See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232224395

Personal Experience in Positive Psychology May Offer a New Focus for a

Growing Discipline

Article  in  American Psychologist · October 2012

DOI: 10.1037/a0029955 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

29READS

91

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transformative Experience Design View project

Virtual reality-based cue exposure therapy for the treatment of bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder View project

Giuseppe Riva

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart

884 PUBLICATIONS   13,578 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Giuseppe Riva on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comment

Contents

Lyubomirsky on McNulty& Fincham .......................................574

Riva on McNulty & Fincham .............574Waterman on McNulty & Fincham ....575McNulty & Fincham reply ..................576

DOI: 10.1037/a0029957

Positive Psychologists onPositive Constructs

Sonja LyubomirskyUniversity of California, Riverside

McNulty and Fincham (February–March2012) offered compelling evidence thatconstructs such as forgiveness and opti-mism can have both beneficial and adverseconsequences, depending on the context.Their caution about labeling particular psy-chological processes as “positive” is timelyand well-taken. I fear, however, that theirarticle propagates a misunderstanding ofpositive psychology—namely, that positivepsychologists believe that the constructs orprocesses they investigate are “good” andshould be promoted. To the contrary, thegreat majority of positive psychologicalscientists (despite their infelicitous label)simply argue that such topics as optimism,well-being, and courage should be studied.Thereafter, they let the data speak for them-selves. If optimism, happiness, kindness, orforgiveness have deleterious effects forcertain individuals, under specific condi-tions, or when practiced or expressed inparticular ways, then the results are all themore interesting, challenging common as-sumptions and calling for more research.As Schwartz and Sharpe (2010) elo-quently argued in their book PracticalWisdom, no trait or virtue is inherentlygood, and wisdom is needed to determinethe right way to act “in a particular cir-cumstance, with a particular person, at aparticular time” (pp. 5– 6). Research, likethat of McNulty and Fincham and theircolleagues, is needed too.

REFERENCES

McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Be-yond positive psychology? Toward a contex-tual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101–110.doi:10.1037/a0024572

Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practicalwisdom: The right way to do the right thing.New York, NY: Riverhead.

Correspondence concerning this commentshould be addressed to Sonja Lyubomirsky, De-partment of Psychology, University of Califor-nia, Riverside, CA 92521. E-mail: sonja.lyubomirsky@ucr.edu

DOI: 10.1037/a0029955

Personal Experience inPositive Psychology MayOffer a New Focus for a

Growing Discipline

Giuseppe RivaUniversita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore and

Istituto Auxologico Italiano

In their recent review of positive psychol-ogy, McNulty and Fincham (February–March 2012) indicated the need to thinkbeyond positive psychology. In particular,they argued that positive psychology needs“to move beyond labeling psychologicaltraits and processes as positive” (p. 107).

According to them, this can beachieved through three steps: (a) by exam-ining both the positive and negative sidesof the same process or trait; (b) by exam-ining both healthy and unhealthy subjects;and (c) by examining well-being over time.

In general, I agree with the two au-thors on the need for a “situated” positivepsychology that is able to address the con-text in which we spend our lives. However,I believe that their suggestions have a crit-ical flaw: They do not clearly distinguishbetween psychology and positive psychol-ogy. If the two disciplines examine boththe positive and the negative sides of thesame process, both healthy and unhealthysubjects, what is the specific focus of pos-itive psychology?

To overcome this issue, I suggest adifferent approach. The starting point of

positive psychology should be the conceptof “personal experience.” But what is per-sonal experience? According to MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience), it is possible to define experi-ence both as “a: direct observation of orparticipation in events as a basis of knowl-edge” (subjective experience) and “b: the factor state of having been affected by or gainedknowledge through direct observation or par-ticipation” (personal experience).

These definitions underline the twoconnected faces of our experience: On oneside, we can intentionally control the con-tents of our experience (subjective experi-ence); on the other side, its contents defineour future emotions and intentions (per-sonal experience). In other words, we bothshape and are shaped by it.

The focus on subjective experience, thefirst side of experience, is not new in positivepsychology. The seminal studies by MihalyCsikszentmihalyi in the mid-1970s identifiedin the optimal experience, or flow, a specificconsciousness state experienced during chal-lenging activities characterized by deep ab-sorption and enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi,1990). Moreover, different cross-culturalstudies demonstrated that subjective experi-ence is the core of a pervasive selective pro-cess defined as “psychological selection”(Delle Fave, Massimini, & Bassi, 2011): Peo-ple choose and cultivate in their lives activi-ties and interests associated with optimal ex-perience.

The main criticisms of this vision aretwo. First is the lack of attention to the inter-personal context: We experience optimal ex-periences, like the “nascent state” (statu na-scenti) or “networked flow,” that are theoutcome of a social interaction (Alberoni,1984; Gaggioli, Milani, Mazzoni, & Riva,2011). Second, linking the optimal experi-ence to the balance between perceived highchallenges/opportunities for action and highpersonal skills is too vague to be usefulwithin a scientific research program: Whatare high and low for me and you?

However, there is a critical differencebetween subjective experience and per-sonal experience. If subjective experienceis the experience of being a subject (expe-rience as subject), personal experience isthe experience affecting a particular subject

574 October 2012 ● American Psychologist© 2012 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/12/$12.00

Vol. 67, No. 7, 574–577

(experience as object). This simple shiftsuggests that, independently from the sub-jectivity of any individual, it is possible toalter the features of our experience fromoutside. In other words, personal experi-ence becomes the dependent variable thatmay be manipulated by external research-ers. Specifically, I suggest that it is possibleto manipulate the features of our experi-ence in three separate but related ways(Riva, Banos, Botella, Wiederhold, & Gag-gioli, 2012):

● By structuring it using a goal/meaning, rules, and a feedback sys-tem.

● By augmenting it to achieve multi-modal and mixed experiences.

● By replacing it with a synthetic/fictional one.

For example, as suggested by “positive tech-nology,” it is possible to use technology tomanipulate the quality of experience, with thegoal of increasing well-being both in individ-uals and groups (Botella et al., 2012).

Moreover, as argued by McNulty andFincham (2012), personal experiences aresituated. Cognitive psychology has clearlyshown how the degree of perceptual stim-ulation, the meanings and values attributedto it, and the emotions elicited by it have adirect effect on the features of our personalexperience (Goldstein, 2010). So, we mayhave relevant experiences, positive or neg-ative, that we remember for all of our livesand experiences that we forget as soon asthey end. Further, interpersonal context,too, shapes our personal experience: Mostof our experiences are of cultural and in-terpersonal activities in which individualexperience is connected and/or mediatedby collective experience (Goldstein, 2010).

Finally, clinical psychology hasclearly shown that personal change occursthrough an intense focus on a particularexperience (Wolfe, 2002). By exploringthis experience as thoroughly as possible,the subject can relive all of the significantelements associated with it and make themavailable for reorganization.

In sum, these features suggest thatpositive psychology may be the science ofpersonal experience: Its aim should be theunderstanding of how it is possible to ma-nipulate the quality of personal experiencewith the goals of increasing wellness andgenerating strengths and resilience in indi-viduals, organizations, and society.

REFERENCES

Alberoni, A. (1984). Movement and institution.New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Botella, C., Riva, G., Gaggioli, A., Wiederhold,B. K., Alcaniz, M., & Banos, R. M. (2012).

The present and future of positive technolo-gies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and SocialNetworking, 15(2), 78–84. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0140

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psy-chology of optimal experience. New York,NY: HarperCollins.

Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M.(2011). Psychological selection and optimalexperience across cultures: Social empower-ment through personal growth. New York,NY: Springer.

Gaggioli, A., Milani, L., Mazzoni, E., & Riva,G. (2011). Networked flow: A framework forunderstanding the dynamics of creative col-laboration in educational and training settings.The Open Education Journal, 4(Suppl 2: M2),107–115.

Goldstein, E. B. (2010). Cognitive psychology:Connecting mind, research and everyday ex-perience (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Be-yond positive psychology? Toward a contex-tual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101–110.doi:10.1037/a0024572

Riva, G., Banos, R. M., Botella, C., Wiederhold,B. K., & Gaggioli, A. (2012). Positive tech-nology: Using interactive technologies to pro-mote positive functioning. Cyberpsychology,Behavior and Social Networking, 15(2), 69–77. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0139

Wolfe, B. E. (2002). The role of lived experiencein self- and relational observation: A com-mentary on Horowitz (2002). Journal of Psy-chotherapy Integration, 12(2), 147–153. doi:10.1037/1053-0479.12.2.147

Correspondence concerning this comment shouldbe addressed to Giuseppe Riva, Department ofPsychology, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,Largo Gemelli, 1, 20123 Milan, Italy. E-mail:giuseppe.riva@unicatt.it

DOI: 10.1037/a0029735

In Support of LabelingPsychological Traits and

Processes as Positive andNegative

Alan S. WatermanThe College of New Jersey (Emeritus)

McNulty and Fincham (February–March2012) provided a service to the field ofpositive psychology through reminding usthat whether psychological traits and pro-cesses yield positive or negative outcomesis a function of the interpersonal and cul-tural contexts in which they are expressed.They demonstrated this through their re-view of research on four qualities generallyviewed by positive psychologists as inher-ently positive, specifically, forgiveness, op-timistic expectations, positive thoughts andbenevolent attributions, and kindness.

However, they took a step too far in theirconclusion that different outcomes in dif-fering contexts mean that these and otherpsychological traits and processes shouldnot be labeled as positive or negative.

Consideration of Erikson’s (1963,1982) treatment of the personality compo-nents associated with each stage of psycho-social development is instructive in thisregard. Each stage component is conceivedas a bipolar dimension with the endpointslabeled, not positive and negative, butrather syntonic and dystonic. To say thatsomething is syntonic means that it has usfeeling invigorated or in harmony with ourenvironment. It makes us feel good; it iswhat we would like to experience. To saythat something is dystonic means that it isassociated with functioning poorly, feelingbad; it is something we would wish toavoid. Take, for example, the personalitycomponent associated with Erikson’s firstdevelopmental stage—basic trust versusbasic mistrust. We would much prefer toexperience trust rather than mistrust. Yet,though feeling basic mistrust is uncomfort-able and unpleasant, when visiting a touristsite that guidebooks describe as frequentedby pickpockets, heightened mistrust is situ-ationally appropriate and likely to help usavoid trouble. Correspondingly, someonewho experiences trust indiscriminately islikely to be seen as naïve or gullible.Viewed in this way, it would appear thatErikson’s perspective is consistent withthat of McNulty and Fincham (2012).

However, for Erikson, at each stage,our experiences do not yield an either–oroutcome, or even an averaged point alongthe component continuum. Everyone hasoccasions on which syntonic outcomes areexperienced and other occasions on whichdystonic outcomes result. What Eriksonviewed as important for epigenetic devel-opment and psychological health was theratio of syntonic to dystonic outcomes atany given stage. In order to achieve well-being, a positive ratio of syntonic todystonic outcomes was considered essen-tial, provided both types of outcomes wereexperienced in situationally appropriateways. According to the epigenetic princi-ple, without a greater proportion of syn-tonic to dystonic outcomes at any givenstage, successful future developmentwould be fundamentally undermined.Therefore, while basic trust need not, andshould not, be sought under all conditions,overall it constitutes a key element in suc-cessful psychological functioning and war-rants being labeled a positive psychologicalcharacteristic. Correspondingly, while ba-sic mistrust need not, and should not, beavoided under all conditions, when it be-

575October 2012 ● American Psychologist

comes the dominant outcome experienced,no matter how situationally appropriate, itundermines psychological health and well-being. It therefore warrants being labeled anegative psychological characteristic. Asimilar analysis can be made for each ofErikson’s psychosocial stage components.

McNulty and Fincham (2012) did notset up bipolar continua for the four osten-sibly positive processes they discussed. Isuggest the following: The opposite pole toforgiveness would appear to be continuinganger and resentment. The opposite pole tooptimistic expectations is pessimistic ex-pectations. The opposite pole to positivethoughts or benevolent attributions is neg-ative thoughts or unsympathetic attribu-tions. The opposite pole to kindness wouldappear to be meanness. In each instance,the former pole is syntonic, the latterdystonic. As with the analysis of Erikso-nian stage components, there are some con-texts in which the syntonic process is adap-tive in promoting well-being and others inwhich it may prove maladaptive. Corre-spondingly, there are some contexts inwhich the dystonic process is most adap-tive and in which to act otherwise woulddecrease well-being. However, viewedacross time and contexts, the proportion-ally greater expression of forgiveness, op-timistic expectations, positive thoughts,and kindness, in situationally appropriateways, rather than their alternatives, willalmost certainly promote greater psycho-logical health and overall well-being. Thiswarrants viewing each of these psycholog-ical processes as both contextually depen-dent and positive contributors to achievingwell-being. Proportionally greater expres-sion of anger and resentment, pessimisticexpectations, negative thoughts, and mean-ness, no matter how situationally appropri-ate, appears a poor basis indeed for makingclaims with respect to well-being. A simi-lar analysis should be applied to each of thepsychological traits and processes positivepsychologists have identified as being ele-ments of psychological health or illness.

McNulty and Fincham (2012) notedthat many positive psychologists advancethe view that psychological research onpositive traits and processes should informour efforts at therapy and prevention. Theyexpressed the concern that endeavors topromote positive qualities for people expe-riencing suboptimal circumstances may notonly fail but may cause harm. In this re-gard, I believe they misconstrue the objec-tives of positive psychologists engaged intherapy and prevention. The goal is not topromote positive qualities irrespective ofcontext. Rather, it is to promote the devel-opment and expression of positive psycho-

logical traits and processes in those con-texts where they would be situationallyappropriate and/or to help clients changetheir situations such that the use of negativepsychological traits and processes is nolonger necessary. We cannot promote suchoutcomes unless we can identify, and arewilling to label, those ways of psycholog-ical functioning that are most healthy andassociated with well-being and those thatare not.

REFERENCES

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed:A review. New York, NY: Norton.

McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Be-yond positive psychology? Toward a contex-tual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101–110.doi:10.1037/a0024572

Correspondence concerning this commentshould be addressed to Alan S. Waterman, P.O.Box 105, Roxbury, VT 05669. E-mail: water@tcnj.edu

DOI: 10.1037/a0030051

The Pitfalls of ValencedLabels and the Benefits of

Properly CalibratedPsychological Flexibility

James K. McNulty and Frank D. FinchamFlorida State University

The Contextual Nature ofPsychological Processes

There appears to be consistent support forour position (McNulty & Fincham, Febru-ary–March, 2012) that the implications ofany particular psychological characteristicfor well-being depend on the context inwhich it operates. Specifically, Lyubomir-sky (2012, this issue, p. 574) stated, “Mc-Nulty and Fincham (February-March 2012)offered compelling evidence that con-structs such as forgiveness and optimismcan have both beneficial and adverse con-sequences, depending on the context.”Likewise, Riva (2012, this issue, p. 574)stated, “In general, I agree with the twoauthors on the need for a ‘situated’ positivepsychology that is able to address the con-text in which we spend our lives.” Finally,Waterman (2012, this issue, p. 575) stated,“McNulty and Fincham (February–March2012) provided a service to the field ofpositive psychology through reminding usthat whether psychological traits and pro-

cesses yield positive or negative outcomesis a function of the interpersonal and cul-tural contexts in which they are expressed.”

Valenced Labels

Despite this consensus, however, there ismixed support for our position that we needto move beyond positive psychology byavoiding the “positive” and “negative” la-bels of psychological constructs that havebeen thrust upon us by the positive psy-chology movement. In particular, Ly-ubomirsky (2012) stated that our “cautionabout labeling particular psychologicalprocesses as ‘positive’ is timely and well-taken” and points out that a number ofpositive psychologists share our view thatpsychological constructs are not inherentlypositive. Waterman (2012), in contrast, de-fended the use of such labels by describingthe theoretical notions put forth by Erikson(1963, 1982).

According to Waterman (2012), Erik-son argued that whether particular pro-cesses, such as trust, are associated withwell-being or harm depends on the situa-tion in which they operate. Waterman’sexample of a tourist’s tendencies towardtrust or mistrust is a helpful one in thisrespect. In an unsafe context, such as anarea of town frequented by thieves, trust isnot adaptive. In a safe context, however,trust is adaptive because it feels good andcan lead to cooperation and successful in-terpersonal relations. This conceptualiza-tion is perfectly in line with the perspectivewe described in our original article.

However, Waterman (2012) went onto argue that this conceptualization of psy-chological constructs suggests that trustand other psychological processes, such asthe ones we described in our original arti-cle, should be called “positive” becauseErikson believed people experience themost well-being to the extent that they ex-press these characteristics more often thanthey do not. But this is only true for peoplewho spend more time in safe contexts thanin unsafe contexts. If the tourist in Water-man’s example spends most of her time ina safe neighborhood and only occasionallypasses through unsafe neighborhoods, shewill experience well-being to the extentthat she trusts more than she does not. Butwhat if she spends most of her time inunsafe neighborhoods?

This observation alerts us to an im-portant problem—many ideas generated bypositive psychologists are (understandably)influenced by the context in which theylive. Most positive psychologists have foodand shelter, presumably live in the comfortof safe neighborhoods, and do not live inwar-ravaged regions or face tyrannical

576 October 2012 ● American Psychologist

governments. Accordingly, processes suchas trust, optimism, forgiveness, kindness,gratitude, and benevolent attributions seemadaptive to them. But a substantial minor-ity of the world population lives in unsaferegions that are stricken by poverty, doesnot have food or shelter, and does live inwar-ravaged regions and/or face tyrannicalgovernments. It is possible that these peo-ple will benefit from thinking more nega-tively and being mistrustful, pessimistic,and unforgiving more often than not.

Properly Calibrated PsychologicalFlexibility

Are there any psychological processes thatare universally beneficial? Perhaps—ifconstrued at a sufficiently abstract level. Inhis classic article on the nature of scientificinquiry, Schlenker (1974, p. 2) stated,

One of the necessary conditions for the formu-lation of universal theories and laws, whether inthe natural or social sciences, is that they bephrased in sufficiently abstract form as to allowfor (a) the insertion of specific objects, cases,places, events, and times as variables and/or (b)the deduction and explanation of specifics fromhigher-order and more abstract theoretical prin-ciples. If a theory incorporates specifics, it wouldnot possess the generality to satisfactorily ex-plain the required diversity of phenomena.

In line with this reasoning, it is inac-curate to state that forgiveness, or any otherspecific psychological construct, is “posi-tive” because the implications of such pro-cesses depend on situations, culture, andtime. To be accurate, any universal theoryof well-being needs to be abstract enoughto adequately account for these nuances.

In search of such a theory, we intro-duce the idea of properly calibrated psy-chological flexibility—the ability to employthe most adaptive cognitive or behavioralprocess in a given situation. Taken to-gether, the contextualized nature of psy-chological processes described in our orig-inal article and the fact that peopleencounter different situations throughouttheir lives mean that achieving well-beingrequires (a) the ability to know which psy-

chological strategy will be most adaptive inany given situation and (b) the cognitiveand behavioral flexibility to employ thatstrategy.

Consider, once again, our tourist. It isunlikely that any person will only encoun-ter situations in which it is appropriate totrust. It is also unlikely that any person willonly encounter situations when it is appro-priate not to trust. Rather, everyone expe-riences situations when it is appropriate totrust, and everyone experiences situationswhen it is appropriate not to trust. Thosewho always trust will sometimes be suc-cessful and will sometimes not be success-ful. Likewise, those who never trust willsometimes be successful and will some-times not be successful. But those whoflexibly trust in some situations and mis-trust in others will be most successful, pro-vided that they properly calibrate their trustand mistrust such that each is employed inthe situation for which it is most appropri-ate.

Such an approach to understandingwell-being is abstract enough to applyacross (a) psychological constructs, such astrust, forgiveness, optimism, kindness, andbenevolent thinking; (b) situations; (c) cul-tures; and (d) time. Further, it is testable.Consider the McNulty (2008) finding de-scribed in our original article. Newlywedspouses with partners who rarely engagedin transgressions remained more satisfiedover time to the extent that they were morelikely to forgive those partners, whereasspouses with partners who frequently en-gaged in transgressions remained more sat-isfied over time to the extent that they wereless likely to forgive those partners. Yet,even the same partner may engage in sometransgressions with little frequency andother transgressions with more frequency.Accordingly, people may remain the mostsatisfied to the extent that they are quick toforgive their partners’ occasional transgres-sions and less likely to forgive their part-ners’ more-frequent transgressions. Re-search to test this possibility could obtainwithin-person estimates of people’s ten-dencies to forgive their partners’ various

transgressions, the frequency with whichthose partners engage in those transgres-sions, and people’s satisfaction with theirrelationships with those partners over time.

Finally, properly calibrated psycho-logical flexibility is teachable. Most currentapproaches to prevention and treatmentteach one set of skills to be used acrosssituations. Challenging the logic of this ap-proach, our analysis suggests that the sameskill is not adaptive across situations. Thebest interventions to promote well-beingmay thus be those that teach people differ-ent skills, forgiveness and unforgiveness,for example, and the best time and place touse each one.

REFERENCES

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed:A review. New York, NY: Norton.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Positive psychologistson positive constructs. American Psycholo-gist, 67, 574–574. doi:10.1037/a0029957

McNulty, J. K. (2008). Forgiveness in marriage:Putting the benefits into context. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 22, 171–175. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.171

McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Be-yond positive psychology? Toward a contex-tual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101–110.doi:10.1037/a0024572

Riva, G. (2012). Personal experience in positivepsychology may offer a new focus for a grow-ing discipline. American Psychologist, 67,574–575. doi:10.1037/a0029955

Schlenker, B. R. (1974). Social psychologyand science. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 29, 1–15. doi:10.1037/h0035668

Waterman, A. S. (2012). In support of labelingpsychological traits and processes as positiveand negative. American Psychologist, 67,575–576. doi:10.1037/a0029735

Correspondence concerning this commentshould be addressed to James K. McNulty, De-partment of Psychology, Florida State Univer-sity, 1107 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL32306. E-mail: mcnulty@psy.fsu.edu

577October 2012 ● American Psychologist

View publication statsView publication stats