The Individualized and Cross-Cultural Roots of Well-being Therapy

Abstract

Seligman (2002) proposed a definition and operationalization of positive mental health, by taking into account the variables and dimensions addressed by positive psychology. Similarly, the crucial conceptualization of flourishing vs. languishing developed by Keyes (2002) brought the difference between presence of mental health and absence of mental illness into focus. Maddux (2008) claimed the necessity to overcome the illness ideology, deeply rooted in the biomedical model, which is still dominant in clinical psychology. This process requires a systematic overhaul of the basic assumptions underlying classification of disorders and treatment models (Delle Fave and Fava 2011). However, a basic problem to be addressed is the consensus on a definition of well-being, that may be used to plan interventions and set treatment outcomes. Until now, well-being research has been grounded in the Western tradition, with its individualistic features shared by a minority of nations (Triandis 1995). For instance, research showed that the higher levels of subjective well-being (SWB) reported by European Americans compared with Eastern Asians are clearly grounded in cultural expectations and conceptualizations (Kitayama et al. 2000, 2004). However, all human cultures are concerned with well-being (Oishi 2000). A broader, less culture-bound interpretation frame could promote a better understanding of the cross-cultural variations in definition, operationalization and evaluation of the related constructs (Delle Fave and Fava 2011). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)