1.2.1. Strengths Theory
Enter every activity without giving mental recognition to the possibility of defeat. Concentrate on your strength, instead of your weaknessesā¦ on your powers, instead of your problems.
Paul J. Meyer
Those who study and practice positive psychology subscribe to strengths theory or the idea that it is vital to understand and build from oneās strengths while managing (rather than focusing on or repairing) weaknesses (Clifton and Nelson, 1996). This perspective is not a common one. According to Clifton and Nelson (1996), many employers, teachers, parents, and leaders work off the following unwritten rule: āLetās fix whatās wrong and let the strengths take care of themselvesā (p. 9). (It seems that this is the perspective of many therapists as well if they fail to practice from a strengths-based or positive psychology viewpoint, but we will address this in more detail in the following chapter.) Indeed, many managers send their employees off to be trained in areas that they struggle with and when they provide reviews of their work, the focus is on what needs improvement while what they are doing well gets little, if any, attention. Many children bring their report cards home and are afraid to show their parents their grades because they know they got a D+. It doesnāt matter that in addition to the D+ were several Aās and Bās. The parental focus, and therefore the childās focus, is on the area of weakness. Teachers often fall into this same āweakness trapā as well, honing in on what is wrong with a student, rather than what is going right.
Why is this focus on fixing what is wrong while overlooking what is right so prevalent? According to Clifton and Nelson (1996), it is because of several errors in thinking and logic to which most people fall victim. The first error is the idea that fixing or correcting a weakness will result in making a person or organization stronger. This is not true, as eliminating a weakness does not make one great; at best it will only help the individual or organization become normal or average.
The second error is the notion that there is no need to foster strengths, as they will take care of themselves and develop naturally (Clifton and Nelson, 1996). Again, this is faulty because taking oneās strengths for granted results in just normal or average outcomes, as those strengths do not mature to their full potential. In order to capitalize upon strengths, they must be nurtured and honed. For example, a child who does well in spelling but struggles with math is often assisted with his math skills while the spelling ability is ignored. While the childās math skills may get a bit better, his spelling will likely only slightly improve as well. Ideally, teachers and parents would work to manage his math weakness while simultaneously honing his spelling skills. With such an approach, they may be able to nurture the next national spelling bee winner.
The third error in thinking is the belief that strengths and weaknesses are opposites (Clifton and Nelson, 1996). Although many people think that if they shore up their weaknesses they can turn them into strengths, this simply is not true. We do not learn about strengths by studying weaknesses. For example, we cannot learn why college students stay in school and make it to graduation by studying those that drop out, nor can we understand how to create secure infant attachments by studying infants with insecure attachment styles. Yet, this is often the approach taken by those trying to improve the lives of individuals and organizations. Unfortunately, the study of weaknesses and deficits provides erroneous information about what to work on to improve performance.
The final error in thinking that keeps people from approaching life from a strengths perspective is the idea that people can do anything they put their minds to (Clifton and Nelson, 1996). This notion suggests that anyone can be successful at anything if they are willing to work hard. This is not the case, however, as all people have their own unique sets of strengths that will empower them to be successful in certain areas but not others. Clifton and Nelson (1996) state that āthe reality is that we can (and should) try anything we wish to try, but long-term success will elude us unless we determine early on that we have a basic talent for the endeavorā (p. 16). Indeed, working hard to be successful in an area that fails to capitalize on oneās strengths leads to a negative view of oneself and oneās abilities. For example, a person who is tone deaf who āputs her mind toā becoming a musical theater star will surely feel bad about herself as she is rejected over and over again at auditions. However, if she focused on her wonderful acting abilities and tried out for plays, rather than musicals, her dream to be on Broadway could become a reality.
Research on strengths theory has been conducted for the past fifty years, largely by researchers at the Gallup Organization who have studied successful managers, executives, teachers, coaches, athletes, doctors, nurses, salespeople, and more. More recently, research on strengths theory has been carried out by researchers in positive psychology. Indeed, a major ingredient in Seligmanās (2002) happiness formula is for one to discover his or her character strengths and then to find ways to capitalize upon those strengths on a regular basis. Doing this will lead one to feel engaged with life and therefore to be more satisfied and happy. There are many applications of strengths theory and many measures of strengths that can be utilized in the therapy room. These applications and measures will be further elucidated in the following chapters.
1.2.2. The Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions
The strangest and most fantastic fact about negative emotions is that people actually worship them.
P.D. Ouspensky
The broaden and build theory of positive emotions is another key theory that underpins many of the ideas of positive psychology. This theory provides an explanation of the utility and importance of positive emotions in peopleās lives. Prior to the development of this theory about a decade ago, little to no research existed on the value of positive emotions. In contrast, negative emotions have been studied for many decades and most people understand that negative emotions are important for a variety of reasons, including survival. For example, if you were to ask the average person if they would like the ability to no longer feel negative emotions such as fear, anger, or sadness, most, if not all, would say ānoā to this ability. This is because they realize that these emotions are important for functioning safely in the world. Indeed, without the ability to feel fear, one would not run from danger and without the ability to feel anger, one would not defend oneself when appropriate. However, most people, including those who have researched negative emotions, conclude that positive emotions have little utility beyond signaling that one is free of negative emotions. The broaden and build theory explains that positive emotions do much more than just signal that there are no problems. In fact, this theory posits that positive emotions are just as important to our survival and our ability to flourish in life as negative emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001).
The broaden and build theory is a multifaceted model of positive emotions, consisting of the broaden hypothesis, the build hypothesis, the undoing hypothesis, the resilience hypothesis, and the flourish hypothesis (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). In the following sections, each of these hypotheses will be defined and examples of research findings that support these ideas will be described as well.
The Broaden Hypothesis
We are wide-eyed in contemplating the possibility that life may exist elsewhere in the universe, but we often wear blinders when contemplating the possibilities of life on earth.
Norman Cousins
According to Fredrickson (1998, 2001), positive emotions broaden momentary thought-action repertoires,...