See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254336772

Designing positive psychology: taking stock and moving forward, by K.M.

Sheldon, T.B. Kashdan, and M.F. Steger (Eds.)

Article  in  The Journal of Positive Psychology · January 2012

DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2011.614830

CITATIONS READS

3 958

1 author:

Alex Zautra
Arizona State University
264 PUBLICATIONS   15,086 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alex Zautra on 17 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Arizona State University]
On: 17 July 2015, At: 07:54
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to

furthering research and promoting good practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20

Designing positive psychology: taking stock and moving

forward, by K.M. Sheldon, T.B. Kashdan, and M.F.
Steger (Eds.)
a
Alex J. Zautra
a
Department of Psychology , Arizona State University
Published online: 20 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Alex J. Zautra (2012) Designing positive psychology: taking stock and moving forward, by K.M. Sheldon,
T.B. Kashdan, and M.F. Steger (Eds.), The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting
good practice, 7:1, 79-81, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2011.614830

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.614830

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The Journal of Positive Psychology
Vol. 7, No. 1, January 2012, 79–81
BOOK REVIEW
Designing positive psychology: taking stock and moving
forward, by K.M. Sheldon, T.B. Kashdan, and
M.F. Steger (Eds.), New York, Oxford University
Press., 2011, 470 pp., US$49.50 (hardcover), ISBN:
978-0-195-37358-5
To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly
romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is
a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion,
sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to
emphasize in this complex history will determine our
lives.
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 07:54 17 July 2015
From The Optimism of Uncertainty by Howard
Zinn (2004).
This volume is a delightful reminder to the
discipline that even positive psychologists (PPs) can
be self-correcting organisms. To do so requires them to
be critical, and thus not altogether positive, about
themselves and what they promote, thus playing
against type. This is a definite plus for paradigm
management, and hopefully, the effort evident within
this book will not be too late for the field of the
positive. Many academic psychologists have already
fled; not wanting to be caught agreeing with a card-
carrying PP. In the academic world, nothing positive
can be that ‘good’. Furthermore, the eyes of many
aging scholars are darting downward to reread their
own early works that were left unacknowledged by the
new scholars. A word of wisdom to the young who are
PPs: if you attach yourself to a paradigm shift, you
need to be ready for the backlash of academic opinion
that often begins derisively with ‘We have heard this all
before’.
The real (or imagined) problem is that the
introduction of PP to the discipline was built upon
what appears to be self-aggrandizement to many who
felt left behind. PPs have been patting each other on
the back for discovering the positive within people
around the year 2000, when many researchers, applied
psychologists, and clinical scientists have been studying
those influences for decades. Some have long endorsed
attention to the positive in the measurement of
affective states (Bradburn, 1969), in organizational
change (Herzberg, 1966) as well as in clinical and
personality research (Maslow, 1968), a point acknowl-
edged by several authors in this volume. The current
wave of enthusiasm for PP is a resurfacing of an
approach that had gained considerable currency in the
past. To say, the work is a new approach ignoring the
ISSN 1743–9760 print/ISSN 1743–9779 online
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.614830
http://www.tandfonline.com
historical precedents set by those that came before, and
the lessons learned from those approaches.
Sour grapes, aside, is the current collection of
value? Definitely! This volume contains some of the
best work in the field to date. There are fresh
approaches to the positive psychology paradigm
contained here, sophisticated in theory, method, and
in demonstration of the value of considering the
strengths and resources of people rather than focusing
on weakness and vulnerability. The critiques of the
field are carefully drawn and substantiated with
thoughtful commentary and new data. Kennon
Sheldon writes, for example, about the need for
integrative models that cut across levels of analysis,
Laura King invites further inquiry into the analysis of
everyday life, and Algoe, Fredickson, and Chow chart
a course for future research on emotions that includes
the study of the linear and non-linear dynamics of
positive and negative emotions. The best chapters
identify some narrowness of vision within positive
psychology, and call for more attention to how the
negative may shape the development of virtues and
other personality strengths. None of the authors
dismiss the value of accenting the positive, alerting
the reader to the many advances made in the study of
themes such as forgiveness, gratitude, savoring, and
the like. A wide range of topics are covered, from
biological underpinnings to the study of the positive
social forces of community. The examination of ‘Place’
is advocated, for instance, by Florida and Rentfrow to
better understand community determinants of well-
being that have been hidden in plain view. Further,
there is attention to relationships in three chapters,
allowing an expansive treatment of the themes of the
positive beyond the ‘self’. One chapter, by Mabert,
Finchman, Gwinn, and Ajayi, even calls for a Positive
Relationship Science, as a new frontier for positive
psychology.
One of the lessons learned prior to the PP
revolution that still has not been addressed in this
volume is the relative independence of positive states of
mind from negative states. The focus on positive states
whether they be, emotions like joy, personality
dispositions like openness to experience, and/or
trustworthy interpersonal relationships does not
account for or subsume those states on the
‘dark side’ such as emotions of fear, neurotic disposi-
tion, and the lack of boundaries in relationships. PPs
are not really tackling features of the person and his/
her relationships at the higher end of the continuum
 80 Book Review
of goodness. They are dealing with phenomena that lie
on separate dimensions of personality, emotion,
cognition, and social relations from those that increase
risk and vulnerability. Yes, people have signature
strengths, and it is great that we are now studying
those, thanks to the paradigm shift toward the positive.
Relationships are not just sources of risk, but are also
great value to the quality of life of people with them,
and a great disappointment to the lives of those
without close ties. However, those same people with
signature strengths may be just as likely to also have
troublesome personal qualities that they do not like to
admit, a history of traumatic experiences that they
deny or keep hidden because they are so painful, and
conflictual relations with intimate others that flare up
from time to time, and in the extreme come to define
those relationships. People are complex organisms, and
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 07:54 17 July 2015
their relationships are still more complicated. We do
our best work when we acknowledge these simple
truths. Labouvie-Vief and Medler’s (2002) approach is
particularly informative here: to advance an under-
standing of our potential for growth depends on an
appreciation of both the positive and negative sides of
ourselves, and the world we live in.
Here is an example from my own research. When
Marty Seligman was developing a cognitive theory of
depression called ‘learned helplessness’ his colleagues
and he developed a scale to measure the attributional
style that identified people prone to depression: the
attribution style questionnaire (Peterson et al., 1982;
Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, & von Baeyer, 1979).
The depressogenic attributions were those that assigned
causes of negative events to oneself, identified a cause
that was a stable attribute, and also one that was highly
applicable across a range of situations: for example,
when doing poorly on a test, calling oneself ‘stupid’ as
opposed to ‘sleep-deprived’. My colleagues and I were
interested in whether attributions for positive events
also played a role in depression (Zautra, Guenther, &
Chartier, 1985). We asked whether individuals who
attributed positive events to causes outside themselves,
cited unstable causes, and causes that did not generalize
would also be more likely to be depressed: For example,
when the person getting ‘A’ on an exam, says to himself,
‘Well, that was pure luck’. What we found was
remarkable: no discernable correlation between a
person’s attribution style for negative events and his/
her attribution style for positive events. What is more,
the attributions related to different outcomes. Beck
depression scores were higher for those more likely to
find fault with themselves for negative events that were
stable and global attributions. Positive event attribu-
tions did not predict depression. Instead, they predicted
self-esteem. This bi-dimensionality has been found in
other domains as well: affective states and social
networks, for instance, have bifurcated structures.
Why is this important? Well, it may well be that much
of the study of PP is irrelevant to the study of clinical
problems of psychopathology, marital conflict, and
even a community’s risk profile: and vice versa. Positive
psychology can claim legitimacy in its own right, but not
because it is better at capturing the person at the high
end of a continuum that goes from illness to wellness,
but because it taps into variables that lie on entirely
different dimensions.
That said, an articulation of the positive serves us
well not only for its own sake, but also for those special
circumstances when identity is challenged, and devel-
opment and growth are made possible, even demanded
by the changing tide of events. For me these are the
more interesting cases: when the positive and negative
dimensions no longer function independently, and the
positive does inform the negative, and vice versa in
personality development, close relationships, and com-
mitment to a greater purpose (Zautra, 2003). These are
often times of great uncertainty, upending experiences
that challenge the ongoing narratives that have sus-
tained meaning for people, families, and communities.
The current interest in the biopsychosocial factors
underlying resilience following adversity is an example
of that kind of endeavor. Some papers in this volume
begin to address this question, by alluding to the value
of registering successful responses to challenge, whether
it be to advance biological adaptation (the chapters by
Segerstrom, Smith, and Eisenlohr, and Low, Bower,
Moskowitz, and Epel), better understand manifesta-
tions of psychopathology (the chapter by Hames and
Joiner), or acknowledge the psychological growth
following adversity (Crystal Park’s chapter). A more
fully articulated study of resilience brings PP full circle
to reveal its relevance to the study of the adaptive
strengths of whole person, warts and all, not just that
part that is positive (Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2010).
Most books that review and critique an emergent
discipline neglect to summarize and comment on the
diverse opinions offered by their authors, and this
book is no different. Here though it seems even more
of a lost opportunity for dialog between those who are
fervent champions of the positive psychology move-
ment, and those who raise reasonable objections.
Given the campaign-like atmosphere that has sur-
rounded the field, one wonders whether the criticisms
will fall on deaf ears, or what is worst, would receive
only a paternalistic shrug, a forced clearing of the
throat made audible in the background, accompanied
by remarks like ‘Tut, Tut. But of course we care about
the negative’. The book is a valuable resource both for
the cognoscenti of the positive, those who look
scornfully on the approach, and all those in between.
Within these pages, some of the leaders in the field
 Book Review
have stepped forward with commentary addressing the
shortcomings of a positive lean for the psychological
discipline without rejecting the paradigm’s many
contributions. We all can learn from that.
References
Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-
being. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland,
OH: World Publishing.
Labouvie-Vief, G., & Medler, M. (2002). Affect
optimization and affect complexity: Modes and styles of
regulation in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 17,
571–588.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 07:54 17 July 2015
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L.,
Metalsky, G.I., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1982). The
View publication stats
81
Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 6, 287–289.
Reich, J.W., Zautra, A.J., & Hall, J. (2010). Handbook of
adult resilience. New York, NY: Gilford.
Seligman, M.E.P., Abramson, L.Y., Semmel, A., & von
Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive attributional style. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 88, 242–247.
Zautra, A.J. (2003). Emotion, stress, and health. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Zautra, A.J., Guenther, R.T., & Chartier, G. (1985).
Attributions for hypothetical and real life events: Their
relationship to self-esteem and depression. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 94, 530–540.
Zinn, H. (2004). The optimism of uncertainty. The Nation.
Retrieved from http//www.thenation.com
Alex J. Zautra
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University
Email: Atajz@asu.edu