I’ve just returned from my zillionth med school interview. And, for the zillionth time, I’ve tried to convince some hardcore basic scientist that positive psychology isn’t fluff. Try explaining positive psych to a genomics professor. Not easy.
Many genomics professors, surgeons, hematologists, and the like are not so into social science. A lot of them think that social sciences are “soft,” and that anybody who’s doing that kind of stuff is just doing it because they’re not smart enough to study biochemistry or proteomics.
Misrepresentation of positive psychology in the media doesn’t help. It doesn’t help that, thanks to narrow media coverage, most of these lab-dwelling med school profs think that PP is about nothing more than big yellow smiley faces. The following essay discusses how the media overlooks much of what makes PP great, and why this site may help change that.
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) have proposed that Positive Psychology (PP) consists of three pillars: positive subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions. Seligman (2002) further divides positive subjective experience into pleasure, engagement, and meaning. Each branch of positive subjective experience (pleasure, engagement, and meaning) might be considered one ninth of PP (i.e., one third of one third). No convincing argument has suggested that any branch is more important than any other branch, and there’s no apparent reason to assume that this is the case. The media, however, has focused on just one ninth of our field: pleasure. The narrow scope of PP coverage is unfortunate, and positive psychologists should take steps to correct it.
Expanding the scope of PP media coverage may be crucial for three reasons. The first relates to perceptions of the self-help industry. Many believe that self-help movements are ephemeral, useless, dishonest, and even harmful marketing ploys (e.g., Salerno, 2005). By presenting PP as a largely materialistic attempt to enhance the enjoyment of massages and ice cream and sex, pleasure-focused media coverage may suggest that PP is a mere self-help fad. Discussing engagement, meaning, character, and positive institutions may help people see that PP is much more. Focusing on pleasure might increase magazine sales, but it may also prevent understanding and respect of the PP movement.The second reason that PP media coverage should be expanded relates to recruitment. Seligman and others are attempting to attract the “best and brightest” young minds to Positive Psychology (e.g., Handler, 2004). Recruiting positive psychologists may be difficult if they’re presented with just one ninth of the field. The limited scope of media coverage is a missed opportunity to inform bright young minds of all that PP has to offer.
In addition to missing recruitment opportunities, incomplete PP media coverage is also a missed opportunity to inform people of how they can benefit from PP research. Most people have little or no exposure to academic psychology books and journals, and are acquainted with PP exclusively through the media. For those who are interested in and may benefit from the largely unaddressed eight ninths of our field, the narrow scope of media coverage is a missed opportunity to share information that can change peoples’ lives.
Four strategies might be useful for expanding media coverage of PP. First, it may be important for positive psychologists and PP students to have knowledge of all PP pillars and “sub-pillars.” They should be able to intelligently discuss any branch of our field. Second, positive psychologists and PP students should be encouraged to explain all components of PP when working with the media. Third, it may be useful for those discussing PP with the media to mention good sources for more information. Seligman’s Authentic Happiness (2002) and Peterson’s A Primer in Positive Psychology (2006) may be the best available references.
The final approach to expanding PP media coverage may be the most useful. The Journal of Positive Psychology and the Journal of Happiness Studies are excellent tools for preliminary dissemination of PP, but these sources are designed for academics. Maybe that’s part of why this blog is so important. The press controls much of what the public learns about PP; CNN et al. may be bottlenecking PP dissemination. Creating our own daily news site allows us to cover the entire field, rather than relying on the media to cover a fraction of it. We might consider using this daily news site, and similar outlets, in part as a way to broaden the information presented to the public. Creating our own venues to discuss all branches of positive psychology, and undertaking the other aforementioned steps to broaden PP media coverage, may be invaluable. Doing so may ensure that PP is presented as more than a shallow and profit-driven fad, enhance our ability to recruit talented young positive psychologists, and ensure that people get the full range of life-changing PP information.
References
Handler, R. (2004). 20 weeks to happiness. Retrieved April 1, 2006 from http://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/jf06_handler.html.
Peterson, C. (2006). A primer of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salerno, S. (2005). Sham: How the self-help movement made America helpless. New York: Crown.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Topics: All, Media, Pathway 1 "Pleasure", _1 Positive Experiences, _2 Positive Traits, _3 Positive Organizations
22 comments
- Meet the Press: Anxiety and the Negativity Bias by Sherri Fisher (2-4-07)
- What Drug Companies can Learn from Positive Psychology by Jordan Silberman (6-27-07)
- Contact Us, Media Contacts, Reprint Policy, and Submitting for Book Reviews by Editor S.M. (4-14-07)
- About by Editor S.M. (12-2-06)
- For Our Non-Readers… by Giselle Nicholson (1-13-07)
Hi Jordan,
Thanks for making this your first post. You present a great guide for us all to help present the full picture of Positive Psychology. Our work in Positive Psychology is too important for it to be diminished by a focus on only 1/9 of the field.
And all the schools you are interviewing with would be lucky to get you! Keep us posted!
David
Jordan,
Right on.
My only argument is your exclusive focus on recruiting talented YOUNG professionals. One way to carry the message is for those of us already established in our fields to show that we believe it, using the respect that people have for us to open their minds to the importance, for example, of the 7th, 8th, and 9th ninths — those associated with positive institutions. I’m working now to introduce the “Broaden and Build” idea into an environment that very much needs it.
What if you were to convince one of those medical school people that positive individual traits comprise much, much more than being smart, or that wellness coaching based on positive psychology principles is a major and under-used therapy, particularly for chronic conditions?
May you lead change wherever you go to medical school.
Kathryn
Thanks for your thoughts Kathryn!
I agree re not limiting the argument to young people and re discussing character as part of PP w/ med school folks.
Re wellness coaching, I disagree.
Wellness coaching has been increasing in popularity at an incredible pace, and it’s used by many corporations. The intervention targets heart disease, cancers, and other serious illnesses. Like a surgery or a statin, the efficacy of this intervention is a matter of life or death; the extent to which coaches successfully alter health-related behavior substantially affects the risk of life-threatening disease. And the data don’t by any means warrant the use of this life-or-death intervention. A Medline search for “wellness coaching” yields zero hits. What if it’s used in place of behavioral medicine interventions that have been shown to work? Before we start prescribing wellness coaching, let’s make sure it works (and let’s understand for whom it works). I wouldn’t want a provider to prescribe a drug that hasn’t been empirically/rigorously studied. Wellness coaching, a life-or-death intervention, should be held to the same standard….
Sorry for the rant, but this is something I feel strongly about…
Hope you’re well, Kathryn. Where can I find more info on the positive institutions work you’re doing?
Jordan
Jordan,
Perhaps you and I are meaning different things by wellness coaching. I mean a supportive relationship that helps an individual make changes in basic habits. I have a friend who is a general practitioner who complains that diabetics come to her wanting her to just fix them. It’s not like that — it’s a matter of learning the basic decision-making habits such that more of one’s decisions are good than not — and then being able to deal with the fact that you can’t do it perfectly. How many doctors nowadays have the time to do that? Many people stop testing blood sugars because they don’t know exactly what to do with the information and nobody else seems interested. Why do you contrast wellness coaching to behavioral techniques that have been shown to work? Wouldn’t these techniques be in the toolkit for a competent wellness coach? As you’ve often stated, interventions have to be matched to the specific needs and character of the intervention being treated. Do you see doctors doing this? In the 11 minutes they get per patient?
If wellness coaching were being developed by a big drug company that wants a patent to make big bucks, there would be rigorous studies. The fact that there are no Medline hits shows only that this intervention has not been studied. Drug companies fund drug trials because they have to — to get FDA approval. They also do it so that they can describe the risks and side effects so that they can (correctly) shift some of the responsibility to the doctor and patient for making specific tradeoffs. There is no central organization with a big motive to fund studies of wellness coaching. Maybe some PhD will do it. Or the corporations that fund it. But in the meantime, people are more often left with nothing to help with behavioral changes.
I think wellness coaching is similar to what makes placebo treatments often produce good results along with the study drug — that is, the attention and care of another person who pays attention to what your numbers are and how you feel, if only to be able to fill out the drug trial forms correctly.
So sorry for the return rant. But I’m really trying to see where we meet in the middle.
Kathryn
___
Hi Kathryn,
Apologies for late response; been busy. Answers below.
Hope you’re well,
J
Kathryn Britton says
Jordan,
Perhaps you and I are meaning different things by wellness coaching. I mean a supportive relationship that helps an individual make changes in basic habits.
MAYBE. I’M THINKING OF THE FORMAL INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE SPRINGING UP ALL OVER THE PLACE. MAYBE YOU’RE THINKING OF SOMETHING LESS FORMAL?
I have a friend who is a general practitioner who complains that diabetics come to her wanting her to just fix them. It’s not like that — it’s a matter of learning the basic decision-making habits such that more of one’s decisions are good than not — and then being able to deal with the fact that you can’t do it perfectly. How many doctors nowadays have the time to do that? Many people stop testing blood sugars because they don’t know exactly what to do with the information and nobody else seems interested.
AGREE STRONGLY. MANY PATIENTS WANT TO BE BETTER YESTERDAY, AREN’T WILLING TO PUT IN THE WORK NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE WELLNESS.
Why do you contrast wellness coaching to behavioral techniques that have been shown to work? Wouldn’t these techniques be in the toolkit for a competent wellness coach?
OFTEN NOT…I’VE ACTUALLY ENCOUNTERED QUITE A FEW WHO AREN’T CONCERNED WITH WHAT’S BEEN SHOWN TO WORK…THE EXTENT TO WHICH COACHES HAVE EMPIRICALLY-SUPPORTED TOOLS MAY VARY BECAUSE THE WELLNESS COACHING FIELD IS UNREGULATED, DESPITE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERVENTION.
As you’ve often stated, interventions have to be matched to the specific needs and character of the intervention being treated. Do you see doctors doing this? In the 11 minutes they get per patient?
MY GUESS: SOME PHYSICIANS ARE CONCERNED WITH FIT OF BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS, BUT NOT MANY.
If wellness coaching were being developed by a big drug company that wants a patent to make big bucks, there would be rigorous studies. The fact that there are no Medline hits shows only that this intervention has not been studied. Drug companies fund drug trials because they have to — to get FDA approval. They also do it so that they can describe the risks and side effects so that they can (correctly) shift some of the responsibility to the doctor and patient for making specific tradeoffs.
I DISAGREE THAT THE PURPOSE OF RIGOROUS RESEARCH IS TO GET A RUBBER STAMP OR ESCAPE CULPABILITY. IT MAY ALSO BE IMPORTANT TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT WORKS AND DOESN’T, AND TO UNDERSTAND THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF INTERVENTIONS… THAT’S A BIG PART OF WHY WE “DO SCIENCE.”
There is no central organization with a big motive to fund studies of wellness coaching. Maybe some PhD will do it. Or the corporations that fund it. But in the meantime, people are more often left with nothing to help with behavioral changes.
THERE’S A HUGE LITERATURE ON HEALTH BEHAVIOR CHANGE, THERE ARE SEVERAL JOURNALS DEVOTED SOLELY TO IT. THERE ARE MANY PROVEN EFFICACIOUS HEALTH BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS. I DISAGREE THAT THERE’S NOTHING OUT THERE TO HELP PEOPLE CHANGE BEHAVIOR.
I think wellness coaching is similar to what makes placebo treatments often produce good results along with the study drug — that is, the attention and care of another person who pays attention to what your numbers are and how you feel, if only to be able to fill out the drug trial forms correctly.
THIS MAY WELL BE, BUT WE REALLY DON’T KNOW BECAUSE THERE’S NO RESEARCH.
LET ME BE CLEAR: I’M NOT BY ANY MEANS CRITICIZING ATTEMPTS TO ASSIST PATIENTS IN ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLE CHANGES. QUITE THE OPPOSITE! I JUST THINK THAT IT WARRANTS SOLID RESEARCH.
So sorry for the return rant. But I’m really trying to see where we meet in the middle.
PERHAPS WE CONVERGE ON THE SUSPICION THAT HEALTH COACHING MAY BE THE BEST AVAILABLE APPROACH FOR SOME PATIENTS?
MY GENERAL THOUGHT, HOWEVER, REMAINS THE SAME: WE HAVE NO DATA SUPPORTING OUR SHARED HYPOTHESIS REGARDING THE EFFICACY OF HEALTH COACHING. THAT’S ALL I’M SAYING. HEALTH COACHING IS A LIFE-OR-DEATH INTERVENTION THAT NEEDS TO BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD. RESEARCH OF WELLNESS COACHING IS NOT ABOUT THE FDA. IT’S ABOUT KNOWING IF WE SHOULD USE AN INTERVENTION TO TREAT LIFE-THREATENING CONDITIONS, AND IF SO, FOR WHOM.
GOOD DISCUSSION!
oops - proofreading glitch — “individual being treated”
Hey, Jordan! PP can be a tough sell to a room full of lawyers, also! I always explicitly note that some of what I’m saying may sound like positive-thinking self-help, and some like a sermon, but that all of it is science. Since I’ve been speaking in a continuing education context to individuals who are not in a shared context (other than the profession), I may not have put enough time in on the institutional aspects of PP. Thanks! I’ll have to think about that. And I totally agree that there is lots of serious research to be done and we need to attract folks from many fields and disciplines to be involved in that effort.
___
J’s response:
Thanks Dave. We’ll have to share notes regarding pitching the full picture of PP. I’m sure I could learn a lot from you, and I’d welcome any other thoughts you might have about this.
Be well,
Jordan
Hi Jordan - So yesterday I was TV for an one-hour interview on positive psychology. Just want to say - trying to get serious positive psychology on the air in real time, even when that is your mission is like arm wrestling with a gorilla! It’s an unweidly beast, interested in what it wants, and it doesn’t MEAN to squish your message, but it’s the medium and it rules. For every comment on engagement, meaning and purpose you get five smiley faces back. And this is from good and well meaning journalists — who must feed all the tiny gorillas watching what they, as mom and dad gorillas, think will keep them watching.
So Jordan your post was great — wish I’d read it yesterday! The “one ninth” thing is a Great Soundbite. Let’s all incorporate it into our, (um) positive guerrilla tool-kit!
Jordan, am really glad you thought of this framework - it makes a lot of sense. One Ninth. Nice.
Carol, great comment, so funny. That’s like Chris Peterson said to the author of the New York Magazine article about the yellow smiley face - “Please don’t use it to illustrate your story.”
Carol - I can only imagine that still managed to represent the field of Positive Psychology in a professional, informative way. Where/when can we see your interview? And Jordan, I love how your mind works — making it easy for the rest of us to frame the study of PP for ourselves and others. Warm regards, Margaret
Hi there!
Someone sent me the link to be able to watch the show. It’s called “Wired” and was aired live on Tuesday the 29. Here’s the link, I couldn’t actually do it, but my son was jumping up and down on the couch so I wasnt’ exactly focused…. http://www.boston.com/news/necn/Shows/wired/
Otherwise try NECN.com and play it that way.
If anyone does get to see it - let me know!
Cheers,
Carol
And check out my future general website PerfectHappiness.com, not really up yet, so I’d love feedback, tips and thoughts. What’s here is just a place holder and a way to join a mailing list. Thanks
Oh, I forgot to say, to visit the website for some reason you have to put the
www. in before PerfectHappiness.com or it takes you to a domain sale spot. Don’t know how to fix that..
Jordan,
I’m struggling with your model trying to come out with 9.
Your picture shows Positive Subjective Experience - broken down into Pleasure, Engagement, Meaning, Positive Individual Traits, Positive Institutions. To me that adds up to either 5 or 6, depending on whether you include Positive Subject Experience as well as its subcategories.
I personally think we can break Positive Institutions into three subcategories — organizations that value positive emotion, strengths-based organizations that enable flow, and organizations with shared purpose.
But I don’t know (yet) how to break Positive Individual Traits down into three subcategories.
What am I missing?
If we have nine categories, I think it is a good idea for each to have a name so that we can refer to it and understand each other.
What comes to your mind?
Kathryn
___
J’s response:
The idea is simply that pleasure is 1/3 of positive subjective experience, which is 1/3 of PP. I’m suggesting that positive subjective experience is no more or less important than character or pos. institutions. Although we have yet to break down the latter 2 branches, I’m assuming that they’re roughly equal to pos subjective experience.
There’s no precise measurement here. I can’t tell you what a unit of PP is, it’s not supposed to be exact. It’s just a third of a third. Make sense?
Here is the direct link to Carol Kauffman’s interview:
http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/necn.html?catID=83469&clipid=1203772&autoStart=true&mute=false&continuous=true
This is great! S.
[…] How can we ensure a small, quick dose of happiness for our success? According to Martin Seligman, there are three “pathways to happiness:” pleasure, engagement, and meaning. These are mediums through which we can cultivate a measure of happiness. (For more info, see the Silberman article from January 27th, as well as Seligman’s Authentic Happiness.) […]
Gosh — I feel like I’m back in class at Penn! I thoroughly have enjoyed reading your article, Jordan, which makes excellent points about dealing with the media, and the comments that came from Kathryn and others. I’ll be teaching at NYU this year, and plan to incorporate many of your points (all of the points on this page and within the blog) to help people understand why this field and the way we discuss it is so important.
Good luck with medical schools! Wherever you go is blessed, to say the least. They’ll get a musical genius who runs marathons, thinks big, debates us in circles, and doesn’t brag about anything. Go get ‘em!
All the best,
Caroline
Caroline!
What are you teaching at NYU? Would love to learn more about it!
Listened to your interview w/ Sonja–great stuff, congrats on success of the show.
And what about your awesome research ideas re documenting goals?? What ever happened with that??
Be well,
J
Hi Jordan,
I love the dialogue around the 1/9th concept and am so glad you wrote about it. We talked about this last year in class and now it is here in print–Great job, and a nice follow up to my Op-Ed on February 4: Anxiety and the Negativity Bias.
You and Carol Kauffman identify 2 important things regarding the media:
1) The big media are trying to sell more than the idea of Positive Psychology, and capturing their attention is a challenge. The fact that they show interest is good. Sharing the 1/9th “sound bite” may get them to do more research about PP, which would be good, too.
2) Now we are “them”, (although still tiny and friendly gorillas, perhaps). As we grow and continue to share what we have learned through both application and research, each of us has the opportunity to offer a positive influence through our work.
3) I feel sorry for any medical school that would miss the opportunity to have you as a student. You have it all.
Again, excellent article!
Cheers,
Sherri
Didn’t PP grow out of, in part, Authentic Happiness? Labeling the whole of positive exerience Happiness is part of the problem. Call it something else entirely like flourishing or Subjective Well Being or Eudaimonia, whatever. If the PP field is stuck with the yellow smiley face, cotton candy & red balloons and other goofy icons, I attribute that to the sound bite culture and the very word Happiness. Unless the cultural majority view happiness as flow and meaning, I don’t see the smiley going away any time soon. People want to feel good and feeling good =
Thanks for thoughtful comments, Jeff. I certainly agree with what you’ve suggested. Now we just have to convince Marty
Looking forward to more of your thoughts in the future.
Be well,
Jordan
Jeff and Jordan,
If I remember correctly, the title of the book came from the publisher who wanted to make sure that the book ended up in the popular self-help section of bookstores rather than in the less-well-visited psych sections. Marty said he wasn’t responsible for the title — which was a relief to me, since I had had a long argument with a friend about what it meant for happiness to be authentic or not.
Kathryn Britton
[…] Jan 27 Pos Psych in the Media by Jordan Silberman […]
Free Hardcore Porn Videos…
Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)…