The seemingly innocuous question “What is wellbeing?” easily leads to passionate debates and much conceptual confusion. This chapter first provides some signposts for a definition of wellbeing. Sound definition of the construct is essential to the measurement of wellbeing and the growth of the science of wellbeing. The emergence of the science of positive psychology and its application through positive psychology interventions (i.e. strategies to increase wellbeing) have
created new opportunities to develop wellbeing in individuals, organizations and communities. After positive psychology is defined, key theories of wellbeing and positive psychology are summarized. An overview of key research evidence from positive psychology interventions is then provided. This overview is intended not as an exhaustive review, but rather as a sample to enable readers to explore the fertile interface of the science of wellbeing and positive psychology with the literature and
experience of recovery. Responses to the question What is wellbeing? vary greatly depending on whether it is a lay person, health practitioner, person with lived experience of illness, economist, philosopher, psychologist or sociologist answering the question. Lay persons or persons unfamiliar with defining concepts or constructs
commonly give examples of situations or experiences that lead to wellbeing, such as having good friends or a good job. A philosophical definition is commonly brief and coherent, but may lack the precision that a scientist is seeking. One philosophical example is the following definition: how well someone’s life is going for them (Crisp,
Reference Crisp and Zalta2014). Philosophers have been arguing over and defining wellbeing for many centuries. Economists have been doing so for over one hundred years. Psychologists and wellbeing scientists are relatively new to this arena. Although
recognizing the contributions to this area from philosophers (e.g. the distinction between hedonic and eudaemonic wellbeing) and economists (e.g. the distinction between evaluative and experienced wellbeing), this chapter focuses primarily on empirical attempts to define, measure and increase wellbeing, with particular focus on positive psychology and its
related interventions. In attempting to define wellbeing it is useful to consider several questions from the outset: 1. What is the level of analysis? for example: individual, group, organization, society 2. What domain is being discussed? for example: physical, mental, social 3. Is it to be defined subjectively or objectively? 4. Does it necessarily require the presence of
positive attributes? in other words, is it more than the absence of negative attributes such as symptoms of illness? 5. Is wellbeing multifaceted (multidimensional)? 6. How is it different from health? Clarity regarding these six questions makes it is easier to locate one’s position within the contested space of wellbeing constructs.
Table 2.1 summarizes some key examples of contemporary wellbeing constructs in wellbeing science and positive psychology. Such constructs underpin the emerging health and wellbeing outcome measurement in health and human services. In reading
Table 2.1, it is useful to examine the difference between hedonic and eudaemonic assumptions in terms of defining wellbeing. Shorthand definitions often combine these two approaches in phrases such as “feeling good and
functioning well” (see Huppert and So, Reference Huppert and So2013). What Is Positive Psychology?While the origin of the term ‘positive psychology’ can be traced back to Abraham Maslow’s 1954 book, Motivation and Personality (Maslow, Reference Maslow1970; Snyder et al., Reference Snyder, Lopez and Pedrotti2011), it was many years before positive psychology as an academic field was born: a vision that included steering psychology back toward what makes life worth living, toward courage, generosity, creativity, joy, gratitude (Csikszentmihalyi and Nakamura, Reference Csikszentmihalyi, Nakamura, Sheldon, Kashdan and Steger2011). The founders of positive psychology recognized that traditional psychology had become predominantly weakness-oriented: an approach that had succeeded in alleviating many forms of human suffering but had failed at capturing the whole human picture (Snyder et al., Reference Snyder, Lopez and Pedrotti2011). The timing was ripe to address this imbalance issue. In the months that followed, Martin Seligman became the President of the American Psychological Association (APA), enabling him to pioneer the new field of positive psychology. He identified two “neglected missions” of psychology (Seligman, Reference Seligman1998, p. 2). The first was building human strength and making people more productive. The second was the nurturing of genius, the generation of high human potential (Compton and Hoffman, 2013; Seligman, Reference Seligman1998). Seligman saw this new field as combining scientific and applied approaches. He called for a mass of research on human strength and virtue. So 1998, therefore, marked the beginning of a seismic shift in psychology (Rusk and Waters, Reference Rusk and Waters2013b) and the birth of the field of positive psychology. In their seminal paper, Positive Psychology: An Introduction, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (Reference Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi2000) outlined the purpose of the new field: the research and development of the factors that enable flourishing at individual, community and societal levels. The field’s scope included three levels of research: the subjective level, the individual level and the group level. Research at the subjective level included valued subjective experiences and was broken down into past, present and future constructs: the past involving wellbeing, contentment and satisfaction; the present involving flow and happiness; and the future involving hope and optimism. The individual level called for research into individual traits that are positive, such as character strengths (including those that guide our interactions with others), talent and the capacity for vocation. Last, the group level comprised research into “civic virtues and the institutions that move individuals towards better citizenship: responsibility, nurturance, altruism, civility, moderation, tolerance and work ethic” (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi2000, p. 5). Positive psychology thus emerged as the scientific study of positive human functioning and flourishing intrapersonally (e.g. biologically, emotionally, cognitively), interpersonally (e.g. relationally) and collectively (e.g. institutionally, culturally and globally) (Crompton and Hoffman, Reference Crompton and Hoffman2013; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi2000). In the 15 or so years since the inception of positive psychology, a number of themes have surfaced, such as altruism, accomplishment, appreciation of beauty and excellence, authenticity, best possible selves, character strengths, coaching, compassion, courage, coping, creativity, curiosity, emotional intelligence, empathy, flow, forgiveness, goal setting, gratitude, grit, happiness, hope, humour, kindness, leadership, love, meaning, meditation, mindfulness, motivation, optimism, performance, perseverance, positive emotions, positive relationships, post-traumatic growth, psychological capital, purpose, resilience, savoring, self-efficacy, self-regulation, spirituality, the good life, virtues, wisdom and zest. Many of the themes studied have their origins outside of the field of positive psychology. However, Rusk and Waters (Reference Rusk and Waters2013b) looked at the breadth of the field and found that approximately a third of the positive-psychology-related terms they studied were new to the field since 1999. Therefore, it seems that positive psychology is largely exploring existing constructs, but through a fresh lens. In addition to the breadth, they also found that the size, reach and impact of the field had grown substantially since its founding. This growth has generated new sub–fields focused on the application of the science, such as positive education (Norrish Reference Norrish2015; Norrish et al., Reference Norrish, Williams, O’Connor and Robinson2013) or positive organizational behavior and positive organizational scholarship (Wright and Quick, Reference Wright and Quick2009). As the science disseminates, there are some issues that arise by virtue of the immaturity of the field. While the breadth of research undertaken is substantial (Rusk and Waters, Reference Rusk and Waters2013b), there is tension between the depth of research and the desire for real-world application. A number of single studies have shown promising findings, but more research that replicates them across a range of populations and contexts is required: whom do interventions work for and under what conditions (i.e. effectiveness rather than efficacy: see Hone et al., Reference Hone, Jarden and Schofield2015)? More longitudinal studies are required, too. As the field matures, longitudinal studies will be conducted. In the meantime, positive psychology researchers are reminded to adhere to rigorous scientific standards (Snyder et al., Reference Snyder, Lopez and Pedrotti2011) such as those of meta-analysis and randomized control trials (Vella-Brodrick, Reference Vella-Brodrick and Keyes2013). Paradoxically, while positive psychology offers itself as the antidote to the negativity bias of psychology as usual, it must not fall prey to focusing solely on the good in the world. Good science looks at the whole picture (Snyder et al., Reference Snyder, Lopez and Pedrotti2011). As the field works toward this, those working with the application of positive psychology must ensure that they are conscientious consumers of the science, and as such new journals focusing specifically on these issues are emerging (e.g. the International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, which will launch in 2016). It is with this in mind that we move to the key theories and evidence. What Are Some Key Theories within Wellbeing and Positive Psychology Research?There is a well-established suite of theories relating to wellbeing and key areas of positive psychology. Table 2.2 provides a sample of some of the key theories, which include emotions, attentional states, cognition, motivation, goal striving and relationships. Table 2.2 Key Theories of Wellbeing and Positive Psychology
What Is the Evidence Base?The evidence base underpinning the field of positive psychology is small but rapidly growing (Rusk and Waters, Reference Rusk and Waters2013) and can be broken down into cross-sectional studies and causal studies. Cross-sectional studies look at associations between variables (e.g. are happier people healthier?), and causal studies look at what impacts wellbeing over time (i.e. does marriage increase wellbeing?). Both types of studies can lead to inferences about what leads to or predicts wellbeing, with causal studies providing strong evidence. As an example of a cross-sectional study, Waugh and Fredrickson (Reference Waugh and Fredrickson2006) found that in a group of students increased assimilation and understanding of their roommates was associated with higher levels of positive emotion. The caution with these types of cross-sectional studies is that it is not clear or conclusive if A leads to B, of if B leads to A, or if some other variable mediates the relationship – for example, if higher positive emotion leads to greater understanding of roommates, or if greater understanding of roommates leads to higher positive emotion. As some further examples of this type of research, Fredrickson and Levenson (Reference Fredrickson and Levenson1998) found that positive emotions can help people cope with physiological responses to negative emotions, and in a large meta-analysis, Lyubomirsky et al. (Reference Lyubomirsky, King and Diener2005) found that people with higher levels of positive emotion were more successful across many life domains such as work, relationships and health. As an example of a causal study, Lyubomirsky et al. (Reference Lyubomirsky, King and Diener2005) examined the results of experimental studies and found that increasing people’s positive emotions had the effect of making them better at conflict resolution and more social. They also found in their meta-analysis, which included longitudinal studies, that happiness does lead to better relationship and work outcomes. As examples of evidence they cited findings that increases in happiness lead to greater creativity, productivity and quality of work, and income (Estrada et al., Reference Estrada, Isen and Young1994) and to stronger social support and an increased likelihood of marriage (Harker and Keltner, Reference Harker and Keltner2001), that subjective wellbeing impacts mental and physical health (Pressman and Cohen, Reference Pressman and Cohen2005) and leads to healthier immune function (Davidson et al., Reference Davidson, Kabat-Zinn, Schumacker, Rosenkranz, Muller and Sontorelli2003), and that happier people even live longer. Furthermore, what both this cross-sectional and causal research suggest is that positive emotions can and do have impacts beyond individuals to their close connections. What Is the Evidence for Positive Psychology Interventions?Sin and Lyubomirsky (Reference Sin and Lyubomirsky2009) define positive psychology interventions (PPIs) as “treatment methods or intentional activities aimed at cultivating positive feelings, positive behaviours, or positive cognitions.” Their meta-analysis found that PPIs are effective at increasing wellbeing and decreasing depression, but the effect sizes were moderate and should be treated with a level of caution. They found four factors that heighten the efficacy of PPIs: high levels of depression; increased age; individual interventions (rather than group interventions); and longer interventions. There is some debate as to whether participants should be matched to interventions based on a person–activity fit or not. For example, participant preference for undertaking a PPI has been positively related to commitment to adhere to the activity (Schueller, 2010), and matching participants to an intervention that was based on an orientation to happiness that differed from their dominant orientation was effective at enhancing wellbeing (Giannopoulos and Vella-Brodrick, Reference Giannopoulos and Vella-Brodrick2011). However, Schueller (2011) found no significant difference between participants assigned to activities based on preference and those randomly assigned to activities. PPIs have been used in studies specifically targeting clinical participants, such as positive psychotherapy (PPT; Seligman et al., Reference Seligman, Rashid and Parks2006; see Chapter 11) and in nonclinical studies. However, regardless of the population, many study designs include pre- and post-test measures of depression and/or negative affect as well as measures of positive functioning. Typically, studies include a broader range of measures, such as stress (Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Tsu and Lam2015); state and trait anxiety (Cheavens et al., Reference Cheavens, Feldman, Gum, Scott and Snyder2006); ruminative thinking (Odou and Brinker, Reference Odou and Brinker2014a); self-esteem (Sergeant and Mongrain, Reference Sergeant and Mongrain2011); Big Five personality (Huppert and Johnson, Reference Huppert and Johnson2010); working memory capacity (Jha et al., Reference Jha, Stanley, Kiyonaga, Wong and Gelfand2010); physical symptoms (Emmons and McCullough, Reference Emmons and McCullough2003; Sergeant and Mongrain, Reference Sergeant and Mongrain2011); and self-compassion (Odou and Brinker, Reference Odou and Brinker2014a, Reference Odou and Brinker2014b). Table 2.3 includes examples of the efficacy of PPIs. It should be noted that many constructs explored in PPIs have their origins outside positive psychology, such as gratitude, forgiveness and mindfulness. While positive psychology cannot lay claim to these concepts, its role does include an understanding of their function in building human strength and generating high human potential. Table 2.3 Efficacy of Positive Psychology Interventions (PPIs)
ConclusionIn this chapter we introduced key definitions relating to wellbeing and highlighted ways to approach this contested domain. After a summary of some key theories within the science of wellbeing and positive psychology, a brief overview of recent empirical evidence for positive psychology interventions (PPIs) was provided. Key debates continue about evidence from clinical compared with nonclinical populations, adding emphasis to the usefulness of cross- [?] fertilization between wellbeing research and research in mental health recovery. ReferencesCheavens, J. S., Feldman, D. B., Gum, A., Scott, T. M., & Snyder, C. R. (2006). Hope therapy in a community sample: A pilot investigation. Social Indicators Research, 77, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cheng, S-T., Tsu, P. K., & Lam, J. H. M. (2015). Improving mental health in health care practitioners: Randomized controlled trial of a gratitude intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(1), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Crompton, W. C., & Hoffman, E. (2013). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and flourishing. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2011). Positive psychology: Where did it come from, where is it going? In Sheldon, K. M., Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (ch. 1). Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacker, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Sontorelli, S. F., et al. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia and well-being: An introduction. doi:10.1007/s10902–006–9018–1. Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43, doi:10.1111/j.1758–0854.2010.01045.x.Google Scholar Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and SWB in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Estrada, C., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1994). Positive affect influences creative problem solving and reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1), 79–106, doi:10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15.Google Scholar Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardiovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 191–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Froh, J. J., Kashdan, T. B., Ozimkowsk, K. M., & Miller, N. (2009). Who benefits the most from a gratitude intervention in children and adolescents? Examining positive affect as a moderator. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 408–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gale, C. R., Booth, T., Mõttus, R., Kuh, D., & Deary, I. J. (2009) Neuroticism and extraversion in youth predict mental wellbeing and life satisfaction 40 years later: The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality 77(4), 1025–1050, doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.2009.00573.x.Google Scholar Giannopoulos, V. L., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2011). Effects of positive interventions and orientations to happiness on subjective well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotions in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Hone, L., Jarden, A., & Schofield, G. (2015). An evaluation of positive psychology intervention effectiveness trials using the re-aim framework: A practice-friendly review. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(4), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 62–90, doi:10.5502/ijw.v4i1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Huppert, F. A., & Johnson, D. M. (2010). A controlled trial of mindfulness training in schools: The importance of practice for an impact on well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Resource, 110(3), 837–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Jha, A. P., Stanley, E. A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L., & Gelfand, L. (2010). Examining the protective effects of mindfulness training on working capacity and affective experience. Emotion, 10, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156.Google Scholar Kerr, S. L., O’Donovan, A., & Pepping, C. A. (2015). Can gratitude and kindness interventions enhance well-being in a clinical sample? Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Research, 43, 207–222.Google ScholarPubMed Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022, doi:10.1037//0022–3514.82.6.1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855, doi:10.1037/0033–2909.131.6.803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar Norrish, J. M. (2015). Positive education: The Geelong Grammar School journey. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Norrish, J. M., Williams, P., O’Connor, M., & Robinson, J. (2013). An applied framework for positive education. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 147–161, doi:10.5502/ijw.v3i2.2.Google Scholar Odou, N., & Brinker, J. (2014a). Exploring the relationship between rumination, self-compassion, and mood. Self and Identity, 13(4), 449–459, doi:10.1080/15298868.2013.840332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Odou, N., & Brinker, J. (2014b). Self-compassion, a better alternative to rumination than distraction as a response to negative mood. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–11, doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.967800.Google Scholar Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy people become happier through kindness: A counting kindness intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Peters, M. L., Flink, I. K., Boersma, K., & Linton, S. J. (2010). Manipulating optimism: Can mental imagining a best possible self be used to increase positive future expectancies? Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 925–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Ramírez, E., Ortega, A. R., Chamorro, A., & Colmenero, J. M. (2014). A program of positive intervention in the elderly: Memories, gratitude and forgiveness. Aging & Mental Health, 18(4), 463–470, doi:10.1080/13607863.2013.856858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Rusk, R. D., & Waters, L. E. (2013). Tracing the size, reach, impact, and breadth of positive psychology.Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(3), 207–221, doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.777766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78, doi:10.1037110003–066X.55.1.68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001a). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11, doi:10.1007/s10902–006–9018–1.Google Scholar Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001b). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57(6), 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(4), 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Building human strength: Psychology’s forgotten mission. APA Monitor, 29(1), 2.Google Scholar Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61, 774–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421, doi:10.1037/0003–066X.60.5.410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Sergeant, S., & Mongrain, M. (2011). Are positive psychology exercises helpful for people with depressive personality styles? Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The effect of expressing gratitude and visualising best possible selves. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Shueller, S. M. (2010). Preferences for positive psychology exercises. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Shueller, S. M. (2011). To each his own well-being boosting intervention: Using preference to guide selection. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 300–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5), 467–487, doi:10.1002/jclp.20593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., & Pedrotti, J. T. (2011). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar Steger, M. F., Shigehiro, O., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Meaning in life across the life span: Levels and correlates of meaning in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., et al. (2007). The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5 (63). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: Research evidence, practical utility, and future steps. In Keyes, C. L.M. (ch. 15). Mental Well-Being: International Contributions to the Study of Positive Mental Health. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Springer.Google Scholar Waters, L. (2011). A review of school-based positive psychology interventions. Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 28(2), 75–90, doi:10.1375/aedp.28.2.75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Nice to know you: Positive emotions, self-other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. Journal of Psychology, 133, 656–668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Wright, T. A., & Quick, J. C. (2009). The emerging positive agenda in organizations: Greater than a trickle, but not yet a deluge. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar What are the 3 pillars of positive psychology?The Three Pillars: Positive Psychology has three central concerns: positive experiences, positive individual traits, and positive institutions.
What do the authors suggest can help reveal the power of positive emotions and strengths?What do the authors suggest can help reveal the power of positive emotions and strengths? A mindful approach to life.
What are the aspects of positive psychology quizlet?A type of well-being that consists of six elements: self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy, and positive relations with others.
What is one of the main areas of interest for positive psychologists?Positive psychology focuses on the positive events and influences in life, including: Positive experiences (like happiness, joy, inspiration, and love). Positive states and traits (like gratitude, resilience, and compassion).
|