In less than a decade, positive psychology has caught the attention not only of the academic community but also the general public. I just did a google search for "positive psychology' and found 419,000+ hits. That is obviously impressive, although keeping all of us positive psychologists humble is that my searches for the "Olsen twins" and "Britney Spears" produced 6,390,000+ and 113,000,000+ hits, respectively.
It is still good that larger world is interested in positive psychology, and probably even better that this interest does not entail morbid curiosity and the wish to witness a train wreck.
Regardless, the downside of whatever popularity positive psychology enjoys is the temptation for those of us associated with this new field to run ahead of what we know in pursuit of further popularity. So let me slow down and explain what positive psychology actually is and what we actually know.
Positive psychology is the scientific study of what makes life most worth living. It is a call for psychological science and practice to be as concerned with strength as with weakness; as interested in building the best things in life as in repairing the worst; and as concerned with making the lives of normal people fulfilling as with healing pathology.
Nowhere does this definition say or imply that psychology should ignore or dismiss the very real problems that people experience. Nowhere does it say or imply that the rest of psychology needs to be discarded or replaced. The value of positive psychology is to complement and extend the problem-focused psychology that has been dominant for many decades.
Several truisms underpin positive psychology. First, what is good in life is as genuine as what is bad-not derivative, secondary, epiphenomenal, illusory, or otherwise suspect. Second, what is good in life is not simply the absence of what is problematic. We all know the difference between not being depressed and bounding out of bed in the morning with enthusiasm for the day ahead. And third, the good life requires its own explanation, not simply a theory of disorder stood sideways or flipped on its head.
Positive psychology is psychology-psychology is science-and science require checking theories against evidence. Accordingly, positive psychology is not to be confused with untested self-help, footless affirmation, or secular religion-no matter how good these may make us feel. Positive psychology is neither a recycled version of the power of positive thinking nor a sequel to the secret.
Positive psychology will rise or fall on the science on which it is based. So far, the science is impressive. Consider what has been learned in recent years about the psychological good life, none of which was mentioned in any of the psychology courses I took a few decades ago:
• Most people are happy.
• Happiness is a cause of good things in life and not simply along for the happy ride. People who are satisfied with life eventually have even more reason to be satisfied, because happiness leads to desirable outcomes at school and work, to fulfilling social relationships, and even to good health and long life.
• Most people are resilient.
• Happiness, strengths of character, and good social relationships are buffers against the damaging effects of disappointments and setbacks.
• Crisis reveals character.
• Other people matter mightily if we want to understand what makes like most worth living.
• Religion matters.
• And work matters as well if it engages the worker and provides meaning and purpose.
• Money makes an ever-diminishing contribution to well-being, but money can buy happiness if it is spent on other people.
• As a route to a satisfying life, eudaimonia trumps hedonism.
• The "heart" matters more than the "head." Schools explicitly teach critical thinking; they should also teach unconditional caring.
• Good days have common features: feeling autonomous, competent, and connected to others.
• The good life can be taught.
This latter point is especially important because it means that happiness is not simply the result of a fortunate spin of the genetic roulette wheel. There are things that people can do to lead better lives, although I hasten to say that all require that we live (behave) differently ... permanently. The good life is hard work, and there are no shortcuts to sustained happiness.
My goals for the blog entries that will follow are two-fold. First, I plan to discuss recent research findings about the psychological good life. And second, I plan to discuss the most promising applications based on these findings. I hope you find what I say interesting, and I invite your reactions, positive or negative. But let's try and base the discourse on what the evidence shows. As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Is Positive Psychology a Positive or a Normative Science?
The main aim of this blog is to provide a description of Positive Psychology. It emphasizes the aim of Positive Psychology to be a science.
However, the inherent problem for Positive Psychology is the conflict between its aim to be scientific and the aim to provide "scientific" answers for the general public.
Due to the limited information and the empirical difficulties in studying wellbeing, current answers often have to go beyond the empirical facts.
The facts posted in this blog illustrate this problem.
1. "Most people are happy." [This is not a summary of a scientific finding. What is the population for this conclusion: US American college students, US Americans, or all people currently living on this planet? What is the criterion to determine whether somebody is happy or unhappy: a rating above the midpoint on an ordinal scale? Moreover, others are currently using the same evidence to claim that most Americans are struggling to be happy (April 29, 2008 "National Well-Being Measure Finds Majority Struggling"), and a positive psychologists from Harvard University claims that 50% of college students are depressed ("Learn to make yourself happier"). I am not saying that the conclusion is false. I am just saying that "most people are happy" is not a good example of a scientific fact about happiness.
2. "Happiness is a cause of good things in life and not simply along for the happy ride." [I am aware of the meta-analytic evidence that shows a correlation between wellbeing measures and other good things in life. However, I think it is not possible to claim as a scientific fact that these correlations reflect causal effects of happiness. Moreover, a recent study just claimed that the highest level of happiness does produce fewer of these good things. At this point, it is questionable whether any of these findings can assume the status of a scientific fact.
3. "Money makes an ever-diminishing contribution to well-being, but money can buy happiness if it is spent on other people." A subsequent post by Dr. Peterson provides a more complex and accurate description of the empirical facts ("Money and Happiness").
4. As a route to a satisfying life, eudaimonia trumps hedonism. [This statement assumes that satisfying life, eudaimonia and hedonism are well defined constructs with well established measures, but they are not. A description of the empirical facts would be that a measure of life-satisfaction tends to be more highly correlated with a measure that is assumed to reflect audaimonia than a measure that is supposed to measure hedonism.]
It is also instructive to see which actual empirical facts are not mentioned in this list of things that we know.
1. Life-satisfaction judgments decrease when people loose their jobs. (Lucas, Psychological Science, and many other studies by economists)
2. Average life satisfaction judgments of nations are strongly (r > .5) correlated with nations' wealth (Gross Domestic Product), freedom, observance of human rights, etc. and other good things Easterlin, 1974, Veenhoven, 1991, Diener et al. 1995, Diener & Oishi, 2000, etc., etc.).
3. Life satisfaction judgments are correlated with individuals' household income (Easterin, 1974, Veenhoven, 1991).
4. Life-satisfaction judgments decrease when people become physically disabled (Lucas, JPSP, and several articles in specialized journals on disability).
I believe the omission of the latter findings reveals a bias in positive psychology and psychology in general to focus on internal determinants of happiness and wellbeing. However, if you are less happy than you would like to be, you may ask yourself first whether your low happiness is caused by your lack of character strength or whether it may be your actual living conditions that are responsible. Sometimes it may be better to try to change your actual life than to just try to adjust your emotions and beliefs to unfavorable life circumstances. In other words, if you are a rich White US American with an autonomous job who feels dissatisfied, Positive Psychology may offer you some answers. However, if you are a poor, unemployed African American single mother in a crime ridden neighborhood, a lack of gratitude and meaning in life may be the least of your concerns.
Again, I am not saying what you should or should not do to make yourself feel happier or increase your wellbeing. I am simply saying that a positive science should be limited to the description and explanation of empirical facts. The translation of this information into self-help tips, interventions, and policy recommendations has to be separated from the science.
My problem with positive psychology is that the lines are often blurred and that values and beliefs that are underpinning the normative aspects of positive psychology sometimes shape the interpretation of the scientific facts.
If you find these comments interesting, you may also want to visit my website wellbeingscience.org.