Positive Psychology

I've been reading the second book in my self-study of Positive Psychology, a new field that started in 1998.  I first read Jonathan Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis, a history of psychology's and philosophy's findings on the good life, that I reviewed here not long ago.  Now I'm reading Martin Seligman's Authentic Happiness, which is a practical guide to building more positive emotion into our lives.   

   

Positive psychology is a major shift from psychology's lifelong focus on mental illness and disorder to the traits that make people thrive and the experiences that make life worth living. The positive psychologists are building a classification system of emotional strengths and sanities that, in the same way psychiatry classified the disorders and insanities, allow researchers and practitioners to agree when a strength is present.   

   

Seligman's book makes a persuasive case for putting more happiness into our lives.  One study featured a group of 180 nuns who lived roughly the same cloistered lives, with the same diet, reproductive and marital histories, the same access to medical care, etc.  Researchers read their novitiate essays, written in 1932 before the nuns took their final vows.  They rated the amount of positive feeling expressed in each essay, shaped by words like happy, joyful, grateful, thankful, etc. (Examples of these essays are presented, so readers can judge for themselves the difference in these young writers' stances towards life.) The researchers found that 90 percent of the most cheerful quarter of the group was alive at age 85 versus only 34 percent of the least cheerful quarter.  And 54 percent of the most cheerful quarter was alive at 94, as opposed to 11 percent of the least cheerful.   

   

Longevity is just one outcome affected by attitude; Seligman reports similar findings of career and relationship success, health benefits, creativity and problem-solving ability, and feelings of well-being tied to a positive stance towards life. He then outlines practical exercises we can use to increase our happiness "set-point," which is a characteristic mood-range that we seem to inherit.  A particularly potent exercise is building optimism by recognizing and then arguing down pessimistic thoughts.  (Pessimism is an easy habit to acquire because negative thoughts and the tendency to inflate danger once had the evolutionary reward of keeping us safe from predators.)   

   

Seligman first shows us how to differentiate pessimism from optimism.  The pessimist generalizes bad events throughout time and space; the optimist limits bad events to specific time and circumstance.  So the trick is to recognize this pattern, then rationally dispute the pessimistic stance.  (This method of disputation by marshalling evidence distinguishes positive psychology from Norman Vincent Peale's positive thinking, which is more a kind of boosterism or repetition of positive phrases.  The logical argument method advocated by positive psychology appeals to more scientific and sceptical minds).   

   

Here's an example that I found myself trying as I read.  We've had almost steady rain here in the Northeast for two solid months.  I've generalized this rain into our future by seeing it as a sign of global warming, and I've assumed defeat in the battle against global warming ever since Bush's rejection of the Kyoto treaty.  I thus see the rains as the start of a downward trajectory that will eventually threaten all life on the planet.  This is the most pessimistic view of the rains one could possibly have, and makes them much more depressing than they are.   

   

What are they?  Perhaps a symptom of global warming, perhaps not.  Whichever they are, they're limited to the specific times they come. They don't extend indefinitely into future or past, as I unconsciously assumed whenever I saw them.  As soon as I disputed this (aided by the fact that I'm an ignoramous in science, and thus don't carry around a working knowledge of global warming, much less that we're beyond the point of no return), I felt that I'd broken through a logjam.  I was flooded with ideas of how my husband and I can decrease the carbon "footprint" we leave on the planet.  I realized that although I complain plenty about non-Kyoto Bush and people in SUV's and pickups, I've never even investigated the ride-share network we have in our area;  I thought of some more energy-hogging appliances (our iron, electric grill, etc.) that we can get rid of, and I realized how much I leave computer, printer, and lights on when I'm not using them.  I felt energized and eager to learn more about taking our own environmental responsibility (instead of helplessly carping at Bush) for the first time in years.   

   

This new empowerment is exactly what Seligman describes as an outcome of "learned optimism."  It's just one example of how practical this book is, how it can make you feel more active, effective, and eager in the very act of reading.  This convinces me that the positive psychologists are onto something.   

   

One caveat I have is that the personal anecdotes Seligman uses about his family, professional recognition, and past work (on "learned helplessness"), weaken the book by making the author look a bit smug.  But I decided to take this as clumsy writing rather than character; then it doesn't taint the whole enterprise and you can simply read past it for the ideas and methods, which are substantive and inspiring.   

           

Comments

[stephen]

Re: the study of the cloistered nuns.

I really don't mean to be a naysayer. In fact, your study of this field has prompted me to order Seligman's book. But as a lifelong questioner of research I'm given to ask: Has the possibility been explored that the nuns in the lowest quarter may have had physical ailments that led not only to their early demises but also to their less cheerful outlooks?

[ml]

This is a good question, Stephen, and because the book is written for laypeople, the experiments weren't gone into in depth. However, end-notes are extensive and reference the original research articles, which is where you might get a sense if pre-existing physical ailments were controlled for.
I'll be interested to know what you think of the book. Please keep in touch.

[joared]

Hadn't realized Seligman did the work on "learned helplessness" as have seen a lot of that around.

His new book sounds quite interesting. The positive psychologists have much to contribute, I believe. I've always been a strong supporter of the glass half-full vision of life. I think another key approach to forming attitudes is considering issues of concern in terms of what I can control and what I can't. Then, focusing on those issues within my realm of possibly affecting change.

If internal debate is needed a la Seligman to arrive at a positive stance as opposed to Peale's positive self-talk, I'm inclined to think we still arrive at a point where the language tapes we play in our heads are critical to our positive outlook. Given the differences in people, I have little difficulty believing that each individual has to find the system that works for them; thus both can be effective since, it is in the end, the language that is critical.

That may be another way of describing what you are doing, ML, re the possible/probable global climate changes -- refocusing from the macro to the micro with regard to what you specifically can control within your own sphere, with your own actions.

In a related area, I recall reading some time ago that earth is changing position on its axis; that at some point the poles could eventually end up in reverse positions; that some scientists have postulated this movement is already in progress which could account to some degree for our weather changes.

I am always reluctant to attribute answers to complex issues to either/or choices as we seem so want to do. I'm inclined to believe that in far too many instances there are multiple combinations of answers. Some of the solutions may be within our control to address, others not. We do what we can with the clear acceptance and understanding we may not achieve the change(s) we want in our lifetime; may never even know ourselves if we've been on the right track scientifically.

If we refer to historical medical/scientific knowledge which was considered state-of-the-art in many periods, we learn how erroneous some of it was, just as some of the most forward thinkers were judged to be madmen or heretics. We have go with what we know today, but thoughtfully and judiciously, IMHP, without getting our knickers in a bind.

[Tabor]

I heard this author interviewd on NPR about a week ago and wanted to order his book but forgot. Your blog is not only a good reminder but now another good review.

[Terri]

Very good post to a thought-provoking subject. I'd read about the nun study and if I'm not mistaken, 60 Minutes covered a segment on that.
I'm an inherently happy person...and I have no doubt it came from my father. My mother was a total 180...a depressed, unhappy, miserable person. I've had major ups and downs in life, like anybody else, but I've always felt that tomorrow truly is another day. I also learned early that some things we can control, and other things we simply cannot. I believe when we hold on to things, thinking WE can change them that's when the negativity sets in.
And over my years of nursing, I always asked my very elderly patients (in fairly good health) "what's your secret?" And I always got the same response...Being happy and thinking positive. So they continued to support one of my theories on longevity.

[Annie in Austin]

One small thing to contribute to your discussion: In the middle years of the last century, the Catholic church had an abundance of applicants to both the convent and the priesthood. So they could be unbelievably picky about the health and physical condition of the novices and seminarians. [For example, one relative was declined just for having fallen arches.]Maybe the Church's preselection process acted as a control on the basic health of the women in this study?

Annie