Damian Sendler: Research in positive psychology has historically focused on the study and promotion of individual well-being. A lack of research into the nature and characteristics of positive psychology interventions aimed at improving the well-being of marginalized groups and communities has led to a lack of information. Community-based positive psychology interventions are the focus of this paper. It examines 25 community-level positive psychology interventions found in 31 studies, including their target populations, intervention methods, objectives, and desired outcomes. The findings of this scoping review show that positive psychology-based community programs differ greatly in all of these aspects. However, the vast majority of interventions are geared toward achieving target group outcomes through individual-level changes. The impact of social conditions, values, and fairness on one’s well-being is rarely taken into account by researchers. It is argued that community-level positive psychological interventions are inconsistent with community psychology in terms of values and social change.
Damian Jacob Sendler: The field of positive psychology has seen explosive growth in well-being research and application over the last few decades (Ivtzan et al., 2016). The growing dissatisfaction with the limitations of traditional psychological models led to the emergence of positive psychology. Positive psychology, in contrast to conventional thinking, seeks to maximize human well-being (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Linley et al. have distilled the many descriptions of the field into a few key themes and constants (2006). Positive psychology, in their view, is the scientific study of human performance at its finest. There are three distinct levels of study in positive psychology: (1) subjective; (2) group; and (3) individual (Kim et al., 2012). Group-level factors such as civic virtues, social responsibilities and altruism are emphasized while the subjective level focuses on positive emotions like well-being, life satisfaction and happiness. These factors contribute to the development of citizenship and communities (Boniwell, 2006). To wrap up, the individual level is all about how to become a better human being, focusing on human virtues and character traits. Most cultures around the world hold these virtues in high regard as foundational aspects of human nature. Psychological processes or mechanisms by which one virtue is expressed are character strengths (Peterson and Seligman, 2004, p. 13). Wise and knowledgeable, brave, human, just, temperate and transcendent are six virtues composed of twenty-four character strengths.
Dr. Sendler: It was initially thought that positive psychology interventions were defined as “treatment methods or intentional activities that aim to cultivate positive feelings, behaviors, or cognitions” (Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009; p. 468) as opposed to programs or treatments “aimed at fixing, remedying, or healing something that is pathological or deficient” (Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009; p. 468). Even though this initial definition concentrated on increasing the positive aspects, researchers have since allowed for an enlarged view of interventions in positive psychology and included effects on negative aspects such as flaws, difficulties, and dissatisfaction (Schueller and Parks, 2014; Worth, 2020). Positive psychology interventions have been studied in a wide range of outcomes by researchers. There is evidence that positive psychology interventions can help people develop character strengths like gratitude, kindness, humor, and hope and improve their well-being outcomes (Carr, 2011), according to meta-analyses (Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009). They have also found that these interventions have a positive effect on reducing depressive symptoms (Bolier et al., 2013). There have been studies done in both school and workplace settings on outcomes such as work-life balance, leadership skills, and work performance (Waters, 2011; Meyers et al., 2013).
Individual well-being has been the primary focus of the field (Schueller, 2009; Di Martino et al., 2018b), but the field has also looked at community and national well-being. The goal of positive psychology, according to Seligman, is to develop “a psychology of positive human functioning that achieves a scientific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving individuals, families, and communities” (Seligman, 2002, p. 7).
Individual-level positive psychology interventions have largely targeted such civic virtues but have not addressed them. Positive psychology is woefully underrepresented in the fields of research and practice dedicated to fostering civic virtues. Critics have long argued that, while attempting to counterbalance traditional psychology, positive psychology ended up mirroring many of its facets, such as its emphasis on individual-level factors (Worth and Smith, 2018). Although programs have been implemented in a wide range of clinical, educational, and workplace contexts, community-based interventions are extremely rare. Positive psychology has focused almost exclusively on the well-being of individuals, ignoring research and intervention on the well-being of a community, nation, or a group. According to studies in workplace and educational settings, there is a growing interest in the application of positive psychology concepts in groups.
Definition of a community is essential to understanding the impact of community interventions. It’s not a simple undertaking. Despite its widespread use, the term “community” has never received an agreed-upon definition (Cohen, 1985; Trickett and Espino, 2004). According to Chavis and Newbrough (1986), community psychology is organized around a sense of community. Community as space, people, shared values and institutions, interaction, power distribution, and social system are all highlighted by Warren (1978). Only four perceptual components are included in McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) model: (1) belonging to a community, (2) influence, (3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and (4) a shared emotional connection (having shared interests and experiences with other community members). Healthy and contented people, strong communities, and healthy communities are all characterized by these characteristics (e.g., Davidson and Cotter, 1991; Fisher et al., 2002; Hystad and Carpiano, 2009; Molix and Nichols, 2013).
Community interventions, according to McLeroy et al. (2003), can be classified according to the following four criteria: setting, target of change, resources, or agent. All of these ideas are in line with Vaandrager and Kennedy (2017)’s definition of a community as “a place, a social entity, a collective action, and an individual and collective identity.” According to the findings of a participatory public health study, a community is defined as “a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical settings” (MacQueen et al., 2001, p. 1929). To sum it up, it appears that researchers now favor a geographical or relational group definition of community with shared interests or a collective identity (e.g., Netting et al., 2013). For this paper, communities are groups of people who share distinct characteristics associated with common interests or identities, as defined in the literature. People who live in the same neighborhood, for example, or those who are part of an underserved or at-risk population, may only be linked geographically, but they may also share a common cause.
Negative psychology has been described as elitist by some researchers, with little regard for social context and the social factors that influence health and well-being in the general population (e.g., Banicki, 2014; Brown et al., 2018; Hendriks et al., 2019). Although critical psychologists and positive psychologists agree that people are resilient and have inner strengths to pursue purpose and meaning in life, the former criticize the latter for their lack of attention to power differentials and social injustices. Neglecting the sociopolitical context of people’s lives, critical psychologists argue that positive and mainstream psychologists assume that anyone with the right skills can overcome any kind of adversity. That’s just plain wrong (Brown et al., 2018). Only a small percentage of those who face social injustice, oppression, and discrimination are able to escape the psychological scars that come with it (Prilleltensky, 1994, 2008, 2012; Prilleltensky and Nelson, 2002).
There are some similarities, but there are also important differences between positive psychology and community psychology. A strength-based approach is used in both fields, which rejects the idea that mental health is merely the absence of disease or disorder (Schueller, 2009). They believe that human beings are capable of self-determination and autonomy, which is a belief shared by both fields They also believe that assets, rather than deficits, should be the foundation of future growth. The similarities end there, however. When it comes to sociopolitical conditions, community psychologists are extremely concerned; however, positive psychologists remain largely silent on these matters (Brown et al., 2018; Di Martino et al., 2018b). In addition, while positive psychologists are interested in changing social norms, community psychologists are more focused on preventing injustice from occurring in the first place (Di Martino et al., 2018b; Prilleltensky and Prilleltensky, 2021). It is the goal of researchers using a community psychology lens to incorporate social justice issues and values into their work (Di Martino et al., 2018b). Their goal is to help people in need by encouraging the participation of underserved communities in the development of innovative solutions (Nelson et al., 2014). Positive psychologists, on the other hand, are reluctant to create new social contexts or to work with non-profits. The majority of the time, positive psychology is associated with the WEIRD.
Whatever the differences, it is critical to know how positive psychology can improve the well-being of a community. In the absence of a comprehensive study of the subject, this is impossible to say for sure. Community programs may be able to incorporate positive psychology interventions. We can’t give a definitive answer to that question until we’ve examined all of the available data. Accordingly, in light of these considerations, the purpose of this paper is to critically examine and present a review of the current literature on positive psychology interventions in the context of communities. We’re looking for the gaps between positive and community psychology by mapping the literature (Munn et al., 2018). Scoping reviews were conducted in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac et almethodology. .’s (2010).
Intervention goals in the studies examined ranged widely, but most were geared toward enhancing well-being, raising functioning, or alleviating symptoms. Thirteen programs had as one of their primary goals raising people’s sense of well-being (52.0 percent ). This included family, mental, social, positive, and subjective well-being. Six (24.0 percent) of the interventions had health-related goals (e.g., increasing health behaviors, promoting positive mental health, improving health promotion). Health outcomes such as a reduction in inflammation and an increase in hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis markers were also observed. A total of five programs (or 20 percent) were specifically designed to help students develop character strengths and related assets such as resilience and optimism; gratitude; grace; self-forgiveness and hope; and self-control. Other programs’ main goal was to lessen depressive symptoms (8.0 percent ). Another 80% of the program’s goals were to improve people’s happiness, quality of life, family communication, and relationships with their own families. Another 40% of the program’s goals were to improve people’s self-efficacy and morale, 40% their perception of social isolation, and 40% their working memory (4.0 percent ).
Damian Sendler
In some cases, the goals of the interventions examined were aimed at reducing or preventing the suffering of specific groups. Numerous studies on the well-being of the elderly, for example, have found that aging is associated with a decline in happiness and contentment (e.g., Ho et al., 2014; Bartholomaeus et al., 2019). Low-income populations are the focus of many interventions aimed at improving well-being outcomes and building resilience to prevent mental health symptoms linked to economic and living conditions (e.g., Hou et al., 2016; Rew et al., 2016; Sundar et al., 2016). Positive psychology interventions were primarily used to improve recovery outcomes and reduce psychological distress in populations with a physical health condition (e.g., Millstein et al., 2020; Amonoo et al., 2021). In the case of a long-term illness, goals may be more about managing and coping rather than regaining health (e.g., Nikrahan et al., 2016; Murdoch et al., 2020). Families were clearly identified as the target audience for the series of programs aimed at improving family communication and well-being (e.g., Ho et al., 2016a,b,c). Finally, the information in the article did not allow us to determine the rationale for the grace intervention for a group of churchgoers (Bufford et al., 2017).
Damian Jacob Markiewicz Sendler: The most common type of well-being addressed by the various programs was psychological well-being. Of the interventions, twenty-one (84.0 percent) were specifically aimed at enhancing this type of well-being in some way. Positive and negative affect, mental health, and resilience were among the most frequently targeted outcomes. General psychological well-being was also common, though its definition differed from author to author in the studies cited above. At least one aspect of overall well-being was the focus of 19 of the programs examined (76.0 percent). People’s sense of happiness and well-being were among the most commonly sought after outcomes. Almost half of the interventions focused on at least one of the following character strengths: The most frequently emphasized virtues were those of faith, hope, and optimism. The majority of character-building initiatives also had a focus on well-being. In some studies, authors viewed character strengths as proximal effects of the intervention, with distal well-being outcomes as a byproduct. Some researchers, on the other hand, made no distinction between positive and negative outcomes and treated them equally. At least one physical well-being outcome was addressed by twelve (48.0 percent) of the programs. At least one goal for enhancing interpersonal well-being was included in 13 programs (52.0 percent). Family harmony, family communication time, and marital satisfaction were among the most common, but others had a broader application (e.g., social connectedness, perceived social isolation, social support). Overall physical health, physical quality of life, sleep quality, and self-efficacy in managing a disease were the most common outcomes. In some cases, the results were more accurate (e.g., weight, blood pressure, HPA-axis activity markers, substance use). There were only 8.0 percent of programs that focused on community well-being and 8.0 percent of programs that focused on occupational well-being. As a result, a community service project was implemented, which aimed to improve environmental barriers and walking resources in the neighborhood as well as community well-being in general. From a qualitative study, occupational well-being outcomes included occupational attainment and the “engaged life.” It was found that after taking part, the retirees (participants) showed signs of self-assurance, mastery, accomplishment, and active participation in social and recreational activities. Finally, there was no effort to improve economic well-being as a result of any of the programs. Ten (40.0%) of the programs reviewed were unable to fit into any of the above categories, with sixteen (8.0%) of the measured outcomes falling outside of these categories. A large majority of these outcomes were influenced by cognition (thinking positively, working memory), behavior (coping strategies), or attitude (e.g., positive thinking) (e.g., attitudes toward psychology). Non-categorical outcomes included spiritual well-being, which accounted for 12.5% of the total.
Supplementary Table 2 shows the results of the evaluation of interventions. Our inability to thoroughly evaluate and report on the efficacy of various programs is due to the wide range of research designs, methodologies, and statistical analyses used by different authors. As a result of the positive psychology interventions, we have seen significant increases in resilience as well as increased levels of happiness and life satisfaction, as well as significant decreases in anxiety/depression symptoms. There was a mixed response to the effects on character strengths, but the effects on physical well-being were largely insignificant.
For best results, 92% of studies used in-person activities, whereas only 8% used phone-delivered programs, one of which included access to a web-based discussion forum for participants (4.0 percent ). Throughout all of the programs, the types of activities were the same. Psychoeducational components such as lectures to clarify concepts or pedagogical books and handouts were mentioned in the majority of programs (84.0 percent). It’s not just breathing exercises, personal strengths, and coping strategies that are taught in the majority of programs (80.0 percent). Programs with an 80 percent or higher success rate used discussion as a way to have participants report on their progress since the previous session, to delve deeper into certain themes or to provide mutual support. Sixty-eight percent of the programs required participants to complete self-directed exercises or homework in between sessions, with examples ranging from keeping a diary to record positive emotions or events to tracking physical activity to performing random acts of kindness. Art-based activities, such as storytelling, songwriting, or writing a fairy tale based on one’s own life, were included in only 16.0% of the programs. Programs (24.0%) also included other activities, such as group walks to sermon series and/or post-training mentoring. A single 120-minute core session with an optional booster can range from a 6-months interactive program of 5 days a week to a single 120-minute core session.
There were two programs (8.0%) that were based on positive aging, while the vast majority of the programs (92.0%) were based on positive psychology. More than half of them (60.0 percent) incorporated additional theoretical approaches into their interventions. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was used in 24.0 percent of these programs. Three-quarters of the respondents (36 percent) drew on a variety of other theories and approaches to arrive at their conclusions.
Damian Jacob Sendler
Participatory methods were absent from 76.0 percent of the programs surveyed. In the context of the FAMILY project, four of the six participatory programs included participatory methods and followed a similar structure (Ho et al., 2014, 2016a, 2020a; Zhou et al., 2016; Chu et al., 2018). Non-governmental organizations, schools, and social service organizations were gathered by researchers in these programs. Organizational representatives were trained to implement brief community-based interventions focused on the targeted concepts by a research team. It was possible for representatives to follow a general implementation protocol while still customizing their intervention to the preferences and needs of their communities. By working together with pastors from both churches, the designers of the grace intervention (Bufford et al., 2017) were able to make sure that the intervention matched the beliefs and practices of their congregations. A comprehensive 6-month program, the Hero Lab project (Sundar et al., 2016) introduces youth participants to positive psychology concepts before guiding them in the creation and implementation of their own community-based project. A community leader with the same faith (Hinduism), language, and geography background taught the course material (same community).
To begin, this review found that community-based positive psychology interventions typically aim to improve well-being, enhance functioning, and/or lessen signs of distress. Positive psychology interventions have been shown in a meta-analysis conducted by Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) to have a positive impact on well-being as well as a protective effect against depression. A growing body of evidence suggests that positive psychology interventions can not only boost happiness by enhancing a variety of character strengths, but they can also boost performance and alleviate symptoms of illness or aging (see Worth, 2020). Rather than focusing on proximal effects on character strengths like optimism, authors were more interested in distal positive effects on well-being like reducing depression, rather than proximal positive effects on character strengths like optimism. It is difficult to develop a comprehensive logic model of positive psychology interventions, despite some positive psychology models being proposed to explain how programs achieve their goals (e.g., Lyubomirsky and Layous, 2013; Raymond et al., 2019). According to some, current positive psychology interventions are conceived as cohesive units of activity, limiting their development and evaluation (Raymond et al., 2019; Pawelski, 2020). There is a lack of cohesion and rationale behind the activities implemented and some of the intended outcomes measured, as we discovered in our scoping review of intervention objectives and target populations. An analysis of the various components and processes involved in an intervention would allow for a better understanding of the specific elements needed for effective positive change in different contexts (Raymond et al., 2019; Pawelski, 2020).
Damien Sendler: According to this study most outcomes were categorized as either overall well-being or a character strength, which is interesting. Overall and occupational well-being was the primary focus of positive psychology interventions in organizations (see Meyers et al., 2013), but it is also consistent with studies of positive psychology interventions in educational settings, which focused on character strengths and psychological well-being (see Waters, 2011). Only one of the interventions reviewed (Hero Lab) was designed to improve the community, despite the fact that the interventions were conducted in community settings. Individuals were the primary focus of the vast majority of community and group interventions. A group version of these programs is what happens when an intervention is modeled after an individual positive psychology intervention with weekly sessions centered on psychoeducation (see Parks and Titova, 2016). Communities are treated as passive samples of homogeneous groups of participants with shared characteristics rather than active actors who can participate to improve their situation.. One can see this clearly in many of the intervention goals that aim to improve well-being and strengthen coping mechanisms in order to prevent the onset of mental health problems that are linked to poor living and working conditions. Efforts to improve the community are distinct from interventions that are taking place in the community. Positive psychology interventions tend to focus on the former and ignore the latter, as shown in this review.
Positive psychologists may hypothesize that a more contented and healthy population will have a positive impact on organizations and communities as a whole. This, however, is a dubious premise. It is not always the case that a more contented workforce translates into a more contented community. Even though happier people are more forgiving, this does not mean that they are creating fair and equitable environments in which everyone is treated equally. Multiple studies show that many social structures continue to discriminate against people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and members of the LGBTQ community (Prilleltensky and Nelson, 2002; Denison et al., 2020; Prilleltensky and Prilleltensky, 2021). Several of these people’s problems are not interpersonal, but rather structural. There are no interventions that address power imbalances, social injustice, or oppression. When it comes to positive psychology’s individualistic orientation, our findings support the criticism leveled against it (Brown et al., 2018; Di Martino et al., 2018b).
Having said that, a first step toward community well-being can be taken by building on these positive psychology interventions. Individuals who are happier and healthier may be better able to participate in social change initiatives. People can be better prepared to work with others in the fight for social justice by using positive psychology interventions as a first step. To begin building a coalition, it’s always a good idea to start with a group of happy people (Prilleltensky, 2016). However, if positive psychology interventions focus solely on the individual, they will have a limited impact on society and the world at large. In oppressive communities, where minorities are persecuted because of religious or other prejudices, evaluating and even challenging collective norms is particularly important (Sandler, 2007). For instance, in some countries, people who identify as a sexual minority face discrimination (Harper and Schneider, 2003). Although it is possible to argue that challenging oppressive social norms is outside the scope of positive psychology, it is difficult to promote well-being without taking power differentials and exclusionary cultural practices into consideration (Prilleltensky, 2001, 2008).
While some interventions were participatory and collaborative in nature, most were not. Professionals taught or supervised vulnerable individuals in a series of exercises, and they kept the expert model. A participatory approach is highly regarded in community psychology because it empowers people and fosters a sense of civic responsibility. In contrast to the values and ethos of community psychology, the interventions described here closely follow the medical model, in which an expert provides advice to a largely passive recipient. to recognize and build on existing strengths toward social change, participatory methods are preferred (Israel et al., 2013). Although the universal Values In Action model of character strengths (Peterson and Seligman, 2004) is mentioned frequently in reviewed studies, the focus is on measuring individual participants’ values. Few, if any, articles discuss the values that frame the study and the context of the intervention, indicating that this concern does not extend to researchers in this field as well. We in the field of community psychology believe that the values of trust, reciprocity, and equity are essential to the development of strong social bonds (Arcidiacono and Di Martino, 2016; Di Martino et al., 2018b).
In their book Positive Nations and Communities (2014), Marujo and Neto provide numerous examples of how supportive structures and institutions can foster positive nations and communities. There’s a lot of discussion in that book about the role that character strengths and other positive psychology concepts can play in helping to create a more fair and happy society. The collapse of Portugal’s first Republic, Namibia’s independence, and the European Football Championship are all examined and explained in great detail through the prism of positive psychology in this book. Aside from helping cultivate positive communities, they’re also mentioned. Citizens’ character strengths and well-being can be bolstered at a macro-level through various means, such as festivities (Proyer et al), social reconciliation processes (Perstling and Rothmann 2014), legislation, direct democratic participation and local autonomy. The various authors illustrate how citizens’ character strengths and well-being can be bolstered at a macro-level (Lopes et al., 2014).
Positive psychology concepts and theories can be applied to small-scale community interventions that aim to improve social capital by involving a significant number of community members and fostering a spirit of gratitude and self-improvement through collective projects. Increasing the availability of green spaces, places for people to gather and play, and places where they can work, for example, is one way they plan to improve the living conditions of these community members (i.e. the social determinants of health). Context, social justice, and personal values all need to be considered. As a result, such interventions necessitate patience. Indeed, it is impossible to improve the well-being of a community in a short period of time with just a few group workshops.
Sharing a common goal (i.e. to improve human well-being by understanding the psychological processes that promote well-being) and if our goal is to work toward producing the greatest benefit for most individuals, then both community and positive psychologists have much to gain from communication and collaboration (Schueller, 2009). This scoping review does, however, point out a significant knowledge gap that could inform future research. There needs to be a shift in the focus of positive psychology from an individual-centered approach to one that takes into account social change as well. It is possible to increase the well-being of more people and contribute to just societies by adopting this perspective.
