Globally, mental distress is the leading cause of disease burden in young people aged 12 – 25 years, with as many as 50% experiencing such problems (McGorry, 2021).  Unfortunately, the situation worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, with increases of 25% in anxiety and depression reported in 2020 (Santomauro et al., 2021).  In response, the Australian Productivity Commission gave suggestions for addressing the wellbeing of young people within a school context.   They recommend a more coordinated approach to the practices of school wellbeing, including the use of nationally consistent measures (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2020). 

The Commission’s recommendation is timely. According to a recent review by E. van Zyl, Gaffaney, Van der Vaart, J. Dik, and Donaldson (2023), Positive Psychology - the most applied discipline in school contexts - has been subject to 117 unique criticisms, which include a lack of proper theorising and problematic measurement. It is argued that these issues are “at the proverbial root cause of problems in positive psychology” (E. van Zyl et al., 2023, p. 19). Effectively measuring wellbeing nationally requires a coherent model of wellbeing, an agreed nomenclature, and appropriate measures.  However, of the 83 options on the Victorian school ‘mental health’ menu, there is no agreed unifying definition for wellbeing, resilience, or their correlates and no nationally consistent measures are currently in use.  If this is a fair description of the current wellbeing landscape in Australian schools, then a critique from Ecclestone (2015) remains relevant.  She observed that the research people employ to confirm the effectiveness of their wellbeing programs is usually fragmented, inconclusive, and methodologically flawed.  As a result, the school wellbeing pond is overstocked with a range of introduced species that only serve to muddy the water.

Not only is the current understanding of student wellbeing and its measurement piecemeal and opaque, but a more concerning development is that ‘wellbeing’ practitioners in schools inadvertently promote unrealistic expectations.  For example, the benefits of practising gratitude, empathy, and mindfulness are often touted as ways to permanently raise the average levels of wellbeing across a student cohort. In fact, some authors openly advocate that a successful wellbeing program will return “a significant shift in the mean level of well-being of the entire population” (Street, 2017, p. 50). This statement from Street reveals a fatal flaw in understanding. It contradicts an established and potentially unifying theory, which uses both coherent nomenclature and empirical evidence to describe Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis (Cummins, 2017). 

Central to the structure of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis is a composite affect called Homeostatically Protected Mood (HPMood, for a detailed explanation, see Cummins, 2020).  HPMood is a feeling originating from the brain stem. It is a stable, low-intensity, object-free, neuro-physiologically generated positive mood state that forms a stable background to consciousness. This basic positivity catalyses motivation for life and is the major component of Subjective Wellbeing (SWB, Cummins, 2010; Cummins, 2022).  Indeed, under normal living circumstances, it is the steady, genetically set level of HPMood which causes the level of SWB to be so stable (Anglim, Weinberg, & Cummins, 2015). 

Not only is the level of HPMood genetically set for each person, but this level is also robustly maintained by various protective resources (Cummins et al., 2018; Cummins & Wooden, 2014). Some of these resources, such as habituation and adaptation, are internal and operate unconsciously. Other resources are external such as money and personal relationships (Tunbridge, 2019). 

Homeostasis theory is directly in conflict with the claims of positive psychology. The theory explains why it is pointless to expect that interventions like practising gratitude, empathy, or mindfulness will permanently elevate SWB above its genetically assigned level for each person.  Such interventions are akin to attempting to raise a healthy person’s core body temperature, which is also maintained under homeostatic control.  Unfortunately, many groups working in schools are unaware of homeostasis.  As a result, evangelists for the practice of gratitude, empathy and mindfulness convey an expectation that their proposed intervention will raise the average levels of SWB across the student cohort.  This is not the case. 

However, while robust, the homeostatic system is not impervious to threats (Cummins et al., 2007). For example, a person's subjective wellbeing can drop below its normal healthy level when encountering significant or prolonged challenges. This is referred to as homeostatic defeat (Cummins, 2010).  In Australia, this situation applies to around 5% of the population.  For these people, the homeostatic resources available to them are insufficient to return HPMood to its genetic set point. This places them at risk of chronic stress, depression, and anxiety  (Cummins, 2010; Cummins, Woerner, Weinberg, & Perera, 2010).  

In summary, Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis provides an explanatory model that helps schools on several fronts. First, a validated measure of subjective wellbeing exists and is known as the Personal Wellbeing Index (available at https://www.acqol.com.au/). Second, while various conceptualisations of resilience circulate in the psychological literature and schools (see Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013 for a review), resilience can be operationally defined as having a level of subjective wellbeing that lies within the normal range (Khor, Fuller-Tysziewicz, & Hutchinson, 2020).  Thus, resilience is the degree to which someone's psychological homeostatic system resists threats and is also the speed at which the internal and external protective mechanisms return SWB back into their genetically determined normal range (Cummins & Wooden, 2014).  Third, homeostasis theory sets realistic expectations.  Interventions cannot chronically raise normal levels of SWB.  However, for people experiencing homeostatic defeat, a successful intervention will assist in restoring their level of SWB towards its normal range (Tomyn, Weinberg, & Cummins, 2014).

Youth Dimension's wellbeing analyses and programs are grounded in rigorous scientific research and informed by the Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis theory, which provides a robust framework with extensive explanatory power for understanding wellbeing dynamics.

Our organization maintains a unique student data repository, the only one of its scale, enabling the establishment of normative ranges for constructs empirically linked to Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis. This data-driven approach ensures our findings are statistically reliable and representative.

Data collected from school contexts are systematically analyzed, and we produce comprehensive reports written in accessible language to ensure clarity for all stakeholders. This enables evidence-based decision-making, supported by reliable research, to optimize the allocation of finite resources effectively.

References 

Anglim, J., Weinberg, M. K., & Cummins, R. A. (2015). Bayesian hierarchical modeling of the temporal dynamics of subjective well-being: A 10 year longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 59(3), 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.08.003

Australian Government Productivity Commission. (2020). Mental health, report: Actions and Findings. Retrieved from Online: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/mental-health/report

Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1-17.

Cummins, R. A. (2017). Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis. In D. S. Dunn (Ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in Psychology (2 ed.). New York: New York: Oxford University Press.

Cummins, R. A. (2020). Why it is imprudent to weight income in survey estimates of SWB ACQol Bulletin, 4(52).

Cummins, R. A. (2022). Bridging neuroscience and subjective wellbeing. ACQol Bulletin, 6(15).

Cummins, R. A., Capic, T., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., Hutchinson, D., Olsson, C., & Richardson, B. (2018). Why self-report variables inter-correlate: The role of  Homeostatically Protected Mood. Journal of Well-being Assessment, 2, 93-114. doi:TBA

Cummins, R. A., Hughes, J., Tomyn, A., Gibson, A., Woerner, J., & Lai, L. (2007). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report 17.1 The Wellbeing of Australians—Carer Health and Wellbeing. Retrieved from Deakin University:

Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J., Weinberg, M., & Perera, C. (2010). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 23.0: The Wellbeing of Australians – Life Better/Worse, Children and Neighbourhood. Retrieved from Australian Centre on Quality of Life: http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index_wellbeing/index.htm

Cummins, R. A., & Wooden, J. M. (2014). Personal Resilience in Times of Crisis: The Implications of SWB Homeostasis and Set-Points. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 223-235.

E. van Zyl, L., Gaffaney, J., Van der Vaart, L., J. Dik, B. J., & Donaldson, S. (2023). The critiques and criticisms of positive psychology: A systematic review. The Journal of Positive Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20

Ecclestone, K. (2015). Well-being programmes in schools might be doing children more harm than good. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/well-being-programmes-in-schools-might-be-doing-children-more-harm-than-good-36573#:~:text=Programmes%20may%20be%20counter%2Dproductive&text=This%20suggests%20that%2C%20far%20from,a%20need%20for%20emotional%20support

Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological Resilience: A Review and Critique of Definitions, Concepts, and Theory. European Psychologist, 18(1), 12-23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000124

Khor, S., Fuller-Tysziewicz, M., & Hutchinson, D. (2020). Australian normative data for Subjective Wellbeing. In R. A. Cummins (Ed.), Personal Wellbeing Index Manual: 6th Edition. International Wellbeing Group. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University http://www.acqol.com.au/publications#Open-access

McGorry, P. D. (2021). The reality of mental health care for young people, and the urgent need for solutions. The Medical Jounal of Australia, 216(2). doi:doi: 10.5694/mja2.51327

Santomauro, D. F., Herrera, A. M. M., Shadid, J., Zheng, P., Ashbaugh, C., Pigott, D. M., . . . Aravkin, A. Y. (2021). Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet, 398(10312), 1700-1712.

Street, H. (2017). Measures of Success: Exploring the Importance of Context in the Delivery of Well-Being and Social and Emotional Learning Programmes in Australian Primary and Secondary Schools. In E. Frydenberg, E. A. Martin, R. J., & R. J. Collie (Eds.), Social and Emotional Learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific Perspectives, Programs and Approaches. Singapore: Springer.

Tomyn, A. J., Weinberg, M. K., & Cummins, R. A. (2014). Intervention Efficacy Among ‘At Risk’ Adolescents: A Test of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis Theory. Social Indicators Research. doi:DOI 10.1007/s11205-014-0619-5

Tunbridge, L. (2019). Associations between Leprosy and the Subjective Wellbeing of People within India and Nepal. (PhD Psychology). Deakin University, Melbourne.