The Power and Pitfalls of Positive Psychology: Navigating Critiques and Criticisms

International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-024-00168-z REVIEW ARTICLE The Power and Pitfalls of Positive Psychology: Navigating Critiques and Criticisms Keely D. Alexander1 · Taylor P. Harris2 · Patrick J. Rottinghaus1 Accepted: 22 May 2024 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 Abstract This opinion article critically examines two fundamental categories of critiques of positive psychology scholarship: the lack of a clear definition of ‘positive,’ and the perceived lack of integration with mainstream psychology. The first category addresses the multitude of models and definitions used to conceptualize well-being, underscoring the complexity of the human experience. The article suggests that the absence of agreed-upon definitions may be attributed to the field’s youth and the intricate nature of well-being. To address this, the authors propose utilizing nomological networks to establish more comprehensive frameworks while acknowledging the importance of cultural and historical contexts. The second category explores the critique of positive psychology’s insufficient integration with mainstream psychology. While acknowledging progress made, the article highlights positive psychology’s impact on higher education, the workplace, sport psychology and interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the authors acknowledge the criticism of positive psychology’s perceived lack of responsiveness to feedback. The article identifies potential barriers to sustained responsiveness, including limited funding and a lack of attention from mainstream psychology, hindering its credibility and recognition. In conclusion, the authors emphasize positive psychology’s valuable contributions and invite practitioners to critically re-examine positive psychology’s power and pitfalls from a culturally informed and holistic perspective. Authors advocate for continued critical discussion to propel the field forward and enhance its reputation in both clinical and research practice. Keywords Positive Psychology · Criticisms of Positive Psychology · Critiques of Positive Psychology · Strengths of Positive Psychology Keely D. Alexander 1 Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, 16 Hill Hall, 506 S 6th St, Columbia, MO 65201, USA 2 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA 13 International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology Psychologists have asked “what is wrong with people?” for the past 100 years (Lopez et al., 2019). Historically, the primary practice and research foci of applied psychology were the abnormalities and pathology in individuals’ cognitions, behaviors, and personalities. However, in the 1940s the field of vocational guidance began transitioning into counseling psychology. During this transition, Super (1955) described counseling psychology’s hallmark focus as concern with “the normalities of even abnormal persons” (p. 5). Since its inception, counseling psychology has been committed to human strengths and healthy functioning (Lopez et al., 2006). While a comprehensive history of counseling psychology is outside the scope of the current opinion article, it is certainly worth noting the significant contributions counseling psychologists have played in setting the stage for the future of positive psychology (e.g., Savickas, 2003; Tyler, 1969; Walsh, 2003; White, 1973). Further, the contemporary American Psychological Association (APA) Section on Positive Psychology is housed within Division 17 Society of Counseling Psychology. Despite early foci on normality and strengths among some psychology scholars, in the 1950s the majority of psychologists were still trained in psychoanalysis and practiced psychodynamic therapy (Pickren & Rutherford, 2010). According to Freud (1920), the father of psychoanalysis, the goal of therapy was to transform misery into ordinary unhappiness. During this same time, behaviorism was also growing in popularity through theorists like Joseph Wolpe and B. F. Skinner. Wolpe (1961) and Wolpe and Lang (1964) were the first to propose systematic desensitization based on classical conditioning, while Skinner (1953) was publishing about his aspirations to extend principles of behavior control. Specifically, Skinner’s (1953) behaviorism contested the existence of personal agency and rejected freewill. These two major forces, psychoanalytic and behaviorism, have been critiqued for holding pessimistic and deterministic views of human nature. A third force, humanism, offered an alternative view in which all human beings hold an innate capacity for growth and self-actualization (Buhler, 1971). The most well-known pioneers in humanistic psychology were Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Rogers introduced client-centered therapy, which emphasizes that people grow and heal in therapy when therapists offer empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard (Rogers, 1961). Rogers and client-centered practitioners believed people have an innate capacity for self-direction and growth. Maslow was another influential psychologist who agreed with Rogers on the importance of human growth. While Maslow (1943) was best known for his construction of the hierarchy of human needs, he was also crucial in planting seeds for the future of positive psychology. The term “Positive Psychology” was first used by Maslow (1954) in his book Motivation and Personality. Maslow was vocal about his concerns regarding psychology’s focus on disorder and dysfunction. Counseling psychology’s early attention to strengths, in addition to the work of several influential psychologists from the 1940s to 1960s, set the stage for the future of the positive psychology movement. Further, Leona Tyler, a pioneer of counseling psychology, went on to become elected APA President, and her 1973 Presidential Address was titled Design for a Hopeful Psychology. She encouraged psychologists to work together despite differences (e.g., theoretical orientations, subfields of psychology, personal differences) and to concentrate their energy on increasing 13 International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology understanding of human nature so that they can work to enrich people’s lives—a key component of present day positive psychology. Historically and presently, counseling psychology as a field has worked to foster and cultivate optimal human strengths and well-being. These components play a foundational role in positive psychology, such that “counseling psychology in some form has always been a vital part of promoting good health and preventing mental, physical, and social disorders” (Walsh, 2003, p.vii). Nearly two decades later, Martin Seligman’s (1999) APA Presidential Address echoed a similar call as Leona Tyler. Seligman reiterated that psychology as a field at large had not played a significant enough role in making the lives of people better ( (...truncated)