ArticlePDF Available

Positive Psychology 2.0: Towards a Balanced Interactive Model of the Good Life

May 2011
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne 52(2):69-81

Authors:

Trent University

This paper first describes the growing pains and challenges of the positive psychology (PP) movement and identifies the four pillars of the good life as meaning, virtue, resilience, and well-being, which are all shaped by culture. I then introduce three issues that characterise the second wave of PP (referred to as PP 2.0). The first concerns the need for a comprehensive taxonomy of PP. The second involves the hypothesis that meaning-orientation and happiness-orientation represent two different visions of the good life with profound practical implications. Eudaimonia is viewed as meaning plus virtue. The third issue concerns a dual-systems model as a way to integrate the complex interactions between the negatives and positives to optimise positive outcomes in various situations. I conclude that PP 2.0 is characterised by a balanced, interactive, meaning-centered, and cross-cultural perspective. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Proposed New Taxonomy for a Balance PP Antecedent conditions Adaptive process Outcomes

…

Figures - uploaded by Paul T. P. Wong

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Paul T. P. Wong

Content may be subject to copyright.

Positive Psychology 2.0: Towards a Balanced Interactive

Model of the Good Life

Published in Wong, P. T. P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced

interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology, 52(2), 69-81.

This paper first describes the growing pains and challenges of the positive psychology

(PP) movement and identified the four pillars of the good life as meaning, virtue,

resilience, and well-being, which are all shaped by culture. I then introduce three

issues that characterise the second wave of PP (referred to as PP 2.0). The first

concerns the need for a comprehensive taxonomy of PP. The second involves the

hypothesis that meaning-orientation and happiness-orientation represent two different

visions of the good life with profound practical implications. Eudaimonia is viewed as

meaning plus virtue. The third issue concerns a dual-systems model as a way to

integrate the complex interactions between the negatives and positives to optimise

positive outcomes in various situations. I conclude that PP 2.0 is characterised by a

balanced, interactive, meaning-centered, and cross-cultural perspective.

Positive psychology (PP) has been all the rage since Martin Seligman’s APA

president address in 1998. In spite of its controversial nature (Carstensen & Charles,

2003; Held, 2002, 2004; Lazarus, 2003), PP has effectively changed the language and

landscape of mainstream psychology and it continues to grow exponentially in the

teaching, research, and applications of PP. The potential of applying PP to enhance

well-being is almost unlimited; it has already opened up new career opportunities for

psychologists in coaching, counselling, and consultation (Linley & Joseph, 2004;

Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006). The PP movement has been spreading

like a forest fire with no sign of abating: research articles, books, and academic

conferences on PP continue to multiply. The formation of the International

Association of Positive Psychology is one of the many recent developments attesting

to the global appeal of PP. The vitality and creativity of PP research can be found in

mainstream psychology journals as well as specialized journals such as the Journal of

Positive Psychology and the Journal of Happiness Studies. By all indications, the

prospects of PP are bright, but there is a need to take stock and assess its future

direction, now that the dust has settled after the initial explosive growth. The present

paper represents both a reassessment and a reformulation of PP from a Canadian

vantage point.

Seligman’s (1998a) primary reason for launching the PP movement is to address the

imbalance in mainstream psychology. He emphasizes what is good about people to

counteract psychology’s preoccupation with psychopathology. This premise is correct

with respect to applied psychology and the study of emotions, but it becomes

questionable if one considers the totality of mainstream psychology research. For

example, numerous positive PP topics were already well researched prior to

Seligman’s (1998a) APA presidential address. Hart and Sasso (2010, this issue) have

found evidence of substantial growth of several PP sub domains, especially resilience.

Given the above, would PP become superfluous when an analysis of publication rates

of all the growth-oriented research topics fail to show a negativity bias in mainstream

psychology? I think not. I propose that a stronger argument in support of the

legitimacy

of PP is that PP is much more than a corrective reaction to the perceived imbalance in

the literature. Properly understood, the overarching mission of PP is to answer the

fundamental questions of what makes life worth living and how to improve life for all

people—this is also the heart and soul of the mission of both APA and CPA.

The Growing Pains and Challenges of Positive Psychology

Like any new movement, PP has attracted both supporters and detractors. Some of the

criticisms are caused by overstatements, resulting in unnecessary controversies and

criticisms. For example, the controversy regarding humanistic psychology’s

contribution to PP remains unresolved (Bohart & Greening, 2001; Robbins &

Friedman, 2008). The literature has also shown several legitimate concerns about PP:

What To Do About the Negative?

One persistent critique of PP is that it has ignored the reality and benefits of negative

emotions and experiences. Recently, there has been a shift in the PP movement from

focusing only on the positive as separate from psychopathology (Seligman, Steen,

Park & Peterson, 2005) to PP focusing the negatives, the dominant message of PP

(e.g., Fredrickson, 2009; Lyubomirsky, 2008; Peterson, 2006a) still maintains that

negatives will go away if people simply focus on enhancing the positives. However,

too much emphasis on positive affects as the answer to all ills can be

counterproductive because negative emotions, such as a guilt, regret, frustration, and

anger, can all motivate us toward positive change. Future research needs to test the

hypothesis that the development of character strengths and resilience may benefit

from prior experience of having overcome negative conditions. A balanced model

of PP explicitly seeks to harness the positive potentials from negative emotions and

situations for both individuals and society.

The Problem With Black-and-White Thinking

Related to the frequent criticism of “tyranny of positivity” (e.g., Held, 2002) is the

artificial dichotomous thinking of positive versus negative psychology. Such

distinction served a strategic function to launch the PP movement. It is also a useful

short-hand to differentiate between two different motivational systems (approach vs.

avoidance) or two emotional systems (positive affect vs. negative affect). However, in

the final analysis, most psychological phenomena cannot be properly understood

without considering both positive and negative experiences. Emotional experiences

are often complex, involving a mixture of positive and negative elements.

Toward a Balanced Interactive PP 2.0

Ryff and Singer (2003) emphasize the need to appreciate the dialectics between

positive and negative aspects of living: “Human well-being is fundamentally about the

joining of these two realms”(p. 279). In order to fully understand the complexity of

life in its totality, it is more promising to study the paradoxical and interactive effects

of positives and negatives in the next stage of development of PP. This is essentially a

concept paper for PP 2.0 which complements Seligman’s (1998b) original concept

paper and represents part of the ongoing evolution of PP.

The Need for a More Precise Terminology

The progress of PP has been plagued by an imprecise language (Haybron, 2000)

because in the vernacular, happiness and the good life have many surplus meanings,

and psychologists also offer different definitions. Even the term “positive” is

ambiguous because it refers to many things, such as positive valance as well as

outcomes in positive and negative circumstances. The same ambiguity also surrounds

the descriptive “negative.” Guilt and regret are considered negative emotions, but they

may lead to the positive changes. Similarly, pain is necessary for gain in mastering a

sport.

Happiness or subjective well-being (SWB) is typically defined as “people’s cognitive

and affective evaluations of their lives” (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 2009a, p. 43).

However, a global SWB score is less meaningful without any references to contextual

variables and past histories. For instance, a high SWB score for people struggling in

the midst of unrelenting adversity and poverty would have a very different meaning

and may reflect a very kind of adaptive process than the same SWB score for

someone enjoying a pleasant life in peace and prosperity. The more negative the

situation, the greater the adaptive effort is needed in order to maintain a high level of

SWB. See the elaborate adaptive process involved when I (2008) tried to regain a

sense of joy in the midst of prolonged and intense pain.

The concept of hedonic adaptation

(Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999) describes the tendency to return to the set-point

after high and low points in life, but it does not recognize the very different processes

and consequences of upward and downward adaptations. Thus, the real value of a

global SWB score needs to be interpreted by factoring in the current negativity index

and the history of adaptation to adversity (Larsen & Prizmic, 2008). By the same

token, the same global SWB score tells a different story, depending on the different

sources and avenues of happiness. The following types of happiness all contribute to

SWB, but they may involve different personalities, circumstances, and pathways.

1. Hedonic happiness. It is typically defined as evaluating one’s life as satisfying and

containing a high rate of positive affect and low rate of negative affect (Kahneman,

Diener, & Schwartz, 1999; Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King, 2008). What

immediately comes to mind is the kind of life that emphasizes “eat, drink, and be

merry” or the hedonic treadmill. It represents the sensorial experiential pathway to

happiness as well as the general happiness set point inherent in different individuals.

Some people are happygo- lucky, while some are naturally moody or melancholy.

2. Prudential happiness. Feelings of satisfaction that come primarily from living a

fully engaged life. It often includes the “flow” and the intrinsic joy of doing

something one does best and enjoys doing. It refers to a person’s doing well in what

she is good at and what delights him without moral considerations (Haybron, 2000). It

represents the active pathway to happiness, because it fills one’s life with activities

and contents as an antidote to boredom and inner void, and it also provides

satisfaction for a job well done.

3. Eudaimonic happiness. Different researchers have defined eudaimonia differently

(e.g., Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King, 2008; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008; Ryff, 1989;

Seligman, 2002; Waterman, 2007). However, it serves as an umbrella term that

incorporates psychological well being, virtue/excellence, intrinsic

motivation/authenticity, flow/fully functioning, meaning/purpose, and concern for

others. Personally, I prefer to define eudaimonia as a lifestyle characterised by the

pursuit of virtue/excellence, meaning/purpose, doing good/making a difference, and

the resulting sense of fulfillment or flourishing. It refers to the kind of happiness

associated with living in a manner that “actively expresses excellency of character or

virtue” (Haybron, 2000, p. 3). This narrower definition differentiates eudaimonia from

hedonic and prudential happiness and recognizes the moral/ethical underpinnings of

eudaimonic well-being.

4. Chaironic happiness. Feeling blessed and fortunate because of a sense of awe,

gratitude, and oneness with nature or God. Chaironic (pronounced “chair”-“ronic”)

comes from the Greek root chairo (a´), which simply means blessing, joy, or gift

of happiness. However, chaironic happiness does depend on our preparedness and

receptivity. What really matters is our attitude toward life, our being mindful of the

moment and attuned to the transcendental reality. It is typically associated with peak

experiences, mindful meditation, and transcendental encounters. It represents the

existential spiritual pathway to happiness. It calls for empirical and theoretical work.

Granted that everyone may be seeking happiness, but people do differ in the kind of

happiness they pursue as the ultimate purpose in life. A global SWB measure is not

sensitive enough to differentiate these four types of happiness, because they all

contribute to

SWB, even though their sources and pathways may differ. More specialized well-

being measures are needed to complement the general SWB scale. For example,

eudaimonic happiness may be best measured by a eudaimonic happiness scale

(Waterman, 2008),

flourishing (Diener et al., 2009) or authenticity (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, &

Joseph, 2008). Chaironic happiness may be more related to the spiritual well-being

scale (Bufford, Paloutzian, & Ellison, 1991) than other types of happiness. Presently, I

am developing a eudaimonia preference scale focusing on meaning and virtue in life’s

tough-choice situations.

The Future of a Balanced PP Is Now

Snyder and Lopez (2007) commented that “Future psychologists must develop an

inclusive approach that examines both the weaknesses and the strengths of people. . .

We have not reached that point, however, because we have yet to develop and explore

fully

the science and practice of positive psychology” (p. 9). For all their support of a

balanced PP, they see it as an ideal for the future. But I propose that the future is now.

Since we can never explore fully the science and practice of PP without considering

the limitations

of positives and the benefits of negatives (e.g., Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Ryan

& Deci, 2001), why not adopt a new strategy of incorporating negative experiences in

all our research and practice of PP right now? Haybron (2007) has rightly emphasized

that “A crucial task for any theory of well-being is to give a credible accounting of the

value of pleasant and unpleasant experiences, especially suffering” (p. 12).

King (2001) points out that “the focus on the maximization of positive affect and the

minimization of negative affect has led to a view of the happy person as a well-

defended fortress, invulnerable to the vicissitudes of life. . . Perhaps focusing so much

on subjective

well-being, we have missed the somewhat more ambivalent truth of the good life”

(pp. 53–54). Larsen, Hemenover, Norris, and Cacioppo (2003) emphasize the health

benefits of coactivation of positive and negative emotions, which allow individuals to

gain understanding and mastery over stressful and traumatic experiences. Consistent

with Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001), Larsen (2009) has

documented the negativity bias. There is also considerable literature on posttraumatic

growth (Cassel

& Suedfeld, 2006; Joseph, 2009; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995). The clearest statement

in favour of a balanced approach of PP comes from Peterson’s (2006b) syllabus for

his course on Positive Psychology Interventions:

“Positive psychology calls for as much focus on strength as on weakness, as much

interest in building the best things in life as in repairing the worst, and as much

attention to fulfilling the lives of healthy people as to healing the wounds of the

distressed.”

Commenting on Sheldon, Kashdan, and Steger (in press); Steger (2010) wrote: “In

nearly every one of the essays, leaders in the field urge us not to myopically focus on

the ‘positive’ in psychology and to preserve the symbiotic relationship between the

good and the bad”. The challenge for PP 2.0 is to begin a research program NOW to

study the symbiotic relationship between the good and the bad. The enterprise of PP

2.0 needs to begin with a comprehensive new taxonomy that recognizes the

legitimacy of negatives in all subdomains of PP.

The Need for a New Taxonomy for a Balanced PP

Taxonomy, the most basic level of theory development, can be helpful in facilitating

the advance of PP. This new taxonomy of positive psychology, as shown in Table 1,

will achieve three things: First, it brings order to a wide array of seemingly

contradictory data. Second, it incorporates areas of research that have been ignored as

part of positive psychology. Third, it has the heuristic value of generating new areas

of research by looking at different combinations of the 2  2 matrix. The new

taxonomy must recognize the benefits and risks for both positives and negatives. To

achieve the good life and optimise well-being, one needs to know how to manage

risks and balance positives and negatives.

The main focus is on adaptive processes and positive outcomes in both positive and

negative conditions. This taxonomy has the heuristic value of stimulating PP research

regarding the optimal interactive adaptation to both positive and negative antecedent

conditions for individual and society.

Table 2 show a 2 x 2 contingency table involving Positive Traits – Positive Outcome

(Quadrant 1), Negative Traits – Positive Outcome (Quadrant 2), Positive Traits –

Negative Outcomes (Quadrant 3) and Negative Traits – Negative Outcomes (Quadrant

4). The same 2 x 2 contingency table can be applied to a variety of traits, conditions,

and processes, thus creating a systematic way of studying both the limits of positivity

and positive potentials of negativity.

PP generally focuses on the Quadrant 1 and ignores Quadrants 2 and 3, which also

hold potentials for PP. Quadrant 2 is an important but much neglected area. Every

virtue can become a vice when it is too much or too little. Similarly, the pursuit of

happinessboth on healing the worst AND building the best (Peterson, 2006a). While

acknowledging the need to address also has its downsides, such as greed and

indulgence in materialism and environmental exploitation (O’Brien, 2008). Quadrant

3 (Negative – Positive) holds enormous potential for enhancing the success and well-

being of multitudes who feel that they cannot compete because of all the deficits and

obstacles they face. The world is not fair in terms of life opportunities and health

conditions. Some were born with several strikes against them, and they have to endure

much more than their share of misfortunes and sufferings. Studying their adaptive

process and the positive potentials of various negative emotions and conditions can

benefit large numbers of disadvantaged and disabled people. According to PP 2.0, the

most effective strategy to maximize Positive – Positive and minimize Negative –

Negative is to discover the benefits of Positive – Negative and Negative – Positive.

Thus, the 4 Quadrants comprise a complete strategy of furthering the mission of PP.

Table 1

Proposed New Taxonomy for a Balance PP

Antecedent conditions

Adaptive process

Outcomes

Positive

good living conditions

good health

positive attitudes

good resources

self-determination

congruent coping, response flexibility

goal persistence

high well-being

actualization, virtue

benefits to society

group morale

Negative

bad living conditions

bad health

negative attitudes

lack of resources

acceptance

endurance

transcendence

transformation

wisdom, humility

growth, maturity

patience, faith

spiritual formation

Table 2

A Balanced Approach to Character Traits and Outcomes

Quadrant 1

Positive Trait: Self-confidence

Negative Trait: Self-doubt

Quadrant 2

Positive Outcomes

Success & happiness

Optimal functioning

Fame & power

Self-improvement

Humility

Trust in God & others

Negative Outcomes

Arrogance

Revenge

Alienating friends

Disillusion

Fear and anxiety

Escape from reality

Despair

Depression

Quadrant 3

Quadrant 4

Balancing Between Individualist and Collectivist

Orientations

The positive outcomes can be either for the individual or for the group/society. A

group-oriented positive psychology is more consistent with collectivistic cultures

(Leong & Wong, 2003). Social activism and political reform also belong to the realm

of positive psychology if they result in the enhancement of justice and the common

good (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). The positive motivations for the well-being

of othershave not attracted much attention of PP researchers. Altruism (Batson,

Ahmad, Lishner, & Tsang, 2002) and compassion (Gilbert, 2009) represent only a

small segment of PP’s broader concern for creating positive institutions.

People in strong collectivist cultures may be more concerned about securing a better

life for their family than for themselves. Over the years, I have met many professional

people from China or Korea who work at low-paying jobs in Canada so that their

children can have a better education and a better future. They endure marginalization

and downward social mobility for their children’s happiness. Thus, there are cultural

differences in the balancing act between me and we. For PP 2.0, we need to

emphasize positive motivations, processes, activities, and outcomes for both

individuals and groups. Examples of positive outcomes for individuals include life

satisfaction, achievement, and self-esteem, while positive outcomes for groups would

encompass harmonious relationships, group morale, and collaborative success.

Toward a Balanced Definition of PP

In view of the rapid expansion of PP, it becomes increasingly difficult to have a

comprehensive definition that encompasses different aspects of PP. Seligman, Steen,

Park, and Peterson (2005) remain committed to the three-pillar definition of PP as “an

umbrella term for the study of positive emotions, positive character traits, and

enabling institutions” (p. 410). It is worth noting that Seligman et al. recognize that “a

complete science and a complete practice of psychology should include an

understanding of suffering and happiness, as well as their interaction”, but they

consider relief of suffering and enhancement of happiness as “two separate

endeavours” (p. 410). According to PP 2.0, these are inherently interdependent

endeavours. The focus on what is good about people in times of peace and prosperity

is only half of the story. The whole story of PP is about how to bring out the best in

people in good and bad times in spite of their internal and external limitations. Thus,

PP may be defined as the scientific study of virtue, meaning, resilience, and well-

being, as well as evidencebased applications to improve the life of individuals and

society in the totality of life.

The Four Pillars of Positive Psychology

Virtue, meaning, resilience, and well-being are the four of pillars of PP 2.0 because

extensive research has shown that they are the major ingredients of PP, as evidenced

in textbooks and journal publications in PP. Empirically, these four pillars incorporate

many areas of mainstream research which recognizes the moral imperative, the

centrality of meaning, the intrinsic human capacity for resilience, and the universal

human yearning for happiness and a better future. Logically, it is difficult for people

to survive and flourish lacking any of these four ingredients. It is always difficult and

risky to identify areas as essential for positive psychology. My choice of these four

additional pillars is based on both empirical research, as reviewed here, and the

broadest possible psychological understanding of what is essential to make life better

for individuals and society in good times and bad. Seligman’s three pillars represent

the characteristics and outcomes of having achieved a high level of meaning, virtue,

resilience, and well-being. Recently, Seligman has added relationships as an

additional pillar, which is also included as a major source of meaning (Wong, 1998).

The Imperative of Virtue

Virtue is concerned with what kind of person we want to be and the kind of values

and character strengths we want to possess. Unlike competence-based strengths, virtue

cannot be a value neutral term just like “good” is not a value neutral descriptor. Good

invariably begs the question of good for what. A consensus is emerging among

positive psychologists that what is good needs to be both for the individual and the

common good. Virtue, not science, provides a moral map for how we ought to live our

lives and how we ought to develop just and compassionate societies. It takes people

with virtue and integrity to create positive institutions and democratic society. Virtue

is its own reward. It feels good from doing good, even when it hurts. Living a virtuous

life may not always be good for the individual— because the pursuit of what is good

and just may result in persecution and oppression— but it will be good for the

common good (Haybron, 2000).

Fowers (2008) points out that virtues and ethics are important not only for

psychologists but also for the good life in general: “Virtues are the character strengths

that are necessary to pursue what is good. . . That means that what counts as a virtue is

determined largely by what we believe to be the best, highest, most admirable, most

noble aims for humans” (p. 631).

He further adds that “the identification and description of our ends are central to

defining the character strengths we deem admirable and worth cultivating. Because

positive psychologists aim to promote human flourishing and character strength, one

could reasonably expect them to articulate a rich and resonant understanding of what

is good for humans” (p. 631). I agree with Fowers that the concept of good cannot be

entirely based on “the inherent worth of virtue and on the subjective markers of that

worth” (p. 633), because such a view heavily reflects the individualistic bias of

contemporary Western societies without considering the value-systems of more

collectivist societies. Research on virtues needs to recognize cultural differences as we

move toward an international positive psychology.

Another concern is that purely subjective views of what is good will give license to

people to do evil in the name of doing what they are best at, be it gambling, killing, or

exploiting people. According to a value-neutral view of character strengths, even

serial killers and terrorists can be considered living the good life (Seligman, 2002).

Fowers suggests that we need to consider collectivist virtues, “such as citizenship,

responsibility, nurturance, altruism, civility, and tolerance” (p. 634). He also raises the

issue of how to balance the individual and group-level virtues and how to “curb the

possibility of becoming too masterful or hedonically oriented” (p. 634). These issues

implicate the importance of moral/ethical consideration and cultural norms with

respect to what is good.

PP takes an ambiguous stance with respect to moral values because of its emphasis on

science. On the one hand, Seligman emphasizes that the main purpose of PP is to

understand and enhance human strengths and civil virtues (Seligman, 2002), and one

of the 10 criteria for selected each character strengths in Peterson and Seligman

(2004) that the strength needs to be “morally valued in its own right” and a person’s

display of the strength does not diminish or hurt other people. On the other hand, the

above quote seems to suggest that the display of strength can contribute to the good

life, even if it is destructive to others. This inconsistency has been pointed out by a

number of philosophers and psychologists (Martin, 2007; Robbins, 2008;

Sundararajan, 2005; Taylor, 2001; Woolfolk & Wasserman, 2005).

Such inconsistency may be due to Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) emphasis on

competence-and-success values at the expense of moral and ethical values. Their

stance on moral neutrality actually waters down their emphasis on the need for civil

virtue in creating positive institutions and societies. Kraut (2009) maintains that the

ethics of well-being must consider what is good and dismisses that it requires each

individual to construct his or her own definition of the good. It is questionable

whether anyone’s life can be considered “good” or if anyone can be considered of

having a “good character” if either are morally corrupt and ethically harmful to

society. McCullough and Snyder (2000) define virtue as “any psychological process

that consistently enables a person to think and act so as to yield benefits to him or

herself and society” (p. 1). What is good depends on the purposes it

serves. Good must mean good for something, Applying Aristotle’s virtue ethics Kraut

(2009) argues that human good needs to entail whatever fosters human flourishing.

The good life demands the presence of virtue. At the heart of how should we live is

the question of good—how we ought to live a worthy and excellent life that embodies

the best existential values that characterise us as human beings.

Virtue research incorporates several lines of mainstream research, such as moral

development (Gilligan, 1977; Kohlberg, 1981; Walker, 1989), prosocial behaviour

(Clark, 1991), and compassion (Gilbert, 2005, 2009). Moral psychology, at the

intersection of psychology and philosophy, promises to be an area of substantial

growth in PP, especially when eudaimonic well-being gains currency. Like well-

being, virtue also has a cultural dimension (Leong & Wong, 2003; Rigsby, 1994).

The Centrality of Meaning

Jerome Bruner (1992) has long sought to establish meaning as the central concept of

psychology. Peterson’s (1999) analysis has shown that a fuller understanding of

meaning-making requires us to connect the world of myths and beliefs with the world

of science and neuropsychology. Hoffman (2009) concludes that “the attainment of

meaning is one of the most central aspects of human existence and necessary to

address in existential therapy” (p. 49). A meaning-centered PP 2.0 goes beyond the

confines of science to explore narratives, myths, and culture as advocated by the

above three authors.

Prominent positive psychologists typically consider meaning as one of the

components of happiness or the good life (Park, Peterson, & Ruch, 2009; Peterson &

Seligman, 2004; Seligman, 2002). However, the construct of meaning is much

broader and richer. It is much more than being an antecedent or outcome measure of

happiness. Based on implicit theories, research of lay people’s beliefs of what

constitutes the ideal good life or the ideal meaning full life, when money is no longer

an issue, Wong (1998) has identified eight sources of meaning: happiness,

achievement, intimacy, relationship, self-transcendence, self-acceptance, and fairness.

This finding has been replicated in several other cultures (Kim, Lee & Wong, 2005;

Lin & Wong, 2006; Takano & Wong, 2004). The Personal Meaning Profile (PMP) as

reported in Wong (1998) and McDonald, Wong, and Gingras (in press), excludes the

happiness component in order to minimize the problem of confound when PMP is

used to predict well-being. The seven major sources of meaning are very similar to the

major sources of happiness (Myers, 1993).

Apart from sources of meaning, we also need to consider the structure and functions

of meaning defined as PURE (Wong, 2010a) which stands for Purpose,

Understanding, Responsible action and Enjoyment. Functionally, these four

components cover for many psychological processes for the good life: motivational

(purpose), cognitive (understanding), moral/spiritual (responsibility), and

evaluative/affective (enjoyment). They function together as part of the self-regulation

process (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Carver & Scheier, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Purpose-driven life. Purpose has to do with the overall direction, life goals, and core

values. It provides the framework of daily deliberations and navigating troubled

waters. According to Kashdan and McKnight (2009), purpose can be characterized as

a central, self-organizing life aim. At one level, purpose refers to the incentive

objectives, goals, and plans (Emmons, Colby, & Kaiser, 1998; Gollwitzer, 1999;

Klinger, 1998). At a deeper level, purpose is concerned with the existential values:

what really matters in life and what would make for the ideal good life (Wong, 2010b;

Wong & Gingras, 2010). At a higher level, purpose refers to devoting something

larger and higher than oneself; Park, Peterson, and Ruch (2009) considers this broader

or higher concern as the

hallmark of a meaningful life.

Understanding and a sense of coherence. Without a sense of coherence, life is

incomprehensible, unpredictable, and unsettling. Without a sense of order and

understanding of how the world works, we would have difficulty achieving hardiness

(Maddi, 1998). Without a clear sense of self-identity, we would not know what to do

with our lives. Pursuit of self-understanding and selfknowledge is important for self-

control (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). At a situational level, it requires

attribution and appraisal in order to know how to cope (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;

Peacock & Wong, 1990; Seligman, 1990; Wong & Weiner, 1981). Understanding also

includes emotional intelligence (Salovey, Mayer, & Caruso, 2002). At a deeper level,

enlightenment about life and death and one’s place in the large scheme of things is

needed to discover the meaning of life (Wong, 2010b). Understanding entails the need

for self-reflection and self-acceptance, which are components of meaningful living

(Wong, 1998, 2007).

There is also a social/cultural dimension to understanding. According to constructivist

psychology (Raskin & Bridges, 2004), meaning making is involved in understanding

self and the world, in navigating everyday life. Meanings are subjectively constructed

based on one’s personal history and idiographic way of experiencing the world, but

the ways we understand our world and ourselves are also shaped by culture, language,

and ongoing relationships. Thus, curiosity, meaning seeking, myth-making, and

storytelling all contribute to our understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.

Responsible action. It is concerned with doing what is right and what is good. With

freedom comes responsibility. Since selfdetermination is one of the keys to happiness

and the good life, the ability to make good decisions is paramount. Good decisions not

only lead to successful or satisfying results for the individual, but also meet ethical

requirements and contribute to the well-being of others (e.g., Snyder & Feldman,

2000).

Aristotle (trans. 2004) emphasizes the importance of practical wisdom as well as

rationality. In Sternberg’s (2001) words, practical wisdom is “not simply about

maximizing one’s own or someone else’s self-interest, but about balancing various

selfinterests (intrapersonal) with the interests of others (interpersonal) and of other

aspects of the context in which one lives (extrapersonal), such as one’s city or country

or environment or even God” (p. 231). To decide on the right course of action

demands that we have the right purpose in life, the correct understanding of the

situation, and careful consideration of its consequences on other people. One is

responsible not only to one’s own conscience and conviction, but also to others and a

higher authority.

Enjoyment and evaluation. Feeling good is the inevitable outcome from doing good

in light of one’s highest purpose and best understanding. One can feel satisfied with

the decision and action even when one fails to accomplish the desired result. Thus,

meaning is related to both SWB and eudaimonia. When the situation worsens and

when dissatisfaction sets in, self-regulation demands that one reevaluate one’s

purpose and understand actions in order to made midcourse corrections. The

evaluative component is necessary to ensure that one does not remain stuck in a rut.

Here discontent serves a positive function when it compels the unhappy person to

make positive changes.

The central, integrating function of meaning. Meaning serves a vital function to

integrate various aspects of human needs and functions. The centrality of meaning can

also be appreciated from the stand point of meeting the basic human needs

(Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) for purpose, efficacy and control, value and justification,

and self-worth. Furthermore, there is extensive literature on the relationships between

meaning and various indices of well-being in personality and social psychology (e.g.,

Baumeister, 1991; Brickman, 1987; Chamberlain & Zika, 1988; Deci & Ryan, 1991;

Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Klinger, 1977; Little,1989; McAdams, 1993; Reker &

Chamberlain, 2000; Reker, Peacock, & Wong, 1987;Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995;

Sheldon & Kasser, 1995; Wong & Fry, 1998; Wong, in press).

The Necessity of Resilience

It is inevitable that we will experience setbacks, obstacles, failures, losses, sickness,

and death. It makes a great difference how we respond to adversities. Typically,

resilience is conceptualised in terms of protective factors within the individual and

available in the culture or environment. Such factors not only prevent people from

getting sick but enable them to bounce back from illness or trauma. The broadest way

to view resilience is terms of adaptation—the process of adjusting and overcoming

setbacks, resulting not only in bouncing back but also in becoming stronger.

Resilience simply means the capacity to endure, bounce back, and grow in the midst

of adversities and existential anxieties; we can study resilience both in terms of the

underlying processes and its beneficial effects on the human being.

According to Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie, and Chaudieu (2010), “Resilience can be

viewed as a defence mechanism, which enables people to thrive in the face of

adversity.” However, I conceptualise resilience is involved in both recovering and

flourishing as defined by Keyes and Lopez (2002). Resilience depends on having

sufficient inner and external resources to cope with whatever life throws as us.

Resilience also depends on learning effective coping strategies and skills to manage

different kinds of troubles and threats. This learning process requires cultural

knowledge (Rigsby, 1994; Wong & Wong, 2006) and the ability to differentiate

between adaptive and maladaptive coping processes. Recently, Ungar and his

associates (Ungar & Lerner, 2008 and Ungar & Liebenberg, 2009) have broadened

resilience to include ecological and cultural factors. They define resilience as the

development and application of science-based knowledge pertaining to positive

development, positive adjustment and thriving across the life span. In sum, resilience

is a complex and multifaceted adaptation process with cognitive, behavioural, social,

and cultural components.

The will to live is the key to resilience. Frankl (1985) defined the will to live as the

will to meaning. According to the meaningcentered approach (Wong & Wong, in

press), the will to live consists of having meaning and purpose and the capacity to

transform negatives to positives.

The Psychology of Well-Being

The good life necessarily entails well-being. The psychology of well-being serves as

an umbrella term for happiness, health, flourishing, and optimal functioning at both

the individual and national levels in both positive and negative conditions. Well-being

denotes the desirable condition of our existence and the end state of our pursuit. All

human efforts and ingenuities are directed to improving their well-being and bettering

their future. Everyone who is seeking and striving for something is after some kind of

wellbeing— something that makes them feel good and something that is evaluated as

good and satisfying. Culture shapes our understanding of happiness and our

expression of emotions (Ahuvia, 2001; Carter, 1991; Chang, 1996; Christopher, 2005;

Leong & Wong, 2003; Pederson, 1999; Sue & Constantine, 2003; Wong, Wong, &

Scott, 2006). Given that there are cultural differences, subjective well-being still

provides a useful index on how we are doing and how well we live at the individual

and national level. Diener and Tov (2009) have reported that overall life satisfaction

and positive affects have different predictors in different countries.

Well-being reflects not only healthy functioning and happiness (Ryan & Huta, 2009),

but also serves an evaluative function in the self-determination process (Ryan, Huta,

& Deci, 2008). Wellbeing is concerned with both objective assessments of wellness

and the subjective judgment of how satisfied one is with their life in terms of physical,

mental, social, economic, and emotional well-being. A high level of well-being, both

subjective and objective, flows from living by our best light (virtue), pursing our most

cherished dreams (meaning), and overcoming life’s difficulties (resilience). A sense of

well-being also comes from developing the attitudes and skills to appreciate life,

savour the moments, and enhance happiness. Positive affects, in turn, will increase our

capacity for virtue, meaning, and resilience (Frederickson, 2002; Lyubomirsky, King,

& Diener, 2005). There is a need to develop a more complete taxonomy and index of

national and individual well-being. The current Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW,

2009) includes six components: living standards,

healthy populations, community vitality, democratic engagement, time use, and

leisure and culture. The CIW places too much emphasis on physical, social, and

economic well-being and very little on psychological well-being such as meaning in

life, subjective well-being, relationships, and spiritual well-being. Ryff and associates

have identified several dimensions of psychological well-being (Keyes & Ryff, 2000;

Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 1998). Ryff (1989) proposed three

major dimensions: psychological, social, and emotional. Each of these dimensions

includes separate elements. For example, psychological wellbeing includes self-

acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy, and

positive relationships with others. This sounds very much like what constitutes a

meaningful life according to the PMP (Wong, 1998). In other words, psychological

well-being according to Ryff is much broader than subjective well-being.

Well-being enriches and energizes life; it also endows life with a sense of joy and

meaning. All the struggles and sufferings seem worth it when we are able to drink

from the fountains of happiness. It is tempting to view the meaning of life purely in

terms of

positive affects. However, psychology of well-being needs to study both the perils of

happiness (Wong, 2007) and the benefits of suffering (Frankl, 1985; Wong, 2009).

A complete theory of well-being needs to take into account negative emotions and

suffering (Haybron, 2003). One cannot define well-being in terms of the absence of

negative affect and conditions as I have discussed earlier. Approach-oriented

motivations need to work in conjunction with avoidance-oriented motivations to

produce the optimal level of adaptation and well-being. Watson (2002; Watson &

Clark, 1994) have demonstrated the coexistence and the interdependence of positive

and negative affect. Diener and Emmons (1984); Keyes and Ryff (2000), and

Bradburn (1969) have all demonstrated the independence of negative and positive

emotions. Therefore, the challenge for people is not to avoid or minimize negative

emotions or to achieve the ideal positive-to-negative ratio as proposed by Fredrickson

and Losada (2005). Instead, the challenge for psychologists is to help people achieve

the optimal level of well-being in spite of the difficulties and pains they are going

through. The psychology of well-being needs to focus more on the positive potential

of transcending and transforming negative emotions. Salovey, Mayer, and Caruso

(2002) proposed that the best way to manage emotions is to balance approach-oriented

and avoidance-oriented emotions. According to PP 2.0, well-being is not the algebra

of positive minus negative but positive plus negative. In other words, the capacity to

transcend and transform negative provides an additional source of well-being to

positively based well-being. Some recent studies (e.g., Huta & Hawley, 2010)

combined strengths and vulnerabilities and examined their relations to well-being.

The present balanced model goes one step further. It will predict one’s coping efficacy

with vulnerability, and negative emotions will be positively related to both strengths

and well-being.

Two Mindsets: Meaning Orientation Versus Happiness

Orientation

One emerging trend in PP is the recognition of meaning and eudaimonia. The debates

of meaning versus happiness and eudaimonic happiness versus hedonic happiness are

closely related. Eudaimonia can be understood from a meaning perspective because of

its emphasis on purpose, understanding, responsibility, and enjoying the fruit of the

good life. Eudaimonia can also be viewed as rooted in both inner goodness and the

common good, as previously discussed. In other words, eudaimonia can be defined as

meaning plus virtue. A meaning-orientation with a focus on virtues becomes a

eudaimonic orientation. The distinction between eudaimonia (meaning) and hedonic

happiness is an important one for parenting, education, and positive psychology. For

example, Haybron (personal communication) suggested that eudaimonia might

provide the key to resolving the parenting paradox in SWB research which shows that

parents with young children tend to be the least happy of them all. Gilbert (Munsey,

2010) suggests that parents need to believe that their hard work and sacrifice are

worth it in order to raise good children. In order words, being responsible and

sacrificial parents may result in eudaimonic rather than hedonic well-being.

Takamori, Akehashi, and Ito (2006) observe that: “Modern society is plagued with ills

such as violence in its many forms, including tyranny, terrorism, murder, and suicide.

Real answers to these problems continue to elude us. Our advances may have made us

richer, but they have not done anything to ensure our happiness or provide us with a

sense of abiding meaningfulness. In fact, modern life often seems only to bring more

acute feelings of isolation, loneliness, and emptiness” (p. ix”). How can we be freed

from all these human miseries in spite of material prosperity?

They point on that this question was addressed more than 25 hundred years ago by

Siddhartha Guatama (Sakyamuni), the founder of Buddhism. Born a prince, raised in

privilege and luxury, and blessed with everything that people ever dreamed of for

happiness, yet his heart was not happy. He was troubled by existential givens of old

age, sickness and death; and he was burdened by the suffering of fellow human

beings. As a result, he devoted nine decades of his life to search and spread the

wisdom of how to achieve inner peace and happiness by being freed from ignorance

and greed—the root of all suffering—so that people can experience the joy of being

alive. Obviously, he was not interested in hedonic or prudential happiness; his pursuit

can be best described as eudaimonic and chaironic. Researchers have found happiness

ranks as one of life’s most cherished goals (Diener, 2000; Lyubomirsky, 2001). But

Sakyamuni, Confucius, and many modern saints have pursued a very different kind of

happiness, one that is closely linked to finding meaning and virtue or eduaimonia.

These people are willing to sacrifice their personal comforts and even their own lives

for a higher purpose enhancing the well-being of humanity.

PP 2.0 is interested in studying these two contrasting visions of happiness—one

focuses on the pursuit of personal happiness and success, the other on the pursuit of

meaning and virtue. Needless to say, most people would say that what matters most to

them is personal happiness and success, but a tiny small segment would say that what

matters most is make this world a better place. The latter group would include people

like Gandhi, Nelson Mendela, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa, and the many

social/political reformers and humanitarian relief workers who sacrifice their own

comforts and risk their own lives for the well-being of others. Why are psychologists

more interested in what makes life happiest rather than what makes life most

meaningful and virtuous? Haybron (2000) points out that “the question of what way

of life will make one happiest may be second only to that of what manner of living

would be most admirable or virtuous as a matter of practical consideration when

confronted with Socrates’ question” (p. 7).

Huta and Ryan (2010) report eudaimonic motivation tends to be more strongly related

to a sense of meaning and purpose in life, whereas hedonic motivation tends to be

more closely linked to positive emotions and a sense of being carefree. I maintain that

two different types of happiness represent two fundamentally different mindsets in

terms of basic life orientation, ultimate concerns, lifestyles, and well-being. I propose

that it matters a great deal whether one is primarily motivated to pursue happiness or a

meaningful virtuous life as the ultimate purpose.

In this paper, I equate meaning orientation with eudaimonia and happiness with both

hedonic and prudential types of happiness. This difference in mindset will influence

the tough choices one makes. A happiness-oriented person is more likely to give up in

the face of adversity, whereas a meaning-oriented person is more likely to persevere

in spite of personal suffering. The differences between the two different mindsets are

shown in Table 3. These two mindsets will also leads to different predictions in

various conditions, as suggested in Table 4.

The two different mindsets also lead to different predictions with respect to how we

relate to environmental issues. According to Boehm and Lyubomirsky (2009),

sustainable happiness refers to intentional efforts that enhance level of personal

happiness beyond the set point; pursuit of hedonic happiness may result to unbridled

consumerism. In contrast, O’Brien (2008) defines sustainable happiness as “the

pursuit of happiness that does not exploit other people, the environment, or future

generations” (p. 289). Her concept of happiness is more like eudaimonia because she

emphasizes personal and social responsibilities to contribute to global well-being.

Another benefit of a Meaning Orientation (MO) is that it is especially important to the

suffering masses. For people living in abject poverty or in Nazi death camps, they

would not have many opportunities for enjoying a pleasant life. Similarly, individuals

struck with severe and chronic illnesses and disabilities would not be fully engaged in

life. Fortunately, even when people are forced to live an impoverished and restricted

life, they can still manage to live a meaningful life (Frankl, 1985; Wong, 2009).

Interestingly, Seligman (2002) also emphasizes that “people who are impoverished,

depressed, or suicidal care about much more than just the relief of their suffering.

These people care—sometimes desperately—about virtue, about purpose, about

integrity and about meaning” (p. xi). Therefore, a meaning-orientation is more

adaptive than a happiness-orientation in terms of overcoming adversity and enjoying a

high level of well-being in the midst of suffering.

Table 3

Differences Between Meaning and Happiness Orientations in Terms of Life Purpose

and Core Values

Meaning Orientation

Happiness Orientation

1. Actualizing meaning & purpose

1. Optimizing positive experiences

2. Primarily interested in eudaimonic &

chaironic well-being

2. Primarily interested in hedonic and

prudential well-being

3. Pursuing worthy ideals, even at personal costs

3. Pursuing worldly success and avoiding

pain and sacrifice

4. Concerned with how to live a life good in all

respect

4. Concerned with what will make me

happiest

5. Concerned with satisfaction with one’s life as

a whole

5. Concerned with feeling happy moment by

moment

6. More interested in nurturing the inner life—

inner peace & joy

6. More interested in external sources of

happiness

Table 4

Differences Between Meaning and Happiness Orientations in Terms of Personal

Characteristics and Life Choices

Meaning Orientation

Happiness Orientation

Responsibility above feeling

Feeling above responsibility

High in compassion and altruism

Low in compassion and altruism

High in delayed gratification

High in immediate gratification

Endurance & perseverance

Giving up in the face of hardships

Willing to sacrifice self interests for family

& friends

Putting self-interests above family and friends

Will speak up against corruption at the risk

of losing one’s job

Will keep quiet against one’s own values in order

to keep one’s job

Places moral and ethical principles above

expediency

Will place expediency and practical gain above

moral and ethical principles

High in self-control, transcendence,

courage, spirituality

High in self-confidence, self efficacy, achievement

motivation, competence

A Dual-System Model of the Good Life

The proposed dual-system model represents our attempt to conceptualise how the

positives and negatives interact with each other to achieve the good life. This model

incorporates all the elements I have discussed earlier. Although the present model

focuses on the dual-system of approach and avoidance motivations, it is actually a

complex multisystem model of self regulation. For example, the mindful awareness

state is important when the person is not actively engaged in approach and avoidance

activity By adding clarity and vividness to experience, savouring contributes directly

to well-being, happiness and self-regulation (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown, Ryan, &

Creswell, 2007).

It is not possible to understand the good life apart from various contextual factors.

Culture influences all components in the model. Personality traits are also relevant in

terms of their temperament and strengths and weaknesses. A complete understanding

of the good life needs to take into account a multidimensional or complex system

approach. Recently, Sheldon (2009) has also proposed a multilevel model of human

flourishing, involving biological and cognitive levels of the persons within supportive

social contexts and cultures. Similarly, DelleFave (2009) emphasizes that optimal

experiences vary according to culture contexts and meaningmaking.

According to the traditional approach-avoidance model, avoidance motive detracts

from the approach motive, resulting in a reduced approach tendency. However,

according to the dualsystems model, the right amount of avoidance can strengthen

approach. For example, when a person is motivated by both fear of failure and the

need for success, he will be work harder than when he is only motivated by

achievement need. Similarly, when a person is motivated by both the fear of getting ill

and the desire to enjoy good health, she is more likely to stay healthy than when she

pays attention only to health promotion without any thoughts about disease

prevention.

According to this dialectical, interactive, and dynamic dualsystem view, PP will pay

more attention to contextual variables and adaptive processes in both positive and

negative conditions. To fully experience life, to feel keenly alive is to embrace life in

totality. The dual-systems model depicts the complex interactions in living a full life.

For more details of this model, please read Wong (2010a, in press).

Conclusions

One out of five Canadians will experience some form of mental illness or disorder in

their lifetime (Canadian Mental Health Association, 2010). The challenge is twofold:

First, finding effective ways of treating people with mental illness; second, how to

create conditions that will prevent mental illnesses. The old approach of focusing on

psychopathology will not achieve the prevention goal. The American Positive

Psychology movement will not be adequate by itself in achieving the treatment goal.

The present balanced

model of PP 2.0 has the potential to attain both goals; it emphasizes the need to

enhance the positives and manage the negatives in order to increase well-being and

decrease mental illnesses.

Servan-Schreiber (2009) says “You can’t be healthy on a sick planet” (p. 81)—a

planet contaminated by toxins, chemicals, and pollutants. He emphasizes the need to

create a healthy environment and healthy lifestyle in order to prevent cancer and

promote well-being. Similarly, you cannot live a healthy and fulfilling life in a sick

world contaminated by crime, corruption, injustice, oppression, and poverty. Such

evils can destroy individuals and societies like cancer cells. Positive psychology 2.0

emphasizes the need to develop good and decent people as well as a civil society by

promoting meaning/virtue and overcoming and transforming the negatives.

PP is in flux. Given the dynamic changes in the field, PP today is already very

different from what was originally proposed by Seligman. I emphasize that PP needs

to synthesize the positive and negative, take a clear stance on the imperative of

virtues, integrate across levels of analysis, and build constituency with all branches of

mainstream psychology around the globe. I also shift the focus away from individual

happiness and success to a meaning-centered approach to making life better for all

people. According to Csikszentmihalyi (2009), “The next big challenge for this new

field is to help improving the social and cultural conditions in which people live.”

If PP is broad enough to encompass most areas of psychology, it may lose its identity

and reason for existence. On the other hand, if we place an arbitrary restriction as to

belong to PP, we may be perceived as being divisive. To resolve this dilemma, I

propose that PP 2.0 represents a mindset, a movement and a big tent for all positive-

oriented psychologists, rather than a distinct subdiscipline. PP will continue to evolve

and grow, and it will emerge as a vibrant and ever-expanding area of interest without

clear borders. PP can serve the same function as the counterpart to Abnormal

Psychology by integrating the various lines of research related to meaning, virtue,

resilience, and well-being in the service of making life better for individuals and

society. PP provides a hopeful framework for developing good and fully functioning

human beings and psychologically healthy institutions in spite of the negativity and

finitude inherent in human existence.

References

Ahuvia, A. (2001). Well-being in cultures of choice: A Cross-cultural

perspective. American Psychologist, 56, 77–78.

Aristotle. (trans. 2004). Nichomachean ethics. (F. H. Peters, Trans.) New York:

Barnes and Noble.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2003). A psychology of human strengths:

Some central issues of an emerging field. In L. G. Aspinwall, & U. M. Staudinger

(Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future

directions for a positive psychology (pp. 9–22). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). Empathy and altruism.

In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 485–

498). New York: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is

stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and

why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of selfregulation:

Research, theory, and application. New York: Guilford Press.

Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). The promise of sustainable happiness. In C.

R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 667–

678). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bohart, A. C., & Greening, T. (2001). Humanistic psychology and positive

psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 81–82.

Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.

Brickman, P. (1987). Commitment, conflict, and caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and

its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

84, 822–848.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical

foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237.

Bruner, J. (1992). Acts of meaning: Four lectures on mind and culture (Paperback).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bufford, R. K., Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1991). Norms of the spiritual

well-being scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 56–70.

Canadian Index of Wellbeing. (2009). Measuring what matters. Retrieved from

http://www.ciw.ca/en/TheCanadianIndexOfWellbeing.aspx

Canadian Mental Health Association. (2010). Fast facts: Mental health/mental illness.

Retrieved online from http://www.cmha.ca/bins/content_page.asp?cid6–20-23–43

Carstensen, L. L., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Human aging: Why is even good news

taken as bad? In L. G. Aspinwall, & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human

strengths (pp. 75–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Carter, R. T. (1991). Cultural values: A review of empirical research and implications

for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 164–173.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Cassel, L., & Suedfeld, P. (2006). Salutogenesis and autobiographical disclosure

among Holocaust survivors. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 215–225.

Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Religiosity, meaning in life, and well-being:

Some relationships in a sample of women. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,

27, 411–420.

Chang, E. C. (1996). Evidence for the cultural specificity of pessimism in Asians vs.

Caucasians: A test of the negativity hypothesis. Personality and Individual

Differences, 21, 819–822.

Christopher, J. C. (2005). Situating positive psychology. Naming and nurturing: The

e-newsletter of the Positive Psychology section of the American Psychological

Association’s Counseling Psychology Division 17, 2, 3–4.

Clark, M. S. (Ed.). (1991). Prosocial behavior. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). The promise of positive psychology. Psychological

Topics, 18, 203–211.

Davydov, D. M., Stewart, R., Ritchie, K., & Chadieu, I. (2010). Resilience and mental

health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 479–495.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in

personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Perspectives

on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

DelleFave, A. (2009). Optimal experience and meaning: Which

relationship? Psychological Topics, 18, 285–302.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for

a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (2009a). Factors predicting the subjective well-

being of nations. Social Indicators Research Series, 25, 35–60.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative

affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117.

Diener, E., & Tov, W. (2009). Well-being on planet Earth. Psychological Topics, 18,

213–219.

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S. (2009b). New

measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. In E. Diener

(Ed.), The collected works of Ed. Diener (Vol. 3, pp. 246–266). Dordrecht, NL:

Springer.

Emmons, R. A., Colby, P. M., & Kaiser, H. A. (1998). When losses lead to gain:

Personal goals and the recovery of meaning. In P. T. P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The

human quest for meaning (pp. 163–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erblaum.

Fowers, B. J. (2008). From continence to virtue: Recovering goodness, character

unity, and character types for positive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18, 629–

653.

Frankl, V. (1985). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New

York: Pocket Books.

Frederick, S.,&Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E.

Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2002). Positive emotions. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez

(Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 120–134). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to

embrace the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive.

New York: Crown.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics

of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.

Gilbert, P. (2009). The compassionate mind: A new approach to facing the challenges

of life. London: Constable Robinson.

Gilbert, P. (Ed.). (2005). Compassion: Conceptualizations, research and use in

psychotherapy. London: Brunner-Routledge.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of the self and

morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481–517.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Impementation intentions: Strong effects of simple

plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

Hart, K., & Sasso, T. (In press, this issue). Mapping and teaching positive psychology:

Canadian and American Perspectives. Canadian Psychology.

Haybron, D. M. (2000). Two philosophical problems in the study of happiness. The

Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 207–225.

Haybron, D. M. (2003). What do we want from a theory of

happiness? Metaphilosophy, 34, 305–329.

Haybron, D. M. (2007). Well-being and virtue. Journal of Ethics and Social

Philosophy, 2.

Held, B. (2002). The tyranny of the positive attitude in America: Observation and

speculation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 965–992.

Held, B. (2004). The negative side of positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic

Psychology, 44, 9–46.

Hoffman, L. (2009). Introduction to existential psychology in a crosscultural context:

An east-west dialogue. In L. Hoffman, M. Yang, F. J. Kaklauskas, & A. Chan

(Eds.), Existential psychology east-west(pp. 1–67). Colorado Springs, CO: University

of the Rockies Press.

Huta, V., & Hawley, L. (2010). Psychological strengths and vulnerabilities: Are they

two ends of the same continuum or do they have independent relationships with well-

being and ill-being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 71–93.

Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and

overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 11, 735–762, doi: 10.1007/s10902-009 –9171-4

Joseph, S. (2009). Growth following adversity: Positive psychological perspectives on

posttraumatic stress. Psychological Topics, 18, 335–344.

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations

of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness:

The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 3, 219–233.

Kashdan, T. B., & McKnight, P. E. (2009). Origins of purpose in life: Refining our

understanding of a life well lived. Psychological Topics, 18, 303–313.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of

financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 65, 410–422.

Keyes, C. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2002). Toward a science of mental health: Positive

directions in diagnosis and interventions. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 45–62). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Keyes, C. L., & Ryff, C. D. (2000). Subjective change and mental health: A self-

concept theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 264–279.

Kim, M., Lee, H. S., & Wong, P. T. P. (2005). Meaning of life according to Koreans:

The Korean personal meaning profile. Poster presented at the Annual Convention of

the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, August, 2005.

King, L. A. (2001). The hard road to the good life: The happy, mature person. Journal

of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 51–72.

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’s

lives. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Klinger, E. (1998). The search for meaning in evolutionary perspective and its clinical

implications. In P. T. P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning (pp.

27–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development, Vol 1: The philosophy of moral

development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kraut, R. (2009). What is good and why: The ethics of well-being. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Larsen, J. T., Hemenover, S. H., Norris, C. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2003). Turning

adversity to advantage: On the virtues of the coactivation of positive and negative

emotions. In A psychology of human strengths (pp. 211–225). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Larsen, R. (2009). The contributions of positive and negative affect to emotional well-

being. Psychological Topics, 18, 247–266.

Larsen, R. J., & Prizmic, Z. (2008). Regulation of emotional well-being: Overcoming

the hedonic treadmill. In M. Eid, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-

being (pp. 258–289). New York: The Guilford Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Does the positive psychology movement have

legs? Psychological Inquiry, 14, 93–109.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:

Springer.

Leong, F. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (2003). Optimal functioning from crosscultural

perspectives. In W. B. Walsh (Ed.), Counseling psychology and optimal human

functioning (pp. 123–150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lin, A., & Wong, P. T. P. (2006). The meaning of life: According to a Chinese

sample. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological

Association, New Orleans, August, 2006.

Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., & Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology:

Past, present, and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 3–16.

Little, B. R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnificent

obsessions, and the search for coherence. In D. M. Buss, & N. Cantor

(Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 15–31).

New York: Springer.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? American

Psychologist, 56, 239–249.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the

life you want. New York: Penguin Press.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive

affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.

Maddi, S. R. (1998). Creating meaning through making decisions. In P. T. P. Wong,

& P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Martin, M. W. (2007). Happiness and virtue in positive psychology. Journal for the

Theory of Social Behaviour, 37, 89–103.

McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the

self. New York: The Guilford Press.

McCullough, M. E., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). Classical source of human strength:

Revisiting an old home and building a new one. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 19, 1–10.

McDonald, M., Wong, P T. P., & Gingras, D. T. (in press). Development of a short

form of the Personal Meaning Profile. In P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for

meaning (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Myers, D. G. (1993). The pursuit of happiness. New York: Avon.

O’Brien, C. (2008). Sustainable happiness: How happiness studies can contribute to a

more sustainable future. Canadian Psychology, 49, 289–295.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Ruch, W. (2009). Orientation to happiness: National

comparisons. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 273–279.

Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1990). The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM): A

multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6, 227–236.

Pederson, P. (1999). Multiculturalism as a Fourth Force. Washington, DC: Oxford

University Press.

Peterson, C. (2006a). A primer in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Peterson, C. (2006b). Course syllabus for special seminar in psychology: Positive

psychology. Retrieved online from

http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/ppsyllabus2006peterson.pdf.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Peterson, J. B. (1999). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. New York:

Routledge.

Raskin, J. D., & Bridges, S. K. (Eds.). (2004). Studies in meaning 2: Bridging the

personal and social in constructivist psychology. New York: Pace University Press.

Reker, G. T., & Chamberlain, K. (Eds.) (2000). Exploring existential meaning:

Optimizing human development across the life span. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reker, G. T., Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1987). Meaning and purpose in life

and well-being: A life-span perspective. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 44–49.

Rigsby, L. C. (1994). The Americanization of resilience: Deconstructing research

practice. In Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and

prospects (pp. 85–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Robbins, B. D. (2008). What is the good life? Positive psychology and the renaissance

of humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36, 96–112.

Robbins, B. D., & Friedman, H. (2008). Positive psychology and humanistic

psychology [Special issue]. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55,

68–78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of

research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,

141–166.

Ryan, R. M., & Huta, V. (2009). Wellness as health functioning or wellness as

happiness: The importance of eudaimonic thinking. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4,

202–204.

Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A selfdetermination theory

perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–

1081.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being

revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The role of purpose in life and personal growth in

positive human health. In P.S. Fry & P.T.P. Wong (Eds.), The human quest for

meaning (pp. 213–236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2003). Ironies of the human condition: Wellbeing and

health on the way to mortality. In L. G. Aspinwall, & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A

psychology of human strengths (pp. 271–287). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D. (2002). The positive psychology of emotional

intelligence. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive

psychology (pp. 159–171). New York: Oxford University Press.

Seligman, M. E. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Knopf.

Seligman, M. E. (1998a). The president’s address. American Psychologist, 54, 559–

562.

Seligman, M. E. (1998b). Positive psychology network concept paper. Retrieved from

http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/ppgrant.htm

Seligman, M. E. (2002). Authentic Happiness. New York:, NY: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology

progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–425.

Servan-Schreiber, D. (2009). Anti-cancer: A new way of life (1st American ed.). New

York: Viking.

Sheldon, D. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of

personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531–543.

Sheldon, K., Kashdan, T., & Steger, M. (Eds.). (In press). Designing the future of

positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Sheldon, K. M. (2009). Providing the scientific backbone for positive psychology: A

multi-level conception of human thriving. Psychological Topics, 18, 267–284.

Snyder, C. R., & Feldman, D. B. (2000). Hope for the many: An empowering social

agenda. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and

applications (pp. 389–412). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical

explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steger, M. F. (2010, June 3). The good from the bad. Retrieved from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-meaning-in-life/201006/the-good-thebad

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of

wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychology, 36, 227–245.

Sue, D. W., & Constantine, M. G. (2003). Optimal human functioning in people of

color in the United States. In W. B. Walsh (Ed.), Counseling psychology and optimal

human functioning (pp. 151–169). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sundararajan, L. (2005). Happiness donut: A Confucian critique of positive

psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25, 35–60.

Takamori, K., Akehashi, D., & Ito, K. (2006). You were born for a reason: The real

purpose of life. Torrance, CA: Ichimannendo Publishing Inc.

Takano, Y., & Wong, P. T. P. (2004). Meaning of life according to a Japanese

sample. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the America Psychological

Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, July/August, 2004.

Taylor, E. (2001). Positive psychology and humanistic psychology: A reply to

Seligman. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 13–29.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in

the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ungar, M., & Lerner, R. M. (2008). Introduction to a special issue of research on

human development: Resilience and positive development across the life span: A

view of the issues. Research in Human Development, 5, 135–138.

Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2009). Cross cultural consultation leading to the

development of a valid measure of youth resilience: The International Resilience

Project. Studia Psychologica, 51, 259–268.

Walker, L. J. (1989). A longitudinal study of moral reasoning. Child Development, 60,

157–166.

Waterman, A. S. (2007). On the importance of distinguishing Hedonia and

Eudaimonia when contemplating the hedonic treadmill. The American Psychologist,

62, 612–613.

Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective. The

Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 234–252.

Watson, D. (2002). Positive affectivity: The dispostion to experience pleasurable

emotional states. In C. R. Snyder, & J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive

psychology (pp. 106–119). New York: Oxford University Press.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). A new taxonomy of reminiscence and its

therapeutic implications. Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa.

Wong, L. C. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (in press). A meaning-centered approach to youth

resilience. In P. T. P. Wong, Ed.). The human quest for meaning: A handbook of

psychological research and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge

Publishers.

Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and the development of the

personal meaning profile. In The human quest for meaning (pp. 111–140). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, P. T. P. (2007). The promises and perils of positive

psychology. PsycCRITIQUES, Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books.

Wong, P. T. P. (2008). To hell and back and what I have learned about happiness.

Retrieved from Self Help Magazine:

Http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/pain.php

Wong, P. T. P. (2009). Positive existential psychology. In Encyclopedia of positive

psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wong, P. T. P. (2010a). Meaning therapy: An integrative and positive existential

psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40, 85–94.

Wong, P. T. P. (2010b). What is existential positive psychology? Internationl Journal

of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 1–10.

Wong, P. T. P. (Ed.). (In press). The human quest for meaning: A handbook of

psychological research and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge

Publishers.

Wong, P. T. P., & Fry, P. (1998). The human quest for meaning. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Wong, P. T. P., & Gingras, D. (2010). Finding meaning and happiness while dying of

cancer: Lessons on existential positive psychology. PsycCRITIQUES, 55.

Wong, P. T. P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask ‘why’ questions and the

heuristic of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,

650–663.

Wong, P. T. P., & Wong, L. C. J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of multicultural

perspectives on stress and coping. New York: Springer.

Wong, P. T. P., Wong, L. C., & Scott, C. (2006). Beyond stress and coping: The

positive psychology of transformation. In Handbook of multicultural perspectives on

stress and coping. New York: Springer.

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The

authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the

development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385–

399.

Woolfolk, R. L., & Wasserman, R. H. (2005). Count no one happy: A critique of

‘second generation’ positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical

Psychology, 25, 81–90.

A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.

Learn more

Content available from Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

Role of Physical Activity in Positive Psychology Perspective

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2024

Sinem Parlakyildiz

Throughout the history of humanity, the question of what constitutes a good life has been a significant topic. Various philosophers have attributed different meanings to the concepts of well-being and happiness. Some associate a good life with a list of virtues, while others emphasize the importance of pleasurable feelings. Positive psychology emerged as an approach that emphasizes well-being and acknowledges happiness as a fundamental goal. The concept of well-being is defined in various ways to describe a positive state experienced by individuals and societies. Well-being encompasses both hedonic and eudaimonic approaches. Positive psychology utilizes scientific methods to understand well-being and examine the nature of happiness. According to the World Happiness Report, Turkey's low ranking in the international evaluation of happiness levels indicates a need for improvement in well-being areas. Globally, identifying the factors that can enhance happiness and quality of life, especially in countries that rank lower, is crucial for societies. Public policies and strategies need to focus on promoting happiness and well-being to enhance the welfare level of society. There is growing evidence that physical activity increases happiness levels and improves quality of life. Therefore, physical activity promotion may be an effective strategy for increasing happiness levels and has important potential for supporting societal well-being.

‘Me, The Sea, Feeling Good’: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis Exploring the Experience of Looking Out to Sea

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

i>Against the backdrop of increasing urbanization and subsequent disconnection from nature, there has been growing interest in the role that spending time in natural environments can play in promoting well-being. However, most research to date has focused on the health potential of green spaces and neglected the relationship between blue spaces (bodies of inland and coastal water) and well-being outcomes. Studies have shown that spending more time by the sea, or living in close proximity to the coast, is linked with better mental and general health, but have typically neglected to consider how individuals may uniquely experience different types of urban nature. Hence, this study aimed to explore, in-depth, the lived experience of looking out to sea and how it may play a role in well-being. Four self-selected females, living and working in a coastal city, were interviewed using semi-structured techniques. Interviews were recorded and transcribed; and data was analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Results revealed each had a strong and enduring bond with the sea as ‘part of self’, and as transcending the self. Looking out to sea was a multisensory, embodied experience that captivated them in the present, and was perceived to play an important role in the restoration and enhancement of their hedonic and eudemonic well-being. As researchers and policy makers begin to understand potential links between loss of contact with nature and deteriorating public health, better understanding the relationship between the sea and well-being could have significant global value.</i

CHAPITRE 1 L’inclusion scolaire et le bien-être à l’école: Le cas du système éducatif acadien et francophone du Nouveau-Brunswick

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2024

The well-being of software engineers: a systematic literature review and a theory

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024
EMPIR SOFTW ENG

For decades, software engineering research and practice has focused primarily on technological and process-related factors. Today, there is a growing interest in organizational, social, and psychological factors, including well-being. Organizational studies show that well-being contributes to work outcomes, including creativity, performance, and productivity. But despite its importance, the predictors and outcomes of software engineers’ well-being as a multidimensional construct to date are under-researched. This paper reports on the multidimensional well-being of professional software engineers and generates insights for the future research in this area. 44 quantitative survey studies published between 2000 and 2023 were selected and synthesized both quantitatively and qualitatively through a systematic literature review. The results of the review were further analyzed to construct a quantitatively-testable theory, detailing the predictors and outcomes of well-being in software engineering organizations. The total number of research participants included in the selected studies is 16,086 software engineering professionals from at least 42 countries. The literature review identified various measures, constructs, and indicators of well-being, as well as its predictors and outcomes. The theory, based on cumulative results of carefully selected quantitative studies, is an attempt to “correct the record” by establishing well-being in software engineering as a meta-construct of hedonic, eudaimonic, and integrated or hedaimonic qualities predicted by different individual, team and organizational factors and impacting the functioning of software engineers and their organizations. The review highlighted the under-researched aspects of well-being in software engineering and confirmed the need for more advanced quantitative studies. We hope that the theory will benefit researchers in conducting future studies and practitioners in developing nuanced and science-based interventions for improving software engineers’ well-being.

Search for meaning alleviated individual depressive symptoms during COVID ‐19 pandemic: The mediating role of optimism

Article

Dec 2024
INT J PSYCHOL

The COVID‐19 pandemic and subsequent quarantine measures have disrupted people's normal pace of life and created excessive pressure. The current study examined the mitigating effect of search for meaning in life on individual depressive symptoms and the mediating role of optimism during COVID‐19 lockdown period. A total of 462 participants ( M age = 37.42 years, SD = 13.15, 166 males) residing in Wuhan, China were recruited online at the beginning of April 2020 when the city was still under lockdown measures. Data were collected four times spanning from April to May 2020, with an interval of roughly 2 weeks in between. The results indicated that search for meaning and optimism was positively correlated with each other concurrently, and both of them were negatively correlated with depressive symptoms. Specifically, search for meaning at T1 could positively predict optimism at T2, which in turn negatively predicted depressive symptoms at T3, suggesting that optimism acted as the mediator for the buffering effects of search for meaning on one's depressive symptoms. Results highlighted the protective role of search for meaning for individual psychological adjustment under such adverse situation as COVID‐19 epidemic, and provided practical implications for people to deal with stressful period like quarantine.

Article

Dec 2024

The creative-being model: the role of negative emotion in creative flourishing and the impact on positive education

Article

Feb 2024

Enhancing EFL Writing Performance Through Differentiated Positive Psychology Interventions

Chapter

Sep 2024

The emergence of positive psychology interventions in foreign language classrooms has shown improvements in learner outcomes. However, more research is needed on how positive psychology can optimize second language acquisition experiences and writing performance. This mixed-methods study investigated the efficacy of positive psychology techniques in improving Indonesian university students' English writing skills across multiple areas. 60 students were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Assessments captured quantitative and qualitative performance differences before and after the intervention. Large effect size gains occurred for the treatment group. Students favored hope-based activities like feedback and consultations. Findings imply more positive versus negative feedback enhances writing motivation and outcomes. Further research is warranted on how positive psychology manifests in learners' complex experiences during foreign language acquisition and influences multifaceted writing performance.

Emotions, coping and psychological flexibility in earthquake survivors: a cross-sectional study

Article

Dec 2024
Psychol Health Med

Positive Health: The Basics

Book

Nov 2024

Factors Predicting the Subjective Well-Being of Nations

Article

Full-text available

Nov 1995

Subjective well-being (SWB) in 55 nations, reported in probability surveys and a large college student sample, was correlated with social, economic, and cultural characteristics of the nations. The SWB surveys, representing nations that include three fourths of the earth's population, showed strong convergence. Separate measures of the predictor variables also converged and formed scales with high reliability, with the exception of the comparison variables. High income, individualism, human rights, and societal equality correlated strongly with each other, and with SWB across surveys. Income correlated with SWB even after basic need fulfillment was controlled. Only individualism persistently correlated with SWB when other predictors were controlled. Cultural homogeneity, income growth, and income comparison showed either low or inconsistent relations with SWB.

Ironies of the human condition: Well-being and health on the way to mortality.

Chapter

Jan 2003

Reconciling Humanistic and Positive Psychology

Chapter

Aug 2017

Harris L. Friedman

Human aging: Why is even good news taken as bad?

Chapter

Jan 2003

Toward a science of mental health: Positive directions in diagnosis and interventions

Article

Jan 2002

Multiculturalism as a fourth force in counseling

Article

Jan 1990

P. Pedersen

The role of purpose in life and personal growth in positive human health

Article

Jan 1998

Hope for the Many: An Empowering Social Agenda

Article

Jan 2000

The search for meaning in evolutionary perspective and its clinical implications

Article

Jan 1998

Eric Klinger

Happiness Is Everything, or Is It Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well-Being

Article

Jan 1989
J PERS SOC PSYCHOL

C.D. Ryff

Positive Psychology 2.0: Towards a Balanced Interactive Model of the Good Life

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Familismo, Ethnic Identity, and Bicultural Stress as Predictors of Mexican American Adolescents’ Pos...

The Engine of Well-Being

Resilience and Burnout: A Stitch That Could save Nine

Biological contributions to well-being: The relationships amongst temperament, character strengths a...