Anda di halaman 1dari 43

Positive psychology is a recent branch of psychology whose purpose was summed up in 1998 by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi:

"We believe that a psychology of positive human functioning will arise, which achieves a scientific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving individuals, families, and communities."[1] Positive psychologists seek "to find and nurture genius and talent" and "to make normal life more fulfilling",[2] rather than merely treating mental illness. Positive psychology is primarily concerned with using the psychological theory, research and intervention techniques to understand the positive, adaptive, creative and emotionally fulfilling aspects of human behavior.[3]

The "positive" branch complements, with no intention to replace or ignore, the traditional areas of psychology. By adding an important emphasis to use thescientific method to study and determine positive human development, this area of psychology fits well with the investigation of how human development can falter. This field brings attention to the possibility that focusing only on disorder could result in a partial, and limited, understanding of a person's condition.[5] The words, "the good life" are derived from speculation about what holds the greatest value in life - the factors that contribute the most to a well-lived and fulfilling life. Martin Seligman, the founder of positive psychology, referred to the good life as "using your signature strengths every day to produce authentic happiness and abundant gratification." [6] Topics of interest to researchers in the field are: states of pleasure or flow, values, strengths, virtues, talents, as well as the ways that these can be promoted by social systems and institutions.[7] Positive psychologists are concerned with four topics: (1) positive experiences, (2) enduring psychological traits, (3) positive relationships and (4) positive institutions.[8] Some thinkers and researchers, like Seligman, have collected data to support the development of guiding theories (e.g. "P.E.R.M.A.", or The Handbook on Character Strengths and Virtues). Research from this branch of psychology has seen various practical applications. The basic premise of positive psychology is that human beings are often, perhaps more often, drawn by the future than they are driven by the past. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi define positive psychology as "the scientific study of positive human functioning and flourishing on multiple levels that include the biological, personal, relational, institutional, cultural, and global dimensions of life." [9] L.M. Keyes and Shane Lopez illustrate the four typologies of mental health functioning: flourishing, struggling, floundering and languishing. However, complete mental

health is a combination of high emotional well-being, high psychological well-being, and high social well-being, along with low mental illness.[10] Most psychologists focus on human's most basic emotions. There are thought to be between seven and nine basic emotions. The number of basic positive emotions is less than the total number of basic emotions. The emotions can be combined in many ways to create more subtle variations of emotional experience. This suggests that any attempt to wholly eliminate negative emotions from our life would have the unintended consequence of losing the variety and subtlety of our most profound emotional experiences. Efforts to increase positive emotions will not automatically result in decreased negative emotions, nor will decreased negative emotions necessarily result in increased positive emotions.[11] Russell and Feldman Barrett (1999) described emotional reactions as core affects, which are primitive emotional reactions that are consistently experienced but often not acknowledged; they blend pleasant and unpleasant as well as activated and deactivated dimensions that we carry with us at an almost unconscious level.[12] From the time it originated in 1998, this field invested tens of millions of dollars in research, published numerous scientific papers, established several masters and Ph. D programs, and has been involved in many major news outlets. The International Positive Psychology Association (IPPA) is a recently established association that has expanded to thousands of members from 80 different countries. The IPPAs missions include: (1) further the science of positive psychology across the globe and to ensure that the field continues to rest on this science (2) work for the effective and responsible application of positive psychology in diverse areas such as organizational psychology, counselling and clinical psychology, business, health, education, and coaching,(3) foster education and training in the field.[13]

The goal[edit]
In cognitive therapy, the goal is to help people change negative styles of thinking as a way to change how they feel. This approach has been very successful, and changing how we think about other people, our future, and ourselves is partially responsible for this success. The thinking processes that impact our emotional states vary considerably from person to person. An ability to pull attention away from the chronic inner chatter of our thoughts can be quite advantageous to well-being. A change in our orientation to time can dramatically impact how we think about the nature of happiness. Seligman identified other possible goals: families and schools that allow children to grow, workplaces that aim for satisfaction and high productivity, and teaching others about positive psychology.[14]

Several humanistic psychologistssuch as Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Erich Frommdeveloped theories and practices pertaining to humanhappiness and flourishing. More recently, positive psychologists have found empirical support for the humanistic theories of flourishing. In addition, positive psychology has moved ahead in a variety of new directions. Positive psychology began as a new area of psychology in 1998 when Martin Seligman chose it as the theme for his term as president of the American Psychological Association,[15] though the term originates with Maslow, in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality,[16] and there have been indications that psychologists since the 1950s have been increasingly focused on the promotion of mental health rather than merely treating illness.[17][18] In the first sentence of his book Authentic Happiness, Seligman claimed: "for the last half century psychology has been consumed with a single topic only - mental illness",[19]:xi, expanding on Maslows comments.[20] He urged psychologists to continue the earlier missions of psychology of nurturing talent and improving normal life.[2] The first positive psychology summit took place in 1999. The First International Conference on Positive Psychology took place in 2002.[2] More attention was given by the general public in 2006 when, using the same framework, a course at Harvard University became particularly popular.[21] In June 2009, the First World Congress on Positive Psychology took place.[22] Positive psychology is the latest effort by human beings to understand the nature of happiness and well-being, but it is by no means the first attempt to solve that particular puzzle. Different westerners have their own individual views of what positive psychology actually is. Hedonism focuses on pleasure as the basic component of the good life. The Early Hebrews believed in the divine command theory which finds happiness by living according to the commands or rules set down by a Supreme Being. The Greeks thought that happiness could be discovered through logic and rational analysis. Finally, Christianity was based on finding happiness in the message and life of Jesus, which is one of love and compassion. The field of positive psychology today is most advanced in the United States and Western Europe. Even though positive psychology offers a new approach to the study of positive emotions and behavior, the ideas, theories, research, and motivation to study the positive side of human behavior is as old as humanity. [23]

Historical roots[edit]
Positive psychology has roots in the humanistic psychology of the 20th century, which focused heavily on happiness and fulfillment. As scientific psychology did not

take its modern form until the late 19th century, earlier influences on positive psychology came primarily from philosophical and religious sources. (See History of psychology) Judaism promotes a Divine command theory of happiness: happiness and rewards follow from following the commands of the divine.[2] The ancient Greeks had many schools of thought. Socrates advocated selfknowledge as the path to happiness. Plato's allegory of the cave influenced western thinkers who believed that happiness is found by finding deeper meaning. Aristotle believed happiness, or eudaimonia is constituted by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life. The Epicureans believed in reaching happiness through the enjoyment of simple pleasures. TheStoics believed they could remain happy by being objective and reasonable, and described many "spiritual exercises" comparable to the psychological exercises employed in cognitive behavioral therapy and positive psychology.[2][24] Christianity continued to follow the Divine command theory of happiness. In the Middle Ages, Christianity taught that true happiness would not be found until the afterlife. The seven deadly sins are about earthly self-indulgence and narcissism. On the other hand, the Four Cardinal Virtues and Three Theological Virtues were supposed to keep one from sin.[2] During the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment, individualism was valued. Simultaneously, creative individuals gained prestige, as they were now considered artists, not just craftsmen. Utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart Mill believed moral actions were actions that maximized happiness for the most number of people; they suggested an empirical science of happiness should be used to determine which actions are moral (a science of morality).Thomas Jefferson and other proponents of democracy believed "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights, and violation of these justifies the overthrow of the government. [2] The Romantics valued individual emotional expression and sought their emotional "true selves," which were unhindered by social norms. At the same time, love and intimacy became main motivations for marriage.[2] In her detailed critique of positive psychology, Barbara Ehrenreich carefully outlined the history of its precursor, "positive thinking", which developed as a counterweight to Calvinism and was built on the New Thought movement of the nineteenth century.[25]:pp.7296 The New Thought movement originated in the United States as a challenge to Hobbes' fatalistic philosophy of life as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.".[26] Calvinism held that a brutal Hobbsian reality could only be coped with by

immersing oneself in hard work. Proponents of New Thought countered the world was more benign, and individuals had the agency to improve their lives and health through positive thoughts. Ehrenreich noted Phineas Parkhurst Quimby is "usually considered the founder of theNew Thought movement and hence grandfather of 'positive thinking'".[25]:p.85 Quimby promoted a "talking cure"[25]:p.85 by means of which individuals would discuss their anxieties and guilt and envision an alternatively benevolent universe by contrast to Calvinism's malevolently antagonistic and competitive social world. The New Thought movement's focus on curing ills, such as neurasthenia, through positive thinking, was soon adopted by Mary Baker Eddywho incorporated this philosophy into her new religion, Christian Science[25]:p.86. New Thought was further developed by William James and Henry David Thoreau who questioned the science behind Quimby and Eddy's theories, but agreed with New Thought's focus on agency and reason, as methods to perceive and experience a more fulfilling life. Ehrenreich further explained how "positive thinking" was spread to a mainstream audience by Norman Vincent Peale's extremely popular The Power of Positive Thinking[27] with its simple self-help rules for overcoming self-defeating inferiority complexes and negativity.[25]:p.92

Positive Psychology is concerned with three issues: positive emotions, positive individual traits, and positive institutions. Positive emotions are concerned with being content with one's past, being happy in the present and having hope for the future. Positive individual traits focus on one's strengths and virtues. Finally, positive institutions are based on strengths to better a community of people. [14] "Happiness" encompasses different emotional and mental phenomena (see below). One method of assessment is Ed Diener's Satisfaction with Life Scale. According to Diener, this 5-question survey corresponds well with impressions from friends and family, and low incidence of depression.[28]

The "Remembering self" may not be the best source of information for pleasing the "Experiencing self"

Rather than long-term, big picture appraisals, some methods attempt to identify the amount of positive affect from one activity to the next. Scientists use beepers to remind volunteers to write down the details of their current situation. Alternatively, volunteers complete detailed diary entries each morning about the day before.[28] An interesting discrepancy arises when researchers compare the results of these shortterm "experience sampling" methods, with long-term appraisals. Namely, the latter may not be very accurate; people may not know what makes their life pleasant from one moment to the next. For instance, parents' appraisals mention their children as sources of pleasure, while 'experience sampling' indicates parents were not enjoying caring for their children, compared to other activities.[28][29] Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains this discrepancy by differentiating between happiness according to the 'Experiencing Self' compared to the 'Remembering Self': when asked to reflect on experiences, memory biases like the Peak-End effect (e.g. we mostly remember the dramatic parts of a vacation, and how it was at the end) play a large role. A striking finding was in a study of colonoscopy patients. Adding 60 seconds to this invasive procedure, Kahneman found participants reported the colonoscopy as more pleasant. This was attributed to making sure the colonoscopy instrument was not moved during the extra 60 seconds - movement is the source of the most discomfort. Thus, Kahneman was appealing to the Remembering Self's tendency to focus on the end of the experience. Such findings help explain human error in Affective forecasting - people's ability to predict their future emotional states.[29] Michael Argyle developed the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire[30] as a broad measure of psychological well-being. The approach was criticized for lacking a theoretical model of happiness and for overlapping too much with related concepts such as self-esteem, sense of purpose, social interest,kindness, sense of humor and aesthetic appreciation.[31]

Neuroscientific approach[edit]
Neuroscience and brain imaging have shown increasing potential for helping science understand happiness and sadness. Though it may be impossible to achieve any comprehensive objective measure of happiness, some physiological correlates to happiness can be measured. Stefan Klein, in his book The Science of Happiness, links the dynamics of neurobiological systems (i.e., dopaminergic, opiate) to the concepts and findings of positive psychology and social psychology.[32]

Nobel prize winner Eric Kandel and researcher Cynthia Fu described very accurate diagnoses of depression just by looking at fMRI brain scans.[33] By identifying neural correlates for emotions, scientists may be able to use methods like brain scans to tell us more about the different ways of being "happy". Richard Davidson has conducted research to determine which parts of the brain are involved in positive emotions. He found that the left prefrontal cortex is more activated when we are happy and is also associated with greater ability to recover from negative emotions as well as enhanced ability to suppress negative emotions. Interestingly, Davidson found that people can train themselves to increase activation in this area of their brains. [34] It is thought that our brains can change throughout our lives as a result of our experiences; this is known as neuroplasticity. Determining whether emotions have a genetic trait or not were studied by David Lykken and Auke Tellegen. They found that up to 80% of a long-term sense of well-being is due to heredity. Basically, our families are important to our eventual emotional lives as adults because they provide us with genetic material that largely determines our base emotional responsiveness to the world. Therefore, genetic makeup is far more important to the long-term quality of our emotional lives than is learned behavior or the quality of our early childhood environment.[35]

Evolutionary approach[edit]
The evolutionary perspective offers an alternative approach to understanding happiness and quality of life. Key guiding questions: What features are included in the brain that allow humans to distinguish between positive and negative states of mind? How do these features improve humans' ability to survive and reproduce? The evolutionary perspective claims that the answers to these questions point towards an understanding of what happiness is about and how to best exploit the capacities of the brain with which humans are endowed. This perspective is presented formally and in detail by the evolutionary biologist Bjrn Grinde in his book Darwinian Happiness.[36]

General findings by topic[edit]

Happiness has become a common discussion topic in popular culture, especially in the Western world. Many studies have undertaken to demystify the factors involved in happiness. The following describes related research.

The Midlife crisis may mark the first reliable drop in happiness during an average human's life. Evidence suggests most people generally become happier with age, with the exception of the years 40 - 50, which is the typical age at which

a crisis might occur. Researchers specify people in both their 20s and 70s are happier than during midlife, although the extent of happiness changes at different rates. For example, feelings of stress and anger tend to decline after age 20, worrying drops after age 50, and enjoyment very slowly declines in adulthood but finally starts to rise after age 50, etc.[28][37][38] These findings are based on decades of data, and control for cohort groups; the data avoids the risk that the drops in happiness during midlife are due to populations' unique midlife experiences, like a war. The studies have also controlled for income, job status and parenting (as opposed to childlessness) to try to isolate the effects of age. Researchers found support for the notion of age changes inside the individual that affect happiness. This could be for any number of reasons. Psychological factors could include: greater awareness of one's self and preferences; an ability to control desires and have more realistic expectations - unrealistic expectations tend to foster unhappiness; moving closer to death may motivate people to pursue personal goals; improved social skills, like forgiveness, may take years to develop - the practice of forgiveness seems linked to higher levels of happiness; or happier people may live longer and are slightly overrepresented in the elderly population. Age related chemical changes might also play a role.[37][38][39][40] Other studies have found older individuals reported more health problems, but fewer problems overall. Young adults reported more anger, anxiety, depression, financial problems, troubled relationships and career stress. Researchers also suggest depression in the elderly is often due largely to passivity and inaction - they recommend people continue to undertake activities that bring happiness, even in old age.[41] The activity restriction model of depressed affect suggests that stressors that disrupt traditional activities of daily life can lead to a decrease in mental health. The elderly population is vulnerable to activity restriction because of the disabling factors related to age. Increases in scheduled activity as well as social support can decrease the chances of activity restriction.[42]

Determining the effect of gender upon happiness is actually more difficult than one may think. Over the last 33 years, a significant decrease in women's happiness leads researchers to believe that men are happier than women.[43] Part of these findings could be due to the way men and women differ in calculating their happiness. Women calculate the positive self-esteem, closeness in their relationships and religion. Men on the other hand calculate positive self-esteem, active leisure and mental control.[44] Therefore, neither men nor women are at greater risk for being

less happy than the other. Earlier in life, women are more likely than men to fulfill their goals (material goals and family life aspirations), thereby increasing their life satisfaction and overall happiness. However, it is later in life that men fulfill their goals, are more satisfied with their family life and financial situation and, as a result, their overall happiness surpasses that of women.[45] Possible explanations include: women experience more variance (more extremes) in emotion, although women are generally happier.[40] Effects of gender on well-being are paradoxical: men report feeling less happy than women,[citation needed], however, women are more susceptible to depression.[46] A study was conducted by Siamak Khodarahimi to determine the roles of gender and age on positive psychology constructs - psychological hardiness, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and happiness - among 200 Iranian adolescents and 200 young adults who were questioned through various tests. The study found that the males of the sample showed significantly higher rates in psychological hardiness, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and happiness than females, regardless of age.[47]

Personal Finances[edit]

Money, once one reaches middle class, may be best spent ensuring one's job and social ties are enjoyable

In his book Stumbling on Happiness, psychologist Daniel Gilbert described research suggesting money makes a significant difference to the poor (where basic needs are not yet met), but has a greatly diminished effect once one reaches middle class (i.e. the Easterlin paradox).[48] One study found money ceased to aid level of happiness after a person makes over $US75,000 a year, and people overestimate the influence of wealth by 100%.[49] Professor of Economics Richard Easterlin noted job satisfaction does not depend on salary. In other words, having extra money for luxuries does not increase happiness as much as enjoying one's job or social network.[50] Gilbert is thus adamant, people should go to great lengths to figure out which jobs they would enjoy, and to find a way to do one of those jobs for a living (that is, provided one is also attentive to social ties).

A more recent study has challenged the Easterlin paradox. Using recent data from a broader collection of countries, a positive link was found between GDP and wellbeing; and there was no point at which wealthier countries' subjective well-being ceased to increase. It was concluded economic growth does indeed increase happiness.[51] Wealth is strongly correlated with life satisfaction but the correlation between money and emotional well-being was weak.[52] The pursuit of money may lead people to ignore leisure time and relationships, both of which may cause and contribute to happiness.[49] The pursuit of money at the risk of jeopardizing one's personal relationships and sacrificing enjoyment from one's leisure activities seems an unwise approach to finding happiness. Money, or its hectic pursuit, has been shown to hinder people's ability to savor everyday experiences. In a study looking at working adults, wealthy individuals reported lower levels of savoring ability (the ability to prolong positive emotion) relative to their poorer peers.[53] Studies have routinely shown that nations are happier when people's needs are met.[54] Some studies suggest, however, people are happier after spending money on experiences, rather than physical things.[55] Lottery winners report higher levels of happiness immediately following the event. But research shows winner's happiness levels drop and return to normal baseline rates within months to years. This finding suggests money does not cause long term happiness.[56]

Education and intelligence[edit]

English poet Thomas Gray said "Where ignorance is bliss, Tis folly to be wise."[57] Research suggests neither a good education nor a high IQ reliably increase happiness.[28] Anders Ericsson argued an IQ above 120 has a decreasing influence on success. Presumably, IQs above 120 do not additionally cause other happiness indicators like success (with the exception of careers like Theoretical physics, where high IQs are more predictive of success). Above that IQ level, other factors, like social skills or a good mentor, matter more.[58] As these relate to happiness, intelligence and education may simply allow one to reach a middle-class level of need satisfaction (as mentioned above, being richer than this seems to impact little on happiness).[59] Martin Seligman has said: "As a professor, I don't like this, but the cerebral virtues curiosity, love of learning are less strongly tied to happiness than interpersonal virtues like kindness, gratitude and capacity for love."[28]

While the mantle of parenting is sometimes held as the necessary path of adulthood, study findings are actually mixed as to whether parents report higher levels of happiness relative to non-parents. Folk wisdom suggests a child brings partners closer; research has found couples actually become less satisfied after the birth of the first child.[60] The joys of having a child are overshadowed by the responsibilities of parenthood.[61] Based on quantitative self-reports, researchers found parents prefer doing almost anything else to looking after their children. By contrast, parents' self-report levels of happiness are higher than those of non-parents. This may be due to already happy people having more children than unhappy people. In addition, it might also be that, in the long-term, having children gives more meaning to life.[62][63] One study found having up to three children increased happiness among married couples, but not among other groups with children.[64] Proponents of Childfreedom maintain this is because one can enjoy a happy, productive life without the trouble of ever being a parent. By contrast, many studies found having children makes parents less happy. Compared with non-parents, parents with children have lower levels of well-being and life satisfaction.[65] In addition, parents report more feelings of depression[61] and anxiety[66] than non-parents. However, when adults without children are compared to empty nest parents, parenthood is positively associated with emotional well being.[61] People found parenthood to be more stressful in the 1970s than they did in the 1950s. This is thought to be because of social changes in regards to employment and marital status.[66] Males apparently become less happy after the birth of a child due to added economic pressure and taking on the role of being a parent.[60] A conflict between partners can arise when the couple does not desire traditional roles, or has an increasing number of roles.[60] Unequal responsibilities of child-rearing between men and women account for this difference in satisfaction. Fathers who worked and shared an equal part in child-raising responsibilities were found to be the least satisfied.[67] Research shows that single parents have higher levels of distress and report more mental health problems than married persons.[61]

Martin Seligman writes: "Unlike money, which has at most a small effect, marriage is robustly related to happiness.... In my opinion, the jury is still out on what causes the proven fact married people are happier than unmarried people." (pp. 5556[19]). Married persons report higher levels of happiness and well being than single folks.[68] Other data has shown a spouses happiness depends on the happiness of

their partner. When asked, spouses reported similar happiness levels to each other. The data also shows the spouses happiness level fluctuates similarly to one another. If the husband is having a bad week, the wife will similarly report she had a bad week.[69] There is also little data on alternatives like Polyamory, although one study stated wife order in polygyny did not have a substantial effect on life or marital satisfaction over all.[70] This study also found younger wives were happier than older wives. On the other hand, at least one large study in Germany found no difference in happiness between married and unmarried people.[71] Studies have shown that married couples are consistently happier and more satisfied with their life than those who are single.[72] Some researching findings have indicated that marriage is the only real significant bottom-up predictor of life satisfaction for men and women and those people who have a higher life satisfaction prior to marriage, tend to have a happier marriage.[73] Surprisingly, there has been a steady decline in the positive relationship between marriage and well-being in the United States since the 1970s. This decline is due to women reporting being less happy than previously before and single men reporting being happier than previously before.[74] A two-factor theory of love was developed by Barnes and Sternberg. This theory is composed of two components: passionate love and companionate love. Passionate love is considered to be an intense longing for a loved one. This love is often experienced through joy and sexual fulfillment, or even through rejection. On the other hand, companionate love is associated with affection, friendship and commitment. Both passionate and companionate love are the foundations for every variety of love that one may experience.[75]

Ed Diener et al. (1999) suggested this equation: positive emotion - negative emotion = subjective well-being. Since tendency to positive emotion has a correlation of 0.8 with extroversion and tendency towards negative emotion is indistinguishable from neuroticism, the above equation could also be written as extroversion neuroticism = happiness. These two traits could account for between 50% to 75% of happiness.[76] These are all referring to the Big Five personality traits model of personality. An emotionally stable (the opposite of Neurotic) personality correlates well with happiness. Not only does emotional stability make one less prone to negative emotions, it also predicts higher social intelligence - which helps to manage relationships with others (an important part of being happy, discussed below).[40] Cultivating an extroverted temperament may correlate with happiness for the same reason: it builds relationships and support groups. Some people may be fortunate,

from the standpoint of personality theories that suggest individuals have control over their long term behaviors and cognitions. Genetic studies indicate genes for personality (specifically extroversion, neuroticism and conscientiousness), and a general factor linking all 5 traits, account for the heritability of subjective wellbeing.[77] Recent research suggests there is a happiness gene, the 5-HTT gene.[78]

Social ties[edit]
In the article " Finding Happiness after Harvard" George Vaillant concluded a study on what aspects of life are important for "successful living". In the 1940s, Arlie Bock, while in charge of the Harvard Health Services, started a study, selecting 268 Harvard students from graduating classes of 1942, '43, and '44. He sought to identify the aspects of life contributing to "successful living". In 1967, the psychiatrist George Vaillant continued the study, undertaking follow-up interviews to gauge the lives of many of the students. In 2000, Vaillant again interviewed these students as to their progress in life. Vaillant observed: health, close relationships, and how participants dealt with their troubles. Vaillant found a key aspect to successful living is healthy and strong relationships.[79] A widely publicized study from 2008 in the British Medical Journal reported happiness in social networks may spread from person to person.[80]Researchers followed nearly 5000 individuals for 20 years in the long-standing Framingham Heart Study and found clusters of happiness and unhappiness that spread up to 3 degrees of separation on average. Happiness tended to spread through close relationships like friends, siblings, spouses, and next-door neighbors; researchers reported happiness spread more consistently than unhappiness through the network. Moreover, the structure of the social network appeared to have an impact on happiness, as people who were very central (with many friends, and friends of friends) were significantly happier than those on the network periphery. People closer with others are more likely to be happy themselves.[80] Overall, the results suggest happiness can spread through a population like a virus.[81][82] Having a best friend buffers one's negative life experiences. When one's best friend is present Cortisol levels are decreased and feelings of self-worth increase.[83] Neuroeconomist Paul Zak studies morality, oxytocin, and trust, among other variables. Based on research findings, Zak recommends: people hug others more often to get into the habit of feeling trust. He explains "eight hugs a day, you'll be happier, and the world will be a better place".[84] Recently, Anderson et al. found that sociometric status (the amount of respect one has from face-to-face peer group) is significantly and causally related to happiness as measured by subjective well-being.[85]

Some evidence suggests sunnier climates do not predict happiness. In one study both Californians and Midwesterners expected the former's happiness ratings to be higher due to a sunnier environment. In fact, the Californian and Midwestern happiness ratings did not show a significant difference.[28] Other researchers say the necessary minimum daily dose of sunlight is as little as 30 minutes.[86] That is not to say weather is never a factor for happiness. Perhaps the changing norms of sunlight cause Seasonal affective disorder, which undermines level of happiness.

"Spirituality" refers to a personal or group search for the sacred in life.[87] "Religion" refers to a search for the sacred within a traditional context such as a formal religious institution.[88] It is commonly believed that people who are more religious in their behavior show better emotional well-being and lower rates of delinquency, alcoholism, drug abuse, and other social problems.[89] Religion is thought to be related to well-being because of six separate factors: (1) religion provides social support, (2) religion supports healthy lifestyles, (3) religion promotes personality integration, (4) religion promotes generativity and altruism, (5) religion provides unique coping strategies, and (6) religion provides a sense of meaning and purpose.[90] Emmons realized that many religious individuals experience emotions that create positive connections among people and allow us to express our highest values and potential. These four emotions are known as "sacred emotions." The four sacred emotions are: (1) gratitude and appreciation, (2) forgiveness, (3) compassion and empathy, and (4) humility.[91]

Eunkook M. Suh (University of California) and Shigehiro Oishi (University of Minnesota; now at University of Virginia) examined the differences of happiness on an international level and different cultures' views on what creates well-being and happiness. In a study, of over 6,000 students from 43 nations, to identify mean life satisfaction, on a scale of 1-7, the Chinese ranked lowest at 3.3; and Dutch scored the highest at 5.4. When asked how much subjective well-being was ideal, Chinese ranked lowest at 4.5, and Brazilians highest at 6.2, on a scale of 1-7. The study had three main findings: (1) People living in individualistic, rather than collectivist, societies are happier; (2) Psychological attributes referencing the individual are more relevant to Westerners; (3) Self-evaluating happiness levels depend on different cues, and experiences, from ones culture.[92]

The results of a study by Chang E. C. showed that Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans have similar levels of optimism but Asian Americans are far more pessimistic than Caucasian Americans. However, there were no major differences in depression across cultures. On the other hand, pessimism was positively linked to problem solving behaviors for Asian Americans, but was negatively linked for Caucasian Americans.[93]

Political views[edit]
Psychologists in the happiness community feel politics should promote population happiness. Politics should also consider level of human happiness among future generations, concern itself with life expectancy, and focus on the reduction of suffering.[94] Based on political affiliation, some studies argue conservatives, on average, are happier than liberals. A potential explanation is greater acceptance of income inequalities in society leads to a less worried nature.[95] Luke Galen, Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University, mentioned political commitments as important because they are a sort of secular world view that, like religion, can be generally beneficial to coping with death anxiety (see also Terror management theory and religion and happiness).[96][97][98]

Arguably, some people pursue ineffective shortcuts to feeling good. These shortcuts create positive feelings, but are problematic, in part because of the lack of effort involved. Some examples of these shortcuts include shopping, drugs, chocolate, loveless sex, and TV. These are problematic pursuits because all of these examples have the ability to become addictive. When happiness comes to us so easily, it comes with a price we may not realize. This price comes when taking these shortcuts is the only way to become happy, otherwise viewed as an addiction. [99] A review by Amy Krentzman on the Application of Positive Psychology to Substance Use, Addiction, and Recovery Research, identified, in the field of positive psychology, three domains that allow an individual to thrive and contribute to society. One of these: A Pleasant Life, involves good feelings about the past, present, and future. To tie this with addiction, they chose an example of alcoholism. Research on positive affect and alcohol showed a majority of the population associates drinking with pleasure. The pleasure one feels from alcohol is known as somatic pleasure, which is immediate but a short lived sensory delight. The researchers wanted to make clear pleasure alone does not amount to a life well lived; there is more to life than pleasure. Secondly, the Engaged Life is associated with positive traits such as strength of character. A few examples of character strength according to Character Strength and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification by Seligman and Peterson

(2004) are bravery, integrity, citizenship, humility, prudence, gratitude, and hope, all of which are shown in the rise to recovery. To descend into an addiction shows a lack of character strength, however rising to recovery shows the reinstatement of character strengths, including the examples mentioned above. Thirdly, the Meaningful Life is service and membership to positive organizations. Examples of positive organizations include family, workplace, social groups, and society in general. Organizations, like Alcoholics Anonymous, can be viewed as a positive organization. Membership fosters positive affect, while also promoting character strengths, which as seen in the Engaged Life, can aid in beating addiction.[99]

Research has shown it is possible to help suffering people by building their strengths. In addition, prevention researchers have discovered strengths act as buffers against mental illness. The strengths that represent major strides in prevention include: courage, future mindedness, optimism, faith, work ethic, hope, honesty, perseverance, and the capacity for flow and insight.[100]

Suffering can indicate behavior worthy of change, as well as ideas that require a person's careful attention and consideration.[101] Generally, psychology acknowledges suffering can not be completely eliminated, but it is possible to successfully manage and reduce suffering. The University of Pennsylvania's Positive Psychology Center explains: "Psychologys concern with remedying human problems is understandable and should certainly not be abandoned. Human suffering demands scientifically informed solutions. Suffering and well being, however, are both part of the human condition, and psychologists should be concerned with both."[100] Positive psychology, inspired by empirical evidence, focuses on productive approaches to pain and suffering, as well the importance of cultivating strengths and virtues to keep suffering to a minimum [100][102] (see also Character strengths and virtues (book)).

According to Peterson, the Buddhist saying that "Life is Suffering" can be understood as a reality that humans must accept, as well as a call to cultivate virtues.

In reference to the Buddhist saying "Life is suffering", researcher and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson suggested this view as realistic, not pessimistic, where acceptance of the reality life is harsh, provides a freedom from the expectation one should always be happy. This realization can assist in the management of inevitable suffering. To Peterson, virtues are important because they provide people with essential tools to escape suffering (e.g., the strength to admit dissonant truths to themselves). Peterson maintained suffering is made worse by false philosophy (i.e., denial that natural suffering is inevitable).[103] Similarly, Seligman believes positive psychology is "not a luxury", saying "most of Positive Psychology is for all of us, troubled or untroubled, privileged or in privation, suffering or carefree. The pleasures of a good conversation, the strength of gratitude, the benefits of kindness or wisdom or spirituality or humility, the search for meaning and the antidote to "fidgeting until we die" are the birthrights of us all." [104] Positive coping is defined as "a response aimed at diminishing the physical, emotional, and psychological burden that is linked to stressful life events and daily hassles" [105] It is found that proper coping strategies will reduce the burden of shortterm stress and will help relieve long-term stress. Stress can be reduced by building resources that inhibit or buffer future challenges. For some people, these effective resources could be physiological, psychological or social.[105]

Changes in happiness levels[edit]

Daniel Kahneman

Humans exhibit a variety of abilities. This includes an ability of emotional Hedonic Adaptation, an idea suggesting that beauty, fame and money do not generally have lasting effects on happiness (this effect has also been called the Hedonic treadmill). In this vein, some research has suggested that only recent events, meaning those that occurred within the last 3 months, affect happiness levels.[106]

The tendency to adapt, and therefore return to an earlier level of happiness, is illustrated by studies showing lottery winners are no happier in the years after they've won.[28] Other studies have shown paraplegics are nearly as happy as control groups that are not paralyzed (p. 48[19]), after equally few years. Daniel Kahneman explains: "they are not paraplegic full time...It has to do with allocation of attention". Thus, contrary to our impact biases, lotteries and paraplegia do not change experiences to as great a degree as we would believe. Adaptation can be very slow and incomplete process. Distracting life changes such as the death of a spouse or losing one's job can show measurable changes in happiness levels for several years.[28] Even the "adapted" paraplegics mentioned above did ultimately report lower levels of pleasure (again, they were happier than one would expect, but not fully adapted).[107] Thus, adaptation is a complex process, and while it does mitigate the emotional effects of many life events it cannot mitigate them entirely.

Happiness Set Point[edit]

The happiness set point idea is that most people return to an average level of happiness - or a set point - after temporary highs and lows in emotionality. People whose set points lean toward positive emotionality tend to be cheerful most of the time and those whose set points tend to be more negative emotionality tend to gravitate toward pessimism and anxiety. Lykken found that we can influence our level of well-being by creating environments more conductive to feelings of happiness and by working with our genetic makeup.[35] A reason why subjective well being is for the most part stable is because of the great influence genetics have. Although the events of life have some effect on subjective well being, the general population returns to their set point[108] Fujita and Diener found that 24% of people changed significantly between the first five years of the study and the last five years. Almost one in four people showed changes in their well-being over the years; indeed sometimes those changes were quite dramatic.[109] Bruce Headey found that 5-6% of people dramatically increased their life satisfaction over a 15 to 20 year period and that the goals people pursued had a major impact on their life satisfaction.[110] Two different goals on the continuum are known as nonzero-sum goals and zerosum goals. Nonzero sum goals are associated with greater life satisfaction consisted of commitments to family and friends, social or political involvement, and altruism. This term implies that the person involved and others can both benefit. Zero-sum goals are associated with a person who gains advantage at the expense of others, did not promote life satisfaction.

In the recipe for one person's happiness, it is nonsensical to blame one ingredient (because all are necessary). However, when comparing two people's happiness, ingredients like genetics can account for as much as half the difference.

In her book The How of Happiness, Sonja Lyubomirsky similarly argued people's happiness varies around a genetic set point. Diener warns, however, that it is nonsensical to claim that "happiness is influenced 3050% by genetics". Diener explains that the recipe for happiness for an individual always requires genetics, environment, and behaviour too, so it is nonsensical to claim that an individual's happiness is due to only one ingredient. Only differences in happiness can be attributed to differences in factors. In other words, Lyubomirsky's research does not discuss happiness in one individual: it discusses differences in happiness between two or more people. Specifically, Lyubomirsky suggests that 30-40% of the difference in happiness levels is due to genetics (i.e. heritable). In other words still, Diener says it makes no sense to say one person's happiness is "due 50% to genetics", but it does make sense to say one person's difference in happiness is 50% due to differences in their genetics (and the rest is due to behaviour and environment).[107][111] Findings from twin studies support the findings just mentioned. Twins reared apart had nearly the same levels of happiness thereby suggesting the environment is not entirely responsible for differences in people's happiness.[112]Importantly, an individual's baseline happiness is not entirely determined by genetics, and not even by early life influences on one's genetics. Whether or not a person manages to elevate their baseline to the heights of their genetic possibilities depends partly on several factors, including actions and habits. Some happiness-boosting habits seem to include gratitude, appreciation, and even altruistic behavior.[28] Other research based habits and techniques for increasing happiness are discussed on this page. Besides the development of new habits, the use of antidepressants, effective exercise, and a healthier diet have proven to strongly impact mood. In

fact,exercise is sometimes called the "miracle" or "wonder" drug - alluding to the wide variety of proven benefits it provides.[113][114]

Broad theories[edit]
Some positive psychology researchers[19]:275 posit three overlapping areas of investigation: 1. Research into the Pleasant Life, or the "life of enjoyment", examines how people optimally experience, forecast, and savor the positive feelings and emotions that are part of normal and healthy living (e.g. relationships, hobbies, interests, entertainment, etc.). Despite the attention given, Martin Seligman says this most transient element of happiness may be the least important.[28] 2. Investigation of the beneficial effects of immersion, absorption, and flow, felt by individuals when optimally engaged with their primary activities, is the study of the Good Life, or the "life of engagement". Flow is experienced when there is a positive match between a person's strength and their current task, i.e. when one feels confident of accomplishing a chosen or assigned task. (See related concepts, Self-efficacy and play) 3. Inquiry into the Meaningful Life, or "life of affiliation", questions how individuals derive a positive sense of well-being, belonging, meaning, and purpose from being part of and contributing back to something larger and more permanent than themselves (e.g., nature, social groups, organizations, movements, traditions, belief systems). These categories appear neither widely disputed nor adopted by researchers across the 12 years that this academic area has been in existence. Although Seligman originally proposed these 3 categories, he has since suggested the last category, "meaningful life", be considered as 3 different categories. The resulting acronym is PERMA (Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning and purpose, and Accomplishments).[115] The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions suggests positive emotions (e.g. happiness, interest, anticipation)[116] broaden one's awareness and encourage novel, varied, and exploratory thoughts and actions. Over time, this broadened behavioral repertoire builds skills and resources. For example, curiosity about a landscape becomes valuable navigational knowledge; pleasant interactions with a stranger become a supportive friendship; aimless physical play becomes exercise

and physical excellence. Positive emotions are contrasted with negative emotions, which prompt narrow survival-oriented behaviors. For example, the negative emotion of anxiety leads to the specific fight-or-flight response for immediate survival.[116]

A portrait commemorating a family's day together

Professor Philip Zimbardo suggests we might also analyze happiness from a "Time Perspective". Zimbardo suggested the sorting of people's focus in life by valence (positive or negative) and also by their time perspective (past, present, or future orientation). Doing so may reveal some individual conflicts, not over whether an activity is enjoyed, but whether one prefers to risk delaying gratification further. Zimbardo also believes research reveals an optimal balance of perspectives for a happy life; commenting, our focus on reliving positive aspects of our past should be high, followed by time spent believing in a positive future, and finally spending a moderate (but not excessive) amount of time in enjoyment of the present.[117] Although Seligman's categorizations are still fuzzy classifications, the research presented below is sorted according to which of Seligman's categories may be most (but not strictly) related (i.e. the "pleasant", "good", or "meaningful" life). Research mentioned in one section may be quite relevant in another.

The pleasant life[edit]

Simple exercise, such as running, is cited as key to feeling happy.[118]

Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs. Foremost, primitive needs must be met (basic physiological, and sense of safety) before social needs can be met (e.g., intimacy). Subsequently, one can pursue more conceptual needs (e.g. morality and self-actualization). Evidence suggests negative emotions can be damaging. In an article titled "The undoing effect of positive emotions",Barbara Fredrickson et al. hypothesized positive emotions undo the cardiovascular effects of negative emotions. When people experience stress, they show increased heart rate, higher blood sugar, immune suppression, and other adaptations optimized for immediate action. If unregulated, the prolonged physiological activation can lead to illness,coronary heart disease, and heightened mortality. Both lab and survey research substantiate that positive emotions help people under stress to return to a preferable, healthier physiological baseline.[119] Other research shows that improved mood is one of the various benefits of physical exercise.[118]

The good life[edit]

Ideas of well-being as a good life stem from Aristotelian ideas of eudaimonia. Related emerging concepts include:self-efficacy, personal effectiveness, flow, and mindfulness. Self-efficacy refers to a belief that one's ability to accomplish a task is a function of personal effort. Low self-efficacy, or a disconnect between ability and personal effort, is associated with depression; by comparison, high self-efficacy is associated positive change, including overcoming abuse, overcoming eating disorders, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. High self-efficacy also has positive benefits for one's immune system, aids in stress management, and decreases pain.[120] A related concept, Personal effectiveness, is primarily concerned with planning and the implementation of methods of accomplishment.


Flow refers to a state of absorption where one's abilities are well-matched to the demands at-hand. Flow is characterized by intense concentration, loss of selfawareness, a feeling of being perfectly challenged (neither bored nor overwhelmed), and a sense "time is flying." Flow is intrinsically rewarding; it can also assist in the achievement of goals (e.g., winning a game) or improving skills (e.g., becoming a better chess player).[121] Anyone can experience flow, in different domains, such as play, creativity, and work. Flow is achieved when the challenge of the situation meets one's personal abilities. Therefore, someone very skilled requires a suitable challenge, while someone unskilled requires much less of a challenge. A mismatch of challenge for someone of low skills results in a state of anxiety; insufficient challenge for someone highly skilled results in boredom.[121] The impact of challenging situations means that flow is often temporarily exciting and variously stressful, but this is considered Eustress, which is also known as "good" stress. Eustress is arguably less harmful than chronic stress, although the pathways of stress related systems are similar. Both can create a "wear and tear" effect, however, the differing physiological elements and added psychological benefits of eustress might well balance any wear and tear experienced. Csikszentmihalyi identified nine indicator elements of flow: 1. Clear goals exist every step of the way, 2. Immediate feedback guides one's action, 3. There is a balance between challenges and abilities, 4. Action and awareness are merged, 5. Distractions are excluded from consciousness, 6. Failure is not worrisome, 7. Selfconsciousness disappears, 8. Sense of time is distorted, and 9. The activity becomes "autotelic" (an end in itself, done for its own sake)[122] His studies also show that flow is greater during work while happiness is greater during leisure activities.[123]

Flourishing, in positive psychology, refers to optimal human functioning. It comprises four parts: goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience (Fredrickson, 2005).[124] According to Fredrickson (2005), goodness is made up of: happiness, contentment, and effective performance; generativity is about making life better for future generations, and is defined by broadened thought-action repertoires and behavioral flexibility; growth involves the use of personal and social assets; and resilience reflects survival and growth after enduring a hardship (p. 685).[124] A flourishing life stems from mastering all four of these parts. Two contrasting ideologies are languishing and psychopathology. On the mental health continuum, these are considered intermediate mental health disorders, reflecting someone living an unfulfilled and perhaps meaningless life. Those who languish experience more

emotional pain, psychosocial deficiency, restrictions in regular activities, and missed workdays (Fredrickson, 2005).[124] Fredrickson & Losada (2005)[124] conducted a study on university students, operationalizing positive and negative affect. Based on a mathematical model which has been strongly criticized,[125] and now been formally withdrawn by Fredrickson as invalid,[126] Fredrickson & Losada claimed to have discovered a critical positivity ratio, above which people would flourish and below which they would not. Although Fredrickson claims that her experimental results are still valid,[127] these experimental results have also been questioned due to poor statistical methodology, and Alan Sokal has pointed out that "given [Fredrickson and Losada's] experimental design and method of data analysis, no data whatsoever could possibly give any evidence of any nonlinearity in the relationship between "flourishing" and the positivity ratio much less evidence for a sharp discontinuity."[128] Another study surveyed a U.S. sample of 3,032 adults, aged 25 74. Results showed 17.2 percent of adults were flourishing, while 56.6 percent were moderately mentally healthy. Some common characteristics of a flourishing adult included: educated, older, married and wealthy. The study findings suggest there is room for adults to improve as less than 20 percent of Americans are living a flourishing life. (Keyes, 2002).[129] Benefits from living a flourishing life emerge from research on the effects of experiencing a high ratio of positive to negative affect. The studied benefits of positive affect are increased responsiveness, broadened behavioral repertoires, increased instinct, and increased perception and imagination (Fredrickson, 2005, p. 678).[124] In addition, the good feelings associated with flourishing result in improvements to immune system functioning, cardiovascular recovery, lessened effects of negative affect, and frontal brain asymmetry (Fredrickson, 2005). [124] Other benefits to those of moderate mental health or moderate levels of flourishing were: stronger psychological and social performance, high resiliency, greater cardiovascular health, and an overall healthier lifestyle (Keyes, 2007).[130] The encountered benefits of flourishing suggest a definition: [flourishing] people experience high levels of emotional, psychological and social well being due to vigor and vitality, self-determination, continuous self- growth, close relationships and a meaningful and purposeful life (Siang-Yang, 2006, p. 70).[131]

Main article: Mindfulness (psychology)

Researchers recommend attending to the past to find fond memories, and the future to find hope, but ultimately focussing mostly on the present.[117] Daydreaming usually precedes drops in happiness. Mindfulness and activities that bring focus to the present (like Roller Coasters) may bring happiness partly by shifting people's focus away from the slightly saddening question "Am I happy?".[132][133]

Mindfulness is an intentionally focused awareness of one's immediate experience. "Focused awareness" is a conscious moment-by-moment attention to situational elements of an experience: i.e., thoughts, emotions, physical sensations, and surroundings. An aim of mindfulness is to become grounded in the present moment; one learns to observe the arising and passing of experience. One does not judge the experiences and thoughts, nor do they try to 'figure things out' and draw conclusions, or change anything - the challenge during mindfulness is to simply observe.[134][135] Benefits of mindfulness practice include reduction of stress, anxiety, depression, and chronic pain.[136] See also Reverence (emotion). Ellen J.Langer argued people slip into a state of "mindlessness" by engaging in rote behavior, performing familiar, scripted actions without much cognition, as if on autopilot (see also flow, discussed above).[137] Advocates of focusing on present experiences also mention research by Psychologist Daniel Gilbert, who suggested daydreaming, instead of a focus on the present, may impede happiness.[132][138] Fellow researcher, Matt Killingsworth, found evidence to support the negative impact of daydreaming. Fifteen thousand participants from around the world provided over 650 000 reports (using an online application on their phones that requested data at random times). Killingsworth found people who reported daydreaming soon reported less happiness; daydreaming is extremely common.[133] Zimbardo (see "Time Perspectives" above) bestowed the

merits of a present-focus, and recommended occasional recall of past positive experiences. Reflecting on past positive experiences can influence current mood, and assist in building positive expectations for the future. There is research that suggests a person's focus influences level of happiness, where thinking too much about happiness can be counter-productive. Rather than asking: "Am I happy?" - which when posed just 4 times a day, starts to decrease happiness, it might well be better to reflect on one's values (e.g., "Can I muster any hope?").[139] Asking different questions can assist in redirecting personal thoughts, and perhaps, lead to taking steps to better apply one's energies. The personal answer to any particular question can lead to positive actions, and hopefulness, which is a very powerful, and positive feeling. Hopefulness is more likely to foster happiness, while feelings of hopelessness tend to undermine happiness. Todd Kashdan, researcher and author of "Designing Positive Psychology", explained early science's findings should not be overgeneralized or adopted too uncritically. Mindfulness to Kashdan is very resource intensive processing; he warned it is not simply better at all times. To illustrate, when a task is best performed with very little conscious thought (e.g., a paramedic performing practiced, emergency maneuvers).[139] Nevertheless, development of the skill lends to its application at certain times, which can be useful for the reasons just described; Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry Richard J. Davidson highly recommends "mindfulness meditation" for use in the accurate identification and management of emotions.[140][141]

The meaningful life[edit]

After several years of researching disgust, Jonathan Haidt, and others, studied its opposite; the term "elevation" was coined. Elevation is a pleasant moral emotion, involving a desire to act morally and do "good". As an emotion it has a biological basis, and is sometimes characterized by a feeling of expansion in the chest or a tingling feeling on the skin.[142][143]

Optimism and helplessness[edit]

J.B. MacKinnon recommended taking full responsibility for one small, but clear improvement for the world (the way energy-saving activists did by promoting a new kind of lamp). Inspired by sociological research, MacKinnon said "vertical agitation" helps reduce feelings of helplessness.

Learned optimism refers to development of one's potential for a sanguine outlook. Optimism is learned as personal efforts and abilities are linked to personally desired outcomes. In short, it is the belief one can influence the future in tangible and meaningful ways. Learned optimism contrasts with learned helplessness, which consists of a belief, or beliefs, one has no control over what occurs, and that something external dictates outcomes, e.g., success. Optimism is learned by consciously challenging negative self talk. This includes self talk on any event viewed as a personal failure that permanently affects all areas of the person's life. Intrapersonal, or internal, dialogues influence one's feelings. To illustrate, reports of happiness are correlated with the general ability to "rationalize or explain" social and economic inequalities.[144] Hope is a powerful positive feeling, linked to a learned style of goal-directed thinking. Hope is fostered when a person utilizes both pathways thinking (the perceived capacity to find routes to desired goals) and agency thinking (the requisite motivations to use those routes).[145] Author and journalist J.B. MacKinnon suggested the cognitive tool of "Vertical Agitation" can assist in avoiding helplessness (e.g., paralysis in the face of earth's many problems). The concept stemmed from research on denial by sociologist Stanley Cohen. Cohen explained: in the face of massive problems people tend towards learned helplessness rather than confronting the dissonant facts of the matter. Vertical Agitation involves focusing on one part of a problem at a time, while holding oneself accountable for solving the problem - all the way to the highest level of government, business and society (such as advocating strongly for something: eco-friendly lightbulbs). This allows each individual in society to make vital "trivial" (read: small) changes, without being intimidated by the work needed to be done as a whole. Mackinnon added: a piecemeal approach also keeps individuals from becoming too 'holier than thou' (harassing friends and family about every possible improvement), where widespread practice of Vertical Agitation would lead to much improvement.[146]

Good work[edit]
Psychologist Howard Gardner has extensively researched the merit of undertaking good work at one's job. He suggested young generations (particularly in the United States) are taught to focus on the selfish pursuit of money for its own sake, although having money does not reliably engender happiness. Gardner's proposed alternatives loosely follow the pleasant/good/meaningful life classifications outlined

above; he believes young people should be trained to pursue excellence in their field, as well as engagement (see flow, above) in accordance with their moral belief systems.[147] According to a study reported in the NY Post Newspaper, 48% of parents reward their children's good grades with cash or something else of meaning. Among many families in the United States, this is controversial. Although psychology experts support the offer of reward for good behavior as a better alternative than the use of punishment for bad behavior, in some circumstances, families cannot afford to give their children an average of 16 dollars for every good grade earned. Alternatives for money include allowing a child extra time on a computer or staying up later than usual. Some psychology experts believe the best reward is praise and encouragement because material rewards can cause long term negative effects for children. A study, regarding rewards for children, conducted in 1971 by psychologist, Edward L. Deci, at the University of Rochester, is still referenced today. Featured in the New York Times, it focused on the short and long term effects of rewards for positive behavior. Deci suggested rewards for positive behavior is an effective incentive for only a short period. At the outset, rewards can support motivation to work hard and strive towards personal goals. However, once rewards cease, children showed less interest in the task relative to participants who never received rewards. Deci pointed out, at a young age, children's natural instinct is to resist people who try to control their behavior, which he cited as support for his conclusion rewards for good behavior have limited effectiveness. In contrast, the New York Times featured research findings that supported the merits of offering rewards to children for good behavior. Expert economists argued children experiencing trouble with their behavior or schoolwork should have numerous helpful options, including rewards. Although children might well experience an initial attraction to financial or material, a love for learning could develop subsequently. Despite the controversy regarding the use of rewards, some experts believe the best way to motivate a child is to offer rewards at the beginning of the school year, but if unsuccessful they recommend teachers and parents stop using the reward system. Because of individual differences among children, no one method will work for everyone. Some children respond well to the use of rewards for positive behavior, while others evidence negative effects. The results seem to depend on the person.[citation needed]

Strengths and Virtues[edit]

The development of the Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV) handbook represented the first attempt on the part of the research community to identify and classify positive psychological traits of human beings. Much like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of general psychology, the CSV provided a theoretical framework to assist in understanding strengths and virtues and for developing practical applications for positive psychology. This manual identified 6 classes of virtues (i.e., "core virtues"), underlying 24 measurable character strengths.[148] The CSV suggested these 6 virtues have a historical basis in the vast majority of cultures; in addition, these virtues and strengths can lead to increased happiness when built upon. Notwithstanding numerous cautions and caveats, this suggestion of universality hints threefold: 1. The study of positive human qualities broadens the scope of psychological research to include mental wellness, 2. the leaders of the positive psychology movement are challengingmoral relativism, suggesting people are "evolutionarily predisposed" toward certain virtues, and 3. virtue has a biological basis.[148]:51 The organization of the 6 virtues and 24 strengths is as follows: 1. Wisdom and Knowledge: creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective, innovation 2. Courage: bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality 3. Humanity: love, kindness, social intelligence 4. Justice: citizenship, fairness, leadership 5. Temperance: forgiveness and mercy, humility, prudence, self control 6. Transcendence: appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality Recent research challenged the need for 6 virtues. Instead, researchers suggested the 24 strengths are more accurately grouped into just 3 or 4 categories: Intellectual Strengths, Interpersonal Strengths, and Temperance Strengths[149] or alternatively, Interpersonal Strengths, Fortitude, Vitality, and Cautiousness[150] These strengths, and their classifications, have emerged independently elsewhere in literature on values. Paul Thagard described examples; these included Jeff Shrager's workshops to discover the habits of highly creative people.[151]

Application: How to Increase Happiness[edit]

A practical application of positive psychology is to assist individuals and organizations in identifying strengths so as to increase and sustain well-being.

Therapists, counselors, coaches, various psychological professionals, HR departments, business strategists, and others, are using new methods and techniques to broaden and build upon the strengths of a wide population of individuals. This includes those not suffering from mental illness or disorder. Researcher Dianne Hales described an emotionally healthy person as someone who exhibits: flexibility and adaptability to different circumstances, a sense of meaning and affirmation in life, an "understanding that the self is not the center of the universe", compassion and the ability to be unselfish, an increased depth and satisfaction in intimate relationships, and a sense of control over the mind and body.[152]

Happiness Measurement[edit]
Some policy analysts, citing positive psychology,[153] propose replacing the Gross domestic product with Gross national happiness as the predominant measure of a nation's success. In the 1970s, pioneering "happiness researcher" Michael W. Fordyce statistically related personal attributes to subjective well-being. His results, published in Social Indicators Research, rank in the journal's top 2.4% most-cited articles.[154]

Early "Positive Psychology" Techniques[edit]

The easiest and best possible way to increase one's happiness is by doing something that increases the ratio of positive to negative emotions. Contrary to some beliefs, in many scenarios, people are actually very good at determining what will increase their positive emotions.[155] There have been many techniques developed to help increase one's happiness. One such technique, Fordyce's Happiness Training Program (14 episodes, 1979), presented the empirically validated "fourteen fundamentals of happiness" (1981) in the following categories: (1) change your activities, (2) change your thinking, (3) nurture relationships, (4) value personal growth, and (5) decrease negative emotions. Although slightly outdated, the material is archived online in a 21page Happiness Booklet[156] and 2-volume Happiness Series. A second technique is known as the "Sustainable Happiness Model (SHM)." This model proposes that long-term happiness is determined upon: (1) one's genetically determined set-point, (2) circumstantial factors, and (3) intentional activities. Lyubomirsky, Sheldon and Schkade suggest to make these changes in the correct way in order to have long-term happiness.[157] One final suggestion of how to increase one's happiness is through a procedure called "Hope Training." Hope Training is primarily focused on hope due to the belief that hope drives the positive

emotions of well-being.[158] This training is based on the hope theory, which states that well-being can increase once people have developed goals and believe themselves to achieve those goals.[159] One of the main purposes of hope training is to eliminate individuals from false hope syndrome. False hope syndrome particularly occurs when one believes that changing their behavior is easy and the outcomes of the change will be evidenced in a short period of time.[160]

Physical education[edit]
As a basic building block to a better existence, positive psychology aims to improve the quality of experiences. Within its framework, students could learn to become excited about physical activity. Playing comes natural to children; positive psychology seeks to preserve this zest for movement in growing and developing children. If offered in an interesting, challenging and pleasurable way physical activity would thus internalize an authentic feeling of happiness in students. Positive psychology's approach to physical activity could give students the means of acquiring an engaged, pleasant and meaningful life.[161]

In education[edit]
Positive psychology is beneficial to schools and students because it encourages individuals to strive to do their best; whereas, scolding has the opposite effect. Clifton and Rath[162] discussed research conducted by Dr. Elizabeth Hurlock in 1925, where fourth, fifth and sixth graders were either praised, criticized or ignored, based on their work on math problems. Praised students improved by 71%, those criticized improved by 19%, and students provided with no feedback improved a mere 5%. Praise seems an effective method of fostering improvement. According to Clifton and Rath[162] ninety nine out of one hundred people prefer the influence of positive people. The benefits include: increased productivity, and contagious positive emotions, which assists one in working to the best of her, or his, abilities. Even a single negative person can ruin the entire positive vibe in an environment. Clifton and Rath[162] cited positive emotions as an essential daily requirement for survival. In 2008, in conjunction with the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, a whole-of-school implementation of Positive Psychology was undertaken by Geelong Grammar School (Victoria, Australia). This involved training of teaching staff in the principles and skills of positive psychology. Ongoing support was provided by The Positive Psychology Center staff, who remained in-residence for the entire year.[163]

Staats, Hupp and Hagley (2008) used positive psychology to explore academic honesty. They identified positive traits displayed by heroes, then determined if the presence of these traits in students predicted future intent to cheat. The results of their research: an effective working model of heroism in the context of the academic environment (Staats, Hupp & Hagley, 2008).[164]

Clinical psychology[edit]
A strengths-based approach to personal positive change aims to have clinical psychology place an equal weight on both positive and negative functioning when attempting to understand and treat distress.[165] This rationale is based on empirical findings. Because positive characteristics interact with negative life events to predict disorder the exclusive study of negative life events could produce misleading results.[166] Interventions focusing on strengths and positive emotions can be as effective in treating disorder as other more commonly used approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy.[167][168] Psychologists are looking to use positive psychology to treat patients. Amy Krentzman discussed positive intervention as a way to treat patients. She defined positive intervention as a therapy or activity primarily aimed at increasing positive feelings, positive behaviors, or positive cognitions, as opposed to focusing on negative thoughts or dysfunctional behaviors. A way of using positive intervention as a clinical treatment is to use positive activity interventions. Positive activity interventions, or PAIs, are brief self-administered exercises that promote positive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Two widely used PAIs are Three Good Things and Best Future Self. Three Good Things requires a patient to daily document, for a week, three events that went well during the day, and the respective cause, or causes. Best Future Self has a patient think about their life in the future, and imagine that everything has gone as well as it possibly could. They have worked hard and succeeded at accomplishing all of their life goals. Think of this as the realization of all of their life dreams. The patient is then asked to write down what they imagined. These positive interventions have been shown to decrease depression.[169]Positive psychology seeks to inform clinical psychology of the potential to expand its approach, and of the merit of the possibilities. Given a fair opportunity, positive psychology might well change priorities to better address the breadth and depth of the human experience in clinical settings.

In the workplace[edit]
Main article: Positive psychology in the workplace

Positive psychology has been implemented in business management practice, but has faced challenges. Wong & Davey (2007)[170] noted managers can introduce positive psychology to a workplace, but they might struggle with positive ways to apply it to employees. Furthermore, for employees to welcome and commit to positive psychology, its application within an organization must be transparent.[171] Managers must also understand the implementation of positive psychology will not necessarily combat any commitment challenges that exist. However, with its implementation employees might become more optimistic and open to new concepts or management practices.[172] In their article The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?, S. Lyubomirsky et al. report: "Study after study shows that happiness precedes important outcomes and indicators of thriving, including fulfilling and productive work". Positive psychology, when applied correctly, can provide employees with a greater opportunity to use skills and vary work duties. However, changing work conditions and roles can lead to stress among employees if they are improperly supported by management. This is particularly true for employees who must meet the expectations of organizations with unrealistic goals and targets.[173] Thomas and Tasker (2010) showed less worker autonomy, fewer opportunities for development, less-enriched work roles, and lower levels of supervisor support reflected the impact of industry growth on job satisfaction.[174] Can an organization implement positive change? Lewis et al. (2007) developed Appreciative inquiry (AI), which is an integrated, organizational-level methodology for approaching organizational development. Appreciative Inquiry is based on the generation of organizational resourcefulness, which is accomplished by accessing a variety of human psychological processes, such as: positive emotional states, imagination, social cohesion, and the social construction of reality. [175] A relatively new practice in the workplace is recruiting and developing people based on their strengths (what they love to do, are naturally good at and energises them). Standard Chartered Bank pioneered this approach in the early 2000s. More and more organisations are realising the benefit of recruiting people who are in their element in the job as opposed to simply having the right competencies for the job. Aviva, Morrisons (a large UK supermarket) and Starbucks have all adopted this approach.[176]

In offender rehabilitation[edit]

Traditional work with offenders has focused on their deficits (e.g., with respect to socialization, and schooling) and other "criminogenic" risk-factors. Rehabilitation more often than not has taken the form of forced treatment or training, ostensibly for the good of the offender, and the community. Arguably, this approach has shortcomings, suggesting a need to make available additional positive options to treatment staff so they can best assist offenders, and so that offenders can better find their way forward. Positive psychology has made recent inroads with the advent of the "Good Lives Model", developed by Tony Ward, Shadd Maruna, and others. With respect to rehabilitation: "Individuals take part ... because they think that such activities might either improve the quality of their life (an intrinsic goal) or at least look good to judges, parole boards and family members (an extrinsic goal)."[177]

Other future research[edit]

Positive psychology research and practice is currently conducted and developed in various countries throughout the world. To illustrate, in Canada, Charles Hackney of Briercrest College applies positive psychology to the topic of personal growth through martial arts training; Paul Wong, president of the International Network on Personal Meaning,[178] is developing an existential approach to positive psychology. Cognitive and behavioral change, although sometimes slight and complex, can produce an intense affect. The benefits argue for this focus becoming a legitimate area of study, specifically regarding links in cognition and motivational responses. Isen (2009) remarked, further progress requires suitable research methods, and appropriate theories on which to base contemporary research.[179] Chang (2008) suggested researchers have a number of paths to pursue regarding the enhancement of emotional intelligence, even though emotional intelligence does not guarantee the development of positive affect; in short, more study is required to track the gradient of positive affect in psychology.[180]

Myriad criticisms exist. According to Schneider (2011),[181] positive psychology fails to explain past heinous behaviors such as those perpetrated by the Nazi party, Stalinist marches, Klan gatherings, to identify but a few. Furthermore, Schneider pointed to a body of research showing high positivity correlates with positive illusion, which effectively distorts reality. The extent of the downfall of high positivity (also known as flourishing) is one could become incapable of psychological growth, unable to self-reflect, and tend to hold racial biases. By contrast, negativity, sometimes evidenced in mild to moderate depression, is correlated with less distortion of reality. Therefore, negativity might play an important role within the

dynamics of human flourishing. To illustrate, conflict engagement and acknowledgement of appropriate negativity, including certain negative emotions like guilt, might better promote flourishing.[124] Overall, Schneider (2011) provided perspective: perhaps genuine happiness is not something you aim at, but is a byproduct of a life well lived, and a life well lived does not settle on the programmed or neatly calibrated (p. 35).[181] It must be noted that some positive psychologists, such as Seligman, have acknowledged in their works the point about positive illusion.[182] Seligman is also a critic of merely feeling good about oneself apart from reality and also recognises the importance of negativity / dysphoria.[183] Therefore, Schneider's criticism must be understood as a criticism only applicable to some views of positive psychology and not an absolute denouncement of positive psychology. Sample (2003) noted the argument by Steven Wolin, a clinical psychiatrist at George Washington University in Washington DC: the study of positive psychology is a reiteration of older ways of thinking. Lazarus (2003), in Psychological Inquiry,[184][185] wrote an important early critique as well as a follow-up response to critics. Snyder and Lopez (cited in Held 2004, p. 17) warned of possible damage to the field of positive psychology as a result of the scientific community becoming caught up in the medias celebration of it. In a warning to researchers in the field, Snyder and Lopez suggested they remain within the parameters of scientific professionalism and appropriately utilize any research or study findings.[186] Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges wrote scathingly on the social dangers of "positive psychology", both in his column for Truthdig[187] and, more extensively, in his 2009 book Empire of Illusion. Hedges stated corporations appeal to "positive psychology" to force employees to be happy at all times. In a similar vein, Hedges is critical of "positive psychology's" law of attraction. However, while popular in media and business, psychologists generally do not take seriously the notions of permanent happiness and law of attraction. Barbara Ehrenreich extensively critiqued "positive psychology" in her book Brightsided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America,[188] in lectures, and interviews.[189][190][191][192] Ehrenreich discussed how unrealistic, obsessive, or reckless positive thinking impedes productive action, causes delusional assessments of situations, and that people are then blamed for not visualizing hard enough, and thus "attracting" failure even in situations when "masses of lives were lost."[193] These criticisms are valid to psychologists.[citation needed] It is unclear to what extent Ehrenreich is critiquing the positive branch of

psychology for errors of the popular positive thinking movement - especially the law of attraction, which is not taken seriously by professionals. Held argued while positive psychology makes contributions to the field of psychology, it has faults. Her 2004 article offered insight into topics including the negative side effects of positive psychology, negativity within the positive psychology movement, and the current division in the field of psychology caused by differing opinions of psychologists on positive psychology.[186] In addition, she noted the movements lack of consistency regarding the role of negativity. She also raised issues with the simplistic approach taken by some psychologists in the application of positive psychology. A one size fits all approach is not arguably beneficial to the advancement of the field of positive psychology; she suggested a need for individual differences to be incorporated into its application.[186] Zagano and Gillespie (2006) demonstrated there are similarities between contemporary positive psychology, as a secular phenomenon, and the spirituality of Ignatius of Loyola. The latter was traced to the 16th century in Phyllis Zagano and C. Kevin Gillespie, "Ignatian Spirituality and Positive Psychology", The Way, 45:4 (October 2006) 41-58. Although psychology has its roots in philosophy, philosophical objections might well be raised regarding positive psychology, in particular. For example,Arthur Schopenhauer and his disciples, might accuse followers of a "positive" approach to human thought as showing a preference for delusion and denial. Delusions are false beliefs, while denial can protect the ego. Interestingly, delusion and denial are human processes. Philosophically, some believe life is ultimately utterly meaningless. This viewpoint, based on human processes, and an extreme belief regarding the purpose of existence, contrasts steeply with what positive psychology has to offer, and what it suggests people are capable of, including a capacity to become aware of their foibles (i.e., a tendency to delusion and/or denial), and overcome them. Similarly, Marxist theorists would likely view the development of positive psychology as a symptom of alienation and ideology. These objections highlight some of the difference between philosophy (which generally suggests one possesses true beliefs, even if such beliefs have negative or unpleasant consequences), and several fields of psychology, including positive psychology. Unlike the philosophical notion of 'true' beliefs, psychology argues personal beliefs are changeable; therefore, it is not only valid to seek happiness, subjective well being, "wellness" or "ideal functioning", but it makes very good sense to attempt to do so.

According to information provided by The United States Department of Labor, In 2009 employed persons worked an average of 7.5 hours on the days they worked, which were mostly weekdays. [In addition to that], 84 percent of employed persons did some or all of their work at their workplace.[1] [1] Therefore, this indicates that the majority of the population is spending their waking hours at work, outside their homes. Therefore employers must do their best to create a low stress and inspiring work environment to yield greater productivity. Michelle T. Iaffaldano and Paul M. Muchinsky were one of the first people to reignite interest in the connection between job satisfaction and job performance. The meta-analytic research of these individuals impacted the way in which later research on the topic was conducted, especially regarding sample sizes.[2] Positive psychology in the workplace is about shifting attention away from negative aspects such as work violence, stress, burnout, and job insecurity. Positive psychology can help create a working environment goal of promoting positive affect in its employees. Fun should not be looked at as something that cannot be achieved during work but rather as a motivation factor for the staff. Along these same lines, it is important to examine the role of: helping behaviors, team building exercises, job resources, job security and work support. The new emerging field of Positive Psychology also helps to creatively manage organizational behaviors and to increase productivity in the workplace through applying positive organizational forces.[3] In the broad sense traditional psychology has not specifically focused on the implementation of positive psychology methods in the workplace. The recent research on job satisfaction and employee retention has created a greater need to focus on implementing positive psychology in the workplace.

Major theoretical approaches[edit]

Martin E.P. Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi are noted as two individuals who mainstreamed the idea of positive psychology as an area of study. They state that psychology has become a science largely about healing. Therefore its concentration on healing largely neglects the fulfilled individual and thriving community.[4] According to Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, the aim of positive psychology is to begin to catalyze a change in the focus of psychology from preoccupation only with repairing the worst things in life to also building positive qualities.[4] Positive psychology hopes its necessity will diminish because it will eventually be incorporated to pre-existing areas of psychological study.

Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers developed Humanistic Psychology that focuses on the positive potential of people and on helping people to reach their full potential.[5] Peter Warr is highly noted for his early work on work well being. Proponents of the well-being perspective argue that the presence of positive emotional states and positive appraisals of the worker and his or her relationships within the workplace accentuate worker performance and quality of life.[6] A common idea in work environment theories is that demands match or slightly exceed the resources. In regards to the research regarding positive outcomes within the employment setting, several models (Demand Control, Job Demands-Resources, and Job Characteristics) have been established.

Demand control model[edit]

Robert A. Karasek is credited with this particular work design model. The Demand Control Model (DCM) has been used by researchers to design jobs that enhance the psychological and physical well-being.[7] This model promotes a work design that proposes high demand and high control, fostering an environment that encourages learning and offers autonomy simultaneously. This model is based on an assumption that workers with active jobs are more likely to seek challenging situations that promote mastery, thereby encouraging skill and knowledge acquisition.[8] This model also points out the role of social support, referring to the quality interactions between colleagues and managers. However, there is some controversy over this model because some researchers[who?] believe it lacks evidence for the interaction between demand and control. The DCM is commonly criticized for its inability to consistently replicate findings to support its basic assumption. The DCM has been criticized[by whom?] for its simplicity, inability to capture the complexity of work environments.However there is evidence that supports the idea that high amounts of job control is associated with increases in job satisfaction and decreased depression, however high demands with out adequate control may lead to increase anxiety.[9]

Job demands-resources[edit]
The job demands-resources model (JD-R) is an expansion of the DCM and is founded on the same principle that high job demands and high job resources produce employees with more positive work attitudes. The difference between the JD-R and DCM is that the JD-R expounds upon the differentiation between demand and resources, as well as encompasses a broader view of resources. This model refers to demands as those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort.[10] This

may refer to jobs that require contact with customers. Resources are regarded as those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or: (1) functional in achieving work goals; (2) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; and (3) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development.[11] Another difference between these two theories is that the JD-R postulates that resources can be predictors of motivation and learning related outcomes. The findings by Bakker and colleagues supports their hypothesis that many resources may be linked to job well-being. They also found that task enjoyment and organizational commitment are the result of combinations of many different job demands and job resources. Enjoyment and commitment were high when employees were confronted with challenging and stimulating tasks, and simultaneously had sufficient resources at their disposal.[12]

Job characteristics model[edit]

The job characteristics model (JCM) is an influential theory of work design developed by Hackman and Oldham. It is based upon five characteristics - skill variety, task identity, task significance, task autonomy, and task feedback - which are used to identify the general content and structure of jobs.[13] This model argues that employees with a personal need for growth and development, as well as knowledge and skill, will display more positive work outcomes. These include things such as: job satisfaction, lower absenteeism, and better work turnover. This model is based upon an idea that high task control and feedback are two essential elements for maximizing work potential. Stronger experiences of these five traits is said to lead to greater job satisfaction and better performance.[14]

Empirical Evidence[edit]
In order to protect the physical and mental health of workers, the demands of the job must be balanced by easily accessible job resources in order to prevent burnout (psychology) in employees yet encourage employee engagement.[15] The interaction between the demand and resources within a job determines employee engagement or burnout. Engagement signifies a positive employee who is committed to the safety within the workplace for self and others. In contrast, burnout represents a negative employee possessing elements of anxiety, depression, and work-related stress. Engagement increases as job resources like knowledge of safety are present. On the other hand, burnout increases when more job demands are present without the buffering effects of job resources.

Hazards in the workplace can be seen as a combination of the physical demands of the work and the complexity of the work. Job resources provide a buffering effect that protects the employees from job demands like high work pressure, an unfavorable physical environment, and emotionally demanding interactions.[16] Employees are better equipped to handle changes in their work environment when resources are readily available.[17] The resources a job can provide include autonomy, support, and knowledge of safety. Autonomy allows employees the freedom to decide how to execute their work. Support can originate directly from a supervisor or from other workers in the environment. And lastly, employees must have knowledge about safety procedures and policies. When the employee is able to work in a safe environment, workers are more satisfied with their jobs. A safe environment provides support and resources that promote healthy employees.

Emotion, Attitude and Mood[edit]

Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize, and interpret emotions that can be used to regulate emotions and assist cognitive processes which promote emotional and intellectual growth.[18] Emotional intelligence has been researched by Carmelli (2003) in order to see its effect on employees work performance.[19] Due to the social nature of the interactions of the employees, emotional intelligence is essential in order to work well with co-workers. When employees work well together their task performance improves and as a result the business benefits. With emotional intelligence, employees are better able to perceive others needing help and are more willing to help for intrinsic benefits. Isen & Reeve (2005) proposed that positive affect led to positive intrinsic motivation for completing a task.[20] As a result of the intrinsic motivation, the employees enjoyed the task more and were more optimistic when having to complete more uninteresting task. The combination of having the freedom to choose tasks and maintaining positive affect results in better task performance. Positive affect promotes self-control to remain focused on any task and forward-looking thinking that motivates workers to look-forward to more enjoyable tasks. Concepts of positive psychology like hope and altruism provide a positive work environment that influences the moods and attitudes of workers. Youssef & Luthans (2007) examined the effects hope, optimism, and resilience had in the workplace on employees job performance, job satisfaction, work happiness, and o rganizational commitment.[21] Hope and resilience had a more direct effect on organizational commitment whereas hope had a greater impact on performance. Hope allows employees to be better at creating more realistic plans for completing task so as not

to focus on the failure that accompanies an incomplete task. Optimism strengthens the employees resilience to break through barriers and causes the employee to build social support and other strengths to overcome obstacle he or she may encounter. Positive psychology also encourages maintaining positive mood in the work environment to encourage productivity on an individual level and organizational level. Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) refer to behaviors like altruism and compliance that are not formal tasks in that the behaviors are not a mandatory of the workers job description. They are considered extra-role behaviors that help in gauging the workers commitment to the job and to the rules of the job in the absence of monitoring these behaviors. OCB have proven to improve the moods of employees and the moods in the workplace.[22] Ahelping behavior improves mood because the individual is no longer focused of negative moods; helping others acts as a distracter for the employee. Altruism is effective because it has more impact in a social setting like the workplace and is more extrinsically rewarding. OCB encourage positive interactions among workers and lead to better psychological health for employees. According to Froman (2010), having a more hopeful perspective about life leads one to being more optimistic about responding to opportunities.[23]Workers are more resilient to adversity and are able to bounce back more quickly. When organizations encourage positive attitudes in their employees, they grow and flourish. As a result, the organization profits and grows from the human capital of productive employees and the monetary capital resulting from productive workers.

Chan (2010) studied fun activities in the workplace that created a positive work environment that could retain and attract employees and encourage employee wellbeing.[24] Activities must be enjoyable and pleasurable. The activities also encourage employees to be more responsible and a team player. These qualities empower employees to more engaged with their work, take on more leadership roles, and experience less stress. Making work fun promotes positive, happy moods in employees that in turn increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment. According to Chans framework, workplace fun must be staff -oriented, supervisororiented, social-oriented, or strategy oriented.[25] While staff-oriented activities focus on creating fun work for employees, supervisor-oriented activities create a better relationship between the employees and supervisors. Social-oriented activities create social events that are organizational-based (i.e. company barbecue or Christmas office party). Strategy-oriented activities allow more autonomy with

employees in different aspects of their work in hopes of cultivating strengths within the organizations employees. The framework proposes that a fun work environment promotes employee well-being in addition to fostering creativity, enthusiasm, satisfaction and communication among the organizations employees. The research found in this study hopes to encourage implementing other work fun activities in other various industries in order to engage and retain positive employees.

There are several examples of popular, real-world uses of infusing Positive Psychology in the workplace. In such contexts such as a workplace, researchers often hope to examine and measure variable levels of such factors such as productivity and organization. One such popular model is the aforementioned Job Characteristics Model (JCM), which applies influential theories of work as it correlates to the five central characteristics of skill variety, task identity, task significance, task autonomy, and task feedback.[26] However, such practices such as business teams within a workplace often present the varying dynamics of positivity and negativity in business behaviors. There are often a plethora of special research teams that go into looking at certain workplaces in order to help report to employers the status of their employees. Furthermore, the three psychological states often measured and examined are: meaningfulness of performed work, responsibility of outcomes, and results knowledge. In mixing together these aspects, a score is generated in order to observe a range reflecting a job quality. In addition, each score details the differing degrees of autonomy and necessary feedback as it relates to ensuring high quality work. Most research points to the fact that typical teams of high performance are those that function high on positivity in their workplace behaviors.

Adequate research regarding whether the practice of measuring factors, such as positive behaviors is lacking. More specifically, in attempting to measure some form of a variable in order to later ensure a positive environment context in the workplace, there is debate to an extent regarding which proper components to value and measure. Additionally, the act and process of specifically looking into certain factors of productivity in the workplace can also go on to influence workers negatively due to pressure.

The multitudes of research and new, developing information detailing the possibility of positive psychology at work often deals with reporting workplace safety, employee

engagement, productivity, and overall happiness.[27] Moreover, understanding the significance of a healthy work environment can directly provide and contribute to work mastery and work ethic. Motivation, researchers have learned, helps to keep a reinforced sense of both discipline and a higher perception which then yields to higher levels of efficiency for both employees and employers.