Yen, J. (2014). Positive Psychology. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology (pp. 14311437). New York: Springer. The following manuscript is a pre-publication version of the chapter. It may not be an exact replica of the final version published in the book. It is not the copy of record. If you would like a copy of the published version, please contact me at:
[email protected].
Positive Psychology
Jeffery Yen University of Guelph
Comp. by: MohamedSameer Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 225 Date:22/6/13 Time:17:04:50 Page Number: 1
1
2
3 4 5
Title Name: ECP
P
Positive Psychology Jeffery Yen Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
6
Introduction
7
Positive psychology refers to a broad subset of disciplinary interests, research programs, and areas of application, all of which share a common focus on the “positive” aspects of psychology. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) – who are the field’s founders and main proponents – have argued as grounds for its inception that it is an important and necessary foil to what they characterize as the disproportionate focus on mental illness, dysfunction, and pathology in the history of the discipline of psychology. As remedy to this “negative” bias in the discipline, positive psychologists maintain that what is needed is a shift in research efforts towards understanding what kinds of factors contribute to well-being, happiness, and success. Some of its proponents go as far as claiming that this shift in focus – and the resulting success of positive psychology – will ultimately redefine the coordinates of the entire discipline of psychology (Seligman & Fowler, 2011). Critiques of the movement have been voiced by both traditional and critical psychologists who have expressed concern about its overemphasis of the positive, disavowal of its prescriptive
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
implications, and its recent association with the United States military, in addition to its instrumentalist and liberal individualist underpinnings.
32
Definitions
35
The research interests of positive psychologists are organized around three central concerns or “nodes”: (i) positive emotions/experiences, (ii) positive character/individuals, and (iii) positive communities/organizations (Seligman, 1999). The experiences or states of “happiness” or “subjective well-being,” the conditions under which these occur, and the kinds of positive outcomes predicted by the presence of such experiences are the focus of the first node. Seligman (1999) distinguishes between past-oriented experiences such as contentment and satisfaction, future-oriented ones like hope and optimism, and finally, present-oriented experiences such as joy, pleasure, or “flow.” The central assertion is that positive subjective experiences constitute a crucial aspect of quality of life. Indicative of the dominant social-cognitive paradigm that underpins positive psychology, such experiences are thought to reflect “an individual’s evaluation of his or her own life, whether the appraisal is in terms of a cognitive judgment, pleasant emotions, physical pleasure, or pleasant interest” (Seligman). Of the three “nodes”, this first was already supported by a substantial body of work in social psychology prior to the formation of positive psychology. In addition, it has
36
T. Teo (ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7, # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
33 34
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Comp. by: MohamedSameer Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 225 Date:22/6/13 Time:17:04:50 Page Number: 2
P 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
Title Name: ECP
2
contributed to, and benefited substantially from, the growing interest in “happiness” and wellbeing in the field of economics over the last 30 years. In what has become known as “Happiness Economics,” it is argued that a population’s well-being is not well approximated by measures of absolute income, such as the Gross Domestic Product, and that development efforts should focus on promoting psychological or subjective well-being instead. These assertions, first made in a seminal publication by the economist Richard Easterlin, have stirred considerable controversy in economic theory. Since the publication of Easterlin’s (1974) paper, a number of economic analyses, first by Hagerty and Veenhoven (2003) and then by Stevenson and Wolfers (2008), directly contradict Easterlin’s findings. More recently Easterlin, himself, and British economists Richard Layard and Andrew Oswald have responded with new analyses in support of his original arguments. The second node, positive individuals, focuses on the study of personal or characterological qualities or traits that are regarded as either adaptive and healthful, or intrinsically virtuous and predictive of happiness. In order to complement and counterbalance what they regard as the negative bias represented by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) – the taxonomy of mental illnesses around which much of North American mental health practice and research is organized – Peterson and Seligman (2004) have developed a handbook of “character strengths,” which they have dubbed a “Manual of the Sanities.” In it, they identify 24 virtues grouped under the following categories: wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. The work on developing and refining this taxonomy continues under the moniker “Values in Action” or VIA. Thirdly, positive psychology focuses on communities/institutions that promote human “flourishing.” It studies the kinds of environments in which the personal qualities outlined in the second node above would be encouraged and facilitated, such as democracy or free speech. Although it is presented quite explicitly as “the most interdisciplinary” node of the three, the
Positive Psychology
kinds of research questions subsumed under it still appear to be posed within the traditional frameworks of social psychology (e.g., “What motivates people to participate in voluntary organizations?” or “What prompts willingness to sacrifice private benefits for greater goods?” (Seligman, 1999)). These types of questions implicitly maintain an analytic focus on individual psychology (e.g., motivation, cognition) rather than institutional or community dynamics. Of the three nodes, it has received the least attention, to date, in terms of research, publication activity, and funding (Kristja´nsson, 2010).
111
Keywords
124
Happiness, subjective well-being mental hygiene, positive psychology, character strengths
125
History
127
The positive psychology movement came into being in the wake of two pivotal events. First, at the time of Martin Seligman’s term of presidency of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1998, he and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi devised a strategy to establish a positive psychology network of scholars. Reaching out to prominent psychologists and academics around the United States, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi identified three “nodes” of psychological researchers that would constitute the field of positive psychology, each of which would be headed by a “senior” chair, and be made up of ten or more promising junior scholars (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2011). The network would be tasked with the aggressive establishment and expansion of the field. These academics were then invited to a series of meetings at which positive psychology’s overall conceptual and programmatic features were deliberated and decided upon. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi’s intentions were unabashedly and strategically ambitious: the field’s success was to be measured by “explicitly quantifying increased conventional funding, major conspicuous publications, new
128
112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
126
129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152
Comp. by: MohamedSameer Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 225 Date:22/6/13 Time:17:04:50 Page Number: 3
Title Name: ECP
Positive Psychology 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
and tenured faculty, citation rate, and graduate and undergraduate course offerings” (Seligman, 1999). The second important event was the publication of a special issue of the American Psychologist in 2000, in which Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi – serving as guest editors – announced the triumphal arrival of the field of positive psychology. In the editorial introduction to the special issue, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) proclaimed the now ubiquitously retold story of the rise of positive psychology, its surpassing and supplanting of previous disciplinary efforts such as humanistic psychology, and the absolute necessity for the field and its positive focus in redefining a new psychology of human excellence at the turn of the millennium. Although this historical narrative has been roundly criticized for ignoring prior contributions to work on human growth and potential, as well as that on resilience, in other fields such as humanistic, counselling, and community psychology, it continues to be promulgated by positive psychologists. Others have criticized the founding “declaration[s] of independence” by positive psychologists (e.g., Snyder & Lopez, 2005) as exclusionary and counterproductive. Positive psychologists have since taken pains to tone down some of these earlier statements. In the decade following these developments, positive psychology has expanded rapidly and grown into a fully fledged field of study. A recent study (Hart & Sasso, 2011) found more than 20,000 citations published on or about positive psychology since 1998, which represents an extraordinary number. Though the authors included publications whose authors may not necessarily self-identify as positive psychologists, this citation count is indicative of sustained and growing research activity in the field. The subject is now taught in many undergraduate and graduate departments, there are annual conferences and meetings, a dedicated academic journal (the Journal of Positive Psychology), and a plethora of new societies and international interest groups. Notably, the field has also enjoyed unprecedented financial support in its
3
P
short history. Within 5 years of Seligman’s APA presidential address, the field had raised more than $30 million in research funding, including the Templeton Positive Psychology Prize, which at the time constituted the largest single monetary award in psychology. Organizations such as the Templeton Foundation have provided considerable monetary and institutional support to the movement. The research goals, concepts, and theories of positive psychology have since extended into numerous other parts of the discipline, resulting in relatively recent declarations of alignment with positive psychology within applied areas such as clinical and counselling psychology, industrial psychology, health psychology, sport psychology, and educational psychology. Additionally, its influence has reached into related fields such as criminology, and even tourism. Most recently, Seligman and Fowler (2011), together with other positive psychologists, were contracted to develop and conduct a research and training program to improve the combat resilience of soldiers in the United States Armed Forces. Dubbed “Comprehensive Soldier Fitness” or CSF, the program will receive approximately $125 million in funding from the US government and will focus on lowering the incidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, increase soldier resilience, and increase the incidence of posttraumatic “growth.” Seligman and Fowler frame positive psychology’s involvement in the military as a patriotic and moral obligation, offering as a central rationale the notion that America will be involved in “persistent warfare” for the foreseeable future, and will thus require its knowledge and services. In addition, proponents of the initiative hope that the successful execution of such a “fitness” training program in the military will provide research insights for preventative medicine, as well as a model for promoting well-being, in the civilian population.
201
Traditional Debates
243
Although positive psychology has been welcomed with open arms in much of the discipline,
244
202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242
245
Comp. by: MohamedSameer Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 225 Date:22/6/13 Time:17:04:51 Page Number: 4
P 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
4
dissent has been expressed in some traditional quarters. The most direct of these is documented in a 2003 issue of the journal Psychological Inquiry, in which the social-cognitive theorist of emotion Richard Lazarus articulated four concerns: positive psychology’s dichotomous schema, its lack of conceptual clarity, its methodological shortcomings, and its distortion of history. Lazarus argued firstly that positive psychology’s opposition of positive and negative was psychologically unrealistic, as “most people seek to integrate [these] extremes” (2003b, p. 173). Secondly, he pointed out that terms such as “positive,” “negative,” and the “good life” were not clearly defined in positive psychology. Third, he argued, the neglect of longitudinal studies and individual differences could lead only to overgeneralizations in the field. Finally, he took issue with its characterization of past psychological research as entirely negative. While Lazarus’ critique sparked a great deal of debate among more traditional psychologists, it did not attend to positive psychology’s central ideological assumptions, a focus that is emphasized in more critical debates (see below).
271
Critical Debates
272
Positive psychology has been challenged from numerous positions and perspectives. These have included critiques of its underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions (Christopher, Richardson, & Slife, 2008), its methodologies (e.g., Lazarus, 2003), concern over the social and political implications of these assumptions, the central and unresolved tension between description and prescription in the field, its separatist rhetoric, and its piecemeal appropriation of ancient philosophical traditions. Positive psychology’s central concepts and constructs – such as well-being, in particular – have been criticized as individualistic and ethnocentric and as having embedded within them both distinctly Western and North American cultural values, as well as a liberal individualist ideology (Christopher & Hickinbottom, 2008). Critics have argued that such cultural-political
273 274 275 276 Au1
Title Name: ECP
277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
Positive Psychology
frameworks can be seen to underlie the field’s concept of the good life, as well as the means by which it is to be achieved. On the whole, the field is guided by and reproduces an instrumentalist rationality in its basic concepts and theory. Maximizing happiness, well-being or flourishing in individuals may inadvertently also divert attention away from circumstances and contexts in which social justice and moral right would involve courses of action which are less than pleasurable or do not contribute to subjective well-being. These criticisms have been mounted despite (and also because of) the field’s expressed commitment to the epistemological and methodological conventions of natural science, in which it is assumed that things like morals and virtues can be studied objectively and value-neutrally such that positive psychology would constitute a universally applicable body of knowledge. Though these challenges are directed at positive psychology and its methods, these critiques are not specific to it, and apply to some of the central assumptions of psychological science as a whole. In a directly related sense, positive psychology has been criticized for its “moral gap” (Kristja´nsson, 2010). Here, critics point out that positive qualities are evaluated on merely instrumental rather than moral grounds, thus rendering indistinguishable, for example, the “flourishing” of a dishonest Wall Street banker and that of a caring social worker. Furthermore, in its commitment to a particular vision of objective science, its proponents consistently affirm that the field and the knowledge it produces is to be regarded as merely descriptive of the human qualities, activities, and experiences that lead to happiness and the good life, rather than being prescriptive of these. Claims of disingenuousness aside, some writers have commented that this can lead to implicit pressures to focus on happiness and to disavow the negative, leading to a kind of “tyranny of the positive attitude” (Held, 2004, p. 12), while others, particularly in health psychology, warn of the dangers posed by positive psychology’s one-sided emphasis on optimism in patients recovering from cancer (Coyne, Tennen, & Ranchor, 2010).
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338
Comp. by: MohamedSameer Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 225 Date:22/6/13 Time:17:04:51 Page Number: 5
Title Name: ECP
Positive Psychology 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386
Throughout its short history, leading positive psychologists have claimed that the field is an empirical discipline rooted in ancient moralphilosophical traditions, most notably that of Aristotle. However, a number of philosophers have criticized the field’s appropriation of Aristotle’s moral-ethical philosophy as inaccurate, focusing as it does on subjective experiences such as “flow,” “awe,” and “elevation.” In contrast, Aristotelian philosophers argue the concept of eudaimonia is concerned more with one’s life as a whole – its end or telos – rather than with subjective experiences (Woolfolk & Wasserman, 2005). Conceptually, clarifying what is meant by the key aim and notion of “happiness” in positive psychology has been beset by difficulties. Some critics (e.g., Kristja´nsson, 2010) of positive psychology’s attempts to unify its study of happiness distinguish between three kinds of definition: (a) hedonistic accounts, which emphasize happiness as a subjective experience of pleasure; (b) life-satisfaction accounts, which give importance to people’s perceptions of their lives as a whole; and (c) eudaimonistic accounts, which regard happiness as being amenable to objective measurement. Again, the field’s inability to provide clarity on this issue is argued to be a direct result of its proponents’ unwillingness to acknowledge the normative nature of its inquiry. Methodologically, questions have been raised about the extent to which positive psychologists can make the claims that they do from crosssectional research designs (e.g., Lazarus, 2003), and Cromby (2011) has mounted a critique of the validity of self-report measures of subjective well-being used in large-scale happiness research, based on phenomenological and critical theoretical understandings of emotion. As mentioned above, at the time of its inception, the self-conscious portrayal of positive psychology as new, revolutionary, and essentially opposed to much of the rest of psychology-asusual drew criticism from many psychologists who felt that their work on human growth and actualization or prevention and resilience had not been properly acknowledged. In addition, as the field has matured, many researchers, both explicitly positioned within and outside of positive
5
P
psychology, have begun to rethink the separatist rhetoric that has characterized much of the writing emerging from positive psychologists (Yen, 2010). Some positive psychologists acknowledge that it may be in the best interests of the field to legitimize particular topics studied within subfields as “positive” rather than emphasize the separate identity of positive psychology as a bounded subfield in itself. However, the field’s glossing over of its historical roots has other implications too: despite its claims of revolutionary novelty, the field bears striking and yet unacknowledged resemblances to Victorian era and twentieth-century “mental hygiene” movements which emphasized good adjustment to “reality,” a reality that served the interests of the ruling classes (Becker & Marecek, 2008). For these and other reasons detailed above, positive psychology is regarded by critical psychologists as largely politically conservative. Most recently, even psychologists traditionally sympathetic towards the field have raised impassioned objections to its close involvement with the US military. These writers have censured the field’s uncritical stance towards assumptions of “persistent warfare,” as well as the notion that it should further dehumanize soldiers by mitigating and reducing their posttraumatic distress in the face of the horrors of warfare.
387
International Relevance
416
Positive psychology has established itself in psychological research programs and higher educational curricula around the world. Furthermore, it has become closely affiliated with broader recent trends in the social sciences in which the notion of “national well-being” and happiness has become increasingly visible and invested with economic and political import. In an increasing number of cases, the field and its research are being consulted in large-scale policy decision making at national and international levels.
417
388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415
418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427
Comp. by: MohamedSameer Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 225 Date:22/6/13 Time:17:04:51 Page Number: 6
P 428
429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445
Title Name: ECP
6
Practice Relevance The field has numerous practice implications, both as a general orientation towards positive psychological phenomena and as a set of techniques that can be applied to traditional forms of practice. For example, recent publications focusing on positive psychology in higher education present principles and techniques for applying positive psychology to the classroom setting, the campus social milieu, the faculty and administration relationships, and the surrounding community (Parks, 2011). Other domains for application found in the literature include those devoted to utilizing positive psychology to improve productivity in the workplace, as well as coaching technique and practice. It has also been influential in the clinical, counselling, community, and health psychology domains.
446
Future Directions
447
Positive psychology seems set to continue its recent record of rapid development and expansion. Its adherents have been relatively responsive to some forms of critique and questioning that have been directed at it, and this has resulted in the fruitful elaboration and clarification of its concepts and methods. However, there is little indication that the core – and to some critics, most insidious – conceptual assumptions of the field will change. In addition, its recent affiliation with the US military and the resultant influx of resources, personnel and powerful interests, can be expected to further bolster its standing and growth, despite continued critical objections and opposition from those within and outside of the discipline of psychology.
448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462
463
References
464
Becker, D., & Marecek, J. (2008). Positive psychology: History in the remaking? Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 591–604. Christopher, C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology, ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 563–589.
465 466 467 468 469
Positive Psychology Christopher, C., Richardson, C., & Slife, D. (2008). Thinking through positive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 555–561. Coyne, J. C., Tennen, H., & Ranchor, A. V. (2010). Positive psychology in cancer care: A story line resistant to evidence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39(1), 35–42. Cromby, J. (2011). The greatest gift? Happiness, governance and psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(11), 840–852. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2011). Positive psychology. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 3–8). New York: Oxford. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth (pp. 89–125). New York: Academic. Hagerty, M. R., & Veenhoven, R. (2003). Wealth and happiness revisited – growing national income does go with greater happiness. Social Indicators Research, 64(1), 1–27. Hart, K. E., & Sasso, T. (2011). Mapping the contours of contemporary positive psychology. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 52(2), 82–92. Held, B. S. (2004). The negative side of positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44(1), 9–46. Kristja´nsson, K. (2010). Positive psychology, happiness, and virtue: The troublesome conceptual issues. Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 296–310. Lazarus, R. S. (2003a). Target article: Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 93–109. Lazarus, R. S. (2003b). Author’s response: The Lazarus manifesto for positive psychology and psychology in general. Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 173–189. Parks, A. C. (2011). The state of positive psychology in higher education: Introduction to the special issue. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(6), 429–431. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. USA: Oxford University Press. Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). Positive psychology network concept paper. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from http:// www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/ppgrant.htm Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. Seligman, M. E. P., & Fowler, R. D. (2011). Comprehensive soldier fitness and the future of psychology. American Psychologist, 66(1), 82–86. Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2005). The future of positive psychology: A declaration of independence. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press. Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the easterlin
470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 Au2 523 524 525 526 527
Comp. by: MohamedSameer Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 225 Date:22/6/13 Time:17:04:51 Page Number: 7
Title Name: ECP
Positive Psychology 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537
paradox (NBER working paper 14282). Cambridge, MA: NBER. Woolfolk, R. L., & Wasserman, R. H. (2005). Count no one happy: Eudaimonia and positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 81–90. Yen, J. (2010). Authorizing happiness: Rhetorical demarcation of science and society in historical narratives of positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 30(2), 67–78.
7
P
Online Resources
538
Jeffries, S. (2008, June 24). Will this man make you happy? The guardian. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jun/24/ healthandwellbeing.schools Senior, J. (2006, July 9). Some dark thoughts on happiness. New York magazine. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://nymag.com/news/features/17573/ University of Pennsylvania (2007). Positive psychology center. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www. ppc.sas.upenn.edu/
539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548
