Positive Psychology Interventions: A Review for Counselling Practitioners Interventions de psychologie positive : Une revue à l'intention des conseillers praticiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of counselling is to promote human strengths and increase levels of well-being in individuals (Lalande, 2004), yet the manner in which to achieve this is not always evident. Some clinicians focus on the alleviation of negative emotions as a proxy for happiness whereas others contend that an absence of negative affect does not signal the presence of positive affect (Karwoski, Garratt, & Hardi, 2006; Layous, Chancellor, Lyubomirsky, Wang, & Doraiswamy, 2011). In fact, a focus on the negative has long been the default position in mental health systems and for many clinicians in it (Bolier et al., 2013). A recent newcomer to the field, positive psychology shares many of the same goals as those found in counselling psychology and focuses on the prevention of mental illness, the promotion of positive mental health, and the treatment of distress by strengthening what is good and generating positive emotions to help clients attain greater levels of functioning (Lalande, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Wood & Tarder, 2010).Considered an umbrella paradigm under which many theories of well-being are linked (Csikszentmihalyi, 2006; Peterson, 2006), positive psychology does not claim to be first in its investigations of happiness. Much of the work in positive psychology was retroactively claimed from the humanists who shared a concern with the positive side of human nature, believing that it involved a productive tendency that sought to actualize itself (Hansen, 2006; Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006). The roots of positive psychology may actually extend back to William James' writings in 1902 when he coined the term mindedness and include Allport's interest in 1958 in the positive characteristics of human beings, as well as Maslow's desire in 1968 to study healthy people (Gable & Haidt, 2005) . Among the first to reject the deficit model (Linley, 2006; Wood & Tarder, 2010), the humanists proposed theories focused on the qualities of healthy individuals and their routes to wellness, spawning the first positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Theories, practice, and assumptions from humanistic figures such as Alfred Adler (1956), Marie Jahoda (1958), Carl Rogers (1961), and Abraham Maslow (1968) still influence counselling today. Thus, intersecting with personality, social, cognitive, and clinical subfields within psychology such as counselling (Bedi et ah, 2011; Ong & van Dulmen, 2007), positive psychology is a framework with which to discover and understand the mechanisms that facilitate well-being (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Linley et ah, 2006) . In this respect, positive psychology offers several interventions that focus on human strengths with the aim of creating a more complete understanding of human experiences.Increasingly, positive psychology is demonstrating the effectiveness of purposefully generating positive affect and positive experiences in both alleviating depression and boosting levels of happiness (Bolier et ah, 2013; Lambert D'raven, Moliver, & Thompson, 2014; Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009). To date, these are the two largest areas of clinical interest where positive psychology interventions (PPIs) have been validated and show demonstrable effectiveness.PPIs have also shown remarkable success in smoking cessation programs (Kahler, Spillane, Clerkin, Brown, & Parks, 2011), education and guidance counselling (Brunwasser, Gillham, & Kim, 2009; Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009), healthcare (Lambert D'raven et ah, 2014; Seligman, 2008), and the workplace (Linley, Harrington, & Garcea, 2013). Positive interventions are also used in several well-supported clinical models. Wong's (2010) existential positive psychology involves an amalgamation of existential psychology and posi- tive psychology that integrates both positive and negative aspects of human life and existence. …
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".