Talk:Positive psychology/Archive 1

Positive Psychology as a serious and substantial field of research
Is this page serious, or is it just a plug for Dr. Seligman's website? And what about that bashing of moral relativism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoehorn (talk • contribs)
 * Sounds like someone is not well-informed about this subject. You might want to go to Amazon.com, go to a book written by academics in "positive psychology" such as Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived by Corey L. M. Keyes and Jonathan Haidt, and look at the books it links to (A Psychology of Human Strengths: Fundamental Questions and Future Directions for a Positive Psychology by Lisa G. Aspinwall; Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification by Christopher Peterson; Handbook of Positive Psychology by C. R. Snyder; Positive Psychology in Practice by Martin E. P. Seligman). If you check the bibliographies of these books you'll see that not only is positive psychology a serious and substantial field of research, but delving deeper (by reading, for example, Chris Peterson's Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, you'll discover that this area of psychology is pursuing issues arguably more important than most in psychology, with an unusual degree of thoroughness, thoughtfulness, and care, especially given the epistemological difficulties of the subject matter. - Do c  t  orW  23:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned, reglardless of the efficacy of positive psychology, that this page reads like advertising copy not unlike the new age rubbish that circulates everywhere. For the sake of the field's integrity I think it needs to be rewritten from a more biased perspective. -harijari

Harvard Negotiation Project
Dear JCL, I have no doubt that the research of Fisher and Shapiro relates to Positive Psychology, but without context, it is a bit tenuous -- and smacks a little of advertising. I've taken HNP training and have read Getting To Yes, so I'm not uninformed on the subject. Why not write a section on positive emotion and negotiation in the PP entry and we'll debate it's fit? Or, you could make a direct entry for HNP in Wikipedia since there doesn't appear to be one already. Start here: Havard Negotiation Project. Cheers, RaymondV 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)RTV233

"scientific" research
Rather than simply listing the areas of research, I'd like to hear more about the scientific methods being used to explore those areas, as well as some information on what rigorous logic was used to determine those three areas. Shoehorn 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be something more pointing out (if true) that this is actually a respected and serious field of research, unlike so many other related subjects - for example in the New Age vein, or much of the self-help litterature. Narssarssuaq 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's an unusually high degree of skepticism on this page, but it would be very easy to assuage some of your doubts by doing a little reading, some of which you can do right on the web by following the links from the article. - Do c  t  orW  05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Better research coverage
This article does not describe any of the "content" of positive psychology - what researchers have actually found out about what makes people happy. It also only discusses one book, Character Strengths and Virtues. It's unclear whether this book contains any information about empirical studies. Some detail about what empirical questions have actually been asked and answered in this field would be very helpful. -- Beland 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. I may not have time to do it myself, however. Help would be appreciated. - Do c  t  orW  19:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question 4 of http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/faqs.htm might be a good place to start. -- Beland 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

People have been discussing the question of human happiness since at least Ancient Greece.
The second sentence in the article ("People have been discussing the question of human happiness since at least Ancient Greece.") doesn't flow from the opening sentence (I changed the first sentence but it didn't flow before either).

There had been no prior mention of happiness in the article. And, as the cited FAQ points out, Positive Psychology is about more than just happiness - it's "the scientific study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive".

It's an okay sentence and there's probably a place for it in the article, but it doesn't belong in the general description. --irrevenant [ talk ] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

History
One of the guests on the On Point program said that the modern field of "positive psychology" was founded in 1998 by a group of researchers that felt that psychology too often focused on pathology. The intro to the article mentions that idea, but doesn't attribute it to anyone. It also mentions a list of researchers; perhaps these are the "founders"? More informaton about this foundational period would help straighten things out. Is there a manifesto? Was there a founding conference or journal? -- Beland 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about the Application of Positive Psychology
I hate to be the Dr. Phil here, but this "Positive Psychology" is for people with serious mental illness right? Because either you have a psychological disorder to need psychological help or you do not? I see nowhere in the article describing who these unhappy people are; is taking anti-depressants a part of this positive psychology concept?--Recovery Psychology (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. I have rewritten the intro to address your question. --Dr.enh (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Relativism

 * An important feature of Positive Psychology is its rejection of moral relativism. This is based on the observation that certain character traits and ways of acting are considered good by the vast majority of cultures. It is also observed that these traits lead to increased happiness when practiced. In its rejection of Cultural Relativism, Positive Psychology challenges us to accept Universal Values as applicable to all societies.

I removed this for now. You can't say that flourishing is related to something so specific as rejecting a moral philosophy or accepting other ideas. That's not what is meant here at all; and this paragraph doesn't make any sense. --DanielCD 15:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to call myself an expert in Positive Psychology, though I haven't followed research developments for about the last 12 months. I can see why readers might feel that the claim above is a strong one, and, because it is philosophical in nature it is not what researchers focus on, but I can't really find fault with it. Shoehorn above confuses an argument based on empirical evidence with "bashing." DanielCD seems not to understand at all what is being said in the statement he removed, even though the statement is extremely clear and unambiguous. He seems to take it to mean something quite different, though the wording of his critique (ironically) is muddled. He goes on to demonstrate that he is not familiar with the field, and implies that he is familiar only with this article. The claims in the statement he deleted are strong, and the wording is more direct and blunt than I would use in an academic paper, but I can't improve on it at the moment. The conclusions mentioned do logically follow from the research findings. Anyway, it certainly needs to be put back; others may want to try to make the wording more palatable to moral relativists, but perhaps a better solution is to add similar (but converse) statements to articles where scientific findings seem to support moral relativism (rather than altering the conclusion here because you don't like where the evidence points). - Do c  t  orW  03:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I too thought the moral relativism section was largely irrelevant. The claimed connection with moral relativism seems spurious to me, and unless this claim is a significant aspect of positive psychology (rather than an unsourced observation about it) I think it should be omitted. Ben Finn 17:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've read just about everything to be read on positive psychology; I do empirical research in positive psychology. I have never read an argument explicitly against moral relativism. The blurb really doesn't fit. Brobbins 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems the issue has been resolved very nicely. Rtv233 has toned down the overdone comment about moral relativism, provided proper sourcing, mentioned the numerous cautions and caveats, and pointed out that the statement sourced was cautiously suggesting cultural universality and hinting at rejection of moral relativism. This material was also relegated to an endnote - also appropriate. Good job. In fact, the main reason I came to the talk page today was to compliment Rtv233 on the outstanding contributions, this being just one of many fine additions to this article. Excellent work; Wikipedia needs more editors like you! - Do c  t  orW  04:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, DoctorW. Best Regards, Rtv233


 * I meant to start a discussion, not attack anyone. I never understand why everyone interprets everything here as an attack. If there's a misunderstanding, just point it out to me. After looking at it again I can see what my misunderstanding was now and it was a misunderstanding. I can admit that I was confused. You could have pointed it out a lot more politely and accomplished the same thing. --DanielCD 06:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you made the right call in removing it until we figured it out, Daniel. The posting in its original form didn't work for me either. By the same token, I appreciated DoctorW's pressure to keep the moral relativism element included. So, dialectically speaking, we're right on track! -Rtv233


 * Thank you. Rtv233, I think your touch here has been positive across the board. --DanielCD 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am usually very careful to avoid the inconsiderate tone so prevalent on the internet, but I apologize to DanielCD, because I didn't do that in my comment this last time. I was annoyed at the outspoken ignorance of a different commentator, and also at an editor on an unrelated page who had just done something that soured my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, DanielCD, you misunderstood me. I didn't think you were attacking anyone, and I didn't think you had an agenda. My point about how to deal with the POV (that we all have to some extent) was a more general one meant to address the subtle bias so prevalent on many Wikipedia pages. You were right, though, that I could have pointed out your initial misunderstanding more politely, which would have been my normal style; in fact, I have sometimes gone a bit overboard in doing so (with very good results). - Do c  t  orW  01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the the healthiest and most respectful internet communication I've seen in some time, and probably serves as a testament to the topic at hand! I compliment and congratulate you all. Cheers, -Josh Powell (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Elevation
Wondering if the elevation section currently spotlights Barack Obama when perhaps it is really about the use of positive rhetoric and motivational speaking, trust and influence etc? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Glasser Connection?
While Dr. William Glasser, MD, likely is not immediately a "positive psychologist," as those in the field would defne it, Glasser's beliefs, as set forth in CHOICE THEORY and in his various books on counseling, that the quality of interpersonal relationships with those closest to us and important in our lives, are profoundly connected to our level of happiness and "positive outlook." Whether this nexus is appropriate for this article is debatable, but I, for one, think some mention of it IS quite relevant and adds to the overall treatment of the topic. Comments solicited. Frankatca (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

criticism?
It seems to me this article needs a criticism section? Pos.p. has gained a lot of attention and respect, but not without raising critique. I have stumbled upon three different kinds:
 * 1) Pos.psychology while 'true', risks advocating a pollyanna apporach to life. E.g. - while serious pos.psychology is well founded, it is unbalanced and does not pay adequately attention to the negative aspects of life (e.g. apparantely resilience is found to be related to emotional span - that is having both extremely positive and extremely negative emotions).
 * 2) Pos. psychology puts the burden on the patient. All of a sudden its not the doctors fault that I'm still ill. It's my own because I keep worrying to much. This critigue has been raised pertaining to terminal ill cancer patients.
 * 3) Finally the old freudian school still believes its best to deal with childhood trauma before dealing with present happiness.  Achristoffersen (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh btw: It also seems to me that the applications sections needs a mention of Gross_National_Happiness. I thought of this because I came to cast my eyes on Richard Layer and the debate between him and people like will wilkinson Achristoffersen (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the inception of positive psychology there have been a number of significant and penertrating criticisms of the movement. These broadly include its inability to acknowledge its philosophical and psychological antecedents, its separatist stance, its lack of philosophical sophistication, its unwitting support of existing neo-liberal political and economic discourse, its disregard (so far) for cultural diversity, difference and equity, and its inability to work outside the strictures of positivist experimental methods. Further detail of these criticisms can found in the following list of publications.
 * Becker, D., & Marecek, J. (2008). Positive psychology: History in the remaking? Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 591-604.
 * Bohart, A. C., & Greening, T. (2001). Humanistic psychology and positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56(1), 81-82.
 * Christopher, J. C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology, ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 563-589.
 * Christopher, J. C., Richardson, F. C., & Slife, B. D. (2008). Thinking through positive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 555-561.
 * Fowers, B. J. (2008). From continence to virtue: Recovering goodness, character unity, and character types for positive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 629-653.
 * Friedman, H. (2008). Humanistic and positive psychology: The methodological and epistemological divide. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36(2), 113-126.
 * Held, B. S. (2002). The tyranny of the positive attitude in America: Observation and speculation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 965-992.
 * Held, B. S. (2004). The negative side of positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44(1), 9-46.
 * Held, B. S. (2005). The "virtues" of positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 1-34.
 * Kowalski, R. M. (2002). Whining, griping, and complaining: Positivity in the negativity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1023-1035.
 * McDonald, M., & O'Callaghan, J. (2008). Positive psychology: A Foucauldian critique. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36(2), 127-142.
 * Resnick, D. (2001). A meaningful but modest positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56(1), 78.
 * Richardson, F. C., & Guignon, C. B. (2008). Positive psychology and philosophy of social science. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 605-627.
 * Robbins, B. D. (2008). What is the good life? Positive psychology and the renaissance of humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36(2), 96-112.
 * Sundararajan, L. (2005). Happiness donut: A Confucian critique of positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 35-80.
 * Sundararajan, L. (2008). Toward a reflexive positive psychology: Insights from the Chinese Buddhist notion of emptiness. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 655-674.
 * Taylor, E. (2001). A reply to Seligman on positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 13-29.
 * Woolfolk, R. L., & Wasserman, R. H. (2005). Count no one happy: Eudaimonia and positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 81-90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.174.2 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kowalski, R. M. (2002). Whining, griping, and complaining: Positivity in the negativity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1023-1035.
 * McDonald, M., & O'Callaghan, J. (2008). Positive psychology: A Foucauldian critique. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36(2), 127-142.
 * Resnick, D. (2001). A meaningful but modest positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56(1), 78.
 * Richardson, F. C., & Guignon, C. B. (2008). Positive psychology and philosophy of social science. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 605-627.
 * Robbins, B. D. (2008). What is the good life? Positive psychology and the renaissance of humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36(2), 96-112.
 * Sundararajan, L. (2005). Happiness donut: A Confucian critique of positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 35-80.
 * Sundararajan, L. (2008). Toward a reflexive positive psychology: Insights from the Chinese Buddhist notion of emptiness. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 655-674.
 * Taylor, E. (2001). A reply to Seligman on positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 13-29.
 * Woolfolk, R. L., & Wasserman, R. H. (2005). Count no one happy: Eudaimonia and positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 81-90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.174.2 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sundararajan, L. (2005). Happiness donut: A Confucian critique of positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 35-80.
 * Sundararajan, L. (2008). Toward a reflexive positive psychology: Insights from the Chinese Buddhist notion of emptiness. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 655-674.
 * Taylor, E. (2001). A reply to Seligman on positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 13-29.
 * Woolfolk, R. L., & Wasserman, R. H. (2005). Count no one happy: Eudaimonia and positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 81-90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.174.2 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Taylor, E. (2001). A reply to Seligman on positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 13-29.
 * Woolfolk, R. L., & Wasserman, R. H. (2005). Count no one happy: Eudaimonia and positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 81-90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.174.2 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Woolfolk, R. L., & Wasserman, R. H. (2005). Count no one happy: Eudaimonia and positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 81-90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.174.2 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Woolfolk, R. L., & Wasserman, R. H. (2005). Count no one happy: Eudaimonia and positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 81-90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.174.2 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that this whole article is overrun by the supporters without even a token mention of problems. Bunch of hippies in suits if you ask me. That website that DoctorW mentions reeks of the self help movement, and from the research articles I've read, made a very strange interpretation of the data to suit their dogma's, and then thrown in some evolutionary psychology to explain it, ignoring the fact that you can pretty much justify anything with evolutionary psychology. Solid methodology doesn't seem to be a word in their vocabulary. 150.203.110.137 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything new since Epicur?
What are the new ideas? Every single greek philosopher developped an own theory of "good life", theory of beauty and happiness and how to achieve them. Epicur is most often noted for his positive thinking but many other did just the same.

It is desperately needed that this article contrasts whats new since than - otherwise it looks like hype.

There are some fields that could be elaborated. How does postivie psychology relate to various cognitive biases? There must be lots of research on that? Richiez (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Related article
I wrote an article in Citizendium called "Mentally healthy mind" which is on this subject. Wondering if an ancillary article could be brought to Wikipedia along these lines. It would be the so-called "western conception" of the mentally healthy mind (which ideas from other cultures) but with more references, and expanded sections on emotional intelligence. Here's the article on Citizendium: Mentally healthy mind]. Wondering what people think.Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The undo Effect
The paragraph under this title doesn't make it at all clear why this title was chosen. Anyone care to expand? ChrisHibbert 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. Seems it was the title of the cited article, so I added that to the body text. -Josh Powell (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure that the undoing effect could be considered positive psychology. The fact is that that paper suggests that positive emotions only undo the cardiovascular effects of negative emotions, which is pretty much fixing what's broken, i.e. general psychology. The idea in positive psychology is that we should improve things that are good already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valethar (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition of huge "Learned Optimism" section
Someone added a huge "Learned Optimism" section which is completely out of proportion to the article, so I moved it here. If someone would like to condense this down to a few sentences and put it back in the research section, please go ahead. Remember that Positive Psychology is part of scientific psychology, so actual empirical research findings are primary. - Do c  t  orW  23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Learned Optimism?
The idea of learned optimism was developed by Martin Seligman and published in his 1990 book, Learned Optimism. The benefits of an optimistic outlook on are many—optimists are higher achievers and have better overall health. Pessimism, on the other hand, is much more common. Pessimists view bad events as permanent and they believe that adversity they face is their own fault. Pessimists are more likely to give up in the face of adversity or to be depressed. In Learned Optimism, Seligman invites pessimists to learn to be optimists through learning to think about reaction to adversity in a new way. The resulting optimism—that that grows from pessimism—is called learned optimism. Seligman came to the concept of learned optimism through scientifically studying learned helplessness, which is the idea that no matter what people do, certain often negative events are still going to befall them. People who experience that phenomenon continually learn to be helpless. As he was performing tests to study helplessness further, he began to wonder why some people who were conditioned to be helpless in his lab never actually became helpless. Some subjects blamed themselves for their helplessness during the experiments, whereas others blamed the experiment for setting them up to fail. Seligman shifted his focus to attempting to discover what it is that keeps some people from ever becoming helpless. The answer was optimism. Using his knowledge about conditioning people to be helpless in the lab, he shifted his focus to conditioning people to be optimists. The result of these experiments led to defining the process of learned optimism.

Other differences exist between pessimists and optimists in the areas of permanence, pervasiveness, hope, and personalization.

•Permanence: Optimistic people believe bad events to be more temporary than permanent and bounce back quickly from failure, whereas others may take longer periods to recover or may never recover. They also believe good things happen for reasons that are permanent, rather than seeing the transient nature of positive events.

•Pervasiveness: Optimistic people compartmentalize helplessness, whereas pessimistic people assume that failure in one area of life means failure in life as a whole. Optimistic people also allow good events to brighten every area of their lives rather than just the particular area in which the event occurred.

•Hope: Optimists point to specific temporary causes for negative events; pessimists point to permanent causes

•Personalization: Optimists blame bad events on causes outside of themselves, whereas pessimists blame themselves for events that occur. Optimists are therefore generally more confident. Optimists also quickly internalize positive events while pessimists externalize them.

Seligman’s Method of Learning Optimism
Anyone can learn optimism. Whether currently an optimist or a pessimist, benefits can be gained from exposure to the process of learned optimism to improve response to both big and small adversities. A test, developed by Seligman, is used to determine an individual’s base level of optimism. This test can be accessed at, and will assess how you will more likely respond in given situations. The results of the test classify individuals as very optimistic, moderately optimistic, average, moderately pessimistic, or very pessimistic. Being in any of the bottom three categories means that learning optimism can prevent depression, help people achieve more, and raise overall physical health.

Seligman’s process of learning optimism is simple, and allows for a different way of responding to adversity that leads to talking oneself through personal defeat. It begins with the Ellis ABC model of adversity, belief, and consequence. Adversity is the event that happens, belief is how that adversity is interpreted, and consequences are the feelings and actions that result from the beliefs. This is demonstrated in the example below:

•	Adversity: Someone cuts you off in traffic. •	Belief: You think, “I can’t believe that idiot was so rude and selfish!” •	Consequence: You are overcome with anger, yelling profanity at the other driver.

This is a somewhat graphic example, but should present a good idea of what each component of ABC looks like. In the journey to learning optimism, one must first understand his/ her natural reaction to and interpretation of adversity. In order to do so, keep a journal for 1–2 days of small adversity events, and the beliefs and consequences that follow. Look for the pessimistic interpretations in the personal journal. That is what learning optimism will change.

Seligman adds to the ABC model, so his model is ABCDE. D stands for disputation, which centers around providing evidence against a belief, alternative reasons for the adversity’s occurrence, implications of the adversity, and the usefulness of moving on from the adversity. Disputation for the above traffic example might sound like this: “I am overreacting. I don’t know what situation he is in. Maybe he is on his way to his daughter’s piano recital and is running late. I’m sure I have cut people off before without meaning to, so I should really cut him a break. I am not in a hurry anyway.” A response like this can change feelings to be more hopeful and positive. Successful disputation is therefore the key to learned optimism. Successful disputation leads to energization, the E in the ABCDE model. One is energized by the positive feelings and sense of accomplishment that come from successful disputation of negative beliefs.

Empirical Findings on Learned Optimism
In a study completed by Martin Seligman, Ph.D. and Gregory Buchanan, Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania and published by the American Psychological Association, learned optimism techniques were found to significantly reduce depression in a class of college freshmen. As incoming students to the university, a survey determined the most pessimistic students and they were invited to participate in the study. They were randomly assigned, half to attend a 16-hour workshop on the techniques of learning optimism, and half were the control group. In an 18 month follow up, 32% of the control group suffered moderate to severe depression and 15% suffered moderate to severe anxiety disorder, whereas only 22% of the workshop participants were depressed and 7% had anxiety issues. Those who participated in the learned optimism workshop also reported fewer health problems over the 18 month period of the study than those students in the control group.

A study done by Peter Schulman at the Wharton School, published in the Journal of Selling and Sales Management, looked to determine the affects of applying learned optimism in business. After measuring the optimism levels of an insurance sales force, it was determined that the optimistic sales people sold 35 percent more, and identified pessimists were two times more likely to quit in the first year than optimists. As a result of his studies, he recommends testing sales job candidates for optimism levels to fit them to appropriate positions, training employees in learned optimism techniques, and designing an organization overall to have attainable goals set and good support from management.

Finally, a study conducted by Mark Ylvisaker of the College of Saint Rose and Timothy Feeney of the Wildwood Institute looked at children with executive function impairment, meaning they have a brain functioning impairment perhaps affecting motor skills, memory, or focus ability, and relating techniques of learned optimism not to the children themselves, but to their caretakers, who oftentimes are more likely to feel helpless than optimistic in regards to caring for the child. It was found that learned optimism in caretakers of children with brain damage actually led the children to develop more functioning than children without optimistic caretakers. Optimistic rehabilitation professionals can help to augment these results.

Learned Optimism in Practice
Learned optimism techniques can be very practical to apply to anyone’s life, and are used frequently today in the areas of parenting, business, and psychology. Teaching children learned optimism by guiding them through the ABCDE techniques can help children to better deal with adversity they encounter in their lives. In addition to the same value adults can get from learning optimism, if children are taught early then the thought process of disputation becomes ingrained in them. They do not have to focus on being optimistic, but rather optimism becomes automatic and leads to a more positive life for the child.

Learned optimism is prevalent in business because more optimistic workers are more successful workers. Seligman’s focus in business is on “the personal wall” that is each individual workers constant point of discouragement. This could be preparing reports or making cold calls to potential clients. Putting the ABCDE model into practice allows workers to respond to this “wall” with a readiness to conquer rather than to feel dejected. Additionally, the ASQ—Attributional Style Questionnaire—is often used to measure optimism of job candidates during the interview process by asking the participant to write down causes for situational failures. Participants then rank the causes based on given criteria, and this helps businesses to know from the beginning whether the job candidate will be a high or low performer in his/her projected role based on his level of optimism.

Learned optimism is also a big tool used to combat depression during cognitive behavioral therapy. Many people are depressed simply because they have a pessimistic outlook, and using the ABCDE to change one’s beliefs about adversity. Rather than perceiving adversity as a constant thing that cannot be overcome, and taking personal blame for that adversity, patients come out of cognitive behavioral therapy with the belief that they can control how they respond to adversity. A shift toward optimism is a shift away from depression, and that is what makes Seligman’s techniques so useful in cognitive behavioral therapy.

(1)Discovery Health. Learned Optimism Yields Health Benefits. American Psychological Association, 1997.  (2)Seligman, Martin. Learned Optimism. New York, NY: Pocket Books. 1998. (3)Schulman, Peter. Applying Learned Optimism to Increase Sales Productivity. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. Volume XIX, Number 1, Winter 1999. Pages 31–37.  (4)Ylvisaker, Mark and Timothy Feeney. Executive functions, self-regulation, and learned optimism in paediatric rehabilitation: a review and implications for intervention. Developmental Neurorehabilitation. Volume 5, Issue 2, April 2002, pages 51–70. 

Misplaced "Subjective well-being" section
Someone added this section to "research findings" (where it doesn't belong). It seems to me to be a rather insignificant topic. Can anyone salvage something of value from it? - Do c  t  orW  23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Subjective Well-being
Subjective well-being (see also subjective life satisfaction) is an analogous term for emotional well-being or happiness elaborated by the positive psychologist Ed Diener et al. The article by Diener and colleagues "The Psychology of Subjective Well-being" (2004) seeks to further legitimize the study of happiness or well-being as within the reaches of science where previously it had been viewed by many as rather a subject confined to philosophy or religion because these subjects are considered somewhat abstract. Additionally, Snyder & Lopez define subjective well-being in their text Positive Psychology (2007) a tenet of theories of happiness in which "individual's appraisals of their own lives capture the essence of well-being." According to Snyder and Lopez consideration of different types of well-being (subjective, objective, psychological, social, etc.) provides a more comprehensive understanding of mental health.

"Application" section: sub-sections
Let's divide the "Application" section into sub-sections. - Do c  t  orW  00:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Learned Optimism
There was more than enough wicked information here on the talk page to create a learned optimism page of its own. I also linked there from this article.-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical roots
I'm concerned that the "Historical roots" section uses only the word "happiness" throughout (except the addition I just made of humanistic psychology, which needs to be expanded), even though the article - correctly - does not equate positive psychology with happiness research. Some slight rewording or at least explanation seems appropriate. - Do c  t  orW  07:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, essentially by moving your humanistic psych reference to the top, emphasizing it as the most relevant influence and partly explaining that older references look and feel different, because they came from different, less scientific paradigms. At least, I hope that's how my edit reads. -Josh Powell (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

While this section expands on far historical roots, I would be helped with some more recent roots. Compare f.e. the 'roots' section of solution focus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_focused_brief_therapy#History_of_Solution_Focused_Brief_Therapy  Titusmars (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Spirituality
Is there any real point to including the exempli gratia of feminist theology and ecological spirituality in juxtaposition to "traditional organized religion?" This sentence sounds very unlike the objective Wikipedia voice.

None of the claims about spirituality have been supported with citations. I have a stack of studies that would support this claim, along with supporting the claim that religiosity improves a persons health. However, it is not correct to imply that all forms of spirituality promote health in all ways, or religiosity promotes health in all ways. There are certain aspects of health that have been correlated with certain measures of spirituality and religiosity. Also, irreleigiosity studies often lump atheists into their studies under a massive category of "nones" or "others" while there are numerous studies that show that atheists differ in many ways from their irreligious/none/other category. I've presnted numerous links about atheism's lower divorce rate, correlation with higher IQ an higher education, lower teen pregnancy rates, higher age of virginity loss, etc. but they have been deleted. The most recent addition that I made listed numerous academic sites, but the entire block was removed because I linked to an atheist advocacy site for one of my points. That site was a complilation of numerous academic sites that supported the claim.

Certain forms of religiosity, needless to say, are not good for ones health. Fundamentalism has been correlated, for example, with high degrees of prejudice, domestic violence, and resistence to education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
There should be a section dedicated to the Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program and it's Military Resiliency Training since it is one of the largest, if not the largest, attempted application of positive psychology's ideals. There should also be an exploration on the ways it deviates from substantiated psychology and its controversial emphasis on "spirituality". 66.188.228.180 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Age sub-section misleading; missing main finding
The current "Age" sub-section is misleading at present. It seems to be missing the main finding of many research studies, which is that happiness generally increases from teen years to young adulthood to adulthood to old age, with a slight dip in mid-life. The overall pattern is not a "U-bend"; those in their mid 40s are not as happy as those in their 30s (or older people), but they are happier than those in their 20s, who are happier than children.

I have moved the misleading sub-section here until it can be fixed. It should reflect the preponderance of the evidence. It should also have grammar and spelling mistakes corrected.

Age

The Midlife crisis may mark the first reliable drop in happiness during the average human's life. Evidence suggests that, with the exception of their 40s, most people generally get happier as they get older. This finding is based on decades of data, and controls for cohort groups; the data avoids the risk that the drops in happiness during midlife are due to particularly bad midlife experiences, like a war. The studies have also controlled for income, job status and parenting (as opposed to childfreedom) to try and isolate the effects of age. The studies support the notion that there are changes inside of the individual. This could be for any number of reasons: a greater awareness of one's self and preferences; an ability to control desires; getting closer to death may motivate people to pursue more goals; improved social skills, like forgiveness, which may take years to develop; it may also be that the tendency for wisdom and perspective comes with age.

Other studies have found that older individuals report more health problems, but fewer problems overall. Young adults reported more anger, anxiety, depression, financial problems, troubled relationships and career stress. Researchers also suggest that depression in the elderly is often due largely to passivity and inaction - they recommend that people continue to do the things that bring happiness, even in old age.

I hope you don't mind that I have tried to rewrite the above excerpt. Hopefully there are fewer grammar issues, and now it reflects the evidence you describe. Do you have any sources we could add? Clearly that article "The U-bend of life" is insufficient.- Tesseract2 (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE:I read a few more articles (and threw in the sources) to get a better idea of the data. An updated version is back on the page and, as always, ready for further input.- Tesseract2 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is about 2400 years old
It's very strange to me that nowhere is Stoicism, Epictetus, Zeno, Marcus Aurellius, or even Socrates mentioned in all this. Do the actual "creators" and writers of Positive Psychology similarly omit any mention of what must be its original inspiration? The article reads like a re-wording of a large portion of Stoicism and other ancient philosophies, almost verbatim.--Daniel 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A fuller discussion of this subject would include such historical references. In my experience, psychologists seldom try to tackle setting their ideas properly in the context of intellectual history. I was actually impressed, however, that more so than any psychology discussion I remember hearing on any subtopic, Christopher Peterson, in the seminal Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, which he researched for 3 years before completing (I think I remember hearing), shows an awareness of the history of ideas to quite a laudable extent. Remember to keep in mind that encyclopedia articles are normally superficial. - Do c  t  orW  05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's good to know. I also found on the Positive Psychology Center's website (http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu) that they do indeed say, "Positive psychology has many distinguished ancestors. Since at least the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the 'good life' has been the subject of philosophical and religious inquiry." and "Positive psychology acknowledges a debt to humanistic psychology...".--Daniel 07:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not even Buddhism is mentioned, which has almost 2600 years of a continuous track record in developing methods that are guaranteed to allow individuals to find for themselves the causes of happiness and cultivate them, as well as to identify the causes of insatisfaction/unhappiness/suffering, and eliminate them. Some of the conclusions of research articles on the links between money/relationships and happiness, which probably took academics years of research (including the years studying psychology and the scientific method in order to learn the methods of applying research to that field) can be found and validated over and over again by anyone with little training, using any one of the thousands of methods being taught in the past 2600 years by Buddhist teachers worldwide. Positive psychology seems, to me, like merely a "reinvention of the wheel" using new terminology and a few technical artifacts (like RMI scans) to reach pretty much the same conclusions; however, it seems still to be at the "descriptive" stage, i.e. "we think we know what happiness is and we can describe it", and still struggling to reach out for actual methods that work. They can certainly borrow any one of the thousands of methods widely disseminated by Buddhist teachers everywhere, and then confirm the results with RMI scans. Arundel (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheism and Positive Psychology
Numerous studies have confirmed that atheism is associated with personal (and societal) well-being, and there is a lot of data that could be used to support the idea that "spirituality" (variously defined) promotes or inhibits psychological health. The section concerning spirituality's alleged link to psychological health is broad, hasn't been sourced, and conflicting sources of information from textbooks on the psychology of religion, direct studies, and news articles about studies have been deleted. I suggest that the section be removed or allow a review of the debates. Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been found that atheists have been found to have the lowest divorce rate by religious affiliation, higher IQ's higher educational attainment, atheists have a smaller representation in the United States' prison system compared to their dispersion in civilian population, and higher religiosity has been linked to higher rates of teen pregnancies. Research on spirituality is in early stages, however, and has not yet benefitted from the full range of psychological research methodsavailable; current research on the benefits of spirituality is mostly limited to studies using cross-sectional questionnaires. Atheists score higher on well-being score than other religious demographics except for Judaism. (However, half of Jews are atheists or non-religious depending on the study you read.) Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC) And, of course, there is a lot of work out there on the negative effects of certain forms of religiosity (keep in mind religiosity is promoted by the Army's positive psychology inspired GAT test, remedial training modules, and spiritual fitness initiative), such as fundamentalism. There are studies that link fundamentalism to domestic violence, lower IQ, lower education, and a higher likelihood of discriminatory attitudes. And, of course, many "spiritual" groups, movements, and people have done horrible things "because" of their spiritual ideas. 137.28.55.129 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a slight comment to clarify terminology: "spirituality" is not an antonym to "atheism"; you most certainly can be atheist and spiritual (in the sense of following a series of methods and techniques to develop desired mental attitudes). Jainism and Buddhism are both atheist spiritual traditions in the sense that they discard the theistic notion of "God-as-Creator" (or protector). Arundel (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Personality - 5 or 6 Factors?
The Personality section misquotes a reference, referring to the "6 factors" when the abstract of the original clearly says 5 factors. As I am a newbie to this subject, could someone please resolve the apparent error?

The text was added Apr 6 2011 by "Tim bates". Apparently the added text involves differences between the OCEAN personality Five Factor Model and the 6 factor HEXACO model [neuroticism+agreeableness vs. honesty/humility+emotionalism+agreeableness'].

The reference is A. Weiss, T. C. Bates and M. Luciano. (2008). Happiness is a personal(ity) thing: the genetics of personality and well-being in a representative sample. Psychological Science, 19, 205-10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.203.18 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have at least checked the abstract, and it sounds like the cited source is talking about the 5 factor model, which would make the mention of 6 factors a typo. I will change it for now unless someone knows better.- Tesseract2 (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Suffering section
Since my last section provoked little interest, I've gone ahead and created a section on suffering, but with more sources than only Peterson. I invite everyone and DoctorW to make constructive criticism. Thanks.- Tesseract2 (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Addiction
The section about the addictive properties of shortcuts to happiness looks more like a personal opinion than an objective statement. To further support this claim, the author makes reference to a document that isn't even available. Thus, this section lacks any credibility and should be supported by peer-reviewed studies that expose its claims. If not, it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munozdj (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Brittany Jackson, First-time editor
My name is Brittany. I am a senior majoring in Psychology at Clemson University. I am editing this article as part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittany Jackson (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Brittany Jackson (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Condensing Section 3
As I'm working on editing and modifying this article, I feel that the overall article is too long and some of the subsections in section 3 (General findings by topic) could be condensed into more broad topics - ex. combining age, gender, marriage, parenting, and personality; combining education and intelligence, buying happiness and religion; combining culture, political views, social ties and weather; and then combining addiction and suffering. I also think that the subsection, changes in happiness levels, could be taken out of section three. I propose that there should be a section about happiness set points (which I'm currently working on) and changes in happiness levels could be included in this section. Overall, I think these changes would make the overall article shorter, look more appealing with a smaller amount of subsections and would be better organized. Please let me know what you think about these suggestions. Brittany Jackson (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Making the article shorter and better organized sounds good, but the combinations confuse me a bit: I can understand combining education and intelligence, but adding to that buying happiness and religion? Political views in the same section as weather? What names would you give these sections?  Lova Falk     talk   10:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Additions and Modifications Last week I added a substantial amount of material to this article. I was also able to add some new sections that I thought were important in the field of Positive Psychology. A very important topic I added was the goal of positive psychology and I felt it was important to include this section toward the beginning of the article to help readers understand the overall purpose. I was also able to get a lot of material concerning religion and positive psychology which did not include any information prior to my additions. Instead of condensing section 3 like I had mentioned above, I decided to just rearrange the subsections that would make the article flow more smoothly. Please let me know of any feedback about the changes I have made. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittany Jackson (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Section “Buying happiness”
“One study found money ceased to aid level of happiness after a person makes over $US75,000 a year, and people overestimate the influence of wealth by 100%.” The finding has been challenged recently. EIN  ( talk ) 19:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Culture and positive psychology
If someone knows anything about culture and positive psychology, please visit the main article to help improve a substantial page with a lot of useful information but needs cleanup, clarification, and sources. --Iamozy (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section: deleted addition
I've deleted a paragraph that had been added to say "It has been argued by existential therapists (Deurzen, 2009) that happiness is only one side of the human condition and that it cannot be treated as an objective in its own right but must always be set against the background of a need to deal with adversity and difficulty. In her book 'Psychotherapy and the Quest for Happiness', she has critiqued the one sided approach of positive psychology as a sign of a cultural obsession with positivity." It appears to be only indirectly associated with this article, as well as having WP:COI concerns (also noted on the User talk:Emmyzen page). But if anyone feels there is sufficient 3rd party discussion of that particular position regarding Positive Psychology, then please re-add the paragraph. AllyD (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Positive Psychology's has ever been targeted, but there is a great deal of philosophical work criticizing having happiness (variously understood, btw)be the primary goal of people. It's worth more than a passing thought, and creating a new field of psychology does not escape us from basic questions that continue to apply. 137.28.55.129 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The "spiritual fitness" component that has been pushed by some in positive psychology has had a lot of criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this not criticism of positive thinking rather than positive psychology as a research programme? Research in positive psychology could conclude that positive thinking is ineffective. Alnpete (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Long Lists of Headers
General Findings by Topic has 16 subsections. Wouldn't it make sense to group these 16 subsections into make groups of five or fewer (or greater)? Going all the way to 4.16 seems weird when 4.1-4.16 don't even have subsections. Skiingxmoose (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Positive psychology coaching
Coaching is an aspect of the practice; article not extensive enough to merit separation I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal. It fits well into the "Application" section. --Iamozy (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Positive psych vs. positive thinking
An unregistered editor has raised the contention that Barbara Ehrenreich's inclusion in the "Criticism" section is unwarranted since her works criticize "positive thinking," which is distinct from positive psychology. The phrase "positive thinking" is only used in Ehrenreich's criticism, and isn't found anywhere else in the article. So my two questions: Is positive psychology separate from positive thinking? And if so, should Ehrenreich's criticism be deleted or moved to a different article (positive thinking directs to Optimism) --Iamozy (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted from this article (there appear to be two identical copies of the material). To answer your question directly - positive thinking and positive psychology are very different topics, so that material here is giving undue weight to an unrelated topic. I also suspect a COI or advertisement or other similar issue so it shouldn't be moved. Szzuk (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree PT and PP are different, main diffirence is PP don't deny/denigrate unfortunate/negative events, PP use them to minimize their impacts. PP acknowledge negativity in the same way Buddhist philosophy does.

PT deny unfortunate events like if they were not real.

Mikha7 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the Introduction
Hi there! I did my best to rewrite the introduction and I used credible sources to back me up. Please let me know if anything needs to be changed or fixed. Thank you! Maddieaalund (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-ordred info
I've re-ordered quite a lot of info. Much info was moved to "General findings by topic," to give a shorter and more comprehensive overview of "Definition and basic assumptions," " Origins and development," and "Theory and methods." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation by a student - Citations Needed
Hi! I noticed that in the "Origins and development" section under "Psychology", the first paragraph does not have any citations. Citations to Maslow, Rogers, and Fromm's theories and practices that are discussed in the first sentence should be added. In the second sentence, a citation should also be added for the " recent empirical support" found in support of these theories. Additionally, in the "Theory and methods" section, the "Selection-criteria" sub-section lacks a reference. Additionally, perhaps the sentence at the end of the "PERMA" sub-section under "Theory and methods" ("These categories appear neither widely disputed nor adopted by researchers across the 12 years that this academic area has been in existence") should be either cited or removed if it is a conclusion made by an author. -Jennamackay (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Positive psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060711093607/http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/images/timemagazine/Time-Happiness.pdf to http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/images/TimeMagazine/Time-Happiness.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115020515/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1015902-1%2C00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015902-1,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstract
This abstract makes me think there is much validity to positive psychology

Very Happy People VHP


 * VHP are near a third happier as viewed by others
 * VHP are 230 pt happier with their lives that is daily affect balance
 * VHP have double the number of positive memories per time period

Psychological Science Jan 2002 Ed Diener

A sample of 222 undergraduates was screened for high happiness using multiple confirming assessment filters. We compared the upper 10% of consistently very happy people to average and very unhappy people. The very happy people are highly social, with strong romantic and other social relationships compared to less happy groups. They are more extraverted, more agreeable, less neurotic, and lower on several MMPI psychopathology scales. The happiest respondents did not exercise significantly more, participate in religious activities significantly more, or experience more objectively defined good events. No variable was sufficient for happiness, but good social relations were necessary. The happiest group experienced positive, but not ecstatic feelings, most of the time, and they did report occasional negative moods. This suggests that very happy people do have a functioning emotion system that can react appropriately to life events.


 * VHP are near a third happier as viewed by others
 * VHP are 230 pt happier with their lives that is daily affect balance
 * VHP have double the number of positive memories per time period.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.160.160 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

Only focused on mental distress?
I'm not sure how the positive psychologists can claim that ps

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.110.137 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson on the Clinical Importance of Suffering
I disagree with a past deletion that I only just noticed. DoctorW gave the reason "Removed off-topic material" but I think it is highly relevant. I was just wondering if we could establish some consensus on the following questions:
 * Does this content belong in Positive Psychology?
 * Does it belong on some other page (too)?
 * If it belongs on this page, what section would best suit it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesseract2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Below I offer a copy-edited version of the content:
 * What changes should we make, given our decisions above

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesseract2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledging suffering
Research and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson argues that, unfortunately, it is natural for human beings to suffer a great deal in their life. Peterson says that this is because living beings are limited and restrained in many important ways. He refers to the Buddhist saying that "Life is suffering". Peterson does not think this view is pessimistic, but realistic, and asserts that accepting the universe's harsh indifference towards living things can free one from the expectation that they should always be happy. This realization can ultimately help one manage suffering, which is no longer unexpected. This also means that individuals should be all the more delighted when they flourish, when others flourish, or when they build a society where flourishing is anywhere near the norm at all. To Peterson, virtues are important because they give people the tools to escape suffering (e.g. the strength to admit dissonant truths to themselves). Peterson thus believes that suffering is sometimes caused by a false philosophy (one that denies how natural suffering is), and sometimes by a lack of strong virtues - on our part or on the part of people that affect us.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesseract2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What about Rollo May?
Rollo May's books the Meaning of Anxiety (2nd Edition) and his Love and Will definitely fall into this category of positive psychology. It's unimaginable that no psychologists would have considered his books and other work as being part of positive psychology or at least influencing it.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan_Waterman2/publication/236200597_The_Humanistic_Psychology--Positive_Psychology_Divide_Contrasts_in_Philosophical_Foundations/links/02e7e516ed69f1f311000000/The-Humanistic-Psychology--Positive-Psychology-Divide-Contrasts-in-Philosophical-Foundations.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.120.51 (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Reaction to behaviorism and psychoanalysis" Overstating a case
I just edited this line. At first I jumped to the citation of the next sentence https://positivepsychology.com/founding-fathers/, changed "reaction against humanism and psychoanalysis" with "past practices". The citation of the next sentence clearly demarcates "Four Waves of Psychology" in which Behaviorism is the second wave and, no mention of psychoanalysis. In fact it starts the "Four Waves of Psychology" with the first wave being "The Disease Model"- "During the second half of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th, psychology was concerned with curing mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and human complexes of various kinds". While it is natural to assume that psychoanalysis was important in the early 20th century psychology, the publication clearly refers to a period before this, and in a large sweep, quite a few "schools" of psychology afterwards, not just Freud, but Adler and Jung as well. I want to comment on this because it is "common wisdom", so I'm not surprised at the sentence about "reaction to behaviorism and psychoanalysis" because I'm sure that's what a Psych 101 professor might say today, but without citations it's leaving out too many "founders" who might disagree. I'd say by the time Positive Psychology gains traction in 2000, psychoanalysis and Skinner's behaviorism have both long been in decline, and while it may be accurate to say it builds on Humanism, the "reaction" is probably much more to psychopharmacology and the stark decline of "talk therapy" as a tool in favor of prescription of psycho-pharmaceuticals. This development isn't even a school of psychology, but it's easy to get trapped in the academic battles of one school of therapy against others, when nearly all schools are operating within field of medical treatment, in clinical psychology, quite separate from academia. Perhaps it might even be seen in reaction to "CBT"- cognitive-behavioral therapy, not in opposition, but with the reserved use of the CBT tools for the "mentally ill". I'm sorry I can't spend more time researching that hypothesis, my purpose is not to promote it as much as rejecting the idea that 21st century Positive Psychology is a "reaction" to anything already in decline by the 1970s. Cuvtixo (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding Information From the World Happiness Report
This article is quite full, but it is lacking key components about how various cultures respond to happiness. I am interested in adding some information from the World Happiness Report, which had its most recent volume published in 2020. The report cites various degrees of happiness and the reason behind them, such as:
 * The Nordic Exceptionalism: Why The Nordic Countries Are Constantly Amongst the Happiest In the World
 * The Degree of Urbanisation: Using a New Global Urban-Rural Definition to Assess Happiness

Jallensmith420 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I really like this thought and want to work on this as well and see how cultural differences might change how positive psychology might be in different areas.

Joining and plan to edit this Positive Psychology Page
Hi all! Wanted to follow courtesy suggestions and mention that I plan on revising this page as part of my graduate course in Social Psychology. Think it is a great idea to add World Happiness Report -- something I had brainstormed independently, and will be happy to edit that additional section together. Otherwise, I plan on adding additional new sections and new subsections to existing sections.

Thank you! Looking forward! --Eljia7 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, just sending another update that I will be doing a full edit of the page within the next 24 hours and will be posting live. Look forward to any feedback you have. Thanks! --Eljia7 (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence (and an ungrammatical 'are') in lead last paragraph
4th sentence in last paragraph of lead: With spiritual practice and religious commitment being a topic researchers have been studying as another possible source for increased well-being and an added part of positive psychology.[7] I don't have access to the reference, so I wouldn't think to try to correct the not-sentence. I did change the 'suggestions are include' in 2nd sentence in last par of lead by removing the 'are', and I'd suggest in 1st sentence to add 'which' to 'factors may contribute', to yield 'factors which may contribute', though I'm not sure that's necessary or even correct with regard to the intended meaning. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Research Findings
I added an extra paragraph with a new study published Feb 2020, which talks about the effect of teaching positive psychology. Feel free to edit and check my work/understanding.

Research Articles DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00233-9 Jkb131 (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would love to see some more recent research done. I noticed that many of the citations were done in the early part of the 2000s. I am sure that there is plenty of research that has been done recently. I would love to look into this myself. SethReber75 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for Edits
I feel like this article is a great starting point and could use some images and more topics to add some depth to the article. If the article is intended to be for a basic reader, I think there should be some ties or connections to other articles that could help to further research. Aubreelynd (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Positive psychology impressions
Overall, the composition of the article was professional. I liked how it gave a lead paragraph explaining the major points in positive psychology. It gave me a better idea of what it was all about, and after reading it, I can start asking myself questions. These can include; "When did this study originate?", "Is it supported by modern science? Why or why not?" 2605:7FC0:0:11C:BDFF:BD8A:66EA:1AC0 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Images and Relevant Information
This is a great topic and a good article. There is a lot of information provided in this. One thing that I think this really needs is some images. It would help break up the blocks of information a bit, because without any breaks, it just feels like a really long block of writing and it looks a bit boring. So if there are some images that can be added, I think it would help. Also, I think that some of the sources used in this article are a bit outdated, a lot of the sources are from the early 2000's and if we can find some more recent articles talking about this topic, it would help a lot. A042022! (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC) I agree and think that it really does need some images and new information as much of it is pretty dated. 192.225.188.36 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictures
There are no pictures on this article it makes it look less visually organized. A picture could also help add to the information being presented. VirginiaKAlworth98 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to add some images to the article to further improve visual organization. Clancyelizabeth (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Polishing the section on toxic positivity
Hey Phlsph7, it's not as though I consider my edit that you reverted crucial, but there is one thing about the restored version that I'm not comfortable with. The section in question is not about the concept of toxic positivity, but about toxic positivity itself. This nuance is a close cousin to the use-mention distinction. By analogy, the lead of the article titled Rainbow begins, "A rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by..."; no mention of the concept of rainbow.

So I propose to simply strike the words "concept or." It's a small enough change that I would normally just do it. But since this involved responding to a reverting, I thought it best to discuss so as to avoid an edit war.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi PaulTanenbaum and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The main reason for the revert was the overuse of gerunds. I think leaving out the "concept or" is a good idea since talking about it as a "phenomenon" is sufficient. I would also suggest to replace the "full spectrum" with "whole spectrum" (or a similar reformulation) in this sentence to avoid the repetition. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Thanks Phlsph7.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabrielchristiem.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rdewitt92. Peer reviewers: Kangw01, Hphilli2, Vidaphan12, Vsol98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wartainian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eljia7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kassperkin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2021 and 23 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A042022!, VirginiaKAlworth98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 May 2021 and 6 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vre99. Peer reviewers: Sey2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clancyelizabeth. Peer reviewers: Sray13, Chodges8, Abaudie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Savannaj13 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Snqadri (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is irony - if not insanity - raised to the power of infinity, and beyond ...
Taken at face value and assessed objectively, this is a description of ... ah, er, um - how can I put this tactfully - hell, a manifestly self-delusional state. A mental illness of some kind.

Alert the DSM and ICD editorial committees; there's a new kid on the block; PPD - Positive Psychology Disorder.

Positivity is the end, is it not? The desired end. It cannot at once be the end, and [sanely] the means to that same end, the means to itself, can it? If so, what does that mean? To me this is a concept that is preordained to forever seek - and never find - it's rationale.

The therapy you need when ... in no need of a therapy. "You're doing fine! That'll be $100, thank-you very much. Cash or card? Next patient, please!"

I'd posit 'positive psychology' as an example of, or analogous with, a style of [self-serving] mathematical proof. A proof of insanity. By the use of reductive and/or inductive techniques. QED! 'Positive psychology', I'd assert, is inherently meaningless. Necessarily useless. Axiomatically oxymoronic and/or tautological. QED. Demonstrated, as required!

How does this - in any way, shape or form - address or improve the well-being of those who have been psychologically harmed, and are suffering as a consequence? 122.151.210.84 (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)