Damian Sendler: Over the past 20 years, positive psychology interventions have been shown to be effective in improving the well-being of children and adolescents, as well as reducing their levels of anxiety and depression. Students’ cognitive and socio-emotional development has been fostered through positive psychology by strengthening positive relationships, positive emotions (such as optimism), character strengths (such as hope), and optimism (such as self-efficacy). It’s not clear how these interventions affect children under the age of five. It is the goal of this review to look at the impact of positive psychology interventions on the well-being of young children (under the age of six) in the preschool and family contexts. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, several electronic databases were searched. The results were then thoroughly reviewed and reported. Due to the low number of studies (n = 3), more research in this area is needed. As a result, all of the selected studies demonstrated the importance of positive psychology interventions with young children to promote positive aspects of development, such as gratitude and positive emotions. It is pointed out that the field has its limitations.
Damian Jacob Sendler: It is common knowledge that the well-being of children can be traced back to certain demographic and socioeconomic factors [1]. As with other environmental and social factors, poverty (lack of basic resources, limited access to health care, and lack of family time) has been shown to have a direct impact on the physical and mental health of young people (see, e.g., [2]). It could also have an impact on the child’s happiness, which is another indicator of well-being, in a variety of ways [3]. (p. 336). For example, well-being can also be defined more broadly as an individual’s subjective experience of how their lives are progressing (see, for example, [4], p. 295). Seligman [5] defines well-being as “the positive evaluation that people make of their lives” and it “includes positive emotion, engagement satisfaction and meaning” [6]. (p. 1). Positivist psychology takes into account both hedonic and subjective well-being when assessing health and happiness [7]. Hedonic well-being includes feelings of pleasure and contentment, while subjective well-being is concerned with negative feelings (such as sadness or grief). Eudemonic well-being is operationalized in terms of positive relationships, autonomy, and purpose in life [8]. “[8]” Despite the fact that the most widely used well-being measures assess overall satisfaction or happiness in life [9], these perspectives have implications for measurement. Positivity psychology emphasizes that it is critical to create supportive living environments (such as families or institutions) at all stages of life, even at the school or preschool level, even if studies on this topic are rare in the field of positive psychology. The well-being and mental health of children and young children can only be improved by promoting healthy environmental systems, particularly healthy school environments [10]. Children’s well-being and mental health depend just as much on their social and emotional development as anything else. Children’s ability to express their emotions effectively, as well as their ability to build strong self-confidence, are critical for their development even before they start school [11]. 52 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in support of the importance of early intervention with young children, especially in areas that develop emotional and social skills, to promote well-being and prevent mental health problems in schools [12].
Dr. Sendler: At present, many interventions are being developed and implemented in schools to develop and adjust social and emotional skills, such as programs promoting social and emotional learning (SEL) (e.g., [13]) or interventions promoting positive youth development (PYD) (see e.g., [14]). Nevertheless, it appears that additional programs are required that aim to improve young children’s mental health by focusing on well-being as a motivating factor to feel competent in future learning, reducing stress and increasing life satisfaction. Positive psychology, the science of well-being, and the study of optimal human functioning [15] are the focus of research in the field of positive psychology.
Positive psychology is a branch of psychology that seeks to better one’s mental health and well-being by emphasizing positive emotions and character traits. Positive emotions help children and adolescents, as well as adults, develop their social, physical, intellectual, and psychological resources [17]. It is true that the foundations of emotional development are established during childhood and influence the emergence of social and cognitive processes during this time. Adults and children alike can benefit from having positive character traits such as optimism [19] in their lives. It is important to instill a positive outlook in children in order to avoid developing anxiety and depression issues [21]. Furthermore, research has shown that children with higher levels of hope, another positive trait, are more positive about themselves and less depressed than children with lower levels of hope.
Researchers in positive psychology use placebo-controlled trials of positive psychology interventions in order to test practices that can improve well-being (PPIs). Based on positive psychology theory, these programs aim to promote long-term well-being [23]. Seligman’s [24] PERMA model, which refers to five conditions: positive emotions, which refer to feelings that motivate human actions, such as happiness, pleasure, and optimism; engagement, which refers to participation and concentration (flow state) in learning activities; relationships, which refers to the perception of having positive and secure relationships, receiving support and appreciation; and perceived meaning, which refers to the belief that one’s actions have a purpose and that one’s life has meaning. A sixth condition, health, has been added to this model in order to create the PERMA(H) model in the educational context. A person’s overall well-being is a combination of physical, emotional, and psychological health, all of which play a critical role in establishing healthy habits at an early age. These dimensions, which can be measured independently of each other, are essential for well-being as well as for fostering positive affect, establishing secure relationships, and increasing life satisfaction and decreasing the risk of mental health problems, including in young children, according to this model of well-being. If you’re looking at well-being through the lens of these dimensions, it’s helpful and beneficial, but it’s also true there is little to no consensus in the literature on the definition of well-being. Both conceptually and practically, the term “well-being” is ill-defined. It is thus possible to identify a number of factors that are either inherent to the phenomenon or against which the phenomenon can be recognized and/or measured (p. 183). According to previous research, Dodge et al. [30] proposed a new definition of well-being that aimed to be simple yet universal in nature, as close as possible to the need for equilibrium or homeostasis that exists in every human being. As a result, “well-being” is defined as the “point of equilibrium between an individual’s resource pool and the challenges faced” (p. 230). This definition’s optimism, which connects it to positive psychology, is another strength. As a result, people are viewed as having the power to influence their own happiness and well-being [5,30] by using their own resources and overcoming their own obstacles. What positive psychology intervention programs are trying to do is teach people how to manage their own well-being, and this is exactly what the PERMA(H) model is all about.
PPIs have been shown to improve well-being and reduce depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms in both adults and children, according to several meta-analyses [31,32,33,34,35,36] and younger people, primarily those aged 8 to 18 [37,38,39] or both [40]. Samples from Western and non-Western countries were used in these meta-analyses. Significant small-to-medium effects on strength and quality of life have been reported by Carr et al. Meta-analyses [31,32 and 38] also reported that findings remained significant after follow-up (two to twelve months), such as decreased depressive symptoms or increased well-being in adults and young people. Carr et al. [40] found that PPIs’ effects on quality of life and well-being were higher in younger and older samples, respectively, based on moderator impacts (e.g., age, clinical status, and program duration). Furthermore, according to Sin and Lyubomirsky [35], age was one of the factors that influenced the effectiveness of the intervention, along with depression status, self-selection, format, and length. Carr et al. [40] also showed the greatest benefits when PPIs were provided in a long-term individual or group therapy format in clinical populations, in agreement with Bolier et al. [31] and Sin and Lyubomirsky [35]. For non-clinical populations, educational contexts or other contexts, and individuals, short PPIs were found to be more effective than longer ones [40]. Certain limitations, most notably the bias associated with small sample sizes, must be taken into account when interpreting some of these findings. That’s the case, in fact, with White and colleagues [41] revisiting some of the most widely cited meta-analyses on the efficacy of PPIs on well-being and depression, such as Sin and Lyubomirsky [35]. PPIs’ effects on well-being were smaller than those found by Bolier et al. [31] and Sin and Lyubomirsky but still significant when the small-sample-size bias is taken into consideration. “The effects of PPIs on depression were variable, dependent upon outliers and generally not significant,” according to their findings (p. 1). White et al. [41] called for more PPI research with a larger sample size in accordance with other researchers arguing for preliminary power analysis (e.g., [32,40]).
However, positive psychology’s application in the form of positive education and intervention in schools came later [42]. A common goal of PPIs in schools is to improve young people’s development and prevent future difficulties by teaching them positive behaviors [43]. Systematic meta-analyses [43] have demonstrated the advantages of positive psychology interventions in schools. To give one example, Brunwasser et al. [38] reported significant effects on young people’s depressive symptoms (but not on depressive diagnoses) of an intervention in resilience, namely lower levels, especially at the post-test follow-up measurement point (Penn Resiliency Program, PRP). Bastounis et al. conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of a resilience intervention (PRP) for 8–17-year-old students to prevent depression and anxiety, and found no evidence of a reduction in depression or anxiety. Though Renshaw and Olinger Steeves [39] found that young people’s well-being can be predicted by their level of gratitude, they found that interventions based on this trait were ineffective. Aside from the fact that they have mixed results, positive psychology interventions have the advantage of addressing the needs of all students, whether they are troubled or not [14,44]. According to McCabe et al. [45], positive psychology exercises to teach concepts such as happiness, gratitude, and life satisfaction can be implemented in schools as measures of primary prevention to promote individual growth as well as positive interactions among all students, not just those at risk. ” (p. 180). Similarly, it appears that enjoyment of schoolwork plays a greater role in motivating students than anxiety does [47]. As a result, the school setting is viewed as a critical criterion for evaluating children’s well-being. As poor schooling has long-term consequences for the adult life course [48], children’s quality of life is also an important OECD survey indicator. Even more importantly, children’s happiness and well-being at school are influenced by a positive school climate [45].
PPIs were studied for their effect on positive and negative affect in two separate studies [55,57]. Their conclusions diverge just enough to warrant mentioning. All conditions had no effect on positive affect, according to Owens and Patterson [57]. (i.e., gratitude, best possible selves condition, or control condition). Even at a young age, children were able to express gratitude and experience gratitude for a wide range of people and events (i.e., through drawing and explaining what they were grateful for).
Shoshani and Slone [55] found a significant increase in positive emotions in the experimental group, especially empathy, as reported by the children themselves and their parents, despite the fact that neither Owens and Patterson [57] nor Shoshani and Slone [55] found any effects on negative emotions.
Qualitative evidence provided by teachers in the Elfrink et al. [56] study supports the claim that PPIs increase student involvement in classroom activities. Teachers also reported that the program had a positive impact on their ability to monitor and support student engagement. The intervention group (with a medium effect size) in Shoshani and Slone [55] teachers’ study reported a significant increase in children’s engagement, but the control group did not. However, they found no evidence that the PPI had any effect on children’s ability to self-regulate.
An increase in pro-social behavior in the intervention group but not in the control group was found by Shoshani and Slone [55]. Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with students did not significantly change between pre- and post-intervention in Elfrink et al[56] .’s study, even though pro-social behavior can lead to better relationships. Subscale scores, however, showed that teachers’ closeness with students, including feelings of affection, warmth, and communication, improved significantly as a result of PPIs. There was a significant improvement in subscale scores such as “supportive cooperation and active learning”, “forbidding physical punishment and violence”, and “not tolerating bullying, harassment, and discrimination” as well as “promoting equal opportunities and participation in decision-making” as a result of the intervention, as reported by parents in this study (large effect size).
Damian Sendler
PPIs have been studied for their impact on children’s overall health in a number of research studies. Positive effects on children’s self-reports of health-related quality of life were found by Elfrink et al. [56], with a greater impact on younger children (p. 224). Owens and Patterson [57] and Shoshani and Slone [55] used life satisfaction as a measure of children’s well-being. Shoshani and Slone [55] found a significant rise in children’s life satisfaction in the intervention group, but not in the control group, in contrast to Owens and Patterson [57], who found no significant effect of the intervention on life satisfaction (regardless of condition). Owens and Patterson [57] found a significant increase over time in the best possible selves condition, but not in the gratitude or control conditions, which are commonly recognized as predictors of later health conditions.
The SDQ was used to measure well-being in terms of mental health (i.e., behavioral issues) in two separate studies. Also, the outcomes are different here. According to Elfrink et al. [56], the intervention had a positive effect on a variety of behavioral issues, including hyperactivity, emotional instability, and issues with interpersonal relationships. There were no significant changes in any of the subscales, despite the fact that the overall difficulty score decreased significantly between pre- and post-intervention (medium to large effect size). Teachers’ qualitative evidence backed up the quantitative findings, showing that PPI had a positive effect on children’s behavior. Behavioral issues were also said to be less frequent among the children’s peers. But Shoshani and Slone [55] could find no improvement in mental health problems following this intervention. Both the experimental and control groups showed a significant effect of time, i.e. a decrease in mental health difficulties.
Damian Jacob Markiewicz Sendler: The moderator effects were accounted for in each study that made the cut. Just two variables (age and gender) were found to have a significant impact on socioeconomic status (e.g., educational level). In their study, Shoshani and Slone [55] found that the only variable associated with one outcome was a person’s chronological age (conduct problems). It was also discovered that younger age was associated with better subjective well-being and fewer mental health issues when they first began their research. There was a relationship between the frequency with which realistically possible selves responded in Owens and Patterson [57] studies (i.e., declining with age). Finally, Elfrink et al. [56] found that the PPI had a larger impact on quality of life (a health-related variable) in younger children than in older ones.
Owens and Patterson [57] found that girls reported their best possible selves more frequently than boys did, and that gender had a significant impact. Gender differences were also found by Shoshani and Slone [55], who found that boys had more behavioral issues and fewer positive and negative feelings than girls.
With the first published PPI study dating back to 2013, it is clear that there is a lot of interest in the effects of PPIs on infants and young children. These studies are extremely rare and have only been carried out in school or after-school settings, not in family settings, which makes them even more noteworthy. Only children ages 3–6 years old and those with special educational needs were included in the selected studies, which excludes children ages 0–2. Previous studies have shown that positive psychology interventions appear to be most effective with adults and adolescents in late childhood and adolescence, as well as in the educational context, and less so in the family context. According to Renshaw and Olinger Steeves [39], only five studies have examined the effects of gratitude-based interventions on young people (i.e., n = 5) in a related area. However, there are several hypotheses that deserve further investigation.
Educators who have been trained in PPIs are a prerequisite for their implementation in schools and other educational settings (such as daycare), as they can serve as a link between the school and families [68]. In order for parents to contribute and reinforce the message their children learn in school, they need to be trained [12]. In the initial training of teachers or educators, positive psychology is still not well developed, meaning researchers in this field must train participants, which takes time and resources. Two of the selected studies [55,56] in our review included training for teachers and/or parents in positive psychology or a related field in their intervention design. There were numerous benefits to training in the field of Positive Psychology before or during the intervention. The findings of Elfrink et al. [56] show that both teachers and parents found the professional workshops they attended to be beneficial. Teachers emphasized the importance of training that focused on practical strategies, guidelines, and activity-based resources to support the implementation and perpetuation of positive psychology interventions, particularly in the classroom (p. 225). It was found that the positive education program was gradually integrated into daily school activities and teachers were better able to understand their role in the program and to provide children with positive psychology-based activities throughout the school year. Adults in these programs must receive on-going instruction, and positive psychology practices must be incorporated into regular school activities and educational practices, as has already been shown for SEL programs [69,70]. However, a shift in educators’ attitudes, convictions, and values is more important than simply acquiring new skills and strategies [12].
Damien Sendler: The lack of research on the impact of PPIs on the well-being of young children may also be due to the fact that preschools and kindergartens place an over-emphasis on the cognitive aspects of being ready for school, while it would also be important to focus on well-being aspects (e.g., social and emotional aspects) from a young age [71]
Third, administering self-report questionnaires before and after the intervention may be a factor in determining the effectiveness of PPIs in measuring outcomes. Due to their inability to express themselves verbally and cognitively, self-report questionnaires are a limitation in research with very young children [3]. Similarly, if researchers are to use all five conditions of the PERMA model to measure well-being, it is difficult to include aspects of “meaning” in interventions with young children [72].
Although Owens and Patterson [57] found that children under the age of seven are cognitively mature enough to experience and express gratitude, the effectiveness of gratitude interventions in this age group is questionable. That’s why it’s difficult to determine the efficacy of gratitude interventions for younger children [39], because gratitude is a process that develops over several years and reaches its peak by mid-childhood [73].
Damian Jacob Sendler
Last but not least, positive psychology is a relatively new scientific discipline, which may account for the paucity of research on its effects on young children’s well-being (emerging in the early 2000s). It is not until the discipline has matured and researchers are able to conduct more comprehensive and longitudinal research studies, along with extensive meta-analyses, that the research field will begin to see the full potential of school-based positive psychology programs. [43] Chodkiewicz and Boyle (p. 72). SEL programs [70], which also provide systematic training in preschool settings on how to support children’s social-emotional development and improve their self-regulation skills, may explain why there are so few PPIs for young children.
In the introduction, it was stated that the difficulty in defining well-being can present significant obstacles to the implementation and evaluation of programs aimed at improving well-being in schools (see, for example, [74]). This model’s dimensions don’t define well-being, but they do represent the components that make up well-being and can be measured [30,75]. Indeed, these dimensions allowed us to not only select articles related to both positive psychology and well-being, but also to organize and aggregate research findings in this area.
Children’s well-being is positively impacted by a wide range of interventions, according to our findings from the PERMA(H) model outcomes. Two studies [55,57] examined the effect of PPIs on positive and negative emotions, respectively. Even so, only one study found an increase in positive emotions in the experimental group, highlighting the potential of these programs to promote positive feelings in young children, but also its inconsistency. Because Shoshani and Slone’s [55] intervention lasted longer (months) than Owens and Patterson’s [57] study, this increase in positive emotions may have been attributed to this difference in the duration of the intervention (weeks). Carr et al [40] found that in general, short PPIs are more effective in educational settings, but Weare and Nind [12] found that school-based interventions of all kinds that promote child well-being are consistent with their findings and recommendations. It’s possible that this discrepancy is due to the nature or format of the intervention, which could explain it. Preschool teachers were equipped with a manual containing practical and theoretical material on four modules, including one on positive emotions, in the study by Shoshani et al. [55]. As Villarreal et al. [76] reported, teachers’ commitment to a program is increased when they understand its theoretical underpinnings and practical applications. A research assistant was responsible for administering the intervention in Owens and Patterson’s [57] study. Teachers, on the other hand, may be better able to influence students’ positive feelings than a research assistant who has only a passing familiarity with them. Even when the intervention isn’t taking place, teachers can stay in touch with their students and reinforce the skills they’ve learned as a result of it [77]. Finally, Shoshani and Slone [55] found no evidence of an impact on negative emotions. As a result of a lack of time for children this young to learn how to manage their negative emotions, the authors believe this result can be explained. In fact, the regulatory framework is still in its infancy at this point in time. According to Owens and Patterson [57]’s findings, gratitude interventions failed to reduce the severity of children’s negative emotions for these very same reasons.
Results from two studies showed that teachers reported an increase in students’ school engagement as a result of the intervention. It’s worth noting, however, that the findings of Elfrink and colleagues [56] are consistent with those of studies that have shown how implementing a school-wide positive education approach improves students’ school engagement, academic achievement, and health. These findings are intriguing, given that (1) preschoolers’ positive engagement promotes better attention and impulse control and (2) pupils’ cognitive and behavioral skills at the time of school entry can be used to forecast their future school engagement [81,82]. As a result, children’s resources are valued over their limitations, allowing them to perform better in school [83].
There was no significant improvement in the overall teacher–student relationship reported by Elfrink et al. [56], but they did find that the program had a positive effect on a subscale, namely the closeness of teachers to children. A child’s behavior can be predicted over time by the quality of their relationship with their teacher [84]. Teacher-student relationships that are based on mutual respect and trust are conducive to a child’s ability to self-regulate. Children’s ability to control their behavior, emotions, and thoughts is also influenced by the demands and supports (e.g., provided by the teacher) in a preschool classroom [84]. Even more importantly, Elfrink and colleagues [56] found that the intervention improved supportive cooperation, promoted equal opportunity and participation in decision making, all of which contribute to positive relationships. Additionally, their intervention resulted in changes in behavior, such as the prohibition of physical punishment, violence, and the nontolerance of bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
Two studies [55,56] found evidence of accomplishment. As it pertains to education, this metric takes into account student progress across a variety of subject areas [25]. Teachers were more aware of their students’ talents, according to Elfrink et al. [56]. Compared to children in the control group, teachers in Shoshani and Slone’s [55] study reported that the experimental group had more positive approaches to learning (e.g. enthusiasm for learning, attention, persistence, and autonomy). However, the relationship between cognitive flexibility and school readiness would be moderated by attention and perseverance [85]. Children who have a better preschool functioning “lay the foundation for learning skills and engagement with learning, two important qualities that will influence subsequent academic success,” according to Shoshani and Slone [55]. (p. 8). Students’ flourishing in school will be enhanced by these strengths, which will lead to an increase in their level of satisfaction with school. When these positive psychology programs are implemented at a young age, students’ abilities can be nurtured by focusing on their strengths (such as those found in music, art, or sports), rather than their weaknesses.
In terms of health, PPIs aim to improve health in children as early as possible by focusing on their well-being and happiness. There was a significant increase in children’s self-reported life satisfaction [55] and a positive impact on younger children’s self-report of health-related quality of life [56] in the selected studies. Children who have received a positive psychology intervention are more likely to grow up with healthy emotional and social development, according to our findings. Weare and Nind [12] found the same thing, and they recommend that school-based interventions that promote mental health and prevent problems in schools begin with the youngest students, in particular to develop social and emotional capabilities.
