#8 + Clin PSYC
Positive Clinical Psychology
Lukas Otteson
Professor Tucker
PSYC 437-6980 Positive Psychology
University of Maryland University College
February 24, 2018
Positive psychology has come a long way since its inception. It wasn’t taken seriously for a long time, but times have changed. Today, clinical psychology and positive psychology have a more involved relationship than they ever have. Although initially dismissed and seen as not having any applicability to psychological research and practice, positive psychology is now seen in practice regularly and its theories are prevalent in current psychology research studies. This paper will explore the challenges and opportunities facing positive psychology in regards to its use within clinical psychological practice, the effectiveness of positive psychology for study participants with psychiatric disorders, and the integration of positive and clinical psychology.
Jamie Gruman, Margaret Lumley, & Gloria Gonzalez-Morales addressed the criticisms against positive psychology and proposed a framework to advance the study of optimal human functioning (2018). Gruman et al. stated that positive psychology’s goal has always been to balance traditional psychology’s over-emphasis on the negative sides of life (2018). That is to say, psychology has been about getting out of the negatives and to zero, but positive psychology argues that more emphasis needs to be put on getting from zero to somewhere better (positive). The main criticism of positive psychology is that it overly focuses on the positive and Gruman et al. argue that the major challenge facing it is to address that criticism to “better achieve the goal of understanding what makes life worth living,” (2018). Traditional psychology is seen as being overly negative and positive as overly positive, so maybe an integration of the two would offer a better balance. Rand & Snyder (as cited in Gruman et al., 2018) say, “positive psychology was never intended to replace or devalue, but instead to introduce balance into, psychology’s customary focus on the negative states, conditions, and experiences.” Gruman et al. proposed five ways to integrate balance: balance being seen as a mid-range rather than a mid-point (because there will be variation among individuals as to where they will find balance), viewing balance as complementarity (traditional psychology’s focus on the negative and positive psychology’s focus on the positive can each serve to improve each other’s qualities), balanced being seen as a tempered view of constructs (for the possibility of garnering positive perceptions of negative phenomena to have significant and long-lasting implications for instance), viewing balance as contextually sensitive (what is viewed as positive or negative differs across different cultures, for example), and attaining balance between conscious and unconscious phenomena (taking into account the value of the oft-neglected unconscious phenomena) (2018). Gruman et al.’s study put forth a foundation that can be utilized toward the end of obtaining the sought-after balance, addressing the criticisms directed toward positive psychology and providing a compelling argument as to how to understand and promote good living (2018).
Farid Chakhssi, Jannis Kraiss, Marion Sommers-Spijkerman, & Ernst Bohlmeijer explored the efficacy of positive psychology with participants with psychiatric disorders and found that positive psychological interventions (focusing on the elicitation of positive feelings, cognitions, or behaviors) have potential to improve well-being and reduced distress amongst populations with clinical disorders (2018). This only serves to add reason to consider positive psychology’s value within clinical practice. Joseph Wood (as cited in Chakhssi, 2018) reports, “Even after successful treatment of psychopathology, low levels of well-being may persist in individuals, which, in turn, form a substantial risk factor for psychological distress.” Being at zero, or neutral, could not only be less happy than possible, but also at greater risk of falling into the negatives. Chakhssi et al. add to that point, “recent studies suggest that well-being and psychological distress are two separate constructs, and that the treatment of symptoms does not necessarily result in improved well-being,” (2018). Chakhssi et al.’s study, “provided evidence that positive psychological interventions are effective in improving well-being as well as in alleviating common psychological symptoms, including depression and anxiety, in clinical samples with psychiatric and somatic disorders,” (2018). This study serves as an example of why integration between positive and clinical psychology needs to be achieved and why that balance needs to be struck. They “encourage researchers to further establish the effectiveness of well-being enhancing approaches to positive psychological interventions,” (Chakhssi et al., 2018). This study is part of an encouraging momentum for positive psychology in regards to its integration into clinical practice, but the more studies there are that can show what this one did, the more confidence universities can have in stressing the value of positive psychology in modern clinical practice and the more clinicians can have reason to implement positive psychological interventions into their practice.
Judith Johnson & Alex Wood argue that clinical psychology can benefit from considering positive psychology constructs (2017). According to Johnson & Wood, the reasons why clinical psychology can benefit from this consideration include: independently predicting well-being when accounting for traditional clinical factors, interacting with risk factors to predict outcomes (conferring resilience), increasing movement towards the positive pole of well-being being used to encourage movement away from the negative pole (either in isolation or alongside traditional clinical interventions), and research from positive psychology can support clinical psychology as it seeks to adapt therapies developed in Western nations to other cultures (2017). All of those reasons highlight the importance of positive psychology being integrated into clinical practice. Johnson & Wood say, “While Clinical psychology research has tended to focus on disorder and the most prevalent and consistent predictors of this, positive psychology researchers have focused more on discovering new forms of individual differences, in order to understand better how to support human flourishing,” (2017). Together, clinical practice can become something that focuses on disorder and the prevalent/consistent predictors of it and better understanding how to support human flourishing. More specifically, clinical psychology “involves making meaning and sense of psychological problems; looking for patterns in cognition, emotion and behaviour, and carefully identifying recurring themes from a range of concerns, difficulties, and experiences that have been reported,” (2017). That is all that goes into getting away from that negative pole, so it only makes sense that there be an abundance of research concerning how to get from neutrality or negativity to the positive. Wood & Tarrier (as cited in Johnson & Wood, 2017) report, “positive psychological research can enhance knowledge, understanding, and practice in clinical psychology, leading to an integration of these two literatures, or a ‘Positive Clinical Psychology’.” Clinical practice that can not only get people out of disorder and negativity, but also into happiness and well-being is better than what traditional psychology has provided. The integration between positive and clinical psychology is where clinical practice becomes what it could be. Mindfulness, compassion-focused therapy (direct addressing of negative and critical thinking and skill development using relaxation, meditation, and imagery exercises to develop feelings of kindness and compassion), and Broad-Minded Affective Coping (recalling of personal positive memories to restore emotional equilibrium after negative emotions are delved into during therapy sessions) are among some of the most popular positive psychological interventions used by clinicians today (Johnson & Wood, 2017). At a glance, it may not seem like much (three interventions in the vast array of treatments within clinical psychology), but these interventions can be used with a wide range of patients. Johnson & Wood conclude that the examples they provided are provided to demonstrate that, while there is a divide between clinical and positive psychology, acceptance amongst clinical psychologists toward the benefits of positive emotion and positive skills training, and interest in this area, is growing (2017). Positive psychology is being taken more seriously in academia and clinical practice.
Positive psychology is important. It is more than a study of how to feel good or attain joy. Positive psychology is about not leading a neutral life. Positive psychology is more than that, still. The further away from a neutral life one is, the further they are from negativity as well. Not leading a positive life, of well-being and happiness, puts one at greater risk of falling into disorder and dysfunction. It can be used in a typical therapy session in which negative emotions are drawn out and emotional equilibrium needs to be achieved. Positive skills can be taught to children to help keep them from ever having to discuss their negativity with a therapist. Positive psychological interventions have been shown to be effective in alleviating depression, stress, and anxiety. The problem has been in getting accepted and taken seriously within psychology, but it becomes a fairly easy negotiation when you consider what positive psychology is asking for: to be considered in addition to the traditional negative-focused research and practice. Positive psychology merely aims to compliment clinical psychology, not supplant it or compete against it. Positive psychology wants to work together to help humans live as best as they can, and we’re now seeing clinical psychology be more receive toward that. The criticism of positive psychology as focusing too much on positive things, is misplaced and that is being recognized now. Future research will still face criticisms, but balance and integration are the responses to those future criticisms. More studies on the efficacy of positive psychological interventions are needed to bolster the interest and confidence in positive psychology, but there has been a lot of recent progress to be encouraged by. It could just be a matter of time before all clinicians are using positive psychological interventions with their patients that they’ve helped claw out of negativity and disorder. Once they’ve been pulled out of a well, it would be nice to give them a lay of the land afterwards. In Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”, the one person who saw the light could have taken the others by their hands and shown them what life could be (outside the cave). Positive psychology is built to give people the lives they don’t know they can have.
References
Farid Chakhssi, Jannis T. Kraiss, Marion Sommers-Spijkerman, & Ernst T. Bohlmeijer. (2018). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp 1-17 (2018), (1), 1. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2
Gruman, J. A., Lumley, M. N., & González-Morales, M. G. (2018). Incorporating balance: Challenges and opportunities for positive psychology. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 59(1), 54–64. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1037/cap0000109
Johnson, J., & Wood, A. (2017). Integrating positive and clinical psychology: Viewing human functioning as continua from positive to negative can benefit clinical assessment, interventions and understandings of resilience. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 41(3), 335–349. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1007/s10608-015-9728-y
