Changing Behaviour in Schools

My latest article for Positive Psychology News Daily is a review of a new Positive Psychology-based book by ed psych and consultant Sue Roffey, called Changing Behaviour in Schools: Promoting Positive Relationships and Well-being.

One of the great strengths of this book is its breadth, not just in terms of aims but also its evidence base. It draws on quantitative research from more than a dozen areas including restorative approaches, school culture and leadership, mental health, and values education, not just positive psychology. Thus the suggested approaches have a multi-dimensional foundation.  Not surprisingly, there isn’t space in just over 200 pages to describe positive psychology theories or research in great depth.

Roffey makes use of most of the main positive psychology concepts, such as flow, strengths, resilience, optimism, positive emotions, and emotional intelligence, although with the exception of emotional intelligence, they aren’t described in detail. Depending on your expectations and your association with positive psychology, this might be a disappointment or a welcome relief! I particularly liked the chapter on Being and Becoming Emotionally Literate, with its 11 dimensions of social and emotional literacy, and numerous questions for personal development.

I love the core message, which is that school can be a positive transformational experience, and that building positive relationships and school connectedness lead to both improved learning and better behaviour for all students.

Despite its limitations, I think this is a fabulous resource book for anyone working in primary or secondary education. Dip into almost any page and you will find some gem of information, a question that will challenge your thinking, an activity, or an insightful case study. If you picked up this book expecting it to help you manage challenging student behaviour you may be in for a surprise. It does this exceeding well in my opinion, but it does much more than that.

This book sets out the expectation that everyone in an education role, every teacher, trainee, teaching assistant, support person, and early childhood practitioner, can be a role model of well-being. Changing behaviour is schools is based on the premise that a theoretical knowledge of the subject isn’t sufficient. Teachers have to be able to do well-being in order to teach well-being.

For the full review, click here.

The Difference Engine

One of the very first pieces I wrote for Positive Psychology News Daily back in 2007 focused on the application of strengths – whether strengths as defined in positive psychology are always positive and how we know which strength to apply in any given situation. This was inspired by a great article by Barry Schwartz and Kenneth Sharpe (see below) about ‘practical wisdom’, the nous we all need to help us navigate life’s trickier waters. What I like about Schwartz and Sharpe is that they remind us that context is king. Positive psychologists tend to define strengths as inherently positive characteristics, but that doesn’t mean they can be applied willy-nilly, hence the need for some practical wisdom to guide our choice of behaviour.

This month’s article for Positive Psychology News looks at a 2011 paper by James McNulty and Frank Fincham (details below) in which the authors argue that positive psychology needs to be more contextual. They have a point – most psychology research is carried out on convenience samples of psychology students in a  college environment, which is hardly representative of people in the real world. They chose 4 well-documented positive psychology topics (forgiveness, positive attributions, optimism and kindness), presenting research which counters the usual positive psychology claims that more of them is better for well-being. However, I found their conclusions more interesting, in particular:

• The need to study the implications of various psychological concepts in the context of both happy and unhappy people. Perhaps some may benefit people in optimal circumstances, but may harm people in suboptimal circumstances. For example, some may not be suitable for people in therapy.

• The need to examine the implications of psychological characteristics over a long period of time. Most of the positive psychology studies look at consequences over the short term, the assumption being that if the immediate outcome is positive, the long term result will be too.

Of course, we should not forget that positive psychology is a very young discipline (about 13 years old). Hopefully it will continue too grow and mature, and perhaps over time it may even acquire the scientific kudos that Seligman is so keen on.

To read the full article and readers’ comments, click here.

* McNulty, J.K. & Fincham, F.D. (2011). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist. doi: 10.1037/a0024572.

“His goal is to advance the well-being of the world – one sector at a time”.

An interesting (and revealing) article from Stacey Burling at The Philadelphia Inquirer on Professor Martin Seligman, often quoted as the founding father of Positive Psychology.

Image courtesy of the US Army

Two programmes on BBC Radio 4 featuring the science of Positive Psychology:

• All in the Mind - Claudia Hammond interviews Professor Martin Seligman about the benefits of optimism, such as living longer and increased resilience. You can learn to be happier, more optimistic and more resilient. Hammond also visited Wellington College in Berkshire where they have been teaching happiness on the curriculum for the past 3 years. Ian Morris, who teaches the happiness lessons, and head teacher Dr Anthony Seldon, are keen to point out that higher well-being is linked to better pupil performance and exam results. Another school which is following in Wellington’s footsteps is Haberdashers – where I have been involved in writing the happiness curriculum.
• Off the Page - Dominic  Arkwright interviews my colleague and fellow MAPP graduate,  Miriam Akhtar about what happiness is and how she found it, as well as Dr Phil Hammond (a potential convert to positive psychology) and Guardian journalist Lucy Mangan (a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic). Miriam gives a very personal perspective on her discovery. You can find out how to do it for yourself using her Happiness Training Plan CD.

As with any happiness or life satisfaction league table, who comes top depends on exactly what’s being measured and how. In this article by The Observer journalist John Carlin, Iceland is referred to as the happiest country in the world. How can this be? We all know that it’s Denmark!

Carlin’s conclusion is based on Iceland’s ranking in the Human Development Index (HDI), one of the four United Nations assessments of human potential – it measures three basic dimensions – a long and healthy life, education and a decent standard of living.

1. Health is measured by life expectancy at birth,
2. Education is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined gross enrolment ratio in primary, secondary, and tertiary education,
3. Standard of living is measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP US$).

So the HDI isn’t actually quantifying either happiness or life satisfaction, and it’s questionable (in Positive Psychology terms) whether health, wealth and education significantly contribute to happiness anyway.

In fact there are some elements of Icelandic society which would contradict the conclusion that it’s one of the best countries in the world to live in, for example, the highest divorce rate in Europe. However, this doesn’t mean they have unhappy families – in fact writes Carlin, “The kids will be just fine, because the family will rally round them, and likely as not, the parents will continue to have a civilised relationship, based on the usually automatic understanding that custody of the children will be shared”.

The article provides further insights into those character traits which might explain why Icelanders are generally happy people (if not the happiest), for example, optimism, resilience, self-confidence and a can-do attitude. That said, if we follow Lyubomirsky’s “Happiness Pie” model, after genes (50%), what we chose to do with our time is the largest contributor (40%) to our happiness – do we have any readers who could comment on how the average happy Icelander spends his/her time?

Whether or not it’s the happiest country, Iceland takes first place in the 2007/08 HDI, followed by Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland. The USA is in 12th position, Denmark 14th and the UK 16th. At the bottom , not surprisingly are the West African countries of Guinea (175th), Burkina Faso (176th) and Sierra Leone (177th). For the full list, see here.

Image: Gúnna