Well-being Well-being is not just about the lack of disease or illness or the absence of anxiety or depression.

Well-being is a state of complete physical, mental and social health. In 1958 the public health specialist Dr Halbert L Dunn wrote about 'high-level' wellness. He recognised that this would only be achieved if we could stop being obsessed with disease, cure and prevention and move towards what he called positive health. Dunn acknowledged it would be difficult to achieve and would require not just a shift in values and perception but also considerable research. Forty years on the research being undertaken by the growing number of Positive Psychologists is helping us to understand precisely the social, physical and psychological factors which allow individuals, families and societies to reach the high-level wellness Dunn described. One of the biggest challenges facing Positive Psychology is nomenclature. Some theorists working in this area focus their work on happiness while others call it subjective well-being. We do not have the time or the expertise to try to unravel these differences. We have already covered happiness in an earlier section of these resources. What we devote time to here is the conditions which encourage human flourishing. This ranges from good management of emotions to factors such as exercise and sleep. However, throughout the section we still maintain an emphasis and focus on psychology. This means, for example, that when we discuss the importance of exercise we focus on how it generates positive emotions and contributes to an overall feeling of well-being, rather than looking more generally at the physical benefits of exercise. Well-being and exercise We all know that exercise is good for our health, staving off conditions like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, digestive problems and so forth as well as protecting us against the negative effects of stress. But exercise is not just good for the body - it is good for the mind. When your body feels fit, you get a range of positive mental benefits. Exercise releases a variety of chemicals including serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine into the brain, all of which generate positive moods. They make us feel better about ourselves, boosting our self-esteem and enhancing our sense of control over our own lives and bodies. Exercise has a positive effect on our attitude to our own body image and our feelings of strength and fitness, which could be particularly important for women, who tend to be more self-critical about their body shape than men. And womens body image is more closely linked to overall self esteem than mens. People who take regular exercise are less anxious and report less emotional distress than those who are inactive. Even a single exercise session can help individuals reduce feelings of anxiety. Regular physical activity is effective in combating depression. Indeed inactive people, particularly those who are older, are more likely to develop signs of clinical depression. Depressed people who take regular exercise for six months or more require less medication than their inactive counterparts and are more likely to recover than those relying on drug treatment alone. In one study, people aged 65+ who practised Tai Chi for more than a year were more positive in their outlook, had less mood disturbance, lower blood pressure and fewer falls than a control group who didnt practise Tai Chi. Physical activity also reduces anxiety in older people and enhances their mood, even when they dont show any signs of improved fitness. And it can also offers some protection against cognitive impairment such as confusion, dementia, and Alzheimers disease. Professor Stuart Biddle of Loughborough University, a specialist on motivation and sport, argues that the feel good effect of physical activity has great potential for our well-being and mental health. His book Physical Activity and Psychological Well-Beingprovides research demonstrating the relationship between physical exercise and mental health, including exercise. He shows how exercise has an impact on:

anxiety depression mood and emotion self-esteem cognitive functioning psychological dysfunction.

Even relatively low levels of physical activity can enhance our sense of well-being. The benefits may not just be to our bodily functions but to our emotional need for belonging and connection. For example, simply walking to the shops or to collect children from school not only gives a small boost to our circulation system, but also boosts our opportunities for meeting and talking with other people. Members of sports clubs, dance classes, or exercise groups get much more than a work-out. They also enjoy a sense of attachment, of membership of something bigger than themselves. They share experiences with others, discuss tactics and techniques, improve their skills, coach others, learn to cope with failure and to savour success. So the importance of such activities is also because they encourage us to form friendshps which may blossom into lifelong relationships. So physical activity doesnt just build muscle and stronger hearts. Through the release of feel-good hormones and enhanced connections with other people exercise does wonders for our well-being. The impact of choice For many of us living in the west, choice is synonymous with freedom. Our ability, within our consumer society, to choose from myriad goods, services, or ways to spend our time, is seen as symbolic of our freedom and autonomy. Theres little argument that choice is a good thing. Few of us would opt for the old Soviet system which produced a very limited range of goods. Choice allows us to meet our individual needs and preferences in ways that would have been undreamt of by our grandparents. Without choice we cant have autonomy and without some autonomy and personal control we cant have a sense of well-being. Yet, despite being much better off than our grandparents, and having an infinitely wider range of choice in every aspect of life, we are no happier. In his recent book The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less the American psychologist Professor Barry Schwartz argues that we now have so much choice that it can paralyse Us. Whether were buying a pair of jeans, ordering a cup of coffee, selecting a long-distance carrier or applying to college, everyday decisions, both big and small, have become increasingly complex due to the overwhelming abundance of choice with which we are presented. He argues that choice overload makes us question our decisions before we even make them. It also sets us up for unrealistically high expectations and often leads to us blaming ourselves for what we perceive to have been the wrong choice. In the long run, this can lead to decision-making paralysis, anxiety and perpetual stress. And in a culture that tells us there is no excuse for falling short of perfection when your options are limitless, too much choice can lead to clinical depression, he says. In short, the more options we have, the more we struggle to make our minds up and the less happy we feel once we have actually made a decision. In a bid to quantify the bewildering range of choices we face every day, Schwartz went to his local supermarket (not a particularly large one) and started calculating his choices. He found that he could choose from: 85 varieties and brands of cracker, some with sodium, some without; some fat-free, others with fat; normal size and bite-size. 285 different sorts of biscuits (or cookies, as they say in the USA). 13 sports drinks, 65 box drinks aimed at children, 85 other flavours, 75 iced teas and adult drinks

95 types of snacks like crisps, tacos or Pringles 61 varieties of sun oil and sun block 150 lipsticks 360 types of shampoo, gel and mousse 275 types of cereal 230 soups, including 29 different chicken soups

And so his range of choice continued to expand, from 55 different salad options to a range of different dental flosses. It was the same when he looked at electrical gadgets. He calculated that the confusing array of stereo tuners, CD players, tape players and speakers added up to the opportunity to create more than 6.5 million different stereo systems by mixing and matching the various elements. Schwartz argues that instead of liberating us, having to select from myriad choices paralyses us, rendering us incapable of deciding which holiday, pension plan, type of jeans, or jam comes nearest to meeting our needs. And even when we do make a choice, we tend to be less satisfied, fearing that there was an even better stereo or car out there which we failed to choose. In the 1950s and 1960s when choice was limited, we could blame manufacturers, retailers or even the government if we bought a TV, chunk of cheese, or pension which didn really meet our needs. But faced with infinite choices we blame ourselves when the purchase doesnt fully satisfy us. Self-blame leads to a reduction in our sense of well-being and happiness. When were offered too many options, we expect perfection, Schwartz told the Centre for Confidence and Wellbeings Vanguard Programme in 2005. 'If we have high expectations we expect perfection. We then ask ourselves, whose fault is it that I made a poor choice? If you only have two or three choices, its the worlds fault. But when we have hundreds of choices we blame ourselves.' Self-blame rebounds on the individual undermining their confidence, well-being and happiness. In proposing a way out of this vicious circle, Schwartz divides consumers into two groups maximisers and satisficers. Maximisers always seek the very best and will spend many hours researching how to find theperfect job, car, house or holiday. The satisficers will accept that this pair of jeans is good enough and that searching for the ideal pair is a waste of time. He suggests that we aim for good enough rather than vainly seeking perfection. Research shows that their drive for perfection tends to mean that maximisers earn more than satisficers, but satisficers are generally happier than maximisers. We should learn that good enough is almost always good enough. We should focus less on what is bad in our lives and more on what is good. Sometimes we should choose not to choose. Having a close network of family and friends is what determines well-being, not having the best of everything, he told the Vanguard Programme. You can listen to some of Professor Barry Schwartzs lecture on choice in the audio section for well-being. You can also read some tips for dealing with choice in the tools, tips and techniques section. Well-being and politics A sense of subjective well-being appears to be linked to democracy and freedom. In a study of 55 nations, the American psychologist Ed Diener showed that societal equality and human rights had a strong correlation with wellbeing. Another study compared levels of life satisfaction between citizens of East and West Germany following their reunification in 1990. It found that after a brief burst of elation after the Berlin Wall came down, East Germans settled back into lower levels of life satisfaction than their Western counterparts. However, their level of satisfaction began to increase steadily during the period 1990 2000, while that of West Germans remained static. Only around 12% of the increase in East German satisfaction was attributable to their rise in living standards. Most of their growing sense of well-being was down to better circumstances in life, such as political freedom and better public services.

Across the world, politicians and policy advisers are beginning to look at well-being as a better measure of the health of societies than the current focus on economic measures, such as Gross domestic Product (GDP). The National Economics Foundation (nef), a UK-based think tank, has been asking the question what would policymaking and the economy look like if their main aim were to promote well-being? The Foundation argues that well-being is one of our most important ends, as individuals and as societies. But despite unprecedented economic prosperity we do not necessarily feel better individually or as communities. For example data shows that whilst economic output in the UK has nearly doubled in the last 30 years, happiness levels have remained flat. Professor Tim Jackson of the Centre for Environmental Strategy at Surrey University, who is a nef associate, has produced the UKs first Measure of Domestic Progress (MDP) towards sustainable development. The MDP builds on over a decade of work to define such indicators in a number of different countries. The UK index adjusts personal consumer expenditure to account for a variety of economic, environmental and social factors not included in the GDP. For example, the MDP adds the benefits of household labour, accounts for income inequality, subtracts social costs (such as crime, congestion, family breakdown) and environmental costs (such as air pollution, resource depletion and the 'hidden' costs of climate change) and makes adjustments for long term investment and economic sustainability. The Foundation argues that local authorities need to consider how economic, social and environmental well-being links with, and is influenced by, people's personal well-being. We propose that these areas are important precisely because of their effect on people's personal well-being. By placing people's well-being at the core of policy formation, councils can be more innovative and potentially more efficient and effective too, says nef. Meanwhile, some politicians have considered legislating on the matter of well-being. In 2001 Marlene Jennings, a Canadian Member of Parliament, proposed The Canada Well-Being Measures Bill. The Bill was not passed, but if it had been it would have required the setting up and publication of a set of indicators to measure the well-being of Canadian people, communities and ecosystems.

RESILIENCE Resilience" in psychology is the positive capacity of people to cope with stress and adversity. This coping may result in the individual bouncing back to a previous state of normal functioning, or using the experience of exposure to adversity to produce a steeling effect and function better than expected (much like an innoculation gives one the capacity to cope well with future exposure to disease). [1] Resilience is most commonly understood as a process, and not a trait of an individual.[2] More recently, there has also been evidence that resilience can indicate a capacity to resist a sharp decline in functioning even though a person temporarily appears to get worse. [3][4] A child, for example, may do poorly during critical life transitions (like entering junior high) but experience problems that are less severe than would be expected given the many risks the child faces. There is also controversy about the indicators of good psychological and social development when resilience is studied across different cultures and contexts.[5] [6] [7] The American Psychological Associations Task Force on Resilience and Strength in Black Children and Adolescents,[8] for example, notes that there may be special skills that these young people and families have that help them cope, including the ability to resist racial prejudice. People who cope may also show hidden resilience [9] when they dont conform with societys expectations for how someone is supposed to behave (in some contexts, aggression may be required to cope, or less emotional engagement may be protective in situations of abuse).[10] In all these instances, resilience is best understood as a process. It is often mistakenly assumed to be a trait of the individual, an idea more typically referred to as resiliency [11]. Most research now shows that resilience is the result of individuals interacting with their environments and the processes that either promote well-being or protect them against the overwhelming influence of risk factors [12]. These processes can be individual coping strategies, or

may be helped along by good families, schools, communities, and social policies that make resilience more likely to occur.[13] In this sense "resilience" occurs when there are cumulative "protective factors". These factors are likely to play a more and more important role the great the individuals exposure to cumulative "risk factors". The phrase "risk and resilience"' in this area of study is quite common. Commonly used terms, which are closely related within psychology, are "psychological resilience", "emotional resilience", "hardiness", "resourcefulness", and "mental toughness". The earlier focus on individual capacity which Anthony [14] described as the invulnerable child has evolved into a more multilevel ecological perspective that builds on theory developed by Uri Bronfenbrenner (1979), and more recently discussed in the work of Michael Ungar (2004, 2008), Ann Masten (2001), and Michael Rutter (1987, 2008). The focus in research has shifted from "protective factors" toward protective "processes"; trying to understand how different factors are involved in both promoting well-being and protecting against risk. Resilience is defined as a dynamic process that individuals exhibit positive behavioral adaptation when they encounter significant adversity, trauma,[15] tragedy, threats, or even significant sources of stress[16]. It is different from strengths or developmental assets which are a characteristic of an entire population, regardless of the level of adversity they face Resilience is a two-dimensional construct concerning the exposure of adversity and the positive adjustment outcomes of that adversity.[18] This two-dimensional construct implies two judgments: one about a "positive adaptation" and the other about the significance of risk (or adversity)