WELCOME TO POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
A little over two decades ago, the president of the American Psychological Association, Martin E. P. Seligman, announced the beginning of a new direction in psychological research and practice. He called this movement âpositive psychology,â the âstudy of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing and optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutionsâ (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p. 203). Since then, positive psychology has exploded in popularity and influence, spawning graduate degrees, research centers, international conferences, and academic journals. Positive psychology has been embraced by researchers and practitioners in every subdiscipline of psychology. Teachers have begun employing positive psychology in the classroom (Gilman, Huebner, & Furlong, 2009). Employers and business consultants have been applying positive psychology in the workplace (Froman, 2010). The US Army built the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program on a foundation of positive psychology (Casey, 2011). Politicians have discussed using positive psychology to shape public policy (Cameron, 2010).
Positive psychology has also seen application in the church (McMinn, 2017). Theologians (e.g., Charry, 2010) and biblical scholars (e.g., Strawn, 2012) have brought Christian ideas about happiness and flourishing to center stage. Many Christian colleges and universities have added courses in positive psychology to their roster. Biola Universityâs Center for Christian Thought dedicated its 2013â2014 research theme to âPsychology and Spiritual Formationâ (Crisp, Porter, & Ten Elshof, 2019), including the question, âHow does positive psychology contribute to a Christian understanding of human flourishing?â Flourishing, it seems, is a hot topic all over.
WHY IS THERE A POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY?
When Seligman launched positive psychology in 1998, he argued that the movement was necessary because the field had become unbalanced. Originally, psychology had a threefold mission: âcuring mental illness, making the lives of all people more productive and fulfilling, and identifying and nurturing high talentâ (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 6). However, events in the twentieth century led to the first of those missions being prioritized over the second and third, to the point that nowadays many people think psychologist is just another way of saying âone who cures mental illness.â
Letâs look at how that happened.
POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY BEFORE POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
The title of the first official positive psychology book is Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment (Seligman, 2002). Note the use of the word new to describe positive psychology. Similarly, Seligmanâs 2011 book is titled Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. Much of the excitement about positive psychology is the sense that it is a new direction for psychology. However, positive psychologists are aware that this approach is ânewâ only in that it is a revitalization of ideas that have been around for as long as psychology itself.
The first positive psychologist was in fact the first North American psychologist, William James (Taylor, 2001). Jamesâs Principles of Psychology (1890) is primarily concerned with topics such as perception, memory, and the nature of thought, but James also discussed âpositiveâ phenomena such as sympathy and altruism, the constructive drive, play, and aesthetic enjoyment. Jamesâs most extensive treatment of happiness and flourishing can be found in his volume on the psychology of religion, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). Here, James describes the effect of religious devotion on peopleâs lives. His primary conclusion is that religion provides a ânew zest which adds itself like a gift to lifeâ and an âassurance of safety and a temper of peace, and, in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affectionsâ (p. 401). We will discuss more recent work on the psychology of religion and flourishing in chapter twenty-one.
Gordon Allport is considered the âpatron saint of personality,â having done more than any other scholar to establish the study of normal personality as a mainstream topic for psychological consideration (Nicholson, 2003). Early in his career, Allport found himself in Vienna and, in a fit of fanboyish enthusiasm, arranged for a meeting with the man himself: Sigmund Freud. Allport did not have anything prepared to talk about with Freud, so he tried to make conversation, including relating to Freud a story about a dirt-phobic boy whom Allport had seen on a train. Freud listened (I always imagine him stroking his beard as he did so), then asked, âAnd was that little boy you?â (Evans, 1971, p. 4). Allportâs impression of Freud was that the great psychiatrist tended to read far too much into things and interpreted far too many observations as indicators of unconscious pathology. As his career progressed and he became a leading figure in the study of personality, Allport (1937, 1955) continued to criticize psychoanalysis for overemphasizing illness and infantile neuroses. He sought to compensate for this tendency by developing the scientific study of the mature personality. His description of psychological maturity emphasized self-acceptance, connections to other people, dedication to higher ideals, zest, security, a well-developed philosophy of life, and an equally well-developed sense of humor (Allport, 1961).
The largest mainstream movement in psychology to take a positive approach to the human condition is humanistic psychology. Humanistic psychology arose in reaction to the negative views of human nature among the Freudians and the behaviorists (Maslow, 1962). On one side, Freudians saw humans as neurotic bundles of pathology driven by sex and violence. On the other side were the behaviorists, who in their more radical forms denied human choice, purpose, and dignity. Humanistic psychologists seek to establish a âthird forceâ within mainstream psychology, emphasizing the goodness that can be found in human nature and the possibility for growth and flourishing (Goble, 1970). Abraham Maslow (1962) put it this way: âIt is as if Freud supplied to us the sick half of psychology and we must now fill it out with the healthy halfâ (p. 5).
Positive psychologists owe a great deal to their humanistic colleagues. Humanistic psychologists redirected the spotlight back onto questions of fulfillment and above-average functioning with their inquiry into topics such as self-actualization (e.g., Rogers, 1961), peak experiences (e.g., Maslow, 1962), and self-determination (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985). Indeed, Maslowâs âmission statementâ quoted above could easily be seen as the mission statement of positive psychology.
HOW PSYCHOLOGY BECAME NEGATIVE
Despite the positive psychology being carried out by earlier psychologists, the field as a whole took on a decidedly negative tone after World War II (Seligman, 1999). Twentieth-century warfare was historically unprecedented in its infliction of mental trauma on combatants (Grossman, 1995), and the existing American mental health system was overwhelmed by the number of soldiers returning with such trauma (Pohls & Oak, 2007). To help fill this need, the Veterans Administration (VA) turned to a small group on the margins of psychology: clinical psychologists. Clinical psychology before World War II was primarily focused on psychological tests and measures, with some emphasis also on children experiencing school-related difficulties (McReynolds, 1987). After World War II, though, the VA began encouraging clinical psychologists to expand their consulting work to help treat traumatized veterans, and they dedicated funding for nearly two dozen doctoral programs in clinical psychology. The field of clinical psychology rapidly expanded in popularity, prestige, and power, to the point that by 1962, practicing psychologists outnumbered academic psychologists in the American Psychological Association. Clinical psychology is now the dominant force within psychology.
When this shift in the field is viewed in light of Seligmanâs (1999) complaint that psychology had become too negative, it might appear that positive psychologists see the rise of clinical psychology as a bad thing. By no means. Thanks to clinical psychologyâs powerful position, we have made tremendous strides in helping those who are experiencing mental health problems, and hopefully we can look forward to further substantial progress over the next half-century. Wanting to help those who are hurting is a good thing. For any students reading this who are considering a career as a clinical psychologist, you have the possibility to do great good pursuing a noble calling. Further, if you want your doctoral training to be specifically shaped by a Christian worldview, there are several Christian universities that offer doctorates in clinical psychology. So do not let me dissuade anyone who wants to work within the âillnessâ approach to psychology.
That being said, the primary message motivating the positive psychology movement has been that studying illness is not enough by itself. It should be balanced with an equally strong emphasis on studying wellness. To grossly oversimplify things, some positive psychologists (e.g., Gable & Haidt, 2005) use the image of a numerical scale to get this point across. Think of a scale ranging from negative ten to positive ten, with negative ten being the lowest possible depths of misery, the zero point being neutral (neither doing poorly nor doing well), and positive ten being the happiest life possible. Currently, psychology is good at helping people who are around negative six or negative seven to make it up to the neighborhood of zero (maybe positive one on a good day). By contrast, we know very little about how to help people get from the zero point to positive seven.
SELIGMANâS CALL FOR A NEW MOVEMENT
In 1998, Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association. In his presidential address, Seligman laid out his vision for his tenure, and a major part of that vision was âa new science of human strengths.â He pointed to psychologyâs postâWorld War II status as a field primarily dedicated to repairing damage, and he argued that psychologists should reshape the field in a way that addressed the needs of the twenty-first century: âWe can articulate a vision of the good life that is empirically sound and, at the same time, understandable and attractive. We can show the world what actions lead to well-being, to positive individuals, to flourishing communities, and to a just societyâ (Seligman, 1999, p. 560).
In addition to the power of his position as APA president, Seligman had the financial resources to support his new movement. With backing from the Templeton Foundation, he announced the establishment of the Templeton Positive Psychology Prize. This prize, the largest ever offered by the APA ($100,000), was to go to a psychologist who was doing excellent work within positive psychology (the inaugural prize went to Barbara Fredrickson, whose work on positive emotion we will cover in chapter four). Funding from the Gallup Organization helped establish a series of International Positive Psychology Summits in Washington, DC, which gathered hundreds of scholars to present papers and discuss this emerging science of strengths. The Manuel D. and Rhoda Mayerson Foundation supported the creation of positive psychologyâs first major reference volume, Character Strengths and Virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), which we will discuss in chapter ten.
Positive psychology has taken off since 1998, and it has shown itself to be one of psychologyâs great success stories. In January 2000, American Psychologist dedicated a special issue to this new movement, and an interdisciplinary team of researchers (including Ed Diener, whom we will meet in chapter four) launched the Journal of Happiness Studies. Two years later, Authentic Happiness (Seligman, 2002), the first book about positive psychology, was published. In 2005, the University of Pennsylvania introduced a masterâs degree in applied positive psychology. The following year, the first positive psychology textbook (Christopher Petersonâs Primer on Positive Psychology) was published and the Journal of Positive Psychology was launched. In 2007, the International Positive Psychology Association was formed and the first PhD programs in positive psychology were offered at Claremont Graduate University. In 2008, the US Army began its work on the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program (our topic for chapter twenty), applying positive psychology to military personnel. Despite some early claims that all this happiness stuff was just a fad, positive psychology is not showing any signs of going away.
THIS IS NOT HAPPYOLOGY
As is the case with everything else in this field, positive psychology has attracted its share of critics. Some of the criticisms that have been leveled against the movement have some teeth, as we will see in chapter twenty-four, while others do not. One of the first misconceptions one encounters in connection with po...