Can happiness be taught?

By Martin E. P. Seligman. Daedalus, 2004

110 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Dædalus Spring 2004 Since World War II, the 1⁄2eld of psychology has largely focused on suffering. Psychologists now measure such formerly fuzzy concepts as depression, schizophrenia, and anger with respectable precision. We have discovered a fair amount about how these disorders develop across life, about their genetics, their neurochemistry, and their psychological underpinnings. Best of all, we can relieve some of the disorders. By my last count fourteen of the several dozen major mental illnesses could be effectively treated–and two of them cured–with medications or speci1⁄2c psychotherapies.1 Unfortunately, for many years interest in relieving the states that make life miserable has overshadowed efforts to enhance the states that make life worth living. This disciplinary bias has not preempted the public’s concern with what is best in life, however. Most people want more positive emotion in their lives. Most people want to build their strengths, not just to minimize their weaknesses. Most people want lives imbued with meaning. What I have called Positive Psychology concerns the scienti1⁄2c study of the three different happy lives that correspond to these three desires: the Pleasant Life, the Good Life, and the Meaningful Life. The Pleasant Life is about positive emotions. The Good Life is about positive traits– foremost among them the strengths and the virtues, but also the talents, such as intelligence and athleticism. The Meaningful Life is about positive institutions, such as democracy, strong families, and free inquiry. Positive institutions support the virtues, which in turn support the positive emotions.2 In its scope, then, Positive Psychology diverges markedly from the traditional subject matter of psychology: mental disorders, developmental stunting, troubled lives, violence, criminality, prejudice, trauma, anger, depression, and therapy.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d9fce649a838e742a42da55b70e4417b6effcd79

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Character Strengths: Research and Practice (2009, background): “Research consistently shows that strengths of the “heart” like love and gratitude, those that connect people together, are more strongly associated with well-being than are strengths of the “head” that are necessarily individual in nature—e.g., creativity, critical thinking, and appreciation of beau”
Well-Being, Personal Success and Business Performance Among Entrepreneurs: A Two-Wave Study (2018, background): “…et al. 2005b), other theoretical perspectives and empirical data suggest it can through intentional J. Dijkhuizen et al. activities and practices over a longer period of time (Diener et al. 2006; Fisher 2010; Lyubomirsky et al. 2005b; Seligman 2004, 2006; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000).”
Exploring PERMA in spectator sport: Applying positive psychology to examine the individual-level benefits of sport consumption (2016, background): “Findings illustrated that a sense of accomplishment was derived from actions where individuals perceived that they helped the team become established and when they were present at milestone team moments (e.g., the first game) (Seligman, 2004).”
Tourism and health: using positive psychology principles to maximise participants’ wellbeing outcomes – a design concept for charity challenge tourism (2015, background): “Moreover, Seligman (2004) offers a distinction between experiencing pleasure, where respondents are usually able to describe a conscious and felt positive feeling, and experience gratification, which is associated with the expression of signature strengths and virtues and is characterised by…”