PSY353 ECA July 2026 Sample: Well-Being Report and Critique of an AI Assessment Singapore

For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.

This extract shows how a Question 2 well-being report for the PSY353 Positive Psychology ECA (July 2026, SUSS) could be organised. The interviewee “Mei” is fictional, and every interview detail below is illustrative. Your report must be based on your own consented interview, your own AI output and your own recommendations. SUSS requires you to declare GenAI use and include the interview notes and AI report in an appendix.

Related: read the full PSY353 ECA July 2026 question and our guide to critiquing the AI assessment in the PSY353 well-being report. A broader PSY353 Positive Psychology sample covers an earlier task.

Report structure at a glance

The brief asks for a scientific essay, so avoid Introduction–Methods–Results–Discussion headings. Descriptive headings such as those above are acceptable.

Extract: assessing well-being and critiquing the AI report

Mei is a 29-year-old project coordinator. In a 45-minute interview she described stable relationships with her family and two close friends, long working hours and a recent move into a shared flat. She also completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) and scored in the slightly satisfied range.

A useful starting point is to separate subjective well-being, which covers life satisfaction and the balance of positive and negative feelings (Diener et al., 1985), from psychological well-being, which includes autonomy, purpose and positive relations (Ryff, 1989). Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model adds positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning and accomplishment.

The AI tool rated Mei’s well-being as “moderate” and listed stress, work–life balance and social support as the main factors. That summary is plausible but thin. It does not distinguish between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects, and it missed that Mei described her work as meaningful despite the long hours. Under Ryff’s (1989) model, this points to a strong sense of purpose that offsets some of the strain. The AI also treated “social support” as one factor, whereas Mei’s interview suggested close family ties but few new friendships since her move.

Extract: one factor and how far it depends on personal choice

Social relationships. Strong relationships are among the most consistent predictors of well-being. A meta-analysis by Holt-Lunstad et al. (2010) linked stronger social relationships with a 50% greater likelihood of survival, which shows how central they are to health as well as happiness. Mei’s family ties appear to buffer her stress, yet her move has reduced day-to-day contact with friends.

How much of this is under her control? Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) proposed that intentional activities account for a meaningful share of differences in happiness. Brown and Rohrer (2020) later argued that the commonly cited 40% figure is not supported by the evidence and that the share open to choice cannot be estimated so precisely. A balanced answer would say that Mei can choose to invest time in new friendships, but her long working hours and new location limit how far choice alone can change the outcome.

Writing your three recommendations

The brief requires recommendations that are entirely your own, without AI input. For each one, give the evidence, a limitation and a way to reduce that limitation. A recommendation built on the interview, such as joining a weekly interest group near the new flat, is stronger than a generic suggestion. Positive psychology interventions can raise well-being, but effects vary across people and settings (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), so state the conditions under which each recommendation is likely to work.

Appendix checklist

• Interview questions and point-form notes on answers.
• The full AI-generated report and the prescribed prompt.
• A table of any additional prompts and outputs, if AI was used beyond the prescribed prompt.
• Pseudonyms only; no names or identifying details anywhere.

For further support, see our psychology assignment help, report writing help and SUSS assignment help pages.

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

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

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