H

Koydemir and Sun-Selisik (2016) (1)

Abstract and Rationale

  • The study evaluates an 8-week online, strengths-based intervention designed for first-year university students to promote subjective and psychological well-being.
  • Intervention includes five modules focusing on:
    • (a) finding and cultivating character strengths,
    • (b) emotion regulation and increasing positive emotions,
    • (c) constructive communication, social connectedness, and positive relationships,
    • (d) effective decision-making and problem solving,
    • (e) achieving flow and practicing gratitude.
  • Design: randomized controlled trial with N = 92 volunteers, assigned to either the intervention or a control group.
  • Outcomes measured before and after the intervention: quality of life (psychological health and social relations domains), life satisfaction, subjective happiness, and ontological well-being.
  • Key finding: significant improvements in the intervention group across multiple well-being variables over 8 weeks, whereas the control group showed no significant increase.

Conceptual Framework and Background

  • Positive psychology core ideas: strengths, positive emotions, positive relationships, resilience, purpose, and meaning underpin well-being (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
  • Well-being is a central construct in positive psychology, indicating a life that is good, healthy, and meaningful (Diener et al., 1999; WHO, 2009).
  • University students (ages 18–25) face developmental and transition-related challenges (homesickness, loneliness, academic pressures) that threaten psychological well-being (Sher, Wood, & Gotham, 1996; Dyson & Renk, 2006).
  • First-year students are especially vulnerable during the transition from high school to university (Dextras, 1993; Fisher & Hood, 1987; Paul & Brier, 2001).
  • Intervention goal: move beyond treating problems to fostering positive functioning through a comprehensive, multifaceted program grounded in hedonic (life satisfaction, positive affect) and eudaimonic (purpose in life, growth) well-being models.
  • Theoretical anchors:
    • Hedonic well-being: life satisfaction and positive affect,
    • Eudaimonic well-being: purpose in life, personal growth, self-acceptance (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008).
  • Seligman’s PERMA framework (flourishing): Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment (Seligman, 2011); the study integrates these components through various activities.
  • Broaden-and-build theory: positive emotions broaden thought-action repertoires and build enduring resources (Fredrickson, 2004).
  • Intervention delivery: technology-based (web-based) for reach, anonymity, convenience, and multimedia capabilities (Mitchell et al., 2009; Seligman et al., 2005; Christensen & Griffiths, 2003).

Intervention Design and Content

  • The program is intended to be strengths-based: helps students discover, explore, and practice their strengths to cultivate positive feelings, behaviors, and cognitions (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009).
  • Five modules delivered over 8 weeks, combining psycho-education, experiential activities, games, videos, demonstrations, and homework.
  • Homework examples:
    • identify and apply character strengths in various contexts,
    • observe and regulate emotions,
    • practice constructive communication and empathy in daily life,
    • apply structured problem-solving steps to real-life scenarios,
    • cultivate gratitude and identify flow experiences.
  • The program also emphasizes gratitude and flow experiences as mechanisms for increasing well-being (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
  • The intervention used a diverse delivery approach: webinars, audio/text materials, experiential activities, videos, and personal sharing; homework reinforced weekly topics.
  • Feedback system: trained student assistants provided feedback within one day after each session to acknowledge completed homework and follow up on responses.

Methods

  • Participants and setting
    • N = 92 university students (48 males, 44 females), ages 17–23 (M = 18.75, SD = 1.03), Turkish background, METU Northern Cyprus Campus.
    • Post-test data available for 44 in the intervention group (26 males, 18 females) and 36 in the control group (20 males, 16 females).
    • Groups were comparable on age, gender, and socio-economic status at pre-test.
  • Screening and ethics
    • Ethics approval obtained; voluntary participation with informed consent.
    • Inclusion criterion: absence of major depressive symptoms (BDI used for screening). Those scoring above threshold were excluded from both groups.
  • Design and randomization
    • Random assignment to intervention (n = 48) and control (n = 44) groups.
    • Due to lab seating, randomization led to 48 in experimental and 44 in control to maximize participation.
    • Pre-test measures administered to all participants before the intervention.
  • Procedure
    • Intervention conducted in a computer lab; weekly sessions (60–75 minutes each) with supervision by a graduate student, a senior student, and technical staff.
    • 1-hour pre-session training on web-based software use; reminders sent before each week; post-test conducted one week after intervention completion in a class setting.
    • Control group continued with the regular First Year on Campus Seminar course; the offer of the intervention in the Spring Semester was communicated.

Measures (Instruments and Psychometrics)

  • Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Turkish version Köker, 1991)
    • 7-point Likert scale per item (1 to 7); higher scores indicate greater life satisfaction.
    • Sample item: “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.”
    • Reliability in this study:
    • Cronbach’s alpha: $$\