!"##$#%&'()*+&,-.$/$0(&,.

12'-3-%1&&&

4&

Positive Psychology

Rachel Knoepfle University of the Pacific

&

& Positive Psychology

5&

The field of psychology has a long history of focusing on the more negative aspects of mental health, addressing symptoms and developing treatments before looking into preventions (Gable & Haidt, 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Sheldon & King, 2001). Recognizing that the focus of the field has largely ignored the other side of the coin the ways that people feel joy, show altruism and create healthy families and institutions, (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p. 105), gave space for Positive Psychology to develop. The roots of positive psychology come from the realization that a focus on the negative aspects of the field, which produced much research on depression, racism, and violence, provided less information on the positive aspects, such as character strengths, virtues, and the conditions that lead to happiness (Gable & Haidt, 2005). Understanding that psychologists know very little about how normal people thrive under benign conditions, (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5), positive psychology seeks to study the conditions and processes that lead to flourishing individuals and a desire to encourage research in neglected areas (Gable & Haidt, 2005). Positive psychology was introduced by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in a special edition of American Psychologist published in January 2000, although they built upon work from Rogers and Maslow, in which the origins of positive psychology can be found (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Shapiro, 2001). Presenting their theory as an attempt to shift the focus of the field of psychology from preoccupation only with repairing the worst things in life to also building positive qualities, (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), positive psychology quickly gained ground within the field as practitioners were encouraged to move beyond an inherent negative bias and instead revisit the average person, with an interest in finding what is right and what works (Gable & Haidt, 2005; Sheldon & King, 2001, p. 216).

&

&

6&

Positive psychology research includes areas such as gratitude, forgiveness, awe, inspiration, hope, curiosity, and laughter (Gable & Haidt, 2005). Positive psychology does not ignore or disregard negativity (Gable & Haidt, 2005), but does allow the focus to shift from weaknesses to strengths. Criticisms of positive psychology arose shortly after the theorys introduction. Initially presented in a special issue of American Psychologist, the articles on the theory did not include any mention of non-Western psychological methods, including Asian psychologies that have a specific focus on the positive (Walsh, 2001). Meditation and yoga may be the most well-known among Eastern psychologies, with effective techniques that focus on positive well-being and development, and are supported by a large body of research (Walsh, 2001). Some authors took issue with this exclusion from a body of work centered on the positive aspects of psychology. While this held true in 2000, since that time the focus has broadened, as has the body of research available. Currently, there is evidence that positive psychology is being used alongside Eastern methods (Hamilton, 2006; Levine, 2009). Aside from early criticisms, some weaknesses of positive psychology have emerged, particularly with the theorys attitude toward negativity as presented by key author Martin Seligman (Bohart & Greening, 2001; Held, 2004). Seligmans emphasis on optimism and positivity inherent in the theory leave room for misinterpretations. For example, due to an overemphasis on having a positive mindset, a victim could be blamed for not having the proper optimistic attitude to achieve self-improvement in the face of social injustice or oppression (Bohart & Greening, 2001, p. 81). Held refers to this as the tyranny of the positive attitude (2004, p. 12) and cautions against such oversimplifications. Some proponents within the field have oversimplified the message of positive psychology and taken it to a polarizing place:

&

&

7&

positivity is good and good for you and negativity is bad and bad for you (Held, 2004). With such an attitude, it is possible for positivity and optimism to add insult to injury by leaving people feeling guilty for not having the positive attitude needed to move beyond the pain and struggle of managing lifes difficulties (Held, 2004, p. 12). This very real risk needs to be acknowledged and practitioners need to be aware in taking the emphasis on optimism too far. There needs to be a balance between acknowledging difficulty and maintaining a positive outlook. The applications of positive psychology, as well as the varied research interests, are broad enough to move beyond oversimplifications and into more practical areas. Positive psychology is about more than just having a positive attitude, or only looking at positive traits and attributes. The theory essentially has two approaches, direct and indirect (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). The direct approach is more therapeutic and is about improving the quality of life; for example, helping people to be more satisfied with their lives (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). The indirect, or enabling approach, consists of finding those conditions that make people more satisfied in their lives and helping those conditions come about (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Both approaches can provide practical applications to treatment practices and methods, and both are well suited to be used in education. Motivated by the prevalence of depression in young people (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009), researchers from the University of Pennsylvania set out to teach wellbeing in the classroom, with the idea that such knowledge serves as an antidote to depression, as a vehicle for increasing life satisfaction, and as an aid to better learning and more creative thinking (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009). After recognizing a need for teaching well-being in school, researchers looked into whether or not well-being could actually

&

&

8&

be taught. Recognizing the importance of evidence-based interventions, two programs (the Penn Resiliency Program and the Strath Haven Positive Psychology Curriculum) were tested and found to produce positive and reliable improvements in students well-being (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009). From there, a separate Positive Psychology Program was developed and the curriculum was taught over the length of a school year. The findings led to the conclusion that well-being can and should be taught in schools, and a project to teach well-being to an entire school was undertaken: the Geelong Grammar School Project (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009). Researchers and trainers from the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania worked with and trained teachers at the Geelong Grammar School in Australia in 2008, and a school-wide positive psychology education program was underway. In 2009, the Geelong project, along with its preliminary research and practices, was described in the Oxford Review of Education. Results for this particular study showed that well-being programs can promote skills and strengths that are valued by parents, can produce measurable improvements in students well-being and behavior, and can facilitate students engagement in learning and achievement (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009). The project is currently ongoing and another research project is set to begin in 2013. Given my interest in self-esteem, particularly that of students with disabilities who are included into general education classrooms, using a positive psychology education curriculum in the classroom is an intriguing topic. Research has shown that disabilities can affect students self-esteem, mental health and well-being (MacMaster, Donovan, & MacIntyre, 2002), and I am curious as to what affect the inclusion of a positive psychology education program would have on this population. Using both the direct and indirect approaches, positive psychology could be

&

&

9&

used to improve the quality of classroom life and/or experiences, while at the same time providing students with the tools necessary to replicate those circumstances. This could be very beneficial to students with disabilities who may have a harder time finding their own positive attributes. Positive psychology is more than simply filling a hole left by focusing the field elsewhere, and more than a simplistic emphasis on the good to the extent of ignoring the bad. Rather, positive psychology is an attempt to urge psychologists to think differently and to have a more open perspective and appreciation for human potential and capacity (Sheldon & King, 2001). Practitioners are encouraged to recognize what works, what causes people and families and institutions to flourish (Gable & Haidt, 2005), and produce a scientific framework that can be used to build thriving individuals, families, and communities (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

&

&

:&

References Bohart, A.C. & Greening, T. (2001). Humanistic psychology and positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56 (1), p. 81. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). The promise of positive psychology. Psychological Topics, 18 (2), p. 203-211. Gable, S. & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9 (2), p. 103-110. Held, B.S. (2004). The negative side of positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44 (9), p. 9-43. Hamilton, N. A., Kitzman, H., & Guyotte, S. (2006). Enhancing health and emotion: Mindfulness as a missing link between cognitive therapy and positive psychology. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20(2), 123-134. MacMaster, K., Donova, L., & MacIntyre, P. (2002). The effects of being diagnosed with a learning disability on childrens self-esteem. Child Study Journal, 32, p. 101-108. Levine, M. (2009). The positive psychology of buddhism and yoga: Paths to a mature happiness. Psychology Press. Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 55 (1), p. 5-14. Seligman, M., Ernst, R., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35 (3), p. 293-311. Shapiro, S.B. (2001). Illogical positivism. American Psychologist, 56 (1), p. 82.

&

&

;&

Sheldon, K. & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56 (3), p. 216-217. Walsh, R. (2001). Positive psychology: east and west. American Psychologist, 56 (1), p. 83.