In this article, I propose that despite the nay-saying 1) positive psychology is justifiably a branch of humanistic psychology, and 2) a humanistic positive psychology would be salutary to the profession of psychology. From the standpoint of theory, I show how positive psychology shares humanistic psychology's concern with what it means to be fully, experientially human, and how that understanding illuminates the vital or fulfilled life. However, I also show how the findings of positive psychology, particularly in the area "happiness" research-or what has recently been termed "human flourishing," stop short of the fuller aforementioned aims. Specifically, I show how positive psychology appears to oversimplify both the experience of human flourishing and its social-adaptive value. While the positive psychology findings on flourishing are useful in limited contexts, e.g., in terms of their implications for the attainment of pleasure, physical health, and cultural competency, they are inadequate with respect to the more complicated contexts of creativity, emotional depth, and social consciousness. I will detail the nature of these discrepancies, such as their implications for perception of reality, psychological growth, and capacity for self-reflection, and consider their role in an expanded vision of human resiliency.
Overview
Positive psychology is justifiably a branch of humanistic psychology. Let me clarify: To the extent that humanistic psychology stands for "What it means to be fully and experientially human, and how that understanding illuminates the vital and fulfilled life" -and it does, according to humanistic texts (e.g., see Moss, 2001 and Schneider, Bugental, & Pierson, 2001, p. xx)--I hereby advocate for a branch of humanistic psychology called positive psychology.
I am happy (and I use that word advisedly!) to endorse humanistic psychology as a positive psychology, and positive psychology as a humanism-yet with one major caveat: Positive psychology as it is presently constituted reflects what I call a "narrow band," cognitive-behaviorally informed theoretical perspective. What I mean by this is that prevailing studies of happiness (or even that which has been termed human flourishing) represent but a circumscribed range of how such phenomena are actually experienced--"on the ground," so to speak, in people's everyday worlds. If this were not the case, I don't think we'd see so many contradictory cases in positive psychology research, but I will elaborate on this momentarily.
Broad Band vs. Narrow Band
To the extent that positive psychology is viewed for what it is, therefore--a narrow band formulation of a broad band experience --I welcome it into the humanistic mosaic. On the other hand, to the extent that positive psychology, that is, narrow band investigation, is mistaken for broad band comprehension, I have grave concerns, not just for the alliance of positive psychology and humanism, but for the alliance of our field with life.
To restate my case, I have nothing against narrow bands; within their proper contexts, they can have great value-such as their contribution to clarity, contentment, and order. The problem is that those things represent only slices of life, not life itself. Or to quote another wary observer of the human scene: "Twice two makes four is...not life, gentlemen, [but] the beginning of death" (Dostoyevsky, 1864/1975). Hence, while narrow bands can have great value, they can also pose great hazards, and these hazards are necessary to point out-especially today-when twice two makes four is increasingly trumpeted as constituting life.
Problems with Narrow Band Positive Psychology
As I view it, there are three main problems with a humanistically deprived (cognitive-behaviorally informed) positive psychology: 1) methodological narrowness; 2) neglect of the tragic dimension; and 3) susceptibility to the expedient; and all three bode dubiously for our society.
The positive notions of happiness and flourishing, therefore, are not just remote academic inquiries; they are innermost challenges to our nature and world today-and that is why this symposium is so imperative.
Without further ado then, let me illustrate how I believe a humanistically deprived positive psychology is impacting us today, and what, if any, steps we can take to remedy this situation-that is, to reconnect humanism and positive psychology for the enhancement of psychology as a whole.
In their 2005 article in the American Psychologist, Fredrickson and Losada conclude that human flourishing, which they define as an "optimal range of... functioning...that connotes goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience," is predictable based on one key factor-a "positivity ratio" (p. 678). What is a positivity ratio? It is a quantitative proportion of positive-(that is pleasant, grateful, upbeat, appreciative, and enjoyable) feelings-over negative (that is unpleasant contemptuous, irritable, disdainful, and aversive) feelings (p. 678). Further they identify a positivity ratio of 2.9 as the threshold for flourishing based on their review of the relevant research. In other words, one must attain a ratio of about three "good thoughts" to every single bad thought, in order to achieve what the authors call human flourishing. Or to put it another way, the "flourishing factors of goodness ("indexed by happiness, satisfaction, and superior functioning"); generativity ("indexed by broadened thought-action repertoires and behavioral flexibility"); growth ("indexed by gains in enduring personal and social resources"); and resilience ("indexed by survival and growth in the aftermath of adversity") are significantly "linked to a positivity ratio at or above 2.9" (p. 685).
Now these findings are notable, and help us to understand something about "optimal" human functioning within a context of narrowly operationalized definitions, strictly codified measures, and carefully controlled observations. [Granted, the researchers did use what they term "nonlinear, dynamic" equations (p. 680) to account for the relative variability of emotional processing, but nevertheless, their findings strike me as neither fluid nor dynamic-sorry!]
