Positive Psychology Interventions: Are they effective for ... · Positive Psychology Interventions:...

Department of Psychology

Positive Psychology Interventions: Are they effective for increasing well-being?

Fabian Gander

Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna

Keynote: Emanuele Berger, Dipartimento dell’educazione della cultura e dello sport “Well-being promotion in Ticino schools”

14.55 - 16.10

Parallel session 1Sala conferenze

Parallel session 2Aula magna

Parallel session 1 Bullismo e prevenzione (ITA)

Rizzotti, P. “Essere felici a scuola, 181 inse-gnanti contro il bullismo”.

Saccardi, S. “Danza della tolleranza”.

Da Vinci, L. & Cattaneo, S. “Progetto “GOPeer”: prevenzione al bullismo e al cyberbullismo tramite la peer educa-tion”.

Parallel session 2 Perspectives on well-being in education (ENG)

Raccanello, D. et al. “Definitions of well- being and suffering: secondary school and university students’ conceptualization in terms of physical and psychological domain”.

Cohen, E. J. “Promoting well-being in a high achieving school: a word from the front line”.

Boldrini, E. & Sappa, V. “Among adversities and resources: an exploratory study on teachers’ resilience in Vocational Education and Training in Switzerland”.

16.10 - 16.30 Coffee break

16.30 - 17.45

Parallel session 3B005



Parallel session 3 Educazione fisica a scuola (ITA)

Descoeudres, M. “Gli aspetti emotivi riguardo allo sviluppo professionale dei docenti di educazione fisica in formazione: metodologia e risultati”.

Poli, A. “Valutare il livello di benessere degli studenti con una prova di corsa”.

Parallel session 4 Bullying and prevention (ENG)

Albisetti, Z. I. “Psychological safety at school: a multidimensional concept to analyse the feeling of well-being in the classroom setting”.

Caranzano, M. “ASPI - preventing child abuse and neglect: a global concept in the italian speaking part of Switzerland”.

Hauser, M. & Erzinger, A. “The impact of well-being at school on bullying and academic achievement”.

Parallel session 5 Benessere nelle classi (ITA)

Ostinelli, M. “Il benessere del bambino come problema filosofico”.

Malagola, P. “Reinventare la realtà. Incrementare il benessere del sistema scolastico attraverso la formazione degli insegnanti”.

Chiari, G. & Palmisano, L. “Educazione 3.0: Il Paradigma umano”.

Monday 20.11

International Conference on Well-being in Education Systems

1


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Main questions

•  What are positive psychology interventions? •  Are they effective for increasing well-being?

•  When and for whom do they work best?

•  How do they work?


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

What are positive psychology interventions?

•  Positive psychology interventions are: “…treatment methods or intentional activities that aim to cultivate positive feelings, behaviors, or cognitions.” (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; p. 468)

•  Positive psychology interventions are not:

“…programs, interventions, or treatments aimed at fixing, remedying, or healing something that is pathological or deficient .” (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; ibid.)

à strategies to improve well-being (hedonic and or eudemonic)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

What are positive psychology interventions?Example: Three good things-Exercise

«Every night for one week, set aside 10 minutes before you go to bed. Use that time to write down three things that went really well on that day and why they went well. The three things you list can be relatively small in importance (“My husband picked up my favorite ice cream for dessert on the way home from work today”) or relatively large in importance (“My sister just gave birth to a healthy baby boy”)»

(abbreviated; after Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

What are positive psychology interventions?Different types

•  One-fits-all approaches, e.g.: •  Three good things

•  Gratitude letter

•  Counting kindness, etc.

•  Individualized approaches (based on participants‘ characteristics), e.g.: •  Using signature strengths in a new way


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Effectiveness of positive psychology interventions

Pioneering works of Michael Fordyce (1977, 1983)

Basic assumption: –  How do happy people differ from unhappy people?

à 14 Fundamentals

–  Can unhappy people adapt the behaviors of happy people in order to get happier?

–  Fordyce showed in several studies that students in a “happiness program” based on the 14 fundamentals get happier

à Well-being can be deliberately improved


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Fordyce‘s 14 Fundamentals 1.  Be more active and keep busy 2.  Spend more time socializing 3.  Be productive at meaningful work 4.  Get better organized and plan things out 5.  Stop worrying 6.  Lower your expectations and aspirations 7.  Develop positive, optimistic thinking 8.  Get present-oriented 9.  Work on a healthy personality 10. Develop an outgoing, social personality 11. Be yourself 12. Eliminate negative feelings and problems 13. Close relationships 14. Think about your own happiness


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Effectiveness of positive psychology interventions Two independent meta-analyses •  Sin & Lyubomirsky (2009)

•  Analyzed 51 interventions on a broad array of topics (including gratitude, hope, kindness, mindfulness, goal attainment, etc.)

•  Conclusion: Positive interventions are effective for increasing well-being (d = .61) and reducing depressive symptoms (d = .65)

•  Bolier, Haverman, Westerhof, Riper, Smit & Bohlmeijer (2013)

•  Analyzed 39 interventions using stricter inclusion criteria

•  Conclusion: Positive interventions are effective for increasing hedonic (d = .34) and eudemonic well-being (d = .20) and reducing depressive symptoms (d = .23)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Online positive psychology interventions

•  First large online, randomized, placebo-controlled intervention by Seligman, Steen, Park, and Peterson (2005):

•  Tested 5 interventions conducted once or for one week •  Compared with a placebo control exercise (“Early memories”)

•  Assessment of happiness and depressive symptoms before and after the intervention, as well at follow-ups at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the intervention

•  3 of the interventions increased happiness and alleviated depressive symptoms compared to the placebo control group for up to six months:

•  Three good things

•  Gratitude visit •  Using signature strengths in a new way

Gander, Proyer, Wyss, & Ruch, in press, JoHS


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Replication of Seligman et al. (2005) Three objectives: 1.  Replicating the findings of Seligman et al. (2005)

•  Identical interventions and design

•  German-speaking sample

•  Participants were not informed on a potential beneficial effect on well-being 2.  Testing additional interventions

•  Counting kindness (Otake, Shimai, Tanaka-Matsumi, Otsui, & Fredrickson, 2006) •  Gift of time (Peterson, 2006)

•  One door closes, another door opens (Rashid & Anjum, 2008) 3.  Testing variants of existing interventions

•  Extending the duration of the three good things-intervention to 2 weeks •  Combining gratitude visit & three good things (one week each)

•  Replacing three good things with three funny things (for one week)

Gander, Proyer, Wyss, & Ruch, in press, JoHS


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1Replication of Seligman et al. (2005): Design

Posttest N = 1,598

Follow-up (1 month) N = 998

Follow-up (3 months) N = 754

Follow-up (6 months) N = 622

Online registration

Random allocation

Intervention (1 week)

Pretest N = 2,374

Early memories

Replication Gratitude visit Three good Things

Using signature strengths

Additional interventions Gift of time One door opensCounting kindness

Variants Three funny things

Gratitude visit & gift of time

Three good things (2 weeks)

Intervention (1 week)

Gander, Proyer, Wyss, & Ruch, 2013

Inclusion criteria: •  Aged ≥ 18 •  Not in psychotherapeutic or

psychopharmalogical treatment •  Not using psychotropic or illegal drugs


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

decrease in depressive symptoms

increase in happiness

post

test

1 m

onth

af

ter

3 m

onth

s af

ter

6 m

onth

s af

ter

gift of time

one door opens

counting kindness

3 good things

using signature strengths

gratitude visit

3 funny things

3 good things (2 weeks)

gratitude visit & 3 good things

Note. An effect is displayed if the comparison between pretest and the respective time period differed from the placebo control group.

Replication of Seligman et al. (2005): Results Gander, Proyer, Wyss, & Ruch, 2013


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

When and for whom do interventions work best? When / under which conditions? (Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009) •  Delivery type: Individual therapy > group-administered > self-administered

•  Duration: Stronger effects for longer programs (...unless it gets boring)

For whom? (Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009)

•  Age: Older people (fewer dropouts & stronger effects)

•  Well-being: (slightly) depressed people

•  Intelligence: More intelligent people (Proyer, Gander, Wellenzohn, & Ruch, 2016)

•  Personality: inconsistent findings

à All effects of participants‘ characteristics are small and do not argue against conducting interventions with any specific participant group

à A recent study (November 6th) on potential person moderators in adolescents found no effects when testing a broad range of moderators including demographics, seasonality, personality, baseline characteristics, activity fit, and effort (Wang et al., 2017)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

How do interventions work?

•  Still widely unknown •  There are first empirical hints for the involvement of

components such as: •  Positive emotions

(Fredrickson et al., 2008; Gander, Proyer, & Ruch, 2017; Wellenzohn, Proyer, & Ruch, 2017)

•  Positive cognitions (Gander, Proyer, & Ruch, 2017)

•  Attentional shift (Wellenzohn, Proyer, & Ruch, 2017)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Positive emotions Two conditions: –  3 good things

–  Placebo control (writing about path to work)

Method:

–  N = 124

–  Daily positive emotions during 14 days

–  Well-being at pretest and at 2 weeks follow-up

Results: In the 3 good things condition:

–  More positive emotion words used

–  More positive emotions experienced

–  Increase in well-being

à Use of positive emotions words / experienced positive emotions predicts increases in well-being

References Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 119. doi:

10.1186/1471-2458-13-119 Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361–368. doi:10.1037/a0015952 Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1377. doi:10.2307/4142140 Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strength-based positive interventions: Further evidence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(4),

1241–1259. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9380-0 Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410 Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier testing the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670–680. doi:10.1177/0146167212436400 Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well�being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice�friendly meta�analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 467–487.

doi:10.1002/jclp.20593 This study was supported by a research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; No. 132512 and No. 149772)

Conclusions The study shows that participants in the intervention group exceeded those in the placebo group in their experienced intensity and variability of PEs across the two weeks. However, it needs to be highlighted that effects were small for the intensity.

Further analyses (not shown in detail) showed that an increase in happiness in the intervention group was associated with an increase in both, the intensity (r = .32, p < .01) but also the variability (r = .24, p < .05) of the subjectively reported positive emotions.

Methods Participants N = 124 adults (20 men) between 19 and 85 years (M = 41.1, SD = 15.9).

Procedure Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (“three good things”; n = 70) or the placebo group (“early memories”; n = 54). Subjective ratings for PEs during the intervention-week and one week after the intervention were available (see Figure 1). Instrument The modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDes; Cohn et al., 2009) asks participants to indicate their strongest experiences of 10 emotions (amusement, awe, compassion, contentment, gratitude, hope, interest, joy, love, and pride) in the past day on a 5-point Likert-style scale (0 = not at all to 4 = extremely). Internal consistency at pretest was satisfactory (α = .78).

Results For test ing differences in the perceived intensities of PEs, an analysis of covariance (controlling for PE at pretest) with an averaged total score for PEs across the two weeks as dependent variable and inter-vention vs. placebo as grouping variable was computed. There was a marginally significant difference between the intervention and the placebo group in the intensity of PEs, F(1, 121) = 1.91, p = .085. Analyses were repeated at the level of single emotions (see Figure 2). Especially, contentment, hope, joy, and love increased.

For the variability, the number of repo r ted PEs (PEs ra ted as “extremely experienced”) was ave-raged over the two weeks, the intervention group experienced greater variability of PEs compared to the placebo group, F(1, 122) = 4.91, p = .014 (all one-tailed).

The role of positive emotions in positive interventions:

A study using daily assessment of positive emotions

Sara Wellenzohn, René T. Proyer, Fabian Gander, Eva Hentz, and Willibald Ruch

University of Zurich, Department of Psychology, Personality and Assessment

contact: [email protected]

Introduction Two recent meta-analyses support the notion that positive interventions are effective in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; Bolier et al., 2013). However, only few studies have addressed the question of why such interventions are effective.

Among potential mechanisms to explain the effects of positive interventions the role of positive emotions (PEs) has been highlighted. Fredrickson’s (2004) broaden-and-build theory posits that they broaden an individual’s thought-action repertoire and increase personal resources. Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012) argue that also the variety of experienced PEs plays a role.

The role of PEs in positive interventions has rarely been studied directly and we aimed for narrowing this gap. In a randomized online intervention study, we compared two conditions: Writing about “three good things” and about “early memories” (placebo) for seven consecutive days (cf. Gander et al., 2013; Seligman et al., 2005). Additionally, we asked participants to rate their subjectively experienced PEs during the intervention week and the following week. These ratings were analyzed for both, intensity and variability.

We expected that participants in the intervention group report a greater intensity (1) and variability (2) of PEs across the two weeks in comparison with participants in the placebo group.

Figure 1. Design of the study.

Intervention (during 1 week)

Day 1 - 7: mDes Intervention

Day 8: mDes

Day 9 - 15: mDes

Online registration Random allocation

Basic demographic questions

Pretest (mDes)

Post assessment (during 1 week)

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

amus

emen

t

awe

com

pass

ion

cont

entm

ent

grat

itude

hope

inte

rest

joy

love

prid

e

intervention group

placebo group

Figure 2. Intensity of the ten emotions for both groups, corrected for pretest levels. Error Bars = +/- 1 SE * p < .05 (one-tailed)

*

*

*

*

0

(Gander, Proyer, & Ruch, 2017)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

References Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 119. doi:

10.1186/1471-2458-13-119 Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361–368. doi:10.1037/a0015952 Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1377. doi:10.2307/4142140 Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strength-based positive interventions: Further evidence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(4),

1241–1259. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9380-0 Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410 Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier testing the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670–680. doi:10.1177/0146167212436400 Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well�being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice�friendly meta�analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 467–487.

doi:10.1002/jclp.20593 This study was supported by a research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; No. 132512 and No. 149772)

Conclusions The study shows that participants in the intervention group exceeded those in the placebo group in their experienced intensity and variability of PEs across the two weeks. However, it needs to be highlighted that effects were small for the intensity.

Further analyses (not shown in detail) showed that an increase in happiness in the intervention group was associated with an increase in both, the intensity (r = .32, p < .01) but also the variability (r = .24, p < .05) of the subjectively reported positive emotions.

Methods Participants N = 124 adults (20 men) between 19 and 85 years (M = 41.1, SD = 15.9).

Procedure Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (“three good things”; n = 70) or the placebo group (“early memories”; n = 54). Subjective ratings for PEs during the intervention-week and one week after the intervention were available (see Figure 1). Instrument The modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDes; Cohn et al., 2009) asks participants to indicate their strongest experiences of 10 emotions (amusement, awe, compassion, contentment, gratitude, hope, interest, joy, love, and pride) in the past day on a 5-point Likert-style scale (0 = not at all to 4 = extremely). Internal consistency at pretest was satisfactory (α = .78).

Results For test ing differences in the perceived intensities of PEs, an analysis of covariance (controlling for PE at pretest) with an averaged total score for PEs across the two weeks as dependent variable and inter-vention vs. placebo as grouping variable was computed. There was a marginally significant difference between the intervention and the placebo group in the intensity of PEs, F(1, 121) = 1.91, p = .085. Analyses were repeated at the level of single emotions (see Figure 2). Especially, contentment, hope, joy, and love increased.

For the variability, the number of repo r ted PEs (PEs ra ted as “extremely experienced”) was ave-raged over the two weeks, the intervention group experienced greater variability of PEs compared to the placebo group, F(1, 122) = 4.91, p = .014 (all one-tailed).

The role of positive emotions in positive interventions:

A study using daily assessment of positive emotions

Sara Wellenzohn, René T. Proyer, Fabian Gander, Eva Hentz, and Willibald Ruch

University of Zurich, Department of Psychology, Personality and Assessment

contact: [email protected]

Introduction Two recent meta-analyses support the notion that positive interventions are effective in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; Bolier et al., 2013). However, only few studies have addressed the question of why such interventions are effective.

Among potential mechanisms to explain the effects of positive interventions the role of positive emotions (PEs) has been highlighted. Fredrickson’s (2004) broaden-and-build theory posits that they broaden an individual’s thought-action repertoire and increase personal resources. Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012) argue that also the variety of experienced PEs plays a role.

The role of PEs in positive interventions has rarely been studied directly and we aimed for narrowing this gap. In a randomized online intervention study, we compared two conditions: Writing about “three good things” and about “early memories” (placebo) for seven consecutive days (cf. Gander et al., 2013; Seligman et al., 2005). Additionally, we asked participants to rate their subjectively experienced PEs during the intervention week and the following week. These ratings were analyzed for both, intensity and variability.

We expected that participants in the intervention group report a greater intensity (1) and variability (2) of PEs across the two weeks in comparison with participants in the placebo group.

Figure 1. Design of the study.

Intervention (during 1 week)

Day 1 - 7: mDes Intervention

Day 8: mDes

Day 9 - 15: mDes

Online registration Random allocation

Basic demographic questions

Pretest (mDes)

Post assessment (during 1 week)

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

amus

emen

t

awe

com

pass

ion

cont

entm

ent

grat

itude

hope

inte

rest

joy

love

prid

e

intervention group

placebo group

Figure 2. Intensity of the ten emotions for both groups, corrected for pretest levels. Error Bars = +/- 1 SE * p < .05 (one-tailed)

*

*

*

*

0

Emotions elicited: •  Contentment •  Joy •  Hope •  Love

à Increase in well-being is explained best by increases in joy and contentment

Positive emotions Intervention group Placebo group

Am

usem

ent

Awe

Com

pass

ion

Con

tent

men

t

Gra

titud

e

Hop

e

Inte

rest

Joy

Love

Prid

e


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Positive emotions / cognitions

Four conditions: –  Positive emotions:

„Do something pleasurable for 10 minutes and write it down“ –  Positive emotions & cognitions:

„Write down (as neutral as possible) what pleasurable things you have experienced today and try to re-experience these moments as vividly as possible“

–  Positive cognitions: „Write down (as neutral as possible) what pleasurable things you have experienced today and think about what you could learn“

–  Placebo control (early childhood memories)

Method: –  N = 509 adults –  Well-being assessed at pretest, posttest, and at follow-ups 2, 4, and 12 weeks

after the intervention

Results: –  Increase in well-being only in the conditions with a cognitive component

(Gander, Proyer, & Ruch, 2017)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Positive emotions / attentional focus

Four conditions: –  Positive emotions & attentional focus:

„Write down three funny things that happened today“ –  Positive emotions:

„Write down three funny things that happened one week ago “ –  Attentional focus:

„Count the funny things you are experiencing during the day “ –  Placebo control (early childhood memories)

Method: –  N = 695 adults –  Well-being assessed at pretest, posttest, and at follow-ups 2, 4, and 12 weeks

after the intervention

Results: –  Increase in well-being in all three conditions –  Attentional shift reported to a larger extent in present and future variants –  Experience of positive emotions reported to a larger extent in present and past

variants

(Wellenzohn, Proyer, & Ruch, 2016)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

PPI in educational context

•  Empirical studies on positive psychology interventions in schools are comparatively rare

•  Often there are methodological difficulties:

•  No randomization •  No placebo control comparison

•  Low treatment adherence

•  In most cases complete programs were examined à effectiveness of individual components cannot be identified


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

PPI in educational context •  Several school-based programs have been applied and validated (for an

overview see Waters, 2011 and Shankland & Rosset, 2017) •  Diverse topics, including gratitude, hope, serenity, resilience, mindfulness, and

character strengths •  Programs have been used with students ranging from 5 to 19 years

•  Examples (Seligman et al., 2009): •  Penn Resiliency Program (>20 years, >17 independent studies, > 2‘000

children aged 8 to 15): Reduces and prevents anxiety and depression •  Strath Haven Positive Psychology Curriculum (randomized, 349 students):

increased social skills, school engagement, enjoyment, and achievement •  Overall, results are promising

•  Generally, positive effects on well-being are reported •  No detrimental (and in some cases positive effects) on achievement were

found


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Recommendations for using PPIs in education

Shankland & Rosset, 2016: •  Combine theory and practice

Students should not just practice gratitude but also understand why and know about the (potential) beneficial effects of gratitude on themselves and others

•  Emphasize the malleability of the concepts (especially when working with strengths-based approaches): Individual strengths should also be cultivated, not just identified

•  Adapt intervention content and dosage to the target group Intervention selection should also be guided by students’ preferences

•  Combine multiple interventions Single interventions can be combined to an intervention program


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

A possible individualized strengths-based program (not validated)

•  Getting to know character strengths: •  What are desirable characteristics of friends, parents, and fictional characters? •  Learning about the VIA classification of strengths

•  Identifying character strengths:

•  Applying the VIA classification to paragons and fictional characters •  Identify character strengths in oneself (by completing the VIA-Youth Inventory)

•  Getting feedback of others (peers, parents, teachers) on own strengths •  Cultivating strengths:

•  Using top strengths in a new way •  Learn from others how to foster underdeveloped strengths

•  Use interventions for specific strengths (gratitude visit, counting kindness, etc.)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Non-individualized Strengths Program: The Zurich Strengths Program (ZSP)

23

Bas

elin

e as

sess

men

t EG1

EG2

CG

EG2

Hope Zest Gratitude Curiosity Humor

Kindness Creativity Appreciation of Beauty Love of Learning Perspective

Wel

l-Bei

ng a

sses

smen

t

Wel

l-Bei

ng a

sses

smen

t

Proyer, Ruch, & Buschor, 2013

Strong positive relation to well-being

Weak positive relation to well-being

Waitlist control group

5 Sessions (10 weeks)


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

The ZSP Procedure: •  Each session was dedicated to one strength •  One session consisted of

•  Theoretical information (especially prepared for the general population) •  What is gratitude? •  Research findings on gratitude

•  Group exercise •  Discussions on when gratitude is shown in everyday behavior

(but also exercises by humor and creativity trainers) •  Home exercise

•  Writing a gratitude letter Results: Participant who trained those strengths that are stronlgy related to well-being significantly improved their well-being 24


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Summary

•  There is a broad array of validated positive psychology interventions (Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009)

•  Although it is not quite clear how and for whom they work best, the findings that they are effective in general are very robust

•  There is not much reason to belief that they should not work in students

•  Adaption to specific contexts and evaluation is strongly recommended

Page 26


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

Research group

This research project was supported by a research grant of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; No. 132512 and No. 149772) Page 28

Prof. Dr. Willibald Ruch PD Dr. René Proyer

Dr. Sara Wellenzohn Dr. Fabian Gander Contact: [email protected]

swıppa! !

Swiss Positive Psychology Association Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Positive Psychologie

Société Suisse de Psychologie Positive Società Svizzera di Psicologia Positiva

!


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

References •  Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-

analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-119 •  Fordyce, M. W. (1977). Development of a program to increase personal happiness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 511–521.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.24.6.511

•  Fordyce, M. W. (1983). A program to increase happiness: Further studies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.30.4.483

•  Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013262

•  Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2017). A placebo-controlled online study on potential mediators of a pleasure-based positive psychology intervention: The role of emotional and cognitive components. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9909-3

•  Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2017). Positive emotions in positive psychology interventions. Unpublished Manuscript. •  Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strength-based positive interventions: Further evidence for their potential in

enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9380-0

•  Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy people become happier through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z

•  Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

•  Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2016). Addressing the role of personality, ability, and positive and negative affect in positive psychology interventions: Findings from a randomized intervention based on the authentic happiness theory and extensions. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(6), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137622

Page 29


Scientific program

10.00 - Aula magna

Registration

13.30 - 14.00Aula magna

Opening session

14.00 - 14.50Aula magna


14.55 - 16.10












16.30 - 17.45















Monday 20.11


1

References •  Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Buschor, C. (2013). Testing strengths-based interventions: A preliminary study on the effectiveness of a

program targeting curiosity, gratitude, hope, humor, and zest for enhancing life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9331-9

•  Rashid, T., & Anjum, A. (2008). Positive psychotherapy for young adults and children. In J. R. Z. Abela & B. L. Hankin (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (pp. 250–287). New York, NY: Guilford.

•  Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934563

•  Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

•  Shankland, R., & Rosset, E. (2017). Review of brief school-based positive psychological interventions: A taster for teachers and educators. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 363–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9357-3

•  Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20593

•  Wang, R. A. H., Nelson-Coffey, S. K., Layous, K., Bao, K. J., Davis, O. S. P., & Haworth, C. M. A. (2017). Moderators of wellbeing interventions: Why do some people respond more positively than others? PLOS ONE, 12(11), e0187601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187601

•  Waters, L. (2011). A Review of School-Based Positive Psychology Interventions. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 28(2), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1375/aedp.28.2.75

•  Wellenzohn, S., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2016). How do positive psychology interventions work? A short-term placebo-controlled humor-based study on the role of the time focus. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.056

Page 30

Positive Psychology Interventions: Are they effective for ... · Positive Psychology Interventions:...

Documents

Transcript of Positive Psychology Interventions: Are they effective for ... · Positive Psychology Interventions:...