Content uploaded by Stephen Joseph
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen Joseph
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, January 2006; 1(1): 3–16
Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future
P. ALEX LINLEY
1
, STEPHEN JOSEPH
2
, SUSAN HARRINGTON
1
, & ALEX M. WOOD
2
1
University of Leicester, UK and
2
University of Warwick, UK
Abstract
What is positive psychology? Where has it come from? Where is it going? These are the questions we address in this article.
In defining positive psychology, we distinguish between the meta-psychological level, where the aim of positive psychology is
to redress the imbalance in psychology research and practice, and the pragmatic level, which is concerned with what positive
psychologists do, in terms of their research, practice, and areas of interest. These distinctions in how we understand positive
psychology are then used to shape conceptions of possible futures for positive psychology. In conclusion, we identify several
pertinent issues for the consideration of positive psychology as it moves forward. These include the need to synthesize the
positive and negative, build on its historical antecedents, integrate across levels of analysis, build constituency with powerful
stakeholders, and be aware of the implications of description versus prescription.
Keywords: Positive psychology definition; research; practice; applications; future
Introduction
What is positive psychology? Where has it come
from? Where is it now? Where is it going? These
are fundamental questions for this first issue of
The Journal of Positive Psychology. It is no small task to
try and answer them, but equally no small
opportunity.
In this article, we are aiming to achieve several
objectives. First, we will give a brief history of the
positive psychology movement. Second, we will
provide a definition of positive psychology. Various
definitions have been put forward to date, and
we review them here, developing from them an
integrative position that defines the movement on
several levels, thereby, we hope, providing a more
detailed understanding as we move forward. Third,
we will assess where positive psychology now stands.
In some respects, as we go on to show, it might be
argued that positive psychology stands at a cross-
roads in its development. As such, we consider some
of the issues and decisions that will likely influence its
future. Fourth, we go on to offer possible scenarios
for the future of positive psychology, at least as we
surmise them. While speculative, we hope that these
scenarios will allow those who identify themselves
with the positive psychology movement to give a
careful consideration to how they want the movement
to develop, and why. To this end, we conclude with
several pertinent points for consideration for positive
psychology, and provide what we see as some of the
key guiding principles for the further growth and
development of the movement.
A caveat before we begin
Throughout this article, we will (almost inevitably)
talk about ‘‘positive psychology’’, and sometimes
about ‘‘positive psychologists.’’ As the experienced
reader may know already, and as the reader new to
positive psychology will learn below, these are
thorny issues. It may be that in years to come there
is no such thing as positive psychology, or that
people may be concerned with the topics of
positive psychology but do not define themselves
as positive psychologists (indeed, this is often the
case today). In many ways this would be a mark of
the movement’s success. Also, we use the terms
positive and negative as shorthand for describing
the two poles of the human condition. By doing so,
we do not mean in any way to imply or support
the dichotomization of human experience into
positive and negative; in contrast, we view them
as falling along a continuum. While these labels are
not ideal because of their value-laden connotations,
we have adopted them reluctantly, but with an eye
focused very much on the need for these caveats,
as we will go on to show more fully in the sections
that follow.
Correspondence: P. Alex Linley, PhD, School of Psychology, Henry Wellcome Building, University of Leicester,
Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 9HN, UK. E-mail: PAL8@le.ac.uk
ISSN 1743-9760 print/ISSN 1743-9779 online/06/010003–14 ß2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17439760500372796
A brief history of positive psychology
The advent of positive psychology as we know it
today can be traced back to Martin E. P. Seligman’s
1998 Presidential Address to the American
Psychological Association (Seligman, 1999).
Following a serendipitous holiday meeting between
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi in winter 1997
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), and an epiphanic
moment when gardening with his daughter Nikki
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), Seligman
realized that psychology had largely neglected the
latter two of its three pre-World War II missions:
curing mental illness, helping all people to lead more
productive and fulfilling lives, and identifying and
nurturing high talent. The advent of the Veterans
Administration (in 1946) and the National Institute
of Mental Health (in 1947) had largely rendered
psychology a healing discipline based upon a disease
model and illness ideology (see also, Maddux, 2002;
Maddux, Snyder, & Lopez, 2004). With this realiza-
tion, Seligman resolved to use his APA presidency to
initiate a shift in psychology’s focus toward a more
positive psychology (Seligman, 1999).
Seligman’s presidential initiative was catalysed by a
series of meetings in Akumal, Mexico, of scholars
who could inform the conceptualization and early
development of positive psychology, and the estab-
lishment of the Positive Psychology Steering
Committee (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Ed Diener,
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Chris Peterson, and George
Vaillant). From this followed the Positive Psychology
Network, later to become the Positive Psychology
Center at the University of Pennsylvania, the first
Positive Psychology Summit in Washington, DC,
and a special issue of the American psychologist on
positive psychology to mark the new millennium
(see Appendix).
Further, in the 7 years since Seligman’s presiden-
tial address, there have been numerous positive
psychology books, journal special issues (see
Appendix), and the establishment of regional positive
psychology networks that span the globe (see
Seligman, 2005, for a full review of positive
psychology activities). Now, in 2006, we have the
first dedicated positive psychology journal, The
Journal of Positive Psychology. These are remarkable
achievements for any psychology movement in such
a short space of time. Many readers may well
be wondering why, and below we offer some
thoughts in response to this question.
As the leading advocate of positive psychology,
Seligman has been exceptionally successful at
catalysing and uniting the efforts of the many
distinguished scientists who have become some of
the key players in the positive psychology movement.
These include the Positive Psychology Steering
Committee (Csikszentmihalyi, Diener, Jamieson,
Peterson, and Vaillant) and the leaders of numerous
positive psychology research centres, research pods,
and grant holders (see Seligman, 2005). Other
notable figures include C. R. (Rick) Snyder, who
edited the special issue of the Journal of social and
clinical psychology (2000) and the influential
Handbook of positive psychology (2002); Chris
Peterson, who headed up the Values-in-Action
project that led to the VIA classification of strengths
and virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004); and the
winners of the prestigious Templeton Positive
Psychology Prizes: Barbara Fredrickson (2000) for
her work on positive emotions; Jon Haidt (2001) for
his work on the positive moral emotion of elevation;
and Suzanne Segerstrom (2002) for her work on the
beneficial effects of optimism on physical health. A
further critical factor in the success of many of
these initiatives was the financial support that made
them possible, provided by such donors as the
Templeton Foundation, The Gallup Organization,
the Mayerson Foundation, the Annenberg
Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, and the Atlantic
Philanthropies, among others. And given the
research imbalance between psychopathology and
disease, relative to human strengths and well-being,
positive psychology also offered excellent opportu-
nities for rapid scientific advances, simply because
many topics had been largely ignored (Gable &
Haidt, 2005).
Thus, the development of positive psychology was
clearly shaped and energized by the considerable
efforts of Seligman and the other major players in the
field. Their deliberate sociology of science approach,
recognizing and building on the structural forces that
shape the discipline of psychology, cemented positive
psychology’s place through bringing in major
research funding, providing considerable research
leadership, engaging the wider public media, and
attracting some of the brightest early career scientists
through the provision of training institutes, research
collaborations with senior scientists, and funding
support for their work.
However, it is also eminently clear from a cursory
examination of the research literature that positive
psychology did not begin in 1997, or 1998, or 1999,
or 2000 (see also McCullough & Snyder, 2000). In
fact, positive psychology has always been with us,
but as a holistic and integrated body of knowledge,
it has passed unrecognized and uncelebrated, and
one of the major achievements of the positive
psychology movement to date has been to consoli-
date, lift up, and celebrate what we do know about
what makes life worth living, as well as carefully
delineating the areas where we need to do more.
Research into positive psychology topics has gone
on for decades, and might even be traced back to the
4P. A. Linley et al.
origins of psychology itself, for example, in William
James’ writings on ‘‘healthy mindedness’’ (James,
1902). In broad terms, positive psychology has
common interests with parts of humanistic psychol-
ogy, and its emphasis on the fully functioning person
(Rogers, 1961), and self-actualization and the study
of healthy individuals (Maslow, 1968). Indeed, we
note that more than 50 years ago, Maslow lamented
psychology’s preoccupation with disorder and
dysfunction:
The science of psychology has been far more successful
on the negative than on the positive side. It has
revealed to us much about man’s shortcomings, his
illness, his sins, but little about his potentialities, his
virtues, his achievable aspirations, or his full psycho-
logical height. It is as if psychology has voluntarily
restricted itself to only half its rightful jurisdiction, and
that, the darker, meaner half (Maslow, 1954, p. 354).
Initially at least, positive psychology may not have
paid sufficient tribute to its historical antecedents,
leading to some criticisms (e.g., Taylor, 2001;
Tennen & Affleck, 2003). However, there is now
a growing recognition that positive psychology can
learn useful lessons from earlier research and
theorizing, and we hope that the animosity that has
sometimes characterized previous exchanges will be
replaced with increasing respect and collaboration
(e.g., Joseph & Worsley, 2005), not least so that
positive psychology can prosper through integration,
rather than whither through isolation.
In the next section, we try to answer the question
‘‘what is positive psychology?’’ As will become clear
from our answer, positive psychology can be under-
stood and interpreted on many different levels and,
as we hope to show, the level at which one under-
stands positive psychology has profound implications
for its possible futures.
What is positive psychology?
In asking this question, one is faced with the inherent
danger that 10 positive psychologists would provide
10 different answers. Should this be taken to suggest
that nobody really knows, exactly, what positive
psychology is? We would argue that this is actually
far from the case, yet equally we have a very real
sense that positive psychology might often be
interpreted as being ‘‘all things to all people.’’
Indeed, in the course of numerous presentations to
hosts of different audiences, both psychologist and
non-psychologist, academics and practitioners, we
have the consistent experiences of eyes lighting up
and people saying ‘‘Ah, positive psychology, that’s
what we need.’’ And when we ask what they
understand by positive psychology, we receive
different answers every time. In this sense, positive
psychology is perceived of as a panacea for many
modern ills. It is not. But, by providing a different
interpretative lens, it offers a different worldview and
thereby novel answers to some questions that have
been around for a long time, and shines the light of
scientific inquiry into previously dark and neglected
corners.
Consider, for example, the following definitions
of positive psychology, all taken from authoritative
positive psychological sources:
The field of positive psychology at the subjective level
is about valued subjective experiences: well-being,
contentment, and satisfaction (in the past); hope and
optimism (for the future); and flow and happiness
(in the present). At the individual level, it is about
positive individual traits: the capacity for love and
vocation, courage, interpersonal skill, aesthetic sensi-
bility, perseverance, forgiveness, originality, future
mindedness, spirituality, high talent, and wisdom. At
the group level, it is about the civic virtues and the
institutions that move individuals toward better
citizenship: responsibility, nurturance, altruism,
civility, moderation, tolerance, and work ethic
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5).
What is positive psychology? It is nothing more
than the scientific study of ordinary human strengths
and virtues. Positive psychology revisits ‘‘the average
person,’’ with an interest in finding out what works,
what is right, and what is improving ...positive
psychology is simply psychology (Sheldon & King,
2001, p. 216).
Positive psychology is the study of the conditions
and processes that contribute to the flourishing or
optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions
(Gable & Haidt, 2005, p. 104).
Positive psychology is about scientifically informed
perspectives on what makes life worth living. It focuses
on aspects of the human condition that lead to
happiness, fulfilment, and flourishing (The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 2005).
There are certainly core themes and consistencies,
but also differences in emphasis and interpretation.
In thinking about how best to represent positive
psychology, and how best to position its under-
standing in the first issue of The Journal of Positive
Psychology, we believe it would be helpful to provide
what we see as a definition of positive psychology
that identifies and delineates the different things that
it might mean to different people. We also specify
what positive psychology is not, in the hope that we
can lay to rest some of the ghosts of criticism that
have haunted positive psychology (sometimes with
justification, often with misunderstanding) since its
inception. Further, as will become clear later in the
article, this definition and understanding of positive
psychology helps to inform and develop the potential
Past, present, future 5
future pathways and applications of positive
psychology that we map out below.
Toward a new definition of positive psychology
The meta-psychological level view
First, we think it is instructive to understand positive
psychology at the meta-psychological level. By meta-
psychological level, we mean that level at which
we understand the aims of positive psychology, and
the way in which it offers a ‘‘grand vision’’ for the
whole of psychology, and beyond. Here, we address
the theoretical and philosophical position of positive
psychology, as well as commenting on its value base.
The aims of positive psychology can be understood
from this meta-psychological perspective:
The aim of positive psychology is to begin to catalyse a
change in the focus of psychology from preoccupation
only with repairing the worst things in life
to also building positive qualities (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5; emphasis added).
Hence, a positive psychological perspective on the
discipline of psychology (and, by extension, on other
areas of scientific inquiry, such as economics,
sociology, anthropology, and even the natural
sciences) is that the focus of scientific research and
interest should be on understanding the entire
breadth of human experience, from loss, suffering,
illness, and distress through connection, fulfilment,
health, and well-being.
A common perception has been that positive
psychology emphasises the positive at the expense
of the negative (Held, 2004; Lazarus, 2003). This
may have been an easy juxtaposition to make, given
the value connotations of positive psychology, and
the early emphasis of positive psychology that it was
‘‘independent’’ from what had gone before (see,
for example, Snyder & Lopez, 2002b, The future
of positive psychology: A declaration of independence).
In the beginning of any new scientific endeavour,
there is a need to define one’s remit, and to
differentiate from what has gone before to emphasize
one’s novelty. This is well recognized within the
history of thought, most notably in Hegel’s (1807/
1931) identification of the cycle of thesis (any idea,
belief, or set of arguments), followed by antithesis
(conflicting, contradictory, or opposing views to the
thesis), and then synthesis (the resolution of differ-
ences between the thesis and antithesis; this synthesis
then becomes the new thesis).
Viewed from this perspective, business-as-usual
psychology, with its focus on distress, disorder, and
dysfunction, provides the thesis to positive psychol-
ogy’s antithesis, that we should also focus on well-
being, health, and optimal functioning. It is natural
and to be expected, then, that in the early stages
of the movement, differences would have been
emphasized and criticisms made of what had gone
before. However, as we go on to demonstrate below,
the challenge of the crossroads at which positive
psychology now stands is whether it continues
as an antithesis to business-as-usual psychology, or
whether it achieves synthesis through the integration
and resolution of these dialectics, thus evolving into
‘‘simply psychology,’’ with a focus that spans the
whole of the human condition, from disorder and
distress to well-being and fulfilment.
Thus, viewed at this meta-psychological, even
meta-scientific level, positive psychology is an
attempt to redress what is perceived as an imbalance
in the focus of research attention and practice
objectives in psychology. It is undeniably the case
that the negative is dominant in psychology (Rozin &
Royzman, 2001), and that ‘‘bad is stronger than
good’’ (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, &
Vohs, 2001). One need only look at citation counts
to establish this beyond any doubt: Rand and Snyder
(2003) examined the ratio of positive to negative
subjects over the course of psychology publications
from 1872 onwards in the PsycINFO database.
Using dialectic pairs such as happiness–sadness,
hope–hopelessness, and optimism–pessimism
revealed a ratio that was consistently more than
2:1 in favour of the negative pole.
As such, the first part of defining an understanding
of positive psychology is its meta-scientific value
position: that the study of health, fulfilment and
well-being is as meritorious as the study of illness,
dysfunction, and distress. Equally, that the study of
human strengths and virtues is a topic that should be
central to a psychology of the human condition,
rather than one that is ‘‘defined out’’ of psychological
study, as Allport (1937) did, in his seminal definition
of what constituted the psychological study of
personality (cf. Cawley, Martin, & Johnson, 2000).
Further, that these ‘‘positive’’ topics are in no way
‘‘secondary, derivative, illusory, epiphenomenal,
parasitic upon the negative, or otherwise suspect’’
(Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 4). Rather, the
subject matter of positive psychology is authentic and
valuable, and intuitively represents a far greater
proportion of normal human experience than does
the subject matter of psychology’s more traditional
focus on dysfunction, distress, and psychopathology.
A shared language. A second facet of this meta-
psychological perspective lies in positive psychology’s
‘‘taxonomic influence.’’ Here, we mean that positive
psychology has provided a different lens through
which to understand human experience, and perhaps
most importantly, has begun the creation of a shared
6P. A. Linley et al.
language and understanding that begins to locate
the study of positive states, traits, and outcomes
in relation to each other. We use ‘‘taxonomic
influence’’ in quotation marks in recognition of the
fact that positive psychology does not yet offer a
taxonomy within the strict sense of the term (Bailey,
1994; neither, arguably, does any field of psychol-
ogy), but it has begun to provide a framework in
which researchers and practitioners with different
interests and agendas are able to communicate with
each other, and locate their findings within a broader
classificatory context. However, as we elaborate
below, the challenge is now to expand our classifi-
catory context in order to synthesize the positive and
negative, health and illness, well-being and distress.
In this way, positive psychology might do much to
bridge the scientist–practitioner divide, through its
range of applications and a value position that might
be considered more concordant with the needs and
aspirations of many practicing psychologists.
In our view, this taxonomic influence represents
the greatest achievement of positive psychology to
date (but also its greatest future challenge with regard
to bridging the positive and negative aspects of
human experience). Before positive psychology,
researchers in (for example) wisdom, gratitude,
humility, creativity, curiosity, and emotional
intelligence might have considered they had little,
if anything, to connect them. Since positive
psychology, these research areas are understood as
domains of psychological strengths, sharing a
common theoretical heritage and much better able
to be understood in proportion to, relation with,
and interaction with each other.
Introducing the positive and integrating the
negative. Further, at this meta-psychological level,
positive psychology offers a different lens through
which to study and understand psychological
phenomena. Our decisions about which phenomena
to study or not study are inescapably value-based
(Christopher, 1996), and the implicit value base of
much business-as-usual psychology is that the
negative is more worthy of investigation than the
positive. Indeed, the negative has a pervasive and
immediate allure (Rozin & Royzman, 2001), and it is
this that has shaped the questions of psychological
inquiry typically to become those of ‘‘What is
broken?’’ ‘‘What doesn’t work?’’ ‘‘What needs to be
fixed?’’ and ‘‘How can we fix it?’’ In contrast, positive
psychology asks ‘‘what works, what is right, and what
is improving?’’ (Sheldon & King, 2001, p. 216).
Building from this further, we can then ask broader
questions, such as ‘‘How can we take what we have
learned here, generalize it, and apply it more broadly
to enable more people to improve their lives?’’
As such, positive psychology shifts the implicit
value basis of psychological inquiry from only a
deficit-focus to also an asset-focus, and thereby
reveals what is often new and fertile ground for
investigation.
Overall, then, at this meta-psychological level of
understanding positive psychology, we have argued
that positive psychology: first, has the aim of
redressing what is perceived as an imbalance in
the study of the positive relative to the negative;
second, has provided a structure and language that
permits communication, understanding, and relation
between diverse areas of psychological inquiry and
application that were not possible before; and third,
offers a different lens through which to view the remit
of psychological investigation and practice, calling up
a different set of questions to those which business-
as-usual psychology has dealt with. However, as we
illustrate in more detail below, the big challenge now
facing positive psychology is to carry this meta-
psychological perspective forward into the synthesis
of positive and negative aspects of human experience,
such that we really might enjoy a unified, integrated
psychology (cf. Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001).
The pragmatic level view
In addition to this meta-psychological aspect of
positive psychology, we propose a pragmatic level
of what positive psychologists do in terms of their
research and their practice, rather than what their
objectives may be. Here, we distinguish between
four levels of analysis for positive psychology.
The wellsprings of interest to positive psychology
may be defined as the precursors and facilitators
of the processes and mechanisms. They include things
such as the genetic foundations of well-being, and
the early environmental experiences that allow the
development of strengths and virtues.
The processes of interest to positive psychology
may be defined as those psychological ingredients
(for example, strengths and virtues) that lead to the
good life, or equally the obstacles to leading a good
life (for example, a life of meaning and fulfilment;
King, Eells, & Burton, 2004; King & Napa, 1998).
Positive psychology should seek to understand the
factors that facilitate optimal functioning as much as
those that prevent it.
The mechanisms of interest to positive psychology
may be defined as those extra-psychological factors
that facilitate (or impede) the pursuit of a good life.
For example, these mechanisms may be personal
and social relationships, working environments,
organizations and institutions, communities, and
the broader social, cultural, political, and economic
systems in which our lives are inextricably
embedded.
Past, present, future 7
The outcomes of interest to positive psychology
may be defined as those subjective, social, and
cultural states that characterize a good life. Here we
may think of factors such as happiness, well-being,
fulfilment, and health (at the subjective level),
positive communities and institutions that foster
good lives (at the interpersonal level), and political,
economic, and environmental policies that promote
harmony and sustainability (at the social level).
An integrative definition for positive psychology
Hence, we define positive psychology as follows:
positive psychology is the scientific study of optimal
human functioning. At the meta-psychological level,
it aims to redress the imbalance in psychological
research and practice by calling attention to the
positive aspects of human functioning and experi-
ence, and integrating them with our understanding
of the negative aspects of human functioning
and experience. At the pragmatic level, it is
about understanding the wellsprings,processes and
mechanisms that lead to desirable outcomes.
Clearly, our delineation of the pragmatic level of
positive psychology into wellsprings, processes,
mechanisms, and outcomes is not fixed, but rather
a way of understanding the remit of positive psy-
chology, and how different elements may relate to
each other. We do not claim that these elements are
separate and distinct, but rather recognize that there
will be interactions between them. For example,
while happiness is considered by many to be
a desirable state (i.e., outcome), there is also increas-
ing evidence that it is also a desirable mechanism. It
can be said that happiness actually leads, over time,
to other valued outcomes (see Diener & Seligman,
2004; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, in press).
Specifically within the definition presented here,
and by way of example, positive institutions are
viewed as each of a process, a mechanism, and
an outcome: positive institutions are desirable in and
of themselves, but they also serve as processes that
offer coherent and concordant values and philoso-
phies that may guide and inspire their members, and
as mechanisms to facilitate and promote other valued
outcomes. Understanding positive psychology in this
way allows a more systems-oriented appreciation of
the interrelations of its various parts, and equally has
important implications for the way that we under-
stand where positive psychology is now, as well as
how we consider of the possible futures and
applications of positive psychology.
Positive psychology in the present
Where is positive psychology now? In this section
of the article, we will try and take stock, and assess
where positive psychology is now. As we have shown,
it has come from propitious beginnings to establish
itself as a popular but serious psychological move-
ment. All the structural elements of a psychological
discipline are in place: an impressive and growing
research corpus; an array of books, including hand-
books (Linley & Joseph, 2004a; Peterson &
Seligman, 2004; Snyder & Lopez, 2002a) and college
textbooks (e.g., Bolt, 2004; Carr, 2003; Compton,
2004; Snyder & Lopez, in press); numerous journal
special issues and journal articles; dedicated confer-
ences and themed sessions at other meetings;
funding streams and prizes (e.g., the Seligman
Award for Outstanding Dissertation Research; the
Templeton Positive Psychology Prizes); international
associations representing and promoting the interests
of positive psychology; web pages and email discus-
sion lists; wider interest through the popular media,
including print, television, and radio (see Seligman,
2005, for a summary); positive psychology courses
being included as part of existing degree programmes
(more than 100 positive psychology courses on
offer by 2003 (Murray, 2003); and at least 27
positive psychology programmes at major US
universities (Seligman, 2005); dedicated graduate
programmes (e.g., Master of Applied Positive
Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania), and
now a dedicated journal (The Journal of Positive
Psychology).
Thus, it is clear from many perspectives that
positive psychology has arrived. Yet in our view, this
is just the beginning, and what has been achieved so
far, while both laudable and remarkable, may be just
an historical footnote to what is to follow. Positive
psychology now stands at a crossroads, and various
factors will likely influence the path it takes. In the
next section, we consider some possible future
scenarios for positive psychology, and assess the
merits and risks associated with each. It is our hope
and aspiration that in raising these issues for
consideration, positive psychologists both now and
in the future will be able to take more informed and
reflective decisions on what positive psychology
should do; why it should do it; how it relates to
psychology more broadly, and to other disciplines,
such as economics, sociology, and anthropology;
and perhaps most importantly, how positive psychol-
ogy might be harnessed most effectively in the
service of promoting integral human flourishing
and fulfilment.
The (possible) future of positive psychology
Does positive psychology have a future? That
is not so much of a bleak question as it might at
first seem. Indeed, some eminent figures in the
8P. A. Linley et al.
positive psychology actually hope that it will
disappear:
My hope is that positive psychology is a movement that
will eventually disappear because it becomes part of the
very fabric of psychology. Thus, it will fade as a
campaign precisely because it has been so successful
(Diener, 2003, p. 120).
However, this is where an understanding of the
differences between the meta-psychological and
pragmatic aspects of positive psychology is instruc-
tive. At a meta-psychological level, we too hope (and
expect, if we may be so bold) that positive psychology
will disappear. That is to say, with the increasing
embedding of positive psychological thinking and
methodology in many areas of psychology, and the
maturation of young scholars who have grown up
in a positive psychological context, positive
psychology’s aim of redressing the balance will have
been achieved.
The shared language and social structures will be
in place, and psychologists will take the under-
standing of the interrelations of strength and weak-
ness, positive and negative, for granted, just as the
current generation of psychologists does not blink
when considering the association of conscious and
unconscious aspects of personality and processing,
but which were just as novel in Freud’s time. To
extend Gable and Haidt’s (2005) terminology, the
train will have changed direction, but the new
passengers will not even have noticed, instead
having just been carried along on their way.
In contrast, when we consider the pragmatic
aspects of positive psychology, our view is that the
journey is just beginning. We are in the early stages
of beginning to develop understandings of
strengths and virtues, to grasp and build the
interpersonal and social infrastructures that facili-
tate good lives, and to appreciate the nuances of
happiness and well-being, their effects as well as their
causes. But again, this journey is just beginning.
It has taken psychology 100 years to arrive at
what we now know; can we even imagine what
psychology might look like with another 100 years
focused on building the things that make life worth
living?
Positive psychology at the crossroads
At this stage, as we suggested above, positive
psychology stands at a crossroads. While building
on what has gone before, positive psychology has
a remarkable opportunity to do things differently,
to ask the questions which deserve to be asked (see
Sternberg in Morgeson, Seligman, Sternberg,
Taylor, & Manning, 1999), to create a science of
psychology that realizes the discipline’s early promise
which has some how got lost along the way
(cf. Maslow, 1954; Seligman, 1999).
In our estimation, there are three possible routes
for the future of positive psychology. First, it could
simply disappear because it has brought about the
meta-psychological integration that was its aim. As
such, there would be no need for positive psychology,
because all of psychology would be fully appreciative
of the full range of human functioning. Second,
it could bring about some of the meta-psychological
integration, enabling researchers and practitioners to
understand both the positive and negative, but could
continue as an area of research focus on topics
such as strengths and happiness, much as there are
specialist divisions of psychology today. Third,
it could fail to bring about the desired integration,
and continue as a specialist, but increasingly
marginalized area, locked out of the major psycho-
logical agendas. We go on to explore each of these
scenarios more fully in turn.
Meta-psychological integration. Considered from the
meta-psychological perspective that we defined
earlier, positive psychology may engender a change
of lens and a shift in emphasis for existing psychology
research and applied psychology professions. This
would be achieved through infusion, namely, incor-
porating the principles of a positive psychological
perspective into existing professional psychological
practice, and thereby achieving a genuine and
powerful integration of the positive and negative
aspects of human experience, and an understanding
of their interactions and interrelations.
It might be legitimately argued that some profes-
sional domains of psychology do this already,
for example, health psychology and its emphasis on
prevention, and counselling psychology and its
emphasis on human development. Other profes-
sional practices are more grounded in dysfunction
models, but there are still perceptions of what they
may look like when infused with a more integrative
positive psychological perspective that synthesizes
both positive and negative. Consider, for example,
what clinical psychology might look like if it were
to adopt a dimensional as opposed to a categorical
model of psychopathology, seeing problems in
human living as falling at points along a continuum,
rather than being categorically different, and viewing
the positive clinical psychologist’s remit as being
as much about building strengths and resilience as
it was about repairing weakness and damage
(Maddux et al., 2004). Consider ‘‘positive organiza-
tional scholarship,’’ which is ‘‘concerned primarily
with the study of especially positive outcomes,
processes, and attributes of organizations and
Past, present, future 9
their members’’ (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn,
2003b, p. 4). Consider the applications of positive
psychology within school settings, based on the
principles that school psychology can serve as a
point of connection between positive psychology’s
promotion of optimal human development, and
schools as the a priori institutions that can serve as
the vehicles for this development (Clonan,
Chafouleas, McDougal, & Riley-Tillman, 2004;
Terjesen, Jacofsky, Froh, & DiGiuseppe, 2004).
Seen in these ways, the future of positive psychol-
ogy may be one in which it increasingly permeates
the professional practice of psychology, becoming
almost silently infused into the status quo for
professional practice. That, surely, would constitute
positive psychological success, with positive psychol-
ogy having achieved its meta-psychological objective
‘‘to catalyse a change in the focus of psychology from
preoccupation only with repairing the worst things
in life to also building positive qualities’’ (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5; emphasis added).
Then, positive psychology would be ‘‘simply
psychology’’ (Sheldon & King, 2001, p. 216).
Integration with continued specialization. Understood
in this way, positive psychology may engender shifts
in psychological thinking that do serve to integrate
the positive and the negative aspects of human
experience, but where structural barriers still
remain that block a full integration. For example, it
is not difficult to imagine a funding situation that
dictates the role of the psychologist as being to
‘‘alleviate distress and dysfunction,’’ but where the
funding does not extend into the genuine promotion
of well-being and optimal functioning. Hence, while
the practicing psychologist may support the princi-
ples and aims of an integrative psychological practice,
these structural barriers may remain. However, even
to have brought about this shift in psychological
thinking so that these issues are even considered as
issues could be considered a major achievement.
With full integration not achieved, it may be
envisaged that positive psychology research would
continue into the positive side of human experience,
continuing to redress the imbalance in psychological
inquiry and research output. While this in itself may
not be considered unduly problematic, it is subject to
an important caveat: such research must be con-
ducted from an integrative perspective that seeks to
understand the positive in relation to the negative,
and continues to strive to take the positive psycho-
logical message more broadly. Seen in this way, one
might consider that the positive psychology journey
continues, rather than that is has concluded and
either succeeded or failed.
Marginalization. In contrast to these perspectives,
one can consider positive psychology as a stand-
alone discipline, marginalized and fragmented. What
would be its remit, theoretical underpinnings, and
professional objectives? In brief, one might legiti-
mately suggest that positive psychology would be
concerned with the facilitation of optimal functioning
in any sphere of life, with the professional objective of
raising the health, fulfilment and well-being of people
and their institutional or organizational contexts. It
would not be able to locate its findings in relation to
psychopathology and distress, and would find itself
in the same situation as it now criticizes business-as-
usual psychology for: focusing too much on only one
side of the human condition.
If this is all that positive psychology achieves, our
view is that it will have failed. We believe it will have
failed because it will have become just another
variant of professional psychological practice that is
concerned with the ‘‘worried well,’’ but which is not
considered to have anything to offer to people
who are in distress or suffering with disorder of
dysfunction. In this way, it will have lost its meta-
psychological imperative, betrayed its grand vision,
and squandered its genuine opportunity to catalyse a
step-change in psychological thinking and practice.
Which way now?
In recognizing the crossroads at which positive
psychology stands, we have considered what we see
as the three alternative roads that are open to us. Our
view is that positive psychology offers a grand
integrative vision that could change the face of
psychology. It could also become little more than
a psychological sub-discipline concerned with
strengths and happiness that is ultimately margin-
alized and largely ignored, as happened to humanis-
tic psychology. Or, it could fall somewhere in
between. What are the factors that will likely
influence the direction of these developments?
We suspect that within the next few years, and
possibly sooner rather than later, positive psychology
will reach a tipping point. This tipping point will be
the moment in time when the decisions made have
an irrevocable influence on the direction of positive
psychology’s evolution and development. We believe
there are three major factors that will constitute these
tipping points: professional psychology training,
research output, and funding and stakeholder deci-
sions. Below, we consider each of them in turn.
Professional psychology training. If positive psychol-
ogy is to alter the future direction of psychology and
create a more integrative and holistic approach to the
human condition, this will only lastingly come about
10 P. A. Linley et al.
through changes at the grass roots level. Young
psychologists in professional training will have to be
educated in the positive psychological perspective,
and trained to balance their understanding of the
human condition through the lens of both positive
and negative. What we see determines the hypotheses
we test and the approach that we take. Look for
disorder and you will find it. Look for fulfilment and
you will find it. Look for both, and we may begin to
understand how they fit together. If academic
and applied psychology trainings begin to infuse
the positive psychology perspective, the meta-
psychological aspirations may be achieved.
Research output. The positive psychology perspec-
tive needs to produce quality research that is
characterized by methodological rigor and practical
relevance (i.e., pragmatic research; Anderson,
Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001). Positive psychology
has immense popular value. People are interested in
factors such as strength, virtue, health, and happi-
ness. They want to know more about what is best
about themselves, and what they can do to be
happier, healthier, and more fulfilled. As such,
there is an immense temptation for positive psychol-
ogy to descend into popularist science; relevant
and highly interesting research questions, but which
lack the scientific rigor that should define our
discipline. These temptations have to be resisted, in
our estimation, if positive psychology is to have a
future.
Similarly, this very journal has a central role to play
here. If The Journal of Positive Psychology becomes
nothing more than a home for studies on the
correlates of happiness, it will have squandered its
opportunity to become the beacon of the positive
psychology movement. If, in contrast, it is recognized
for its integration of the positive psychological
approach into psychology more broadly, through
the publication of first class empirical work com-
bined with insightful theoretical integration, it will
likely be recognized as one of the major journals
shaping the future evolution of psychology.
Equally, with the advent of The Journal of Positive
Psychology, we also caution that a dedicated positive
psychology journal should not be taken as an excuse
not to take the positive psychology message to other
areas of psychology, both academic and applied.
Indeed, that is one of the great dangers of a specialist
journal, and one that we hope will be avoided.
Centrifugal forces within psychology will continue
to push us towards ever more specialization and
fragmentation, but we strongly believe that
The Journal of Positive Psychology should strive to be
a centripetal force for integration, offering a home for
the best theoretical ideas and empirical research
findings of our discipline. These centripetal forces
already exist, and we are greatly encouraged by the
fact that many of the advocates for them may be
identified with the positive psychology movement
(e.g., Snyder, Tennen, Affleck, & Cheavens, 2000;
Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001).
Funding and stakeholder decisions. Positive psychol-
ogy does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a multi-
faceted, multi-layered social and political context
that is driven by agendas that are often not
determined by the interests of psychology and
psychologists. As such, psychology is beholden to
its funding providers and other powerful stake-
holders, such as governments, educational institu-
tions, commercial organizations, and healthcare
providers. As positive psychologists, we need to
engage with them and make the case for why the
positive psychological perspective matters, in order
to enable stakeholders to develop an understanding
of what it brings that is new, and what human and
financial benefits it offers over and above what has
already been done. In this way, and if such initiatives
are successful, positive psychology can begin to
shape and determine funding and stakeholder
imperatives, bringing about a shift in funding and
support emphasis from repairing weakness
and treating pathology to also building strength and
facilitating wellness. If this fails to happen, the risk is
that simple economics will dictate that positive
psychology falls by the wayside. If it does happen,
the future for positive psychology may look very
bright indeed.
Issues and directions for the future of
positive psychology
In thinking about the future of positive psychology,
we have identified several pertinent areas that the
movement may do well to consider. We do not set
these out as any kind of manifesto (especially in light
of point five, below, about description versus
prescription), but rather as suggestions that positive
psychologists might choose to consider as the move-
ment advances. Neither do we claim that these are
the only issues that the movement faces; indeed,
there will likely be others that are not even now
on the horizon, and our hope and aspiration is that
The Journal of Positive Psychology will continue to
serve as a forum for informed debate.
1. Synthesize the positive and the negative. Perhaps
most importantly in light of the points made above, is
the need to strive for integration, and to carry the
positive psychological message as far and as wide as
we can. In our own work, we have taken great efforts
Past, present, future 11
to emphasize this synthesis of the positive and
negative within positive psychology (e.g., Linley &
Joseph, 2003, 2004), and have striven to show how
positive psychological approaches can speak to both
trauma and suffering (Joseph & Linley, 2005) and
existential issues (Bretherton & Ørner, 2004).
Perhaps one of the most important points to take
from this is the need for positive psychologists to be
active in connecting with other areas of psychology
and other disciplines (see e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver,
2005, for an example of how to achieve this).
This invites us to write for their specialist journals
offering a positive psychological perspective, speak
at their conferences to elaborate what positive
psychology can say, and conduct research that
transcends these artificial boundaries of positive
and negative.
As but one example, in our own work we have
developed a positive psychological theory of how
people adapt following trauma and adversity (Joseph
& Linley, 2005), and have cast this theory in such
a way that it draws from and speaks to both the
posttraumatic stress disorder (business-as-usual)
audience and the posttraumatic growth (positive
psychology) audience. We did so by using the
language of posttraumatic stress disorder and inte-
grating it with the language of posttraumatic growth,
thereby knitting together an understanding of
adaptation to trauma that was able to account for
both posttraumatic stress and posttraumatic growth.
If positive psychologists can strive to do the same in
their own research areas, the outcomes could offer
a powerful movement towards more integrative
understandings of the human condition.
2. Build on historical antecedents and existing
knowledge. There is also much that can be learned,
we suggest, by revisiting earlier humanistic and
existential ideas (methodological concerns notwith-
standing), and seeing what insights they might offer
us about positive psychology’s current remit (e.g.,
Joseph & Linley, 2004; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005;
Rathunde, 2001; Sheldon & Kasser, 2001).
However, let us be clear that by saying this, we are
in entire agreement with Peterson and Park (2003,
p. 145), that positive psychology is not ‘‘but a
footnote to Lao-tzu, Confucius, Aristotle, Aquinas,
William James, John Dewey, Carl Rogers, or
Abraham Maslow.’’ Positive psychology does bring
a unique identity and novel perspective to the study
of optimal human experience, but one that should
rightly build on what has gone before. Quite simply,
not to do so would be academically dishonest and
intellectually fallible: positive psychology should be
neither of these things.
We believe that positive psychology can also learn
much from other areas of scientific inquiry, and
should be more active in opening dialogue with other
areas of psychology, economics, sociology, anthro-
pology, science and practice more generally. For
example, the resilience literature offers many insights
into successful functioning despite adversity (Yates &
Masten, 2004). Some areas of social work have
for over a decade been practising strengths-based
interventions (Noble, Perkins, & Fatout, 2000;
Saleebey, 1992). Economists have become interested
in the subject of human happiness (e.g., Frey &
Stutzer, 2000; Layard, 2005), and this is even
filtering through to government interest (Donovan
& Halpern, 2002). What these examples clearly
suggest is that positive psychologists could gain
much from making links with researchers and
practitioners in other areas of psychology and
beyond, including other areas of science and social
science (e.g., economics, politics, sociology,
anthropology).
3. Integrate across levels of analysis. We can equally
gain much by striving to understand positive
psychological phenomena more holistically, through
integrating the insights of neuroscience at the
biological level with an understanding of their
psychological and social markers. Indeed, work of
this nature is already going on, and represents some
of the best positive psychology research. For exam-
ple, consider the advances in the understanding of
how their social connections allow women to cope
with stress that were achieved through the integration
of biological, psychological, and social data
(Taylor et al., 2000); or the development of social
neuroscience, which has allowed understanding
of the interactions between biological processes and
social psychological processes such as sociality,
spirituality, and meaning making (Cacioppo,
Hawkley, Rickett, & Masi, 2005). We can hardly
do justice to the rigor and complexity of these
research programmes within the context of this
article, but they do provide insightful examples of
how scientific integration can produce novel insights
that integrate and explain findings from diverse areas
of psychology. Positive psychology could learn much
from them.
4. Build constituency and reach out to powerful
stakeholders. Good pragmatic science allows us to
build constituency: funding bodies will support
positive psychology work that is well-conducted and
leads to meaningful outcomes that have a real
relevance for people. The more that positive psy-
chology can produce deliverables, that is, research
that not only advances understanding but also
12 P. A. Linley et al.
demonstrates applied benefits, the easier it will be to
build this constituency. As positive psychologists, we
are in an enviable position. Not everyone will be
clinically depressed or schizophrenic during their
lifetime, but it’s a fair assumption that (almost)
everyone will want to be happy, or to be good parents
and friends, or to be effective students, or to be
productive and satisfied at work. As such, positive
psychology has an appeal that is probably as broad as
one could get. We should capitalize on this, and use
the impetus it provides to facilitate constructive
change and improvement.
As we begin to think about how positive psychol-
ogy may become a constructive force for social
improvement, we are reminded of the third pillar
of positive psychology research, positive institutions
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). As has been
noted elsewhere (Gable & Haidt, 2005), this is the
area of positive psychology that has received least
attention to date. Why may that be? It is arguably the
case that most positive psychology researchers are
from a social psychological tradition, and so are more
concerned with personality, individual differences,
and group processes. As such, there was not a natural
foundation on which to build a science of positive
institutions and communities, and the early enthu-
siasm for partnerships with a ‘‘positive sociology’’
and a ‘‘positive anthropology’’ has largely not come
to fruition.
However, there are certain trends that suggest this
may be beginning to change. For example, positive
psychologists are now starting to address the issues of
happiness, health, and well-being from national
and societal perspectives (e.g., Huppert, 2004;
Veenhoven, 2004). The advent of positive organiza-
tional scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn,
2003a) suggests that a greater understanding of
positive organizations may be on the horizon, which
could in turn inform further understanding of
positive institutions and communities more broadly.
There is also recognition that psychologists are,
unfortunately, not powerful stakeholders within
public policy, and as such their influence is limited.
However, there are increasing collaborations
between economics and positive psychology (in
relation to the measurement and achievement of
happiness), and this offers a powerful way forward.
Indeed, work is already underway to promote the
idea of national well-being accounts to complement
economic indicators such as the gross domestic
product (Diener & Seligman, 2004; Kahneman,
Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004).
Within the UK at least, the government has
an expressed interest in the state of the nation’s
happiness (Donovan & Halpern, 2002), and there is
also a growing social agenda to promote well-being
(e.g., A well-being manifesto for a flourishing society;
Shah & Marks, 2004). These are promising devel-
opments, and speak to the potential for a positive
psychological contribution through partnership and
collaboration with established stakeholders.
5. Description or prescription? In dealing with all of
these issues, we must be very mindful of the
difference between describing something as good
or prescribing it as good (Held, 2004). On this
distinction rests the difference between a descriptive
science of positive psychology, and a prescriptive
science of positive psychology. A descriptive science
simply defines, delineates, and documents its find-
ings, leaving them free of value judgement or
admonition as to how they should be used. But, as
we have noted elsewhere, positive psychology is far
from value free (Linley & Joseph, 2004b), and even
inherent within the name positive psychology is the
implicit value assumption that positive equals good
(Christopher, 2003). However, we agree with
Diener (2003, p. 116) that, ‘‘Positive does not have
to be a simple, monadic concept to be a useful
heuristic one.’’
Medical researchers may be prescriptive e.g.,
eating fruit and fresh vegetables is good for you;
eating too much fatty food is bad for you), since
within medicine there is almost universal agreement
on what is good (e.g., living healthily, for longer).
Yet within psychology, defining something as good is
much more of a subjective enterprise (Christopher,
1996), and definitions or bases for deciding the basis
of ‘‘goodness’’ may often not be consistent with
each other.
For example, Diener and Suh (1997) built on the
philosophical work of Brock (1993) to suggest three
possible bases from which people may determine
what is good. First, people’s choices may indicate
what they perceive to be good. If people consistently
choose something, it must be because they think
it is good (an economic perspective). Second,
people’s experiences and judgments of positive
subjective states serve as an indicator to them that
something is good (a subjective psychological
perspective). Third, people may use value systems
that are based on norms, religious beliefs, or cultural
precedents, and the like, to determine what is good
(a social psychological perspective). While these
three perspectives may sometimes be concordant,
equally they may not (e.g., filling up one’s gas tank
may be chosen repeatedly, but is neither subjectively
enjoyable or consistent with an environmentally-
supportive value system; Gable & Haidt, 2005).
Thus, defining something as good is no easy task,
requiring the recognition and balancing of complex
and multidimensional factors that may vary accord-
ing to individual, situation, culture, and time.
Past, present, future 13
With this in mind, positive psychology ought to be
very mindful of erring into the trap of prescription
without the necessary critical reflection, and assum-
ing that a positive psychological position would ever
be right for all of the people, all of the time. On the
other hand, ‘‘Although we cannot pretend to be
the final arbiters about what is good, at least we
can be ‘players’ in helping society define what is
positive’’ (Diener, 2003, p. 117). In this way,
positive psychology can open up a vigorous debate
about what is good and desirable, and under what
circumstances, and in which cultural settings, of
which historical periods. Looking to the future, our
aspiration would be that positive psychologists may
even be able to discover principles that unite different
conceptions of the positive and good, thus allowing
movement toward a taxonomic understanding of
positive psychological phenomena that would
provide a meta-theoretical foundation for optimal
human existence.
Conclusion
These are lofty aims indeed, and it is our hope and
aspiration that The Journal of Positive Psychology can,
and should, be at the forefront of these developments
over the years to come. Positive psychology has
certainly arrived, we have documented where we see
the field as it stands now, and we have offered some
thoughts about how we think it may evolve in the
future. Readers of The Journal of Positive Psychology,
the future of positive psychology, if not psychology,
is within your grasp; seize it with both hands, and
do with it as you will.
Acknowledgements
We thank Edward Chang, Jonathan Haidt, Sonja
Lyubomirsky, Nansook Park, Christopher Peterson,
Martin Seligman, C. R. Snyder, Jingping (Jane) Xu,
and those members of various positive psychology
discussion groups and listservs who helped us in
identifying and locating some of the information
included in this article. We also offer sincere thanks
to Robert A. Emmons and an anonymous reviewer
who provided very helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation.
New York: Holt.
Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The
practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organiza-
tional (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we
go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology,74, 391–411.
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to
classification techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D.
(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology,
5, 323–370.
Bolt, M. (2004). Pursuing human strengths: A positive psychology
guide. New York: Worth.
Bretherton, R., & Ørner, R. J. (2004). Positive psychology and
psychotherapy: An existential approach. In P. A. Linley &
S. Joseph (Eds), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 420–430).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brock, D. (1993). Quality of life in healthcare and medical ethics.
In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds), The quality of life
(pp. 95–132). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Rickett, E. M., & Masi, C. M.
(2005). Sociality, spirituality, and meaning making: Chicago
Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study. Review of General
Psychology,9, 143–155.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003a). Positive
organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline
(pp. 3–13). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003b).
Foundations of positive organizational scholarship. In
K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds), Positive
organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline
(pp. 3–13). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Carr, A. (2003). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and
human strengths. London: Brunner-Routledge.
Cawley, M. J., Martin, J. E., & Johnson, J. A. (2000). A virtues
approach to personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
28, 997–1013.
Chafouleas, S. M., & Bray, M. A. (2004). Introducing positive
psychology: Finding a place within school psychology.
Psychology in the Schools,41, 1–5.
Christopher, J. C. (1996). Counseling’s inescapable moral visions.
Journal of Counseling and Development,75, 17–25.
Christopher, J. C. (2003). The good in positive psychology. Paper
presented at the Second International Positive Psychology
Summit., October, Washington, DC.
Clonan, S. M., Chafouleas, S. M., McDougal, J. L., &
Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2004). Positive psychology goes to
school: Are we there yet? Psychology in the Schools,41, 101–110.
Compton, W. C. (2004). An introduction to positive psychology.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Legs or wings? A reply to
R. S. Lazarus. Psychological Inquiry,14, 113–115.
Diener, E. (2003). What is positive about positive psychology:
The curmudgeon and Pollyanna. Psychological Inquiry,14,
115–120.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward
an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest,5, 1–31.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic,
social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research,40,
189–216.
Donovan, N., & Halpern, D., (2002). Life satisfaction: The state of
knowledge and implications for government. London: Downing
Street Strategy Unit. Retrieved June 12, 2003 from, http://
www.strategy.gov.uk/2001/futures/attachments/ls/paper.pdf
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness prospers in
democracy. Journal of Happiness Studies,1, 79–102.
14 P. A. Linley et al.
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive
psychology? Review of General Psychology,9, 103–110.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1931). The phenomenology of mind (J. B. Baillie,
Trans 2nd ed.). London: Allen and Unwin (Original work
published 1807).
Held, B. S. (2004). The negative side of positive psychology.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology,44, 9–46.
Huebner, E. S., & Gilman, R. (2003). Toward a focus on positive
psychology in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly,
18, 99–102.
Huppert, F. A. (2004). A population approach to positive
psychology: The potential for population interventions to
promote well-being and prevent disorder. In P. A. Linley &
S. Joseph (Eds), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 693–709).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience: A study in
human nature. New York: Longman, Green.
Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2004). Positive therapy: A positive
psychological theory of therapeutic practice. In P. A. Linley &
S. Joseph (Eds), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 354–368).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to
threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth
through adversity. Review of General Psychology,9, 262–280.
Joseph, S., & Worsley, R. (2005). A positive psychology of mental
health: The person-centred perspective. In S. Joseph &
R. Worsley (Eds), Person-centred psychopathology: A positive
psychology of mental health (pp. 348–357). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS
Books.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., &
Stone, A. A. (2004). Toward national well-being accounts.
American Economic Review,94, 429–434.
King, L. A., Eells, J. E., & Burton, C. M. (2004). The good life,
broadly and narrowly considered. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph
(Eds), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 35–52). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a life good?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 156–165.
Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London:
Allen Lane.
Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Does the positive psychology movement
have legs? Psychological Inquiry,14, 93–109.
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2003). Putting it into practice.
The Psychologist,16, 143.
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (Eds). (2004a). Positive psychology in
practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004b). Toward a theoretical
foundation for positive psychology in practice. In P. A. Linley
& S. Joseph (Eds), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 713–731).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (in press). The
benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead
to success? Psychological Bulletin.
Maddux, J. E. (2002). Stopping the madness: Positive
psychology and the deconstruction of the illness ideology
and the DSM. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 13–25). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Maddux, J. E., Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2004). Toward
a positive clinical psychology: Deconstructing the illness
ideology and constructing an ideology of human strengths
and potential. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds), Positive
psychology in practice (pp. 320–334). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York:
Van Nostrand.
McCullough, M. E., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). Classical
sources of human strength: Revisiting an old home and
building a new one. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
19, 1–10.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Mental representations of
attachment security: Theoretical foundation for a positive social
psychology. In M. W. Baldwin (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition
(pp. 233–266). New York: Guilford.
Morgeson, F., Seligman, M., Sternberg, R., Taylor, S., &
Manning, C. (1999). Lessons learned from a life in
psychological science. American Psychologist,54, 106–116.
Murray, B. (2003). A primer on teaching positive psychology.
APA Monitor on Psychology,34, 52–53.
Noble, D. N., Perkins, K., & Fatout, M. (2000). On
being a strength coach: Child welfare and the strengths
model. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,17,
141–153.
Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2003). Positive psychology as the
evenhanded positive psychologist views it. Psychological Inquiry,
14, 143–147.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths
and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Rand, K. L., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). A reply to Dr. Lazarus, the
evocator emeritus. Psychological Inquiry,14, 148–153.
Rathunde, K. (2001). Toward a psychology of optimal human
functioning: What positive psychology can learn from the
‘‘experiential turns’’ of James, Dewey, and Maslow. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology,41, 135–153.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of
psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity
dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology
Review,5, 296–320.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (1992). The strengths perspective in social work
practice. New York: Longman.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president’s address. American
Psychologist,54, 559–562.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Positive Psychology Network 2004
progress report, Retrieved June 28, 2005, from http://www.
positivepsychology.org/progressreport2004.pdf
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000).
Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist,
55, 5–14.
Shah, H., & Marks, N. (2004). A well-being manifesto for a flourishing
society. London: New Economics Foundation. Retrieved 12
January, 2005, from http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/
uploads/21xv5yytotlxxu322pmyada205102004103948.pdf
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Goals, congruence, and
positive well-being: New empirical support for humanistic
theories. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,41, 30–50.
Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is
necessary. American Psychologist,56, 216–217.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds). (2002a). Handbook of positive
psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2002b). The future of positive
psychology: A declaration of independence. In C. R. Snyder &
S. J. Lopez (Eds), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 751–767).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. (in press). Positive psychology.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Snyder, C. R., Tennen, H., Affleck, G., & Cheavens, J.
(2000). Social, personality, clinical, and health psychol-
ogy tributaries: The merging of a scholarly ‘‘River of
dreams.’’. Personality and Social Psychology Review,4,
16–29.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology.
American Psychologist,56, 1069–1079.
Past, present, future 15
Taylor, E. (2001). Positive psychology and humanistic
psychology: A reply to Seligman. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology,41, 13–29.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L.,
Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioural
responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-
or-flight. Psychological Review,107, 422–429.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2003). While accentuating the
positive, don’t eliminate the negative or Mr. in-between.
Psychological Inquiry,14, 163–169.
Terjesen, M. D., Jacofsky, M., Froh, J., & DiGiuseppe,
R. (2004). Integrating positive psychology into schools:
Implications for practice. Psychology in the Schools,41,
163–172.
Veenhoven, R. (2004). Happiness as a public policy aim: The
greatest happiness principle. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds),
Positive psychology in practice (pp. 658–678). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Yates, T. M., & Masten, A. S. (2004). Fostering the
future: Resilience theory and the practice of positive psychol-
ogy. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds), Positive psychology in
practice (pp. 521–539). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Appendix
Journal Special Issues (or Sections) on Positive Psychology.
Journal Publication year Volume (part) Editor(s)
American Psychologist 2000 55 (1) Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 2000 19 (1) McCullough & Snyder
American Psychologist 2001 56 (3) Sheldon & King
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 2001 41 (1) Rich
Journal of Clinical Psychology 2002 58 (9) Held & Bohart
American Behavioral Scientist 2003 47 (4) Fowers & Tjeltveit
Psychological Inquiry 2003 14 (2) Lazarus (target article author)
School Psychology Quarterly 2003 18 (2) Huebner & Gilman
The Psychologist 2003 16 (3) Linley, Joseph, & Boniwell
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2004 591 Peterson
Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies 2004 5 (1) Cheng
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B 2004 359 (1449) Huppert, Keverne, & Baylis
Psychology in the Schools 2004 41 (1) Chafouleas & Bray
Ricerche di Psicologia 2004 27 (1) Delle Fave
Review of General Psychology 2005 9 (2) Simonton & Baumeister
Revue Que
´be
´coise de Psychologie 2005 26 (1) Mandeville
16 P. A. Linley et al.
