Positive Approach - Contemporary Debate: Relevance of positive psychology in today’s society Flashcards
what is the contemporary Q
How psychology is relevant in today’s society
what are the main points to talk about
- relevance in the military
- relevance in the workplace
- relevance in health
- relevance in education
–then–> why it’s relevant on a personal and/or economic level
why is positive psychology relevant in the military
- war is very relevant in todays society (such as Russia and Ukraine)
- positive psychology can be used to enable soldiers to cope better with the stresses of their job and to continue more effectively in their job
- A longitudinal study by Lester et al was done to assess the impact of the 10-day ‘Master Resilience Training’ within the CSF (comprehensive soldier fitness) programme. It taught soldiers to become more resilient and train them to be Master Resilience Trainers (MRTs) so that they can teach their other soldiers/spouses/army civilians
- It was found that the soldiers exposed to resilience training had a reduced likelihood of receiving a diagnosis for mental health problems/substance abuse problems
- THIS SUGGESTS THAT positive psychology can be used as an effective ‘protective’ measure against the negative effects of combat
- this helps on a personal level for the soldiers + their families, as well as on an economic level with savings in healthcare and recruitment
why is positive psychology not relevant in the military
1) - due to little scientific evidence + where there is evidence (Lester et al) it’s based on self-report
- self-report = validity issues due to social desirability bias
- i.e. members of military not being honest about their mental state due to a fear of losing their job because of the military setting that stereotypically demands ‘toughness’.
- therefore making the CSF programme look more successful than it actually is. Suggesting it has poor application and therefore relevance in society today
2) - the CSF programme was based on the Penn Resiliency Programmes, which was developed to be used by adolescents in a classroom –> which can’t be generalised to adults in warfare
- therefore CSF may not be relevant to the unique needs of military personnel, and therefore not improve mental health
- rendering it not beneficial to society and the economy as a whole
3) - CSF was developed back in 2008, for soldier going to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan
- a lot has changed since then —> therefore it might not be relevant
- such as: technological warfare (troops aren’t on the frontline anymore)
- such as: western forces withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan = soldiers aren’t exposed to war conditions as frequently anymore
Why is positive psychology relevant in the workplace
- research from Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi has shown that work can be a major sources of happiness: we can achieve ‘flow’
- by using positive psychology based interventions = benefit the workers = they work harder = benefit employers and economy
- Oswald et al (2009) did an experiment to assess the effect of happiness on productivity. They artificially induced happiness by showing participants a comedy clip or control condition with no clip, then participants were paid to calculate a series of sums. Found: happy was 12% more productive in this task
- suggests that if introduced into a work place, it can improve the mental health of the workers and therefore the economy through their higher productivity
- this is especially important because of the cost of living crisis. We need to make sure the economy is well looked after
Why is positive psychology not relevant in the workplace
- Oswald’s location for his experiment was in a lab = low ecological validity = can’t be generalised to a work place
- the idea of enjoying a job isn’t a new idea for happiness + not everyone has the privilege to do the jobs they want to, it’s they job they have to do
- in order to use the findings to make us happier, we’d have to do jobs that challenge us and ones we can achieve in. This isn’t feasible for every job
- these findings also have no relevance to those unable to work, such as older people
Why is positive psychology relevant to health
- provide both physical and mental positive impacts on health
- Kubzansky and Thurston (2007) did a prospective study of more than 6,000 men and women, aged 25-74. At the beginning of the longitudinal study they used interviews which the participants completed the General Well-being Schedule. Therefore the researchers could determine the participant’s level of ‘emotional vitality’ (characterised by their sense of energy, positive well being and ability to regulate emotions)
- 15 yrs later they assessed the participant hospital records for evidence of coronary heart disease. Found that: those with high levels of emotional vitality = reduced risk of coronary heart disease. Suggesting that emotional vitality nay protect against heart disease in men and women
- which is relevant to today’s society due to pressure + lack of funding in NHS + ageing population
- By saving money for the NHS + healthier workers = boost the economy
Why is positive psychology not relevant to health
- Data = qualitative = subjective = can’t establish a C+E relationship
- e.g. there was no measurable unit for ‘emotional vitality’ + it was a correlation so interviewing variables have to be considered
- therefore if we can’t establish that happiness can reduce risk of coronary heart disease, then fundings should be allocated to treatments already known to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease
Why is positive psychology relevant in education
- Seligman proposed that a positive psychology curriculum (PPC) can improve students well-being and behaviour and increase engagement in learning and achievement
- due to current increases in depression in young people
- PPC can anecdote this + increase life satisfaction + learning + creative thinking = relevant to both individual and society
- One PPC is the Penn Resiliency Programme (PRP) who’s main goal is to increase students’ ability to handle day to day stressors
- Gilligan et al (1995): found students on PRP programme showed reduced symptoms of depression compared to the control group. 24 months after intervention: PRP group = 22% showed symptoms, control group = 44%
- suggests it is relevant to society on a personal level (improving mental health: 1 in 6 children aged 6-16 have a mental health condition) and on an economic level (students work harder = better jobs = benefit economy + society)
Why is positive psychology not relevant to education
2 reasons:
1) lack of evidence for psychology programmes
- Spence and Shortt (2007): most research that exists tends to be based on small-scale or short-term intervention
- therefore it shouldn’t be invested in without more long-term research to back it up
- Seligman et al (2009) admits that further research needs to be done to ensure the programmes work for students of all socio-economic and cultural background
2) Adding positive psychology to curriculum = other courses are dropped
- school as are limited with budgets and other demands, so can’t add positive psychology to the curriculum without dropping other essential subjects
- An editorial in the Financial Times (2007) suggests that society may end up paying more for students to leave schools with fewer academic achievements as a result
—-> therefore not relevant
What are the ethical implications of this debate
- positive psychology international target wealthier people, as some actions require money/resources,
- e.g. being able to work a job they want in order to achieve flow isn’t achievable for everyone. Sometimes, people do the jobs they do because they need the money
- Therefore it implies that achieving happiness may not be accessible to everyone
- this is problematic as it puts those who are financially more at risk of anxiety and depression, and those who would most likely benefit from such initiatives cannot afford to do so
- this shows the social issues that needs to be overcome before positive psychology can be relevant in todays society
What is the economic benefit of positive psychology that suggests it is relevant to today’s society
- if it can reduce illness = good; illness costs the economy money
- staff sickness costs the UK economy £26 billion per year (Foresight Mental Capitala and Wellbeing Project, 2008)
- it also then produces happier workers
- lab research by Oswald et al found happy workers to be 12% more productive, suggesting a direct link between happiness and productiveness
- if workers are more productive = companies function better = boost economy
