Almost every idea someone puts out there, another rejects it; but that's what makes the world so interesting, right?! After reading around for my next post, I came about a post on another blog that criticizes the idea of positive psychology with association to mental health.
Positive Psychology: Where The Big Bucks Are…
As any psychologist knows you have to publish or perish and the best way to do this is with unrestricted funding and an ‘in’ topic; enter positive psychology! The New Age has arrived in the field of psychology and it’s making quite an impression. Though its basic tenets are laudable from an empirical perspective the hype that surrounds it is not. The field of psychology seeks to understand humanity in all its complexities, be they good, bad or ugly and though one could argue that its focus has been primarily pathological such an approach may be justified given the costs socially, financially and culturally of such psychopathologies.
Mental illness is a major concern in modern society. It impacts families, communities and government policies. Psychology, both research and applied, has contributed greatly to our understanding and treatment of mental illness. To accuse Psychology of being a science of victimology is tantamount to negating the immeasurable value of these contributions. Fifty years ago people with serious mental disorders were institutionalised. Today, thanks to mainstream psychology, there are a range of alternatives available. Advances in psychopathology and various therapies now enable many people who would have previously been institutionalised to lead more fulfilling lives within the community. Not everyone has the luxury of engaging in learned optimism
As stated earlier positive psychology’s basic tenets are sound. However the emphasis on optimism and learned optimism immerse the discipline in tautology. Proponents of the science have engaged in practices which render it nothing more than a New Age movement. Lyubomirsky, as a serious psychological researcher, has written a book that would make Oprah proud.
“The How of Happiness’ can change your life, from a purely scientific perspective of course and for those not big on literature there is always her I phone application
“Live Happy”. This is science for the masses. On a more serious note many of the arguments raised by
positive psychologists are fallacious. They are guilty of a
“, failure to clearly define or properly apply terms, the identification of causal relations where none exist, and unjustified generalisation. Instead of demonstrating that positive attitudes explain achievement, success, well-being and happiness, positive psychology merely associates mental health with a particular personality type: a cheerful, outgoing, goal-driven, status-seeking extravert.” (Miller, p.592, 2008)
Another problem with this emphasis on optimism, learned or innate, is its failure to recognise the validity of pessimism. Though Seligman acknowledges that there are some psychological benefits to pessimism he also dismisses pessimists as a small minority (Ruark, 2009). More than a quarter of the population (Norem, 2002) is not, I would suggest, a small minority. Lillenfield (In Ruark,2009) voiced similar concerns. He intimated that the popular notion that positive psychology is for everyone could have a detrimental effect on people with low self esteem as research showed the use of positive affirmations (such as I am a loveable person) made them feel worse, not better. Another interesting point in relation to the issue of self-esteem raised by Murk, (2006) is positive psychologies role in someone with negative self esteem. He believes that this area has been neglected by positive psychology and argues for a more humanistic which encapsulates self esteem at every point on the continuum and does not simply focus on positive personality traits and those who have them.
The new and burgeoning field of positive psychology furthers our understanding of the human condition; but at what cost? Happiness, happy people and happy places are not the be all and end all of our society. Trauma, crisis, illness and negative emotions all have a place and a function in life. Since the inception of humanistic psychology researchers have endeavoured to investigate and comprehend human nature and in so doing have studied positive as well as negative traits and behaviours. As far back as 1954 Maslow used the term positive psychology so it is not necessarily a new and recent concept or field of study. What is new is the hype and controversy which surrounds this discipline. It connotates, for many, self-help and New Age movements and given the speed with which many of its psychologists have jumped on the self-help book bandwagon this is hardly surprising. Publish or perish should not mean anywhere at any cost. These pop culture enthusiasts bring the whole discipline of psychology into disrepute. As Sundararajan (p.35, 2005) says “
An empirically based version of the good life as proposed by positive psychology is a donut with something missing at the core–the moral map.”
References:
Lyubomirsky, S. (2008).
The How of Happiness; A scientific approach to getting the life you want. Penguin; London
Maslow, A. (1954).
Motivation and Personality. Harper: NY
Miller, A. (2008). A Critique of Positive Psychology – or ‘the new science of happiness’.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42, 3-4, 591-608.
Mruk, C.J. (2006).
Self-esteem, research, theory and practice: toward a positive psychology of self esteem, (3
rd Ed.). Springer: NY.
Norem, J. (2002).
The Positive Power of Negative Thinking: Using defensive pessimism to harness anxiety and perform at your peak. Perseus: NY
Ruark, J., (2009). An intellectual movement for the masses. Chronicle of Higher Education,
http://chronicle/ariticle/An-Intellectual-Movement-for/47500 accessed: 18/04/10.
Sundararajanl, L, (2005). Happiness Doughnut: A Confucian Critique of Positive Psychology.
The Journal of Philosophical Psychology, 25, 1, 35 -60.
"
http://controversiesinpsychology.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/positive-psychology-where-the-big-bucks-are/."
After reading the post about the disagreements about positive psychology, I can say I can agree with the author that yes, positive psychology is not for everyone just like playing a sport is not for everyone. I believe the author only focused on one side pertaining to research of mental patients rather than research of mental patients that used positive psychology, and saw that it worked. The blogger also connects positive psychology with mental illness, which is more in depth with the concept. I only look at the bigger picture in how to improve your lifestyle pertaining to stress, depression, and anger. I am sure with mental illnesses; there are different types of procedures to cure individuals, such as the ones listed in the article. Also, not everyone can look towards the positive side during difficult situations especially with mental patients; those individuals need assistance. For instance, mental patients need psychotherapy and support from professionals. Positive Psychology is not just another alternative on how to cope with difficult situations, but a lifestyle that we all carry without realizing that we are doing it. Imagine having a bad week and nothing was going your way, yet you have something special planned for the next upcoming weekend; wouldn’t you be excited for that weekend to come up? As you’re excited, you’re applying positive psychology to your mood. Sometimes we don’t think about applying positive psychology, but everyone does it. As for mental patients, they have a harder time focusing on concepts such as positive psychology because of their “difficulties." Mental patients are diseased to think about the next upcoming event, so they struggle to find happiness. As for optimism, many people still fail to achieve hope for their future.
Personality traits of a person can influence if one can be optimistic; some people tend to always be negative during their whole life without realizing that there is hope. Positive psychology is supposed to help those who have trouble seeing the brighter side. As the author argues that not everyone has the luxury of engaging in learned optimism, he forgets that positive psychology tries to work on that area. As he also forgets that every individual is different; one can be happy with mental health, but struggles to find it. I don’t understand where the Lillenfield gets the idea that adapting positive psychology to those individuals of self esteem can make someone feel worse. The author did not use enough evidence to prove his point, such as, he did not state why compliments or positive thinking made the patients feel worse. Therefore, we cannot prove his idea. Those who are already hold a negative self esteem can also struggle to use positive psychology, but honestly, everyone can achieve happiness; it just takes time to find that miracle.
I am not disagreeing with the blogger about how positive psychology still lacks evidence, but so does every other idea; that’s what researchers are for. Researchers still seek ways to better “positive psychology methods” for different types of individuals, but for mental patients, that is more looked at from another perspective, such as clinical psychology. The author also focuses on those with negative self esteems, but forgets to show evidence of the before and after affects of applied positive psychology. After reading and writing about this controversy, I can conclude that we all have different opinions about a subject, so don't be afraid to let your words speak!
