Dogmatism in positive psychology and in the solution-focused approach?
After recent discoveries of mistakes in research by Barbara Fredrickson (see here and here) some people have criticized positive psychology. James Coyne, a professor and clinical psychologist working in Groningen and Pennsylvania, is one of its fiercest critics. He not only argues that positive psychology’s message is too simple (see here) but, as his tweets show, he also thinks 1) that positive psychology is dogmatic (and that the whole idea behind PP is based on a unjustified contrast with the rest of (negative?) psychology, 2) that positive psychology has a guru culture (in which, as he implies, Martin Seligman is the pope of positive psychology), and 3) that positive psychology is too much driven by commercial motives (many scientists within positive psychology would be more interested in selling books and training programs than in science). Coyne says: Positive psychology is applied ideology, not science (source).
My idea about this: what appeals least to me in Coyne’s criticism is that he implies (and here and there also explicitly asserts) that some positive psychologies have bad intentions. Such assertions seem to me to be doubtful, hard to prove and useless. Other parts of his criticism, I agree with. Years ago, when I was a member Friends of PP mailing list, I frequently felt that there was some dogmatism, defensiveness and one-sidedness. Also, I am critical about how positive psychology has developed (briefly: too much emphasis on strengths and happiness, see here). What I don’t think is that most individuals within positive psychology have bad intentions or are mainly ideologically or commercially driven. I think there is another main explanation for how positive psychology has developed. That explanation refers to a mechanism of group polarization which happens as soon as people unite around a certain way of thinking.
Isolation leads to radicalization: Social psychologist David Meyers has explained this mechanism as follows: Interaction in groups of kindred spirits tends to amplify people’s initial inclinations. In isolation from moderating influences, group interaction becomes a social amplifier (see here). Due to this, people who self-segregate around certain ideas or values may radicalize more easily.
The solution-focused approach: What is said here about positive psychology is also relevant for other ways of thinking and working. The solution-focused approach is no exception. Within the field of solution-focused therapy and coaching people also form professional communities which are prone to the same type of social amplification of initial ideas and values. Within such communities critical thinking can become scarce, a pressure to conform can emerge, selective attention to evidence can happen, and glorification of people can occur. It is understandable that outsiders can sometimes get the feeling of and ideologically driven community or even a sect (someone once literally said this to me). That seems unhealthy to me.
What can be done? Radicalization by self-segregation is undesirable. Essential for knowledge development are things like continued critical thinking, keeping on asking questions, changing one’s beliefs in accordance with new evidence, going against the glorification of individuals, keeping on challenging authority figures, and going against pressure to conform. Whether existing professional communities can manage to do this, I don’t know. Abolishing or fundamentally changing such groups may also help. Since the year 2000, positive psychology has not only manifested itself as an approach but also as a community. The latter has perhaps been a useful stepping stone in order to get a change in psychology going. But perhaps it is time for positive psychologists to drop the adjective ‘positive’ and start calling themselves just psychologists again. For solution-focused professionals the situation is comparable. The further development of the approach is served by critical questions, criticism, not following guru’s, challenging authority opinions, and not let commercial considerations make you hold on to outdated ideas.
What do you think?
5 Comments
You make very good points here. I think your concerns about positive psychology and the solution-focused approach applies to models in general. In general, models of counseling and psychotherapy run the risk of being cult-like. For example, I have found that the narrative approach is so laden with jargon (e.g., externalizing, outsider witness), it has the effect of alienating some clinicians, especially those new to the field. Although I consider solution-focused in orientation, I find myself moving away from aligning with any single one model.
There seem to be two main reasons the field has a cult-like attitude toward models. First, the field continues to search for the Holy Grail to human suffering. New models have been developed in an effort to find the panacea. For now, such an ultimate solution has not been found.
A second reason for the field’s emphasis on models is political. Powerful institutions, such as universities hold privileged knowledge and impose the prevailing models in our field. Students, therapist, and the mental health professions are indoctrinated to these theories. So, there is pressure to align with particular models to advance in academic programs, become employed, and receive insurance reimbursement.
I have found, though, that in recent years the field has shifted its emphasis from divergence to to areas of convergence. Research on common change factors is a sign of such a shift. The field is now moving toward a confluence of models. A shift away from single-based models and toward integration, eclecticism, and as Coert Visser puts it, doing what works.
Coert, it’s kind of ironic that you who once was a strong advocate of solution-focused approach now are saying criticism is very important…of course for a reason.
When I teach SF in my seminar, I usually say, “Hey, beware, this is a method that is too much biased toward positivity. Mind you, any method is pure in one way or another and it should because that is exactly the reason it stands out as a method. So after you expose yourself in the field of SF and take whatever you think is useful, please create your own method combining everything you learned in the past.”
I do agree that we need to keep searching for what works. And maybe that is the only place where the angel of truth dwells only for a while the heat for search is alive.
Great article to keep us awake, Coert.
Thank you!
Hi Aoki, Thanks for your comment. I agree that my post may appear abit ironic. My view has not changed that much, I think. For instance, years ago I have written about some contra-indications for solution-focused work. And I have always thought that a sceptical approach to any claim from any approach is warranted. No approach work always. In addition to this: our insights develop.
Yet, I still am a strong advocate of most of what I advocated 10 years ago. I think the core of the solution-focused process is still extremely powerful and brilliant.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
Excellent post Coert, and the responses from Jeffrey and Aoki.
I’m not so sure if I would welcome a shift towards convergence though – despite the common factors. I say, “Vive la différence!”
Hi Sue, thanks! Good to hear from you