Positive Psychology has traditionally been aimed at moving those without mental illness from a state of languishing towards flourishing. In this blog I argue that it also has an important role in helping those struggling with mental ill health on their road to recovery, in finding sustainable wellbeing and in preventing relapse.

The cost of mental illness

The Centre for Mental Health (Cardoso & McHale 2024) report on the economic and social costs of mental ill health in the UK suggests that in 2022 mental illness cost £300 billion. This covers three elements; economic costs such as sickness absence, staff turnover and people with mental ill health being unable to work, health care costs of providing formal and informal treatment and support for those needing mental health care and human costs which comprise an estimate of the monetary cost of the reduced quality of life of those living with mental illness. The authors suggest that this is effectively equivalent to the economic impact of having a pandemic every year. Mental ill health is a huge challenge for our society and we need to move towards prevention and sustainable approaches to maintaining treatment effects if we are to address this. Can PP have a role in this?

Mental health is not the absence of mental illness

PP was founded on the premise that it is not enough just to reduce distress, we need to understand the factors which promote wellbeing and thriving. PP research has supported the idea that separate dimensions exist for mental illness and mental wellbeing in large surveys, clinical populations and longitudinal studies (Bohlmeijer & Westerhof 2021, Keyes 2005, Kraiss et al. 2023). Therefore it is possible to be free of diagnosable mental illness but not thriving or functioning well, this is what is known as languishing. It is also possible to live a pretty meaningful and fulfilled life even in the presence of a mental illness although more commonly mental illness is also associated with poor mental wellbeing. Ideally of course we want people to be free of mental illness and high in mental wellbeing, this is what we mean by flourishing.

Many approaches to therapy still focus primarily on reducing negative symptoms. This makes sense at first glance because most clients come wanting to get rid of their difficulties. Mental health provision (in the UK at least) also sits within the wider health service. The “medical model” still pervades health care. If there is a problem we assess it, diagnose it, apply the designated treatment and fix it. This doesn’t work as well with mental illness as a broken leg. Although mental illness and mental wellbeing are separate dimensions they interact in complex ways. Surely if we want to promote sustainable mental wellbeing and reduce the economic impact of mental illness, it makes sense to equip those who come for treatment with PP skills aimed at enhancing flourishing in addition to the ability to manage their difficulties? Yet PP is rarely taught as part of clinical training and despite the popularity of “solution focused” approaches much therapy work remains problem focused. We know that our negativity bias and threat responses make it so easy, even as therapists, to fall into this approach. For me, PP provides a counterbalance and reorientation in therapy which helps me work more holistically with clients. I think this was always what it was intended to be given that many of the early pioneers of PP were clinical psychologists. PP is not just for the mentally well, one could argue those who are struggling with their mental health need it even more.

In addition, current approaches to mental health treatment have limitations in terms of availability, acceptability, cost and effectiveness (Layous et al. 2011). Cuijpers et al. (2014) found that only fifty percent of people treated for mental health issues showed successful outcomes and of those, around fifty percent relapsed within two years. Residual wellbeing issues were also found in many people who had been “successfully” treated.

What’s the evidence?

The impact of Positive Psychology Interventions (PPIs) and targeting improved mental wellbeing on the symptoms of mental illness has been studied in clinical and wider populations. Research supports the premise that improving mental wellbeing can impact mental illness in the following ways:

• Prevention: By reducing the risk of developing mental illness in those not mentally ill (Keyes et al. 2010, Wood & Joseph 2010)
• Intervention: PPIs have been shown to be effective in reducing symptoms of mental illness in a range of clinical populations (Chakhssi et al. 2018, van Agteren et al. 2021). Research is less clear for severe mental health conditions (Geerling et al. 2020)
• Recovery: Incorporating a  PP approach into treatment improves the chance of full recovery in those with mental illness (Isalleo et al. 2019, Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. 2019, Slade 2010)
• Relapse prevention: Targeting wellbeing protects against relapse in those recovered from mental illness (Layous et al. 2011, Ostergaard et al. 2020).

This suggests to me that it is time for PP to integrate into wider clinical approaches to supporting mental health. Many therapies such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT) already do this to a certain extent. However, I feel there is a need for a more strategic approach. There are empirical questions to answer regarding who might benefit from which PP approaches/ models in what contexts, combined with which more traditional therapeutic approaches in which way at what stage of treatment etc.

Conclusion: Positive Therapy?

An integrated positive therapy might be defined as one which aims to help people become more fully functioning rather than a focus on the reduction of mental ill health (Joseph 2015). A number of approaches to this have already been developed and trialled with some success (see Dunn et al. 2023, Fava 1999, Frisch 2016,  Seligman et al. 2006, Wong 2020). There are key issues in terms of integrating approaches from different theoretical backgrounds in coherent ways. Some models to help guide such synthesis have begun to be developed (see Ciarrochi et al. 2022). However, this approach to alleviating the impact of mental illness in a sustainable way by including a specific wellbeing focus does not seem to have gained the traction it needs to be effectively developed amongst clinical psychologists in terms of education, practice or research. 

PP broke off from traditional psychology research to redress the balance around looking at what is right with humanity rather than what goes wrong. I believe that clinical approaches need to embrace what has been learned from nearly a quarter of a century of PP development if we are to address the current mental health crisis in the most effective way. 

References

Bohlmeijer E and Westerhof G (2021) The model for sustainable mental health: Future directions for integrating positive psychology into mental health care. Front. Psychol. 12, 747999. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.747999

Cardoso, F. and McHale, Z. (2024) The economic and social costs of mental ill health. Centre for Mental Health,  https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/

Chakhssi, F., Kraiss, J. T., Sommers-Spijkerman, M., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2018). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC psychiatry, 18(1), 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2

Ciarrochi, J., Hayes, S. C., Oades, L. G., & Hofmann, S. G. (2022). Toward a Unified Framework for Positive Psychology Interventions: Evidence-Based Processes of Change in Coaching, Prevention, and Training. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 809362. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.809362

Cuijpers P, Karyotaki E, Weitz E, Andersson G, Hollon SD, van Straten A. (2014). The effects of psychotherapies for major depression in adults on remission, recovery and improvement: a meta-analysis. J Affect Disord.,159, 118–126.

Dunn, B. D., Widnall, E., Warbrick, L., Warner, F., Reed, N., Price, A., … & Kuyken, W. (2023). Preliminary clinical and cost effectiveness of augmented depression therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of anhedonic depression (ADepT): a single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine, 61.

Fava, G. A. (1999). Well-being therapy: Conceptual and technical issues. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 68(4), 171-179.

Frisch, M. B. (2016). Quality of Life Therapy. In A. M. Wood & J. Johnson (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of positive clinical psychology (pp. 409-425). Wiley Blackwell.

Geerling, B., Kraiss, J. T., Kelders, S. M., Stevens, A. W. M. M., Kupka, R. W., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2020). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and psychopathology in patients with severe mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(5), 572–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1789695

Iasello, M., van Agteren, J., Keyes, C. L. M. & Cochrane, E. M. (2019). Positive mental health as a predictor of recovery from mental illness. J. Affect. Disord. 251, 227–230.

Joseph, S. (2015). Positive Therapy. (Second edition), Routledge

Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 73, 539–548. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539

Keyes, C. L. M., Dhingra, S. S. & Simoes, E. J. (2010) Change in level of positive mental health as a predictor of future risk of mental illness. Am. J. Public Health 100, 2366–2371.

Kraiss, J.T., Kohlhoff, M. & ten Klooster, P.M. (2023) Disentangling between- and within-person associations of psychological distress and mental well-being: An experience sampling study examining the dual continua model of mental health among university students. Curr Psychol 42, 16789–16800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02942-1

Layous K, Chancellor J, Lyubomirsky S, Wang L, Doraiswamy PM. (2011). Delivering happiness: translating positive psychology intervention research for treating major and minor depressive disorders. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 17(8):675-683. DOI: 10.1089/acm.2011.0139. PMID: 21721928.

Ostergaard T, Lundgren T, Zettle RD, Landrø NI and Haaland VØ (2020) Psychological Flexibility in Depression Relapse Prevention:Processes of Change and Positive Mental Health in Group-Based ACT for Residual Symptoms. Front. Psychol. 11, 528. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00528

Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Keyes, C. L. M., de Graaf, R. & ten Have, M. (2019). Recovery from mood and anxiety disorders: The influence of positive mental health. J. Affect. Disord. 252, 107–113.

Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61(8), 774-788.

Slade, M. (2010) Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches. BMC Health Services Research, 10, 26, doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-26

van Agteren, J., Iasiello, M., Lo, L., Bartholomaeus, J., Kopsaftis, Z., Carey, M., & Kyrios, M. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions to improve mental wellbeing. Nature human behaviour, 5(5), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01093-w

Wong, P. (2020). Existential positive psychology and integrative meaning therapy. International Review of Psychiatry, 23 (7-8), 565-578.

Wood, A. M. & Joseph, S. (2010). The absence of positive psychological (eudemonic) wellbeing as a risk factor for depression: a ten year cohort study. J. Affect. Disord. 122, 213–217.

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post Positive Psychology and Mental Illness appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

At The World Happiness Summit (WOHASU) in London on the 19th of March 2024 Dr Sood shared, through engaging personal anecdotes, some of his ideas and demonstrated some positive brain hacks through experiential practice. He highlighted how difficult it is for us all to disconnect in our digital world and the impact this has on our brains. Common issues of human suffering such as chronic stress and long-term health conditions like back pain are significantly impacted by the way the human brain works.

For example, studies indicate that the brain has two major modes; the focused mode in which we are engaged and absorbed “on task” and the default mode in which our mind wanders reflecting the pattern of distraction. The brain toggles between these modes of functioning. When too great a percentage of our time is spent in default mode, this is associated with poor mental health outcomes and given the cultural pressures of our fast-paced world distraction is a constant pressure. Our brain becomes fatigued every 60-90 minutes when we are engaged in moderately challenging cognitive tasks but we are generally unaware of this as the brain functions automatically below our level of consciousness. We don’t directly register that our brain needs a rest, but without it, fatigue sets in reducing effective functioning and reaction time. We then become vulnerable to mind wandering.

Dr Sood emphasised that to combat fatigue and re-energise we need to regularly recognise and respond with intention, to give our brain what it needs after a period of engagement. He suggests this comprises three things:

• Rest which is the ability to switch off from planning and problem solving.
• Uplifting emotions such as gratitude, joy, and love.
• Motivation, which is a connection with our why or values, we need to reconnect with why we are doing our focused task! This can relate to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation but preferably both.

The acronym RUM summarises these needs. Thus our brain needs RUM every 60-90 minutes to re-energise us, maintain good functioning, mental health and resilience.

Dr Sood gave some great practical examples of what aspects of RUM might look like. These included:

• A morning gratitude practice
• Looking into the eyes of someone you love and getting feedback from them.
• Commiting to accepting a minor imperfection of someone close to you for a week
• Appreciating the people in your life and making sure they know you trust, accept and understand them

Positive Psychology has many other evidence-based strategies that can help us access a regular dose of RUM! What’s your favourite tipple?

The work of WOHASU provides inspiration for much-needed ongoing research to help us understand how to support our wellbeing effectively by working with our brain functioning rather than fighting it. We need this to help people learn to incorporate easy, regular habits into our daily life that support our psychological health in the same way that brushing our teeth for 2 minutes each morning and evening maintains physical health.

Find out more about The World Happiness Summit (WOHASU) and add your name to the waiting list for 2025
@wohasu #wohasu2024 @karenguggenheim

The post Why We All Need a Dose of RUM!! – WOHASU talk appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

In this blog I hope to explore how awareness and acceptance of the messages our emotions bring us can influence our resilience. I contrast this with our natural tendency to resist, struggle with, control or rationalise our emotional experiences.

Psychology has great difficulty in defining what we mean by emotion. In this context I am characterising it as a combination of iteratively interactive internal experiences associated with physiological changes in the body plus associated cognitions and action tendencies. Many psychological approaches distinguish between cognitions and emotions and indeed we experience our thoughts and feelings differently but in practice they are usually closely linked and hard to separate. The ideas of acceptance discussed here apply equally to feelings, thoughts and sensations.

Our information alert systems

I describe these three elements of physiological symptoms or sensations (such as anxiety “butterflies in the tummy”), emotions and cognitions as different types of messages about something in our environment that our biological, evolutionary and personal learning histories want to draw our attention to. These are our incoming data alerts, rather like different types of pop ups we might see from email, messaging, social media etc when we are working on a document. Our challenge is to decide how to relate to these messages, (which alerts have important information, which are unhelpful) and how we respond to them in a flexible and considered way that helps us live a full and meaningful life rather than being hijacked by them. What we do know about emotions is that they are generally short lived experiences that pass in their own time and they are not easily controlled by force of will, they run their own course.

Resilience

The metaphor I like best for explaining the many different definitions of resilience is that of a tree in a strong wind. Resilience is represented by the tree that can bend in the wind rather than break (resistance resilience), that bounces back quickly to its previous shape once the wind abates (recovery or normalisation resilience) and that is strengthened following the storm and continues to grow (transformation resilience).

The obvious response to a strong wind or emotional turmoil might be to resist it. The basic, immediate threat response of our evolved brain and physiological systems when faced with challenge is to resist, fight, struggle or run away or freeze. As I’ve previously discussed, this works well with physical threats but less so with emotional or social threats.

In everyday culture we tend to think of resilience skills as relating to strength, perseverance, courage, grit and endurance. But can our inclination to struggle and persist in fact hinder us sometimes? The tree that bends flexibly is the one that survives to bounceback and grow.

Experiential avoidance and the control agenda

Our evolutionary programming means when difficult emotions (and the thoughts and sensations associated with them) come up generally our first response is to get rid of them or control them. We do this in lots of creative ways; by pushing them away through distraction and denial, rationalisation and telling ourselves to think positively, opting out of the things which trigger the difficulty or using substances like sugar, alcohol, drugs etc. In Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) this is known as experiential avoidance. We all do this and in moderation it can be a really useful short term strategy. The fact that it works to help us feel better temporarily reinforces this avoidance behaviour and sometimes it is even a helpful strategy in the long run as some minor problems or challenges do go away over time. Often however, this is an ineffective way of dealing with real problems in the long run as the issue typically resurfaces.

In addition the time, energy and resources involved in struggling with, and suppressing the painful feelings and associated thoughts has a psychological cost (and sometimes a practical and financial one too). I am sure we can all recognise the frustration of procrastinating about handling a task for days whilst plagued with feelings of discomfort, inadequacy and fear with accompanying thoughts of, “I can’t do it, I’m not good enough”. Only to find the task eventually takes us less time than we thought and turns out OK. Writing this blog has been an example for me!

Our culture feeds us the idea that we should be in control of our thoughts and feelings (see my previous blog on control and wellbeing

https://www.thepositivepsychologypeople.com/positive-psychology-control-and-wellbeing/) which along with our natural biological threat response exacerbates this struggle and amplifies the difficult emotions. It’s very easy to get anxiety about your anxiety, or be cross that you can’t just get on with the task. You’re then not only dealing with the original difficult emotions but all the secondary ones too.

In reality there is much in life we cannot control and hanging on rigidly to this “control agenda”, can therefore be unhelpful. Of course it is important to have good problem focused coping skills and deal with our issues in a practical way. Lots of self help programs, coaching and therapy are rightly focused around helping people find ways to define, prioritise, break down and make progress towards solutions to their problems. However, what happens when there is an issue we can’t just solve, such as a family member who has an addiction and doesn’t want to change, the death of a close friend, the issue of climate change, the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza? When we are left with unresolvable situations, is there a better way to deal with our painful emotions than just trying to get rid of them or being controlled or paralysed by them?

Acceptance

An alternative approach is the path of acceptance. This is not about giving up but is an active, flexible way of relating and responding to emotional experiences.  Acceptance is about:

• Being able to recognise, name, acknowledge and sit with our difficult feelings without judgement and without trying to change them.
• Understanding the messages these are giving us about something that matters to us in our life (our values).
• Recognising that this challenge is an integral part of being human because the things we care about by definition have the power to cause us pain when they don’t work out as we would like (“we hurt where we care”).
• Being able to respond to our pain with self compassion rather than harsh judgement which exacerbates suffering.

The more we understand and integrate our emotions the less power they have to railroad us into unhelpful behaviour and the more they become our allies in helping us find the path to the life we truly want. In resilience terms, we can bend in the wind and use its energy to move us forward towards growth rather than keep us stuck.

Talking with other people whether friends, family or trained helping professionals is one way of trying to approach this. Such resources may not always be available but acceptance skills are something we can all learn for ourselves. Tuning into your emotions, if this is not something that comes easily to you, may feel odd or uncomfortable at first. But it has many psychological benefits including improved vitality, it is often not just “difficult” emotions we resist but also those such as pride and joy meaning we can’t access the full range of human experience and our wellbeing is diminished. Better emotional awareness and acceptance also tends to increase our sense of control over our behaviour and promotes good decision making, improved intuition, a sense of safety plus the fostering of good relationships. Research consistently shows that those who are able to understand, accept and flexibly respond with kindness to their own pain have better wellbeing and resilience (extensive research papers on this subject can be found at https://contextualscience.org/resources and https://self-compassion.org/the-research/).

Learning acceptance skills

So how do you start with improving these emotional intelligence skills? Next time you are aware of emotional discomfort, notice it. Instead of rushing to distract yourself in busyness, netflix or doom scrolling take a moment to pause and ask yourself:

• What am I feeling? What is this emotion or emotions? There is often more than one, can you tease them apart?
• Name them (this helps to bring the thinking part of your brain in the frontal lobes online to counteract our unconscious threat responses). Then for the most prominent emotions-
• Try and notice how the emotion is experienced in your body. Where is it, in one place or more than one? How big is it? Does it move or is it still? Is it heavy or light? Hot or cold? Really examine it like a curious scientist. Even if the emotion feels unpleasant try not to fight with it, just observe it and let it be there. Try to make room for it.
• Notice how your mind and body respond to the emotion and try to let these responses or judgements go and focus on the sensation.
• As you breathe in, imagine your breath flowing around this emotion and opening up space for it.
• Try to hold the difficult emotion kindly rather than struggle with it. Try and treat it as a small animal in distress that needs holding gently. Perhaps try placing a kind hand over the place where you feel this emotion or by visualising a warm, caring ball of light just surrounding and holding it. This is not with the intention of changing it but just because it hurts.
• Ask yourself what this emotion is trying to tell you about the things that really matter to you in life. Sadness often relates to losing something important, anger to our rights being violated and at the other end of the spectrum pride can reinforce that our efforts have been successful and joy that our life is good and precious. Is there an action moving you towards the life you want that this emotion might be motivating you to choose?
• Remind yourself that coping with painful and pleasurable emotions and those complex dialectic ones in between such as compassion or hope is an essential part of what it is to be human and something you share with everyone else on the planet.

Do go carefully and gently with yourself when exploring your emotions and start with something not too challenging. Like any skill this takes time and practice to learn. If you feel you have particular issues in this area, seek the support of a trained mental health professional. Meditative exercises to help you access and improve your emotional flexibility can be found on free platforms such as Insight Timer as well as at: https://self-compassion.org/guided-self-compassion-meditations-mp3-2/ https://thehappinesstrap.com/

Conclusion

I suggest our humanity resides in mindfully embracing the full range of our emotions, making sense of their meanings and engaging these as resources aiding our valued choices, as part of ongoing growth and learning. In this endeavour, resilience is born and wellbeing flourishes. This is the work of Positive Psychology and acceptance is a key element in this journey.

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post Acceptance as a Foundation for Resilience appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

I am not a neuropsychologist. However, as a clinical and coaching psychologist, I share a number of insights with clients on the way the evolved brain can impact wellbeing. These can be extremely helpful in normalising the challenges we face in everyday life, understanding how problems with mental health can arise and providing routes to address them. In this blog I highlight the key issues as I see them, noting that neuroscience is really complex, we don’t have the full picture yet and what is presented here is a huge simplification intended to be helpful but “held lightly”. I draw on the work of Paul Gilbert (2014), Ryan and Deci (2000) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.

The legacy of evolution

As humans evolved, a number of characteristics became embedded in the way our brain and body worked because these made it more likely that the individual would survive and reproduce. These characteristics were relevant to the context of man in a hunter-gatherer, survival based world. They persist as part of our biological inheritance because change at this level takes a long time to happen so there is a significant lag. Indeed our context in modern society changes so fast I wonder if our biology will ever catch up! The point is that some of the design adaptations of the human brain and body don’t work as well in the 21st century as the environment they were developed to work in. Plus some of our “newer” human abilities such as verbal behaviour and higher level cognitive functioning can interact with the older programming in ways which can have potentially problematic effects. These are the four main issues and I relate the first three particularly to self-determination theory which suggests that our basic psychological needs involve autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci 2000, See my previous blog, January 2019).

Threat

Our brain is a “don’t get killed machine” (Harris 2008). Fundamentally we are programmed to put survival ahead of other priorities, which makes sense in an evolutionary context. When we perceive threat the body responds by preparing us to fight, flee or freeze by activating particular nervous system pathways and hormones. The freeze response occurs in extreme circumstances where it is judged neither fighting nor running will work and playing dead is the best option.

However, the brain doesn’t distinguish between social and physical threats, so in modern society threats can be perceived everywhere, all the time and they don’t always have an end point (get eaten or escape). The evolutionary threat response was designed to be a disaster only red button but can become an ongoing alarm that never stops. This has negative implications for the effect on our physiology which manifests in the long term effects of stress related diseases. Also running away is an appropriate response to physical threat but our thoughts and emotions go with us so trying to run away from them (through avoidance) doesn’t really work. There are two key potential issues which are especially  pertinent in relation to wellbeing:

• Bad is more important than good (the negativity bias): We notice, attend to and respond to threat signals more than information that things are going well. This is fine if you are being chased by a sabre-toothed tiger but not so helpful if the “threat” is a social one such as your colleague getting a better phone than you. You still experience the increased adrenaline, cortisol and other physiological changes you would need to run for your life, although no physical running is required. Our programming also tends to make us laser focus on the perceived bad thing that has happened and we can then fail to notice good things such as a compliment from our boss. We can try to counteract this issue by keeping challenges in perspective and noticing the good things in our lives.
• Short term is more important than long term: Evolutionarily speaking, if you stand on that poisonous snake today, it doesn’t matter if you drop the bucket you need for fetching water tomorrow. We are programmed to give more weight to short term consequences than long term ones, especially in relation to threat signals. Again, great if you are running away from a black mamba but not so adaptive if you’re drinking a bottle of wine to escape feeling miserable and not considering that you will have a hangover tomorrow and probably feel even more miserable having beaten yourself up for drinking too much. We can address this by learning skills to manage emotions and developing healthy problem solving skills.

This threat oriented bias, in my view, relates to the underlying fundamental psychological need for autonomy and control (Ryan & Deci 2000). We need to feel we have freedom to protect ourselves, therefore it is very easy for anything which undermines our sense of autonomy and control, even if it is not related to physical survival, to feel like a threat triggering our biological responses in an unhelpful way.

Drive

An evolutionary need, secondary to avoiding threat, is the drive to get the resources we need to survive such as food, water and shelter. An impact of this is that our brains have become programmed to be very goal driven and oriented to strive for the next target. It’s not enough to get food for today, we also need to think about it again tomorrow. As a result once we achieve a target we adapt very quickly to the changed state which allows us to re-initiate the drive to move onto the next priority.

The basic psychological need of competence relates to this. We need to feel we have good enough skills to get the resources we need to survive, thus anything which undermines our feeling of competence can be perceived as a threat to wellbeing. Again, this programming works well enough in a society where the drivers are around basic necessities. In a world where we are exposed through advertising and social media to endless “wants” which are purported to improve our life but may be unachievable, our driven nature can lead to dissatisfaction rather than life enhancement.

In addition, our evolutionary beneficial ability to rapidly adapt to a changed situation does us no favours in a complex social world. Even if we get something we have been aiming for such as a new car or a promotion, we quickly adapt to this and are on to the next goal. This leads to what is known as the hedonic treadmill where we constantly need to keep running and getting / achieving new things to maintain our level of happiness and satisfaction. We can address this by being mindful of our goals and making sure they are in line with our values (rather than what we think we should be/do/ have). We can also be aware of this tendency, slow down and celebrate our success through savouring rather than discounting our achievements in the rush to the next thing.

Connection

At the next level of abstraction, we are programmed for social connection. In evolutionary terms being rejected by the tribe and being alone vastly reduces your chance of survival and reproduction. Thus we have become hardwired to favour emotions, behaviours, cognitions and physiological responses that promote connection. This underlies the basic psychological need of relatedness (Ryan & Deci 2000). We want to be part of the in-group and anything which presents a threat to this triggers our physiological stress responses. This might work quite well if you are trying to integrate into one community and need to understand how to fit in and access resources, protection and a mate. How much more complicated is it when you are part of so many different social groups all with different expectations? The opportunities for social comparison and not aligning with particular group rules in our modern connected world are boundless and consequently so are the opportunities to perceive social pain which is equivalent to physical pain and threat. We can counter this by understanding and connecting to our values, developing a coherent sense of self and learning to manage our engagement with different types of groups in line with this.

Verbal behaviour and cognitive processing

The human ability to think, communicate, co-operate, learn, plan, predict and problem solve has given us a huge advantage in not only surviving but thriving and mastering our environment. This does have some potential downsides which can impact wellbeing. Firstly, we operate on autopilot a lot more than we might think. The amount of data we have to process is huge. We would not be able to be fully aware of it all so many processes operate below the level of consciousness. We need to be aware that these influence our decisions, beliefs and interactions.

Our brain has developed shortcuts which help us handle the information processing load, this coupled with our verbal/ symbolic abilities can lead to bias. Human language implicitly includes meaning making which relates to context and also infers relationships between objects. Both of these factors can cause problems with our mental shorthand. For example sales of Corona beer went down during the CoronaVirus pandemic due (probably) to unconscious linking of Corona equals bad across context. Whilst we need these mental techniques, they can promote thinking errors and biases which can impact how we interact with others and the world in a way that can be detrimental to our own or others wellbeing.

Our underlying assumptions about the world derived from our learning history and these cognitive quirks can lead to sometimes unconscious self descriptions, judgements and rules. These can be helpful in many situations but may cause problems if applied too rigidly. For example “ If I work hard I will be rewarded financially. Financial rewards allow me to support my family. Providing for my family makes me and them happy. My family is not happy (which activates threat, drive and connection responses) so I need to work harder”. So the person works longer hours and does not explore other options about the family unhappiness such as spending little time together. As the family becomes more unhappy it is easier to spend more time away from home to avoid the difficult emotions there and wellbeing deteriorates.

Many of our culturally influenced assumptions such as “I should be happy, if I’m not happy there’s something wrong with me and I should be able to control my thoughts and feelings” combined with our threat response to avoid danger (difficult feelings and lack of control) can predispose us to struggle with our wellbeing.

We can address this by fostering mindfulness to help us be aware of the messages our mind and body are giving us in a non judgemental way. We can also become aware of our personal learning histories, narratives and bias through self reflection which increases the chance we can spot these and not allow them to hijack our decision making in an unhelpful way. Most of all we can acknowledge that being human is difficult and our underlying neuropsychology doesn’t always help us. Consequently we need to treat ourselves with compassion as we try and learn to operate effectively in a world we weren’t really designed for.

Conclusion

All of us have to deal with the issues outlined above and I hope this has been helpful in highlighting what to look out for. The good news is that our brain can learn new ways of responding, even into old age, that can help counteract these patterns and help us move towards a more fulfilling life.

References

Gilbert, P. (2014). The origins and nature of compassion focused therapy. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(1), 6–41

Harris, R. (2008).  The happiness trap. Robinson

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.

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post Evolutionary Psycho-Neurophysiology and Positive Psychology appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

In this blog I look at the role of control in our wellbeing and talk about my model of the things we can control with a practical example of how this might be used to support mental health.

Is control good for us?

Most of us like to feel in control. It helps us feel safe and ordered. Ryan and Deci (2000) highlight autonomy as a key psychological need (along with competence and relatedness, see my previous blog on Self Determination Theory for more detail). The fulfilment of this need for autonomy is associated with good mental health and improved motivation, whereas when it is blocked, motivation and wellbeing decrease. Autonomy involves the idea that we are in control of our actions, we are free from pressure from others and we have the ability to make our own choices. When we have this sense of this control, we feel authentic which boosts eudaimonic wellbeing. Many types of psychopathology stem from people seeking control in maladaptive ways when it is blocked in important areas of their lives. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and eating disorders can be extreme examples of this.

How much control do we really have?

So a sense of autonomy is good for us. But how realistic is this in everyday life? Often external circumstances can’t easily be changed and we certainly can’t control other people’s attitudes and behaviour, although we can sometimes influence them by how we act.

Actually even our own thoughts, feelings and bodily sensations are also not as much under our control as we might like to think. For example, if I tell you not to think of a white bear, what pops into your head? A white bear! Likewise we can’t just erase specific memories because we want to, or make ourselves feel a certain way about people or things just because we feel we should (telling someone to calm down hardly ever works!). Trying to hang on to control of thoughts, feelings and situations too rigidly or unrealistically can lead to us feeling stressed and struggling with or avoiding the associated difficult emotions. In Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) this is known as “The control agenda” and is a key element of many mental health problems. (See my previous blog on ACT).

Unfortunately, Western culture in particular presents an image of autonomy as linked to achievement and success. We tend to feel we should be in control of things and that this is a, or even the only, route to happiness. In fact research shows we overestimate our ability to control outcomes for ourselves and this holds across culture and gender even though the way in which we exercise control may vary. For example, in collectivist cultures people have more optimism about positive outcomes through cooperative Vs individualistic action. This pattern also tends to be found for women vs men across cultures but in all cases people are still subject to what is known as the “the control illusion” (Yamaguchi et al.2005). That is, believing we have more influence over positive outcomes than we actually do. This optimistic bias could be seen as helpful in an evolutionary sense, it stops us giving up when things are hard and thus maximises our chances of survival with the opposite stance of pessimism and helplessness being associated with depression or anxious avoidance (which can be adaptive in certain circumstances but often isn’t).

However, if we believe we should be able to impact outcomes more than we actually can, inappropriate expectations could lead to frustration and disappointment. If these difficult emotions are not managed correctly we could again be on the road to mental ill health.

As is often the way in psychology, it’s all about balance. So understanding what we can and can’t control and knowing when to persist and when and how to “learn and let go” is key.

What can we control?

If you search on any web browser you can find extensive lists of the things you can and can’t control. Psychological advice suggests you focus on the things you can control. In my experience, what you can control boils down to the following five things. Everything else can at best only be influenced.

Having failed to find a suitable acronym, I call this the 2 I, 3A model and as ACT practitioners can see it is firmly rooted in the core ACT processes of psychological flexibility.

What we can control is:

• Intention: Knowing what really matters to us (our values) and how we want to treat ourselves, others and the world is something we are free to decide. Setting your intention for the particular context you find yourself in by asking “What is the most important thing to me in this situation?” is within your control. How things actually work out may not be, but your intention is your own.
• Attention: Where we focus our attention makes a huge difference to how we feel and function. When we become too future focused we can become anxious about uncertain outcomes. When we focus too much on past problems we can become mired in regret. The balance between unhelpful rumination and carefully thinking through a problem can be quite small. However, monitoring how much of our time and attention we are prepared to give to an issue and when it is healthy to switch to focus on something else is within our control. In addition, the choice to engage our attention with things we know that nurture us is also free to all. The form this takes will be different for everyone (perhaps walking in nature, chatting to a friend, reading a book, playing football, listening to music, appreciating your cup of coffee etc)
• Interpretation: How we choose to frame what happens to us can really impact our experience. For example, “did my friend really ignore me or were they just distracted and didn’t see me?”. How you interpret the situation is a choice, sometimes even irrespective of “the truth” if that exists. This leads to another “I” question, “Is there another more helpful way of looking at this?” This links to perspective in terms of time, place and person (see more in my blog on perspective).
• Acceptance: Being willing to allow the difficult emotions that come with things not going our way and to be present rather than falling into “the control agenda” of experiential avoidance is within our control (links back to attention). Life is inevitably hard at times and acknowledging and making room for suffering rather than denying it is a choice. Our ability to manage painful emotions is something we can learn and seek support with. When we can’t control outcomes we can manage our feelings in a realistic and kind way.
• Action: Our body can take action even if we are not feeling at our best or struggling with difficult thoughts or emotions. Even if you are angry with someone you care about you can still choose to act lovingly towards them. Acting in line with our true values is not only something we can choose to do, it supports our wellbeing when we do it.

An example

To try and help illustrate how this might be helpful, here’s an example from my own life. I recently went on holiday to France with my family. The weather was not great and certainly not as warm as usual. I found myself starting to get stuck ruminating on this and feel really annoyed and resentful that “my one holiday a year was being ruined”. I was struggling to control something that can’t be controlled, the weather. So I looked at what I could control.

First of all I acknowledged this futile struggle and the impact it was having on me (attention). Checking the weather forecast 10 times a day and being annoyed when it hadn’t changed was just making me feel worse. I worked on accepting and allowing the feelings of frustration and disappointment to be there in my body rather than fighting them. I looked at my interpretation of the situation and the unhelpful thoughts that went with this. What did having a good holiday actually mean? Sure sitting in the sun could be part of that (and I was rigidly holding onto this expectation despite reality) but it wasn’t all that being on holiday meant to me. Holiday for me is also about rest, reading, connecting with my family, enjoying food and being in a beautiful, peaceful place surrounded by nature. I also considered that as half of Europe was struggling with serious fires my issues were pretty minor. So I set my  intention to engage in what really mattered to me in this situation. I could still spend time with my family talking, playing games, going for days out, watching movies etc rather than focusing on obsessing about the weather. I could still swim which I love doing (even though it wasn’t really hot enough to sit and dry off afterwards). I could still enjoy the quiet and beauty of my surroundings, sit in the hammock and watch the birds (while wearing a jumper). I could still read all the wonderful books I’d brought with me rather than scrolling through social media (just because I was inside where there was Wifi).

So I turned all these intentions into action and carried them out. It was not always easy to act on my intentions, my disgruntled thoughts and emotions hijacked me at times. This process is not a magic wand; it requires mindful attention and constant revisiting the mental processes until you break out of your unhelpful cycle. Would it have been nice if the weather was better? Yes. Was my holiday ruined? No it wasn’t, I still had a lovely time by focusing on and engaging in the things I could control and letting go of those unhelpful expectations that were getting me stuck.

Conclusion

I hope this small example helps you understand more about how the idea of control can help and hinder our mental health and what we can do to address this.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Yamaguchi, S., Gelfand, M., Ohashi, M. M., & Zemba, Y. (2005). The cultural psychology of control: Illusions of personal versus collective control in the United States and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(6), 750-761.

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post Positive Psychology, Control and Wellbeing appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

An applied science

PP has always been an applied science aimed at providing evidence-based practical approaches to help improve wellbeing for individuals, organisations and societies. Perhaps the most well-known application is through Positive Psychology Interventions (PPIs). These are “self-help” type packages aimed at individuals without mental illness which; “enhance well-being through pathways consistent with positive psychology theory” (Carr et al. 2023 p1). This includes key PPIs such as promoting gratitude in various forms, using your strengths, pursuing intrinsically motivated goals and cultivating savouring, mindfulness, optimism, kindness and forgiveness to name a selection! There is an inevitable debate about exactly which interventions should be included in this definition and the veracity of the evidence base (Boiler et al. 2013, Carr et al, 2021, Carr et al. 2023, White et al. 2019). However, there appears to be some consensus that many PPIs show evidence of having a small to medium positive effect on well-being indicators and a reduction in markers of mental ill health and stress and that these improvements are maintained over time (Carr et al. 2023).

What is not really clear is; who is most helped, by which interventions, under what conditions and context, and through what mechanisms. We know that “person-activity fit” or finding the right intervention for the individual and addressing internal and external barriers to implementation, is important. We also know that sustaining the effects of interventions through novelty, variation, appropriate use of habit formation, reinforcement and connection to values is vital. These factors are rarely addressed as part of a standard PPI and I believe this is where coaching can help (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky 2021). Research indicates Positive Psychology Coaching has benefits over PPIs alone (Grant & Atad 2022). The ability to personalise interventions and test out their impact objectively within the context of a coaching relationship may be a key factor here. More research is needed in this area.

Positive Psychology Coaching (PPC)

So what is coaching and specifically what is PPC and how is it different from other types of coaching? Let’s start with coaching. This has many different forms. Early views of coaching were of the “expert” coach providing the impetus and knowledge to draw the coachee to excellence of performance and achievement. This was focused around acquiring skills often in line with external standards. This approach may still be seen in some sporting and business coaching arenas. However, coaching has evolved to reflect a process where the coach is a facilitator to the coachee’s agenda of growth, self-development, insight and optimal functioning. The coach needs expertise in the processes of change rather than domain-specific knowledge. Coaching is aimed at helping people who are feeling and functioning OK to do better and flourish. This is the key difference from therapy or counselling approaches which are aimed at helping those in distress or with mental illness reduce symptoms and function better. The parallels with PP are clear, PP aims to redress the focus in psychology on clinical psychopathology and understand what helps “normal” people to flourish. Coaching focuses on improving wellbeing and functioning for healthy people while therapeutic approaches require an understanding of mental illness and target alleviation of symptoms and suffering. It has been argued that coaching and PP are natural partners (Green & Palmer 2019).

As both a coach and a therapist, I would argue that good therapy also includes the intention to help people flourish, rather than simply reduce distress (see my blog on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, May 2022). There is much debate about what exactly constitutes PPC (Biswas-Deiner, 2020, van Zyl et al. 2020) and its overlap Vs distinction from “coaching as usual” and therapeutic approaches (Giraldez-Hayes 2021, Grant & Palmer 2015). Van Zyl et al. (2020) define PP Coaching as: “ A short to medium-term professional, collaborative relationship between a client and coach, aimed at the identification, utilization, optimization, and development of personal strengths and resources in order to enhance positive states, traits and behaviors. Utilizing Socratic goal setting and positive psychological evidence-based approaches to facilitate personal growth, optimal functioning, enhanced wellbeing, and the actualization of people’s potential.” (p793)

Three levels in PP Coaching

“Coaching as usual” may be rooted in, for example, education, sport, human resources, executive development and coaches from these backgrounds may have no formal psychology training. PPC like “Coaching Psychology” is informed by a psychological understanding of human behaviour, cognitions, emotions, motivation and development. In PPC there is a specific emphasis on PP research and theory with outcomes and processes focused on cultivating wellbeing, flourishing and optimal functioning. A PP Coach operates at three levels (Sims 2018).

The “way of being” of the coach. The most fundamental level of PPC is grounded in the principle that “the first intervention is ourselves” (Worth 2017). This reflects the Rogerian stance of warmth, acceptance and genuineness and a belief in the coachee’s ability to self-actualise, which is a common foundation to many types of coaching or therapy. PPC requires a commitment to the ongoing development of professionalism, ethical and evidence-based practice and personal learning through reflective practice and supervision. You are not just “doing coaching” you need to “be” a PP coach. A collaborative, trusting relationship between coach and coachee is seen as a key vehicle for progress and the coach’s ability to openly examine their own biases and “practise what they preach” in terms of using the models, techniques and tools they espouse in their own lives, is necessary to achieve this level of authenticity. PP and PPC are not spectator sports, I would not ask a client to try out an intervention or technique I had not already tried and reflected on myself.

PP Coaching Models, frameworks, skills and models. This is a mid-level of abstraction in terms of using key understanding from psychology and PP research. It involves the application of knowledge including models of emotions, hope, self-determination, resilience, motivation and flourishing within process frameworks such as an appreciative coaching model (Liston-Smith 2008) or psychological flexibility (ACT) etc. Using related skills including; active listening, affirming, reflecting, Socratic questioning, goal setting, feedback, mindfulness and compassion, the task of the coach is to apply this knowledge flexibly and appropriately, to support desired change depending on the needs of the client and a psychological formulation of their internal and external context and aspirations.

PP and coaching assessments and measures, tools and PPIs. This is the “toolbox” of measures such as strength and wellbeing assessments, techniques such as using strengths cards, values discovery exercises, goal setting, storyboarding and validated PPIs such as “a beautiful day” or random acts of kindness interventions which can be tailored to the individual coachee.

These layers build on one another. The models and concepts you draw on at the middle level inform the assessments, tools and interventions you use. However, both of these rely on the fundamental ability of the coach to be present with the coachee in an affirming (although sometimes challenging) relationship of authentic mutual respect and collaboration with the core focus being the coachee’s agenda. At training events, coaches are keen to learn new assessments, tools and interventions. However, without the underlying levels of “understanding” and “being” these are open to misuse.

What is unique about PPC?

One might argue there is nothing particularly unique about PPC. The three levels detailed above are likely to be recognised by coaches coming from different traditions. PPC does not neglect difficult emotions and challenges, after all these are the things that bring coachee’s to seek support. However, PPC has a fundamental basis in identifying the positive core of individuals and using this as a foundation to helping people seek solutions to move them towards their dream of being the best they truly and authentically want to be. The focus is building positive futures rather than addressing weaknesses and problems per se. Understanding the coachee’s strengths, core values, and ideal future precedes realistically building pathways and agency towards progress (although the refinement is iterative). In PPC you can expect the spotlight to be on when you have been at your best, what is working well, what really energises you, your deepest needs and values and your most outrageous and aspirational dreams. Understanding this authentic core is the bedrock to fostering flourishing and can be overlooked in traditional deficit or goal-focused coaching. Insight, personal growth and meaning are fostered as part of this process rather than a focus on goal achievement. Without consideration of authentic values, it is possible to strive to complete goals which don’t then bring you the results you wanted at a deeper level.

Who and when might PPC help?

PPC can help anyone without a significant mental health problem. Research indicates PPIs can also be helpful for clinical populations but they need to be applied individually, deliberately and carefully in this context and most coaches do not have the mental health training to support this. PPC is particularly suitable for clients who feel stuck with a recurring issue which is getting in the way of their wellbeing or functioning. This could be around relationships, health, work, education, personal growth/ spirituality, financial and physical environment or the ability to enjoy life and feel good. Sometimes this need occurs around a life transition (such as children leaving home) or can present in times of stagnation (passed over for a promotion again). If you’ve tried generic self-help interventions and you can’t find one that works or that you can stick to, or the approach helps but the effects don’t last, then individualised support through PPC may be for you. Likewise, If you’re not sure who you are, what matters or what you want and feel unable to move forward, PPC might be a good option.

Conclusion

I believe the individualised application of PP models, measures and techniques in response to a formulation of the coachee’s strengths, needs, dreams, barriers and context, framed within a collaborative and supportive coaching relationship, can facilitate meaningful and constructive change, in valued life domains, for people in all walks of life.

References

Biswas-Diener, R. (2020). The practice of positive psychology coaching. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(5), 701-704.

Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-119

Carr, A., Cullen, K., Keeney, C., Canning, C., Mooney, O.,Chinseallaigh, E., & O’Dowd, A. (2021). Effectiveness of posi-tive psychology interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(6), 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1818807

Carr, A., Finneran, L., Boyd, C., Shirey, C., Canning, C., Stafford, O., Lyons, J., Cullen, K., Prendergast, C., Corbett, C., Drumm, C. & Burke, T. (2023): The evidence-base for positive psychology interventions: a mega-analysis of meta-analyses, The Journal of Positive Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2023.2168564

Giraldez-Hayes, A. (2021). Different domains or grey areas? Setting boundaries between coaching and therapy: A thematic analysis. The Coaching Psychologist, 17(2), 18-29.

Anthony M Grant & Ofer I Atad (2022) Coaching psychology interventions vs. positive psychology interventions: The measurable benefits of a coaching relationship, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17:4, 532-544, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2021.1871944

Grant, A. & Palmer, S. (2015). Integrating positive psychology and coaching psychology into counselling psychology. Counselling Psychology Review, 30(3), 22-25.

Green, S. & Palmer, S. (2019) Positive Psychology Coaching in practice. Routledge Liston-Smith, J. (2008). Appreciative inquiry and solution-focused coaching:Applications of positive psychology in the practice of coaching. The Coaching Psychologist, 4(2), 102-105.

Sheldon, K. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2021). Revisiting the Sustainable Happiness Model and Pie Chart: Can Happiness Be Successfully Pursued? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16 (2), 145–154 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1689421

Sims, C. M. (2018). Embracing the ‘Bad’ along with the ‘Good’ as Part of a Positive Psychology Coaching Dialogue. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference of Positive Psychology

Van Zyl L.E., Roll L.C., Stander M.W. and Richter S. (2020) Positive Psychological Coaching Definitions and Models: A Systematic Literature Review. Front. Psychol. 11:793. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00793

White, C.A., Uttl B., Holder, M.D. (2019) Meta-analyses of positive psychology interventions: The effects are much smaller than previously reported. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0216588. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216588

Worth, P. (2017) Positive Psychology Interventions: The First Intervention Is Our Self. In: Positive Psychology Interventions in Practice. Springer, pp. 1-12.

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post What is Positive Psychology Coaching? appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

Can we define kind?

Although kindness is valued across cultures and religious traditions it is not that easy to define. It is considered a strength in the VIA taxonomy, part of the virtue of humanity and the term is often used interchangeably with that of altruism or prosociality. A kind act is considered to be one that has a perceived benefit for the receiver of the act usually coupled with a perceived cost for the actor. Both greater benefits and greater costs tend to mean acts are rated as “kinder”. Kindness as a trait or characteristic is seen as the tendency to frequently and reliably perform kind acts. As you can see there is a lot of potential interpretation going on in these definitions. How are costs and benefits evaluated and by whom? How can you really know the intention of the actor and does this matter? How often constitutes frequently/reliably? Does context and culture make a difference? At an individual level kindness could be considered as performing acts intended to benefit others, but we all know how our good intentions can sometimes backfire. Are these acts kind or not? Is intention or outcome more important? You might also ask how kindness relates to my favourite topic of compassion. There is a lot of overlap. However, compassion necessitates awareness of suffering in another and the motivation to respond by action. It is possible to be kind to anyone regardless of whether they are suffering or not.

Evolution and kindness

Why are we kind? Researchers have looked at the role of evolution in selecting kindness traits. Humans are a social species and our survival and development has relied on us being able to co-operate and function in groups. Therefore certain types of kindness evidenced in the research literature can be understood in terms of the benefits they bring for survival and reproduction:

• Kin altruism: We are more likely to be kind to those related to us as this increases the likelihood of our genes being passed on.
• Mutualism: People are more likely to be kind to those in their groups and communities as such cooperation promotes group protection, loyalty and commitment (sometimes at the expense of other groups).
• Reciprocal altruism: People tend to be kind to those who might be in the position to return the favour hence improving survival or status chances for the future.
• Competitive altruism: Kind acts which impress others and enhance social status or make the actor more attractive to potential mates also confer a survival advantage.

Altruistic or kind behaviour has subsequently become embedded in social, cultural and spiritual norms as desirable and is thus shaped and reinforced by these systems to the extent and in the ways it is valued.

What is the impact of kindness?

Kindness is a popular topic in PP due to the research suggesting that prosocial behaviour has benefits for the actor as well as the recipient of kindness. A range of research has suggested that acting kindly is associated with increased happiness, decreased stress and mental ill health, improved immunity, reduced blood pressure and other positive health markers. The idea of carrying out random acts of kindness as an intervention to address a range of social problems has been somewhat oversold in “pop psychology”. Much of the research is based on correlational studies which don’t help us understand the causal relationship between kindness and its health effects. However, recent reviews suggest there is a genuine small to moderate impact on the wellbeing of the actor in cross-sectional, longitudinal, experience sampling, diary and experimental studies of kindness behaviour (Curry et al. 2018, Hui et al. 2020). As is often the case with psychological studies, problems with research methodology limit what we can meaningfully say about kindness in terms of helpful detail and thus masks our understanding of when, how and for whom kindness-based interventions might be the most useful.

What does seem to be emerging is that kindness activities (Curry et al. 2018, Hui et al. 2020);

• Are related to positive psychological functioning for the actor more strongly than effects on mental ill health or physical health markers.
• Have a greater impact on eudaimonic than hedonic wellbeing.
• Show stronger impacts when helping is informal (or mixed) rather than formal. This, however, could be an artefact of sustainable happiness factors, whereby regular volunteers adapt to their ongoing helping behaviour and no longer experience some or all of the benefits (see below). Perhaps this begs the question, what can charities and voluntary organisations do to counteract this effect?
• May vary in their impacts depending on demographic factors such as; 1. Age: Younger people report more psychological impact and older people more physical health effects. This could be due to certain types of well-being being valued or noticed more at different ages. 2. Gender: Being female was associated with increased benefits, which could relate to values around gender stereotypes. Some studies show different results on these factors.
• May have differential effects depending on intention. Helping others rather than engaging in kindness activities to promote one’s own wellbeing was associated with greater influences on outcomes in some studies. Social and cultural factors are likely to influence this. More work needs to be done to understand these effects (Shin et al. 2020).
• May lead to differential effects for the actor depending on context including who the recipient of the kindness is.
• Are not well understood in terms of their long-term effects.
• Have a reciprocal interaction effect with wellbeing. Kindness leads to greater wellbeing, which increases the tendency to be kind. When the impact of (successful) kindness on the recipient of the kind act is also considered, this constitutes a potentially powerful upward spiral effect.

How might kindness promote wellbeing?

How might being kind lead to improved wellbeing effects? Possible suggestions are:

• Kindness can lead to a boost of positive emotions which, in line with the Broaden and Build Theory (Fredrickson 2004), promotes widened attention, increased openness, improved creativity, problem-solving, psychological perspective and flexibility. These in turn build downstream resilience resources.
• Kindness increases a sense of connection and relatedness and promotes social bonds and integration. Strengthening social bonds increases our access to resources to support our wellbeing in an ongoing way.
• Kindness may influence how others see us in a positive way. It is considered one of the most desirable qualities in a partner. This feeds into relationship building.
• Mediated by the above kindness signals increased safety and reduced threat resulting in a positive impact on physiological markers of stress.
• Kindness promotes a sense of meaning, purpose and authenticity in life which are independently associated with wellbeing. This could operate even if a kindness act backfires as long as the actor feels connected to their values despite the outcome.
• Kindness promotes a sense of perceived competence in oneself and improved confidence and self-evaluation. Our kind actions may also enhance a sense of agency and environmental mastery.
• Kindness helps widen our perspective and focuses us on others rather than ourselves thus decreasing the potential impact of our own issues.
• Kindness promotes upward spirals as described, resulting in positive ripples across groups and communities. A small action can have a big impact at a wider level.

The bigger picture

The pay it forward or ripple effect of kindness is perhaps the most important factor which can impact wellbeing not just at an individual but a societal level. This is why the news from the world happiness report gives me hope and brings me back to the question of evolution.

I would argue that there is a potentially more important, higher level of abstraction to the evolutionary considerations discussed above; radical connectedness. My understanding of this is “I can’t truly be well if the other people, species and ecosystems of the planet that I am inextricably linked to, are not also OK”. Unless we are able to get our head around this idea, I fear humans may become an example of extinction due to a lack of adaptability and our tendency to destroy our own habitat in the service of individualistic advancement. We have learnt to cooperate to live in groups and to dominate the earth as a species, perhaps we now need to learn to expand our concept of kindness and cooperation to another level? Small acts of kindness can potentially have far-reaching effects. How can you be kind today? If you need some inspiration search Youtube or check out https://www.randomactsofkindness.org/

References

Curry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., Van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S., McAlaney, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367-1377.

Hui, B. P. H., Ng, J. C. K., Berzaghi, E., Cunningham-Amos, L. A., & Kogan, A. (2020). Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1084–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000298

Shin ,L.J, Layous ,K., Choi ,I.,Na, S. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2020)  Good for self or good for others? The well-being benefits of kindness in two cultures depend on how the kindness is framed, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15,6, 795-805, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post Why Kindness Counts appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

From its inception, PP was intended to redress the historical focus on the negative and dysfunctional in psychology research and practice and seek what makes life vibrant and full. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) suggested that the movement, if successful, could become redundant and be subsumed into “psychology as usual”. Has that happened? Is PP still needed and if so what is its role, function and direction within the wider field?

The waves of PP

The history of PP is often described in a number of “waves”. The first wave of PP focussed heavily on boosting the positive and was criticised for promoting “toxic positivity”. This largely was due to a misunderstanding of the true nature of PP (in my opinion), but on the plus side a wider focus on “what makes a good life” did seem to gain traction in research.

The potential “Pollyanna” nature of first-wave PP was addressed with the development of the second wave or PP 2.0. (Ivtzan et al. 2016, Wong 2011). This considered the dialectics of life and reconnected PP with its neglected humanistic and existential roots. The focus was on a balance of positive and negative experiences in context and the complex interplay of all the shades of grey in between black and white which reflect the reality of human experience. The role of meaning, wisdom, purpose, values and growth as part of the “good” life came to the fore alongside strengths, positive emotions, connection and relationships, goal achievement, resilience and other typically “positive” topics. Understanding the role of inevitable human challenge and suffering in what makes life rich, full and flourishing received greater attention in research and practice.

A criticism of PP that remained was that, despite the early intentions to grow flourishing organisations and societies, the focus in practice had remained at an individual level. The onus was still on personal responsibility for wellbeing and centred in terms of research findings mainly on privileged, white, educated, Western populations.

Third-wave PP (Lomas et al. 2021) seeks to move beyond this to a more pluralistic, systems approach promoting change at higher levels of society. Issues remain in enacting this move in terms of the locus of responsibility for change and the embedded inequalities in financial systems which fund, disseminate and operationalise research findings. In addition, the research methodologies needed to progress are complex, expensive (longitudinal), and in some cases, the relevant analytical procedures have not yet been developed.

Do we still need PP?

Ryff’s (2022) timely review, highlights a number of these criticisms and looks at potential ways forward. Her essential criticisms are that PP is elitist, isolationist and guilty of seeking sexy, over-simplistic, commercial sound bite solutions which overstep the empirical evidence and plagiarise the work of other psychological traditions without taking any responsibility for trying to address complex and endemic societal issues and make the world a better place.

Ryff is much more polite about it of course, but that is my read on it. I can see why she might think that and I agree with some of what she says. However, my experience of being an associate lecturer on an MSc in Applied Psychology (MAPP) course in the UK (at Buckinghamshire New University) doesn’t really back that up. Maybe PP in the UK is somewhat different to how it is experienced in the USA. What I see in our students is people from a huge range of backgrounds and every corner of the world (except Antarctica). These people generally have not gone the formal academic psychology route but they come with a thirst to promote good in the world and bring curious and questioning minds and diverse perspectives. Many of our students are mature and have had careers in everything from teaching yoga to the construction industry. Although those perhaps have more in common than I first thought when I wrote it!

For me, when I was a student on the course and now as a tutor, this diversity is a breath of fresh air. As someone who did go the traditional academic (clinical) psychology route I love the challenge of a completely different perspective. From “that seems like rubbish”, “isn’t that obvious?”, “so what is it actually measuring?” to “well why does it have to be done like that?” The best, often humbling questions come up, cutting through academic rhetoric. It does mean students sometimes have very steep learning curves in terms of the nature of scientific rigour and critical thinking but most of them amaze themselves with their ability to learn at a personal, practical and academic level.

The course, having been developed by Dr Piers Worth and Dr Matthew Smith, puts great store on experiential learning and the idea that “the first intervention is ourselves “. The melting pot of views we encounter is the antithesis of what Ryff describes as a discipline cut off from the related fields of religion, spirituality, philosophy, education, medicine, biology, nursing, psychiatry, environmental science, sociology, anthropology, politics and coaching. I agree with her that more collaboration across disciplines is vital if we are to try and address the very real issues facing our world.

However, I think PP is more than what is published (especially in quick-fix self-help books). At its best PP is a community of people, like those on this website, who want the world to be a better place and want to work to make this happen in a practical way. We know our earth is broken and many aspects of our societies and cultures systematically reinforce injustice, greed and ignorance. There is no quick slick fix for this. I have written in my previous blogs about the importance of radical interconnectedness and psychology’s tendency to shy away from anything value-laden. We want to be a science and it is important to try and be rigorous and responsible in our research and how we communicate our findings, but even the most “positivist” research is laden with bias and assumption no matter how much it tries to eradicate it. What we need is transparency, ownership and accountability about this. Humanity is messy (as well as in a mess) we need to own this to find solutions.

So I endorse Ryff’s view that we need a more cautious, integrative, creatively innovative, socially responsible, theoretically and methodologically sophisticated PP if it is actually to be a movement with a transformative legacy. Is this possible or should PP merge back into “psychology as usual”?

The Future?

I see encouraging signs that some of the above issues are being addressed within the third wave of PP. An increased reliance on triangulation of research using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies is emerging and providing depth to the findings. Dynamic systems thinking and modelling are also increasingly being applied in PP (Holtge et al. 2022, Lomas & VanderWeele 2021) improving the nuance and complexity of understanding human experience. Further, integrative approaches to understanding processes of change across disciplines to promote cooperative research and practice are more widely being advocated (Ciarrochi et al. 2022). These highlight the role of context and caution against over-generalisation. As Ryff (2022) also advocates, the role of nature and creativity as fundamental elements of the good life is also being pursued in current research.

Conclusion

The diffuse nature of PP with feet in many professional camps (some of which are outlined above) means that ethical and professional oversight of the discipline is hard. The flip side of this is the breadth of reach (another tricky dialectic). If PP is considered a lens which helps us orientate to cultivating the best in humanity, maybe this could be a good thing?

When the world is such a challenging place, it is very easy to get sucked in by our negativity bias to focus on local problem-based solutions. We need a lens across disciplines that spreads the light and helps us also remember to look up and out with hope and commitment to making life better for the whole world. I don’t have any trouble finding problems and looking down and in. Both in my personal life and in my professional teaching, therapy and coaching endeavours, PP helps to redress that perspective every day. My default reaction, based on years of traditional psychological training, is “what’s the problem, how can I fix it?”.

In Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), we have a saying, “Are you treating your client as a roadblock or a beautiful rainbow to be understood and appreciated?” PP is the lens that helps me see the rainbow and remember it is not up to me to “fix it” but help it find its own path. We know PP is no simplistic solution. There is no easy pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But I still need that lens to reorientate me and despite all the caveats outlined above which do require attention, I think the world does too. I personally still don’t like the term ” Positive Psychology”, I don’t think it captures the complexity of the discipline, but neither have I come up with a better alternative. For now, I choose to keep advocating for PP.

Disclaimer

This blog is clearly highly opinionated and reflects my views alone. I acknowledge my conflict of interest as an associate lecturer at BNU but do not speak for them or on behalf of the MAPP in this context.

References

Ciarrochi J., Hayes S. C., Oades L. G. & Hofmann, S. G. (2022) Toward a Unified

Framework for Positive Psychology Interventions: Evidence-Based Processes of Change in Coaching, Prevention, and Training. Front. Psychol. 12:809362 .doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.809362

Höltge, J., Cowden, R., Lee, M., Bechara, A., Joynt, S., Kamble, S., Khalanskyi, V., Shtanko, L. Kurniati, N., Tymchenko, S., Voytenko, V., McNeely, E & VanderWeele, T. (2022): A systems perspective on human flourishing: Exploring cross-country similarities and differences of a multisystemic flourishing network, The Journal of Positive Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2022.2093784

Ivtzan, T. Lomas, K. Heffron & P. Worth. (2016)  Second Wave Positive Psychology: Embracing the dark side of life. Routledge.

Lomas, T. & VanderWeele, T.J. (2021): The complex creation of happiness: Multidimensional conditionality in the drivers of happy people and societies, The Journal of Positive Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2021.1991453

Lomas, T., Waters, L. , Williams, P. , Oades, L.G. & Kern, M.L. (2020): Third wave positive psychology: broadening towards complexity, The Journal of Positive Psychology,  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1805501

Ryff CD (2022) Positive Psychology: Looking Back and Looking Forward. Front. Psychol. 13:840062. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840062

Wong, P.T. (2011). Positive Psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology, DOI: 10.1037/a0022511

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post Positive Psychology – Moving Forward appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

Most of us will have seen the coverage of the COP 27 summit on climate change in November 2022. Our news feeds are full of reports of extreme weather events and the impact they are having on the planet, nature and people. This crisis threatens the whole of humanity and at times is overwhelming. As awareness of the seriousness of the problem the planet is facing permeates our consciousness, climate anxiety or eco-anxiety is a rising problem affecting the mental health of many people (Frumkin 2022). I will outline the ways in which this is both similar and different to other types of anxiety and discuss PP interventions that might be helpful in ameliorating the impact.

Climate anxiety

Anxiety is a normal emotion experienced in the face of challenge and uncertain outcomes. Indeed we need a certain amount of anxiety to perform at our best. The word is also used to refer to aspects of the clinical state of mental illness which can result when our normal threat response processes go wrong.

In evolutionary terms, when we faced a physical threat, such as being eaten by a predator, those whose bodies responded with an effective “flight or fight” (FF) response were more likely to survive and reproduce. So this process became embedded in human neurophysiological functioning through natural selection. The FF response sends blood to the arms and legs and away from the gut, increases heart and respiration rates and floods you with adrenaline to prepare you to run/ fight. In modern life, most of the threats we face are not physical but social, and our cognitive abilities mean we are able to repeatedly predict and perceive threats that may not exist.

Our response to these types of threats does not require a physical reaction, but our body doesn’t know that and it is easy for us to get stuck constantly activating and failing to discharge the impact of these bodily changes, which has a long-term damaging impact on our body and health. Additionally, the impact of the anxiety response on the body, which can manifest as hyperventilation, palpitations, feeling hot and sweaty, lightheadedness, nausea etc can feel very unpleasant. If we then focus our attention on this new “threat” (“Am I having a heart attack?”), we then amplify our threat response and can end up with full-blown anxiety symptoms such as panic disorder. Our natural attempts to suppress and avoid unpleasant feelings further compound the situation and can narrow our life leading to issues such as agoraphobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

A further evolutionary neurophysiological process also comes into play if a threat is seen as inescapable. This is known as the freeze or more accurately flop and drop response. If flight or fight doesn’t work to free us from threat, we tend to become paralysed and play dead (as this gives the best chance of survival).

If our modern “social” or other overwhelming threat such as climate change persists this response can promote a sense of helpless paralysis. This is a huge simplification of our response to threat (For more information see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv6HkipQcfA and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_iZOIn3itE) but I hope it illustrates the point I am trying to make. Most anxiety disorders relate to a threat that is social. Social belonging is also important for survival and in evolutionary terms rejection from the group often did result in death or injury, which is one reason we are so sensitive to it. In modern society not getting any likes on your social media post, although not nice, does not represent an imminent threat to life and limb.

An adaptive response?

The difference between regular anxiety problems and climate anxiety is that the threat to humanity is physical and real if we continue to destroy our planet. Another evolutionary factor comes in here. We are primed to give priority to short-term rather than long-term consequences as, if you die now, you don’t need to worry about tomorrow. Hence my use of the word imminent above. Ignoring and avoiding the unpleasant feelings associated with confronting the impact of climate change helps us feel better in the short term, reinforcing that strategy (as with not going outside in agoraphobia) but fails to address the long-term problem.

However, those who are attempting to confront the reality of climate change often become overwhelmed and feel helpless in the face of such large-scale difficulty, especially when most of the world has its head in the sand. This can lead to clinical levels of eco-anxiety and/or depression, with paralysis of mental and physical energy and action via the processes described above. This does not bode well for humanity if it happens in the people we need to be the change makers if we are to survive as a species.

In summary, the symptoms associated with climate or eco-anxiety may be similar to conventional anxiety. However, the traditional approaches to treating anxiety such as challenging the accuracy of our thoughts and responses to threats, reframing them, and learning relaxation techniques, may not be appropriate in eco-anxiety because eco-anxiety is an adaptive response to a genuine threat which is a necessary call to action. Whilst we need a certain amount of eco-anxiety to spur us to act to change our behaviour, excessive eco-anxiety is unhelpful and can lead to mental ill health and paralysis of action.

How can PP help?

Clinical anxiety should, of course, always be fully assessed and treated by a mental health professional. However, PP has a number of strategies that can help address milder climate anxiety. These ideas have been crystallised by the inspirational work of Joanna Macy and Chris Johnstone (2022) on Active Hope. Informed by this approach,  my experience of PP and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and in consultation with my colleague, PP Practitioner and Climate Activist, Alice Graves, I offer the following suggestions.

1. Witness and honour the pain of the world. Confront the reality we are facing rather than denying the pain. ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy) expansion techniques can be used to foster willingness to sit with the difficult emotions associated with our self-destruction. Compassion skills can support this process. Recognise that pain is the flip side of the things you care about (values). Harness the messages and energy of negative emotions such as anger to help you move to action (see below).
2. Connect with yourself, others, the world and your values. Recognise the radical systemic interconnectedness of the wellbeing of our whole world and our embeddedness within this network across place and time. Understand your values. Think about how your values might relate to the idea of being a “good ancestor”. What would you like your descendants to say about how you showed up and what you stood for at this point in history (whatever the outcome)? Foster connection and love with other people and groups who share your concerns as a balance to pain, isolation and helplessness. We are actually all in this together. Systemic thinking suggests sustainability occurs when local systems each negotiate their self-interest with the greater system. Thus, we need to stop waiting for a purely top-down solution to the climate crisis but work at local levels and watch the ripples expand. This does not negate the responsibility of governments and businesses to take action, but acknowledges the value of both top-down and bottom-up approaches to addressing the issues and helps us take responsibility and engage in solution-oriented behaviour.
3. Foster a sense of gratitude and awe for the beauty of our natural world through immersive mindful savouring activities. Boosting positive emotions helps promote broadened, more creative thinking which we need to solve the challenges we face, but also further helps us build resilience, connect with our values and remember what we are striving for and why. It is a beautiful world, we are an intimate part of it and it is worth saving.
4. Take hopeful action to move forward. Envisage a hopeful future and adopt a growth mindset. What would it look like if a miracle happened and the tide turned on climate change? If you knew you couldn’t fail, what pathways might you take to make this happen? What is the first step on this road? Taking action, however small, helps build hope, and the act of living authentically in line with our values provides the motivation for further action. Connecting your actions with others amplifies the impact and helps you build resilience and find resources to overcome obstacles to change.

Much more detail on the strategies outlined above can be found through the following websites, many of which offer online courses to support people in dealing with eco-anxiety.

• https://workthatreconnects.org/
• https://www.activehope.info/
• https://earthself.org/resources/

If you are a coach working with these issues https://www.climatecoachingalliance.org/ is a wonderful network. If you are working to effect change at an organisational level https://www.lawyersfornetzero.com/ is a useful contact.

Conclusion

Climate anxiety is both something we need and something we must manage to facilitate the change our world needs to survive the climate crisis. PP has a potentially influential role to play in this process. In addition to the resources mentioned above, my colleague Alice Graves and I will be offering in-person and virtual workshops from 2023, incorporating training in the techniques described above. If you want to know more visit our LinkedIn page Climate Anxiety Management.

References

Frumkin, H.  (2022) Hope, health and the climate crisis. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 5, 100115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2022.100115

Macy, J. & Johnstone, C. (2022) Active Hope: How to face the mess we’re in with unexpected resilience and creative power. New World Library

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post Climate Anxiety and Positive Psychology appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.

The challenge of definition

Despite flourishing being a core tenet of PP, there is no one accepted definition of what it means to flourish. Consequently, neither is there an accepted way to measure it. There is also some confusion with related concepts such as happiness, subjective wellbeing and psychological wellbeing with some areas of overlap between them. These terms are (wrongly in my opinion) used interchangeably at times within the literature. In addition, flourishing is explored in other disciplines such as philosophy, bioethics, public health and anthropology and these don’t necessarily view it from the same perspective. Indeed qualitative research suggests that people’s everyday understanding of flourishing might differ from any of these standard definitions (Willen et al. 2022).

What do we know?

There are at least seven distinct ways of characterising flourishing within  PP alone (Keyes 2002, Ryff & Singer 2008, Deiner et al. 2010, Seligman 2011, Huppert & So 2013 Vanderweele 2017, Wong 2020). The number of dimensions considered foundational to flourishing varies from three (Wong 2020) to fourteen (Keyes 2002). So what can we say? Firstly, it is likely that basic levels of human need for physiological integrity and safety are prerequisites to flourishing (Maslow 1943). Beyond this, two dimensions are core to all the models. These are the importance of positive relationships and the presence of meaning and purpose in life in some form. Thus flourishing involves going beyond hedonic concerns to incorporate eudaimonic elements of wellbeing. Having said that, most authors also highlight positive emotions and /or engagement with life or life satisfaction. The extent to which positive functioning in relation to the environment (competence, autonomy, mastery, achievement) and society are considered elements of flourishing is variable between models. The role of the relationship to the self (self-acceptance, self-esteem, insight, self-actualisation) and the importance of growth, features in many approaches but is completely absent in some. Further, the relationship of flourishing to potentially thorny issues such as character, virtue, faith, transcendence and the management of human suffering is really only addressed by Vanderweele (2017) and Wong (2020). This reflects the development of PP through the “second wave” where balance and the inter-relatedness of “positive” and “negative” elements of human experience are emphasised.

So where does that leave research?

The definitional issues present challenges to finding an empirical basis to what it means to flourish. However, that doesn’t mean we know nothing. All of the models referred to above have a wealth of research associated with them, each demonstrating the relevance of their component factors to flourishing outcomes. We know a lot more about the elements of living a good life than we did before the advent of PP, but we still have a long way to go. Clearly, the type of assessment measures carried out vary in research, depending on the guiding underlying theory, which can mean it is hard to compare results from different studies directly. Much of the research that has been done is based on cross-sectional data often with a narrow range of outcomes considered. Although the findings are suggestive, they cannot demonstrate causal or complex relationships. Many more longitudinal studies are needed to unpick the nature of flourishing and this requires time and money and is not methodologically straightforward. Additionally, there is some disagreement about whether flourishing is inevitably a subjective judgement or can be assessed objectively (Kristjansson 2018). So, should factors such as physical and mental health be considered core aspects of flourishing or are they better seen as outcome measures (typically the case in psychological studies)? There is a need to integrate research across disciplines to get a fuller picture.

A wider perspective

A related criticism argues that research on flourishing has been focused at individual rather than societal levels. While individuals need to understand how they might influence their own flourishing, this does not negate the responsibility of societies and political systems to ensure support for measures which promote sustainable flourishing for all. Some authors emphasise that flourishing is not a static state and financial and material stability (which relate to wider economic factors) may be key to facilitating pathways to flourishing, so cannot be ignored (Vanderweele 2017).

Further, research has also been criticised for examining the components of flourishing in a static and simplistic manner. Taking a dynamic systems perspective (albeit using cross-sectional data) has shown that the constituents of flourishing may not be independent but influence one another in a complex manner over time. Additionally, the nature of this relationship varies with context demonstrated by different patterns seen across data from ten countries (Holtge et al. 2022). Individual and cultural context may both be important in understanding flourishing. Further, can flourishing also be domain-specific? Is it possible to be flourishing in a limited number of areas of life, or is that not really flourishing at all? How might the spillover from one domain (context) or component of flourishing influence the system and what are the implications of this for designing PP Interventions?  How do these factors interact and unfold as a process over time? It seems we still have a lot to learn.

What does this mean to you?

How does this help you in the here and now to pursue a flourishing life? It may be useful to reflect on whether you have experienced periods of what you consider flourishing. How did this feel and what factors do you think influenced it? Remember flourishing doesn’t necessarily mean feeling good. Difficulty and suffering are inevitable aspects of being human, how you manage, transform and balance these experiences with the good things in life is key. Ask yourself what the most worthwhile thing you have ever done is. It may have been neither particularly easy nor enjoyable in the moment.

To move on, perhaps it is worth looking at the two “core” areas associated with flourishing.

• Which are the positive relationships in your life? How can you nurture and develop them and /or seek new ones?
• Where do you find meaning and purpose in your life? What really matters to you? What are your core values? How are you connecting with and living these?

From the wider possible elements of flourishing you might consider:

• When and where do positive emotions show up in your life? Is there a way you can capitalise on this?
• When do you feel really engaged and satisfied with yourself and your life? Can you develop the activities that promote this?
• What are the things you do well? Do you celebrate these? Are there areas where you’d like to progress your skills or set yourself some new goals?
• When and how have you grown in your life, in what ways (emotionally, practical skills, academic learning, through good and bad experiences)? Where might your path take you in the future? Is there an area you want to focus on?
• What do you believe about yourself and the world? What matters to you beyond your immediate environment (politics, creativity, the natural world, football, science, art, saving retired greyhounds, God, beauty, fighting oppression, motherhood, helping others, making the best pancakes in the world, climate justice, leaving a legacy…)? What things do you connect with that lift you beyond the everyday hassles of life and help you feel part of something bigger? What might you do to develop this?

Consider also whether there are any barriers to these possible ingredients of flourishing within you, in your immediate context or in your wider culture. What resources could you marshall to support you in overcoming these roadblocks? An important question might also be how you would recognise when you were flourishing.

Whilst there are some key elements, there is no one right way to flourish. Further more rigorous and sophisticated research might help us understand the processes and how to support them, but the journey is our own.

References

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative

feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

Höltge, J., Cowden, R., Lee, M., Bechara, A., Joynt, S., Kamble, S., Khalanskyi, V., Shtanko, L. Kurniati, N., Tymchenko, S., Voytenko, V., McNeely, E & VanderWeele, T. (2022): A systems perspective on human flourishing: Exploring cross-country similarities and differences of a multisystemic flourishing network, The Journal of Positive Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2022.2093784

Huppert, F. & So, T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110 (3), 837-861

Keyes, C. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43 (2), 207-222

Kristjánsson, K. (2018). The flourishing–happiness concordance thesis: Some troubling counterexamples. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(6), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation.  Psychological Review, 50 (4), 430-437.

Ryff, C. & B.H. Singer, B. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9 (1), 13-39

Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish. Free Press.

VanderWeele, T. (2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (31), 8148-8156

Willen, S., Fisher Williamson, A., Walsh, C.,  Hyman, M., & Tootle, W. (2022). Rethinking flourishing: Critical insights and qualitative perspectives from the U.S. Midwest. SSM – Mental Health, 2, 100057, doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2021.100057.

Wong, P. (2020). Existential positive psychology and integrative meaning therapy.  International Review of Psychiatry, 32 (7-8), 565-578.

Read more about Sarah Monk and her other articles HERE

‘We Are The Positive Psychology People’

The post Flourishing – What Does it Mean to Flourish? appeared first on The Positive Psychology People.