1

Assessment 2.2: Literature Review

####

####

Tutor: ######

BESC1126

RMIT University

Word count: 1500

‘The role of multidimensional measurements in university student’s wellbeing’

University is stressful and every year many students consider dropping out because of

poor wellbeing. An Australian study reports that a quarter of students consider leaving

university in their first year (Krause et al., 2005). A lasting and unsettled discussion in the

literature goes on about how to best conceptualise and measure wellbeing. Since ancient

times, the pursuit for wellbeing raises one of life’s most fundamental questions of human

existence which concerns: ‘how do we best realise wellbeing’ (Huta & Ryan, 2010).

Understanding wellbeing has many implications and will allow for improved practices that

aim to change human life for the better (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Wellbeing is very important,

but researchers have had different views on its definition. Two approaches have emerged that

has divided wellbeing literature into hedonic and eudaimonic traditions. Subsequently, other

researchers believe that there are many theoretical and pragmatic reasons for a combined

construct of both approaches (Huppert & So, 2013). The review will investigate the differing

assessments of wellbeing among university students described in the literature. It will discuss

various wellbeing constructs and make suggestions for future research of student wellbeing

and academic achievement. The review will firstly examine the conceptualisation of hedonic

wellbeing and its measures, and secondly, I will similarly discuss eudaimonic wellbeing.

Finally, the review will identify and discuss ‘PERMA’ as a multidimensional construct which

combines both hedonic and eudaimonic theories.

Many researchers conceptualise wellbeing with feeling good. Hedonic wellbeing

focuses on happiness which is described as a way of feeling and defined as a person’s

subjective judgements of their lives (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Keys et al., 2002). Subjective

wellbeing (SWB) is best conceptualised by an affective component of positive and negative

affect and a cognitive component of life satisfaction. (Deci & Ryan, 2008). In the literature

there tends to be a shared agreement among researchers about how to measure SWB. The

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 19850 assesses global life satisfaction,

and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988) is used to

assess the affective components. Researchers use these scales to help measure the wellbeing

of university students. For example, one study of 192 first year undergraduates examined the

stress and wellbeing relationship through the academic year and uses both the SWLS and

PANAS alongside a measure of optimism. They found that students who were high in

optimism and academic self-efficacy were high in life satisfaction and high in positive affect

while having low negative affect. They found optimism to be a significant factor in student

adjustment by helping buffer the impact of stress on wellbeing (Denovan & Macaskil, 2016).

These findings support past research where optimism is predictive of lower stress, higher

wellbeing, and better academic achievement (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992). However, the

sample only considered students from a single education course at the same university and

geographic area. This limits generalisation to the broader student population. In another

example, a study using SWB measures with a sample of 184 first year students studied the

associations between student adjustment, wellbeing, and academic performance. They found

that students who adjusted better in the initial months of university reported higher SWB

while experiencing less psychological problems and gaining higher grades (Bailey & Phillips,

2016). In contrast, a study of 28 school children used the Students Life Satisfaction Scale

(SLSS) and found that SWB and academic achievement were not significantly associated

(Huebner & Alderman, 1993). This later study is limited because the sample is a study of

school children and with the validity of the SLSS measure used. Although hedonic wellbeing

has been rigorously researched, other researchers believe wellbeing is more than simply
 4

feeling good. Awareness among researchers has grown, arguing for eudaimonic approaches

for wellbeing and believing that positive affect is more than simply the opposite of negative

affect (Ryff & Keyes, 1995).

Other researchers conceptualise wellbeing as meaning and life purpose. Eudaimonic

proponents maintain that hedonic outcomes may not always be good for the person and may

not promote wellness (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Eudaimonic wellbeing can be described as a way

of behaving and defined as engagement with existential challenges in life (Keys et al., 2002).

Measures that don’t explicitly include an affective scale in their construct tend to fall into

eudaimonic wellbeing (Kashdan et al., 2008). Two examples include psychological wellbeing

(PWB) (Ryff & Singer, 1998), and self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Ryffs (PWB) scale assesses six specific components: they are self-acceptance, positive

relationships, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life and personal growth (Ryff,

1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). For example, a study of Australian university students used

Ryffs (PWB) scale alongside prominent depression scales and found that students who were

low in PWB had high levels of depression (Bhullar et al., 2014). This evidence points out

PWB to be helpful in the medical model field and supports earlier studies. Ryff and Keyes

also discovered that having low PWB was associated with a greater risk of developing

depression. Findings from a further study showed that people low functioning in PWB were

seven times more likely to have high levels of depression (Wood & Joseph, 2010). These

studies found the association between the risk of depression and PWB across all six

components of PWB. In contrast other studies have been able to highlight individual

components of the six PWB measures. One study found that university students with above

average autonomy had lower levels of depression (Bhullar et al.) Many of these studies

associate mental ill-health with student wellbeing. While this information is important to the
 5

literature it is limited to been associated with psychopathology scales, such as depression.

However, the information does not give much resemblance to the main conception of

eudaimonia defined as a judgement of a ‘life well lived’ (Kashdan et al., 2008). Up to this

point, eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing has been researched separately until other

researchers found the need to research them jointly.

Current researchers have found that it makes sense to examine both eudaimonic with

hedonic approaches by developing multidimensional constructs. The PERMA model joins the

hedonic and eudaimonic approaches and is a developing multidimensional measure of

wellbeing. The PERMA-Profiler is a self-report questionnaire designed to assess the five

components of PERMA: positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and

accomplishment (Seligman, 2009). For example, one study assessed a sample of 2822

adolescents with PERMA-Profiler who were engaged in character strength development of

wellbeing. Of most interest was their finding that wellbeing steadily decreased in students as

they progressed from their first year and all the way through to their senior years at school

(Burke & Minton, 2019). This study is important for future research into student wellbeing

because it highlights a steady drop in wellbeing throughout the advancement of school years.

PERMA studies should focus on assessing university student wellbeing over time. Although,

this study sample was limited to adolescent students aged 12-19 and may not be generalisable

to university students. Another study of undergraduate students completed the PERM-Profiler

during the first and last week of semester. The study found students that took part in a

character strength positive psychology course had significant increases in all measures and

total PERMA scores (Smith et al., 2020). Similarly, another randomised study of 27

undergraduate working students were enrolled into mindfulness-based strengths practice

(MBSP) intervention groups. The study found that students from the MBSP intervention had
 6

significantly higher wellbeing and improvements in engagement, meaning, and health

(Wingert et al., 2020). On a practical level, PERMA-Profiler gives researchers greater

information that can allow universities to better meet the needs of students.

Although there is extensive research into student wellbeing of university students,

uncertainties whether wellbeing is best measured as hedonic, eudaimonic or as a combined

multidimensional construct remains. Hedonic wellbeing has been the most researched and

theoretically consistent wellbeing construct that measures the balance of positive and

negative affect, alongside life satisfaction. Research found that students who adjusted to

university were high in SWB and gained better grades. Other researchers have used

eudaimonic wellbeing to overcome the limitations of hedonic wellbeing by measuring

wellbeing as purpose and life meaning. Studies found that students with low functioning in

PWB were at a much higher risk of developing depression. Alternatively, other researchers

have suggested combining hedonic and eudaimonic approaches to develop multidimensional

measures of wellbeing. The PERMA-Profiler is promising in the study of student wellbeing.

Studies found that wellbeing steadily decreases in students as they progress through school

years. They also found that positive psychology interventions had significant improvements

in their PERMA scores. On a practical level, multidimensional constructs can help identify

student strengths and weaknesses throughout their entire university journey (Seligman, 2009).

Future research should also include following university students over a longer timeframe

and comparing longitudinal studies to examine whether wellbeing of students declines over

many years of university study, as shown in secondary school studies. In addition, future

research should follow PERMA studies that assess student strengths and interventions as

predictors of academic achievement and student retention.

Reference List

Aspinwall, L., & Taylor, S. (1992). Modeling Cognitive Adaptation: A Longitudinal

Investigation of the Impact of Individual Differences and Coping on College

Adjustment and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6),

989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.989

Bailey, T., & Phillips, L. (2016). The influence of motivation and adaptation on students’

subjective well-being, meaning in life and academic performance. Higher

Education Research and Development, 35(2), 201–216.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087474

Bhullar, N., Hine, D., & Phillips, W. (2014). Profiles of psychological well‐being in a sample

of Australian university students. International Journal of Psychology, 49(4), 288–

294. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12022

Burke, J., & Minton, S. (2019). Well-being in post-primary schools in Ireland: the assessment

and contribution of character strengths. Irish Educational Studies, 38(2), 177–192.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1512887

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. Journal

of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive
 8

and negative feelings. Social indicators research, 97(2), 143-156.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

Denovan, A., & Macaskill, A. (2017). Stress and Subjective Well-Being Among First Year

UK Undergraduate Students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(2), 505–525.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9736-yDiener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., &

Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Huppert, F., & So, T. (2013). Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual

Framework for Defining Well-Being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–

1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7

Huta, V., & Ryan, R. (2010). Pursuing Pleasure or Virtue: The Differential and Overlapping

Well-Being Benefits of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 11(6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4

Keyes, C. L. (2010). Flourishing. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1-1. https://doi-

org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0363

Krause, K. L., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in

Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.469.9673&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Morales-Rodríguez, F., Espigares-López, I., Brown, T., & Pérez-Mármol, J. (2020). The

relationship between psychological well-being and psychosocial factors in

university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public

Health, 17(13), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134778

Orsini, C., Binnie, V., & Wilson, S. (2016). Determinants and outcomes of motivation in

health professions education: a systematic review based on self-determination

theory. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 13, 19–19.

https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.19

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on

hedonic and Eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–

166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Ryff, C. (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

Ryff, C., & Keyes, C. (1995). THE STRUCTURE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

REVISITED. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive

education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of

Education, 35, 293–311. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5 Watson, D., Clark, L., &

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

Smith, B., Ford, C., Erickson, K., & Guzman, A. (2021). The Effects of a Character Strength

Focused Positive Psychology Course on Undergraduate Happiness and Well-

Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(1), 343–362.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00233-9

Umucu, E., Wu, J. R., Sanchez, J., Brooks, J. M., Chiu, C. Y., Tu, W. M., & Chan, F. (2020).

Psychometric validation of the PERMA-profiler as a well-being measure for

student veterans. Journal of American college health, 68(3), 271-277. https://doi-

org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1546182

Wingert, J., Jones, J., Swoap, R., & Wingert, H. (2020). Mindfulness-based strengths

practice improves well-being and retention in undergraduates: a preliminary

randomized controlled trial. Journal of American College Health, 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1764005

Wood, A., & Joseph, S. (2009). The absence of positive psychological (eudemonic) well-

being as a risk factor for depression: A ten year cohort study. Journal of Affective

Disorders, 122(3), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.032