
Mauritius
7.9
Portugal
9.1
Japan
2.4
106
Nigeria
52.9
Mali
61.1
South Africa
39.3
El Salvador
7.7
Romania
8.8
Ethiopia
2.3
107
Iceland
52.0
Pakistan
60.9
Namibia
38.2
Burkina Faso
7.3
Uzbekistan
8.7
Jamaica
2.3
108
Lithuania
51.8
Iran
59.9
Cambodia
35.4
Gabon
7.3
Finland
8.4
Dom. Rep.
2.2
109
Laos
51.7
Tajikistan
58.6
Algeria
35.4
Hong Kong
7
Denmark
8.2
Tanzania
2.1
110
South Africa
51.3
Benin
57.9
Georgia
34.9
Myanmar
6.3
Norway
7.6
Mongolia
2.1
111
Ghana
51.3
Lebanon
55.4
Pakistan
34.9
Nepal
5.1
Estonia
7
Finland
2.1
112
Kyrgyzstan
48.9
Guinea
52.9
Vietnam
34.1
Mali
4.5
Philippines
4.7
El Salvador
2
113
Israel
45.7
Congo Brazz.
51.5
Lithuania
32.5
Tanzania
4.4
Jamaica
4.4
Cameroon
1.9
114
Cambodia
45.0
India
49.5
Nepal
29.3
Cameroon
4.3
Ghana
4.1
Hong Kong
1.8
115
Georgia
44.8
Israel
45.9
India
26.1
Guinea
4
Kyrgyzstan
3.3
Nicaragua
1.8
116
Vietnam
36.2
Nepal
34.4
Israel
21.7
Congo Brazz.
1.7
Vietnam
2.1
Congo Brazz.
1.3
1 Western Region = Western Europe, US / Canada, Australia / New Zealand
2 Eastern Region = East Asia, South Asia, South East Asia
3 East Asia = China, Hong Kong, Japan, Mongolia, South Korea
4 Latin America = Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dom. Rep., Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay
5 Middle East / North Africa = Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE
6 US / Canada = US, Canada
7 Eastern Europe = Albania, Bosnia & Herz., Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, N. Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia
8 Australia / New Zealand = Australia, New Zealand
9 Post-Soviet Eurasia = Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
10 Sub Saharan Africa = Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo Brazz., Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
11 South East Asia = Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam
12 Western Europe = Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK
13 South Asia = Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
13
Figure 1. Global map of preference for calmness
Figure 2. Global map of experienced calmness

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
14
Figure 3. Global map of satisfied calmness
Figure 4. Global map of unwanted calmness

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
15
Figure 5. Global map of longed-for calmness
Figure 6. Global map of unmissed calmness

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
16
Regression Analyses
To understand the factors associated with calmness, we conducted a logistic regression for
the two calmness items and their four juxtaposed pairings, as shown in Table 2 below. The
regression includes both individual level and country level variables deemed particularly
relevant to the topic at hand. The individual level variables are taken from the GWP, and
include key demographic considerations (i.e., age, sex, education level, income level, living
situation [urban versus rural]), as well as a law and order index (a calculation based on four
items: “In the city or area where you live, do you have confidence in the local police force?”;
“Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where you live?”; “Within the last
12 months, have you had money or property stolen from you or another household
member?”; and “Within the past 12 months, have you been assaulted or mugged?”).
Additionally, four country level variables were considered: an political stability (from the
World Bank – https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PV.EST); absence of conflict (from the
Uppsala Conflict Data Program – https://ucdp.uu.se/encyclopedia); GDP (log) (from the
World Bank – https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD); and
unemployment (from the World Bank –
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS?name_desc=true).

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
17
Table 2. Regression analyses
Permutation
Experienced
calmness
Preference for
calmness
Satisfied
Calmness
Unwanted
Calmness
Longed-for
Calmness
Unmissed
Calmness
Stage 1
Strata
849
849
849
849
849
849
Units
116,486
116,486
116,486
116,486
116,486
116,486
Pseudo R2
Cox & Snell
0.079
0.048
0.082
0.035
0.016
0.050
Nagelkerke
0.114
0.069
0.109
0.056
0.027
0.109
McFadden
0.07
0.041
0.062
0.037
0.017
0.083
Log-odds
(Standard Errors)
Individual
Predictors
(Intercept)
-1.584 (0.317) ***
-0.97 (0.32) **
-2.445 (0.285) ***
-0.246 (0.346)
-0.985 (0.366) **
0.993 (0.508)
Age: 15-301
-1.201 (0.065) ***
-0.46 (0.07) ***
-0.95 (0.057) ***
0.959 (0.069) ***
0.044 (0.076)
1.257 (0.135) ***
Age: 31-551
-0.494 (0.064) ***
-0.35 (0.06) ***
-0.452 (0.054) ***
0.368 (0.068) ***
0.218 (0.07) **
0.709 (0.134) ***
Sex: Male2
-0.337 (0.043) ***
0.12 (0.04) **
-0.115 (0.038) **
0.338 (0.047) ***
-0.237 (0.05) ***
0.16 (0.072) *
Education: 0-8 yrs3
0.53 (0.061)
-0.22 (0.06) ***
0.159 (0.054) **
-0.556 (0.067) ***
0.4 (0.071) ***
-0.243 (0.099) *
Education: 9-15 yrs3
0.276 (0.042) ***
-0.02 (0.05)
0.14 (0.039) ***
-0.215 (0.044) ***
0.165 (0.055) **
-0.243 (0.074) **
Income: Bottom 20%4
0.101 (0.089)
-0.12 (0.09)
0.006 (0.077)
-0.177 (0.098)
0.12 (0.1)
0.083 (0.15)
Income: 2nd quintile4
0.136 (0.07)
0.03 (0.07)
0.056 (0.062)
-0.038 (0.076)
0.084 (0.085)
-0.264 (0.124) *
Income: 3rd quintile4
0.099 (0.065)
-0.1 (0.07)
-0.027 (0.059)
-0.081 (0.069)
0.164 * (0.081)
-0.083 (0.113)
Income: 4th quintile4
0.02 (-0.062)
-0.03 (0.07)
-0.006 (0.056)
-0.026 (0.065)
0.043 (0.081)
0.006 (0.107)
Income (log)
0.009 (0.009)
-0.01 (0.01)
0.003 (0.008)
-0.015 (0.01)
0.008 (0.011)
0.006 (0.016)
Urbanicity: Urban5
0.028 (0.042)
0.06 (0.04)
0.025 (0.038)
0.045 (0.046)
-0.07 (0.052)
-0.01 (0.074)
Law and Order Index
0.001 (0.001)
0.005 (0.001) ***
0.004 (0.001) ***
0 (0.001)
-0.005 (0.001) ***
-0.003 (0.001) ***
Country Predictors
Political stability
-0.609 (0.04) ***
-0.36 (0.04)***
-0.552 (0.035) ***
0.388 (0.044) ***
0.085 (0.046)
0.707 (0.064) ***
GDP (log)
0.231 (0.032) ***
0.16 (0.03)***
0.21 (0.028) ***
-0.118 (0.035) ***
-0.029 (0.036)
-0.322 (0.051) ***
Unemployment
-0.027 (0.003) ***
-0.03 (0.003)***
-0.033 (0.003) ***
0.011 (0.004) **
0.017 (0.004) ***
0.045 (0.005)
Absence of Conflict
0.963 (0.058) ***
0.89 (0.06)***
1.04 (0.053) ***
-0.446 (0.063) ***
-0.399 (0.069) ***
-1.445 (0.092) ***
1 Reference = those aged 56+; 2 Reference = females; 3 Reference = those with 16+ years; 4 Reference = top quintile; 5 Reference = rural population. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Table 2. Regression analyses for the two calmness items and their juxtaposed permutations

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
18
Discussion
This paper has offered an unprecedented global perspective on calmness, drawing on the
most comprehensive study to date on this important topic, and moreover doing so through the
creation of four experiential categories of calmness (satisfied, unwanted, longed-for, and un-
missed). Before delving into the nuances of these categories, let us step back to emphasize
the value of studying this topic per se, even apart from these conceptual complexities or
assessing it on a global scale. Until recently, calmness – and LAPS more generally – has been
largely overlooked by academia. One potential explanation for this lacuna, as aired above, is
that such states may receive greater attention and emphasis in Eastern cultures, in contrast to
the tendency towards prioritization of HAPS in Western cultures. Given the Western-centric
nature of psychology, this might account for the relative academic inattention to LAPS.
These observations may have some truth to them, and it is possible that historically such
states have been more valued and sought – in relative terms – more in Eastern than in
Western cultures, as indeed numerous scholars from Eastern contexts have suggested (Leu et
al., 2011). Such cultural trends are reflected for example in the wealth of contemplative and
meditative practices generated within Eastern cultures, many of which are geared towards
inducing LAPS (Lee et al., 2013). Even though the West too has developed its own such
traditions – such as contemplative prayer – it may nevertheless not be an unfair generalization
to suggest that these have been finessed and elaborated to a greater extent in Eastern cultures
over the centuries.
However, even if Eastern cultures have historically placed greater weight on LAPS
than Western cultures, the data paint a far more complicated picture than is implied by such
generalizations. Indeed, there was no particular association between Eastern countries and
calmness, neither in terms of preferences for it nor experiences of it. In fact, when comparing
Eastern (East Asia, South Asia, and South East Asia) with Western countries (Western
Europe, US / Canada, and Australia /New Zealand), the latter showed higher levels of both
preferences for calmness (71.6% compared to 69.8 in the East) and experienced calmness
(76.8 verses 72.3). Indeed, perhaps the most notable trend was not regional but economic:
specifically, people in poorer people seemed more likely to prefer calmness, yet crucially
were less likely to actually experience it, as discussed below. On the whole though, calmness
appeared to be both universally sought and experienced, with 72% of respondents preferring
a calm life to an exciting life, and 71.9% experiencing it. However, digging deeper into these
results reveals intriguing patterns, especially when juxtaposing the items to create four main
permutations of response. Before considering these, let’s briefly look at the main items in

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
19
turn. As noted above, these two items have already been considered separately – though not
in especially great depth – by Lomas, Lai et al. (2022) and Joshanloo (2022). As such, we
shall not delve deeply into the details here. Nevertheless, it is worth at least briefly noting
some broad patterns to provide context for our consideration of the four permutations below.
Let’s begin with the item asking whether people would rather live “an exciting life or
a calm life,” which were selected as proxies for assessing preference for LAPS versus HAPS.
Although this alignment is not perfect, the item still allows exploration of the extent to which
cultures may differentially valorise these and, if prompted to choose, which people prefer. In
that regard, a calm life was chosen by a majority of people in all but two countries. Moreover,
counter to possible cultural stereotypes in this arena – as explored above – preferences for
calmness were higher in the West (71.6) than the East (69.8). However, there were also
intriguing regional nuances: the East for instance included both the region with the highest
preference (East Asia, at 85.4%, including China, Hong Kong, Japan, Mongolia, South
Korea) and the lowest preference (South Asia at 56.1, including Bangladesh, India, Nepal,
Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). It is beyond our scope to delve into why there are such disparities,
and we encourage further research into this question. Indeed, we would caution against
making generalizations about these two regions, since in themselves they feature very diverse
countries (e.g., in terms of wealth, development, climate, traditions, values, etc.). In any case,
such nuances certainly illustrate the risks of making broad generalizations about the “East” as
a homogenous entity. In terms of notable trends though, most striking is that the top-ranked
nations featuring a preference for calmness are those that are relatively poor, with an African-
centric top ten of Congo Brazzaville (93.7), Cameroon (94.5), Tanzania (93.6), Mali (92),
Guinea (91.6), Hong Kong (91.3), Myanmar (91.1), El Salvador (90.4), Gabon (90.1), and
Morocco (89.8). Corroborating that point, GDP per capita was a significant factor in the
regression analysis (r2 = 0.16, p < .001), with a medium-small positive correlation with
preference for an exciting life (0.37), and a small negative correlation with preference for a
calm life (-0.21). One interpretation of these trends is that people in richer countries may
have greater relative security to pursue excitement, whereas those in poorer places may prefer
the comparative safety of calmness.
This interpretation makes even more sense given that people in poorer countries
appear less likely to actually experience calmness, as indexed by the item asking whether
people experienced calmness “during a lot of the day yesterday.” Once again, a large majority
of people (71.9%) answered in the affirmative, but there was likewise substantial variation.
Moreover, as per the other item, perhaps contrary to stereotype and expectation, there was

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
20
more calmness in the West (76.8) than the East (72.3), but also fascinating nuances, with the
East again including both the region with the highest calmness (South East Asia this time, at
84.61, featuring Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand,
Vietnam) and the lowest (again, South Asia at 53.8). Again, we cannot delve into why there
may be such disparities, and are wary of making generalizations about these two regions
which in themselves are very diverse. Once again though, one can discern an economic
dimension to this item, with GDP per capita a significant factor in the regression analysis (r2
= 0.231, p < .001), and with a small-to-medium correlation of 0.25 with calmness. Thus, on
the whole, people in poorer countries appear more likely to prefer calmness, yet are less
likely to actually experience it.
This is where the value of juxtaposing the items reveals itself. We can begin with the
unfortunate permutation referenced in the previous sentence – preferring calmness yet not
actually experiencing it – which we dubbed “Longed-for Calmness.” The top ranked
countries in that respect are relatively poor and/or troubled, namely Nepal (57.7%), Congo
Brazzaville (47.1), Guinea (41.1), Tajikistan (35.3), Benin (34.6), Mali (34.6), Gabon (34.4),
Iran (33.5), Cameroon (33.4), and Lebanon (32.3). Figures for Nepal illustrate the starkness
of the divide between preferences and actuality: while 86.8% of respondents prefer a calm
life, only 34.4% actually experience one (the previous day). We should note though that in
the regression analyses, country GDP was not a significant factor in longed-for calmness,
which weakens this argument somewhat. However, it is strengthened by the observation that
country GDP was a significant factor (r2 = 0.21, p = .028) in what is arguably the most
desirous permutation, satisfied calmness, in which people both prefer and experience
calmness. However, economics is of course not the only factor in these dynamics. The higher
ranks of satisfied calmness include many relatively poor countries, with the top nation being
Jamaica (with 76.8% of respondents falling into this category), followed by Nicaragua (76.1),
Tanzania (75.0), Dominican Republic (73.7%), Finland (73.4), Slovenia (72.4), El Salvador
(71.8), Kosovo (71.4), Mongolia (71.0), and Ethiopia (70.0). One certainly would not predict
this top ten based on economic factors. In that respect, other factors play a role. For example,
country-level absence of conflict is a significant positive regression factor for satisfied
calmness (r2 = 1.04, p < .001), and a negative regression factor for longed-for calmness (r2 = -
0.399, p < .001). Put another way, the relative presence of societal conflict makes satisfied
calmness less likely and longed-for calmness more likely.
Moreover, besides the factors measured in the GWP, others may also be involved,
including many which may be relatively intangible but are nevertheless powerful, and which

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
21
might broadly be filed under the label of culture. Consider the top ranked nation of Jamaica.
We must of course be wary of stereotypes, and note too that the country – like all nations –
has its particular issues. Nevertheless, it is still the case that Jamaica is renowned for, and
indeed prides itself upon, a relatively relaxed or “laid back” culture (Johnson, 2014), as
perhaps exemplified by its musical traditions such as reggae (noting too though that reggae
often has political or religious dimensions, meaning it is not only about a laid-back vibe)
(Waters, 2017). More research into these high-performing countries is of course needed, but
it certainly seems plausible that cultural practices and traditions in places like Jamaica may
have played at least some role in their excelling in Satisfied Calmness. Indeed, there are no
doubt many interesting untold analyses and narratives around all the countries who excel in
such Satisfied Calmness (e.g., Nicaragua, Tanzania, Dominican Republic, Finland, Slovenia,
El Salvador, Kosovo, Mongolia, and Ethiopia), and future research will ideally explore the
idiosyncratic national dynamics behind their performance in this regard. Moreover, the
diversity of this top ten – which includes both Eastern and Western nations, as well as those
outside the East-West binary – shows the importance of moving away from the common East
versus West focus, which tends to dominate cross-cultural research in psychology, and
towards taking a more global view.
To begin with, the results here suggest that simplistically associating LAPS and
HAPS with Eastern and Western cultures respectively – as can sometimes happen in the
literature and the wider public discourse – is an unhelpful and inaccurate generalization.
Indeed, going further, one wonders how useful the very East-West binary is itself. As Said
(1979) argued in his elucidation of Orientalism, these constructions homogenise and obscure
the rich heterogeneity and complexity of both arenas. Consider for instance that preferences
for calmness are highest in East Asia and lowest in South Asia, both of which would often be
simply classified as Eastern. Moreover, the conventional East-West binary presents these
hemispheres as if discretely bounded, overlooking the dynamic inter-transmission of people
and ideas across geographical boundaries. This criticism is particularly apposite in this era of
globalisation, with its great dynamic cross-fertilisation of cultures. Thus we have seen
apparently Western ideologies such as consumer capitalism finding fertile ground in many
Asian countries; indeed, the “modernization” theory of cultural change suggests a general
global movement towards greater individualism (Hamamura, 2012). Conversely, ostensibly
Eastern practices like meditation have attracted hugely receptive audiences in the West
(King, 2008). Indeed, it is interesting to consider what makes a place like the USA be deemed
“Western” at all. Certainly, the country has tended to self-consciously see and define itself in

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
22
that way, or at least people with power and prominence have done so. This includes drawing
on lineages of thought and tradition associated with Europe, like its Judeo-Christian heritage,
and eras such as the Enlightenment. However, the USA is a place of remarkable multicultural
complexity and dynamism. As such, even though an ostensibly Western nation, it has also
been shaped by myriad non-Western people and traditions, including Eastern ones.
It is beyond our scope to delve further into such considerations, but the essential point
here is how nuanced and complex are cross-cultural dynamics when it comes to positive
emotions, and indeed all phenomena, including cross-cultural categorizations in themselves.
This means appreciating that, contrary perhaps to expectations and stereotypes, LAPS do not
have any particular association with Eastern cultures in these data, but are more universally
relevant. That said, this does not necessarily mean that Eastern cultures haven’t excelled in
highlighting, understanding, and promoting such states. As noted above, the East is renowned
for contemplative traditions which aim to facilitate such experiences through practices like
meditation. It is certainly possible that such traditions do positively influence LAPS in
Eastern cultures, even if that impact is not discernible in the data here. Although such
cultures did not show a particular relationship to calmness, a counterfactual possibility is that
without their traditions, they may have fared even more poorly on these outcomes.
As a final point, when we consider the factors which impact people’s preferences for
and experiences of calmness – from economics to culture – we can appreciate how influenced
these are by their social context. Indeed, going further, phenomena like calmness describe
social contexts, at least partly. In psychology we are accustomed – understandably enough –
to psychologise phenomena such as LAPS, to regard states like calmness as primarily being
“mental” in nature, existing ontologically mainly within people’s minds (i.e., as subjective
qualia) and brains (i.e., as neurophysiological dynamics). There is certainly validity in taking
that perspective. But we can also appreciate that these are not only mental states. Concepts
like calmness – and other LAPS, such as peacefulness – are fundamentally ambiguous, with
an inherent dual meaning: they are inner states of mind and outer states of circumstances.
Indeed, in responding to the GWP items, it is not obvious which meaning people are thinking
of. Potentially both are at play, in intertwined fashion. Experiencing calmness may be both an
inner state and a commentary on one’s life. As such, if we want these outcomes which people
globally all appear to value, we need to not only focus on them as individual qualities, but
also on the social conditions that facilitate them.
This point is especially apposite given this particular period of data collection, with
the survey taking place amidst the unparalleled chaos and distress of the unfolding COVID-

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
23
19 pandemic. Consider the overwhelming preference for a calm life. Generally speaking,
calmness and excitement are both regarded as positively valenced and desirable. However,
given the backdrop of the pandemic, the prospect of excitement may have seemed relatively
daunting, since it is arguably not unambiguously positive, but a somewhat mixed emotion, as
discussed above. Given the global turbulence in 2020, the safety and security of calmness
would be understandably appealing. The uniqueness of this context does not undermine the
findings, however. Quite the opposite: they reinforce their importance. That is, while
calmness – and associated LAPS – may generally matter to people, perhaps they especially
do when the world is in trouble. That said, future research into these topics will help us
understand whether these trends do generalize outside the specific context of this present era.
Nevertheless, even in their temporal particularity, the findings here constitute a valuable
marker and baseline for better understanding this important and much desired phenomenon.
References
Berry, J. W. (2013). Achieving a global psychology. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie
Canadienne, 54(1), 55–61.
Brooks, A. W. (2014). Get excited: reappraising pre-performance anxiety as excitement.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143(3), 1144–1158.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035325
Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Wissing, M. P., Araujo, U., Castro Solano, A., Freire, T., … Soosai-
Nathan, L. (2016). Lay Definitions of Happiness across Nations: The Primacy of Inner
Harmony and Relational Connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00030
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsem, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three
decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Ghai, S. (2021). It’s time to reimagine sample diversity and retire the WEIRD dichotomy.
Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01175-9
Hamamura, T. (2012). Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison
of individualism–collectivism in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 16(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411587
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature,

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
24
466, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Sage Publications.
Johnson, H. N. (2014). Jamaica: A famous, strong but damaged brand. Place Branding and
Public Diplomacy, 10(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2014.15
Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern Conceptualizations of Happiness: Fundamental Differences
with Western Views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475–493.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9431-1
Joshanloo, M. (2022). Mental balance in 116 nations: where it is experienced and valued.
International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(19), 12457.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912457
Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: the costs
of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 3(4), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303044
King, R. (2008). Orientalism and religion: Post-colonial theory, India and “The mystic
East.” Routledge.
Kuppens, P., Tuerlinckx, F., Yik, M., Koval, P., Coosemans, J., Zeng, K. J., & Russell, J. A.
(2017). The relation between valence and arousal in subjective experience varies with
personality and culture. Journal of Personality, 85(4), 530–542.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12258
Lee, Y. C., Lin, Y. C., Huang, C. L., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). The Construct and
Measurement of Peace of Mind. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(2), 571–590.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9343-5
Leu, J., Wang, J., & Koo, K. (2011). Are Positive Emotions Just as “Positive” Across
Cultures? Emotion, 11(4), 994–999. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021332
Lomas, T., Ishikawa, Y., Diego-Rosell, P., Daly, J., English, C., Harter, J., … Lai, A. Y.
(2022). Balance and harmony in the Gallup World Poll: The development of the Global
Wellbeing Initiative module. International Journal of Wellbeing.
Lomas T., Lai A., Diego-Rosell P., Uchida Y., VanderWeele T. J. (2022). Insights from the
first global survey of balance and harmony. In Helliwell J., Layard R., Sachs J. D., De
Neve J.-E., Aknin L., Wang S., Paculor S. (Eds.), World Happiness Report 2022 (pp.
127–154). Sustainable Development Solutions.
Lomas, T., Diego-Rosell, P., Shiba, K., Standridge, P., Lee, M. T., Case, B., Lai, A. Y., &
VanderWeele, T. J. (2023). Complexifying individualism versus collectivism and West

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
25
versus East: Exploring global diversity in perspectives on self and other in the Gallup
World Poll. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54(1), 61-89. doi:
10.1177/00220221221130978
Lu, L., Gilmour, R., & Kao, S.-F. (2001). Cultural values and happiness: An East-West
dialogue. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 477–493.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600566
Lyng, S. (2018). Excitement: Risk and authentic emotion. In Emotions, Everyday Life and
Sociology (pp. 88–103). Routledge.
Machizawa, M. G., Lisi, G., Kanayama, N., Mizuochi, R., Makita, K., Sasaoka, T., &
Yamawaki, S. (2020). Quantification of anticipation of excitement with a three-axial
model of emotion with EEG. Journal of Neural Engineering, 17(3), 36011.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Martinez Mateo, M., Cabanis, M., Stenmanns, J., & Krach, S. (2013). Essentializing the
binary self: Individualism and collectivism in cultural neuroscience. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 7, 289; https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00289
Moss, S. A., & Wilson, S. G. (2014). Ambivalent emotional states: The underlying source of
all creativity? The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 24(2), 75–
100.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–
1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Sama, L. M., & Papamarcos, S. D. (2000). Hofstede’s I-C Dimension as Predictive of
Allocative Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Value-Based
Management, 13(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007838221341
Tsai, J. L. (2007). Ideal Affect: Cultural Causes and Behavioral Consequences. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 2(3), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2007.00043.x
Tsai, J. L., Ang, J. Y. Z., Blevins, E., Goernandt, J., Fung, H. H., Jiang, D., … Haddouk, L.
(2016). Leaders’ smiles reflect cultural differences in ideal affect. Emotion (Washington,
D.C.), 16(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000133
Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
26
3514.90.2.288
Tsai, J. L., Levenson, R. W., & Carstensen, L. L. (2000). Autonomic, expressive and
subjective responses to emotional films in younger and older adults of European
American and Chinese descent. Psychology and Aging, 15, 684–693.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.15.4.684
Tsai, J. L., Levenson, R. W., & McCoy, K. (2006). Cultural and temperamental variation in
emotional response. Emotion, Vol. 6, pp. 484–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-
3542.6.3.484
Tsai, J. L., Louie, J. Y., Chen, E. E., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Learning What Feelings to Desire:
Socialization of Ideal Affect Through Children’s Storybooks. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292749
Tsai, J. L., Miao, F. F., & Seppala, E. (2007). Good Feelings in Christianity and Buddhism:
Religious Differences in Ideal Affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33(3), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296107
Tsai, J. L., Miao, F. F., Seppala, E., Fung, H. H., & Yeung, D. Y. (2007). Influence and
adjustment goals: sources of cultural differences in ideal affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1102–1117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1102
Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: Themes and
variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441.
Waters, A. M. (2017). Race, Class, and Political Symbols: Rastafari and Reggae in Jamaican
Politics. Routledge.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Xi, J., & Lee, M. (2021). Inner peace as a contribution to human flourishing: A new scale
developed from ancient wisdom. In M. T. Lee, L. D. Kubzansky, & T. J. VanderWeele
(Eds.), Measuring Well-Being: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from the Social Sciences
and the Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Xi, Y., Zhou, L., & Wang, Y. (2021). The construction of positive social psychology during
the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring the relationship between social support and peace
of mind through a three-wave longitudinal cross-lag study. Frontiers in Psychology,
4720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631748
Yik, M. S. M., & Russell, J. A. (2003). Chinese affect circumplex: I. Structure of recalled
momentary affect. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6(3), 185–200.

Running head: VALUING AND EXPERIENCING CALMNESS
27
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-839X.2003.00120.x
Yu, S., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Maeda, Y. (2018). General Need for Autonomy and
Subjective Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis of Studies in the US and East Asia. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 19(6), 1863–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9898-2