1. THE FUTURE IN SYNTHESIS: A META-THEORETICAL TAXONOMY OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY CONSTRUCTS Graham A. du Plessis & Gideon P. de Bruin Department of Psychology, UJ 7 TH ECPP, Amsterdam Netherlands 1-4 July 2014

2. BACKGROUND

3. Centrifugal Enthusiasm - A Growing Proliferation in Research and Practice Fervent and burgeoning interest of social scientists the world over Theoretical and practical promise is increasingly seen to be approaching an evolutionary juncture A point of “flux” in the identity of the domain of positive psychology? - Call for greater methodological and scientific rigour in the delineation and differentiation of the domain

4. Meta-theoretical challenges Pace of knowledge development outstripping Ability to ratify gains Apply validated practice Integrate with broader fields and internally at a meta- theoretical level

5. The future in meta-theoretical taxonomic integration Remain its own or integrate with broader fields? Regardless of either eventuality? A greater meta-theoretical integration facilitates the multiplicity of possible futures within the context of promising practical and research progress

6. A proposed meta-theoretical taxonomy Positive Characteristics (The stable, static aspects of positive psychology) Healthy Processes (The dynamic aspects of healthy living) Positive Outcomes (The aspectual states of the good life) A fundamental distinction: a priori vs a posteriori

7. Meta-Taxonomical Component Classification Criteria and Distinguishing Guidelines Criteria Distinguishing Guidelines Description of Distinguishing Guidelines Positive Characteristics (1)The Positive Characteristic must be trait-like in that it is pervasive across a variety of contexts and is relatively enduring. a priori Positive Characteristics are a priori in the sense that they can be considered to be naturally occurring. They are naturally occurring in that, arising out of conditions that are atemporally antecedent to environmental events, they can be considered to be largely stable across a wide variety of contexts in a manner that is relatively enduring and which is not necessarily sustained by dynamic environmental development or support. (1)While the Positive Characteristic may commonly associate with Healthy Processes (such as behaviours) and/or Positive Psychological Outcomes (such a subjective senses of fulfilment) it must be possible to theoretically conceptualize its presence even in the absence of a commonly associated Healthy Process and/or Positive Psychological Outcome. A proposed meta-theoretical taxonomy

8. Meta-Taxonomical Component Classification Criteria and Distinguishing Guidelines Criteria Distinguishing Guidelines Description of Distinguishing Guidelines Healthy Processes (1)Whether at the level of cognition or behaviour, the Healthy Process must explicate in a dynamic form. a posteriori Healthy Processes are a posteriori in the sense that they are temporally antecedent to experience. They exist within a specific interaction between individual and environment in a manner that is necessarily sustained by dynamic environmental development or support. (1)While the Healthy Process may associate with a Positive Characteristic and/or Positive Psychological Outcome, it must be possible to theoretically conceptualize its presence even in the absence of a commonly associated Positive Characteristic and/or Positive Psychological outcome. A proposed meta-theoretical taxonomy

9. Meta-Taxonomical Component Classification Criteria and Distinguishing Guidelines Criteria Distinguishing Guidelines Description of Distinguishing Guidelines Positive Outcomes (1)The Positive Psychological Outcome must be best conceptualized as a generalized subjective positive experience such as a sense of well-being. Either of the two positive elements of experiences or the combination of both: (1 ) Frequent experience of pleasant emotions and moods (2) Subjective belief of living well even in the absence of frequent experience of pleasant emotions and moods Element (1) pertains to the hedonic notions of positive subjective mood states that may be present in the absence of the eudaimonic facets of Element (2). Element (2) is held to be subjective in the sense that the many divergent views on the nature of nobility and virtue do not necessitate a definitive summary. (1)It must be theoretically possible to conceptually link the Positive Psychological Outcome to either a Positive Characteristic or Healthy Process (whether at a behavioural or a cognitive level). A proposed meta-theoretical taxonomy

10. AIMS & METHOD

11. Aim Primary aim – to test whether dominant constructs in the field of positive psychology can be predictively grouped according to the proposed meta-theoretical taxonomy.

12. Method Theoretical grouping Measurement refinement International Personality Item Pool – VIA Mindfulness Rasch Modelling Factor Analysis (Using Calibration, Replication and Whole Sample) Comparison of factor grouping with theorized structure

13. Method – Theoretical Grouping Group according to proposed criteria Example grouping – Valor/Bravery/Courage The stimulatory fear that is central to the definition suggests an a posteriori scenario where the fear producing stimulus is necessarily antecedent to the action (distinguishing guideline). Further, the esteem of the construct in “all cultures” where “people encourage and support others in their efforts to overcome threatening situations” (Pury & Woodard, 2009, p. 248) suggests an important element of environmental development or support (distinguishing guideline) that is consistent with a classification as a Healthy Process.

14. Method – Theoretical Grouping Theorized cross-loading? Construct “fuzziness” (Lopez et al., 2003, p. 7) Example grouping – Perspective / Wisdom The kernel and proximal emphasis placed on integration and “knowing thyself” suggests an a priori element to the construct – positive characteristic. (primary) Additionally, the definition explicitly requires dynamic interaction with the environment that develops and supports the good of both - Healthy Process. (secondary)

15. Method – Theoretical Grouping Positive CharacteristicHealthy ProcessPositive Outcome Appreciation of Beauty 1 Capacity for Love 21 Citizenship / Teamwork 12 Curiosity 1 Equity / Fairness 1 Forgiveness / Mercy 1 Gratitude 12 Hope / Optimism 1 Humour / Playfulness 1 Industry / Perseverance / Persistence 1 Integrity / Honesty / Authenticity 1 Judgement / Open-mindedness 1 Kindness / Generosity 12 Leadership 21 Love of Learning 21 Modesty / Humility 1 Originality / Creativity 21 Perspective / Wisdom 12 Prudence 1 Self-regulation / Self-control 1 Social / Personal / Emotional Intelligence 21 Spirituality / Religiousness 1 Valour / Bravery / Courage 1 Zest / Enthusiasm / Vitality 122 Mindfulness – Observe 1 Mindfulness – Describe 1 Mindfulness – Act with awareness 1 Mindfulness – Nonjudge 1 Mindfulness – Nonreact 1 Hedonic well-being 1 Satisfaction with Life 1 Eudaimonic -Social Well-being 1 Eudaimonic - Psychological Well-being 1

16. RESULTS

17. Results Sufficiency of a three-factor solution 27 of the 33 construct groupings matched the relative meta-theoretical determination Example – Valour/Bravery/Courage Loading of.58 on “Healthy Processes Factor” Example – Perspective / Wisdom Loading of.64 on Positive Characteristic Factor and.49 on Healthy Processes Factor

18. CONCLUSIONS

19. Conclusion Evidence of latent constructs that can be meaningfully interpreted and grouped Utility of the proposed meta-theoretical taxonomy in grouping dominant constructs in the field.

20. Implications Theoretical Important phylogenic step towards a domain evolution anticipated by Peterson and Seligman (2004) Implications of cross-loadings As a result of orthogonal assumptions Suggests an ability to tease out “fuzziness” (Lopez et al., 2003, p. 7). Theoretical prediction of cross- loadings - subsequent empirical result.

21. Implications Practical Catching up with the “outstrip”? Improved understanding of construct operationalization Research Relationship between constructs on an intra- and inter-individual level Relationship at a Meta-associative level Improved understanding of construct operationalization

22. THANK YOU gduplessis@uj.ac.za