Positive Psychology’s primary focus is on what   people do right to obtain and maintain optimum happiness (Compton, 2005), by   striving to understand and help people develop qualities that lead to greater   personal fulfilment.

The premise of positive psychology is to promote   factors that allow individuals to thrive and flourish by encouraging a change   of focus in psychology from a preoccupation with repairing the worst things   to a greater emphasis on discovering and building upon positive qualities.

Understanding Positive Psychology

As a science, positive psychology is the   scientific study of positive experiences and positive individual traits. It   is a field concerned with wellbeing and optimal functioning, and aims to   broaden the focus of clinical psychology beyond suffering. Positive   psychology denotes that troubled people want more satisfaction, contentment   and joy not just less sadness and worry. The belief is that those who suffer   want to build the strengths and not just correct their weaknesses (Duckworth,   Steen & Seligman, 2005). The term Positive Psychology was coined   by Martin Seligman, a past president of the American Psychological   Association (APA), in 1998.

Positive Psychology is focused on the following:

1. It takes interest in subjective experiences such   as subjective wellbeing/happiness, flow, joy, optimism and hope.

2. It has an interest in the thriving individual,   paying particular attention to character strengths and virtues such as   courage, perseverance, open-mindedness and wisdom.

3. It aims to identify, study and enhance those   qualities that improve on the positive subjective experiences and adaptive   personality traits of individuals (Robbins, 2008).

Positive psychology is firmly based on humanistic   theory. The premise of this discipline, like the humanistic approach,   focuses on enhancing human potential. Positive psychology recognises that   people can and do adapt and adjust to life in highly creative ways allowing   them to feel good about life. In this context positive psychology has a keen   interest in finding out what works and what is right with individuals and the   way they choose to live their life, work and relate (Joseph & Linley,   2006).

At the individual level, positive psychology is   about positive individual traits: the capacity for love and vocation,   courage, interpersonal skills, aesthetic sensibility, perseverance,   forgiveness, originality, future mindedness, spirituality, high talent and   wisdom. At the group level it is about virtues and the institutions that move   individuals towards better citizenship, responsibility, nurturance, altruism,   civility, moderation, tolerance and work ethic (Joseph & Linley, 2006).

Assumptions of Positive Psychology

The most basic assumption of positive psychology   is that human goodness and excellence are as authentic as disorders and   distress and therefore deserve equal attention from mental health   practitioners. The discipline of positive psychology is primarily focused on   the promotion of the good life. The good life refers to those factors that   contribute most predominately to a well lived life. Qualities that define the   good life are those that enrich our lives, make life worth living and foster   strong character (Compton, 2005).

Seligman (2002) defines good life as a   combination of three elements: Positive connection to others or positive   subjective experience; Positive individual traits and; Life regulation   qualities.

Positive connection refers to aspects of our   behaviour that contribute to positive connectedness to others. It is the   positive subjective experiences that includes the ability to love, forgive,   and the presence of spiritual connections, happiness and life satisfaction   that combine to help and create a sense of deeper meaning and purpose in   life. Positive individual traits may include such things as a sense of   integrity, the ability to be creative, and the presence of virtues such as   courage and humility.

Life regulation qualities are those qualities   that allow us to regulate our day to day behaviour in such a way that we can   accomplish our goals. Some of these qualities include a sense of   individuality or autonomy, a high degree of a healthy self-control and wisdom   to guide behaviour. According to positive psychology, the good life must also   include the relationship with other people and the society as a whole (Park   & Peterson, 2008; Duckworth, Steen & Seligman, 2005).

A primary goal of what could be termed as the   positive psychology movement is to be a catalyst for change in the focus of   psychology from a preoccupation with repairing the worst things in life to   also building positive qualities (Joseph & Linley, 2006). This is   especially relevant to the therapeutic context, since positive psychologists   would argue that the role of the therapist is not to simply alleviate   distress and leave the person free from symptomatology, but also to   facilitate wellbeing and fulfilment which is not only a worthwhile goal in   its own right, it also serves as a preventive function that buffers against   future psychopathology and even recovery from illness (Joseph & Linley,   2006).

Contributions to Happiness

The concept of happiness is the corner stone of   the assumptions of positive psychology. Happiness is characterised by the   experience of more frequent positive affective states than negative ones as well   as a perception that one is progressing toward important life goals (Tkach   & Lyubomirsky, 2006). Identifying factors that contribute to happiness   has proven to be challenging. Interestingly though, one thing that does stand   out in the research to date is that the attainment and pursuit of pleasure   may not always lead to happiness.

Certain kinds of environmental factors or   conditions have been found to be associated with happiness and include such   things as; individual income, labour market status, health, family, social   relationships, moral values and many others (Carr, 2004; Selim, 2008; Diener,   Oishi & Lucas, 2003). Ultimately, in the pursuit of understanding   happiness, there are two main theoretical perspectives which focus on   addressing the question of what makes people feel good and happy. These are   the hedonic and eudaimonic approaches to happiness (Keyes, Shmotkin, &   Ryff, 2002).

Hedonic well-being is based on the notion that increased pleasure   and decreased pain leads to happiness. Hedonic concepts are based on the   notion of subjective well-being. Subjective well-being is a scientific term   that is commonly used to denote the ‘happy or good life’. It comprises of an   affective component (high positive affect and low negative affect) and a   cognitive component (satisfaction with life). It is proposed that an   individual experiences happiness when positive affect and satisfaction with   life are both high (Carruthers & Hood, 2004).

Eudaimonic well-being, on the other hand, is strongly reliant on   Maslow’s ideas of self-actualisation and Roger’s concept of the fully   functioning person and their subjective wellbeing. Eudaimonic happiness is   therefore based on the premise that people feel happy if they experience life   purpose, challenges and growth.

This approach adopts Self-Determination Theory to   conceptualise happiness (Keyes et al., 2002; Deci & Ryan, 2000).   Self-determination theory suggests that happiness is related to fulfilment in   the areas of autonomy and competence. From this perspective, by engaging in   eudaimonic pursuits, subjective wellbeing (happiness) will occur as a   by-product.

Thus, life purpose and higher order meaning are   believed to produce happiness. It appears that the general consensus is that   happiness does not result from the pursuit of pleasure but from the   development of individual strengths and virtues which ties in with the   concept of positive psychology (Vella-Brodrick, Park & Peterson, 2009).   The differences between eudaimonic and hedonic happiness are listed below   (adapted from: Carruthers, C.P., & Hood, C.D., 2004).

Hedonic (Subjective Wellbeing): Presence of positive mood Absence of negative   mood; Satisfaction with various domains of life (e.g. work, leisure); Global   life satisfaction.

Eudaimonic (Psychological Wellbeing): Sense of control or autonomy; Feeling of   meaning and purpose; Personal expressiveness; Feelings of belongingness;   Social contribution; Competence

Personal growth; Self-acceptance.

Positive Psychology views happiness from both the   hedonistic and eudaimonic view in which they define happiness in terms of the   pleasant life, the good life and the meaningful life (Norrish &   Vella-Brodrick, 2008). Peterson et al. identified three pathways to happiness   from the positive psychological view:

Pleasure is the process of maximising positive   emotion and minimising negative emotion   and is referred to as the pleasant life which involves enjoyable and positive   experiences. Engagement is the process of being immersed and absorbed in   the task at hand and is referred to as the good life which involves being   actively involved in life and all that it requires and demands. Thus the good   life is considered to result from the individual cultivating and investing   their signature strengths and virtues into their relationships, work and leisure   (Seligman, 2002) thus applying the best of self during challenging activities   that results in growth and a feeling of competence and satisfaction that   brings about happiness.

Meaning is the process of having a higher purpose   in life than ourselves and is referred to   as the meaningful life which involves using our strengths and personal   qualities to serve this higher purpose. The meaningful life, like the good   life, involves the individual applying their signature strengths in   activities, but the difference is that these activities are perceived to   contribute to the greater good in the meaningful life.

Ultimately, it is a combination of each of these   three elements described above that positive psychology suggests would   constitute authentic and stable happiness (Vella-Brodrick, Park &   Peterson, 2009; Carruthers & Hood, 2004).

Flow and happiness

Another key contribution positive psychology has   made to our understanding of the qualities and attributes of well-being is in   the concept of flow. Flow is defined as an optimal state of engagement,   happiness and peak experience that occurs when an individual is absorbed in   an intrinsically motivating challenge (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).   Flow is typically characterised by being immersed in a specific activity that   incorporates the following elements:

1. Concentration toward the task at hand that   appears effortless and is not associated with mental strain or aggressive   efforts to repress or control thinking (Vella-Brodrick, Park & Peterson,   2009),

2. Involvement in the task to the point where   there is no need to think about what needs to be done before it is done   (Vella-Brodrick, Park & Peterson, 2009), and

3. Enjoyment through being involved in and doing   the specific activity (Vella-Brodrick, Park & Peterson, 2009).

The state of flow has been implicated in the   pathways to happiness and thus expands further the concept of happiness   beyond the pleasure state. To conclude on the influence of flow Csikszentmihalyi (1990) suggests that   happiness is brought on by the experience of flow that allows people to enjoy   life and function better in a number of different contexts.

Personality Traits and Happiness

Personality studies indicate that happy and   unhappy people have distinctive personality profiles. For example, happy   people tend to be more extraverted, optimistic and usually have high   self-esteem. Happiness is also considered to be an emotion produced by   positive and negative events and experiences (Selim, 2008). Interestingly, a   number of reports have shown that extraverted individuals are happier than   introverted individuals in the context of a broad range of life experiences   (Carr, 2004; Tkach & Lyubomirsky, 2006; Furnham & Christoforou,   2007).

This has been attributed to the idea that   extraverts react more strongly to positive stimuli designed to induce   positive emotions when compared to introverts. Extraverts are also reported   to have a better fit with their social environment that may trigger positive   emotions of happiness. As such, extraverts are more likely to experience   happiness than introverts who may not thrive in similar social settings   (Furnham & Christoforou, 2007; Carr, 2004). Happiness has also shown to   be associated with easy sociability that involves natural, pleasant   interaction with other people, another attribute typical of the extravert.   Happiness of extraverts can be partially explained by their choice of   enjoyable situations while those that are socially unskilled (e.g.   introverts) may avoid such situations.

In contrast, unhappy people tend to have high   levels of neuroticism. Neuroticism is the tendency to be vulnerable to   feelings of anxiety and depression when faced with potentially stressful   situations. Thus unhappy people are believed to be more reactive to   unpleasant emotional stimuli compared to happier counterparts under the same   conditions (Diener, Oishi & Lucas, 2003). Hofer, Busch and Kiessling   (2008) support this point of view in stating that neuroticism is negatively   associated with subjective wellbeing (happiness) while openness to   experience, agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness are positively   related to subjective wellbeing (happiness).

Biology of happiness

This view purports that Individuals are born with   the genetic makeup to be either “very” happy, reasonably content, or   chronically dissatisfied. Positive emotions have been shown to coincide with   higher levels of activity on the left side of the brain’s prefrontal lobes. A   key player seems to be the neurotransmitter dopamine, which carries “feel   good” messages between brain cells.

High levels of dopamine have been implicated in   feelings of happiness while low levels may result in feelings of depression.   Lykken and Tellegen (1996) concluded from their study of twins that most   people have an average level of happiness or a “set point” that is innate in   them and therefore independent of environmental factors.

They suggest that after we adjust to the effects   of temporary highs and lows in emotionality (for example, happiness and   sadness) we return to our biological “set point”. While it is understood that   very intense feelings of joy or sadness may keep people off their “set point”   for somewhat longer periods, it is believed that eventually every one returns   to their baseline level of wellbeing that is believed to be set by genetics   (Compton, 2005).

From the biological perspective, depending on an   individual’s genes, some people may have a natural enthusiasm for life,   deriving pleasure from ordinary activities, or may require unusual   adventures. But regardless of what makes us happy, a quiet walk or a jungle   safari, after the initial high, we return to our happiness set-point   regulated by our level of dopamine. For some people it is suggested that   their set point may lean towards positive emotionality (high level of   dopamine) whereby they will tend to be cheerful most of the time. Those with   a set point directed more towards negative emotionality (low dopamine) will   tend to gravitate toward varying degrees of pessimism and anxiety. It is also   proposed that the biologically-programmed set-point isn’t really a point,   it’s a range.

In this context we can influence this rage thus   being able to alter our “set point” by creating an environment that is more   conducive to feelings of happiness. That is why factors such as family   environment, education level, and cultural factors all have an impact on an   individual’s sense of happiness and wellbeing (Compton, 2005). Thus, rather   than being a carte blanche on the individual’s state of happiness, the   biological view still considers environmental factors to be an influence on   the more enduring trait of happiness but only within the confines of a   set-point range.

Happiness and Culture

When it comes to happiness, culture is considered   to play a significant role. Researchers have concluded that most people   across the globe do desire some form and degree of happiness. But that   pursuit of happiness varies greatly depending on one’s culture and   circumstances (Carr, 2004). For example, very poor nations and those in   dramatic political change invariably report the lowest levels of subjective   well-being.

Conversely, many of the wealthy and democratic   Scandinavian countries consistently report the highest levels of happiness.   But a culture can also be poor in resources and rich in happiness as well.   Latin American nations, for example, appear to have a more positive   orientation and value happiness more than other countries (Maddux, 2004). At   the other end of the scale, East Asian and African nations often place other   values ahead of happiness, such as mastery and pleasing one’s family or group   (Carr, 2004).

Thus, how we individually define and experience   happiness has as much to do with our cultural influences as it does with our   personality, biological dispositions, personal goals and other individual   factors. What this means is that while most people in practically every   society will likely desire some form of well-being (both psychologically and   physically), what they value will greatly determine what shape that pursuit   of happiness is and what it will look like once acquired.

Because of such cultural variance in what factors   contribute to high levels of happiness and well-being, it must be concluded   that there are more determinants to happiness beyond the scope of what   positive psychology currently understands. What is perhaps important to   understand is that each culture finds its own sources of well-being and   maximises these by building from their own cultural resources to pursue their   own individual happiness.

Authentic Happiness

Positive psychology uses the term authentic   happiness to describe the combination of behaviours that constitutes   happiness and a good life. Authenticity in this context refers to both the   ability to recognise and take responsibility for one’s own psychological   experiences and the ability to act in ways that are consistent with those   experiences. Authentic happiness is thought to derive from the identification   and cultivation of signature strengths and virtues (Robbins, 2009).

Thus, authentic happiness suggests that we all   have signature strengths that we use in challenging times to bring about   change. The idea is that individuals should focus on their strengths and not   their weaknesses in order to attain authentic happiness. The focus is on   drawing on those strengths and using them as tools to maximise meaningful   life. Greater authenticity was also linked to less depression and less   perceived stress and fewer complaints of physical problems, creating a   conducive climate for happiness (Compton, 2005).

Seligman (2002) differentiates between strengths   and talents as they are often confused in the identification of individual   signature strengths. It is suggested that strengths are moral traits while   talents are innate. Talents are said to be relatively automatic whereas   strengths are more voluntary. Although talent does not involve a choice about   possessing it, there is a choice of whether to burnish it and where to deploy   it.

Strength on the other hand involves choices about   when to use it and whether to keep building it