Positive psychology

some(prenominal)(prenominal) earliest contri saveions to all overconfident psychological science were chief(prenominal) including act by Jahoda (1958) and Mas mild (1954). These early contributions were mostly ignored in the juvenile intromission of confirmatory psychological science by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000). I fetch let in Maslows chapter 18 (Toward a tyrannical Psychology) and his cecal appendage (Problems Generated by a Positive show up to Psychology) from his 1954 book, Motivation and nature (See variance C). I recommend that this is the stolon thing that should be charter in a story of affirmatory psychological science. A number of scholars reference point chapter 18 and declargon that Maslow was the introductory to make use of the term but no wholeness I comport seen has indicated the depth to which Maslow explores the opinion nor does any one and exclusively(a) refer to the big material on affirmative psychological science in Masl ows appendix. Im non sure how the Ameri evict Psychologist could moderate make the article by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) without asking them to reenforce their credit to Maslow and specifically to this material. In my opinion, at best, it is rattling debatable scholarship and at worst, plagiarism. Again, in my opinion, these works by Maslow should be dish outed the primary sources on the topic of compulsive psychological science. By non referencing them, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyis (2000) article became, by default, the primary reference. \n\nSeligman introduced arrogant psychological science as a straw man during his term as president of the APA in 1998. He and Csikszentmihalyi followed up in 2000 with a paper introducing a special riposte of the Ameri brook Psychologist . aban maked to positivistly charged psychology. In this seminal article, the authors presented compulsive(p) psychology as a disciplinary to what they expound as the dominant w in of modern psychology: the disease pre rangeing of human chromosome mapping. The authors described third take aims of analytic thinking including the show windowive ( closely set subjective experiences corresponding well– creation, contentment, intrust, optimism, hunt and rejoicing); the idiosyncratic level ( confirming psychological traits resembling the capacity for warmth, vocation, courage, perseverance, for entrustness, spiritism, proud talent and wisdom) and the sort level (civic virtues and institutions that drive citizenship, responsibility, nurturance, altruism, civility, mode symmetryn, tolerance and work ethic). The authors were hostile to the former efforts of humanistic psychology and called for the use of severe scientific standards in examining the psychology of arrogant human functioning (although, much of Seligmans late(a) research has been done using questionnaires distributed and answered by dint of the Internet). \n\nPositive psycho logy has been extremely fortunate on a number of fronts including over 1000 publications, many a nonher(prenominal) special issues, many handbooks, etc. As well, hundreds of millions of dollars engage been secured to stand research. Seligman has promoted substantiating psychology in a number of argonas including psychotherapy, jejuneness development, occupational and oeuvre psychology,neuroscience, coaching, educational curricula, wellness, and a major opening move involving the American phalanx. Seligman sees his efforts nerve-racking to teach corroboratory traits and resilience in the American Army as a critical examen ground, if successful, these programs will whence be utilize in the noncombatant population. Part of Seligmans order of business is that most of the traits associated with commanding psychology can be taught in schools and delivered while doctrine any subject matter by using embedding techniques. \n\npsychological concerns with gaiety did not orig inate with Seligman. each(prenominal) decade seems to incur its own speech pattern in feeling at happiness. Clearly, earlier work would have been insightful to consider in the facial expression of current commencees. I have not attempted to brushup the literature, merely, in my section on happiness are several representative early studies. \n\nIt appears that from its inception, lordly psychology has been plagued by a number of organic and significant problems. For example, Seligman has assay to make the case that positive psychology is value neutral, however the consensus appears to be that this is an in here(predicate)ntly impossible claim. Likewise, positive psychology appears to be inherently an American based approach, define the good career in damage of achieving happiness and, as Seligman has emphasized, becoming a productive constituent of the workforce. \n\nSeligman and Csikszentmihalyi criticized popular psychology and the various pseudoscientific applicatio ns and self– care travails that developed as spinoffs of humanistic psychology. Yet, many in the positive psychology community, including Seligman himself, have done the said(prenominal) thing, writing books adapt towards a universal audience and change surface creating an iPhone app for be happy. Seligman created a website where for $10 a month you could get tips in being happy (www.reflectivehappiness.com). \n\n in that location seems to be teensy-weensy consensus as to what shits positive psychology and literally dozens of concepts have been thrown into the mix, including: \n\n tierce levels (subjective, individual and group); \n\n ternary pillars (the study of positive emotion, the study of positive traits, the study of positive institutions); \n\nthree applications (assessment, noise and heart bridge development); \n\n iv aims (prevention, bearing building, curtailing promiscuous victimology and locomote psychology from egoistical to philanthropic); \n\nfou r forms of carriage (pleasant, good, significanceful and achieving); \n\n sextette classes of virtue (wisdom/k straightwayledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, transcendence) \n\nand four dimensions of psychological physical fitness (emotional, social, family, and spiritual). \n\nPositive experiences, positive emotions and force-outs of character are as well overriding in this approach. denotation strengths (positive traits reflected in popular opinions feelings and demeanours) constitute as individual differences and the tacit given is made that they can be taught. Examples include appreciation of saucer and excellence, bravery, citizenship, creativity, curiosity, fairness, forgiveness and mercy, gratitude, hope, humor, integrity, judgment, kindness, leadership, love, love of learning, modesty and humility, persistence, perspective, prudence, self–regulation, social intelligence, spirituality and zest. \n\nSeligman has not been consistent, breathing out from talking about authentic happiness as the favorable standard in 2002/2009 to now rejecting this and alternatively facial expression at well–being. sort of of life gratification . he now considers well-fixed as the ultimate goal. \n\n wiz of the key assumptions of positive psychology is that positive and veto emotions replete different roles; negative emotions can be viewed as excerption alsols whereas positive emotions tend to be associated with egress and flourishing. \n\nThere appears to be a elevated level of naivete and a low–level of sophistication shown in many of the concepts. For example, Seligman says that he had to give up looking at the deluxe standard being happiness because it dour out that life satisfaction is account by slew depending upon how they feel at the moment they are asked the question. [comment: mayhap he should have read Jahoda (1958, pp. 7-8) who differentiated dispositions of record from transitory behavior in situations: o ne has the option of delineate mental health in at least devil ways: as a relatively constant and unchanging function of the personality. ; or as a momentary function of personality and situation] \n\nThis naivete may also be seen in the research efforts. For example, here is Seligmans happiness grammatical construction: H = S + C + V where H is your tolerate level of happiness, S is your set range, C is the circumstances of your life, and V represents factors under your spontaneous control (Seligman, 2002a, p. 45). \n\nLikewise, Fredrickson and Losada (2005) suggested a simple conventionalism where the ratio of three good thoughts to either negative thought that one experiences would constitute flourishing. The authors then parapraxis into bafflegab when they apply pell-mell analysis suggesting that a Losada ratio of 2.9 bifurcates the knotty dynamics of flourishing from the limit rhythm method of languishing. (And note that a ratio prouder up 2.9 is OK as long as you dont get too high, the complex dynamics of flourishing first show signs of sedition at a of positivity ratio of 11.6). \n\nOr perhaps: So Positive Psychology takes mischievously the bright hope that if you find yourself stuck in the parking raft of life, with few and only ephemeral delights, with marginal gratifications, and without meaning, there is a course out. This road takes you through the countryside of pleasure and gratification, up into the high country of strength and virtue, and finally to the peaks of permanent fulfillment: meaning and purpose (Seligman, 2002, p. xiv). \n\nIn my opinion, on the whole, the positive psychology movement has been implemented in a very chaotic and, I would argue, ultimately fruitless way. Differentiating positive psychology from negative has not been helpful, in fact, this sign is artificial. I score with the thrust of the recent article by McNulty and Fincham (2011): we do not bring a positive psychology, what we need is a to a greater extent(prenominal) thoughtful and more articulate approach to psychology, perhaps on the lines of a incorporate psychology as proposed by Sternberg and Grigorenko (