Recently, I’ve undertaken my Masters in Positive Psychology (MAPP) at Melbourne Uni. Our first assignment question was: What new theoretical knowledge has positive psychology added to the science of wellbeing? Is positive psychology simply old wine in new bottles? Here’s my response.
Positive psychology has not only added new theoretical knowledge to the science of wellbeing, it has revitalised its relevance, created new interest and made the science both accessible and applicable to the public. Here I will outline the new theoretical knowledge, what has come before and provide the argument that positive psychology is, has and will continue to greatly contribute to the science of wellbeing.
Positive psychology is a relatively new field and can be defined as the science of human strengths and flourishing and aims to “understand what is good in us, in life and what works for us to make life worth living” (Hefferon, 2011). It was formally convened in 1998 when Seligman made his inaugural speech, deeming the time is ripe for psychology to reorient towards the “most positive qualities of an individual” (Seligman, 1999). Seligman commented that they now “understand and can effectively treat at least 14 mental disorders” that were untreatable only 50 years ago.
Although the field of psychology has contributed greatly to alleviate suffering and return to normal mental health, Tal Ben Shahar comments that “the average academic journal isn’t read by many people” (Shahar, 2007). Unfortunately, the reach of the vast majority of scholars is poorly limited, and thus, the impact of traditional psychology has been diminished.
In this light, perhaps we could refer to traditional psychology as all that pre-dated 1999 and view it as a mature, and well-aged, old wine. Positive psychology on the other hand, could be seen as the new wine, or perhaps simply, a redevelopment, rebranding and revitalising of the old.
Many theories in positive psychology were initially developed in this period of traditional psychology and have indeed been foundational. Four theories that have been important building blocks and since built upon, include Fredrickson’s Broaden and Build theory, the Positivity Ratio developed by Fredrickson and Lossada, Seligman’s theory of PERMA and the development of Positive Education. Each theory has deep roots in traditional psychology and here we will analyse their foundations and how they have significantly added new knowledge to the science of wellbeing.
Fredrickson’s Broaden and Build theory, although officially dated 2001, (Fredrickson, 2001) was under construction well before Seligman’s inauguration speech in 1998. So, we could argue, that the Broaden and Build theory actually fits into the ‘old wine’ category, however, within positive psychology, the Broaden and Build theory is foundational to much other work and has been cited over 9,651 times in the 14 years since it’s conception. It seems Broaden and Build has become old wine in its short time.
The work of Isen (Lopez, 2015) was foundational to Broaden and Build. Isen revealed 4 strong advantages to positive emotions, of which were new to the field of traditional psychology in their time. She identified that as we experience even mild positive emotions, we:
- Become more likely to help people
- Are more flexible in our thinking
- Create more alternative solutions to our problems and
- Become more prepared to display self-control
As Fredrickson reviewed Isen’s work, she found it rested on the theory of specific action tendencies, which describes our human response to emotions as being action signals, these action signals create movement in an associated and specific direction. For example, fear creates the specific action tendency to freeze or flee while anger creates the signal to fight. Positive emotions however we’re less accurate, with one researcher concluding that joy was associated with “the urge to do anything” and another linked the emotion of serenity with “the urge to do nothing” (Fredrickson, 2009, p. 20).
Fredrickson utilises the building blocks of Isen’s work and with her own research goes further than ever before in exploring the question, ‘What good are positive emotions?’ The Broaden and Build theory posits that when people experience positive emotions, such as interest, joy, love and contentment, there is a broadening of the individuals ‘thought action repertoire’ (Fredrickson, 2009). Essentially this broadening enables individuals to think and act based on a wider range of options. For example, someone experiencing joy is more likely to become open to the ideas of physical movement or connecting with others and hence, their thoughts take a different, and more positive trajectory. So, therefore, do their actions.
As an individual experience’s this broadening effect of positive emotions, they enable the building of enduring personal resources, including social, psychological, intellectual and physical capabilities (Fredrickson, 2009, p. 24). This creates a knock-on effect of positivity, where the feeling of growth, development and achievement sparks another level of positivity, inducing the broaden and build effect again.
Fredrickson’s theory provides new knowledge around the role of positive emotions. Rather than positive emotions simply signalling flourishing or indicating high levels of wellbeing, she suggests “positive emotions also produce flourishing” (Fredrickson, 2001). The Undoing effect takes her Broaden and Build theory further still and proposes that positive emotions have the ability to ‘undo’ the undesirable effects of negative emotions, in particular, stress (Fredrickson, 2009, p. 105). There are multiple additions Fredrickson’s work has made to the science of wellbeing.
Lossada and Fredrickson teamed up to elaborate on the Broaden and Build theory in their article ‘Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing’. The article outlines the Broaden and Build theory and argues that to create flourishing we need to recognise the negativity bias as described in ‘Bad Is Stronger than Good’ (Beaumeister, 2001) and equalise it’s effect by establishing a ratio of above 2.9: 1. That is, when we experience 2.9 positive emotions to any negative we create a tipping point, enabling the individual to mobilise upwards in Fredrickson’s positivity spiral and towards the point of flourishing.
There are two critical concerns with this research. Firstly, the scale in which the Broaden and Build theory is built is unidimensional, meaning that it is impossible for someone who is clinically depressed to also experience wellbeing. Keyes (2002) presents a robust argument that 9.4% of individuals with a major depressive episode, do not actually fit the criteria for languishing. Hence Fredrickson’s assumptions that one mental health continuum is sufficient, may need to be addressed in future research.
Secondly, the mathematics behind the Positivity Ratio have been scrutinised and found wanting (Brown, 2013). It is argued that Lossada’s use of differential equations contained “numerous fundamental conceptual and mathematical errors.” The authors deemed these errors undermined the entire theory of the Positivity Ratio. Yet, they still concluded that they are not questioning that “positive emotions are more likely to build resilience than negative emotions, or that a higher Positivity Ratio is ordinarily more desirable than a lower one.” Conceptually the theory is sound, mathematically it may require further research. The Positivity Ratio has also created new theoretical and applicable knowledge to the science of wellbeing.
Seligman in his book Flourish (Seligman, 2011), outlines his new theory of wellbeing he titles PERMA. PERMA represents the pathways through which we can create a flourishing life and includes: Positive Emotions, Engagement, Positive Relationships, Meaning and Accomplishments. PERMA provides another example of a new theory within Positive Psychology that has been built on the solid foundations that has come before it, and already, it is being utilised to further develop the science of wellbeing.
In the article ‘Foundational Frameworks of Positive Psychology: Mapping Wellbeing Orientations’ by Lambert, Passmore and Holder, it become clear that Seligman had multiple influences during its construction phase. The Adlerian construct of wellbeing from 1956 (Lambert, 2015) for example, outlines that one’s lifestyle and life goals will be reflected from ones hopes, values, and meaning in pursuing success. Maslow was next among the early theorists to explore wellbeing in his ‘Hierarchy of needs’ model (1968) where ‘Self Actualisation’ describes “the realisation of ones’ talents and potentialities.” This exploration of one’s highest potential flavours the way we construct wellbeing today and leads us toward the field of strengths and virtues that dominates positive psychology.
Ryff’s theory of Psychological Wellbeing (Ryff, 1995) goes further on building on former constructs of wellbeing and focuses in on the psychological aspect of which she includes the six dimensions. 1. Autonomy 2. Environmental Mastery 3. Personal Growth 4. Positive Relationships 5. Purpose in Life and 6. Self-Acceptance. Below is the table Ryff created to explain the theory’s elements and their origins.
Seligman’s PERMA has not only built upon what has come before it, but it is also foundational in what comes next.
Already, many researcher’s, teachers and facilitators are using PERMA-H, which adds H for Health and outlines our need for “eating well, moving regularly and sleeping deeply” (McQuaid, 2017).
Mental Fitness is another wellbeing theory that has been developed in recent years (Robinson, 2015) and clearly builds on the foundations of all that comes before. It describes mental fitness as “the modifiable capacity to use resources and skills to flexibly adapt to challenges or advantages, enabling wellbeing.” Robinson simplifies this as four building blocks of Strength, Endurance, Flexibility and Team (Robinson, A Guide to Improving Wellbeing Literacy in Schools, 2016) and when deconstructing this theory, we find similar elements of meaning, purpose, autonomy, self-efficacy, positivity ratio, mindfulness, positive relationships and relatedness. Metal Fitness is another clear example of rebuilding, redevelopment and repurposing theories to add to the science and application of wellbeing.
The later models of wellbeing create much more movement towards application that was perhaps missing in earlier theories. This focus on application is enabling the science to be implemented and engaged with in new ways and speeding the development and impact of the field and demonstrating the relevance of the positive psychology movement globally.
Positive education is not a new theory and aptly demonstrates another area in which positive psychology has added considerable knowledge to the science of wellbeing. The World Government Summit on The State of Positive Education defines positive education as “an approach to education that blends academic learning with character and wellbeing” (World Government Summit, 2017).
In Australia, we have been working towards making our educational institutions more positive for many years before the formal introduction of ‘positive education.’ Maggie Dent is a house hold name in Australia and has been advocating for more play, less standardised testing and more strengths-based focus within the school curriculum for decades before the term ‘positive education’ emerged (Dent, 2018). As a speaker, consultant and facilitator, the research that has come from the field of positive education has enabled her to broaden her reach further than ever before. It also lends a level of credibility to her argument that schools, families and communities can do more to support the wellbeing of the child.
Research indicates that as children journey through our Australian education system, their mental health declines rather than improves. While 59% of Primary school children show good to high levels of resilience, only 29% of Year 11 to 12 students show good to high levels of resilience (Coulson, 2017). Initiatives, theories, interventions and programs within the education system to date, have not had the positive and widespread impact we have hoped. There is more work to be done.
Although the name, ‘positive education’ is new, it draws on many different fields and pedagogy’s. According to the NSW framework for wellbeing in schools “Wellbeing for schools sets out to enable students to be healthy, happy, engaged and successful” (Wellbeing for Schools, 2018). This is clearly not exclusively the responsibility of positive psychology. However, positive psychology and more particularly, positive education, is providing robust science, tested interventions and functional programs (Robinson, A Guide to Improving Wellbeing Literacy in Schools, 2016). Predating positive education, many schools have sought independent, and untried wellbeing models that stood apart from their main curriculum. If results were measured, they varied and there was often no overarching philosophy to embed wellbeing within a school.
The shift towards positive education enables schools to adopt the NSW wellbeing framework with a whole school approach to wellbeing that’s based on science. The objective here, is to place wellbeing at the centre of the educational organisation, embedding wellbeing within teaching philosophies, training, curriculum (including all subjects), infrastructure, planning, support staff and external stakeholders (families, communities, educational providers, businesses etc). This is a large undertaking and blatantly optimistic view of what is possible, however many researchers are already building, trialling and reporting on various positive education programs.
David Cooperrider’s theory of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) also contributes to this new framework of positive education. In her book ‘A Guide to Improving Wellbeing literacy in Schools,’ Robinson establishes the use of AI as a functional tool to build a bespoke wellbeing model, thus giving back control of the program to the school itself (Robinson, A Guide to Improving Wellbeing Literacy in Schools, 2016). The AI model has 5 steps that move an organisation through defining, discovering, dreaming, designing and delivering change. AI is used in the context of positive education and is another application of theoretical knowledge that contributes to the functional science of wellbeing.
In the article “Positive Psychology and Positive Education: Old Wine in New Bottles?” the author (Kristjansson, 2012), critiques positive education as making happiness “the ultimate aim of education.” This statement is foundational in his argument and appears numerous times. However, nowhere in his citations, does he provide a source to this statement and in searching, it appears, at this point to be an unfounded claim. Positive education is not trying to reduce educational institutions to happiness factories, as he is eluding. Positive education is attempting to make wellbeing central to the learning experience, not as an outcome perse, but a causality in the development of both academic and wellbeing skills.
Positive psychology has contributed significantly to the theoretical knowledge of the science of wellbeing. The rebuilding, redevelopment and transition of related theories, happened only when a light (or more aptly, a light house), shone brightly on the good in humanity and refocused traditional psychology into a more positive space. Not only did the research begin to shift, but the field expanded to blend and attract researchers from other disciplines like education, sociology, economics, and policy. Notably, this integration created new disciplines altogether, and positive organisational scholarship, positive leadership and positive education have been founded.
Returning to our wine analogy, positive psychology is the marketing team that have been handed a number of beautiful old wines whose relevance and applications we’re diminishing. They then, have revitalised the recipes, updated the research and totally rebranded them. Positive psychology now, not only appeals to a much larger audience, it’s become relevant to the general population and is becoming a part of pop culture.
Positive psychology has attracted the attention of the media, the business world and of course the public, whom to this point, had little or no interest in learning about or drinking a well-aged old wine. The functionality and applicability of positive psychology is its strength.
In summary, positive psychology has greatly contributed to the science of wellbeing, and can be accurately depicted from Isaac Newton’s Quote, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” Fredrickson explicitly states “as I developed this new theory, I challenged deeply held assumptions within my field. I went beyond what my mentors had taught me” (Fredrickson, 2009, p. 21). Any progress will always rely on what comes before, and in the case of positive psychology, we are building on strong foundations.
In paraphrasing Kristjansson (2012), regardless of the label we place on the bottle of positive psychology, old or new, essentially, the field is creating good, and that is the core intention of positive psychology.
Beaumeister, B. F. (2001). Bad Is Stronger than Good. Review of General Psychology, 323 – 370.
Brown, N. S. (2013). The Complex Dynamics of Wishful Thinking: The Critical Positivity Ratio . American Psychologist .
Coulson, J. (2017). 9 Ways to a Resilient Child. Sydney: Harper Collins Publishers.
Dent. (2018). About Maggie. Retrieved from maggiedent.com: https://www.maggiedent.com/about-maggie/
Fredrickson, B. (2001). The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The broaden and build theory of positive emotions. . American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. (2004). The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences.
Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity. Groundbreaking Research to Release You Inner Optimist and Thrive. Oneworld Publications.
Hefferon, H. a. (2011). Positive Psychology: Theory, Research . New York : Open University Press.
Keyes, C. (2002). The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 207.
Kristjansson, K. (2012). Positive Psychology and Positive Education: Old Wine in New Bottles? Educactional Psychologist, 47, 86-105., 103.
Lambert, P. a. (2015). Foundational Frameworks of Positive Psychology: Mapping Wellbeing Orientations. Canadian Psychology.
Lopez, S. T. (2015). Positive Psychology: The Scientific and Practical Explorations of Human Strengths (P. 135). California, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McQuaid, M. &. (2017). Permah Survey. Retrieved from http://permahsurvey.com/
Robinson. (2015). Conceptualising and measuring mental fitness: A Delphi study. International Journal of Wellbeing, 53 -73.
Robinson. (2016). A Guide to Improving Wellbeing Literacy in Schools. Sydney: Positive Psychology Institute Pty Ltd.
Ryff, C. (1995). Psychological Wellbeing in Adult Lift . American Psychological Society, 99- 104.
Seligman, M. (1999). The President’s Address. American Psychologist .
Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of Happiness and Wellbeing. New York: Atria Paperback.
Shahar, T. B. (2007, May 10). THE SECRET TO HAPPINESS. Retrieved from The Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/The-secret-to-happiness
Wellbeing for Schools. (2018). Retrieved from NSW Department of Education: https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/wellbeing/about
World Government Summit. (2017). The State of Positive Education.