Positive psychology conjures the notion of a soft approach to addressing hard psychological issues. Though this is far from the truth, academia quite often focuses on removing of the negative and thinking critically of issues that adversely impact on our lives. Focusing on the other side, the positive, somehow implicitly summons the notion of not assessing the core of a problem. Martin Seligman in 1998, recognizing the usefulness of critically assessing the cause and impact of the negative, also saw the need to focus theorization, research, policy, and a paradigm toward the other side of the coin â the positive. In fact, positive psychologists go even further to emphasize that by encouraging the development of positive attributes many of the negative issues may be systemically addressed.
Martin Seligman the father of positive psychology defined this area of psychology as âa scientific and professional movement with a new goal to build the enabling conditions of a life worth livingâ (2011) and studied not only the frailties and problems but the strengths and virtues of the human being (Seligman, 2002, p. 630). Later, Duckworth, Steen, and Seligman (2005) clarified positive psychology from clinical psychology noting that as a âscientific study of positive experiences and positive individual traits and the institutions that facilitate their development, a field concerned with wellâbeing and optimal functioning, positive psychology at first glance seem peripheral to mainstream clinical psychology. We believe otherwise.â In fact, they noted that positive psychology expands the emphasis of clinical psychology from distress and interventions for improvement and moving the discourse to continuance of wellâbeing. Taking this principle of positive psychology, its contributions toward wellâbeing expands beyond that of the clinical branch of the discipline of psychology. Gable and Haidt (2005) argued that the prominence of the negative in psychology may be a result of prioritizing of compassion, the history and pragmatism of focusing on distress and disease, the nature and theorization of psychology. But they also posited that a positive psychology in no way implies a negative psychology, nor prior or future theorization, and research outside of this emerging branch are not in any way inferior.
Core to the discipline is the fact that positive psychology has the characteristics of a scientific intellectual movement and has over a short period develop a paradigm of a mature science (Simmons, 2013). Seligman, Gillham, Reivich, Linkins, and Ernst (2009) acknowledged the growth of positive psychology as a scientific paradigm to study positive emotions, engagement, and meaning and the importance of these characteristics in the development of life satisfaction. But one may ask why the ease in which this discipline has so quickly navigated toward respectability. The answer obviously lies in the content of positive psychology and the simplicity of the assumptions and premises on which, over a hundred years prior, the discipline of psychology studied with interventions. However, psychology fell short of ensuring the continuance of the wellâbeing of the inner being (Duckworth et al., 2005). Simmons (2013) referred to an interesting quotation from Abraham Maslowâs classic book, Motivation and Personality, in a chapter titled âToward a Positive Psychologyâ:
The genesis of positive psychology has been attributed to the works of humanistic psychologists such as Carl Rogers, Rollo May, Abraham Maslow, Gordon Allport, and Marie Jahoda, who in 1958 wrote on the continuance of wellâbeing in patients (Duckworth et al., 2005). One can possibly say that the spirit of humanistic psychology manifested in positive psychology, one discipline in its evolution. However, Peterson and Seligman (2004, see also Simons, 2013) noted the reluctance of the humanistic school to emphasize scientific rigor.
Happiness and wellâbeing are partly influenced by positive emotions, engagement, and purpose (Seligman, 2008). Concerns about the past, present, and future influence our levels of contentment, serenity, somatic and complex pleasures, optimism, and hope (Duckworth et al., 2005; Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006). Our engagement is reciprocally conditional to strengths which are constructed on core virtues such as wisdom, integrity, and honesty. Purpose and life meaning are derived from interaction within the institutional core to our self. These three domains are not mutually exclusive but the ideal is a harmonious balance. The interplay of the three domains provide hedonic, emphasis on happiness and pleasure, and eudaimonic emphasis on lifeâs meaning, purpose, and satisfactions. Both hedonic and eudaimonic models were synergized by Seligman and Adler (2018; see also Altmaier, 2019) to understand a blended engagement in the derivation of happiness and life satisfaction. Seligman articulated this blend in the PERMA model which is an acronym for positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment.
Positive psychology has distinguished between the absence of the negative and the presence of the positive. Consider, cold is the absence of heat or poverty the absence of wealth, though debatable, these analogies have their insights but also their limits. Similarly, consider the issue of delinquency. The resolution of this issue by addressing the core causes of the problem means that the issue has been addressed with temporal and spatial specificity. But has the wellâbeing of persons involved with or affected by delinquency been addressed or sustained? Has the social environment and parties feel engaged, or have a greater sense of wellâbeing, or have more positive emotions? The positive psychology emphasis of beyond time and space limitations is a core distinguishing factor. Duckworth et al. (2005) observing that the positive is not simply the absence of the negative, noted with an example that the removal of incivility, revenge, and anger, does not necessarily lead to the presence of civility, cooperation, and loyalty. Both the former, removal of the negative, and the latter, creation and sustenance of the the positive, require different interventions.
Within this context and sharing the assumptions and theorization of positive psychology, the contributors to this book are from a wide range of cultures and have diligently articulated significant issues of interest on positive psychology to an international audience. Their contributions include the areas of altruism, positive creativity, science of wellâbeing, forgiveness, coaching for leadership, cyberpsychology, intelligence, responding to catastrophes like COVIDâ19, time perspective, physiological and epigenetic, youth civic engagement, ups and downs of love, flow and good life, global perspectives on positive psychology, self and collective efficacy, positive psychology interventions, and positive orientation.
Do we humans ever, in any degree, care for others for their sakes and not simply for our own? Daniel Batson, renowned for his research on empathy and altruism, in his chapter utilizes the empathyâaltruism hypothesis to address this question. The egoismâaltruism debate is briefly discussed, touching on the egoism trend that prevails in Western societies. The empathyâaltruism hypothesis, which states that altruistic motivation is produced by empathetic concern is discussed distinguishing empathetic concern (the perceived welfare of a person in need elicits and is congruent with otherâoriented emotion) and altruistic motivation (increasing anotherâs welfare in the main goal). Other aspects of empathyâaltruism are articulated such as selfâbenefits falling within the realm of the goal of egoism as opposed to the consequence of altruism. The author notes that empathyâinduced altruistic motivation is within the human repertoire and the biological roots of such motivation may lie in generalized parental nurturance. Practical implications of the empathyâaltruism hypothesis are then discussed in relation to its benefits and liabilities. Some benefits include the inhibition of aggression, the increase of collaboration in conflicts, and improved attitudes toward stigmatized groups. Some liabilities include the potential risk of harm (e.g., through time, money, and physical injury) by performing some altruistic acts and some needs may not necessarily arouse empathetic concern.
Distinguished psychologist, Robert J. Sternberg, differentiates between positive and negative creativity, highlighting that while fundamentally being the same, the distinguishing factor is the function they serve. The author contends that creators need to think beyond the shortâterm requirements of creative solutions since solutions which have outlived their purpose may become negative in the wrong hands, for example, nuclear weapons and carbonâbased fuels. Acknowledging the prevalence and impact of negative creativity globally, the article outlines some of the fundamental reasons for negative creativity. These include enhancing reputation, responding in anger, responding to fear, and revenge.
Creators need to also pay attention to whether creativity is adding value both in the short and long term, that is whether it is positive, negative, or neutral. Citing social media and a form of creativity once intended to be positive, it has evolved into a medium which has been used to distort elections and spread hateful propaganda. One of the many conclusions from this chapter is a discussion on how creativity can be uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, but, despite this, there is a need for more positive creativity, decency in discourse, reflection, and civility.
In their chapter Jessica Kansky and Ed Diener extend theconcept of subjective wellâbeing (SWB) beyond happiness. The primary causes ofwellâbeing (e.g., income, social relationships, genetics, strengths andpositive behaviors, and health) were discussed as well as its criticaloutcomes. SWB consists of three independently related facets: positive,negative, and life satisfaction. The dynamic nature of SWB has seen a growinginterest in the field which has been matched by evolving methods of measurementwhich range from selfâreport methods to physiological and neuroimaging methods.These methods, however, are constrained by their inability to provide causal conclusions. To address this limitation, experimental methods and longâtermfollowâup assessments were viewed as a way forward allowing researchers tounderstand the causal relationship between moods and affect. The influence ofprograms such as ENHANCE strongly suggest the malleability of happiness. As the authors pointed, âan individual may have multiplehappiness set points, rather than one global point and that different aspectsof wellâbeing can move in different directions independentlyâ. Inclosing an emphasis is given to the strong need for further research on theconceptual and theoretical foundations of SWB and its globalization.
How can positive psychology be applied to leadership styles not only for the direct benefit of organizations but for overall human development? Ilona Boniwell and WendyâAnn Smith discuss the merit of positive leadership for organizations challenged by global competition. Employees who belong to teams which are guided by greater opportunities for recognition, whose leaders are seen as more ethical, authentic, and charismatic, tend to demonstrate greater engagement at the individual level, and those organizations are better able to achieve their corporate goals. Positive leadership is an umbrella term encompassing several leadership styles which places the human at the center of the value creation process. The authors distinguish among positive organizational scholarship, positive organizational behavior, and positive leadership as critical tools of positive psychology within the workplace. Guided by the competing values framework, which posits that leadership has the capacity to hold and integrate contrasting tensions, the chapter discusses the major theoretical underpinnings of leadership.
Some of the major tools in coaching of employees are articulated and include perceiving emotions, understanding emotions, using emotions to facilitate thinking, and managing emotions. Perceiving emotions extends beyond just that of the individual leader but also of members of the team since this directly impacts leadership thought and behaviors. Understanding emotional reactions provides a greater awareness of the causes of certain emotions and some predictability to the consequences of such emotional responses. Using emotions, both positive and negative, to facilitate thinking can have beneficial outcomes. Positive emotions make one more receptive and creative while negative emotions, guided by support have the potential for creative problem solving. Finally, the authors insightfully discuss that the managing of emotions as a coaching tool is critical since emotions can be contagious and can impact the mood and morale of work teams. Leadership is a...