Foundation of Applied Positive Psychology (PP)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to critically consider the foundation of Positive Psychology (PP) and the application, drawing from the growing literature on this school of thought. The origin, definition, psychological theory, research, and intervention will be discussed; B. L. Fredrickson's (1998) broaden-and-build theory of how positive emotions provides the foundation for the application of PP will be described in detail. Additionally, the limitations of PP will be deliberated and consequently, the introduction of a possible new wave of PP 2.0, introduced as a dialectical approach to encompass the whole array of human experience, behaviours, and emotions will be considered for the evolving field of PP.

The theme of PP can be traced back to the roots of psychology itself, an example would be in the work of William James on “healthy mindedness” (James, 1902). Broadly-speaking, there are mutual interests in PP with parts of humanistic psychology, like its importance on the “fully-functioning individual (Rogers, 1961); and Maslow’s, (1968) self-actualisation in his study of healthy people more than 50 years ago, when he lamented about “psychology’s preoccupation with disorder and dysfunction” (P.A. Linley; et al., 2006).

The science of psychology, undeniably has its predominance on the negatives rather than the positives and this could be explained by the negative-bias of human nature, revealing much about the deficiencies, disorders, evils, but little about one’s potentialities, virtues, attainable aspirations, or the optimal functioning of human beings (Maslow, 1954, p. 354).

Marty Seligman coined and established PP in 1998 when he became the president of the American Psychological Association (APA). Similar to Maslow’s (1968) standpoint, he addressed that psychology was largely based upon a psychopathology and disease model focused almost exclusively to diagnose, treat and cure (Maddux, 2002; Maddux, Snyder, & Lopez, 2004). Therefore, he argued that although this was important, it was just as significant to “study and cultivate the human strengths and wellbeing such as optimism and, resolution, social skill, forward-thinking, ethics and responsibility”.

Therefore, he initiated a shift in psychology’s focus towards a more positive direction (Seligman, 1999). Given the research imbalance from then, and since many of these topics have been largely ignored (Gable & Haidt, 2005)), the literature on PP to date indicates significant progress and the prospects of PP are still abound with the growing research and literature. With that said, earlier onset, PP may not have paid much credit to its past precursors, and this prompted major criticisms (Taylor, 2001; Tennen & Affleck, 2003). However, at present there is an increased acknowledgement that PP can learn valuable lessons from prior studies and hypothesising. Hence, the hostility is replaced with respect and collaboration (Joseph & Worsley, 2005) and PP can be more integrative and effective so as to thrive for the benefit of mankind (P.A. Linley; et al., 2006).

PP and Mental Health Climate

The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines mental health as 'a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity…wellbeing in which everyone realises their own potential, can cope with the regular stresses of life, work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to the community' (WHO, 2005). This is in line with Marty Seligman’s stance that psychology should be able to benefit everyone, including those who do not have a mental disorder. He also argued that instead of more than just repairing the worst things in life, psychology should also be about helping people build the best things in life (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000; Seligman 2005a). However, contemporary psychoeducation, treatment/therapy, and initiatives for mental health still remains mostly entrenched with the negative side of life, and interprets the functioning of the people only in terms of a disease ideology, while the positive aspects such as mental wellbeing and Quality of Life (QOL) are especially limited and not prioritised.

Defining PP

PP is the scientific study to understand, test, discover and promote factors such as strengths and virtues (Sheldon et. al., 2000); on aspects of the human condition that lead to happiness, fulfilment, and flourishing (The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2005); the study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing signified by living with an optimal range of human functioning of people, groups, and institutions (Gable & Haidt, 2005), that is characterised by four key components such as goodness, generativity, growth and resilience (Frederickson & Losada, 2005); to enjoy high levels of well-being and low levels of mental illness (Robitschek & Keyes, 2009); pursuing and living a good life (Franklin, 2009). Herein, another latest and most commonly accepted definition of PP being the scientific study of what makes life most worth living with an emphasis on strengths instead of weaknesses” (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).

There have been several definitions of PP from various authorities of positive psychologists. There are both consistencies as well as variations in their emphasis and interpretation, evident by the numerous definitions, theoretical frameworks and applications (Linley et.al, 2006). Since the subject matter is much more complex than it appears, it apparently has been challenging for PP to establish a comprehensive definition that encompasses different aspects of PP. Despite the fact that PP is faithfully committed to using the best scientific methods of empirical psychology to present its findings to the community about how one can live their lives well, not having a common and consistent paradigm to build on may be impeding these research and studies on PP. To add further, understandably, akin to any research into mental health, the field is plagued with difficulties in achieving consensus on many categorical attribute (Luborsky et al., 2002) since, there are many possible perspectives and ways that each trait may have been interpreted and assessed.

Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Interventions

Positive emotion is a key component in intervention and the academic discipline of PP is developing evidence-based interventions to improve mental health and wellbeing (Slade, 2010). Positive mental health proposes intervention strategies that cultivate positive emotions which are particularly suited for preventing and treating problems rooted in negative emotions, such as, depression, anxiety, and stress-related health issues. B. L. Fredrickson's (1998) broaden-and-build theory describes how positive emotions provides the foundation for this application (Fredrickson, 2001). Negative emotions can narrow one’s momentary thought–action of fight-or-flight that served the inherent function of supporting survival (Frederickson, 2004).

In contrast, positive emotions can broaden one’s momentary thought–action patterns, which in turn can build that individual's enduring personal resources of social, intellectual, psychological and physical over time and this can produce an upward spiral towards increased subjective well-being (Frederikson, 2004). One implication of the broaden-and-build theory is that positive emotions have an undoing effect on negative emotions. A range of intervention and coping strategies reviewed, (Hefferson & Boniwell, 2011) found that the strategies of “positive emotions optimises health and wellbeing to the extent that they cultivate positive emotions. Cultivated positive emotions not only counteract negative emotions, but also broaden individuals' habitual modes of thinking and build their personal resources for coping. Mental health promotion involves promoting the value for mental health and improving the coping capacities of individuals rather than working on eliminating symptoms and deficits. Therefore, combining prevention and promotion programs in mental health within overall public health strategies reduces stigma, increases cost-effectiveness, and provides multiple positive outcomes like making them more knowledgeable, effective, resilient and socially-inclusive (Patel & Saxena, 2014).

Limitations of PP

Seligman’s initial focus on positive emotions, positive traits, and positive institutions has dominated the PP agenda for research and intervention which critics point out to be rather one-dimensional and such a simplistic perspective when in reality, the positives and negatives cannot be separated (Larsen et al., 2001, 2004). An example is where people may even experience a meaningful connection and form a bond over a negative event or scenario (Kowalski, 2002). Ultimately, PP should consider how to bring out the best in people, in good and bad times in spite of their internal and external limitations (Ingram & Snyder, 2006).

PP 2.0: Towards a Balanced Interactive Model

A ‘second wave’ of an integrative model representing PP 2.0, may be germinating. Over the recent years, PP may also be developing an understanding of the dialectical nature of flourishing that involves a dynamic interplay of the positive and negative and its exploration of the philosophical and conceptual complexities of the very idea of the ‘positive’ (Wong P. T., 2010). P.T. Wong (2011a) advocated for a more balanced and inclusive approach by integrating these complexities to optimise positive outcomes”; as well as taking on cultural, ethnic, and geographic variables with the aim to make it applicable to everyone (Chang, Downey, Hirsch, & Lin, 2016). The approach of this underlying principal is represented by understanding both the significance of the deficit model in clinical psychology and the positive strength and resilience model of PP, which can add new perspectives to ideas about dysfunctional behaviour, and this has important implications for the theory and practice of cognitive therapies. The recent literature suggest that the amalgamation of PP and cognitive therapies may be much more effective together than on its own (Ingram & Snyder, 2006).

Conclusion

PP has witnessed tremendous growth and progression in its field. However, there is still much room for debate around PP with further evidence required in many areas of studies (Fernández-Ríos & Vilariño, 2016). No field is immune from criticism, nor should it be. A healthy debate and a robust peer-review process is what will ensure objectivity and credibility for PP to develop into an evolving and sustainable field that continues to flourish. There is also a need for greater discussion about what can be done on integrating PP’s extended knowledge base with the underpinning knowledge on the complexities of human emotions (Wong P. T., 2011a). This provides an opportunity to appreciate the implications and how it may positively shape the future of PP.