Positive Psychology and Well-Being Science

We have come to recognize that understanding the human mind requires more than diagnosing disorders or alleviating distress. While clinical psychology and psychiatry have done invaluable work in treating illness, they do not fully answer deeper questions: What makes life worth living? What helps us thrive rather than merely survive? This is where positive psychology and the science of well-being enter the conversation.

These fields ask us to go beyond repairing the broken to building the strong. They explore the qualities, virtues, and conditions that enable individuals, communities, and societies to flourish. Yet, to advance as a science, such exploration requires structured models. Frameworks are essential; they help us define concepts, measure outcomes, and design interventions that improve real lives.

Frameworks of Positive Psychology and Well-Being Science

1. The Need for Frameworks in Well-Being Science

We should consider why frameworks are vital before diving into specific models. Human experience is complex, spanning emotions, relationships, meaning, and achievement. Without structured frameworks, well-being could be reduced to vague ideas about “happiness.”

Frameworks in positive psychology and well-being science serve three purposes:

  1. Conceptualization – Clarifying what we mean by terms like flourishing, happiness, or resilience.
  2. Measurement – Providing validated tools to assess well-being across contexts and populations.
  3. Application – Guiding interventions in education, healthcare, workplaces, and public policy.

Frameworks transform abstract ideals into actionable science.

2. PERMA Model (Martin Seligman, 2011)

One of the most widely known frameworks in positive psychology is PERMA, developed by Martin Seligman.

  • P – Positive Emotions: Experiencing joy, gratitude, and hope broadens our thinking and builds resilience (Fredrickson, 2001).
  • E – Engagement: Being fully absorbed in meaningful activities creates a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
  • R – Relationships: Supportive, authentic social bonds are essential for flourishing.
  • M – Meaning: Living for purposes greater than ourselves provides depth and direction.
  • A – Accomplishment: Setting and achieving goals fosters self-efficacy and pride.

This model reframes well-being as multidimensional. It emphasizes balance between emotions, purpose, social ties, and achievement instead of equating happiness with pleasure.

Applications:

  • Schools adopting “positive education” teach students gratitude, resilience, and strength use through PERMA-based programs.
  • Workplaces use PERMA to measure employee well-being and design engagement strategies.

Criticisms:
Some argue PERMA underemphasizes physical health and environmental factors, which are also crucial for well-being.

3. Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Model (1989)

Carol Ryff’s model remains a cornerstone in well-being science. It identifies six dimensions of psychological well-being:

  1. Autonomy – Independence in thought and action.
  2. Environmental Mastery – Ability to manage life’s demands effectively.
  3. Personal Growth – Continual development of potential and skills.
  4. Positive Relations – Deep, trusting social connections.
  5. Purpose in Life – Sense of direction and meaning.
  6. Self-Acceptance – Positive attitude toward oneself, including flaws.

Ryff’s model differs from PERMA by emphasizing self-development and existential meaning. It captures the Aristotelian idea of eudaimonia—living in alignment with one’s true self.

Applications:

  • Research on aging often uses Ryff’s scales to examine how purpose and growth contribute to healthy aging.
  • Counselling psychology integrates Ryff’s model to promote holistic well-being beyond symptom reduction.

Criticisms:
Some question whether all six dimensions are universal across cultures, as autonomy may hold less value in collectivist societies.

4. Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000)

While not originally a positive psychology framework, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has become integral to understanding well-being. It proposes that all humans share three basic psychological needs:

  1. Autonomy – Feeling in control of one’s actions.
  2. Competence – Experiencing mastery and effectiveness.
  3. Relatedness – Building meaningful connections with others.

When these needs are satisfied, we flourish; when dissatisfied, we languish.

Applications:

  • In education, promoting autonomy and competence improves motivation and engagement.
  • In workplaces, leaders who support employee autonomy see higher performance and satisfaction.
  • In health, SDT-based interventions encourage sustainable behavior change, like exercise and diet adherence.

Criticisms:
SDT may require cultural adaptation, as autonomy is valued differently worldwide.

5. Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions (Fredrickson, 2001)

Barbara Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory is foundational in positive psychology. It argues that positive emotions—like joy, gratitude, and curiosity—expand our thought-action repertoires (“broaden”) and help us accumulate lasting resources such as resilience, social bonds, and creativity (“build”).

Applications:

  • Mindfulness and gratitude practices are shown to increase positive emotions, which in turn strengthen coping skills.
  • Organizations use this framework to design interventions that boost morale and innovation.

Criticisms:
Some scholars argue that negative emotions, too, can broaden thinking in certain contexts, which the model underrepresents.

6. Flourishing Model (Corey Keyes, 2002)

Corey Keyes introduced the concept of mental health as a continuum—from languishing (low well-being) to flourishing (high well-being). His model integrates three dimensions:

  • Emotional well-being (happiness, life satisfaction).
  • Psychological well-being (meaning, growth, autonomy).
  • Social well-being (contribution, integration, trust).

Keyes emphasizes that mental health is more than the absence of illness; it is the presence of positive functioning.

Applications:

  • Public health surveys use flourishing as an indicator of population well-being.
  • Schools and workplaces measure flourishing to identify areas for growth.

Criticisms:
Some argue the continuum oversimplifies complex mental states, where individuals may experience high well-being in some domains but not others.

7. VIA Classification of Character Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004)

The Values in Action (VIA) classification identifies 24 universal character strengths across six virtues: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence.

Applications:

  • Strengths-based interventions encourage people to identify and use their top strengths (“signature strengths”).
  • Schools and workplaces use VIA assessments to cultivate growth and engagement.

Criticisms:
Debate exists about whether the 24 strengths are equally relevant across cultures or whether some overlap.

8. The Hedonic vs. Eudaimonic Well-Being Framework

Well-being science distinguishes between two traditions:

  • Hedonic well-being: focused on pleasure, happiness, and life satisfaction (Diener, 1984).
  • Eudaimonic well-being: focused on meaning, growth, and self-realization (Ryff, 1989).

Research shows that while both contribute to flourishing, eudaimonic pursuits often yield deeper and more lasting fulfilment.

Applications:

  • Interventions balance short-term happiness with long-term meaning.
  • Public policy increasingly recognizes eudaimonic dimensions (e.g., purpose-driven education).

Criticisms:
The dichotomy may be too rigid, as hedonic and eudaimonic well-being often overlap in practice.

9. Measurement Frameworks in Well-Being Science

Measurement is a critical framework itself. Tools include:

  • Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985).
  • Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988).
  • PERMA Profiler (Butler & Kern, 2016).
  • Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010).
  • Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being.

Such tools allow us to quantify well-being for research and policy evaluation.

10. Applications Across Domains

  • Education: Positive education programs integrate PERMA, VIA strengths, and mindfulness to build resilience and engagement (Norrish et al., 2013).
  • Workplaces: Strength-based leadership and SDT principles improve productivity and satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002).
  • Healthcare: Well-being interventions reduce stress, enhance recovery, and improve patient outcomes.
  • Policy: National well-being indices (e.g., Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness, OECD’s Better Life Index) apply frameworks to measure societal progress.

11. Challenges and Critiques

While these frameworks have advanced the science of well-being, challenges remain:

  • Cultural Bias: Many models originate from Western contexts. Global research must ensure inclusivity.
  • Overemphasis on Positivity: Critics warn of “toxic positivity” if negative emotions are undervalued.
  • Measurement Limitations: Self-report tools may not fully capture complex realities.
  • Implementation Gaps: Translating theory into sustainable practice in schools, workplaces, and policy is challenging.

12. Future Directions

The future of well-being frameworks lies in:

Global Collaboration: Creating culturally sensitive frameworks for diverse populations.

Interdisciplinary Integration: Linking psychology with neuroscience, economics, and sociology.

Technology: Using AI, apps, and wearables to personalize well-being interventions.

Collective Well-Being: Expanding from individual flourishing to environmental sustainability, social justice, and community health.

Conclusion

The core frameworks of positive psychology and well-being science—from PERMA and Ryff’s model to Self-Determination Theory and the VIA classification—offer structured ways of understanding and enhancing human flourishing. These frameworks remind us that well-being is not one-dimensional; it spans emotions, meaning, growth, relationships, and contribution.

We stand at an exciting crossroads where science empowers us to move beyond treating illness toward cultivating flourishing lives and societies. We can create conditions where more people not only live but succeed by integrating these frameworks into education, work, healthcare, and policy.

The challenge ahead is to refine these models, adapt them globally, and ensure they remain grounded in evidence while sensitive to human complexity. We embrace the possibility of building a world where flourishing is the norm, not the exception.

Resources and References

Positive Psychology and the Science of Well-Being

https://www.rajeevelt.com/principles-of-positive-psychology-and-well-being-science/rajeev-ranjan/

  • Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1–48.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
  • Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.
  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
  • Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.
  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
  • Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2002). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
  • Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222.
  • Norrish, J. M., Williams, P., O’Connor, M., & Robinson, J. (2013). An applied framework for positive education. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 147–161.
  • Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.
  • 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(6), 1069–1081.
  • Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & 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.