WELL-BEING & RESILIENCE

Aastha Gupta
(19th Oct’23)
 WHO ARE THE HAPPIEST PEOPLE?

In 2002, Diener and Seligman examined a group (222 college students at the University
of Illinois) of extremely happy people to determine whether there were necessary
conditions for entering this elite group.

They found that good social relationships were ubiquitous in this group. Beyond
strong personal relationships, the happiest group was more agreeable and extraverted,
less neurotic, and scored lower in psychopathology.

To be a member of the happiest group required excellent social relationships rather

than monetary riches.

good relationships are not suf ficient to be in the happiest group, thus pointing to the
conclusion that there is no single “key” that insures happiness. Instead, their f indings
suggest that high happiness requires a recipe, with strong social relationships being a
necessary, but not sufficient, ingredient.
 WHO ARE THE HAPPIEST PEOPLE?

Revised research (Diener et al. 2017) concluded that a lack of resources such as health,
income, and social support is frequently associated with unhappiness. In contrast, the
happiest individuals usually have an abundance of these resources and also are fortunate
to come from societies with high social support, income, and SWB.

support for the association between SWB and (a) learning new things and (b)
choosing how to spend one’s time.

found support for the conclusions of the Diener and Seligman (2002) f indings in that
several factors, such as having social support and being treated with respect,
characterized virtually everyone who was high in SWB, but no characteristics were
sufficient in themselves to produce it.
DIMENSIONS OF WELL-BEING
•Emotional well-being
•Psychological well-being
•Social well-being
 Emotional well-being
•happiness •life satisfaction, •positive affect, and •the absence of negative affect

EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING+ HAPPINESS- SUBECTIVE WEL-BEING

Subjective well-being is def ined as how a person evaluates his or her own life. These evaluations
can be more focal (e.g., marital satisfaction, or satisfaction with one's car) or broader (e.g., life
satisfaction or satisfaction with the self). In addition, these evaluations can be more cognitive - in
terms of satisfaction judgments - or they can be more affective (moods and emotions, which are
reactions to what is happening in one's life). Thus, there appear to be at least three major
components to subjective well-being - pleasant emotions and moods, lack of negative emotions
and moods, and satisfaction judgments. Other variables such as optimism and feelings of
f u l f il l m e n t a r e a l s o a p a r t o f S W B , p e r h a p s a 4 t h c o m p o n e n t .


 DEINER MODEL OF SWB
● Ed Diener developed a tripartite model of
SWB in 1984, which describes how people
experience the quality of their lives and
includes both emotional reactions and
cognitive judgments.
● "t hree d ist inct b ut o ft en relat ed
c o m p o ne nt s o f w e l l b e i ng : f r e q ue nt
positive affect, infrequent negative affect,
and cognitive evaluations such as life
satisfaction."
 Psychological well-being (Ryff)

Ryff (1989) posits that some of the favorable outcomes described by positive
psychologists can be integrated into a model of psychological well-being

Six components of Ryff's conceptualization of positive functioning. 1. Self-acceptance,

2. personal growth, 3. purpose in life, 4. environmental mastery, 5. autonomy, and 6.
positive relations with others
This model of well-being has been investigated in numerous studies, and the f indings
reveal that the six dimensions are independent, though correlated, constructs of well-
being.
https://sparqtools.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Psychological-Well-Being-18-


SOCIAL WELL
-BEING

Keyes (1998)
suggests that,
just as
clinicians
categorize the
social
challenges
that are
evident in an
individual's life,
so should they
assess the
social
dimensions of
well-being.
 FLOURISHING

Keyes (Keyes & Lopez, 2002) suggests that complete mental health can be
conceptualized via combinations of high levels of emotional wellbeing, psychological
well-being, and social well-being. Individuals with these high levels are described as
flourishing.

Accordingly, individuals who have no mental illness but who have low levels of well-
being are described as languishing
 RESILIENCE

Ryff and Singer (2003a, p. 20), define

resilience as “maintenance, recovery, or
improvement in mental or physical health
following challenge”.
 RESILIENCE AS ORDIN ARY
MAGIC
Masten (2001) notes that some researchers have also def in ed resilience as an absence of problem
behaviors or psychopathology following adversity.

EXAMPLE- Children of alcoholic, mentally ill, or abusive parents may be judged resilient if they don’t
develop substance abuse problems, suffer mental illness, become abusive parents themselves, or show
symptoms of poor adjustment.

As Masten (2001) notes, two factors are involved for a judgment of resilience to be made:
● Facing significant threat
● Judgement of favorable or good outcome

Ann Masten (2001; a pioneering f igure in the world of resilience research): “Resilience is common and it
typically arises from the operation of normal rather than extraordinary human capabilities, relationships,
and resources. In other words, resilience emerges from ordinary magic.”
 SOURCES OF RESILIENCE

1. Ann Masten (2001) has shown through her work that it is not only a select few individuals with
extraordinary emotional strength who prevail over adversity. She concludes that resilience in the
face of challenge is quite common and does not arise from superhuman effort or abilities.

2. Buckner and his colleagues (2003) found that resilient youths, compared to non-resilient youths,
scored significantly higher on measures of cognitive and emotional self-regulation.

Cognitive self-regulation involves the ability to see the big picture—the forest rather than just the
trees. Emotional self-regulation refers to the ability to keep your cool in tough situations. Youths
with this skill are able to suppress their anger rather than lashing out.
 BUILDING RESILIENCE

Increasing your resilience takes time and intentionality. Focusing on four core
components—connection, wellness, healthy thinking, and meaning—can empower you to
withstand and learn from difficult and traumatic experiences.

BUILDING CONNECTIONS
LOOKING AT THE WIDER PERSPECTIVE
MAINTAINING A HOPEFUL OUTLOOK
ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE AND UNCERTAINTY