A review of the relationship between positive psychology and athlete well-being

Introduction

Within psychology the majority of psychological paradigms and approaches can be categorised according to one of two types of models, the deficit and abundance approach (Linley, Harrington and Garcea, 2010). The deficit approach is characterised as being focused on problem solving whereby psychologists help individuals to identify what the problem is, generate solutions to work on this deficit, discuss the best option and then execute the intervention until the problem is solved. A number of psychological approaches adopt this approach. For example, cognitive-behavioural therapists help clients to identify thinking errors that might be causing their problems, after which they suggest different ways to help improve this (such as behavioural experiments or thought records) until the individual experiences fewer thinking errors (Beck, 1967). However, in the past decade a new psychological approach has developed called Positive Psychology (PP), which adopts an abundance approach, where the focus is on qualities the client possesses rather than what is absent (Linley et al., 2010). PP is a scientific and applied approach that focuses on uncovering people’s strengths and promoting their positive function (Snyder & Lopez, 2010). The qualities or resources that are identified are then amplified by a variety of interventions in order to boost client wellbeing. This approach sparked researchers to begin investigating the effectiveness of PP interventions to boost organisational success through improving employee wellbeing. This research has consistently found that using PP interventions can significantly improve employees’ career satisfaction and this would hopefully lead to greater business performance (Steger and Dik, 2010). Consequently more organisations’ psychologists are adopting the PP framework, yet there are few sport psychologists using these techniques with athletes and sports teams (Robles, 2009).

This may be due to the lack of research specifically exploring the use of PP to improve athletic performance or due to a lack of knowledge as this is a developing field that was only emerged within the last two decade. However, conclusions from previous research have indicated that PP contains the potential to improve athletes’ wellbeing and subsequently increase sporting performance. This literature review therefore aims to analyse the effectiveness of PP interventions at improving levels of wellbeing and explore the implications of these findings for athletes, coaches and clubs.

History and Theory of Positive Psychology

The PP approach was outlined by Martin Seligman (2002) as a way to address the exaggerated focus upon the deficit model within the field of psychology. Seligman argued that the foundation of the Veterans Administration in 1946 and The National Institute of Mental Health in 1947 had made psychologists and academics of this time, aware that they could make money and advance their career by understanding the causes of mental illness and developing treatment options. There were great benefits to psychology’s new focus on mental health, as there has been great progress in our understanding and treatment of mental illnesses. However, Seligman argued that psychology had become imbalanced, focusing on curing mental illness and ignoring its other key aim; to understand how to make all individuals’ lives better. Psychology had begun to ignore individuals’ strengths and virtues and how this information could be used to improve people’s life satisfaction.

During his presidential address for the APA, Seligman (1998) sought to develop the framework for PP, in order to use psychology to understand what makes life worthwhile and how we can use this information to better people’s lives.

Seligman (2012) suggested that happiness could be analysed in terms of five elements, and if these elements were enhanced then this would lead to greater life satisfaction (see Table 1.)

Table 1. Outline of Seligman’s (2012) five elements of happiness

The overall goal of PP in this framework was to increase each individual’s levels of these five elements in order to improve life satisfaction and happiness. Seligman proposed that these elements would help create a greater understanding of what makes our lives worth living, and therefore the PP model would have an enhanced capacity to increase individual’s wellbeing. One of the main ways PP suggests we can increase each of these elements, and therefore individuals’ overall wellbeing level, is through identifying and using signature character strengths.

Signature Strengths

Signature character strengths can be defined as a “pre-existing capacity for a particular way of behaving, thinking or feeling that is authentic and energising to the user, and enables optimal functioning, development and performance” (Linley, 2008). Seligman proposed that helping individuals to use their signature character strengths more often during everyday life can improve all the elements of the original and updated model of PP and therefore increase levels of wellbeing (as outlined in Table 2).

Table 2. Overview of how character strengths can increase the elements of wellbeing

Measurement Tools

Within PP there are two main psychometric tools that have been used to identify, organize and measure signature character strengths.

VIA (Values in Action Inventory)Peterson and Seligman (2004) developed the VIA which is a model that has a hierarchy of six core virtues and identified signature character strengths within each of these virtues (Appendix 1). From this the VIA psychometric measurement tool was designed to enable individuals to identify their signature character strengths. The VIA consists of 240 questions, where participants use a 5 point Likert scale (1 = very much unlike me, 5 = very much like me) to identify their top signature

strengths. Each of the 24 strengths is then ranked with the top 5 characteristics being the individual’s signature character strengths.

Gallup StrengthsFinderBuckingham and Clifton (2001) proposed there were 34 signature character strengths (Appendix 2) and created the StrengthsFinder questionnaire in order to help individuals identify their top signature strengths. The questionnaire includes 177 questions, in which participants are presented with two potential self-descriptors (e.g. “I like to help people” and “I am most comfortable working independently”). Participants then use a 5 point Likert scale to show which of these items strongly describes themselves, with a neutral option available between the two options. At the end of the questionnaire, participants are presented with details about their top 5 signature strengths, although no information is provided about the rank of the other 29 strengths.

Both of these measurement tools have been used in research studies to identify individuals’ signature character strengths. Nonetheless, the VIA is the preferred measurement tool in research because it was the first character strengths measure developed and therefore many researchers first explored PP using this questionnaire. The need for a common language for describing strengths has therefore ensured that researchers still use the VIA in order to draw inferences between other research findings. Consequently, it appears that the VIA is the most widely used measure in PP research it will be the primary instrument used to review the effectiveness of PP within sport.

Additionally, it is useful to highlight that the majority of research studies investigating the benefits of PP interventions have focused upon two main styles of techniques. The first technique used frequently is the “identify and use” approach, where participants identify their signature strengths and are then taught how to use these more often in everyday life. The second technique is “gratitude exercises”, which encourage greater levels of positive emotion through the identification and appreciation of various aspects of ours lives. Both the “signature strengths” and “gratitude exercises” specifically address the positive emotion element within the PERMA model.

As mentioned earlier, PP has been used in organisational settings for many years and researchers have generally found these interventions useful in boosting individual’s wellbeing and company performance (Harzer & Ruch, 2014; Berg & Karlsen, 2012). Due to the success of these interventions in the business world, PP has started to become used in sport (Robles, 2014). This literature review will explore how PP techniques have been used to improve individuals’ wellbeing and will also explore the potential impact this could have within sport.

Having outlined the theoretical background of PP we will now turn to the literature review.

Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson (2005) conducted the first empirical study exploring the effectiveness of PP interventions upon improving wellbeing. In this internet-based intervention, college students were recruited and assigned to either one of five PP exercises or a placebo exercise. The interventions were completed for one week, at which point happiness and depressive symptom levels were re-measured; and then again at one, three and six months. The five interventions were:

1. Gratitude visit – during the week the participant had to write and deliver a letter of gratitude to someone who had been kind to them but whom they had never properly thanked

2. Three good things – participants recorded three things that went well each day with a causal explanation of why it happened

3. You at your best – participants were asked to write about a time when they were at their best and to reflect on the personal strengths used in the story

4. Use signature strengths in a new way – participants completed the VIA questionnaire, received individualised feedback about their top five signature strengths and were asked to use one of strengths in a new way every day

5. Identifying signature strengths – participants completed the VIA and were asked to write down their five strengths but were not instructed to use them in new ways

Participants in the placebo group were asked to recall and record early childhood memories everyday for the week.Upon immediate completion of the intervention it was found that participants from all conditions, including placebo, showed greater happiness levels. However, only participants who completed the “three good things” and “using signature strengths” conditions recorded significant increases in happiness levels one week later, and continued to see improvements at each re-testing period. The same relationship was observed when analyzing participant’s depressive symptom levels, only participants in the “three good things” and “using signature strengths” conditions experienced a significant decrease in depressive levels upon completing the intervention and these levels remained consistently low at every re-test measurement point after that.

This finding was successfully replicated by Gander, Proyer, Ruch and Wyss (2012), in their study in which American adults were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups (“gratitude letter” “three good things” or “using signature strengths”) or a placebo group who were asked to record early childhood memories. A significant improvement in happiness ratings was observed for participants in all of the three strength-based interventions at the one, three and six month re-test intervals. In contrast, participants in the placebo group showed no changes in happiness levels. Participants in the third intervention group who were asked to use their signature strengths in a new way every day recorded the greatest improvement in happiness levels. Further supporting the findings of Seligman et al. (2005), a significant decrease in depressive symptoms compared to baseline was observed at the one week, one, three and six month re-test intervals for all participants in the strength-based interventions.

The findings of Seligam et al. (2005) have successfully been replicated a number of times (Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012; Gander, Proyer, Ruch & Wyss, 2012; Proyer, Gander, Wellenzohn & Ruch, 2014). One possible mechanisms through which PP improves life satisfaction was suggested by Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews (2012) who concluded that the common factor among PP

interventions might be that they enable access to positive self-representations, such as the positive aspects of one’s self and life. These might activate positive emotion and give rise to the increases in happiness levels observed in participants. These studies suggest that PP interventions, particularly “using signature strengths” and “three good things”, are effective at improving individuals’ wellbeing both in a short time domain but also provide prolonged improvements. This was demonstrated as the changes in happiness and depressive levels were observed up to six months after intervention completion. In terms of the implications for sport psychologists, these results suggest that PP interventions would be useful for athletes, as they can be used to improve athlete wellbeing in the short term in order to provide immediate help for critical situations, but also become part of a long-term solution to developing greater wellbeing.

As demonstrated above, the link between using signature strengths and improved wellbeing is supported by research. However, some research has found that PP interventions that are focused upon gratitude exercises, such as “three good things”, might not be as effective as these studies suggest. Lyubomirsky, Sheldon & Schkade (2005) examined the effectiveness of a gratitude diary intervention upon wellbeing. Participants were asked to write down all the things they were thankful for, either once a week, three times a week or they were placed in a no-treatment control group. After six weeks, only those participants who completed the gratitude diary once per week showed an improvement in happiness levels, although this difference was not significant. Furthermore, participants who completed the diary three times a week reported that the activity felt “stale” and “overdone”. Participants in the no-treatment group and those who completed the diary three times per week experienced no change in happiness levels. The authors suggested that a “less is more” approach might be necessary for gratitude-based interventions as participants may experience habituation to the effects of the intervention. This conclusion was supported by a follow-up study, in which participants were asked to complete five acts of kindness either all in one day, spread out over a week or they were assigned to a no-treatment control group. Upon completion of the six week intervention, the participants who committed all their acts of kindness in one day experienced a significant improvement in happiness levels, whereas those in the no-treatment control group and the five acts of kindness spread over a week group showed a decrease in happiness levels. This supported the earlier conclusion by the authors that individuals might habituate to the effects of gratitude-based exercise, unless a sufficient amount of time passes between every use of the intervention.

From these research findings it appears that some PP interventions might be more effective than others, and other studies have highlighted that addressing individuals’ strengths and weaknesses might be beneficial. Critics have raised concerns that positive psychology is too focused on developing strengths, and that a therapeutic balance with improving character weaknesses is needed. Lopez, Snyder and Rasmussen (2003) called for researchers and psychologists to strive for a more balanced approach to working on character strengths and weaknesses, as remediating character deficits could also lead to improvements in wellbeing. This idea was first explored by Haidt (2002), who asked participants to complete the VIA before being divided into one of two experimental groups. Participants in the “strengths” group had their top strength described and were provided with a number of ways that they could use to develop this strength. Participants in the “weakness” group had their lowest scoring strength described and were

asked to perform an activity that employed or built on this weakness every day for two weeks. The results showed that both groups experienced enhanced levels of life satisfaction and positive affect alongside decreased frequency of negative events and negative feelings. No significant differences between the two groups were found, although participants in the strengths-focused approach reported greater levels of intervention enjoyment compared to those in the weakness-focused approach. This finding suggests that improving weaknesses could be as effective as developing strengths.This conclusion was further investigated by Rust, Diessner and Reade (2009). In this study American university students completed the VIA and were then allocated to one of two groups with participants in the “signature strengths” group picking two of their top five signature strengths to focus upon for twelve weeks; participants in the “mixed strengths” group chose one of their signature strengths but also one of their bottom five strengths to focus upon. The authors provided the participants with instructions about various exercises they could use to develop their strength use during their daily lives. During the twelve-week period participants were required to submit a plan explaining how they intend to use their strengths every week and were also asked to reflect on the number of different ways they had used these strengths during their daily lives. Upon completion of the intervention, the participants in the “mixed strengths” condition experienced greater levels of life satisfaction compared to individuals in the “signature strengths” condition, although significant changes were not observed. It was suggested that there might be a difference in how diligently participants in the “mixed strengths” group were at developing their character weakness, as this might be an uncomfortable experience. However, no differences in diligence scores were observed between the two experimental conditions. These findings contradict the fundamental assumptions of PP as they suggest that training and improving character weaknesses could lead to greater improvements in wellbeing than focusing on signature strengths. It must be noted that this is a study that has not been replicated and further investigation is needed to determine if there is a relationship between improving character weaknesses and increased wellbeing. This study does support the use of PP exercises that focus upon developing the use of specific character values in order to improve individual’s wellbeing. However, the implications from this research could have significant impact upon how PP is used within applied sport contexts, as it might be more effective to focus on developing a character strength and weakness, than just concentrating upon strengths. The exploration of whether training “signature weaknesses” could result in similar increases in wellbeing, has also been investigated by Proyer, Ruch and Buschor (2012). Subjective ratings of wellbeing after a five-week PP intervention demonstrated that participants experienced an improvement in life satisfaction regardless of whether they focused upon developing their “signature strength” or “signature weakness”. Participants in both conditions reported similar increases in cheerfulness, happiness, positivity and life satisfaction. This again raises the issue of exploring whether training weaknesses can be used to improve happiness levels.

Another aspect of the PP literature is that some research has compared its efficacy with that of CBT. For example, Geraghty, Wood and Hyland (2010) concluded that strength-based PP interventions might be as effective at improving wellbeing levels as traditional CBT techniques. This study compared the effectiveness of the “three good things” intervention and a “worry diary” CBT intervention in reducing participants worry levels, as measured by The Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Measures of anxiety, depression and hope levels were also recorded. Participants in

the “worry diary” condition were asked to record their worries, provide evidence supporting and disproving the worry and then created an alternative thought that was more balanced, in keeping with guidelines developed by Gould, Safren, O’Neill and Otto (2004). A control group was also included, where participants were placed onto a waitlist but continued to complete the questionnaires at the same time as those in the intervention. Following the two-week intervention, it was observed that participants in both the “worry diary” and “three good things” conditions experienced a significant decrease in worry, anxiety and depression levels, whilst also showing a significant improvement in levels of hope. In contrast, participants in the control group showed no changes. There were no significant differences between the two intervention groups, suggesting that both of the techniques had equivalent effects upon the participants worry, anxiety, depression and hope levels. This again supports the use of PP interventions to improve wellbeing levels but it also demonstrates that strength-based techniques can be as effective as traditional CBT methods, a finding which might encourage psychologists to utilize PP more within sporting contexts.

Some studies have suggested that PP-techniques can be used within other psychological approaches, such as counseling. Strengths-focused counseling sessions have demonstrated increased levels of wellbeing, through improving individual’s perceptions of their resources and their situation. Grawe (1997) suggested that focusing on increasing the client’s awareness of their strengths and how they can be used to tackle problems could result in improved levels of perceived personal resources (resource activation) and the successful implementation of effective coping strategies. This hypothesis was first investigated by Flückiger and Holtforth (2008), who explored the effect of strengths-based counselling sessions upon participants with clinical depression and anxiety disorders. A pairwise comparison research design was used, where the results of this intervention were compared with those of similarly depressed and anxious patients that successfully completed therapy two years prior. The counselling sessions focused on raising the participant’s awareness of their strengths and resource activation, through demonstrating how their strengths can be used to help their situation. After every session the participants were required to complete the Bern-Post-Session Reports for Patients (BPSR-P) questionnaire in order to determine the effect of the strengths-based counselling techniques. Results from the BPSR-P showed that participants in the strength-based consultation condition reported higher levels of resource activation compared to scores provided by the control group. After twenty session of therapy, those in the strength-based group also experienced greater levels of mastery experiences (related to participants preparedness to cope with their problem), goal attainment, symptom reduction and wellbeing compared to participants in the control group.These findings were successfully replicated by Flückiger, Caspar, Holtforth and Wilutzki (2009). This study also recruited participants with clinical depression and anxiety disorders and the same pairwise methodology was utilized in order to create a control group, who had successfully completed CBT therapy. The strength-based counseling session resulted in significant improvements in participant’s self-esteem and perceived mastery level compared to the control group. The results also indicated that participants in the strengths-fostering treatment group attained more personal goals compared to those in the control group. Building on the work of Flückiger et al (2008; 2009) and the idea that strengths-based counseling can improve individual’s perceptions of personal resources, Littman-Ovadia, Lazar-Butbul and Benjamin (2014) investigated how this type of counseling can impact upon self-esteem, life satisfaction, and personal goal achievement. Participants in this study were recently redundant employees who were

referred for counseling and a pairwise group methodology was used with participants being matched for gender, age, education level and marital status. The participants in the control group completed traditional CBT-focused counseling sessions, whereas participants in the strengths-based counseling group were instructed how to improve the use of their strengths in their daily life. Three months post-counseling the participants in the strengths-based counseling condition showed greater improvements in self-esteem and life satisfaction compared to participants in the CBT group. These participants also reported higher personal goal achievement levels and greater counseling satisfaction ratings than the CBT control group. These studies demonstrate that PP is not only useful as an intervention for improving wellbeing levels but can also be incorporated within counselling approaches in order to boost individuals’ perception of themselves and their situation through resource activation.This could be particularly useful for sport psychologists as PP could be incorporated to help athletes realise they possess the character resources necessary for change and develop self-confidence about their ability to tackle their situation. This ultimately could boost athletes’ adherence to interventions, may encourage athletes to adopt a positive outlook towards competition and training towards tackling their problems and increase the chances of a successful consultation.

The findings of Seligman et al., (2005), Gander et al., (2012) and Geraghty et al., (2010) demonstrate a positive relationship between PP interventions and individuals’ wellbeing and this has increased the popularity of PP techniques, leading to these methods being utilized in sport settings. For example, Robles (2014) investigated the effect of developing “signature character strengths” upon athlete wellbeing via a qualitative analysis. Sixteen elite collegiate softball athletes were provided detailed feedback about their top five signature strengths and how to develop these character values within a sporting context. The athletes then used specific character strengths exercises for two months before being interviewed about the effects that using their “signature strengths” had upon their sporting performance. The players reported improved levels of athlete wellbeing in four distinct themes.

1) Dealing with injury The athletes reported that using their strengths helped them to remain optimistic and adaptable following injuries. A number of athletes identified that understanding their signature strengths helped them to use the injury experience to become mentally stronger.

2) Overcoming an emotional crisisA number of the athletes identified that they were able to rely on their character strengths to enhance resiliency during emotionally difficult situations that could negatively affect their sporting performance. Difficult situations included concerns about team selection, balancing schoolwork with training, and performance concerns.

3) Easing the transition between athletic programmesAthletes voiced struggles about entering a new sporting environment, where they experienced sadness at realizing what they had left behind and anxiety about the uncertainty of playing with new teammates. The athletes indicated that they were able to draw on their strengths to help them adjust to their new situation.

4) Dealing with performance failureFinally, all of the athletes reported that using their strengths helped them to refocus following mistakes. Key strengths such as “positivity” and “perspective” allowed them to re-gain their concentration and stay calm during the next portion of the game. It appeared that all of the athletes were able to identify a base strength that they said was at the core of who they were, and this base strength provided confidence, stability and consistency when they needed to perform following mistakes.

Another finding that emerged was that all of the athletes reported that they found it natural to use and develop their strengths. They all reported that their “signature strengths” were in keeping with their own perception of their character and this made it easy to apply to apply to their sport. The athletes also indicated that the introduction of the strengths philosophy had a positive impact upon group cohesiveness. They felt that using strengths allowed a greater understanding of the individuals within the team and helped establish respect among teammates and coaches. Finally, this study also highlighted the implications of using a strengths philosophy for coaches. Athletes reported that their coach was able to develop a better understanding of their character and this led to more effective communication styles. The athletes even raised the possibility that coaches could use a strengths-based approach in order to help identify players for specific leadership roles, which would allow those players and the team to flourish.

These findings suggest that PP could have a significant impact within sport. The qualitative data presented here shows that developing athlete’s signature strengths allowed them to overcome emotional situations and experience greater wellbeing. Another important implication is that the athletes reported that they found it easy to capitalize upon their strengths, indicating that athletes are able to quickly understand the principles behind PP and use these ideas to develop their strengths. Additionally, these results suggest a benefit for coaches, as understanding their athlete’s strengths allowed a deeper understanding of the players to emerge. Overall, this study demonstrates the potential positive impact that PP could have within sporting contexts and should encourage the use of these techniques by other sport psychologists. It should be noted that this study did not include a control group and therefore the Hawthorne Effect could have affected the results. It is possible that the process of being interviewed by researchers and casually observed by coaches could have impacted the participants’ behaviour.

Having demonstrated the effectiveness of PP based interventions it should be pointed out that there have been criticisms of the approach. For example, the “identify and use” approach to strengths, which has been central to a number of the research studies reviewed here, has been criticised for its implications that strengths are permanent or unchangeable. Biswas-Diener, Kashdan and Minhas (2011) describe that the “identify and use” approach involves the psychologist helping the client to identify their personal strengths and then focus on how these can be used more in everyday life in order to improve wellbeing. This could encourage individuals to think of strengths as permanent and unchangeable, which is an idea supported by Louis (2011). Louis found that participants who were asked to “identify” their strengths reported an increased belief that their personal strengths were fixed and unchangeable. This is a concern, as Mueller and Dweck (1998) and Dweck (2006) both found that individuals who identify their strengths as fixed experienced decreases in motivational

drive to improve. Furthermore research has also suggested that this “fixed” belief about personal strengths resulted in participants experiencing reduced effort in developing strengths and uncovering new opportunities to use them (Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999). Biswas-Diener et al. (2011) therefore suggest that a more nuanced approach is required to using PP interventions, such as the strength development framework. The strengths development approach proposes that PP practitioners should focus on developing individual’s competency in the use of their strengths. For example, sessions could be used to help individuals to identify when they should use strengths more and when they should be used less, how using our strengths impacts upon others and how this information can be used better in the future. This focus on “developing” strengths is believed to help individuals see their strengths as fluid rather than fixed. This idea is supported by Louis (2011) who found that when participants were asked to “develop” their strengths they experienced an increase in the belief that their personal strengths were “fluid”. This is in contrast to the experiences of the “identify” strengths group mentioned above. The “strength development” approach contrasts with the “identify and use” approach, which assumes individual’s are, or will be, competent at using their strengths and therefore concentrates upon where and how individual can use their strengths more.

These studies have important implications for how PP should be used with athletes. The previously mentioned studies have solely focused upon identifying strengths and encouraging their further use in every day life. However, it could be argued that following individuals’ strength identification, practitioners need to then help individuals develop an understanding of their strengths prior to increasing the frequency they use these abilities. This process of developing knowledge about particular strengths could involve helping the client to identify the appropriate times to use their strengths and how overusing them could potentially have a negative impact upon themselves and others. For example, humour can be a strength that can be used to build relationships and cope with stressful situations, however used inappropriately it could result in insensitive and hurtful behavior towards oneself and others. The other benefit of incorporating the “strength development” approach might be to maintain individual’s perception that their strengths are fluid and therefore positive change can be achieved. The studies above outline how the belief that strengths are “fixed” can result in lower motivation to change and reduced effort towards the intervention, whereas adopting the “strength development” approach would appear to prevent these effects occurring and therefore enhance the likelihood of a successful consultation. The ideal process for using strengths within sport would appear to include an initial phase where the psychologist outlines the client’s strengths, then helps them to develop an understanding about how to use them appropriately. Following this, once the psychologist feels confident that the client has developed an adequate level of understanding their strengths, introducing the client to the different ways they could use their strengths during their everyday life or sport.

Improving individuals’ personal wellbeing is a worthy goal for positive psychologists and the literature reviewed above demonstrates how these techniques could potentially be used in sport. The second criticism of the PP approach is that PP is disproportionally focused on developing the “Positive Emotion” aspect of the PERMA model, overlooking the other elements for wellbeing (Diener and Diener, 2011). For example, using strengths to develop “Positive Relationships” could increase individual’s feelings of connectedness and social support, leading to increased wellbeing.

This idea is supported by Madden et al. (2011) and Robles (2014) who both found that strength-based interventions increased group cohesion, led to closer relationships being formed and improved individual’s wellbeing levels. This viewpoint that PP interventions need to focus upon improving the other elements of the PERMA model has been supported by Diener and Diener (2011), who as an example, provided a number of ways that the aspects of Positive Relationships could be addressed within PP (see Table 3).

Table 3. Outline of the three aspects of positive relationships that are required to boost wellbeing.

From these descriptions it is possible to see how the traditional PP “identify and use” style of intervention could be employed to develop each of these three social factors within both an individual and group setting (see Table 4). These ideas have been touched upon by previous studies (Madden et al. (2011) and would help PP address the positive relationships aspect of the PERMA model. However, these suggestions have not been conceptualised into an applied PP strength-based intervention and no research has investigated the use of this approach within team environments. As a result, practitioners might be cautious about using PP within team sports as the use of traditional PP interventions might result in clients becoming self-focused without enough consideration of the impact this has upon teammates and a team dynamic.

Table 4. Table demonstrating how Diener et al.,’s the three social factors can be developed within

the PP framework

The use of strengths to develop “positive relationships” might depend on the sport. In individual sports, such as cycling, golf and skiing, the athlete doesn’t perform with teammates and therefore a PP approach that is focused on developing individual’s positive emotion and not positive relationships might be appropriate. However, the vast majority of sports are team-based, such as football, rugby and basketball and therefore the using a strength-based intervention with a single athlete could disrupt team cohesion. For example, if an athlete was working to develop his or her leadership strength within a sporting environment this might cause friction with other team-mates who may perceive the clients attempts at using their leadership strength as being bossy or authoritative. In order to use PP within team-based sports, practitioners could either use an intervention that incorporates elements designed to improve Positive Relationships or PP could be used within a group environment. The use of PP in either of these manners would ensure group cohesion whilst allowing individuals to develop their signature character strengths.

References

Andrewes, H. E., Walker, V., & O’Neill, B. (2014). Exploring the use of positive psychology interventions in brain injury survivors with challenging behavior. Brain Injury, 28 (7), 965-971.

Beck, A.T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Hoeber.

Berg, M. E. & Karlsen, J. T. (2012). An evaluation of management training and coaching. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24 (3), 177-199.

Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T.B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 106-118.

Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D.O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths: How to develop your talents and those of the people you manage. London: Simon & Schuster.

Chernow, R. Titan: The life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. Toronto: Random House.

Crossman, J. (1997). Psychological rehabilitation from sports injuries. Sports Medicine, 23 (5), 333-339.

Diener, E. & Diener, C. (2011). Monitoring psychosocial prosperity for social change. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change (53-72). Dordrecht: Springer Press.

Duan, W., Ho, S. M. Y., Tang, X., Li, T. & Zhang, Y. (2014). Character strength-based intervention to promote satisfaction with life in the Chinese university context. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15 (6), 1347-1361.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballentine Books.

Evans, J. J. (2011). Positive psychology and brain rehabilitation. Brain Impairment, 12 (2), 117-127.

Flückiger, C. & Holtforth, M. G. (2008). Focusing the therapist’s attention on the patient’s strengths: A preliminary study to foster a mechanism of change in outpatient psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 64 (7), 1-15.

Flückiger, C., Caspar, F., Holtforth, M. G. & Wilutzki, U. (2009). Working with patients’ strengths: A microprocess approach. Psychotherapy Research, 19 (2), 213-223.

Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W, & Wyss, T. (2012). Strength-based positive interventions: further evidence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14 (4), 1241-1259.

Geraghty, A. W. A., Wood, A. M., & Hyland, M. E. (2010). Dissociating the facets of hope: Agency and pathways predict dropout from unguided self-help therapy in opposite directions. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 155-158.

Gould, R. A., Safren, S. A., O’Neill, D. & Otto, M. W. (2004). A meta-analytic review of cognitive-behavioural treatments. In R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk & D. S. Mennin (Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in Research and Practice (pp. 248-264). New York: Guilford Press.

Grawe, K. (1997). Research-informed psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 7, 1–19.Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Griffin, M., & Thatcher, J. (2005). Injury representations, coping, emotions, and functional outcomes in athletes with sports-related injuries: A test of self-regulation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 (11), 2345-2374.

Haidt, J. (2002). It’s more fun to work on strengths than weakness (but it may not be better for you). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Virginia.

Hanks, R. A., Rapport, L. J., Waldron-Perrine, B., & Millis, S. R. (2014). Role of character strengths in outcome after mild complicated to severe traumatic brain injury: a positive psychology study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95 (11), 2096-2102.

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2014). The role of character strengths for task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support. Human Performance, 27 (3), 183-205.

Hong, Y.Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C.S., Lin, D. & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599.

Linley, A. & Harrington, S & Garcea, N. (2010). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linley, A., Willars, J. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). The strengths book: Be confident, be successful, and enjoy better relationships by realising the best of you. Coventry: CAPP Press.

Linley, P. A. (2008). Average to A+. Coventry: CAPP Press.

Littman-Ovadia, H., Lazar-Butbul, V. & Benjamin, B. A. (2014). Strengths-based career counselling: Overview and evaluation. Journal of Career Assessment, 22 (3), 1-37.

Lopez, S. J., Snyder, C. R. & Rassmussen, H. N. (2003). Striking a vital balance: Developing a complementary focus on human weakness and strength through positive psychological assessment. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. (pp. 3-20). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Louis, M. (2011). Strengths interventions in higher education: Effects on implicit self- theory. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 204-215.

Lu, F. J. H., & Hsu, Y. (2013). Injured athletes’ rehabilitation beliefs and subjective wellbeing: The contribution of hope and social support. Journal of Athletic Training, 48 (1), 92-98.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M. & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9 (2), 111-131.

Madden, W., Green, S. & Grant, A. M. (2011). A pilot study evaluating strengths-based coaching for primary school students: Enhancing engagement and hope. International Coaching Psychology Review, 6 (1), 71-83.

Mongrain, M. & Anselmo-Matthews, T. (2012). Do positive psychology exercises work? A replication of Seligman et al. (2005). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68 (4), 382-389.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., Park, N. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Assessment of character strengths. In G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill, III (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference, 2nd ed. (pp. 93-98). New York: Oxford University Press.

Proyer R. T., Gander F., Wellenzohn S., Ruch W. (2014). Positive psychology interventions in people aged 50–79 years: long-term effects of placebo-controlled online interventions on well-being and depression. Aging Mental Health, 18, 997–1005.

Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W. & Buschor, C. (2012). Testing strength-based interventions: A preliminary study on the effectiveness of a program targeting curiosity, gratitude, hope, humour, and zest for enhancing life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies.

Robles, A. (2014). Voices of elite athletes: Perceptions through a strengths-based philosophy of sport. Journal of Performance Psychology, 4, 1-23.

Robles, A. M. (2009). The perceptions of strengths-based play, team cohesion, relational capacity and group dynamics: Voices of elite athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, California.

Rust, T., Diessner, R. & Reade, L. (2009). Strengths only or strengths and relative weaknesses? A preliminary study. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and applied. 143 (5), 465-476.

Seligman, M. E. (1998). The President’s Address. The American Psychologist, 54 (8), 537-568.

Seligman, M. E. (2002). Authentic happiness. Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and wellbeing. New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61, 774-788.

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. The American Psychologist, 60 (5), 410-421.

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T.A., Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2005). The American Psychologist, 60 (5), 410-421.

Sergeant, S., and Mongrain, M. (2011). Are positive psychology exercises helpful for people with depressive personality styles? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (4), 260-272.

Sin, N. L., Della Porta, M. D., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2011). Tailoring positive psychology interventions to treat depressed individuals. In S. I. Donaldson, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura (Eds.), Applied positive psychology: Improving everyday life, health, schools, work, and society (pp. 79-96). New York: Routledge.

Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical exploration of human strengths. London: Sage Publications.Steger, M. F. & Dik, B. J. (2010). Work as meaning: Individual and Organizational Benefits of Engaging in Meaningful Work. In Linley, A. & Harrington, S & Garcea, N. Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work (131-143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., Smith, A. M., Shaffer, S. M., & Morrey, M. A. (1998). An integrated model of response to sport injury: Psychological and sociological dynamics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10 (1), 46-49.

Appendix

Appendix 1

Overview of the VIA strengths.

Appendix 2

Overview of the Gallup StrengthsFinder character strengths.