John Chambers Christopher and Katie Howe (2014) state, “A multiculturally inclusive positive psychology requires not only extending positive psychology to groups that have been ignored or marginalized. It also requires critically
examining the values and assumptions that underlie the field of positive
psychology to prevent perpetuating the socioeconomic and political status quo”
(para. 1). This is our charge as positive psychologists. Psychology and future positive psychologists must continue to work to understand the complexity of cultural influences on the development and manifestation of positive personal characteristics and desirable life outcomes. The increasing cultural diversity in the United States, along with rapid technological advances that facilitate our interaction with people from around the world (Friedman, 2005), will outpace our discoveries of the specific roles that cultural backgrounds play in
psychology. Given that we cannot be certain about issues such as the
universality of particular strengths or the extent to which culture modifies how a strength is manifested, we must do our best to determine if and how “culture counts” in each interaction with a client or research participant.
It has been suggested by others that “many conceptualizations of optimal psychological functioning and well-being are of limited applicability to people of color” (Utsey, Hook, Fischer, & Belvet, 2008, p. 207). In addition, researchers have posited that discussions of strengths may be particularly necessary when investigating non-European American individuals and their experiences due to the damage done by the early pseudoscience discussed earlier in this chapter
(Constantine & Sue, 2006; Pedrotti & Edwards, 2009). In fact, people in non- dominant cultural groups across the world have often been pathologized for failing to assimilate fully into dominant cultural groups and may experience negative phenomena as a result (e.g., stereotype threat; Aronson & Rogers, 2008). As such, it becomes particularly important to broaden our efforts toward investigation of strengths in traditionally marginalized groups such as women, racial and ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and other similar groups. In addition, research must be expanded beyond the constructs most often studied today. In a quick PsycINFO search completed at press time of articles published in the Journal of Positive Psychology (2006–2014) and the Journal of Happiness Studies (2000–2014), the keyword of happiness yields 76 and 607 hits,
respectively, in the two journals, hope is listed 36 and 25 times, respectively, and optimism 26 and 17 times, respectively. These are all very Western-oriented constructs, as discussed in Chapter 2 in this volume. In contrast, we find only 7 total articles on altruism in the two journals combined, 11 on compassion (3 of which are focused on the more Western construct of self-compassion, and 1 of which is one of the articles above on the topic of altruism), and 3 on harmony (0 articles in the Journal of Positive Psychology); all of these are constructs that may be more relevant to Eastern groups. We believe broadening our areas of study as a field and publishing results about a diverse array of individuals both within and outside the United States would be beneficial to all groups in that it may lead to greater understanding of strengths in a wider range of people.
Progress toward the goal of counting culture as a primary influence on the development and manifestation of human strengths and good living in your research and practice may be best facilitated when you become aware of what you believe about the interplay between cultural and psychological phenomena.
Through our personal and professional experiences, we have made some
progress toward putting the positive in a cultural context. The authors of this text have different levels of power and privilege based on our various cultural facets as well, and this makes our understandings of how and when culture plays a role in our lives different from one another, even in talking amongst ourselves. We have come to some general agreement, however, on the following issues. First, psychological strength is universal. Across time, place, and culture, most people have developed and refined extraordinary qualities that promote adaptation and the pursuit of a better life. Second, there are no universal strengths. Although most people manifest strengths, the nature of the manifestation differs subtly and not so subtly across time, place, and culture. Third, life’s contexts affect how strengths are developed, defined, manifested, and enhanced, and our
understanding of these contexts contributes to diverse presentation of human capacity. History, passage of time, culture, situations and settings, professional perspectives, and human potentialities are reciprocally determined. Fourth, culture is a reflection of and a determinant of the life goals that we value and pursue. More research must be conducted on constructs that are central to non- Western groups as well. Finally, we must be willing to look beyond our own worldview to truly be able to see strengths in all individuals. The good life is in the mind of the beholder, and the vision of what is meaningful will drive our life pursuits.
In honor of this last statement, we encourage you to look at the field of positive psychology from both your cultural perspective and from the perspective of others. Some of you may find that you are drawn to constructs such as
happiness, hope, and optimism. Others of you may find that constructs such as compassion, altruism, and harmony make more sense in your lives. All of these constructs are viable and cannot be ranked except for in our own minds and from our own perspectives. Be cautious of statements regarding “the most important”
strength or “universal strengths” and instead learn to view all constructs through the lens of culture. In doing this, you become the viable future of the field!
Key Terms
Culturally deficient perspective: A view that identifies a host of
environmental, nutritional, linguistic, and interpersonal factors (namely, those factors that differ most from European American values) that
supposedly explain the physical and psychological growth of members of selected groups.
Culturally different perspective: A view of human diversity that recognizes the potential of each culture to engender unique strengths.
Culturally pluralistic: Explanations that recognize distinct cultural entities and adopt some values of the majority group.
Culturally relativistic: Explanations that interpret behaviors within the context of cultures.
Culture: A common heritage or set of beliefs, norms, and values.
Culture-bound syndromes: Sets of symptoms much more common in some societies than in others.
Etiology: The cause, origin, or a reason for something.
Eugenics: The study of methods of reducing “genetic inferiority” by
selective breeding, especially as applied to human reproduction.
Genetically deficient perspective: A view of human diversity that suggests that biological difference explains perceived gaps in intellectual capabilities among racial groups. Proponents of this perspective believe that those of inferior intelligence cannot benefit from growth opportunities and do not contribute to the advancement of society.
Multicultural personality: “A strength-based cluster of personality dispositions that . . . is hypothesized to predict cultural adjustment and quality of life outcomes in culturally heterogenous societies” (Ponterotto, Mendelowitz, & Collabolletta, 2008, p. 95).
Worldview: “Ways of describing the universe and life within it, both in terms of what is and what ought to be” (Koltko-Rivera, 2004, p. 4).
Chapter 5 Living Well at Every Stage of Life
“Psychologists have abandoned the missions of identifying and nurturing talent.”
“Psychology is half baked! We know very little about optimal human functioning.”
With each presenter’s statements about psychology’s neglect of the positive side of human functioning, Dr. Paul Baltes squirmed a little more in his seat. Finally, it was his opportunity to share his research on wisdom (see Chapter 9). By now, however, he had something else on his mind. He politely reminded the group of psychologists, most of whom were trained in social, personality, and clinical specialties, that one branch of psychology had never wavered in its commitment to studying adaptability and positive functioning. That branch was
developmental psychology. Indeed, developmental psychologists typically had approached their research with questions about what was working instead of what was not working. The efforts of developmental psychologists and other developmentalists (social scientists who maintain life-span perspectives) produced findings that often transcended historical, geographical, ethnic, and class boundaries to focus on people’s self-correcting tendencies.
In this chapter, we review developmental researchers’ discoveries about “what works” across the life span. For our purposes, the life span is described across childhood (birth to age 11), youth (ages 12 to 25), adulthood (ages 26 to 59), and older adulthood (age 60 to death). We assume that your basic knowledge of prominent development theories (see Table 5.1) will provide a backdrop for the discussions of resilience in childhood, positive youth development, living well as an adult, and successful aging.
Resilience researchers and positive youth development scholars have shared interests in the positive traits and outcomes of young people. As discussed subsequently, professionals who study resilience identify the “naturally occurring” personal and environmental resources that help children and adolescents to overcome life’s many challenges. Positive youth
developmentalists put the findings of resilience researchers and other positive
psychologists into action and give growth a nudge by designing and conducting programs that help youth capitalize on their personal assets and environmental resources.
Source: From Salkind, N., An introduction to theories of human development.
Copyright © 2004 by SAGE Publications.
In the first half of this chapter, we highlight what developmental researchers have discovered about healthy growth. Moreover, we address some of the limitations in this line of research. Scholars who study adult development
typically are able to provide prospective information about the gradual unfolding of people’s lives. Their in-depth knowledge of the past and the present helps
them predict the future. Rather than taking snapshots of life, the
developmentalists who study adults use a methodology akin to time-lapse photography—thousands of still pictures of life (or interviews of people) are linked together to tell a compelling story of individual development.
In the second half of the chapter, we explore the life tasks associated with adulthood and the characteristics of people who have aged successfully.
Additionally, we discuss many of the gaps in our knowledge about adulthood.
Throughout this chapter, we encourage the reader to consider the developmental factors associated with adaptation and good living.