Thought I would share some papers on here that I wrote for Uni this year - they're all pretty relevant to my lifestyle. Wrote this one for a well-being subject last semester. Science has honed in on mindfulness, and here are just some of the findings. This was an assignment so mind the academic language haha!

Positive psychology is a young and growing field involving the scientific study of wellbeing and human flourishing. As opposed to the focus on pathology in traditional psychology, positive psychology centres on human strengths and virtue that enable individuals and communities to thrive, including the practice of mindfulness, which has recently grown in recognition. This essay aims to provide an introduction to the field of positive psychology by illustrating its aims, distinctions from traditional psychology and development to prominence. This essay will also examine research into the area of mindfulness and its impact on wellbeing, paying critical attention to two case studies, concerning the effects of mindfulness on emotional distress in particular.

Positive psychology explores the causes for optimal human functioning at individual and institutional levels from a scientific perspective (Gable & Haidt, 2005). It studies human life in its positive dimensions: positive emotions on a subjective level, such as contentment, love, and satisfaction with life; positive behavioural traits, such as courage and wisdom; and positive communities and institutions, addressing issues like the development of civic virtues and healthy work environments (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Compton & Hoffman, 2012).  It aims to explore the complete human experience by looking at human flourishing and not just healing, which has been the preoccupation of traditional psychology until recently (Gable & Haidt, 2005). 

Before World War II, psychology aimed to cure mental illness, enhance productivity and fulfilment in life, and identify and nurture high talent (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). After the war, however, funding agencies aimed to focus on pathology, so psychologists were vocationally motivated to give attention to distress, disorder and dysfunction; the last two objectives of psychology were thus neglected (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Rusk & Waters, 2013). Gable and Haidt (2005) explain that this was also due to (1) compassion, to cure those who were suffering first, and (2) the tendency to focus on the negative over the positive (i.e. negativity bias), a phenomenon which has been mirrored in this science. As a result, psychology has placed a great emphasis on shortcomings and illnesses, but too little on what makes life worth living (Maslow, 1954; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Keyes and Haidt (2003) argue that this one-sided focus is unsuitably negative and may limit opportunities for rapid scientific advancement in uncharted academic territory.

Positive psychology has therefore been growing to prominence as part of an attempt to reorient psychology to a more balanced and empirically grounded standpoint, providing a holistic picture of the human condition (Keyes & Haidt, 2003). Using similar methods to traditional psychology, it encourages alternative perspectives of human nature and different approaches to the disease model (Rusk & Waters, 2013). It seeks to bring psychology from ‘repairing the worst things in life to also building positive qualities’ (pp. 5); to greater value prevention through the growth of human strengths that safeguard against mental illness; and finally (and arguably most importantly), to address the age-old question of suffering and the meaning of life (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

The recent growth of the positive psychology movement was catalysed by the efforts of stalwarts like former president of the American Psychological Association, Martin Seligman. Seligman spearheaded the massive shift in paradigm through efforts such as the initiation of networks among scientists and practitioners in the field to propagate their research and literature worldwide (Linley, Joseph, Harrington & Wood, 2006; Diener, 2009). The remarkable progress of the field since these incentives has been reflected in its increasing size, reach, impact and breadth. This is evident from the growing number of positive psychology related documents and range of topics within the discipline (Rusk & Waters, 2013). Furthermore, positive psychology elements have diffused into various other disciplines, including the psychological and social sciences (Rusk & Waters, 2013). These fields have unified through the investigation of positive functioning, touching on concepts such as optimism, virtues and resilience, which work to align paradigms across disciplines (Rusk & Waters, 2013). This indicates a widespread acceptance of a more positive psychology among the scientific community; its multidisciplinary relevance is owed to the universality and breadth of its elements.

Over the past few decades, the practice of mindfulness has burgeoned among the clinical and psychological communities (Bishop et al., 2004). Kabat-Zinn (as cited in Bishop et al.) describes mindfulness as ‘the process of bringing a certain quality of attention to moment-to-moment experience’. It is a non-elaborative, non-judgemental awareness grounded in the present moment, accepting all thoughts, feelings and sensations that arise. While a wandering mind ruminates beyond the present, inattentively reacting out of default cognitive habits and creating emotional distress (Killingsworth, 2010), an attentive mind goes beyond ‘cognitive vulnerability’ to such destructive and reactive modes of the mind (Gunaratana, 1992; Bishop et al.). It responds skilfully and reflectively by separating perception and response (Bishop et al.). This non-elaborative perception leads to a raw, unfiltered, and deep observation of reality and allows individuals to behave in accordance with their needs, principles and interests while disengaging themselves from unwholesome behavioural patterns, gradually facilitating emotional and physical wellbeing (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Compton & Hoffman, 2012).

Mindfulness has been found to improve psychological aspects of life, such as in depression, anxiety and other areas of emotional disorder (Grossman et al., 2004). This is shown in a study by Kuyken et al. (2013) assessing the acceptability and efficiency of a universal mindfulness intervention in heightening mental wellbeing for students. The nine-lesson (weekly) intervention was made applicable to a wide range of young people, from those experiencing mental health difficulties to those thriving in the face of aggravations and experiences in daily life. Results showed acceptability towards mindfulness and that practitioners experienced greater reduction in depressive symptoms and stress, and increased wellbeing, than those who did not practise. More frequent practice of mindfulness was also found to induce greater improvements in these same dimensions. Hence, it could be deduced that mindfulness leads to improved wellbeing.

Mindfulness is known to improve tolerance of negative emotions and stress management (Bishop et al., 2004). A study by Galantino, Baime, Maguire, Szapary and Farrar (2005) investigated the relation between salivary cortisol levels (proposed to be an indicator of stress) and psychological indices, and the effect of an eight-week mindfulness intervention on healthcare professionals using both measures. Results showed that mindfulness practice may have aided stress management through reduced emotional exhaustion and fatigue, and significant improvements in mood and vigour (although there were no visible changes in salivary cortisol levels, suggesting faulty methodology in this measure). These findings concluded the positive impact of mindfulness on wellbeing.

Both studies exhibited various strengths in research methods; however, there were limitations that raise questions about their findings. In the study by Kuyken et al. (2013), a universal mindfulness intervention was utilised, allowing for better clarifications on the extent and quality of benefits for a general student cohort. It also included a control group to provide more accurate comparisons, and timely follow-ups with participants during a stressful examination period. However, the study was not randomised, which may have incurred biases. For instance, the allocation of different teachers to different groups of students may have affected results due to student preferences for specific teachers. Additionally, there may have been expectations on part of teachers for their students to understand what mindfulness is about, leading to bias in the teachers’ answers to questionnaires towards positive results. These limitations may have influenced or biased the validity of the findings.

As for the study by Galantino et al. (2005), there was an attempted use of an objective measure for stress levels, which would have provided a less biased evaluation if proven successful. Alternatively, a more reliable test, such as the suggested 24-hour urine cortisol test or measures of work productivity, could have been used. The study was also limited by a small sample and lack of a control group, restricting the generalisability of the results and comparability between intervention and non-intervention groups. Furthermore, the intervention may have been burdensome for busy healthcare professionals, who may not have fully engaged with it, thus limiting the reliability of the findings.

Commonalities across the two studies were also found. Both studies worked to adapt the intervention to the circumstances of the participants (for Kuyken et al., [2013], a school setting; for Galantino et al., [2005], a healthcare setting), making a more applicable and suitable mindfulness practice for diverse needs. However, the use of self-report measures was questionable. Although cheap and easy to administer, they may have led to biases and even falsities (in the case of Kuyken et al. [2013], students may have faked their results to impress their teachers). Self-reports are also subject to influence by various externalities, such as particularly bad days, which may skew and misrepresent the effects of the intervention. A more reliable measure might be informant reports on the participants by parents or spouses, or objective approaches such as academic reports. Additionally, participants spent minimal time engaging in the intervention in both studies. Kabat-Zinn (2003) stated that mindfulness naturally deepens over time but this requires regular and continuous practice from moment-to-moment, not just a shallow level of temporary commitment. Therefore it is hard to gage the actual benefit participants would have received from such short interventions of relatively low intensity. 

In essence, positive psychology is the investigation and attempted facilitation of “the good life” and the thriving human being. It seeks to complement and balance traditional psychology by figuratively ‘bring[ing] people from zero to eight’ rather than merely bringing them from ‘negative eight to zero’, thus creating a holistic view of the human condition (Gable & Haidt, 2005). A notable area of research that contributes to this mental wellness and flourishing has been shown to be mindfulness, which is a cultivation of an open, impartial, and non-judgmental awareness, leading to the strengthening of mental faculties and behavioural regulation.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., … Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241.

Compton, W. C., & Hoffman, E. (2012). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and flourishing (2nd ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980) Self-determination theory. When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1, 33-43.

Diener, E. (2009). Positive psychology: Past, present, and future. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2, 7-12.

Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103–110.

Galantino, M. L., Baime, M., Maguire, M., Szapary, P. O., & Farrar, J. T. (2005). Short communication: Association of psychological and physiological measures of stress in health-care professionals during an 8-week mindfulness meditation program: mindfulness in practice. Stress and Health, 21(4), 255–261.

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004).  Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(2004), 35-43.

Gunaratana, H. (1992). Mindfulness in plain English (1st ed.). Boston: Wisdom Publications.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144-156.

Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (Eds.). (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Killingsworth, M. A. & Gilbert, D. T. (2010, November 12). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330, 932.

Kuyken, W., Weare, K., Ukoumunne, O.C., Vicary, R., Motton, N., Burnett, R., … Huppert, F. (2013). Effectiveness of the mindfulness in schools programme: Non-randomised controlled feasibility study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203, 126-131.

Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., Harrington S., & Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(1), 3-16.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality (1st ed). New York: Brandeis University.

Rusk, R. D., & Waters, L. E. (2013). Tracing the size, reach, impact, and breadth of positive psychology. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(3), 207-221.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.