Search

While positive psychology has been in development for more than 20 years, positive psychologists still face the challenge of finding optimal measurements of well-being. The PERMA framework provides a new understanding of well-being based on years of research. However, whether it adds value in terms of being distinct from the already established measures of Subjective Well-Being (SWB) has recently been under debate. Certain characteristics of PERMA make it unsuited for traditional factor analysis and data analysis techniques. In this paper, we argue that a network approach is more suitable for understanding the interrelated nature of PERMA components. We then show how the components of PERMA and SWB are distinct using exploratory graphical analysis. Our results show that while PERMA predicts SWB, PERMA provides us a more nuanced way to understand the interrelated antecedents of well-being, which we refer to as the web of well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Positive psychology approaches have been shown to play a vital role in protecting mental health in times of challenge and are, therefore, important to include when studying the psychological outcomes of COVID-19. While existing research has focused on individual psychological health, this paper focuses on collective wellbeing and collective posttraumatic growth, with the aim of more clearly identifying the positive experiences and potential for positive growth for key institutions in our society during the pandemic. A range of positive psychology interventions for families, schools, workplaces, and clinical psychology are presented. The paper then considers how three broad-reaching phenomena existing in our wider society (i.e., arts and culture, eco-connection, and wellbeing literacy) can be used to boost collective wellbeing. A positive systems approach to understand civilian responses to the pandemic together with an examination of the role that positive psychology can play in supporting marginalized groups are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the COVID-19 global health disaster continues to unfold across the world, calls have been made to address the associated mental illness public crisis. The current paper seeks to broaden these calls by considering the role that positive psychology factors can play in buffering against mental illness, bolstering mental health during COVID-19 and building positive processes and capacities that may help to strengthen future mental health. The paper explores evidence and applications from nine topics in positive psychology that support people through a pandemic: meaning, coping, self-compassion, courage, gratitude, character strengths, positive emotions, positive interpersonal processes and high-quality connections. In times of intense crisis, such as COVID-19, it is understandable that research is heavily directed towards addressing the ways in which people are wounded and weakened. However, this need not come at the expense of also investigating the ways in which people are sustained and strengthened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Visiting art museums is a common activity that a wide variety of people choose to engage in for many reasons. Increasingly, communities, nations, and societies are turning to art museums as institutions to enhance flourishing (i.e., reducing ill-being factors, such as depression, and increasing well-being factors, such as feelings of belonging). In this paper, we review the psychological literature examining art museum visitation and museum program participation and their associations with flourishing-related outcomes. The literature suggests art museum visitation is associated with reductions in ill-being outcomes and increases in well-being outcomes. Additionally, programs targeting flourishing outcomes in clinical or at-risk populations (e.g. people living with dementia, older adults) show benefits to participants, with visits to art museums being socially prescribed across the globe to address a variety of ill-being conditions. Implications for existing knowledge and avenues for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on flourishing has advanced despite limited knowledge about the extent to which flourishing domains are actually valued. This paper examines support for six flourishing domains – emotional health, physical health, purpose, character strengths, social connectedness, and financial security. A survey of 2,370 randomly sampled employees of a large, national, self-insured employer, demonstrated that these domains are nearly universally valued. A two-factor model, which fit the data best, suggested the presence of two distinct dimensions of material and psychosocial well-being importance. Women and men ranked the six domains in the same order, though women ranked each more highly than men. Having a daily spiritual practice was the strongest predictor of importance for all domains but financial security. The importance of the domains of well-being was associated with the self-reported experience of the domains of well-being. The importance of character strengths had the highest correlations with the experience of all domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Positive psychology has made significant advances in our understanding of well-being, yet agreement about the definition and nature of well-being remains elusive. This study explores theexperience of well-beingfrom a bottom-up, naturalistic point of view and compares these inductive notions with existing a priori theories. Using a qualitative-focused case study methodology, this paper explores how everyday people describe well-being in the context of job loss among a sample of 20 workers from the Ottawa, Canada technology sector. Findings support integrated conceptualizations of hedonia and eudaimonia while also potentially identifying new notions of well-being. Identified themes include (a) life evaluation, (b) transitory experiencing, (c) growth and grounding, (d) environmental mastery/stability, (e) mental ill-being/ill-health, and (f) motivational mindsets/conditions. This study shows well-being to be a rich, pluralistic construct which includes the non-dualistic notions of both subjectivity and objectivity as well as encompassing notions related to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an invited response to Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King (2008) and to Waterman's (2008) commentary. Kashdan et al. assert that the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being is unwarranted philosophically and scientifically. We disagree, because a correct understanding of Aristotle refutes Kashdan et al.'s claims, and we refute three specific claims made about the definition, measurements, and overlap of kinds of subjective well-being. We re-analyze data from Keyes' (2005b) paper on mental health, and find that nearly half (48.5%) of the MIDUS national sample has high hedonic well-being. However, only 18% are flourishing, which requires a high level of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The remaining 30.5% with high hedonic well-being but moderate eudaimonic well-being has nearly twice the rate of mental illness as flourishing individuals. Costs are incurred, we conclude, by science and citizens when we do not distinguish and achieve both kinds of well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]