Thursday, 10 September
10:00am EDT/16:00 CET
Event Information
There is growing recognition of positive mental health as an intrinsic asset and protective factor for physical and mental health outcomes. Yet the field grapples with a multiplicity of overlapping terms (e.g., mental wellbeing, flourishing, thriving) and inconsistent conceptualizations across disciplines. This multiplicity produces fragmented efforts in measurement, intervention design, policy, and cross-disciplinary collaboration, undermining data synthesis and recommendations for practice.
A recent Delphi consensus study addressed this need by engaging 122 international experts from 11 disciplines across three iterative rounds to develop a preliminary taxonomy. Consensus (≥75% agreement) was reached on 19 dimensions, with exceptional (>90%) agreement on six: Meaning and Purpose, Life Satisfaction, Self-Acceptance, Connection, Autonomy, and Happiness. Greater consistency offers a shared language for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers; enables better comparability of measures and interventions; facilitates cumulative science through improved replicability and data synthesis; and supports more precise targeting of dimensions to promote positive mental health and prevent illness.
At present, wellbeing interventions vary widely in their components, with no clear consensus on what should be included. This makes it difficult to determine which program elements influence specific dimensions. Greater consistency and specificity in conceptualizing these dimensions would help clarify causal links between intervention components and targeted outcomes, reducing current uncertainty.
Tensions remain, however, between standardization and cultural or local adaptation. The study highlighted Western bias in existing models and experts called for non-Western perspectives, inclusion of marginalized lived experiences, and recognition of contextual variability. Over-emphasizing universality risks stifling culturally specific expressions of wellbeing, imposing WEIRD-centric frameworks, and reducing sensitivity to sociocultural differences in values, expressions, and priorities across the lifespan.
This presentation poses key questions for the field: How can we foster conceptual consistency without compromising inclusivity or innovation? What explicit criteria should guide further taxonomy refinement? Key takeaways include embracing iterative consensus methods for alignment, prioritizing multidisciplinary and cross-cultural discourse, and balancing shared foundations with flexible, context-sensitive adaptations to strengthen global relevance and impact in promoting human flourishing.
