Abstract

A significant new “positive psychology” movement focuses upon positive mental states

and personality traits. It has been suggested that this movement should guide thought and

practice in adventure-based therapy (ABT). This article examines that suggestion, including

evidence offered in its support, and identifies certain regards in which positive psychology does

not yet seem to provide cohesive guidance for ABT. It is suggested that, instead of restricting

itself to a narrowly psychological perspective on clients’ lives and resources, ABT should

employ constructive insights from multiple fields whose concerns are closely parallel to or

interwoven with those of ABT, including education, social work, and several nature-oriented

disciplines.

2

Contents

Introduction 4

Traditional and Positive Psychology 4

The New Movement 5

Evidence-Based Practice 9

The Positive and the Constructive 13

Education as a Constructive Undertaking 15

Other Sources of Constructive Insight 19

Conclusion 21

References 23

3

Positive Psychology and a Constructive Adventure-Based Therapy

A recent issue of the Journal of Experiential Education carried an article by Dene S.

Berman and Jennifer Davis-Berman (2005) on the subject of positive psychology. Positive

psychology, as described, seeks to rectify a perceived negative orientation in today’s mainstream

psychology. The article cites positive psychology as a basis for substantial rethinking of

contemporary practices in therapeutic outdoor education (referred to here as adventure-based

therapy, or ABT). As the following pages indicate, however, positive psychology (particularly

as construed by the Bermans) does not presently appear capable of providing, by itself, a

coherent and compelling template for ABT. Rather, much would be gained from drawing upon

several other fields – including education, social work, and nature-oriented disciplines – to

develop ABT as a constructive, growth-oriented endeavor that is far more than a mere offshoot

of psychology, positive or otherwise.

Traditional and Positive Psychology

“Traditionally,” the Bermans say, “psychology has been focused on preventing and

treating human pathology” (p. 18). This traditional approach, they say, has used a “deficit-

focused” or “negative paradigm of human functioning” that seeks “to identify and often diagnose

deficits in functioning and affect” (p. 18). Against that, they contrast positive psychology, which

they consider “a relatively new movement” (p. 17) concerned with enhancing clients’ strengths.

By that description, deficit-oriented diagnosing of clients’ weaknesses is a characteristic

of the negative paradigm. But such diagnosing comes very easily, even to those who are uneasy

with it, as this quote from the Bermans shows:

Many outdoor education programs are intended to work with vulnerable

populations. Others are targeted toward people who have been diagnosed with

Comment [A1]: Is this phrase an accurate reflection of the practice? Why not just start out with ABT?

Comment [A2]: So why not simply focus on the contributions of these other fields, rather than setting positive psychology up as the proverbial straw man in this paper? Once you’ve outlined your claims about the contributions that these fields can make, you should then provide evidence to support your claims.

Comment [A3]: Citations throughout the paper should follow APA style. More importantly, references should be more formal, less personal, than presented here.

4

mental health and/or physical health problems. Increasing anxiety or aggravating

any other mental health symptoms is not only an undesirable outcome when

working with these populations, but it puts participants at added risk. (p. 22)

The quotation appears to suggest that it is valid that clients have been “diagnosed” as

being “vulnerable” and experiencing “problems” of a mental or physical nature, including

“anxiety” and “other mental health symptoms.” Similarly, the Bermans draw upon the “current

‘conventional wisdom’ in psychology” (p. 20, emphasis added) to criticize the ABT practice of

taking people out of their comfort zones. Moreover, in support, they cite Maslow (1954), whose

text is not part of any new movement. These examples call for a clearer understanding of the

extent to which positive psychology really does diverge from traditional psychology, and what

that divergence means for ABT.

The New Movement

American Psychologist is the official journal of the American Psychological Association.

Introducing a special issue of that journal devoted entirely to positive psychology, Martin E. P.

Seligman and Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (2000) said this:

Prevention researchers have discovered that there are human strengths that act as

buffers against mental illness: courage, future mindedness, optimism, inter-

personal skill, faith, work ethic, hope, honesty, perseverance, and the capacity for

flow and insight, to name several. (p. 7)

This was an important statement. Many writers (e.g., Gable & Haidt, 2005; Bacon, 2005;

Sandage & Hill, 2001; Strümpfer, 2005) locate the founding statement of positive psychology in

that article by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000). Observers (e.g., Cowen & Kilmer, 2002;

Gable & Haidt, 2005) also indicate that positive psychology derived its momentum generally

Comment [A4]: Is it not valid?

5

from Seligman’s vigorous promotion while he held the influential position of chair of the APA in

the late 1990s. Then, and at other times, Seligman has devoted much effort to championing

positive topics, such as learned optimism (e.g., Seligman, 1991) and authentic happiness (e.g.,

Seligman, 2002a).

It is not yet clear what shape positive psychology will (or should) take. Some voices

have expressed concern about the possibility of excess. Csikszentmihalyi (2003), for example,

says, “[T]here is a real danger that positive psychology will become, to some extent at least, an

ideological movement” in which serious research is obscured (p. 114). More sharply, in a

discussion of articles on positive psychology, Lazarus (2003) said, “The so-called desirable

qualities are presented without empirical foundation or a thoughtful rationale. . . . As I read what

[some positive psychologists have said], I found myself thinking I must have entered a house of

worship rather than a scholarly or scientific debate” (p. 176).

At the same time, an urge to restrict positive psychology to a relatlively narrow track

might be working against preexisting historical realities. Csikszentmihalyi (2003) asks and

answers: “Is positive psychology ‘new’? Of course not” (p. 115). He explains that positive

psychology pursues an agenda similar to that of Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and other

humanists of the 1950s – whose effort “is still very much alive, especially in clinical and

counseling settings” (p. 115). Similarly, Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) consider today’s positive

psychology a “continuation” of that earlier work (p. 3).

Hence, one may distinguish today’s positive psychology movement from a positive

emphasis that has repeatedly arisen in various psychological perspectives over the years. For

purposes of the latter, it seems that the humanistic psychology of Maslow, beginning in the

1950s, was not really the starting point either. Before World War II, according to Seligman and

6

Csikszentmihalyi (2000), psychology did give considerable attention to the nurturance of talent,

and to positive efforts to make people’s lives more productive and fulfilling.

There are some signs that today’s positive psychologists may not yet be entirely prepared

to acknowledge that they are merely part of a very broad and ancient human search for positive

outcomes in human thought and experience. One small example may help to illustrate this.

Consider the remark by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) that, in any large bookstore

nowadays, the “‘psychology’ section contains at least 10 shelves on crystal healing,

aromatherapy, and reaching the inner child for every shelf of books that tries to uphold some

scholarly standard” (p. 7).

In that remark, the authors certainly do not appear to consider aromatherapy, for instance,

to have as much value as “some scholarly standard” in psychology. It seems odd that two

scholars of such repute apparently disregarded extant evidence supporting aromatherapy’s

efficacy for certain purposes (e.g., Buckle, 1999; Diego et al., 1998; Hay, Jamieson, & Ormerod,

1998; Wilkinson, Aldridge, Salmon, Cain, & Wilson, 1999). One might reasonably ask whether

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, who were originally trained in the deficit-oriented scholarship

that is said to dominate traditional psychology, are themselves hesitant to accept the possibility

that non-traditional techniques like aromatherapy are not merely “flaws” or “overly enthusiastic”

legacies of Maslow’s humanistic psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 7).

The seeming preference, by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000), for “some scholarly

standard” (p. 7), is also perplexing if, as they seem to say, the dominant, deficit-oriented

scholarship is precisely not the direction in which they would lead today’s positive psychology

movement. In such light, one might pause to reflect upon their acknowledgment that perhaps

“Maslow and Rogers were ahead of their times” (p. 7).

Comment [A5]: How about tracing this to the Aristotelian discourse regarding the development of virtue?

7

In practical terms, it might be that the shelves in the bookstore are not, after all, entirely

misallocated – that, rather, to some extent, the bookstore’s customers may actually be leading the

pack. With or without the blessing of scholars, starting long before humanistic psychology, such

readers’ favored works seem to have been giving them positive guidance that they were

evidently not finding in the professionals’ variously unaffordable, stigmatized, inefficacious,

interminable, and inscrutable works and treatments. As a simple but sage example, the adage,

“Laugh, and the world laughs with you; cry, and you cry alone,” originated in an ordinary daily

newspaper back in 1883 (Wallechinsky and Wallace, 1975). While the intellectuals were

struggling with Freud, book purchasers in the early 20th century were flocking to inspirational

works by Orison Swett Marden (1908/2003); and long before the advent of the id, ego, and

superego, they were admiring the oft-quoted Augustine and the Pauline “faith, hope, and love”

(I Corinthians 13:13, New English Bible).

There is much more that one could say, to demonstrate the breadth and endurance of

interest in a positive approach to mental wellness. For example, Strümpfer (2005) detects a total

of more than 40 forerunners of positive psychology, in a list that includes such 19th-century

intellectuals as Søren Kierkegaard and William James. He also cites Chinese and other ancient

examples of positive orientation. According to Walsh (2001), methods for cultivating

psychological health, devised in ancient Buddhism and yoga, have shown their effectiveness in

hundreds of studies. In short, the positive psychology movement of today has probably

approached, thus far, a mere fraction of the aggregate current and historical interest in, and

insight into, positive mental phenomena, as documented on the levels of popular and scholarly

literature and practice; and the list of contributing fields probably includes, not only psychology,

but also religion, philosophy, literature, sociology, and others.

8

The positive psychology movement has the potential for, and may be achieving,

important insights. In significant part, however, the movement could be construed as a belated

and hesitant step toward putting western academic psychology back in touch with the needs and

interests of ordinary people, and with the perspectives available in other fields, some of which

have endured for millenia. To the extent that such a reading is valid, the ABT practitioner might

properly consider positive psychology to be just one among many non-deficit-oriented

perspectives that a wellness-oriented outdoor therapy could properly take into account.

Evidence-Based Practice

In 1997, Hattie, Marsh, Neill, and Richards warned outdoor researchers against writing

“research papers that read more like program advertisements” (p. 45). Enthusiasm for a

movement can actually be counterproductive, if its net effect is to undermine the movement’s

credibility. With that concern in mind, it may be appropriate to provide a cautionary note about

another aspect of the current interest in positive psychology, using as a specific example the

following research summary provided by the Bermans:

Using two samples of Outward Bound participants, [Leberman & Martin, 2002]

looked at the relationship between activities that took participants out of their

comfort zones, and the extent to which they related to and learned from those

activities . . . . Their results indicated two interesting findings. First, the activities

that took people out of their comfort zones were, for the most part, not those from

which they learned the most. And second, the activities from which they learned

the most were primarily social, creative, and reflective. These findings certainly

are not definitive; nevertheless, they support a more positive model of change,

and suggest that participants learned more when in positions of safety. (p. 21)

Comment [A6]: It would be helpful to frame the development of PP within the broader development of psychology. Psychology itself is a rather young field of study, going back little more than 100 years. Why, how, when, etc., did positive psychology arise within the field of psychology?

Comment [A7]: Doesn’t seem an appropriate section title.

9

In that research by Leberman and Martin (2002), one of the groups studied consisted of

female prison inmates in New Zealand; the other was comprised of persons who had chosen to

participate in an “Intertouch” course, in the Czech Republic, that used principles of dramaturgy.

It is an understatement to observe, as the Bermans do, that these participants might have been

looking for something that would be different from their experiences of daily life. The stated

program goals – including “an awareness of educational opportunities in the areas of women’s

health, fitness and nutrition, drugs and alcohol” (Leberman & Martin, p. 14) – may also differ

significantly from the goals of many other experiential education programs. Leberman and

Martin themselves emphasize that the purpose of their qualitative research was not to produce

generalizations that would apply to other kinds of programs; they emphasize the limits of their

work and the need for more detailed exploration.

Does this research “support a more positive model of change”? The Bermans’ summary

does track the language of Leberman and Martin’s (2002) abstract; but delving into the article

itself yields a more complex picture. Leberman and Martin state, for instance, that participants

in the Czech program mentioned many different things from which they had learned the most,

including e.g., playing with clay and “meeting the Czech people” (p. 15) – but that none of those

things was mentioned more than twice. Certainly one can learn from many different sorts of

activities; but it is not clear that one can learn, from playing with clay, the things that one might

learn from ABT.

The kinds of techniques and goals pursued in challenge education, as described by

Luckner and Nadler (1997, pp. 257-258), include a cooperative approach, shared goals,

communication, introduction of new skills, increased self-esteem, an increased internal locus of

control, development of more effective problem-solving skills, reflection upon the experience,

Comment [A8]: The author’s treatment of the Bermans is too personal. I get the sense that there is some professional jealousy at play here. The reference should read Berman and Berman (200X). Remember APA style.

10

and transfer of learning into one’s lifestyle. For such reasons, Leberman and Martin (2002)

appropriately observe that “typical adventure activities” do tend to seek the kinds of “social,

physical, creative, and reflective” (p. 13) outcomes that the Bermans (2005, p. 21) also favor.

Leberman and Martin (2002) ask, in the title of their article, “Does pushing comfort

zones produce peak learning experiences?” They express some doubt, however, that Intertouch

participants from various nations all understood the “comfort zone” concept clearly in

translation. Therefore, they did not actually ask those participants about their comfort zones.

Instead, they asked, “What was the hardest part of the course for you, and why?” (p. 14). It is

not clear that this question has any bearing on comfort zones.

The responses to that question do nonetheless yield interesting insights. Leberman and

Martin (2002) report that three of the hardest aspects of the course identified by participants were

physical activities, dealing with other people in the group, and sharing. Two of those three items

seem to be social in nature, which seems inconsistent with the Bermans’ proposition that social

activities were among those from which participants learned the most. The same is true for the

parallel proposition regarding reflective activities: the number of New Zealand women who

considered reflection days most helpful (7, i.e., 28% of respondents) was barely higher than the

number (6, i.e., 29% of respondents) who felt that the hardest thing about the course was dealing

with the “back stabbing,” “negative attitudes,” and other aspects of group relations (pp. 15-16).

There is much to wonder about, here, regarding the program’s social and reflective content as

well as its perceived emotional safety.

Nor is it surprising that a group of people who signed up for dramaturgy, or that female

prisoners who have had problems with drugs and alcohol, tended not to be overly excited about

the physical activities, which included an apparently frightening rock-climbing activity that

11

Leberman and Martin (2002) seem to have considered poorly tailored to participants’ ability

levels. Yet even with respect to that particular activity, Leberman and Martin point out that

physical challenge may have enabled some participants to report that their “peak learning

occurred in [subsequent] reflection activities” (p. 17) – which might not surprise practitioners of

Luckner and Nadler’s (1997) approach. Moreover, typical examples “from which participants

had learnt the most” (p. 15) included non-verbal communication games and soloing, both of

which do enjoy frequent usage in various experiential education programs.

The Bermans have provided a valuable contribution in opening this area up for

discussion. The best construction of their argument, regarding the work by Leberman and

Martin (2002), may be that ABT workers should not relax their vigilance in the complacent

assumption that their method is always positive, but should rather continue to avoid discouraging

or destructive outcomes. Also, this discussion of the Leberman and Martin research seems to

justify the foregoing citation of Hattie, Marsh, Neill, and Richards (1997), as echoed in

Csikszentmihalyi’s (2003) concerns about an “ideological movement” (p. 114) – the point being

that one might wisely lean toward cautious interpretation of research findings.

There may be other research that would provide solid support for the view that positive

psychology, or some interpretation thereof, does militate against existing ABT practice; and of

course much can be said for the Bermans’ concerns about potentially deleterious effects that

poorly designed challenge education might have upon vulnerable individuals. The error, in this

case, may have been to assume that a seemingly therapeutic approach, concerned with reflection

and socialization, would necessarily be profoundly positive.

By now, the reader may have an increasing sense that the word “positive” is vague, and

may even be negative in application – that, for example, it may lead senior psychologists like

12

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi to find fault with valuable books and therapies that happen to lie

beyond their own training and preference, and that it may similarly encourage ill-founded

criticism of valid approaches to ABT. This concern with the word “positive” should not,

however, be interpreted as a rejection of the underlying idea. It may be helpful to pause, at this

point, to clarify that idea and its potential value for the future of ABT.

The Positive and the Constructive

In their introduction to the special issue of American Psychologist, Seligman and

Csikszentmihalyi (2000) indicate that positive psychology has to do with subjective experiences,

personality traits, and civic virtues. They provide numerous dimensions and examples of each.

Other articles in that issue expand upon their list. Thus, according to Cowen and Kilmer (2002),

the contributors to the special issue collectively advanced a total of more than 60 desired

outcomes of positive psychology; but “few of the 60+ outcome variables listed were cited by

more than several contributors” (p. 455). The boundaries of the positive were, in their

estimation, very vague. They cite one article that discusses the premise that America

experiences an “excess of freedom” that is said to result in “a kind of tyranny” and increased

“clinical depression” (pp. 455-456). Whatever the merits of that view, their concern is simply

that they cannot determine what distinguishes that article as a work of positive psychology.

One bid for clarity comes in the form of a polar distinction between positive and

negative. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) say, “[O]ur message is to remind the field that

psychology is not just the study of pathology, weakness, and damage; it is also the study of

strength and virtue” (p. 7, emphasis added). It might be more viable, however, to adopt a

nuanced approach, a recognition that positive and negative may be chameleonic appearances of a

single phenomenon. For example, optimism interests some positive psychologists (e.g.,

Comment [A9]: Choose a different way of saying this. I felt a little moronic when I stumbled on it.

13

Schneider, 2001). Yet Norem and Chang (2002) say that the ostensibly negative mindset of the

pessimist may actually represent a positive adaptation to special circumstances. In a similar

vein, Harvey and Pauwels (2003) point out that many people derive strength from their vivid

recollection of tragedies – which some might mistakenly characterize as a negative

preoccupation – and, for example, their determination that “never again” should such a thing

occur (e.g., Gilbert, 2000). More generally, one is doubtless familiar with situations in which

what appears negative from one perspective can be fairly characterized as positive from another.

If the goal is to identify and study traits, attitudes, experiences, or other phenomena that

are in some sense helpful for people, in contrast to those that merely distinguish instances of

human pathology and failure, then it appears possible that the word “positive” is extraneous –

that one could simply refer directly to what is helpful, wellness-oriented, or strength-enhancing.

Or if it appears useful to have an umbrella term for the general thrust of the inquiry, it may be

more suitable to refer, not to the positive (which, in the worst case, could validate a reduction of

meaning to the level of a mere plus sign or smiley face), but rather to the constructive.

“Construction,” in one literal sense, acknowledges the possibility that one may have to pull out

some nails, or tear down an old wall, before one can proceed with the main project.

That proposed term may help to avoid some difficulties that have been identified in

regard to the existing nomenclature (see e.g., Held, 2002). It also seems more compatible with

intellectual inquiry: it is not hypocritical to employ negative commentary about positive

psychology, particularly not if the purpose of the commentary is to achieve an outcome that is

constructive in net terms. To draw on somewhat compatible terminology from another field,

Schumpeter (1942/1976) postulated a process of “creative destruction” through which an

14

economy frees up underutilized resources for productive purposes. Perhaps a constructive

psychology could do likewise.

Education as a Constructive Undertaking

To this point, the discussion has been oriented toward the positive psychology movement.

Yet supposedly the need for that movement arises because the psychology of recent decades has

been dominated by a non-positive mentality. In other words, the proposed agenda seems to be

that one must first reform the field of psychology, and then use that reformed field to correct

imperfect practices in experiential education. Some, especially persons with psychological

training and orientation, may productively exert themselves along those lines. Meanwhile,

however, others might consider an alternate route.

Gable and Haidt (2005) cite Seligman (2002b) for the proposition that, in the original

vision, positive psychology would address not only positive experiences and traits, but also

positive institutions and communities. Yet positive psychology has not produced much research

on the latter, they say, and there has also been no linkup with any positive sociology or

anthropology. That is, even if the field of psychology were completely revamped, it might still

address only a part of what might need to be done to develop a multifaceted, constructive science

of people.

It is not clear that the scope of ABT must be restricted to psychology. According to

Newes and Bandoroff (2004), ABT is rooted in experiential education. Education and

psychology are two distinct fields. Thus, an ABT practitioner might reserve the right to be

curious about non-psychological fields that can impact experiential education beneficially.

As a general proposition, educators attempt to facilitate the growth and learning of

students. On the whole, their efforts to rectify deficits typically occur within the context of a

15

larger struggle to help those students achieve. Education thus seems to be a primarily positive

undertaking. Hence, its insights may prove useful for people who are concerned about

enhancing a constructive orientation in experiential education.

Unfortunately, what would seem to be a natural fit, between education and experiential

education, has actually not been quite so smooth. In criticizing the state of research in

experiential education, Hattie et al. (1997) observed that programs were often conducted “as if

they operated in isolation from the educational world” (p. 77). Certainly efforts have been made

to rectify that. Yet one can still identify areas in which the experiential education literature

diverges from, or simply ignores, the state of the art in the mainstream educational press.

There is a possibility that the educational component of ABT has been artificially

prevented from serving as a counterweight, one that could offset an otherwise excessive

preoccupation with psychology. If that should prove to be the case, then an effort to enhance a

constructive orientation in ABT might begin with removal of any blockage that might unduly

hinder practitioners from paying appropriate attention to the educational literature.

To that end, it may not be necessary to seek out the myriad ways in which educational

insight could be useful. One example may suffice to highlight a dysfunctional propensity. The

example offered here is one that lies at the very heart of ABT thinking.

The example is that of John Dewey. Writers in experiential education frequently cite

Dewey (1938) as a foundational source of the field’s theoretical concepts (e.g., Carlson, 2005;

Hubbs & Brand, 2005; Martin & Leberman, 2005). The articles citing Dewey do not frequently

attempt, however, to apply his ideas in any depth, preferring rather to summarize them briefly on

the way to some other topic. A critical reader could infer, from the superficiality apparent in

16

some such references, that Dewey’s primary value may be merely to add an intellectual pedigree

to one’s preferred views.

For instance, according to Hatch and McCarthy (2005), “Dewey posited that by putting

the learner directly in touch with the subject of study, the ensuing experience, followed by

reflection on the experience, would result in learning (Keeton & Tate, 1978)” (p. 247). This

quote is worth scrutinizing. The reader notes, first, that it contains no direct citation to a specific

work by Dewey; indeed, his name does not appear in the article’s list of references. That is,

Hatch and McCarthy do not claim to have looked at Dewey’s works themselves; they merely

provide a secondhand summary, derived from an interpretation by Keeton and Tate (1978).

That approach to a foundational work can be risky. As a contrast, McKenzie (2000), who

seems to have examined Dewey’s text, does not rest with a mere reference to experience.

Rather, she points out that Dewey (1938) distinguished “educative” from “miseducative”

experiences (McKenzie, 2000, p. 21). Some experiences, she recognizes, can be not merely

uninformative; they can actually have a detrimental effect upon future learning.

This is, in fact, the very concern addressed by Roberts (2005), writing in Education and

Culture, the journal of the John Dewey Society. According to Roberts, Dewey considers an

experience miseducative when it “has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further

experience” (p. 17, quoting Dewey, 1938, p. 25). This may happen, Roberts says, when

activities, however lively or interesting, are strung together in a disconnected way. Roberts, who

is experienced and has published in experiential education, detects great potential for

miseducative experience within experiential education practice:

In the experiential paradigm activity can easily substitute for real human

interaction. Students “experience” a product delivered to them. They rarely have

17

control over its construction. This is pronounced in its difference from Dewey’s

definition of control. . . . Gone from this construction is the Deweyan legacy of

placing experience at the center of the educational endeavor. In its place is

deliverable product, easily made into candy. (Roberts, 2005, pp. 22, 24)

Roberts might be wrong. So, for that matter, might Dewey. And so might some or all of

the interpretations of Dewey that appear in the experiential education literature. One can gain

confidence and insight in such matters, not by avoiding them, or by taking them for granted, but

rather by exploring them – by learning, in particular, what writers in the field of education have

had to say about Dewey’s ideas over the past seven decades. In that way, in place of a weak

foundation that rests everything upon accurate or inaccurate interpretations of a single

philosopher, one might help to build a solid theoretical base, capable of supporting multiple

perspectives and a rich, sophisticated exchange of ideas on experiential education.

This discussion of Dewey is, again, merely one example of how experiential education in

general, and ABT in particular, might benefit from a determined effort to learn from literature in

the field of education. That literature is voluminous. It stands a good chance of having already

addressed many issues that have arisen (or that will arise, or perhaps should arise) in experiential

education. A person who browses among the articles can barely help becoming interested in the

positive, helpful orientation that emanates from articles on such topics as group socialization

theory (Austin, 2002), civics education (Galston, 2001), social constructivist approaches

(Pruneau, Gravel, Bourque, & Langis, 2003), and the value of daydreaming (cf. Miller et al.,

2004; Gold & Cundiff, 1980) and unstructured recess (Waite-Stupiansky & Findlay, 2001). In

these and in many other regards, education offers much for a robustly constructive conception of

experiential education and adventure-based therapy.

18

Other Sources of Constructive Insight

The sobering reality is that many human undertakings do seek to achieve constructive

outcomes for people – and that an eclectic appreciation of those undertakings may prove very

beneficial for ABT. For example, the field of social work already offers a portal into a

constructive science of people. Social workers are trained to take account of biological,

psychological, and social factors in clients’ situations (e.g., Keefe, 2003). Employing an

orientation toward strengths, the social worker assesses client resources across that

biopsychosocial spectrum. This assessment includes a look at what individuals, families, and

communities surrounding the client know, and what they are capable of doing (Saleebey, 1996).

The inquiry may include consideration of factors that enhance a client’s capacity to bounce back

after adversity (Norman, 2000; Constantine, Benard & Diaz, 1999), and of protective factors that

may develop over the life span (Walsh, 1998), as well as the creation of new strengths (Lee,

2001). Applied to ABT, such perspectives could provoke consideration, not only of individual

practitioners and clients, but also of relations among participants on extended outings; of

interactions with people who live in areas where outings occur; and of the shared cultures of

outdoor leaders, and of clients, on organizational, local, national, and international levels (cf.

Carpenter & Pryor, 2004).

In addition to social work, outdoor-oriented disciplines offer many insights that may

enhance mental adjustment to one’s world. For example, Haluza-Delay (2001) finds that the

practice of conducting experiential education trips in exotic locations may lead participants to

conclude that nature does not really exist in their own neighborhoods – when, in fact, a life in,

and attention to, one’s local landscape may foster resiliency (Larson & Dearmont, 2002) and a

developmentally important sense of place attachment (Low & Altman, 1992). One’s sense of

19

bonding to the land may grow with continued exposure (cf. Bogner, 1998). At the extreme,

exposure to the outdoors may be beneficial even if it comes in the form of “micro-restorative

experiences” of glancing out of a window in one’s home (Kaplan, 2001, p. 508). Outdoor

activity may also provide an opportunity to escape from the tyranny of the clock (Wohlwill,

1983; Borden, 1985) – though not, perhaps, where an outdoor program obliges participants to

account for every minute (cf. Nicholls, 2004). Some participants may also find that, by

removing time constraints and other distractions, an outdoors experience can provide a felicitous

opportunity to work on personally beneficial practices in, say, meditation (cf. Walsh, 2001;

Kabat-Zinn, 1990; e.g., Monk-Turner, 2003).

People have also long felt that the outdoors fosters development of an important, healthy

mental dimension insofar as it increases one’s awareness of something greater than oneself. The

ABT leader whose concept of spirituality is to toss in some feathers and a few beads may

underserve this orientation. There does seem to have been a serious sense, among countless

people over the eons, that the experience or presence of nature can be extraordinary. Among the

many sources from which one might draw, toward a fuller utilization of the power and/or

propriety of an outdoors-oriented spirituality, it may be worth mentioning the Native American

vision quest (Dugan, 1985; Martinez, 2004); classic non-western views emphasizing harmonious

participation in nature, such as those of Hindus (Choudhury, 1994), Taoists (Yao, 1994), and

Cree Indians (Berkes, 1999); and western philosophical ideas, including Paul Tillich’s unity of

all life (Drummy, 2000), Transcendentalism (Albanese, 2002), deep ecology (Naess, 1986;

Metzner, 1999), feminist theology’s sense of a healing nature (Larkin, 2001), and the

Romanticist fascination with restorative wilderness (Nash, 1967) that inspired Denecourt to

invent the woodland hiking trail, circa 1837 (Schama, 1995). If nothing else, one might note that

20

traditions that revere nature seem especially likely to take care of it (cf. McLuhan, 1994; Peden,

1974; Henderson, 1990) – and thereby, perhaps, themselves.

These examples, and many others, underscore the sense that ABT may usefully draw

from a panoply of intellectual disciplines and perspectives, many of which may enhance one’s

awareness and development of various strengths in, or dimensions of, oneself and one’s world.

To the extent that ABT draws from the best of such sources, it may serve its clients by offering a

constructive approach to therapy that is more robust, and more in connection with its frequently

outdoor setting, than a purely psychological orientation could achieve.

Conclusion

Dene S. Berman and Jennifer Davis-Berman (2005) have identified concerns that arise

from deficit-oriented conceptualizations of psychology. They have suggested that the positive

psychology movement offers a viable alternative, with specific implications for ABT.

Contemplation of their suggestions raises the thought, however, that positive psychology may

thus far appreciate only a fragment of the mass of the available, constructively oriented material

– that, for example, leading thinkers in positive psychology may still hesitate to accept

empirically supported viewpoints that diverge from those of mainstream contemporary

psychology, and that the use of the word “positive” itself may indicate a very incomplete

conceptualization.

While observing progress in these regards within positive psychology, ABT practitioners

might consider relevant perspectives from fields other than psychology. Given ABT’s roots in

experiential education, one obvious candidate is the field of education, which seems to have the

potential to offer numerous valuable insights – including insights regarding the interpretation and

application of John Dewey’s ideas. Another candidate is social work, which offers a framework

21

within which adventure therapists can address, not only the inner functioning of the individual

pursuant to psychology’s latest developments, but also the larger systems that may significantly

shape and develop the person’s growth. Nature itself – as experienced in the tapestry of many

interwoven fields, including environmental education, environmental psychology, therapeutic

gardening, horticultural therapy, and nature-oriented spirituality – provides much material on

which to base constructive therapeutic efforts. Collectively, such perspectives offer ABT the

possibility of going beyond psychology’s largely individual therapeutic concerns to take account

of strengths and growth prospects across multiple levels.

22

References

Albanese, C.L. (2002). Reconsidering nature religion. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity.

Austin, Z. (2002). What is learnworthy? Lessons from group socialization theory for professional

education and continuing professional development. Pharmacy Education, 2(4), 161-166.

Bacon, S. F. (2005). Positive psychology’s two cultures. Review of General Psychology, 9(2),

181-192.

Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource

management. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.

Berman, D. S., & Davis-Berman, J. (2005). Positive psychology and outdoor education. Journal

of Experiential Education, 28(1), 17-24.

Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term

variables of environmental perspective. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17-

29.

Borden, R.J. (1985). Personality and ecological concern. In D. B. Gray (Ed.), Ecological beliefs

and behaviors: Assessment and change (pp. 87-122). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Buckle, J. (1999). Use of aromatherapy as a complementary treatment for chronic pain.

Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine, 5(5), 42-51.

Carlson, J. (2005). The legacy of Lloyd Burgess Sharp (1895-1963): A career history of a

pioneer in outdoor education. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(3), 326-327.

Carpenter, C., & Pryor, A. (2004). A confluence of cultures: Wilderness adventure therapy

practice in Australia and New Zealand. In S. Bandoroff & S. Newes (Eds.), Coming of

age: The evolving field of adventure therapy (pp. 224-239). Boulder, CO: Association for

Experiential Education.

23

Choudhury, A.R. (1994). Hinduism. In Attitudes to nature (ed. J. Holm with J. Bowker).

London: Pinter, 53-78.

Constantine, N., Benard B., & Diaz, M. (1999, June). Measuring protective factors and

resilience traits in youth: The healthy kids resilience assessment. Paper presented at the

Seventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research New Orleans, LA.

Cowen, E. L., & Kilmer, R. P. (2002). “Positive psychology”: Some plusses and some open

issues. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), 449-460.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Legs or wings? A reply to R. S. Lazarus. Psychological Inquiry,

14(2), 113-115.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Diego, M. A., Jones, N. A., Field, T., Hernandez-Reif, M., Schanberg, S., Kuhn, C., et al. (1998).

Aromatherapy positively affects mood, EEG patterns of alertness and math computations.

International Journal of Neuroscience, 96, 217-224.

Drummy, M.F. (2000). Being and earth: Paul Tillich’s theology of nature. Lanham, MD:

University Press of America.

Dugan, K. M. (1985). The vision quest of the Plains Indians: Its spiritual significance. Lewiston,

NY: Edwin Mellen.

Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General

Psychology, 9(2), 103-110.

Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual

Review of Political Science, 4, 217-234.

Gilbert, M. (2000). Never again: The history of the Holocaust. New York: Universe.

24

Gold, S. R., & Cundiff, G. (1980). Increasing the frequency of daydreaming. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 36(1), 116-121.

Haluza-Delay, R. (2001). Nothing here to care about: Participant constructions of nature

following a 12-day wilderness program. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 43-

48.

Harvey, J. H., & Pauwels, B. G. (2003). The ironies of positive psychology. Psychological

Inquiry, 14(2), 125-128.

Hatch, K. D., & McCarthy, C. J. (2005). Exploration of challenge courses' long-term effects on

members of college student organizations. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(3), 245-

264.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and

Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of

Educational Research, 67(1), 43-87.

Hay, I. C., Jamieson, M., & Ormerod, A. D. (1998). Randomized trial of aromatherapy:

Successful treatment for alopecia areata. Archives of Dermatology, 134(11), 1349-1352.

Held, B. S. (2002). The tyranny of the positive attitude in America: Observation and speculation.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(9), 965-992.

Henderson, K.A. (1990). An oral life history perspective on the containers in which American

farm women experienced leisure. Leisure Studies, 9(2), 121-133.

Hubbs, D. L., & Brand, C. F. (2005). The paper mirror: Understanding reflective journaling.

Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 60-71.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face

stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delta.

25

Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and

Behavior, 33(4), 507-542.

Keefe, T. W. (2003). The bio-psycho-social-spiritual origins of environmental justice. Critical

Social Work, 3(1), 1-17.

Keeton, M., & Tate, P. (1978). The boom in experiential learning. In M. Keeton & P. Tate

(Eds.), Learning by experience: What, why, how (pp. 1-8). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Larkin, L. (2001). The relationship quilt: Feminism and the healing of nature. In Earth revealing

– Earth healing: Ecology and Christian theology (ed. D. Edwards). Collegeville, MN:

Liturgical.

Larson, N. C., & Dearmont, M. (2002). Strengths of farming communities in fostering resilience

in children. Child Welfare, 81(5), 821-835.

Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Manifesto for positive psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 173-189.

Leberman, S. I., & Martin, A. J. (2002). Does pushing comfort zones produce peak learning

experiences? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 7(1), 71-81.

Lee, J. A. B. (2001). The empowerment approach to social work practice. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Low, S.M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum.

Luckner, J. L., & Nadler, R. S. (1997). Processing the experience: Strategies to enhance and

generalize learning (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Marden, O. S. (1908/2003). He who thinks he can. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.

Martin, A. J., & Leberman, S. I. (2005). Personal learning or prescribed educational outcomes: a

case study of the outward bound experience. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1),

44-59.

26

Martinez, D. (2004). The soul of the Indian: Lakota philosophy and the vision quest. Wicazo Sa

Review, 19(2), 79-104.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomes achieved?: A review

of the literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), 19-28.

McLuhan, T.C. (1994). The way of the earth. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Metzner, R. (1999). Green psychology: Transforming our relationship to the Earth. Rochester,

VT: Park Street Press.

Miller, M. J., Springer, T. P., Tobacyk, J., & Wells, D. (2004). Congruency between

occupational daydreams and SDS scores among college students, College Student

Journal, 38(1), 57-60.

Monk-Turner, E. (2003). The benefits of meditation: Experimental findings. The Social Science

Journal, 40, 465–470.

Naess, A. (1986). The deep ecological movement: Some philosophical aspects. In Deep

ecology for the twenty-first century (Sessions, G., ed.). Boston: Shambhala, 1995.

(Originally published in Philosophical Inquiry 8, (1-2) (1986).)

Nash, R. (1967). Wilderness and the American mind (rev. ed.). New Haven: Yale University

Press.

New English Bible with the Apocrypha. (1970). (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Newes, S., & Bandoroff, S. (2004). What is adventure therapy? In S. Bandoroff & S. Newes

(Eds.), Coming of age: The evolving field of adventure therapy (pp. 1-30). Boulder, CO:

Association for Experiential Education.

27

Nicholls, V. (2004). Busy doing nothing: Exploring the merits of inactivity within an activity-

oriented wilderness therapy program. In S. Bandoroff & S. Newes (Eds.), Coming of age:

The evolving field of adventure therapy (pp. 172-181). Boulder, CO: Association for

Experiential Education.

Norem, J. K., & Chang, E. C. (2002). The positive psychology of negative thinking. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 58(9), 993-1001.

Norman, E. (2000). Introduction: The strengths perspective and resiliency enhancement: A

natural partnership. In E. Norman (Ed.), Resiliency enhancement: Putting the strengths

perspective into social work practice (pp. 1-16). New York: Columbia University Press.

Peden, R. Speak to the earth: Pages from a farmwife’s journal. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Pruneau, D., Gravel, H., Bourque, W., & Langis, J. (2003). Experimentation with a socio-

constructivist process for climate change education. Environmental Education Research,

9(4), 429-446.

Roberts, J. W. (2005). Disney, Dewey, and the death of experience in education. Education and

Culture, 21(2), 12-30.

Saleebey, D. (1995). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions.

Social Work, 41(3), 296-305.

Sandage, S. J., & Hill, P. C. (2001). The virtues of positive psychology: The rapprochement and

challenges of an affirmative postmodern perspective. Journal for the Theory of Social

Behavior, 31(3), 241-260.

Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and memory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning, knowledge, and warm

fuzziness. American Psychologist, 56(3), 250-263.

28

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942/1976). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper &

Row.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New

York: Knopf.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002a). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize

your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002b). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C.

R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3–9). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.

Strümpfer, D. J. W. (2005). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Notes on early positive

psychology (psychofortology). African Journal of Psychology, 35(1), 21-45.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and

empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1-18.

Waite-Stupiansky, S., & Findlay, M. (2001). The fourth R: Recess and its link to learning. The

Educational Forum, 66(1), 16-25.

Wallechinsky, D., & Wallace, I. (Eds.). (1975). The people’s almanac. New York: Doubleday.

Retrieved December 3, 2005 from http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-

laugh-and-the-world-laughs-with-you.htm

Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. New York: Guilford.

Walsh, R. (2001). Positive psychology: East and west. American Psychologist, 56(1), 83-84.

29

Wilkinson, S., Aldridge, J., Salmon, I., Cain, E., & Wilson B. (1999). An evaluation of

aromatherapy massage in palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 13, 409-417.

Wohlwill, J.F. (1983). The concept of nature: A psychologist’s view. In I Altman & J. F.

Wohlwill. (Eds.). Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum.

Yao, X. (1994). Chinese religions. In Attitudes to nature (ed. J. Holm with J. Bowker).

London: Pinter, 148-159.

30

[Note: this is an OCR version of the comments supplied by reviewers. This version has been cleaned up somewhat but not proofread carefully against the comments sheets from which these words were scanned. This OCR version facilitates the entry of my responses adjacent to the suggested changes.]

Comment Sheet

Reviewer Number: 1 Manuscript Number: 01-04-06-269

Reviewer Comments: This paper begins with a discussion of Berman and Davis-Berman’s (2005) suggestion that perhaps some adventure programs could benefit from a positive approach, involving supportive communities, rather than a model involving “anxiety or perceived risk” (Berman & Davis-Berman, 2005). First it critiques a couple components of the Berman & Davis-Berman article, then it raises problems with the positive psychology movement. In concludes with specific suggestions for incorporating approaches from a variety of other disciplines or philosophies into adventure-based therapy. Overall, this paper has a number of positive attributes. It looks at a wide variety of literature to address the promise of ABT, and in doing so has a number of worthwhile ideas. I do have a few concerns, none of which should be obstacles to publication: 1. It needs a brief outline of the article in the introduction to explain the structure of the paper.

The paper felt sprawling and the focus was not clear in the first half. Response: I have sharpened the organization of the paper and have also added an introductory, outlining paragraph.

2. There were too many references to “the author.” They did not contribute to the paper, and

were unnecessary. Response: Resolved. 3. The considerable use of acronyms made it somewhat difficult to follow. Response: I have

removed these acronyms: B&DB, S&C, PP. I have retained ABT because it is frequently used in the literature.

4. I did not find the discussion of Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi’s 2000 article satisfactory.

That article was essentially an introduction to an issue of American Psychologist devoted to positive psychology. As such, its focus was on the 15 articles within that edition.

In particular, the author criticized Berman & Davis-Berman’s inclusion of Csikszentmihalyi ‘s flow model, (Berman & Davis-Berman state, “the “flow” experience has been widely cited and examined as an important part of positive psychology”), claiming that the Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi’s 2000 (S&C) article (which Berman and Davis-Berman, 2005, cite) gave little support for flow as a component of positive psychology; and claiming

31

that even Csikszentmihalyi himself did not bother to propose flow as an important component of positive psychology in this issue.

However, to me, the reason Csikszentmihalyi did not bother to discuss his flow concept was because the American Psychologist issue was devoted to the 15 articles, none of which were by Csikszentmihalyi. In fact, another article cited by the author (Kelly, 2004) specifically address Csikszentmihalyi’s flow as one of the contemporary models of positive psychology,” and Csikszentmihalyi claims, in a different article by Csikszentmihalyi cited by the author (“Legs or Wings?”), to be one of the founders of the positive psychology movement. So the author’s claim that ‘Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi’s themselves seem to consider flow nearly irrelevant to PP” is puzzling.

And, if flow is one of the “contemporary models of positive psychology,” it is not surprising that Berman & Davis-Berman would incorporate it into their paper. Response: The previous attempt to address the subject of flow is best deferred for another time, when I can do it greater justice. Accordingly, I have deleted the section on Csikszentmihalyi and flow, retaining only the introduction of Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi’s (2000) article, which I have integrated into the next adjacent section.

5. There were a few strong terms, judgments, which I felt were overblown. The author

suggested:

• Berman and Davis-Berman (2005) conveyed “the sense that Luckner and Nadler’s model of outdoor therapy] was misguided and dangerous (p. 8). I did not get the sense from Berman and Davis-Berman (2005) at all.

• Nor do I feel Berman and Davis-Berman (2005) should have acknowledged their

contributions to Luckner and Nadler’s book (p. 8). Response: the deletion of the section on Csikszentmihalyi and flow includes deletion of

the remarks criticized here.

• I did not get a sense that Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi (2000) “seem to sneer at the bookstore” selling several shelve of popular psychology (p. 9).

• The author (p. 8) suggests that positive psychology itself is too critical, basing this

judgment on one article by Csikszentmihalyi. Response: the offending passages have been deleted or substantially reworked.

6. Once the author gets beyond those criticisms of Berman and Davis-Berman (2005),

beginning on p. 8, I believe the author critiques positive psychology within the context of portions of the Berman and Davis-Berman (2005) article. I found this section (pp. 8-12) a little difficult to follow due to its lack of focus, i.e., a wide range of disparate sources. It would be nice to have a brief orientation at the beginning of this section to address clearly

32

the point. Language such as “medieval bloodletters of deficit-oriented pathologizing, “scholarly” psychology,...” didn’t really contribute.

It appears their may be some legitimate criticisms of positive psychology, if that is the intention of this section. (Actually, I wasn’t that clear what the intention of this section was.) If criticism is the intention, just presenting the critical arguments would be sufficient.

The criticism of Berman & Davis-Berman’s use of Leberman and Martin (pp. 10-12), I found interesting. I wasn’t clear what conclusions to draw about positive psychology. The Leberman and Martin may not sufficiently support positive psychology, but the Leberman and Martin failure to support does not provide a blow against positive psychology or its use in ABT. Response: I have done a major rewrite of this section, with particular attention to these concerns.

7. One problem with the author’s criticism of Berman & Davis-Berman is that the Berman &

Davis-Berman article is merely a suggestion for rethinking about some practices, it does not attempt to be a definitive, or complete argument, for its thesis. I personally thought there were a few flaws in the Berman & Davis-Berman article, but I also thought the overall article made some good points—definitely points worth thinking about. However, this author’s criticisms were not the ones I would make, nor did they seem to me to attack the essential suggestion(s) of Berman & Davis-Berman. Response: In the revised draft, I have more clearly expressed the thought that the Bermans’s advocacy of positive psychology is appreciated as far as it goes, but that there are further horizons to which ABT can profitably look.

8. The next section, pp. 12-14, seems to suggest that the concept of positive psychology is

“fuzzy” (my language)—there are some 60 different desired outcomes. (A similar criticism was made about Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm, -- some 20 different meanings.) The author talks about “items,” and the many different items which are part of positive psychology. Unfortunately, it is not clear what is meant by an “item.” The author also talks about “negative aspects.” It is not quite clear to me what an “aspect” is.

Regardless, of my lack of clarity in understanding details in this section, I believe I grasp the point. The author’s summary of the positive as “a swamp in which brave souls may waste the best years of the lives in vain wanderings among philosophical quandaries.. .“ (p. 14) seemed a little overdone; but I believe the author’s point was that the concept is fuzzy, and the fuzziness needs to be cleared up.

(However, his point may have been that the fuzziness of the concept is a fatal flaw—that without clear terminology, psychologists can not be sure precisely of what they speak. Or maybe, the author’s point was merely that it is fuzzy; and that’s all.) Response: The revised draft incorporates a major rewrite and clarification of this section,

33

addressing these aspects of the previous draft. 9. The remainder of the article to me was fine (pp. 14-23). A number of suggestions for

adventure based therapy (ABT) -- with which little of did I have a problem.

I do question the claim that in ABT, “the group is treated solely as a means to help the individual, not as something having value in itself,” that the philosophical underpinnings are “individualistic, and self-centered. . . .There is no sense that ABT intends to teach people to think of themselves as part of anything larger” p. 15). My understanding of group process, and the small group psychology is that for an effective group, group members value being part of the group. To me, this implies that the group has value. When teaching group process, students need to learn that groups are valuable, and that being part of a group is important to people. Response: I have replaced that illustration with one pertaining to the views of John Dewey, and have taken pains to explain and explore that illustration more carefully.

My only other concern is that this section seemed to be a little long — perhaps worthy of another paper. It brought in a large number of different ideas, a lot of food for thought, but without really developing (without metaphorically leading the reader to digest?) the thoughts. Response: This section is now shorter, with a better explanation of the educational component, a more condensed list of other ideas, and a better summation.

A final question involves the statement “the movement appears ignorant of its own history” (p. 22). I’m not sure this is correct. In January 2001, Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi published a response to responses to their article issue, this point was brought up. They explained they didn’t want to diminish the history, but they did not want to “blur the boundaries” between their movement and its predecessors. Response: That remark has been deleted.

In summary, I believe this article has considerable promise. It does need some significant reworking.

34

Comment Sheet Reviewer Number: 2

Manuscript Number: 01-04-06-269 Reviewer Comments: It is hard to see this article as a REPLY to the Berman’s (or should I say B&DB) article on Positive Psychology. It seems to be much more of a paper written for some other purpose (a class? A thesis?) and adapted as a response to the Bermans’ piece. Granted the author(s) did quote the Berman’s excessively in the first 1/3 of the paper demonstrating the lapses in logic used in advocating positive psychology, but this was lost on my as the author(s) delved into too much detail on the issues with Csikszentmihalyi & Lazarus.

Response: The reviewer is correct in recognizing, as I failed to clarify, that this article is more than a mere reply to the Bermans. I address that point in more detail below. The section on Csikszentmihalyi has been deleted.

I found some nuggets of wisdom in the article that I feel would justify a REPLY to the Bermans’. I do feel I have to admit I was not impressed with the Bermans’ original article as I felt it offered no new contribution to the field. Be that as it may. I would suggest the following:

• Shorten the article by at least 1/3 • Briefly discuss how positive psychology is not new • Highlight the lack of criticism of Luckner & Nadler (page 8) • Highlight information from the lat paragraph on Page 10-page 12 (misinterpretation of

research from reading only the abstract) • Focus and say more about the group models vs. individual models currently in adventure

based therapy • Consider highlighting one of the four alternatives: education, social work, nature,

Appreciative Inquiry. In short, point to the shortcomings in the Bermans’ article, especially where there logic does not work and point the readers of the journal toward more productive ends. . . .and do this with much less ink and please lose the shortcuts (B&DB, PP, S&C) I do applaud the well referenced paper and the fact that the author(s) chose to highlight four, not one alternative — leading this reviewer to feel the author(s) did not their own ax to grind.

Response: The shortcuts are gone, with the exception of ABT, which appears elsewhere in the literature. I have highlighted education as suggested, have dropped the reference to Appreciative Inquiry, and have condensed the description of social work and nature. Those last two remain, in abbreviated form, to preserve the sense that there are indeed multiple dimensions upon which a well-conceived and well-developed ABT should draw. I think I did myself and this reviewer a disservice by characterizing the previous draft as a mere reply to the Bermans. That title, and the corresponding, incompletely explained introductory emphasis, appear to have prompted the reasonable impression that, if the goal is to provide a response, I ought to be able to do that much more briefly – by focusing upon

35

e.g., the weaknesses in the Bermans’ approach to the work of Luckner and Nadler, and of Leberman and Martin. What I was actually trying to do, however, was to use their article as a basis for a look at how ABT might grow by drawing upon the best of multiple relevant intellectual influences, rather than being a mere handmaiden of psychology. The progression that I have sought to achieve, in the revised draft – with a different title and with greater clarification at the outset – is to question the sufficiency, for ABT, of positive psychology; and then, on the strength of that questioning, to present education and other fields as sources of fundamental insight. The Bermans supply an entrée into that discussion by suggesting that positive psychology itself suffices to justify a sea change in the practice of ABT. My paper is a “reply,” but it is also much more than that, in the sense that (a) they have not made that case, (b) positive psychology does usefully remind us to focus on client growth and wellness, but (c) positive psychology suffers from other drawbacks, and therefore (d) development or revision of ABT practice should not hinge upon positive psychology, but should rather draw from several relevant fields.