Positive Psychology is concerned with wellbeing and optimal human functioning, in all of its different domains and contexts. Compared to subjects such as, e.g., depression and anxiety, these may seem like “fluffy” topics to explore (Even though I would not agree – what could be more important than wellbeing?)
Yet, even if one were inclined to call this a superficial topic this doesn’t automatically mean it’s superficial science. Here’s the thing: I’ve recently stumbled upon a paper listing 200 eminent scholars in psychology, concentrating on people that are still active today or have been publishing in the second half of the 20th century (thereby excluding “forefathers” such as Sigmund Freud). The ranking was determined by aggregating several indicators, such as number of citations, coverage in introductory psychology textbooks, and prestigious awards received. Here’s a screenshot of the top 10:
At No. 1, we see Albert Bandura who is most renowned for this research on self-efficacy, the scientific equivalent of the popular notion “If you believe you can do it, you can do it”. Now, Bandura created most of his work before the onset of modern Positive Psychology, but he clearly has a big influence on the field.
At No. 3, we have Daniel Kahnemann, Nobel Laureate of 2002 who, together with his late partner Amos Tversky (No. 9), has developed prospect theory. I´ve been told that Kahneman does not like being called a Positive Psychologist. Nevertheless, he´s the lead editor of the seminal book Well-Being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology which, by all means, makes him an important contributor to the field.
At No. 5, we have Martin Seligman himself – no explanation necessary.
At No. 8, we find Shelley Taylor, who most likely would not be characterized as a Positive Psychologist. Still, she has made some influential contributions on the subject of optimism and its relation to psychological well-being.
And at No. 10, we see Ed Diener, co-creator of the prominent Satisfaction With Life Scale and major contributor to the fields of subjective wellbeing and public health.
I totally admire how top psychology researchers regularly get a lot of airtime in US mass media outlets – doesn´t happen that much here in Germany. The following list comprises 10 (more or less) recent pieces from the venerable New York Times. All of them were written (or cover work) by some of the figureheads of Positive Psychology.
Luke Skywalker: “Is the dark side stronger?”
Yoda: “No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.”
If you are one of the few people on the planet that have not seen Star Wars: the dark side (of the Force) was not stronger. As in most Hollywood stories, the good guys win in the end. That´s why we go to the movies in the first place. We want to see an entertaining plot. That means: We want to see the good guy struggling, we want him to take on his challenge. And we want him to win in the end. And they lived happily ever after…
Unfortunately, in real life things look a little different. In real life, “Bad” mostly is stronger than “Good”. I´m not talking about a metaphysical power struggle here, of course. I´m talking about psychological phenomena. Together with some colleagues, MAPP guest lecturer Roy Baumeister has written a review article that goes by the name of this blog post: Bad is Stronger than Good. They´ve gathered tons of empirical evidence on a wide array of psychological mechanisms to lend support to this stance:
On the preconscious level, we pay more attention to negative stimuli than to positive stimuli.
Negative information is processed more thoroughly than positive information. This can be demonstrated even on the level of neural activity.
In terms of impression formation, negative information by far outweighs positive information (telling one lie can make you a “liar” forever).
Bad memories are engraved deeper in our brains and can be retrieved more easily.
Bad events in our lives have a stronger and longer-lasting effect than good events. This is nicely demonstrated by the fact that we do have word for the consequences of very very bad events (trauma), but there´s no corresponding term for the positive side of the emotional continuum.
Negative feedback has a stronger and longer-lasting effect on us than positive feedback.
Therefore, we put a lot more emphasis on avoiding negative information pertaining to ourselves than focusing on integrating positive information.
In close relationships, one bad event can ruin everything. Yet, a lot of positive events cannot save a relationship “forever”.
Bad parenting has a stronger negative effect on the development of the children than good parenting has on positive development.
This list could go on forever. And: there´s hardly any exception to be found.
But is it really that bad?
Baumeister et al. argue that we may be evolutionary hardwired to put a strong emphasis on negative stimuli in our environment. At the end of the day, 10,000 B.C., it probably was far more “adaptive” (= useful for spreading your genes) to be the first person in a group spotting that saber tooth tiger lurking behind the bush than spotting those sweet blackberry growing on the bush. In other words, there is an all-pervasive negativity bias that influences our thinking and feeling at all times.
So in a sense, every single human being wears the opposite of rose-colored glasses all the time (and mostly without knowing that we do). Now, if this true, for me, there´s another important implication:
If we are evolutionary hardwired to perceive, process, and remember bad information to a much higher extent than positive information, it follows that – on a more objective level – the world actually is a much better place than we think it is.
Now the big question is: What can we do about this inherent negativity bias? How can we overcome this urge to see everything through “concrete-colored” glasses?
Because I really feel weshould! While looking out for threats at all times may have been adaptive in the Pleistocene – it probably is not as helpful in the so-called developed world. We live in relative safety. With very rare exceptions, nobody has to suffer from starvation. When we´re sick, we go to the doctor and receive treatment. Most of us die of old age, not of homicide or wild animals. From more than one point of view, this is a good place to live in.
In spite of this, mental disorders, especially depression and anxiety disorders, are “booming” – for decades by now. While this development certainly has multiple causes, I believe one reason is that the negativity bias has become maladaptive in our times. We are bombarded with thousands of messages via different media outlets each and every day. And the sad truth is that most media tend to focus strongly on negative news, events, and stories – precisely because they know we tend to focus on negative events. It drives their reach and circulation. So obviously, we are constantly exposed to a distinctly negatively biased fraction of what happens in this world – using a set of cognitive tools that are distinctly attuned to the worst part of that already distorted view of reality.
We are constantly exposed to a distinctly negatively biased fraction of what happens in the world – using a set of cognitive tools that are distinctly attuned to the unpleasant parts of that already distorted view of reality.
So what can we do?
Enter Positive Psychology. A short definition of positive psychology could be: “It´s the study of (psychological) things that go well”. By its nature, positive psychology studies positive phenomena: What makes us happy (instead of sad)? How can we find meaning in life (instead of languishing)? How do relationships flourish (instead of being a source of pain)? Etc.
By now, there´s a lot of scientific evidence on those questions. One finding that has popped up in several different domains of inquiry goes as follows: Good is stronger than bad – but only if good outnumbers bad to a considerable extent. In Baumeister et al.´s words:
“This is not say that the bad will always triumph over good, spelling doom and misery for the human race. Rather, good may prevail over bad by superior force of numbers: Many good events can overcome the effect of a single bad one.”
Basically, raising the number of positive experiences in our lives is also one of the essential mechanics underlying positive (psychology) interventions, such as the What Went Well exercise or the Gratitude Visit. They create (or shift our attention to the) positive momentum in our lives to counterbalance the all-pervasive negativity.
The truth is: Each and every one of us has to make an effort for good to be stronger than bad.
But what about our daily lives? Who has the time to perform interventions all the time? The truth is: Each and every one of us has to make an effort for good to be stronger than bad. Good thing is: We do not have to be larger-than-life leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela do make an impact. It´s the little things that count (a.k.a. micro-behaviors) – if they come in large amounts. A smile. A thumbs-up. An affirmative nod. A pat on the back. Putting the toilet lid back down…
A little kindness goes a long way.
If you need more inspiration, watch this – again and again if you like:
Ok. So there´s some truth in this. Positive psychology indeed tries to understand the role of positive emotions in the good life. But they are only one of the five key elements in Martin Seligman´s PERMA concept. I guess most positive psychologists would agree that – at the end of the day – concepts like meaning in life and positive relationships are more important for a life well-lived. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that positivity is not (only) and end in itself. It may be a powerful way to attain other important things in life (e.g., success at work).
Positive Psychology is not Kitchen Sink Psychology
While there´s nothing wrong with kitchen sink psychology per se, it has to be noted that laypersons get things wrong a lot of times. Even though we should be all experts at living (because that´s what we do all day long…), many people bear serious misconceptions on what makes for a good and happy life. This is where positive psychology as a data-driven science steps in – and often comes up with counterintuitive findings. For instance, if you´re into social media, you´ll know all this TGIF (Thank God it´s Friday) stuff people put on Facebook and Twitter on Friday afternoon. But scientific inquiry time and again is able to show that most people are happier while at work compared to their leisure time.
Positive Psychology is not Self-Help/Positive Thinking
Now this one is so important that I may have to write it down three times. Here we go…
For sure, there are similarities in the subject matters of positive psychology and positive thinking. By way of example, both are concerned with cultivating optimism in individuals, since being optimistic (most of the time) is associated with an array of beneficial outcome variables. The difference is: positive psychology is a science. It´s grounded in thorough academic research. Of course it´s possible to arrive at correct conclusions without conducting large-scale studies – but personally, I feel a lot better when what I recommend to my clients is based on coherent theories and scientific evidence.
Positive Psychology is not headed by some dubious Guru Elite
This point is closely connected to the aforementioned one. Positive psychology is spear-headed by some of the most widely acclaimed psychologists of our time. Among them are Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychological Association, Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi, and Barbara Fredrickson. And: Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Laureate of 2002, also is among the major contributors to the literature on psychological well-being. Among other things, he´s a co-editor of the seminal book Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Yet, the crucial difference between these people and the common self-help guru is not the length of their Wikipedia articles – it´s something else that can be found in this post.
Positive Psychology is not about ignoring negative Emotions
Once again: positive psychology is not about being happy-smiley all day long. It is not trying to eradicate “the Negative”. It´s just that psychology as an academic discipline has very much focused on negative phenomena (such as fear and depression) for the first hundred years. Positive psychology wants to point the spotlight to the positive side of our emotional and behavioral continuum in order to create a more balanced view of human functioning. Actually, negative events and emotions play a crucial role in studying so-called post-traumatic growth which basically is concerned with the question: How can we profit in the long run from going through really hard times in our lives?
Positive Psychology is not only for rich white People
This concern was issued in a recent article by James (Jim) Coyne, PhD, a Clinical Psychologist and Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania – the same university that Martin Seligman is teaching at. Again, there´s a grain of truth here. Positive psychology was coined at several high-end private universities in the U.S. As with virtually all psychological theories, they are first tested empirically using samples of undergraduate students at those universities the researchers teach at. And since these tend to be predominantly affluent white people, there´s is some truth to that criticism. But once again: that´s true for almost any piece of research in any branch of psychology out there. Positive psychologists do acknowledge this caveat and continually try to broaden their (research) perspective, reaching out to international samples and other diverse target groups.
Positive Psychology is not ignoring its Roots, e.g. Humanistic Psychology
Positive psychologists readily doacknowledge the theories and findings that came out of Humanistic Psychology, thereby standing (partly) on the shoulder of giants like Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Additionally, positive psychology draws heavily on the ancient wisdom of some of the great philosophers. A lot of positive psychologists seem to be very fond of William James, and especially Aristotle and his conception of Eudaimonia. The crucial difference once again is positive psychology´s strong foundation in (experimental) research.
P.S.
I´d really like to have your feedback on this one. Do you agree? Do you disagree? What did I forget?
A couple of days ago, James Pawelski, the MAPP´s director, sent us a comprehensive reading list. It also contains Authentic Happiness, one of Martin Seligman´s earlier popular science books on Positive Psychology. Right at the beginning, Seligman describes an experiment that was carried out by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and colleagues.
Before I go into detail: Since you can read this text, I assume you went to school for a couple of years. Consequently, you´ve experienced being taught by a lot of different teachers – with their teaching skills representing a kind of bell curve: most were more or less o.k., a few were superduper, and some were the proverbial pain in the ass. Basically, it´s the same with (keynote) speakers. I attend a lot of conferences and conventions. Once again, most speakers are okish, a few rock, and some, unfortunately, just waste your time.
Now obviously, not everybody can be a master of rhetoric like, e.g., Barack Obama. But even if – for whatever reason – you suck big time by objective criteria, you can still manage to make a lasting, somewhat positive impression on your audience by adhering to a simple rule:
Save the best for last!
Try to give a first-class conclusion! Thanks to the so called recency effect, most people will tend to forget your overall performance. Instead, their evaluation will be by and large based on the final minutes of your performance.
For scientific proof, let´s go back to Kahneman – and a real pain in the ass. For a study, he and his colleagues surveyed several hundred people that had to undergo a colonoscopy. By random assignment, half the patients had a minute added to the end of their procedure during which the tip of the colonoscope remained in the rectum – but without moving, which is considerably less painful than any movement. The results in a nutshell: even though they experienced more pain all in all, patients who underwent the prolonged procedure rated the entire experience as significantly less unpleasant. Additionally, rates of returning for a repeat colonoscopy were slightly higher.
Thank God, speaking skills can be improved easily – beyond just giving a nice conclusion. For inspiration, you might want check out this blog post listing 15 TED Talks on happiness, motivation, and more.
I totally admire how top psychology researchers regularly get a lot of airtime in US mass media outlets – doesn´t happen that much here in Germany. The following list comprises 10 (more or less) recent pieces from the venerable New York Times. All of them were written (or cover work) by some of the figureheads of Positive Psychology.
Mappalicious 