Shoshani and Steinmetz

• Aim

  Investigate whether participants in positive psychology intervention group had better mental health outcomes than control group

  Investigate if the efficacy of the intervention was impacted by demographic factors like gender
• Methodology

  Longitudinal field experiment (2 years)
• Sample

  1038 adolescents in year 7-9

  Two large middle schools in Israel

  537 students in one school participated in positive psychology intervention group

  501 students from another school were in the wait list control group
• Procedure (materials)


  Brief symptom inventory

  Rosenberg self esteem scale: evaluate self worth using 4. Likert scale

  General Self-efficacy Scale: assess how people cope with daily hassles using 4. Likert scale

  Satisfaction with life scale: 7. Likert scale

  Life Orientation Test: how optimistic or pessimistic a person is using a 5. Likert scale

  Socio-demographic measures
• Procedure (intervention group)

  1. School teachers trained in group dynamics and positive psychology during 15 two hour sessions every 2 weeks

  2. Teacher conducted parallel sessions with their students, school psychologist and counsellors randomly checked to make sure it was going well

  3. Programme: activities, discussions, reading, video clips

  4. Gratitude was also in the programme: discussed things to be grateful for and wrote letters
• Procedure (wait list control group)

  Teachers continued normal social science lessons
• Results

  1. Living below poverty and being in a single parent household positively associated with negative mental health scores

  2. Males showed lower scores on General Self Efficacy scale and lower depressive symptoms at start of study, had increase initial anxiety levels.

  3. Intervention group showed significant decrease in psychological distress.

  4. Intervention group showed significant increases over time for optimism
• Conclusions

  Intervention resulted in increases in mental wellbeing and decreases in anxiety, interpersonal sensitivity, general distress and depression.

  In control group: increase in depression and general distress.
• Strengths

  Longitudinal design
• Weakness

  Lack generalisability
• Ethics

  Wait list control group did not benefit
• Applications to everyday life

  Took place in schools so can promote this type of intervention
• Individual vs situational

  Ignores individual explanations such as personality.