Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of the good life.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper first describes the growing pains and challenges of the positive psychology (PP) movement and identifies the four pillars of the good life as meaning, virtue, resilience, and well-being, which are all shaped by culture. I then introduce three issues that characterise the second wave of PP (referred to as PP 2.0). The first concerns the need for a comprehensive taxonomy of PP. The second involves the hypothesis that meaning-orientation and happiness-orientation represent two different visions of the good life with profound practical implications. Eudaimonia is viewed as meaning plus virtue. The third issue concerns a dual-systems model as a way to integrate the complex interactions between the negatives and positives to optimise positive outcomes in various situations. I conclude that PP 2.0 is characterised by a balanced, interactive, meaning-centered, and cross-cultural perspective. Keywords: meaning, subjective well-being, resilience, virtue, eudaimonia Positive psychology (PP) has been all the rage since Martin Seligman's APA president address in 1998. In spite of its controversial nature (Carstensen & Charles, 2003; Held, 2002, 2004; Lazarus, 2003), PP has effectively changed the language and landscape of mainstream psychology and it continues to grow exponentially in the teaching, research, and applications of PP. The potential of applying PP to enhance well-being is almost unlimited; it has already opened up new career opportunities for psychologists in coaching, counselling, and consultation (Linley & Joseph, 2004; Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006). The PP movement has been spreading like a forest fire with no sign of abating: research articles, books, and academic conferences on PP continue to multiply. The formation of the International Association of Positive Psychology is one of the many recent developments attesting to the global appeal of PP. The vitality and creativity of PP research can be found in mainstream psychology journals as well as specialized journals such as the Journal of Positive Psychology and the Journal of Happiness Studies. By all indications, the prospects of PP are bright, but there is a need to take stock and assess its future direction, now that the dust has settled after the initial explosive growth. The present paper represents both a reassessment and a reformulation of PP from a Canadian vantage point. Seligman's (1998a) primary reason for launching the PP movement is to address the imbalance in mainstream psychology. He emphasizes what is good about people to counteract psychology's preoccupation with psychopathology. This premise is correct with respect to applied psychology and the study of emotions, but it becomes questionable if one considers the totality of mainstream psychology research. For example, numerous PP topics were already well researched prior to Seligman's (1998a) APA presidential address. Hart and Sasso (2011) have found evidence of substantial growth of several PP sub domains, especially resilience. Given the above, would PP become superfluous when an analysis of publication rates of all the growth-oriented research topics fail to show a negativity bias in mainstream psychology? I think not. I propose that a stronger argument in support of the legitimacy of PP is that PP is much more than a corrective reaction to the perceived imbalance in the literature. Properly understood, the overarching mission of PP is to answer the fundamental questions of what makes life worth living and how to improve life for all people ? this is also the heart and soul of the mission of both APA and CPA. The Growing Pains and Challenges of Positive Psychology Like any new movement, PP has attracted both supporters and detractors. Some of the criticisms are caused by overstatements, resulting in unnecessary controversies and criticisms. For example, the controversy regarding humanistic psychology's contribution to PP remains unresolved (Bohart & Greening, 2001; Robbins & Friedman, 2008). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it