Well being, positive peer relations and bullying in school settings

Key TermsEudaimonia Human functioning to an optimum level of happiness anglicized word is eudemoniaHedonia The attainment of pleasure Resilience The capacity to quickly recover from adve

School Settings

field of positive education, encompassing subjects such as education for being, personal development, resilience, emotional intelligence,flow, and characterstrengths Separate volumes cover each of these subjects, offering depth and complexunderstanding of the subject matter, research advances in this area, as well as well-evaluated practical sugestions for promoting intended outcomes Positive education

well-is based on the establwell-ished dwell-iscipline of positive psychology, and underpinned bytheories and empirical research in this field It aims to develop the skills of well-being,flourishing and optimal functioning in children, teenagers and students, aswell as parents and educational institutions Written by researchers and scholars ofpositive psychology, this book series offers a range of definitive texts for academicsinterested in implementing, researching and evaluating positive psychology-basedapproaches in schools and other educational institutions

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8920

Phillip T Slee • Grace Skrzypiec

Well-Being, Positive Peer Relations and Bullying

in School Settings

123

The School of Education

The Flinders University

Adelaide, SA

Australia

The School of EducationThe Flinders UniversityAdelaide, SA

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946324

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part

of the material is concerned, speci fically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on micro films or in any other physical way, and transmission

or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speci fic statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland

1 Well-Being at School 1

Introduction 1

Well-Being in Other Cultures 4

Definition of Well-Being 5

The Domains of Well-Being 6

Domains of Child Well-Being 7

Quality of Life Domains 8

Social Indicators 10

Objective Well-Being and Social Indicators 11

Other Perspectives of Child/Student Well-Being 11

Measures of Well-Being 15

Measuring Subjective Child Well-Being 15

Student Voice and Well-Being 16

Subjective Well-Being 17

Flourishing 18

Well-Being as Hedonia and Eudaimonia 19

Subjective and Objective Well-Being Measures 20

Student Well-Being and School Achievement 20

Feeling“Good” About Oneself 21

Resilience 22

Well-Being and Mental Health 22

Promoting Well-Being in Schools 24

References 27

2 School/Community Based Interventions for Well-Being 31

Introduction 32

Mental Health—Well-Being: Two Sides of a Different Coin! 33

The Nature of Well-Being 34

Limitations to the Conception of Well-Being 36

v

Ecological Influences on Well-Being 37

The Neighbourhood Environment 38

Prevention and Intervention 41

A Dynamic Systems Perspective for Understanding the Change Process in Interventions 43

A Case Study of a Community Based Prevention and Intervention to Reduce Bullying 44

Method 44

Outcomes of the Intervention 45

Summary 46

References 47

3 An International Overview of Programs Addressing School Based Mental Health 51

Introduction 52

Flow! 52

What Is Quality of School Life? 54

Critical Elements of Programs to Enhance School-Based Mental Health and Well-Being 54

Educational Organizations as Sites and Contexts for Intervention 55

The Challenges of School Intervention 56

Core Competencies of Mental Health Programs 58

Effectiveness of SEL Programs 59

Teacher Social and Emotional Competence—‘The Invisible Hand’ 61

Dimensions of Teacher Well-Being 62

Summary 63

References 65

4 Student’s School Relationships 69

Introduction 70

Relationships and Well-Being 71

Social Networks 71

Children’s Social Networks 73

Attachment Theory 73

Attachment Style and Peer Relationships 74

Childhood School Relationships 75

Peers and Friends 76

Social Competence 78

Best Friends 79

Adolescent Friendships 81

Romantic Adolescent Relationships 82

Well-Being and Relationships in an Australian Cohort 84

References 88

5 School and Classroom Climate and Well-being 95

Introduction 96

School Climate 96

The Measurement of School Climate 99

What Is Classroom Climate? 101

The Measurement of Classroom Climate 102

The Importance of Classroom Climate 103

Summary 103

References 105

6 School Bullying, Victimization and Pro-social Behaviour 109

Introduction 110

History of Bullying 110

Definition of Bullying 111

The International Phenomenon of Bullying 113

Types of Bullying 116

Cyberbullying 117

Trolling 118

Cyber-Bullying and Face-to-Face Bullying 119

Involvement in Bullying 121

Gender Differences 123

Age Differences 123

Students’ Bullying Experiences 125

Effects of Bullying 126

References 130

7 Bullying and Victimization: A Global Perspective 135

Introduction 136

Bullying Research in the Asia-Pacific Rim 136

Japan 136

Korea 137

New Zealand 138

China 138

Canada 139

Colombia 139

Chile 139

Overview 141

Pacific-Rim Comparative Research 142

Risky Business: Risk-Taking and Well-Being in Social Networking Sites 144

Mental Health in an Online Environment 145

Internet Use and Risk-Taking: A Challenge to Well-Being! 145

Sexting, Cyberbullying and the Law 147

School Bullying—A Matter of Human Rights! 147

Bullying: Developments in Policy and Legislation 148

Bullying and the Law: A Global Snapshot 149

Summary 151

References 152

8 Anti-bullying Interventions 155

Introduction 156

Level of Interventions 156

Anti-bullying Interventions 158

The P.E.A.C.E Pack 159

Coping with Bullying 161

CWB Student Questionnaire 162

Coping with Bullying (CWB) Program 163

Coping with Bullying DVD 164

CWB Program Materials 165

CWB Program Method and Procedure 165

The CWB Program Intervention 166

Implementation of CWB 168

Summary 178

References 180

9 Implementing a School/Community Partnership 185

Introduction 186

Schools as “Settings” for Interventions and Well-being Promotion 186

Community Based Interventions 189

“P” Promotion 190

“R” Readiness 191

“A”—Adoption 191

“I”—Implementation 191

“S”—Sustainability 192

“E”—Evaluation 192

Descriptions of Successful School-Community Focussed Intervention Programs 193

‘The Family Learning Network’ (FLN) 193

Evaluations 195

The Five Schools Bullying Prevention Program 195

Results 196

Student Well-Being and prevention of Violence: Ongoing School-Based Interventions 197

Summary 198

References 200

Appendix 203

Epilogue 211

Key Terms

Eudaimonia Human functioning to an optimum level of happiness

(anglicized word is eudemonia)Hedonia The attainment of pleasure

Resilience The capacity to quickly recover from adversity

Social indicators Measures that describe the well-being of a community or

individual, using terms such as social, economic, andpsychological often combined to form an index

Subjective well-being One’s subjective evaluation of hedonia and eudaimonia

Introduction

Well-being is a term that is commonly used by many people to describe how one

is“faring” We inadvertently inquire after a person’s well-being in our greetings:

“How’re you going?”, “Whaz up?”, “Ça va?”, “Com està?”, “nĭ hăo ma”,

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

P.T Slee and G Skrzypiec, Well-Being, Positive Peer Relations

and Bullying in School Settings, Positive Education,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43039-3_1

1

“Come sta?” However, although we all have a sense of our own well-being,confusion can arise when one tries to define the term Needless to say well-being isessential for our survival and for living a “good life” and most recently it wasacknowledged that this was more important to the welfare of a nation than solelythefinancial disposition of individuals.

In 2012, 600 delegates attended the United Nations High Level Meeting onwell-being and happiness convened by the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGB) Atthe United Nations Headquarters in New York, business and community leaders aswell as heads of state, Nobel laureates, scholars, academics and spiritual leaders,met to discuss the need to change the world’s focus from a solely GDP-led model toone which promoted sustainability, happiness and well-being; an approach thatbetter serves humanity (RGB2012) Delegates at this high level meeting recognisedthat the most effective means of developing a country’s assets and resources doesnot depend entirely on financial gains and GDP Rather, happiness and humanwell-being were considered the most important elements for advancing economicgrowth and development

The importance of human well-being in today’s age was articulated by the PrimeMinister of Bhutan (H.E Mr Jigmi Y Thinley) in his opening statement at themeeting:

We desperately need an economy that serves and nurtures the well-being of all sentient beings on earth and the human happiness that comes from living life in harmony with the natural world, with our communities, and with our inner selves (p 20).

Located at the eastern end of the Himalayas, Bhutan was thefirst country toprioritise human happiness by adopting the goal of Gross National Happiness(GNH) instead of Gross National Product (GNP)

At the UN meeting, delegates endorsed a new economic approach for globaleconomies to foster“true human potential, fulfilment, and happiness” (RGB2012,

p 91) Government representatives agreed that on returning to their countries theywould seek to develop public policies based on the determinants of happiness andwell-being Since the 2012 meeting on well-being and happiness at the UN, manyother countries, such as Brazil, Britain and New Zealand, have been using happi-ness to gauge policy (Helliwell et al.2013) The focus on income as analogous withhuman well-being has shifted from its high ranking position of importance and thepursuit of human happiness is taking precedence

Human well-being is conceptualised as the quality of one’s life (Statham andChase2010) or of living the“good life” (Hamilton and Redmond2010) In the pasthuman well-being has largely been defined in economic terms incorporatinghousehold income and expenditure, particularly in poor countries However, whileeconomic gains may improve the happiness and well-being of individuals inimpoverished societies, a similar effect has not been widespread amongst individuals

in affluent communities There have been many studies that have noted the tions of an economic andfiscal view of well-being (see Clarke and Islam2004) Therenowned research of Easterlin (1995) has shown that while the GNP per capita in theUSA has risen by a factor of three since 1960, the average level of happiness of US

limita-citizens has remained effectively unchanged in the same period It is now acceptedthat the concept of human well-being must be broadened to include non-economicelements as“almost all OECD countries collect at least life evaluations in at least one

of their major social surveys, and several do much more” (Helliwell et al.2015, p 4)

In this chapter we set the foundations for the book introducing terms and cepts that will be referred to throughout It will become evident that the concept ofwell-being is a contested one and we do our best to draw out its defining features

International Day of Happiness—March 20

In 2012 the UN passed a resolution to recognize March 20 as the InternationalDay of Happiness emphasizing that“the pursuit of happiness is a fundamentalhuman goal.” While most of us live in large cities with thousands, or millions

of people, we have minimal interactions with most of them Positive tionships with others are essential for human existence and social isolation has

rela-a detrimentrela-al effect on well-being For the Internrela-ationrela-al Drela-ay of Hrela-appiness,people are urged to reach out and make a positive connection to others.Singer Pharrell Williams spoke to local teens at the UN about happiness onInternational Day of Happiness in 2015 In his speech Williams urged youngpeople to pursue happiness, stating that“you should know that happiness isyour birthright” In partnership with the UN, he also launched his own website

pictures of themselves being happy, and to join his “happy party” Thesedancing pictures were then synchronised to the tune of his“Happy” song

• Visit the international day of happiness website: http://www

in person or online to help make the world a happier place You canfindvarious happiness actions being planned in cities across the globe, or youcanfind information about how you can start one of your own

• Determine what you can do to contribute to World Happiness Day

Well-Being in Other Cultures

Although most of us recognise the emotion of happiness and we have an idea ofwhat makes us happy, the pursuit of happiness varies amongst people, particularlybetween people of different cultures The experience of happiness and the way it is

defined is culturally specific Uchida et al (2004) identified two distinct experiencesthat varied between the European–American context, where in America happiness

is more associated with the achievement of personal individuated goals, while in theEast Asian context, happiness seems to depend much more on the realisation ofpositive social relationships‘‘of which the self is part’’ (Uchida et al 2004, p 226).There are also differences, for example, in the way that Indigenous andnon-Indigenous people conceptualise well-being (Tomyn et al.2011) An insightfulstudy by Kral et al (2011) has underscored some of the differences betweennon-Indigenous and Indigenous cultures and highlighted the importance placed onvarious domains of well-being and happiness Working closely with the Inuitpeople living in the Nunavut communities of Igloolik and Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada,they investigated Inuit understanding and meaning of wellness, happiness,unhappiness, and healing Seeking the Inuit’s perspective on well-being and

“Unikkaartuit” (people’s stories) they found that spending time with the family(especially talking) and experiences on the land were viewed as the most importantaspects of well-being They found that this was true even for Inuit youth who were

influenced by peers in the dominant Canadian culture Talking with family bers was considered essential for well-being and it“was identified as the significantcomponent of prevention, intervention, and healing… while negative emotionswere often tied to the absence of such communication” (Kral et al.2011, p 430).Other researchers such as Kwan et al (1997) have called attention to the strongconnection between harmonious relationships and life satisfaction, in interdepen-dent, collectivist cultures; connections that are stronger in these communities than

mem-in mem-individualistic nations such as the United States Studies undertaken mem-in Australiainvestigating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ well-being have foundsimilar trends A meta-synthesis of what had been documented about IndigenousAustralians’ understandings of mental health by Ypinazar et al (2007) found thatthere was a “dynamic interconnectedness of culture, spirituality, identity, familyand community, land/country, socioeconomic status, and sociohistoric events, witheach defining, influencing, being part of and impacting on the other” (p 473) Theinter-relatedness of these domains, which are inextricably linked, illustrates theholistic nature of well-being in Indigenous communities, as important aspects of lifethat are intertwined rather than discrete (Tomyn et al.2011; Ypinazar et al.2007).Kral et al (2011) also found this to be the case amongst the Inuit:“the theme of

‘talking’ cannot be meaningfully separated from ‘family’, and it is difficult toseparate‘family’ from ‘the land’ as Inuit typically go out on the land, e.g., camping,with their families” (p 429)

Irrespective of the different ways that communities and nations conceptualisewell-being, the fact remains that it is happiness and being well that forms thecommon goal More and more world leaders, such as Angela Merkel (GermanChancellor), Park Geun-hye (South Korean President) and David Cameron (BritishPrime Minister), are recognising the importance of well-being for advancing theirnations and the world (Helliwell et al.2012).

Discussion Starter 1.2

Respecting Cultural Diversity for Well-being

As more and more people migrate across the world to live in cultures different

to the one in which they were raised, the importance of respecting culturaldiversity becomes paramount:

• Go to the KidsMatter website and read why culture matters for children’sdevelopment and wellbeing https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/sites/default/files/public/KM%20C1_Cultural%20Diversity_Culture%20Matters%20for%20Development.pdf

• This article is focused on Early childhood education and care (ECEC):– Do you think that respecting cultural diversity is only important at thisearly stage of a child’s life, and only at school? State your reasons.– How do you think cultural diversity impacts on adolescents attending aschool where students from other cultures are a minority?

• Discuss the concept of cultural assimilation, where one culture is absorbed

by another How do you think that impacts on a young person’swell-being?

Not only does the notion of well-being vary between cultures, but there is a lack ofconsensus between researchers about how well-being is defined and measured.Finding a definition for young people’s well-being is important for a number ofreasons In thefirst instance, we need to ensure that we are all talking about thesame thing when we discuss well-being Common conceptions of well-being enablethe implementation of suitable interventions to enhance young people’s well-being.Furthermore, clarity about well-being ensures that appropriate dimensions arecorrectly identified and these can form the basis for improving the well-being of

young people Universal agreement of a definition for student well-being will alsoenable comparisons to be made between different populations Researchers willhave the knowledge that the same conceptual measures were applied across dif-ferent groups Without this consensus it is difficult to draw conclusions from stu-dent well-being studies, or to determine whether an intervention will effectivelyimpact student well-being in a manner that does not miss the target or that otherwiseaddresses factors peripheral to well-being.

Defining well-being is a matter that has perplexed scholars for decades, although

it has not impeded research in thisfield Pollard and Lee (2003) embarked upon asystematic search of the child well-being literature and found that while the termwell-being was commonly used, it was inconsistently defined They remarked that

“well-being is a complex, multi-faceted construct that has continued to eluderesearchers’ attempts to define and measure it” (p 60) A decade later, leadresearchers in The Children’s Society studies of young people’s well-being inEngland observed that although the term well-being is commonly used in manyareas of life and it regularly appears in government reports and the media,“it has noagreed definition or meaning” (Rees et al 2010, p 3)

We are aware that well-being is vital for our existence and survival While there

is a lack of consensus in the definition of well-being are there commonalities in ourconceptualisation of well-being? In considering well-being are we referring to ourhealth, mental health or happiness, or all of these?

The Domains of Well-Being

Scholars often use a whole range of terms when referring to well-being in research.They use special terminology such as “quality of life (QoL)”, “life satisfaction”,

“living standards”, “prosperity”, “happiness” and “human development” AsStatham and Chase (2010) discovered, “[c]oncepts such as ‘well-being’, ‘life sat-isfaction’ and ‘quality of life’ are often used interchangeably” (p 5), and it is rare (ifever) that authors explain how the terms differ

One task taken up by researchers of well-being has involved determining whatlife domains should be included in a multifaceted measure of well-being.Researchers question which areas or domains of life need to be satisfied or fulfilled

in order to be living the“good life” and experiencing well-being For example, howimportant are domains such as health, wealth and relationships for well-being?Determining the life domains associated with well-being is proving a complextask To begin with, no operational definition has been provided to explain themeaning of “domain” in the literature Rather the idea of a domain follows themeaning found in any English dictionary, such as Oxford British or US EnglishDictionary, as“a specified sphere of activity or knowledge” Used as a noun it can

encompass“a realm or range of personal knowledge, responsibility, etc.” or “a field

of action, thought, influence, etc.: the domain of science” Hence a well-beingdomain would be defined as a specific area of influence on, or component of,well-being In this sense the“education domain” would be the influence of edu-cation on well-being, while the“kinship domain” would be the effect of kinship onwell-being

Once identified however, little guidance exists for how a cluster of items might

be named within a particular domain In this respect, however, the InternationalWell-being Group (2006) has offered the following suggestions:

(a) Each domain name must describe a broad aspect of life which is amenable toboth objective and subjective measurement—based on the fundamental prin-ciple that quality of life exists as separate objective and subjective dimensions.(b) Each domain must describe an unequivocal indicator variable, as opposed to acausal variable of quality of life (p 6)

While useful, these guidelines are premised on measures of quality of life and assuch may be limited in their scope However, they are amenable to policy directions

as they indicate the well-being of people in communities The domains ofwell-being may form targets for governments keen to improve the quality of life ofits people For this reason it is important tofind the life domains of well-being

Domains of Child Well-Being

While policy makers are eager to understand each of these domains so that ventions and policies can be developed to improve the quality of life, someresearchers are more interested in other measures of well-being This has becomeapparent in studies which seek to measure overall life satisfaction

inter-Huebner (2004) suggested that quality of life studies comprise two differentperspectives of well-being, which involve“subjective” and “objective” approaches

He proposed that the use of social indicators from administrative data would beconsidered“objective”, while measures which focus on internal evaluations of lifesatisfaction by individuals would be“subjective”

One subjective approach devised by Huebner (1991) to measure child well-beingwas to have students rate their life satisfaction overall, using the Student’s LifeSatisfaction Scale (SLSS), a uni-dimensional measure which contains seven briefself-report items However, Huebner (1994) had earlier noted that young peopledifferentiated life satisfaction along various domains On this basis Huebner (2004)developed a multi-dimensional life satisfaction measure for children, comprisingitems relating tofive specific life domains, which he stated was suitable for young

third grade students (aged 8–9) The 40-item self-report instrument includes anassessment of life satisfaction along the domains of Self (10 items); School (8items); Living environment (6 items); Friends (8 items); and Family (8 items).

A shorter version, the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale(BMSLSS) (Seligson et al 2003), comprising only one item per domain, wasincluded in a survey by The Children’s Society of subjective well-being of youngpeople in the UK by Rees et al (2010)

While Huebner’s work has been influential in determining the life domains ofchildren’s well-being, other research has called into question the type and number

of domains needed to comprehensively measure the well-being of young people

Quality of Life Domains

Nearly two decades ago, Cummins (1996) attempted to order the chaos associatedwith the lack of agreement amongst researchers at the time, in the scope, as well asthe number, of quality of life domains or constructs In this early work, Cumminssafely concluded that there were only five quality of life domains which wereregarded as important by the majority of people These were health, intimacy(“social and family connections”), some form of emotional well-being (“leisure,spiritual well-being, morale etc.”), “material wealth or well-being”, and produc-tivity (“work or other form of productive activity”) However, based on an analysis

of 32 subjective well-being studies that included 173 quality of life satisfactionterms, Cummins also found evidence to suggest two additional domains: safety andcommunity

The safety domain was described by Cummins (1996) as associated with themanner in which one looks at life so that“it makes coping easier” and it includes

“such constructs as security, personal control, privacy, independence, autonomy,competence, knowledge of rights, and residential stability” (p 305) Cummins alsonoted the particular importance of this construct for people with an intellectualdisability

Differing from the intimacy of social and family connections, the communitydomain was included by Cummins as a construct associated with one’s place in thecommunity and reflecting one’s hierarchical position The community constructwas intended to include“constructs of social class, education, job status, commu-nity integration, community involvement, self-esteem, self-concept, and empow-erment” (Cummins1996, p 306) Based on studies by other researchers Cumminsestablished other aspects of this construct that included involvement in the com-munity and political and sporting activities

As new knowledge emerged that suggested satisfaction alone (excluding tance) was sufficient for determining subjective quality of life, Cummins (2002)improved the original Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale (ComQol) and created aderivative scale, the Personal Well-being Index (PWI) However, while the sameconceptualisations formed the basis of the PWI, a new set of headings were used asthe wording in the original form was not“optimal” The eight domains covered in thenew PWI included, standard of living (material wealth or well-being); health (health);life achievement (achievement); personal relationships (intimacy); personal safety(safety); community-connectedness (community); spirituality-religion (emotionalwell-being); and future security Future security was a new domain.

impor-In 1996 Cummins (1996) had indicated that the number of life satisfactiondomains should remain open and that seven domains had been identified on thebasis of knowledge available at the time, so the number could increase Theselection of these domains was based on the amount of variance accounted for bythe domains (typically 50–60 %) when regressed on the question which askedadults “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” (Tomyn and Cummins

• Family economic well-being;

• Health; Safety/behavioural concerns;

• Educational attainment (productive activity);

• Community connectedness (participation in schooling or work institutions);

• Social relationships (with family and peers); and

• Emotional/spiritual well-being

Although Land et al (2007) used these domains to develop composite socialindicators of children’s well-being these domains also provide an indication of whatcould be used to determine children’s subjective well-being

While the domains are described as though they are discrete areas of well-being,Fattore et al (2009) found evidence to suggest that the domains are inter-related In

a study where children were asked about their well-being, Fattore and his leagues found that children’s understanding of well-being did not involve isolateddomains Rather, children provided descriptions of how well-being was displayedwithin particular domains Health well-being for example, was associated with

family relationships that manifest and become apparent when caring for an un-wellchild That the domains might be related, however, has not impeded the pursuit ofsuitable child well-being domains As Cutler (1979) pointed out decades ago:“it isonly when different elements of life satisfaction are clearly and separately measuredthat we can begin to understand the degree to which they are substantivelyinter-correlated” (p 574) While we may assume that a holistic approach towell-being suggests domain correlations, it may nonetheless be possible to finddomain indicators that make discrimination possible This points to the complexity

of child well-being measures and once again highlights the need for a suitable

definition of subjective well-being

Reflection

• What life domains are important to you for your well-being?

• What life domains are important for children’s well-being?

He defined social indicators as “statistics, statistical series, and all other forms ofevidence…that enable us to assess where we stand and are going with respect to ourvalues and goals…” (Bauer1966, p 1)

Authorities interested in improving outcomes for their communities use socialindicators to guide health and development policies The use of population-basedsocial indicators or administrative data is an approach typically used for this pur-pose (e.g Land et al.2007) The aim is to use data commonly collected by publicinstitutions to indicate the well-being of a nation’s population and to track theprogress of the society the nation seeks to have To gauge the progress of Australianchildren, for example, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW2012)studied children’s health, development and well-being, and they used a series ofindicators such as infant mortality rates, the rate of children who were the subject ofchild protection substantiation in a given year; and attendance rate of children atprimary school, amongst other indicators, to determine how young people werefaring

Objective Well-Being and Social Indicators

School expulsions, the number of school enrolments and literacy levels, areexamples of variables that may be used as social indicators of child well-being in aneducational setting As such, these are objective measures of student well-being,which include measurements of aggregated community actions, independent of anyone individual, but involving information about them While these objectivemeasures stem from administrative data, it is also possible to use subjective mea-sures of well-being in addition to, or instead of, population based indicators such asthese, and many nations include both approaches to determine well-being (Forexamples see Child Poverty Action Group2009; UNICEF2007)

Other Perspectives of Child/Student Well-Being

During its early years, research in well-being was focussed on the well-being ofadults, but in the last few decades a greater level of attention has been given to thewell-being of children In this realm, terms such as social and emotional well-beingand student well-being are more commonly used Problems associated with

defining well-being are no less for children as they are for adults While studies onchildren’s well-being are prolific, few researchers have attempted to provide defi-nitions for student well-being Fraillon (2004), whose focus was on school agedchildren i.e students, pointed out the futility of this gap:“the education sector hasbeen presented with an ironic paradox: there is unequivocal consent that it isessential to consider, monitor and respond to student well-being and yet there islittle sector-wide consensus on what student well-being actually is” (p 16).Despite his frustration, Fraillon found six characteristics of well-being that weremost prevalent in the academic literature namely, the active pursuit of well-being; abalance of attributes; positive affect or life satisfaction; prosocial behaviour; per-sonal optimisation; and multiple dimensions Of these constructs, Fraillon acceptedonly the last one (multiple dimensions) as useful for an overarching definition ofwell-being He concluded that an overarching definition of student well-beingshould be “the degree to which a student is functioning effectively in the schoolcommunity” (p 18) Through this broad definition, Fraillon advocated amulti-dimensional model of student well-being incorporating a notion of effectivefunctioning and utilising a measurement model comprising two dimensions ofintrapersonal and interpersonal facets In his view, interpersonal well-being relates

to students’ “appraisal of their social circumstances and consequent capacity tofunction in their school community” (p 37) The other dimension, intrapersonalwell-being, is more concerned with students’ “internalised sense of self and con-sequent capacity to function in their school community” (p 37) In turn each ofthese facets comprise a number of aspects; the nine aspects of the intrapersonaldimension encompass autonomy, emotional regulation, resilience, self-efficacy,

self-esteem, spirituality, curiosity and mastery orientation; and the four aspects ofthe interpersonal dimension include communicative efficacy, empathy, acceptance(of others) and connectedness (to others) Stanwick and Liu (2012) distinguish thetwo intra- and inter-personal constructs described by Fraillon (2004) as the“social”and “psychological dimensions” of well-being and while they appear to beexpressively different, the authors nonetheless concur with Fraillon that there aretwo major facets of well-being.

A different two pronged approach was also advocated by Beresford (2012).Drawing from Diener et al (2009), Beresford provided a definition of subjectivewell-being as“essentially an individual’s assessment of their well-being in terms oftheir emotional state and satisfaction with life” (p 234), a definition whichemphasizes a particular psychological state (emotions) and a general perception oflife satisfaction

In Belgium, where the well-being of pupils is viewed as vital for effectiveeducation, Engels and her colleagues also attempted to define student well-being Intheir view student well-being (of pupils in secondary education):

… expresses a positive emotional life which is the result of harmony between the sum of speci fic environmental factors on the one hand and the personal needs and expectations of pupils vis- à-vis the school on the other (Engels et al 2004 , p 128)

This definition is not as broad as that provided by Fraillon (2004) and it lights the interaction of external (specific environmental factors) and internal(personal needs and expectations) components of student well-being In accordancewith Fraillon’s view, this definition also enunciates the interconnectedness ofwell-being dimensions and separates them into two factors of influence within, aswell as outside the individual However, these dimensions remain personal andwould be difficult for policy makers to easily influence

high-Using a Delphi methodological approach Noble et al (2008) asked well-beingexperts from all parts of the world to indicate their level of agreement with apreliminary definition of student well-being and with various components of the

definition that they proposed Based on the responses from the well-being experts,

as well as wide consultations with educators and other education stakeholders,Noble and her colleagues derived the following definition of student well-being:

Optimal student well-being is a sustainable state characterised by predominantly positive feelings and attitude, positive relationships at school, resilience, self-optimisation and a high level of satisfaction with learning experiences (Noble et al 2008 , p 30)

This definition is much more detailed than Fraillon’s It emphasises the influence

of external and internal influences on student well-being and it specifies theirelements In this definition, external influences at school, including relationshipsand learning experiences are interweaved with internal influences of positivefeelings and attitudes, and a response of high satisfaction to learning experiences.The individual’s interaction with external influences and the manner in which theseaffect attitudes, relationships, satisfaction, resilience and self-optimisation, alsoimplies an interconnectedness and association between well-being dimensions

While Fraillon’s concept of student well-being was quite broad in definition, inapplication it was quite specific It was focused on a two dimensional concept ofwell-being involving an individual’s personal attributes It did not include otherdimensions identified by Lau and Bradshaw (2010) which are external to an indi-vidual Following an internal individual perspective, students would need to makechanges within themselves to improve their well-being i.e they would need toimprove such things as their resilience, self-efficacy and self-esteem Fraillon’sapproach differs significantly from the “life domains” perspective of well-beingpopular amongst policy makers.

As we have seen, there is no agreement amongst researchers about a definition ofwell-being Rather, well-being is either operationally defined by researchers at thebeginning of a study (e.g Fraillon 2004), or some other terminology such as forexample,“happiness”, “quality of life” or “satisfaction with life” is used The lack

of consensus for a definition of well-being, we propose, stems from confusion ofthe purpose for measuring well-being It is quite a challenge tofind one descriptionthat will meet the contextual features and purpose of understanding well-being in allcircumstances

In our research we support an emotional, social and psychological perspective ofwell-being and consider that the multi-dimensionality of well-being involvesoverlapping domains which are difficult to separate As such, we approachwell-being along a holistic sphere and as discussed later in the chapter, we consider

it to be subject to individuals’ personal evaluations of themselves and their lifecircumstances

Discussion Starter 1.3

Kids Count

Kids Count is a national and state-by-state project being run under the pices of the Annie E Casey Foundation in the USA Its objective is to trackthe status of children in different parts of the nation by measuring childoutcomes It uses a model for data-driven advocacy for children, their fam-ilies, and their communities as it seeks to contribute to the public account-ability for the child outcomes measured Below is a Table of key indicators ofchild well-being by domain in the state of Kentucky, based on Kids CountData published by the Northern Kentucky Tribune (Nov 16, 2015)

Examine the table of social indicators:

• Provide reasoning about whether or not you would add any otherindicators?

• Based on this table of data, what would you conclude about the well-being

of children in Kentucky?

• What could be done to improve the well-being of children in this statebased on this data?

Measures of Well-Being

According to Helliwell et al (2012),“when thinking about increasing happiness,one of the most important aspects is measurement” (p 9) Central to interventionsthat seek to improve well-being isfinding measures of how well people are faring;otherwise policies seeking to improve well-being may not successfully reach theirtargets This is because any changes cannot be determined if there is no mea-surement of the before and after condition

The studies discussed previously have developed questionnaires for youngpeople by adapting those created to assess the well-being of adults However, aquestion which arises is whether this approach gives rise to an accurate assessment

of young people’s well-being During the late 1970s Cutler (1979) carried out socialgerontology research of life satisfaction amongst adults at different life stages andfound that the structure of life satisfaction domains varied between people of dif-ferent ages Cutler (1979) concluded that“persons of varying ages are likely to havewidely different views as to what constitutes ‘the good life’.” (p 577) WhileCutler’s research involved only adults, variations between adults and children havebeen found Differences between adults and children have been noted in children’sunderstanding of well-being schemas (Sixsmith et al 2007) and the relative con-tribution made by various domains to subjective well-being The conclusionreached by Dex and Hollingworth (2012) in their examination of children’swell-being domains is that there is scope “to extend further the existing set ofwell-being measures for use in surveys with children and young people (forexample the injection of pets and spiritual-beliefs)” (p 3) Moreover, Tomyn et al.(2011) found that the“safety” domain failed to make a significant contribution tosubjective well-being in their adult sample but not their adolescent sample Theirfindings supported those of Tomyn and Cummins (2011) who, based on a com-parison of adults and young people, suggested that“for assessing SWB [subjectivewell-being] in Australian adolescents, the domains contribute differently from theway they do in adults” (p 415)

Measuring Subjective Child Well-Being

Cummins and Lau (2005) adapted the adult version of PWI for children anddeveloped the Personal Well-being Index for School aged Children (PWI-SC) bychanging the wording of some of the adult items For each domain in the PWI-SCrespondents are asked to indicate their level of“happiness” rather than “satisfac-tion” (used in the adult version) as Cummins and Lau argued that children weremore likely to comprehend“happy” A feature of the PWI-SC is the development ofversions suitable for people with an intellectual or cognitive disability and thepre-testing protocol, which helps establish a respondent’s level of competence forusing the index

With regard to children’s well-being Tomyn and Cummins (2011) suggested thatschool satisfaction should be added to the list, and it should be measured using fouritems which encompass satisfaction with school teachers, safety, abilities andbehaviour, while the spirituality-religion domain should be dropped from the index.Using the PWI-SC in an international study across three countries involving over5,000 young adolescents, Casas et al (2012) added two other domains for mea-suring adolescents’ subjective well-being These included satisfaction with oneselfand satisfaction with time use Hence research involving the PWI-SC, has resulted

in the identification of 11 domains of young people’s well-being, namely standard

of living (material wealth or well-being); health (health); life achievement(achievement); personal relationships (intimacy); personal safety (safety); com-munity-connectedness (community); spirituality-religion (emotional well-being);future security; school; oneself; and time use

Of concern to researchers is what to include as social indicators and as subjectivemeasures of young people’s well-being This is a matter which has baffledresearchers for decades According to O’Hare and Gutierrez (2012)“most analystshave conceptualized child well-being as a broad concept involving multipledimensions” (p 6), although there seems to be no agreement about what comprisesthose dimensions or how many they number in total Some researchers haveattempted to develop some order to the inconsistencies amongst well-beingresearchers by seeking a resolution to the number of relevant dimensions needed tosufficiently determine well-being Others have considered the role of childrenwithin the quandary of developing a definition and to gain a better understanding ofstudent well-being

To determine best measures of well-being one must decide whether the measure

is to determine the well-being of individuals or the well-being of a nation’s dren While one would assume these measures would be one in the same, they arenot equivalent in terms of national policy decisions

chil-Student Voice and Well-Being

Stressing that the views of children should be taken into account, and focusing onthe child as the unit of analysis, Lau and Bradshaw (2010) sought to includechildren’s self-reported indicators, such as children’s responses to questions abouttheir health, relationships, life satisfaction and education, which are not typicallythought to be“policy amenable” Asking young people to participate in the process

of assessing their well-being has become, according to Ben-Arieh (2008)“both aprerequisite and a consequence of the changingfield of measuring and monitoringchild well-being” (p 13) It is a process which speaks to the principles inherent inthe United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which offers a

normative framework for understanding children’s well-being through direct sultations with children (Ben-Arieh2008) Such processes are necessary in order toinform policies that effectively promote young people’s well-being, as the inclusion

con-of young people’s voices is more likely to lead to policies that are in accord withyoung people’s understanding of their own well-being (Fattore et al.2009).Based on the rights of a child, Lau and Bradshaw (2010) identified six relevantdimensions of child well-being (material situation, health, education, subjectivewell-being, living environment, as well as risk and safety) To arrive at the domainsLau and Bradshaw (2010) examined indicators used in studies of young people’swell-being and grouped them into components, and then grouped components intodomains Clustering the subjective well-being domain with the relationshipsdomain, the derived components of subjective well-being comprised indicators ofpeer relationships, well-being at school, personal well-being and family relation-ships Lau and Bradshaw (2010) then included this subjective well-being measurewith other more commonly used measures based on administrative indicators tocompare the well-being of children living in Pacific Rim countries More impor-tantly however, these authors noted an important feature of well-being that providesanother avenue for how well-being is best measured They argue that well-being issubjective and stems largely from an individual’s assessment of their world.Studies of QoL (Cummins1996), life satisfaction (Huebner2004), and personalwell-being (Cummins2000) have provided the groundwork for identifying the lifedomains for measures of subjective well-being

Subjective Well-Being

The social indicators approach to young people’s well-being is fraught with issuesassociated with identifying relevant external and internal influences of well-beingand is hampered by a lack of consensus about what constitutes the well-being ofyoung people It has been difficult for researchers to determine a measure ofwell-being that can be applied across cultures and age groups and that provides agood indication of how young people are faring In this section we will examineanother approach which could augment measures of young people’s well-being ormore importantly, be used as an alternative measure

Lau and Bradshaw (2010) argued that subjective well-being is the essence ofwell-being to which other domains merely contribute Essentially, subjectivewell-being involves individuals assessing how well they are faring in terms of theiremotional state and how satisfied they are with their lives (Diener et al 1999).Diener (2006) has defined subjective well-being as

… an umbrella term for different valuations that people make regarding their lives, the events happening to them, their bodies and minds, and the circumstances in which they live (p 400).

This definition of subjective well-being accords with our own view of well-being

if one considers that“valuations” corresponds with making subjective evaluationsand that these evaluations in terms of“their lives, the events happening to them,their bodies and minds, and the circumstances in which they live” incorporatehedonic and eudaimonic elements

Flourishing

Diener et al (2010) used a humanistic, positive psychology perspective anddetermined that“flourishing” is an important aspect of well-being, which is stronglyassociated with mastery and capabilities.“Whereas subjective well-being is defined

as people’s evaluations of their lives, psychological well-being is thought to resent optimal human functioning” (Diener et al 2009, p 251) Flourishing isconsidered by Diener et al (2009) to be a combination of functioning effectivelyand feeling good about oneself Individuals who areflourishing view themselves invery positive terms in diverse areas of positive functioning across domains con-sidered important for well-being Researchers (Diener et al.2009; Huppert2007)have suggested that individuals who are flourishing are effective learners, pro-ductive workers, are likely to make contributions to their communities, have goodsocial relationships, and have better health and life expectancy A person who isflourishing is one “with many psychological resources and strengths” (Diener et al

rep-2010, p 155) Diener et al (2009) suggested that it is these internal aspects thatshould comprise a measure of well-being

A measure offlourishing was developed by Diener et al (2009) by considering thehuman psychological needs associated with general well-being These needs includethe need for meaningful social relationships, self-acceptance, a sense of competency,optimism, helping others and experiences of purposeful and meaningful activities.These authors posited that positive and negative feelings, as well as positive andnegative emotions, which are perceived as desirable and undesirable, pleasant orunpleasant, are central to experiences of well-being Recall that they stated thatsubjective well-being differs from psychological well-being, with the former“de-fined as people’s evaluations of their lives” (p 251), while the latter is associated withoptimal human functioning Although the two constructs overlap, they drew from theresearch of Csikszentmihalyi (1992,1994), Seligman (2002), Ryff (1989) and Ryanand Deci (2000,2001) to identify suitable indicators of positive functioning Theydetermined that constructs such as meaning and purpose, having supportive andrewarding relationships, being engaged and interested in life, contributing to thewell-being of others, showing competency, self-acceptance and optimism, as well asbeing respected by others, are all factors related to functioning in life in an optimaland positive manner i.e toflourishing Diener et al.’s Flourishing scale includes theessential components of the theories linked to well-being, but it does not measuresocial and psychological well-being as separate elements Additional scales arerequired as only an overall psychological well-being measure is obtained

Well-Being as Hedonia and Eudaimonia

A more comprehensive measure of subjective well-being has been suggested byKeyes (2006) He posited that subjective well-being has been divided into twostreams of research:“one that equates well-being with happiness and the other withhuman potential that, when realized, results in positive functioning in life” (p 4).The“hedonic tradition” is typically followed in the first stream and this relates toemotional well-being, while the second is associated with social and psychologicalwell-being and“is the tradition of eudaimonia” (p 5) When following an outlook

of hedonia individuals are concerned with their happiness and general satisfactionwith life By contrast, individuals are more concerned about their abilities andcapacities in becoming well-functioning persons and citizens with an outlook ofeudaimonia Included in this perspective is the importance of relationships Theconcept of ‘relatedness’ and closeness to others is a fundamental psychologicalneed which is central to eudaimonic as well as hedonic well-being

Camfield et al (2009) noted the significance of relationships and well-being andfound that subjective well-being and good relationships were highly correlated Thishas been found to be especially important in conditions of poverty and insecurity(Diener and Seligman 2002; Biswas-Diener and Diener 2006) As people enjoyrelating to others the value of relationships is both intrinsic and experiential Goodrelationships fulfil our need for affiliation, identity, and recreation (Nussbaum2000).Keyes (2006) proposed that young people areflourishing when they show a highlevel on at least one indicator of hedonia (emotional well-being) and just over half

of the indicators of eudaimonia (social and psychological well-being), languishingwhen levels of hedonia and eudaimonia are low, and moderately mentally healthyotherwise Only three indicators reflect hedonia—feeling happy and being inter-ested and satisfied with life Positive functioning is reflected by eleven itemsincluding a sense of belonging, liking one’s personality, having warm and trustingrelationships, feeling confident and having a sense of direction and meaning in life.Keyes refers to the instrument he developed as the“Mental Health Continuum”(MHC) The short form of this instrument contains three subscales that measureemotional, psychological and social well-being Together, the scales provide anindication of whether individuals are flourishing, languishing or have moderatemental health Keyes’s research has contributed to a positive approach in consid-ering mental health and well-being

In our research (Skrzypiec et al.2014) we favour the definition used by Keyes(2006) and we consider well-being to be one’s level of hedonia and eudaimonia This

is because hedonia represents one’s attainment of pleasure, including entertainment,consumption and ownership of material goods, while eudaimonia encompassesjoy and satisfaction from relationships, work, study and altruistic endeavours

Subjective and Objective Well-Being Measures

We have so far have outlined two different approaches to measures of youngpeople’s well-being; one involving an assessment of the influence of well-beingdomains and the other through a subjective appraisal of life The former is socio-logically based while the latter incorporates a psychological perspective

We should note that the sociological approach includes both subjective andobjective measures The need for this line of assessment is to enable policy makers

to determine where welfare funding designed to improve the well-being of youngpeople should be placed For this purpose it is important that all influential domainsare identified and measured for their impact on well-being This is quite a dauntingand complicated task, as we have seen It is of course more straightforward to asksimply whether young people are happy, rather than search for answers about whatmakes them happy And this is where the two approaches diverge They relate todifferent questions concerning well-being and it may be futile, if not impossible, toarrive at a definition of well-being that satisfies each stance As Stanwick and Liu(2012) have pointed out, well-being“can be influenced by a variety of factors thatare conceptually different from actual well-being” (p 11) For policy and large scalepopulation interventions, a definition of young people’s well-being that includes themost influential domains would be required On the other hand, determiningwhether young people are faring well in psychological terms provides a picture ofyoung people’s well-being within an unspecified realm of influence

Various definitions of well-being abound, however, how it is defined and measuredrelates to the context (school, home, neighbourhood), who it concerns (children,adolescents, elderly) and why well-being is of concern (e.g in relation to schooltransition, child development, success at school, working, living in a community)

• What would be the advantages of each method?

Student Well-Being and School Achievement

For many young people around the world a large portion of their youth is tuated with school attendance and quite a substantial amount of research has beenundertaken of the well-being of students at school Primarily these have been

punc-studies where a mixture of subjective, psychological measures (such asself-reported optimism and self-esteem) and external influences on well-being (such

as relationships with others and after school activities) have been undertaken (seefor example, Bernard et al.2012; Guhn et al 2012) Furthermore, liking school is

an influential factor on student well-being (Gutman et al.2010)

It is well known in the research literature that student well-being is both anessential outcome of education and also the essential pre-condition for learning tooccur (see DECD2013) A student gains a great deal of satisfaction and self-esteemfrom experiences of success and mastery and this creates a positive affect thatfacilitates learning The process involves a feedback loop between learning andwell-being, which perpetuates an interaction between positive effect, well-being andlearning

There is a link to learning: students’ well-being is enhanced when they areengaged with their learning and are satisfied with their school experiences,including their relationships at school Good positive relationships and the positiveimpact they have on well-being is well documented in the literature (e.g.,Lyubomirsky et al.2005; Rubin et al 2006; Wentzel2009) Research has estab-lished that academic achievement and social outcomes are enhanced and maintainedwell into adulthood when the social and emotional development of students is wellsupported (Durlak et al.2011)

Several years ago, the Department for Education and Child Development(DECD) in South Australia recognised the importance of the link betweenwell-being and learner success and introduced for all government educationalinstitutions a“Learner Well-being Framework” (DECD2013) This framework was

to be implemented by educators of all pre-school and school aged children, toimprove teaching practices and enhance student well-being The impetus for thisapproach is an understanding that well-being is crucial to learning and that learning

is central to well-being Students who are in an optimum state of well-being willengage more readily with learning Part of the implementation of this well-beingframework has involved the introduction of social and emotional learning programs

in schools

Competency in social and emotional skills provides a foundation for adjustmentand is reflected in behaviour that involves fewer conduct issues, less emotionalstress and improved school grades (Greenberg et al 2003) A meta-analysis byDurlak et al (2011) that examined the effect of 213 social and emotional learningprograms in schools, which involved 270,034 kindergarten to high school agedstudents, found increased academic achievement and social and emotional skillsamongst these students when compared to controls

Having a positive attitude and an awareness of doing one’s best while striving tomaximize potential at school, as well as feeling good about oneself, are associated

with well-being However, Claxton (2007) has pointed out that just“feeling good”about oneself is not a sufficient condition for well-being Rather well-being isassociated with progressing towards challenging and worthwhile goals Moreover,Huppert (2007) considers that functioning effectively as well as feeling good, bothcontribute to sustainable well-being She has suggested that feeling good mayinclude feeling confident and optimistic as well as having a sense of belonging andpersonal support from others Functioning effectively incorporates being curious,helping others, having purpose and being socially committed This view is well

reflected in the positive functioning and flourishing constructs suggested by Keyes(2006) and Diener et al (2009) Later in this book we will discussflourishing and itsassociation with other well-being measures and influences For example, resilience

as an attribute has been shown to be significantly related to student well-being

Resilience

Resilience has been highlighted and associated with maintaining a sustainable state

of well-being Several researchers (Vaishnavia et al 2007; Wagnild and Young

1993; Yu and Zhang2007) have suggested that resilience plays a significant role inpsychological well-being Defined by Fraillon (2004) as“the capacity to manage,recover and move on from critical challenging events that tax or exceed a person’sresources” (p 8) resilience acts to enable people to constructively deal with set-backs, disappointments and adverse circumstances Resilience is considered syn-onymous with“coping” and building a young person’s resilience and helping themcope is important for enhancing well-being and it is an explicit goal of manyschool-based intervention programs (Fuller 2000; Leary2000) The“coping withbullying” intervention, developed by the authors, is an example of a resiliencebuilding intervention that is discussed in Chap.9

Well-Being and Mental Health

We have examined different definitions and conceptualisations of well-being lowing different schools of thought Furthermore, it is essential that the differencesbetween well-being as mental health and mental ill-health be clearly understood.The concepts of mental health and well-being have often been used in the pastinter-changeably by the community as well as by researchers in the extant literature.Partly this is due to the challenges that both terms present in terms of their elusive

fol-definitions However, Keyes (2006) has noted, that the mental health continuum,which ranges from languishing, to moderate mental health, to flourishing, differsfrom the presence of mental ill-health or disorders diagnosed through theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5,American Psychiatric Association 2013), such as depression, or schizophrenia

Young people’s social and emotional capabilities, including their resilience, fidence, social skills and self-esteem, as well as the connections they have withothers such as their parents, friends and teachers, collectively operate to influencetheir mental health and their social and emotional well-being These elementsconstitute the overall health and well-being of an individual They correspond withthe World Health Organization’s (WHO1946) view of health as“a state of com-plete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease

con-or infirmity” The definition used in Australia by The National Mental HealthStrategy (Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care 2000) is thatmental health describes individuals that are in a state of emotional and socialwell-being so that they are able to function well and to interact with other people in

a manner that enhances their innate capacity and their cognitive, affective andrelational mental abilities In other words, mental health is more than just theabsence of illness, it also includes the capability to function optimally This is theview we have adopted in our understanding of well-being

A standard approach in the past has been that if there was an absence of a mentalhealth disorder then an individual was considered to have satisfactory mentalhealth However, another perspective suggested by several researchers (Damon

2004; Seligman and Csikszentimihalyi 2000), which emphasises a positive chology, is to consider the presence of positive sentiments about one’s life and howwell a person is functioning in life as an indicator of well-being In the last fewdecades, researchers such as Ed Diener, Martin Seligman and Corey Keyes, havedistinguished the terms well-being and mental health along these lines

psy-Keyes (2006) has distinguished mental health disorders from mental ill-health andmental health He states that mental health can be described across a spectrum wherepeople at the lower end of the spectrum are considered to be languishing (Keyes

2002) In the state of languishing, one’s experiences of both hedonia and eudaimoniaare minimal A person who is languishing does not necessarily experience a mentalhealth disorder or mental ill-health At the highest end, and the most positive state ofmental health for an individual is the state offlourishing A person who is flourishinghas experiences of hedonia and many of eudaimonia Located between languishingand flourishing on the spectrum is the state of moderate mental health, whichaccording to Keyes (2006) is experienced by most of the population At any givenpoint in time the mental health of an individual can be located along this spectrum,although the boundaries between the states are quite blurred and loosely defined, andone can move along the spectrum at different stages of their lives

Shown in Fig.1.1, are the two main perspectives of well-being measurement Inour research we focus on subjective well-being to measure the well-being ofschool-aged children The perspective we take in this book is to consider the state ofwell-being of students according to whether they are flourishing, experiencingmoderate mental health or languishing Our view accords with that of Kazdin(1993) and Roeser et al (1998) where mental health is conceptualised as consisting

of an absence of dysfunction (impairment) in psychological, emotional, behaviouraland social spheres, and a presence of optimal functioning in psychological and

social domains In this regard we have concluded, as Keyes (2006) has suggested,that mental health viewed in this way is a good indicator of well-being.

Reflection

• Do you think that mental health and well-being are related? In what way?How do they influence each other?

• Can a person have poor mental health but good well-being?

Promoting Well-Being in Schools

During the last decade schools have been identified as strategic settings for thepromotion of mental health and well-being (WHO2013a,b) The delegates at the

2012 United Nations High Level Meeting recommended that in terms of education

“values of altruism, compassion, respect, responsibility, Indigenous values andbecoming a complete human being need to be integrated in education systems”(RGB 2012, p 72) This recommendation was made after delegates had beeninformed by scholars such as Martin Seligman, John Helliwell and Jeffrey Sachs,who pointed out that the psychological elements of well-being can be taught Thereport asserted that “happiness is an art of living and can be taught, learned andtransmitted” (p 38) As such, much can be done in schools to improve the generalwell-being of children and adolescents Student well-being is important because itignites students’ capacity to flourish and reach academic triumphs and personalgoals In the ensuing chapters we will examine factors linked to well-being, such asrelationships, resilience and school climate as well as anti-bullying interventionsundertaken in school settings that enhance and improve student well-being

Fig 1.1 Perspectives of

well-being

• Take a photo of what makes you happy and share in class.

Case Study

Compromises for happiness: Problem solving kit for children

Conflict is a natural part of human existence which no amount of positive thinkingwill eliminate If not handled well, conflict can cause unhappiness and distress Byunderstanding the nature of conflict it is possible to shape it into a potentiallypositive force in relationships Noteworthy is that conflict and healthy personalrelationships can coexist and conflict is not necessarily damaging or an antecedent

of dysfunctional patterns Making sense of conflict and equipping students with theknowledge and skills to effectively deal with conflict when it arises contributes tostudent well-being

To assist students in managing conflict they require guidance in listening andbeing respectful and in separating a difference of opinion from a personal attack.Learning how to have discussions without attacking others or becoming defensivewill help students become less fearful of conflict situations Acquiring skills ofself-expression and accepting that others may not always agree with them, areimportant life-long relationship skills

At a kindergarten in Australia, children were taught how to resolve conflicts usingconflict resolution cards (see Box1.4) The educators at this preschool believed thatconflict resolution skills can be taught to students at any age and were not reluctant toallow the preschoolers to resolve issues between friends and themselves

Discussion Starter 1.4

Problem-solving kit for children

The kindergarten teacher explained:“The problem-solving kit was part of one

of the websites (http://ecmhc.org/tutorials/social-emotional/mod4_3.html)and so we just printed out the cards, laminated them, put them in a bag andthen we got them a timer in there; we also have super-friends tags in that bagtoo So when the children come across a problem we talk about getting theproblem-solver kit Of course we introduced itfirst and talked about all thedifferent things and how you can deal with different problems

There was a classic example the other day, when we were outside, andRobert and Bruce came up and said“those kids won’t let us up on the fort”and I said“ok what do you think we can do?” and they said “let’s go get theproblem-solving kit” and I said “alright” So we went and got the bag, it’s just

in a library bag, and went over and we got all the cards out and spread themout and it was so funny actually because I was saying“well what do you thinkwill work? What about this one? Charlie’s saying “nup, that won’t work No,that won’t work No, that won’t work.” And I said “well Charlie if you thinkthat they won’t work, then maybe you‘ll have to go and play somewheredifferent” and he said “oh, hang on a minute, that one might work.” So,basically getting them to pick out the resolution to the problem, so, they’resharing and asking nicely and playing, and saying“please stop” and getting ateacher and swapping Further from this then they will come to us and say

“I’ve tried to do this This has happened with so and so and I’ve already askedthem nicely and I’ve already done” like they’ve learnt from the cards “I’vealready asked them nicely I’ve already said please stop I’ve already said, can

I have a turn What else can I do?” and then you go and get the kit…

Bauer, R A (1966) Social indicators Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Beresford, B (2012) Working on well-being: Researchers ’ experiences of a participative approach

to understanding the subjective well-being of disabled young people Children and Society, 26,

234 –240.

policy-oriented perspective European Journal of Education, 43(1), 37 –50.

Bernard, M E., Mangum, N., & Urbach, D (2012) Social-emotional well-being survey Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Cam field, L., Streuli, N., & Woodhead, M (2009) What’s the use of ‘wellbeing’ in contexts of child poverty? Approaches to research, monitoring and children ’s participation International Journal of Children ’s Rights, 17, 65–109.

Casas, F., Castella ´ Sarriera, J., Alfaro, J., Gonza´lez, M., Malo, S., Bertran, I., … Valdenegro, B (2012) Testing the personal well-being index on 12 –16 year-old adolescents in 3 different countries with 2 new items Social Indicators Research, 105, 461 –482.

Child Poverty Action Group (2009) Child well-being and child poverty: Where the UK stands in the European table London: Child Poverty Action Group.

Clarke, M., & Islam, S (2004) Economic growth and social well-being: Operationalising normative social choice theory Amsterdam: North Holland.

Claxton, G (2007) Expanding young people ’s capacity to learn British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 115 –134 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00369.x

Commonwealth department of health and aged care (2000) Promotion, prevention and early intervention for mental health: a monograph Canberra, Australia: Mental Health and Special programs Branch.

Csikszentmihalyi, M (1992) Flow: The psychology of happiness London: Rider.

Csikszentmihalyi, M (1994) Flow: The psychology of optimal experience New York: HarperCollins.

Cummins, R A (1996) The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos Social Indicators Research, 38, 303 –328.

Cummins, R A (1997) Assessing quality of life In R I Brown (Ed.), Quality of Life for Handicapped People London: Chapman & Hall.

Cummins, R (2000) Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model Social Indicators Research, 52, 55 –72.

Cummins, R A (2002) Vale ComQol: Caveats to using the comprehensive quality of life scale: Welcome the personal well-being index Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University http://acqol deakin.edu.au/instruments/Caveats_ComQol_scales.doc

Cummins, R A., & Lau, A L D (2005) Personal well-being index —school children (PWI-SC) 3rd Edition Melbourne, Vic: The Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University.

Cutler, N E (1979) Age variations in the dimensionality of life satisfaction Journal of Gerontology, 34(4), 573 –578.

Damon, W (2004) What is positive youth development? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 13 –24.

Department for Education and Child Development (DECD) (2013) Principles of the Learner Well-being Framework Adelaide, South Australia: DECD, South Australian Government.

http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/learnerwell-being/ files/links/link_72840.pdf

Dex, S., & Hollingworth, K (2012) Children ’s and young people’s voices on their well-being London: The Childhood Well-being Research Centre.

Diener, E (2006) Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 397 –404.

Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276 –302.

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., et al (2009) New measures of well-being Social Indicators Research Series, 39, 247 –266 doi: 10.1007/978-90- 481-2354-412

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., et al (2010) New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings Social Indicators Research, 97, 143 –156.

Durlak, J A., Weissberg, R P., Dymnicki, A B., Taylor, R D., & Schellinger, K B (2011) The impact of enhancing students ’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions Child Development, 82(1), 405 –432.

Easterlin, R A (1995) Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27, 35 –47.

Engels, N., Aelterman, A., van Petegem, K., & Schepens, A (2004) Factors which in fluence the well-being of pupils in Flemish secondary schools Educational Studies, 30(2), 127 –143 Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E (2009) When children are asked about their well-being: Towards a framework for guiding policy Child Indicators Research, 2, 57 –77.

Fraillon, J (2004) Measuring student well-being in the context of Australian schooling: Discussion paper Victoria, Australia: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,

Gutman, L M., Brown, J., Akerman, R., & Obolenskaya, P (2010) Change in well-being from childhood to adolescence: risk and resilience London, UK: Centre for Research on the Wider Bene fits of Learning.

Hamilton, M., & Redmond, G (2010) Conceptualisation of social and emotional well-being for children and young people, and policy implications: A research report for the Australian research alliance for children and youth and the Australian Institute of health and welfare Sydney, NSW: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.

Helliwell, J F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J (2012) World happiness report http://www.earth columbia.edu/site files/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf

Helliwell, J F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J (2013) World happiness report content/uploads/2014/02/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf

http://unsdsn.org/wp-Helliwell, J F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J (2015) World happiness report http://worldhappiness report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/WHR15.pdf

Huebner, E S (1991) Initial development of the Students ’ life satisfaction scale School Psychology International, 12, 231 –240.

Huebner, E S (1994) Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for children Psychological Assessment, 6, 149 –158.

Huebner, E S (1997) Life satisfaction and happiness In G G Bear, K M Minke, & A Thomas (Eds.), Children ’s needs II: Development, problems, and alternatives (pp 271–278) Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Huebner, E S (2004) Research on assessment of life satisfaction of children and adolescents Social Indicators Research, 66, 3 –33.

Huppert, F (2007) The science of well-being: A life course perspective institute for the future of the mind In Transcript of the keynote seminar of the All-party Parliamentary Group on

Portcullis House www.futuremind.ox.ac.uk/downloads/transcript_well_being_08_v6.pdf

International Well-being Group (2006) Personal Well-being Index Melbourne: Australian Centre

on Quality of Life, Deakin University http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/ well-being_index.htm

Kazdin, A (1993) Adolescent mental health: Prevention and treatment programs American Psychologist, 48, 127 –141.

Keyes, C L M (2002) The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207 –222.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(3), 395 –402.

Kral, M J., Idlout, L., Minore, J B., Dyck, R J., & Kirmayer, L J (2011) Unikkaartuit: Meanings of well-being, unhappiness, health, and community change among Inuit in Nunavut, Canada American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 426 –438 doi: 10.1007/s10464-011- 9431-4

Kwan, V S Y., Bond, M H., & Singelis, T M (1997) Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038 –1051.

Land, K C., Lamb, V L., Meadows, S O., & Taylor, A (2007) Measuring trends in child well-being: An evidence-based approach Social Indicators Research, 80, 105 –132 doi: 10 1007/s11205-006-9023-0

Lau, M., & Bradshaw, J (2010) Child Well-being in the Paci fic Rim Child Indicator Research, 3,

367 –383 doi: 10.1007/s12187-010-9064-4

Leary, H (2000) How to enhance school culture, student achievement and psychological well-being Education Horizons, 6(3), 32 –34, 36 http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn= 105996;res=AEIPT

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K M., & Schkade, D (2005) Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111 –131.

Noble, T., McGrath, H., Wyatt, T., Carbines, R., & Robb, L (2008) Scoping study into approaches to student well-being Report to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Canberra: Australian Catholic University and Erebus International Nussbaum, M (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O ’Hare, W P., & Gutierrez, F (2012) The use of domains in constructing a comprehensive composite index of child well-being Child Indicators Research, 5, 609 –629 doi: 10.1007/ s12187-012-9138-6

Pollard, E L., & Lee, P D (2003) Child well-being: A systematic review of the literature Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 59 –78.

Rees, G., Francis, L., & Robbins, M (2005) Spiritual health and the well-being of urban young people London: The Commission on Urban Life and Faith.

Rees, G., Goswami, H., & Bradshaw, J (2010) Developing an index of children ’s subjective well-being in England London: The Children ’s Society.

Roeser, R W., Eccles, J S., & Strobel, K (1998) Linking the study of schooling and mental health: Selected issues and empirical illustrations at the level of the individual Educational Psychologist, 33, 153 –176.

Royal Government of Bhutan (2012) The Report of the High-Level Meeting on Well-being and

Kingdom of Bhutan to the United Nations Thimphu: Of fice of the Prime Minister.

Rubin, K H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J (2006) Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.

In N Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and personality development (6th ed., pp 571 –645) New York: Wiley.

Ryan, R M., & Deci, E L (2000) Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being American Psychologist, 55, 68 –78.

Ryan, R M., & Deci, E L (2001) On happiness and human potential: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141 –166.

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, 1069 –1081.

Seligman, M E P (2002) Authentic happiness New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M E P., & Csikszentimihalyi, M (2000) Positive psychology: An introduction American Psychologist, 55, 5 –14.

Seligson, J L., Huebner, E S., & Valois, R F (2003) Preliminary validation of the Brief Multidimensional Student ’s Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS) Social Indicators Research,

Stanwick, J., & Liu, S -H (2012) An investigation of well-being questions in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) LSAY Technical Paper 68 Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).

Statham, J., & Chase, E (2010) Childhood well-being: A brief overview Brie fing Paper 1 UK: Childhood Well-being Research Centre.

Tomyn, A J., & Cummins, R A (2011) The subjective well-being of high-school students: Validating the Personal Well-being Index —School Children Social Indicators Research, 101,

UNICEF (2007) Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries Innocenti Report Card 7 Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Vaishnavia, S., Connor, K., & Davidson, J R T (2007) An abbreviated version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the CD-RISC2: Psychometric properties and applications in psychopharmacological trials Psychiatry Research, 152(2 –3), 293–297 Wagnild, G M., & Young, H M (1993) Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165 –178.

Wentzel, K R (2009) Peers and academic functioning at school In K H K H Rubin, W.

M Bukowski, & B Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp 531 –547) New York: The Guilford Press.

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2013a) Mental health: strengthening our response: Fact sheet N°220 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/index.html

who.int/school_youth_health/gshi/hps/en/index.html

World Health Organisation (WHO) (1946) Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 –22 June, 1946 Ypinazar, V A., Margolis, S A., Haswell-Elkins, M., & Tsey, K (2007) Indigenous Australians ’ understandings regarding mental health and disorders Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 467 –478.

Yu, X., & Zhang, J (2007) Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the connor-davidson resilience scale (CD RISC) with Chinese people Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 19 –30.

—Albert Einstein

Abstract It is now more common place that interventions to address well-beingand school violence and bullying and promote prosocial behaviour and resiliencedraw on collaborative school-community partnerships It is now better understoodthat theoretical knowledge must be integrated with the knowledge that exists incommunities in order to fully understand fully the nature of human development.The facilitators and barriers to setting up school-community based interventionswill be outlined

Key Terms

Well-being Refers to optimal experience and functioning

Social capital The social networks, expectations, and trust that

facilitate mutually beneficial outcomes for individualsSelf efficacy Confidence in the ability to exert control over one’s

own motivation, behaviour, and social environmentPsychological well-being Breadth of wellness that includes positive evaluations of

one’s self and one’s lifeMental health The absence of psychological symptomatology

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

P.T Slee and G Skrzypiec, Well-Being, Positive Peer Relations

and Bullying in School Settings, Positive Education,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43039-3_2

31