How To Critique The AI Well-Being Assessment In The PSY353 ECA Report

The PSY353 Positive Psychology ECA for July 2026 adds a twist that many students find uncomfortable: you have to run your interview notes through a generative AI tool, then show where the AI got your interviewee’s well-being wrong. Done well, this critique is where most of the 90 marks for Question 2 are won.

Quick answer: Plan the interview around the theories you will use, give the AI only the prescribed prompt and no identifying details, then critique its report point by point using theory and interview evidence. Write the three factors and three recommendations in your own words, and evaluate how far each factor is under the person’s control.

What the PSY353 ECA requires

The ECA is worth 50% of the course and is due on 2 November 2026 at 12:00 noon. Question 2, the well-being report, carries 90 marks with a 2,000-word limit that includes in-text citations. References carry 5 marks and need at least five valid academic sources in APA style. The full brief is on our PSY353 ECA July 2026 question page.

Step 1: plan the interview around your theories

Decide which models you will use before you speak to anyone. If you plan to use PERMA (Seligman, 2011), prepare questions on positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning and accomplishment. If you plan to use Ryff’s (1989) six dimensions, include questions on autonomy and purpose. A short scale such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) gives you a number to discuss alongside the qualitative answers.

• Get consent and explain how the notes will be used.
• Choose someone not taking PSY353 this semester.
• Use a pseudonym from the start, including in your notes.
• Keep point-form notes; a full transcript is not required.

Step 2: run the AI prompt safely

Use the prescribed prompt and give the AI only non-identifying information. Save the full output, because it must go into your appendix. If you use AI for anything beyond the prescribed prompt, the brief requires you to describe how and include a table of prompts and outputs.

Step 3: critique, do not edit

The brief is clear that you should not simply polish the AI text. Markers want original analysis. A simple way to organise this is a three-column comparison.

Our PSY353 well-being report sample shows this critique applied to a fictional interviewee, for reference only.

Step 4: three factors and the question of personal choice

For each of your three factors, explain how it affects well-being, support it with research, and then evaluate how far it is subject to personal choice. This last part separates strong reports from average ones.

Many textbooks repeat the claim that around 40% of happiness comes from intentional activity, based on Lyubomirsky et al. (2005). Brown and Rohrer (2020) challenged that figure and argued that the evidence cannot support such a precise split. Citing both shows the marker you can weigh evidence rather than repeat it.

Step 5: recommendations that are entirely yours

The brief says recommendations must be your own, without AI input. For each recommendation, give the rationale, a realistic limitation, and a way to reduce it. Interventions such as gratitude or kindness exercises have evidence behind them, but effects vary (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), so tie each recommendation to the person’s routine and circumstances.

Mark-maximising checklist

• Interview planned around named models.
• AI report critiqued point by point, not rewritten.
• Three distinct factors, each with a personal-choice evaluation.
• Three original recommendations with limitations and solutions.
• At least five academic sources in APA style.
• Appendix with interview notes and the full AI report.
• Pseudonyms throughout; no identifying details.

Common mistakes

• Using IMRD headings, which the brief rules out.
• Copying long passages of AI output into the body.
• Citing websites or the iSmartGuide as academic sources.
• Forgetting the appendix, which can cost up to 20 marks.

If you would like your plan reviewed, our psychology assignment help and ECA assignment help pages explain how we support SUSS students, and you can read student reviews.

Frequently asked questions

Who can I interview for the PSY353 well-being report?

Anyone who consents and is not taking PSY353 this semester, such as a friend, colleague or relative.

Do I need to use a well-being scale?

No. A purely qualitative interview is allowed, but a short scale gives you useful data to discuss.

Which AI tool should I use?

Any generative AI tool is allowed, as long as you use the prescribed prompt and declare and cite its use.

Can my factors be the same as the AI’s factors?

Yes, but you must critique them, add missing detail and support them with theory and evidence.

Do in-text citations count towards the 2,000 words?

Yes. The word limit is inclusive of in-text citations, so plan your word budget carefully.

What happens if I use fabricated references?

The brief states that fabricated content, including fake references, results in a Fail. Check every source yourself.

References

Brown, N. J. L., & Rohrer, J. M. (2020). Easy as (happiness) pie? A critical evaluation of a popular model of the determinants of well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(4), 1285–1301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00128-4

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.

Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20593