ESTADO DEL ARTE

In this study, a positive psychology paradigm within the discipline of IO Psychology was applied. According to Van Vuuren (2010), positive psychology has emerged as a

predominant driving force in the thinking of many IO psychologists owing to the significant contribution it has made to understanding, predicting and influencing behaviour.

1.7.2.1 Positive psychology as a psychological paradigm

Prior to World War II, psychology as a discipline had three objectives: (1) curing mental illness, (2) making the lives of all people more productive and fulfilling, and (3) identifying and nurturing talent. However, after the war, objective number one took centre stage. Accordingly, psychologists built a career on treating mental illness while academics received grants for conducting research on pathology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). While there have been significant advances in the understanding and treatment of mental illness, the other two objectives were neglected. The focus was therefore on a disease model of assess and cure, as well as psychological disorders and the study of negative effects (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Although scholars like Maslow expressed their concern with psychology’s preoccupation with illness and disorder (Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006), in general it seems that psychology has given greater emphasis to and been dominated by negative traits and effects (Lopez, Pedrotti, & Snyder, 2019; Rozin & Rozyman, 2001). In view of this focus of psychology on the treatment model and the preoccupation with it, Gable and Haidt (2005) raise an interesting argument along the lines that our feelings of compassion naturally urge us to help those who are in distress rather than those individuals who are doing well. Additionally, across a wide range of psychological phenomena, “bad is stronger than good” (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001, p. 323). Lopez et al. (2019) note that although a focus on the negative aspects is unproductive, scholars adopting the pathology paradigm were merely responding to the circumstances at that point in time. Focusing solely on one aspect of experience is however considered as bad science and the positive psychology movement has shifted the focus to exploring the positive (Lopez et al., 2019).

Linley et al. (2006) are of the opinion that positive psychology is not a new concept as it shares features of humanistic psychology, with examples of studies such as Rogers’

focus on the fully functioning person and Maslow’s model of self-actualisation. Positive psychology has, however, been neglected and Csikszentmihalyi (in Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) refers to his first realisation of the need for this paradigm. He recalls the damage World War II inflicted on individuals and how helpless some had become, yet amidst the chaos there were many whose integrity and purpose remained intact. His ultimate question was “What sources of strength were these people drawing on?” (p. 6). It is this question that prompted me to recognise that growth, improvement, strength and feelings of hope, optimism and happiness can exist even under dire circumstances, because it is only the context that prescribes how potential can be realised (Harrison, 2014). Therefore, if individuals are provided with a supportive context then surely they can flourish and improve their lives.

As the pathogenic paradigm has portrayed the negative aspect of humankind (Lopez et al., 2019) positive psychology places emphasis on positive psychological concepts, traits and aspects and highlights well-being by focusing on the potential, virtues and strengths of individuals and organisations (Bergh, 2011; Compton & Hoffman, 2020; Nafstad, 2015; Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2012). Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) state that the field of positive psychology “at a subjective level is about valued subjective experiences in terms of well-being, contentment, and satisfaction (in the past); hope and optimism (for the future); and flow and happiness (in the present)” (p. 5). Psychological inquiry, therefore, shifts to an asset focus to enable individuals to improve their lives (Linley et al., 2006) based on the belief that harnessing human strengths can assist in the prevention of stress and disease (Gable & Haidt, 2005).

Although the movement of positive psychology has shifted the research focus in psychology, it is not without criticism. Fernandez-Ríos and Cornes (2009) are of the opinion that positive psychology is promising philosophically but should not be accepted uncritically. I now consider the critiques of this paradigm.

1.7.2.2 Critiques of positive psychology

Many authors (e.g. Cilliers & May, 2010; Fernandez-Ríos & Cornes, 2009; Lazarus, 2003; Linley et al., 2006) suggest that positive psychology is not new, being rooted in

anthropological philosophy and psychology. The emphasis on positive psychology came about as a result of a preoccupation with the imbalance in research (Gable & Haidt, 2005). This in itself may be problematic as being preoccupied with the past could distort current research needs (see Fernandez-Ríos & Cornes, 2009) thus causing a new imbalance. Sundararajan (2005) indicates that at some point this positive focus is bound to shift back to the negative. Grant and Schwartz (2011) share this view, indicating that there are limits to positivity. It is therefore possible that positive psychology could have created its own imbalance in the research agenda.

While not questioning the important contributions positive psychology has made to psychological science, Held (2004) points out the possibility that there may be negative side effects of this movement. For example, being faced with difficulty and not being able to transcend it could result in unintended negative consequences. This is supported by Wong and Roy (2017), who indicate that interventions informed by a positive psychology approach could be harmful in specific situations. Other negative side effects identified by Held (2004) are the preoccupation and overemphasis of positive psychology with positivity and the dominant message and foundational assumption of the movement being that “positivity is good and good for you; negativity is bad and bad for you” (p. 12). Held (2004) refers to this as the “tyranny of the positive attitude” (p. 12) where a positive way of thinking is reinforced, and negativity is viewed as undesirable.

Positive psychology has also been criticised for placing much of the burden and responsibility on the individual while ignoring the influence of the social context and circumstances on their behaviour. Given that research is aimed at informing policy recommendations, positive psychology fails to acknowledge individual agency as residing within a social structure (Ciarrochi, Atkins, Hayes, Sahdra, & Parker, 2016). Further critique of this movement centres on a reductionist approach to concepts and research led by a positivist paradigm (Wong & Roy, 2017). Lastly, a reductionist approach in positive psychology has resulted in componential thinking, thus ignoring the negative (Cilliers & May, 2010; Wong, 2011).

1.7.2.3 Reasons for choosing positive psychology as the psychological paradigm despite the criticism

Despite the criticism of positive psychology, I chose to use it as the underlying psychological paradigm in this study, since it entails the “enhancement of human functioning” (Bergh, 2011, p. 5; Linley et al., 2006, p. 8) and harnesses and builds upon the existing strengths and resources of individuals to ensure well-being, health and optimal human functioning. Optimal functioning, which is the desired outcome of positive psychology, has been characterised in part as well-being (Seligman, 2002). Positive psychology enables researchers to explore and understand human functioning (Dewe & Cooper, 2012). Lazarus (2003) notes that positive psychology “does not mean the same thing to all psychologists” (p. 93). As my focus was on optimal functioning, in reflecting on the essence of positive psychology I chose to approach this study from a resource rather than a deficit perspective. I did not disregard the negative aspects of human behaviour and the volunteer’s difficult personal circumstances nor did I view them as separable, as I believe they are an inevitable part of life (Lazarus, 2003). Wong (2011) has more recently proposed a balanced and interactive approach to positive psychology by encouraging research that incorporates the “interactive effects of positives and negatives” (p. 70). This new approach is still concerned with the same concepts that underpin positive psychology, namely well-being, but recognises the “fundamentally dialectical nature of well-being” (Lomas & Ivtzan, 2016, p. 1754). Similarly, Lopez et al. (2019) consider both positive psychology and the pathogenic paradigm as useful approaches and advise psychologists to adopt an inclusive approach that examines the weaknesses and strengths of individuals while considering their cultural context and environment. While

I anticipated and acknowledged that the volunteers’ work–life experiences would

include difficulties, I wanted to understand what enables volunteers to achieve and maintain well-being despite these difficulties.

Since well-being from a positive approach is still in the infancy stage (Page & Vella- Brodrick, 2012), I also attempted to add value to the body of well-being knowledge. This may be attributed to the fact that it is very difficult to put a financial value on well- being and the betterment of individuals. Concepts related to dysfunctional behaviour

such as job burnout, psychological distress and job dissatisfaction are valued as they are a means to reduce costs for organisations (Wright & Quick, 2009). However, owing to the surge in the positive psychology movement and its extension into the workplace (Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009), researchers are focusing on topics related to human experience, such as well-being and the improvement thereof, topics which previously received very little published attention (Gable & Haidt, 2005).