About two years ago, as I launched my children off to kindergarten, I also launched my exploration of Positive Psychology, enticed by the promise of helping the patients in my clinical psychology practice find happiness. But, as I read, I began questioning this new science.
Although its proponents maintained they were not anti-mainstream psychology, they promoted their new approach, in part, by polarizing it from traditional psychology. (For instance, they referred to the latter as negative psychology.)
I feared that the big yellow smiley face was a perfect symbol for Positive Psychology-bright, happy, and vacant. But, unlike some overly simplistic pop psych, Positive Psychology has grown out of research-good research. So I kept on reading, learning, and trusting in the science of the field.
Last week, my good faith was rewarded. The International Positive Psychology Association (IPPA) hosted its first world congress, and I was there to bump elbows with the 1,500 attendees from all over the world. And, I got the chance to meet Dr. Martin Seligman, the father of Positive Psychology. I was excited and heartened to see researchers and leaders in the field confronting, correcting, and modifying previously accepted "wisdom." Yet, they were staying true to the goal of advancing positivity.
• My first taste of these new developments came in the "special lecture" which opened the conference. Dr. Philip Zimbardo stated that positive psychology has failed to recognize the very real and very strong context of our behaviors. Good people can do bad things, influenced by their environment; for example, the prison guards at Abu Ghraib. He showed us the horrors that we humans can bring on each other; and yet, I, like those around me, could also see the humanity in the "monsters." All the while he made it clear that we cannot excuse that evil. In making this tightrope walk, Zimbardo added context as a powerful factor in Positive Psychology's "formula" of what makes us positive.
• Noted happiness researcher Dr. Ed Diener dispelled several "myths" of Positive Psychology. For instance, research had supported the idea that people adapt to their situations, no matter how good or bad. Lottery winners' elation would fade and disabled individuals' despair would dissipate, as both gravitated to previous levels of happiness. He emphatically stated that this is not true. Some people's happiness levels do change after significant changes of fortune, for better or worse.
• Dr. Diener also openly acknowledged the "smiley face" problem. There is such a thing as "stupid happiness" (a term he borrowed from the Dalai Lama). Only a fool would keep smiling with a bear chasing him. The "new look" in happiness research requires that we address this.
• Researcher Dr. Joar Vittero, from Norway, challenged the widely accepted idea that happiness is a journey, not a destination. His research has shown that people are engaged and interested while taking on a challenge-the journey. But it is only after meeting the challenge, and upon reflection, that people experience most of their happiness. Dr. Vittero also questioned the practice of comparing the happiness of different countries as being too simplistic. Happiness can be different things to different people. He illustrated this complexity by noting that Denmark measures higher in happiness than the United States, but the U.S. shows more pride, he said.
In addition to these developments in the field, Positive Psychology superstar Barbara Fredrickson spoke of a ‘sailboat' analogy for our emotions-a particularly apt and beautiful metaphor. The mast going up represents positive emotions, such as joy and pride. The keel represents negative emotions, such as fear and anger. While people need a proper balance of both in their lives, traditional therapy has overemphasized focusing on the ‘keel,' attending to the excesses of negative emotion. Fredrickson says Positive Psychology can provide a more balanced approach by unfurling our sails. But we still need both.
Before attending the conference, I had read and heard bits of these theories, but they did not seem to have much traction within the field. Now, I feel quietly relieved. I'm all for happiness. But I felt better seeing some of the icons of Positive Psychology being rigorously evaluated and clarified.
As I attended the last of the symposiums, I couldn't help but think that the field is maturing. It made me reflect on my children-seeing how their simple, precious experience of the world has been developing more depth and complexity; they know more sadness, but they still approach each day with energetic enthusiasm. Positive psychology's search for creating a life most worth living must strike similar balance-and that's the task Positive Psychology faces today.
By Leslie Becker-Phelps, Ph.D.
www.drbecker-phelps.com
