Commentary Urges More Research, Promotion of Well-Being.
When the World Health Organization was founded 70 years ago, it defined health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
But today, an overwhelming majority of social science research has focused on a “narrow and inverted view of health” that emphasizes illness, according to a group of experts that includes a School of Public Health researcher.
In a new commentary in the journal Psychology of Violence, the group, which includes Emily Rothman, associate professor of community health sciences, argues that investing more time and money in the study and promotion of psychological well-being could have profound benefits in the areas of physical and mental health, the economy, and interpersonal violence.
“Despite the growing empirical basis for the value of increasing well-being, the study of its causes, consequences, and promotion is typically marginalized within psychological research,” the authors write. Investing in programs that promote well-being, in addition to those that address psychopathologies, could improve “physical health, family connectedness, social support, work productivity, and less risky behavior.”
The authors lay out seven reasons to invest in well-being, including its association with longevity, positive mental health, and improvements in job performance. They say incorporating activities that increase well-being into existing interventions targeting particular disorders may be a way to accelerate the effects of those programs. For example, they note, the U.S. Department of Justice, in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently developed a “Shared Framework for Reducing Youth Violence and Promoting Well-Being,” which addresses both preventing violence and creating safe families and communities.
Unlike many interventions for mental illness, the authors argue, well-being strategies that encourage people to engage in “positive activities” are relatively inexpensive and easy to scale-up on a community or population level.
The lead author of the commentary is Kathryn Howell of the Department of Psychology, University of Memphis. Co-authors are: John Coffey and S. Katherine Nelson of Sewanee: The University of the South; Gregory Fosco of Pennsylvania State University; Kristen Kracke of the U.S. Department of Justice; and John Grych of Marquette University.