A note on an article in The Lancet Psychiatry

The latest edition of The Lancet Psychiatry features an intriguing, if odd, article. Entitled ‘Rethinking the biopsychosocial formulation‘, its main premise is that, “to split the psychological and social from the biological is no longer scientifically tenable.” This is something I vigorously agree with and have discussed in criticism of the trendy political term, ‘parity of esteem’. As the authors imply, over-attachment to mind-body dualism is a major threat to improving healthcare. And yet, the conclusion that they appear to draw out of this premise is quite baffling.

As a precursor, I should say that my institution only allows me to access the first page of the article, but, assuming the authors don’t make a significant u-turn later on, the claim can speak for itself:

Screen Shot 2015-07-06 at 16.40.06


The authors seem to be concluding that problems with ‘splitting’ approaches to mental illness into three perspectives require us to discard of two of these perspectives – no surprises for which of the two the authors and psychiatrists wish to discard. It’s unclear how they expect to be able to favour a biological perspective without first ‘splitting’ it from the other two, an action they claim to oppose, or how this can possibly encourage the “integrative-approach” they apparently support.

Putting aside the contradictions, in suggesting a shift towards a more biological viewpoint they seem to be dismissing decades of scientific research and cultural progress that has moved us towards an integrated interpretation of mental illness that acknowledges the influence of social factors, environmental circumstances, and cognition. If nothing else, this is insulting to other mental health practitioners.

Thankfully another psychiatrist was quick to jump in and gently object to the point. After bringing the article to task for being “a little unfair” in its interpretation of the biopsychosocial model, Duncan Double, a ‘consultant psychiatrist and honorary senior lecturer’, discusses intellectual progress in psychiatry and the need for an integrated approach.

Dr. Double suggests that psychiatrists don’t need to be philosophers, but if they’re going to try and address the issue of dualism, they may do well to read up (here’s Stanford’s introduction). In contrast to their less labouring eastern counterparts, western philosophers have struggled with the mind-body problem since the time of Plato nearly 2500 years ago. Even in 400BC it was acknowledged that thoughts and feelings have a basis in the brain. But no sensible philosopher would go so far as to suggest that one should only view such things biologically – at least not until we can figure out consciousness and map out and biologically intervene in every thought and feeling. (That may take some time.)

Perhaps I’m being uncharitable towards the authors and the rest of the article is more nuanced; or perhaps they didn’t express themselves quite as intended? A quick search online and I see that the lead author of the article appears to have written a book on psychotherapy – which only adds to my puzzlement over the article. If those of us working towards joined-up approaches to mental health and healthcare can be a little sensitive about perceived threats to collaborative working, it’s only because we want to see the varying perspectives (biological, psychological and social) moving forward together. 

Why Parity of Esteem is Not Enough

This blog post was originally published at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ed-pinkney/mental-health-parity-of-esteem_b_6183118.html

Mental health campaigners have been given cause for optimism recently thanks to increasing political discussion about underfunded mental health services. Whilst we can be thankful that such conversations are being entertained, there is cause to be wary of the rhetoric if we consider real implications to those at risk of mental health problems.

In 2011, the UK government published a mental health strategy which referred to the goal of giving “equal weight to both mental and physical health”. Others, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have talked about achieving “parity of esteem” between mental and physical health. These expressions may have captured public attention, but as an article published last week in the British Medical Journal pointed out, the phrasing is simple to the point of simplistic.

Any armchair philosopher can question the logic of the rhetoricians’ suggestion that the ‘mental’ is somehow distinct from the ‘physical’. To do so can be seen as uncharitable; pedantry that misses the point. Those using the expression would say that their aim is only to draw attention to the underfunding of mental health services; and with mental health services having been dangerously slashed, such efforts should be applauded and given full public support.

Having said that, while we engage in topical conversations about mental health, we must not allow ourselves to ignore symptoms of an underlying problem. Health services need to appreciate the deep interrelatedness of mental and physical health; at present they don’t, and the rhetoric doesn’t help.

The largest health burden facing the world this decade involves non-communicable diseases such as heart-disease, cancer, and diabetes. A better collective term is ‘stress-related disorders’, since they are all either caused by, or associated with, chronic stress (or lifestyle patterns related to chronic stress, such as smoking, unhealthy diets and alcohol consumption). Meanwhile, researchers are continuing to shed light on the gut-brain axis that shows how fundamental the links are between intestinal conditions and psychological health – and that’s before we get into comorbidity of mental and physical illness.

Modern medical science is increasingly revealing mental and physical health to not be separate yet interrelated domains, but rather two ways of viewing a single system. A health service that appreciated this wouldn’t encourage the idea that mental health services sit apart from other health services; it would do everything it could to strengthen pathways between the two, alongside a longer-term aim of embedding a consideration for mental health deep into every corner of the health service and every module of medical training.

Calling for mental health to be on an equal level with physical health doesn’t necessarily run counter to the aim of bringing mental and physical health services closer together. It can increase funding for mental health treatments. It can increase awareness of mental health at GP level. But it can also conjure up a combative image of mental and physical health as being in competition with one another, straining the already thin bonds between the two service areas. With a health system already under pressure, discord is the last thing needed.

That there should be wariness about bringing mental and physical health services closer together is understandable. The mind is a variable that’s hard to control for in medical studies. We just about manage to recognise its influence on the body with accounts of the placebo affect, but barely so. Going much further than this is scary; it draws us towards unchartered academic waters and requires us to traverse the borders between academic disciplines. Perhaps it also moves us towards a more preventative approach to health that might be seen as a threat to traditional institutional structures and finances.

In the field, it’s already being done. Encouragement can be taken from pragmatic examples like the use of cognitive-behavioural therapy in bowel disorders and social-prescribing in mental health (such as recommending forms of exercise for moderate depression). But these are still very much on the fringes. We need more of this kind of crossover at a strategic level; this whole-systems thinking that the World Health Organisation has been talking about, for 28 years already. We also need to look at alternative ways of categorising services.

The idea of dividing the mental and physical has deep roots, going back to Ancient Greece with Platonic ideas of conflicting poles and dichotomies. Perhaps the categorical thinking that gave rise to the ‘mind-body problem’ helped fuel Western progress and moved us ahead of the softer wholism of the East for half a millennia, but, right now, it threatens to stunt our health system.

So while the prospect of more funding for mental health services is a good thing, it’s no real victory if mental and physical services are not brought into unison. A health system that was in tune with medical science would have mental wellbeing at its core. But it would also see the body and mind as a single system. And, as with all systems, if you neglect one aspect then you affect the whole.

The rise of 'hapitalism', and what can be done

Hapitalism (hap-i-tal-ism)
noun (portmanteau of ‘happy’ and ‘capitalism’)
An economic system based on a state measuring collective happiness in a way that encourages a level of individual competition and inequality typical of unregulated, free-market capitalism.

Yesterday, I wrote something for the Huffington Post exploring the correlation between happiness and suicide rates in US states (and nations). In it, I raise concerns over a developing ‘hapitalism’ in which average happiness levels are raised by sacrificing the happiness, and, in some cases, lives, of a minority.

A central principle behind capitalism is that free markets allow for economic growth and that this benefits all of us on condition that interventions such as taxation and public services exist. In the same way, happiness advocates argue that an increase in gross national happiness will benefit us all. The problem is that, as the happiness-suicide correlate indicates, conditionals are also needed to ensure that a rise in GNH benefits all. I’ll look more at these conditionals shortly.

The importance of conditionals in a happiness economy risks being overlooked due to happiness being seen as an intrinsic moral good. On the surface, an increase in the happiness of a group seems like a good thing, but the problem is that an increase in average happiness can be attained even if one member of the group has come to find themselves in extreme suffering. The tendency to assume that we can draw conclusions about individuals from the condition of a group is known as an ecological fallacy.

The appropriateness of equating a capitalist economy with a happiness (‘hapitalist’?) economy depends on the way in which individual ‘growth’ occurs in the two types of economy.  In my blog post, I explore the idea that the happiness of some may be directly enhanced by the suffering of others, and that those who are suffering may feel worse by comparing themselves to happy people (hence a correlation between happiness and suicide)*. If this is an accurate description, then, just as capitalist societies tend to favour the wealthy and may widen inequalities of wealth and income, a happiness economy may widen the wellbeing gap between the happy and unhappy unless interventions are in place to help encourage the reverse.


1. Improving happiness indicators
For happiness indicators to be a measure of the wellbeing of all, they need to focus on more than just aggregating individual happiness. The economist Sagar Shah suggests that this might be done by also looking at the ‘features of a society’, or by giving higher weight to those with ‘lower well-being’. Discrediting simplistic aggregated measures of happiness may also be an important step.

2. Improving communication
Those writing, speaking and teaching about happiness ought to appreciate the degree to which suffering is unavoidable, and to be mindful of the impact of their words on those who are suffering. Proponents of positive psychology tend to use Martin Seligman’s theories of learned helplessness and learned optimism to argue that we all have influence over our wellbeing. This can be a message of hope and encouragement to some, but it may also dishearten those with poor wellbeing. Whilst our perception of suffering may influence our ability to move on from the situation, the presence of suffering is often a normal and healthy reaction to adverse stimuli. (Try being happy when you’re repeatedly being subjected to electric shocks.) If we deny this, we risk stigmatising something that we will all experience at some point in our lives.

3. Improving policymaking
All official happiness policy should factor in public health principles, and any messages or interventions designed to boost collective happiness should consider implications for mental health and suicide-prevention. Economists and policymakers should be liaising with public health professionals — and also vice versa; as the World Health Organisation reminds us, “Health is created and lived by people within the settings of their everyday life; where they learn, work, play, and love.”


*This may only be the case for people, communities and societies that are driven by competition and comparison. In fact, research from Japan suggests that happier people are kinder.

Higher Education Propaganda: Bringing Lobbying Groups to Task

Originally published as ‘How Propagandists Manipulate the Facts to Sell the University Dream’ at HuffingtonPost.com.

It was the blog‘s lackadaisical attitude towards student wellbeing that got to me. The way it claims that higher education has “been shown” to benefit the ‘health and well-being’ of students, without providing a shred of evidence (and in the face of thisthis, and this). But it’s the misleading employment claims that show how far propagandists are prepared to go to sell university places.

For those that are unaware, Universities UK is a membership charity that (as you might guess from the name) acts on behalf of the majority of the UK’s universities. The aims of the organisation (which recently came under fire for its stance on gender segregation) include to “support universities in their primary aims of educating students, carrying out research and innovation, and strengthening civic society”.

The blog post in question was written by the Universities UK ‘Policy and Data Analyst’ and uses new ONS data to make a number of claims, including that those with a degree have a lower unemployment rate than those whose highest qualification is an A-level. Unfortunately that’s not what the data shows.

The first page of the ONS report states that the graduate figures refer to all those who have been through higher education, including recipients of diplomas and certificates typically awarded to those with professional experience. For instance, the Chartered Management Institute offers a Level 7 Award to senior managers. It’s not really surprising that for those with such an award unemployment should be low. We can assume, then, that had the unemployment figure only related to those with degrees, it might have been considerably higher. Of course, those casually reading the blog won’t know this. They’ll assume that the author of such an authoritative blog has got the facts right.

For an organisation that describes itself as “the voice of UK universities” it’s embarrassing that their official blog features such an obvious misuse of data. At best it’s carelessness, at worst, a deliberate attempt to foil the public. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.

Further claims in the blog relate to average salaries. Glancing at the impressive graph gives the illusion that graduates in their forties have average earnings twice as high as non-graduates, and that the data is a good prediction of what today’s graduates can expect in the future. Neither is true.

In his bestselling book, The Black Swan, statistician Nassim Taleb discusses the problems with using averages, warning, “don’t cross a river if it is four foot deep on average”. Those university candidates looking at average earnings data as an indicator of their future prospects should be just as wary – not only because of the issues with averages, but because of the changes in the jobs market over the past twenty years.

The highest earning university graduates, who are in their early-forties according to the graph, graduated at a time when the jobs market and economy were completely different. The proportion of the labour force with a degree has (according to the Guardian) doubled in twenty years, slashing the usefulness of a degree as a way of differentiating between job candidates. Additionally, economic turmoil and the shift towards a ‘knowledge economy‘ have created a skills gap that has forced almost half of graduates into non-graduate roles. The effect on average earnings is that, according to the same ONS report, 21-year-olds with an apprenticeship are earning more than 21-year-old graduates.

None of this is to say that university is not worthwhile for many. Of course it is. But to judge the value of a degree based on the success of those who graduated twenty years ago is like using a 1993 edition of the Financial Times to pick investments. Those considering university would do far better to ignore the propaganda and do their own research.

Is Higher Education an "Excellent Investment"?

In November, Universities UK, the higher education advocacy group, published a blog post entitled ‘Higher education is an excellent investment, even in an economic downturn’. The post is basically an advert for university, albeit with a number of questionable, and, at times, frankly, embarrassing claims.

Yesterday their social media team tweeted the post as the deadline for applications approaches, presumably aware that November applications were down on the previous year. I wouldn’t normally be critical of a blog post, but let’s take a look at its main arguments:

1. “Those with a degree are more protected from the recession than those without.”

The author refers to data from the ONS indicating that graduates enjoy a higher employment rate (87% versus 83%) and lower unemployment rate (4% versus 5%) as compared to those whose highest qualification is A level standard. Leaving aside the fact that the percentage differences seem pitifully small (particularly considering that graduates are more likely than non-graduates to have middle-class parents who are in a position to help them find work), a simple bit of background reading appears to show that the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion.

The ONS report clearly states on the first page that its definition of a graduate isn’t just those with degrees (as the author suggests) but also “those with higher education”, which covers all sorts of vocational awards and certificates that can be granted to those who are already established within a field. It’s not hard to get work after graduating if your employer is paying for the qualification.

Looking more closely at the ONS report, a crucial piece of information that the blog post doesn’t reveal is the nature of the employment. According to the ONS report, almost half of recent graduates were working in a non-graduate role (i.e. one that didn’t require higher education or a degree). They might, for example, be pushing trolleys in a warehouse. (Use of warehouse safety helmets is probably not the kind of “protection” the author wanted us to have in mind.)

2. “The profile of earnings for graduates is rising much more quickly than for non-graduates, and graduates are earning more than non-graduates over their lifetimes.”

The author displays the difference in earnings through an impressive adaption of the ONS’s chart, which – by narrowing the x-axis, starting the y-axis at £10,000, and removing apprenticeships from the chart altogether – makes it look as though graduates are very quickly earning more than twice as much as non-graduates annually. The problem with the graduate earnings data is that it’s largely meaningless. Not because it’s untrue, but because it’s based on the average earnings of graduates.

If there are four recent graduates in a room, each struggling on £10,000 a year, and a fifth graduate earning £110,000 a year walks in then the average earnings of the group will jump from £10,000 to £30,000.  This is unlikely to console them. As Fraser Nelson points out, the highest-earning professions – including law, medicine, and dentistry – tend to require degrees, skewing average earning figures for other graduates. Then there is the discrepancy between institutions, and the impact of unusually wealthy graduates.

The other reason why those thinking of applying to university should be extremely sceptical of the average and lifetime earnings data is that those at their peak earning age (of around 40) graduated in a completely different economic environment. University degrees were still relatively unusual, with 12% of the UK population having degrees in 1993, compared to 25% in 2010 (according to the Guardian) and only 19.3% of students participating in higher education in 1990 (according to this parliamentary report) compared to almost 50% today. The earnings data also doesn’t account for the negative impact of struggling to find work during a recession (which has been known as the ‘scarring effect‘). In short, the data is virtually useless as an indicator of what today’s graduates can expect their average earnings to be in twenty years.

The ONS’s average earnings data does have some use, though. It shows that a 21-year-old graduate earns on average less than a 21-year-old with an apprenticeship – a fact that’s unclear from the blog post’s chart due to it conveniently leaving out apprenticeships.

3. “There is personal benefit in attaining higher education, which has been shown for many aspects of life, including health, well-being and personal development.”

This is the part that really got to me. At least with the other claims, the author refers to some evidence rather than resorting to saying only that it has “been shown”. Let’s look at what’s been shown for a moment.

  • – Demand for support services has risen by nearly a third since 2008.
  • – Student suicides rose by 49% between 2007 and 2011.
  • – In an NUS survey of 1200 students last year, 80% reported feeling stressed and 13% claimed to have had suicidal thoughts.

Evidently the well-being benefits of higher education are not as clear-cut as the author might like to think.  The author’s half-hearted attempt to suggest otherwise, which reads more like an afterthought than a genuine point, is an indication that Universities UK does not see the wellbeing of students as a priority issue (despite its relevance to the ‘lost generation‘ claims that the author refers to).

Although Universities UK hosts a Working Group for Promotion of Well-being in Higher Education, the group receives no funding or advocacy support and is run by charitable university support staff in what little time they can find around very demanding university roles.

4. “Society as a whole also benefits by greater engagement through civic engagement, citizenship and lower crime rates, as described in the recent BIS report. It is clear that higher education is not only a good investment for those individuals who directly go to university, but it is a good investment for the UK’s economy and society too.”

Actually, most of this is probably true. Having more young people in university probably does increase ‘civic engagement’ and deter people from questioning authorities and institutions. And it probably does support the economy, at least in appearance (and until the next financial crisis).

But for those weighing up whether or not to go to university, these factors should be completely irrelevant. You should dismiss them, just as you should all the other misleading claims about higher education being a good investment. If you decide to go, go because it’s what you really want, not because you think it’s a safe option or that it’s expected of you. And certainly not because it will make you a ‘good citizen’.

For ideas about alternatives to university, take a look at www.notgoingtouni.co.uk

The Universities UK blog post was edited after this post was published, and now includes the following: “(chapter 3 of the supporting analysis for the higher education White Paper 2011 summarises some of the studies done on the wider benefits from higher education).” Unfortunately for Universities UK, the White Paper contains no evidence of the benefits to “health, well-being, and personal development” that the blog post claims have “been shown”. They have not responded to a requests for comment.

Openness By Whom And Of What?

In preparation for a talk last week entitled, ‘Mental Health: How Do We Encourage Openness And Meet Higher Demand For Services?’, there were two questions that seemed particularly topical. The first was, should we encourage openness around mental health if services can’t meet demand?

I had put the title of the talk to my Twitter followers, and one student suggested that we shouldn’t encourage openness if services are inadequate because we’ll “just be letting students down”. The assumption seems to be that the only reason for openness is to encourage use of services; this might be one reason, but if we’re talking about openness in a general sense, then there are many more that are just as important — some of which follow.

As another Twitter follower noted, there is a need for more understanding of self-care – something which openness ought to encourage through the sharing of information and resources. Openness can also improve the fit between students and services by educating students about the most appropriate service for their needs. Openness means services get more of those most in need, and less of those that would benefit from other services or that can figure out a solution themselves.

If openness increases demand for services, it also puts more pressure on those in a position to fund services. More shameful than an inability to meet demand is the concealment of insufficiencies, because it lifts pressure from those tasked with allocating resources.

I noted in my talk that the term ‘openness’, as used in the context of student mental health, needs to be unpacked. There are different things we might be open about – namely our mental health, or mental health in general; and there are is openness with different people – our friends & family, or institutions & authority figures. Then there is, of course, the matter of who’s being open. In this case, we’re mostly talking about the need for students to be open, but it’s equally as important that institutions are being open so that students can make informed decisions.

It’s the under-appreciated complexity of openness that leads into the second question: Why should students be open? (I’ve addressed this question before in the context of disclosure rates.)

Since the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ report on student mental health in 2011, there have been calls for institutions to be more honest and open about their support provision and commitment to students’ welfare by publishing a formal and publicly available mental health policy. (Annie Grant of MWBHE is currently surveying universities to find out how many have policies in place, and hopefully the results will be available before the end of the year.) The most important reason for such a document is that, without one, it’s very difficult for institutions to be held to account; not just by those outside of the institution but by themselves.

A mental health policy is also a statement of intent and a commitment to being open and transparent. If institutions are not being open about what they can and cannot do, it’s hardly surprising that their members might also want to withhold information about themselves.

The powerpoint presentation from my talk can be downloaded here, and an action plan for building a ‘whole-institution approach to wellbeing’ is available here.

In Praise Of Student Support Staff

At a Student Welfare event I was speaking at yesterday, I tried to catch a student support advisor after one of the sessions. She had left the room swiftly, and was on the phone in the corridor outside. There was a look of concern on her face, and at first I wondered if it was a logistics issue – perhaps a son or daughter that needed picking up from school, or some other personal matter. But it wasn’t anything like that. She was phoning to check on a student at her university that was having a particularly tough time.

I don’t often meet someone who shows this level of compassion and concern for others, but when I do, it’s invariably a member of student support staff. There has been an increase in the number of articles examining student mental health and questioning whether universities are doing enough, but very few of these have recognised the extraordinary work done by existing support staff.

One of the things I’m most proud of from my time at NUS-USI earlier this year was the groundwork we laid for an Open Your Mind awards programme. We wanted to recognise not just things done by students to promote mental health, but also the tireless work done by support staff to help thousands upon thousands of students every year. It wasn’t that we thought staff would want the recognition (they are too selfless for that) but we hoped maybe it would help others to see why student support is so valuable.

I don’t know why support staff don’t get more recognition. Maybe because they don’t make a fuss about things. Maybe because others think they are only ‘doing their job’. Anyone who has spent time with support staff will know that this is not the case, and that they give a huge amount to others. Nobody gets involved in student support for their own interests – they do it because they care, deeply.

Resilient Youth: Using Psychology To Prevent A ‘Lost Generation’

This article was originally published with the Huffington Post.

Switching on the news last night, I heard a young graduate telling a reporter, “I’ve done everything that society told me to do, and I’m still not finding employment.” As his words trailed off, the despair in his voice seemed to capture a generation that’s feeling let down and unsure where to turn. Increasingly, recent surveys from NUS and The Prince’s Trust suggest, the blame seems to be turning inwards.

There is research showing that in previous periods of high youth unemployment, those affected continued to be hampered professionally and socially long after the recession ended – a phenomenon that has been described as the ‘scarring effect’. It’s data like this that gives some weight to the otherwise melodramatic claim that today’s young people will go down in history as a ‘lost generation’.

One explanation for the scarring effect is the psychological impact of unemployment. Research links unemployment with a perceived loss of control, and what some psychologists call ‘learned helplessness’ . Feelings of helplessness are a predictor of depression . They are also linked to decreased work performance – a correlation that exists not just in the western world, but globally .

There might be good reason for young people to feel helpless. 75 million young people around the world are out of work, the value of a degree has tumbled, and the so-called ‘scarring effect’ suggests that history isn’t on their side. But in the last recession psychological research and interventions were less developed. And what the latest research tells us is that helplessness is not inevitable and it can be reversed .

When a young american psychologist called Martin Seligman was researching depression in the late 1960’s, he found that if people were subjected to repeated and uncontrollable stressors then they would often come to resign themselves to their plight, remaining inactive even when opportunities to change their circumstances arose – a condition which he called ‘learned helplessness’. What he also found was that whilst some acquired this condition, others seemed to be more resistant. When he looked for distinctions between the two groups, he discovered that they had different ways of explaining the source of stress; those that were more resistant tended to see the stressor as confined and temporary.

The findings were consistent with assumptions underlying the emerging field of cognitive behavioural therapy, and Seligman hypothesised that if he could train people to develop a more optimistic ‘explanatory style’ using ideas from CBT then he could teach them to be more resilient to stress. His ideas gained support and helped establish a new field of research known as ‘positive psychology’, which argued that wellbeing is a legitimate focus for researchers and policymakers. This ‘wellbeing movement’ now spans psychology, economics, and politics, led by organisations such as Action for Happiness and the New Economics Foundation.

Governments and businesses have picked up on the science and are transforming it into policy and interventions. Wellbeing programs have been introduced in certain schools – Wellington College, for instance, holds wellbeing classes for its students, and school PSHE programs are teaching emotional skills. But despite graduate employers criticising a lack of soft skills, wellbeing programs have not (as Anthony Seldon of Wellington College notes) been rolled out for students in higher education.

Given that educational institutions are supposed to be at the cutting edge of science, it’s surprising that most seem to be so far behind the curve, with some members of academia (such as this Vice Chancellor) apparently not believing that learning has much to do with psychology at all.

Counselling services have increasingly taken it upon themselves to offer group sessions on topics such as mindfulness and stress management, but these are limited to the narrow financial and political confines of ‘student support’. Research links a perceived sense of control with job searching strategies , motivation at work , and entrepreneurial potential . As employability and enterprise agendas continue to grow, it’s time that applied psychology was recognised as being crucial not just to student support but to student development.

So how we do this? For starters, universities can work to strengthen ties between support services and careers centres, bringing together mutually-compatible expertise; careers centres can look to offer students psychological training, and the growing number of university programs encouraging extra-curricular personal development can promote and accredit initiatives that help build resilience. The evidence base is out there; let’s apply it.

I’m not suggesting that a focus on applied psychology is a substitute for social action; it won’t solve the issues of inflated tuition fees and struggling jobs markets. But if psychology can help young people to gain an advantage over the problems they are facing then it might be enough to give them a bit more hope for the future. And if we act now, just maybe when we look back in ten or twenty years the young people of today will be known not as a ‘lost’ generation but as a resilient one.

Lucas, R.E., Clark, A.E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychol Sci. 15(1), 8-13.
Baum, A., Fleming, R., Reddy, D.M. (1986). Unemployment stress: loss of control, reactance and learned helplessness. Soc Sci Med. 22 (5), 509-16.
Benassi, V.A., Sweeney, P.D., Dufour, C.L. (1988). Is there a relation between locus of control orientation and depression? Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 97(3), 357-367.
Ng T.W.H., Sorensen K.L., Eby, L.T. (2006) Locus of control at work: a meta-analysis. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 27(8) 1057- 1087.
Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., Sanchez ,J.L., O’Driscoll, M., & Sparks, K. (2002). Locus of Control and Wellbeing at Work: How Generalizable Are Western Findings? The Academy of Management Journal 45(2), 453-466.
Buchanan, G.M., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1995) Explanatory style. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Caliendo, M., Cobb-Clark, D. and Uhlendorff, A. (2009) Locus of Control and Job Search Strategies. IZA Discussion Paper 4750, Bonn. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp4750.pdf
Puthanpurayil R S. Personality traits and locus of control as predictors of work motivation. (2008) Available at: http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/4751
Kaufmann, P.J., Welsh, D.H.B., & Bushmarin, N. (1995). Locus of control and entrepreneurship in the Russian Republic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(1), 43-56.