The main aim of this blog is to provide a description of Positive Psychology. It emphasizes the aim of Positive Psychology to be a science.

However, the inherent problem for Positive Psychology is the conflict between its aim to be scientific and the aim to provide "scientific" answers for the general public.

Due to the limited information and the empirical difficulties in studying wellbeing, current answers often have to go beyond the empirical facts.
The facts posted in this blog illustrate this problem.

1. "Most people are happy." [This is not a summary of a scientific finding. What is the population for this conclusion: US American college students, US Americans, or all people currently living on this planet? What is the criterion to determine whether somebody is happy or unhappy: a rating above the midpoint on an ordinal scale? Moreover, others are currently using the same evidence to claim that most Americans are struggling to be happy (April 29, 2008 "National Well-Being Measure Finds Majority Struggling"), and a positive psychologists from Harvard University claims that 50% of college students are depressed ("Learn to make yourself happier"). I am not saying that the conclusion is false. I am just saying that "most people are happy" is not a good example of a scientific fact about happiness.

2. "Happiness is a cause of good things in life and not simply along for the happy ride." [I am aware of the meta-analytic evidence that shows a correlation between wellbeing measures and other good things in life. However, I think it is not possible to claim as a scientific fact that these correlations reflect causal effects of happiness. Moreover, a recent study just claimed that the highest level of happiness does produce fewer of these good things. At this point, it is questionable whether any of these findings can assume the status of a scientific fact.

3. "Money makes an ever-diminishing contribution to well-being, but money can buy happiness if it is spent on other people." A subsequent post by Dr. Peterson provides a more complex and accurate description of the empirical facts ("Money and Happiness").

4. As a route to a satisfying life, eudaimonia trumps hedonism. [This statement assumes that satisfying life, eudaimonia and hedonism are well defined constructs with well established measures, but they are not. A description of the empirical facts would be that a measure of life-satisfaction tends to be more highly correlated with a measure that is assumed to reflect audaimonia than a measure that is supposed to measure hedonism.]

It is also instructive to see which actual empirical facts are not mentioned in this list of things that we know.

1. Life-satisfaction judgments decrease when people loose their jobs. (Lucas, Psychological Science, and many other studies by economists)

2. Average life satisfaction judgments of nations are strongly (r > .5) correlated with nations' wealth (Gross Domestic Product), freedom, observance of human rights, etc. and other good things Easterlin, 1974, Veenhoven, 1991, Diener et al. 1995, Diener & Oishi, 2000, etc., etc.).

3. Life satisfaction judgments are correlated with individuals' household income (Easterin, 1974, Veenhoven, 1991).

4. Life-satisfaction judgments decrease when people become physically disabled (Lucas, JPSP, and several articles in specialized journals on disability).

I believe the omission of the latter findings reveals a bias in positive psychology and psychology in general to focus on internal determinants of happiness and wellbeing. However, if you are less happy than you would like to be, you may ask yourself first whether your low happiness is caused by your lack of character strength or whether it may be your actual living conditions that are responsible. Sometimes it may be better to try to change your actual life than to just try to adjust your emotions and beliefs to unfavorable life circumstances. In other words, if you are a rich White US American with an autonomous job who feels dissatisfied, Positive Psychology may offer you some answers. However, if you are a poor, unemployed African American single mother in a crime ridden neighborhood, a lack of gratitude and meaning in life may be the least of your concerns.

Again, I am not saying what you should or should not do to make yourself feel happier or increase your wellbeing. I am simply saying that a positive science should be limited to the description and explanation of empirical facts. The translation of this information into self-help tips, interventions, and policy recommendations has to be separated from the science.

My problem with positive psychology is that the lines are often blurred and that values and beliefs that are underpinning the normative aspects of positive psychology sometimes shape the interpretation of the scientific facts.

If you find these comments interesting, you may also want to visit my website wellbeingscience.org.

I am happy to acknowledge that positive psychology--like psychology per se--can blur fact and value. That said, the findings described in my original blog entry were not just a list of my opinions about the way things should be.

So, the statement that "most people are happy" is supported by the robust finding that the typical person scores above the scale mid-point (“neutral”) on most rating scales used to ascertain life satisfaction (Diener & Diener, 1996). This finding occurs in dozens of samples from around the world. One can quarrel with the scientific status of such data, but one would then have to quarrel with the entirety of social science and its reliance on self-report measures.

In any event, I believe surveys of thousands of people have more validity than the thoroughly implausible impression that 50% of Harvard students are depressed.

The long-term goal of psychology is to provide a balanced view of what is good and bad about the human condition, and the contribution of positive psychology is to document, however imperfectly, some of the good things.

I will try, in future entries, to be more specific about research studies.

Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7, 181-185.

I have been looking into and thinking deeply about positive psychology for the past few days, and I see both potential good and potential problems.

I like it as a focus for future research, development of psychological theories, etc. We should study and theorize about disorders, but also to study the psychological mechanisms and behaviors of people who are very mentally well. If they have their acts together, let's find out what makes them tick!

However, the problem that I see may even cast new light on problems with psychology generally. I think we are putting on blinders to the problem if we use positive psychology as a scapegoat for a trend in psychology toward confusing value judgments and scientific explanations.

I shudder when you use the word "happiness" in your post. If your parents died in a train wreck the day before, you should be sad. If your boss is taking advantage of you, you should be angry. It is nice to be happy sometimes, but we should not be dissatisfied when we return to a physiological baseline--you cite studies which refer to life satisfaction, which may be a more productive term.

People should not take anti-depressants if there are issues like train wrecks and bad bosses that they need to deal with. Similarly, psychology should not teach people to meditate, "decenter", or otherwise merely cope with circumstances that should be actively and immediately changed.

I want to stop myself before I get carried away on a soap box. Long story short, psychology should still be, and always should have been, a scientific study of what is, and if we are going to focus and direct our choice of research questions based on what "should be", we should be very explicit with people about what our presumptions are, and we should be very open to people subjectively disagreeing with those same presumptions about what is good and what is bad.

If we are explicit and open about those presumptions, psychology will be doing what it should have been doing all along: merely educating people about how the mind works, and how it can be changed, and what effects those changes will have, take it or leave it based on what you want out of your life. Psychology should not be a religion or moral code, and I feel it may already be guilty of straying too far in that direction when it labels as "disorders" character traits or emotional states that can be valued and adapted productively into society, or when it tries to place people into a cookie-cutter mold of wellness when there are billions of different ways to be our own individuals with our own methods of success and mental wellness.

Anyone going to the World Congress on Positive Psychology in Philadelphia next week?

We’ll be there on behalf of Claremont Graduate University, and are looking forward to connecting. If you’d like a preview of some of the leading speakers, we have talks archived on our website, including a free 45-minute preview:
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/5808.asp

The conference will also feature the legendary Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, best known for the other side of the equation—the psychology of why good people do bad things. We’re looking forward to seeing Zimbardo and Seligman together on the same stage. (His talk on the Abu Ghraib scandals can be seen in our free video library here:) http://www.cgu.edu/pages/4435.asp

For more information about IPPA or details about the conference go to www.ippanetwork.org/.

Can’t wait to see everyone there!

I am not sure why it took me so long to find Chris' blog, so I will just be thankful I finally did.

My purpose in searching today was because I remembered Chris teaching about an addition he had made to the original "three pillar" model of The Pleasant Life, The Good Life, and The Meaningful Life. Of course I could not find my notes or remember the specifics other than it included a hint from students about how other people matter. Found that information easily in this collection of blog posts and then came across this particular post What Is Positive Psychology, and What It is Not? I read the post and the comments.

All I want to add is "thank you". Too often in my life and work I am challenged that I am suggesting "positive thinking". Too often I become tired of insisting that is not what I am doing. You have given me an easy way to direct the conversation. I will just direct people to this post and comments and they can decide for themselves. For that I thank you. Andrea

One tiny typo I would like to point out. Other people matter mightily if we want to understand what makes like most worth living.

I believe "like" is intended to be "life".