Happiness, Positive Psychology and Measurement

Recently the OECD's Better Life Index has made some headlines, this example is from the Guardian and has the headline:

World's happiest OECD countries: in full

 A little reading around the headline quickly shows that this is not subjective happiness, it is based on eleven topics, Housing, Income, Jobs, Community, Education, Environment, Civic Engagement, Health, Life Satisfaction, Safety and Work-Life Balance.

 It does with the inclusion of Life Satisfaction include one subjective measure, which is assessed by survey. The ranking of the countries on this one measure can be seen here and a discussion on trying to measure subjective life satisfaction can be found here.

So this is about happiness as such, however having recently seen a talk on happiness by my friend and colleague Dave Webster I have been thinking about measuring happiness.

Measuring Happiness

Can happiness be measured?

Positive psychologists are investigating ways to measure happiness, they have one measure under construction (Authentic Happiness Inventory) and two other measures of happiness, the General Happiness Scale and the Fordyce Emotions Questionnaire. All of these are accessible via Dr. Martin Seligman's homepage, although you have to register to take the tests. In the interest of disclosure last time I took these tests my scores were, Authentic Happiness, 4.04 out of 5; General Happiness Scale, 7 out of 7; and 9 out of 10 on the Fordyce Emotions Questionnaire. All of these are quite high scores compared to most people that fill in the scales, I lost points on Authentic Happiness by scoring low on questions like question 4,

A. My life does not have any purpose or meaning.

B. I do not know the purpose or meaning of my life.

C. I have a hint about my purpose in life.

D. I have a pretty good idea about the purpose or meaning of my life.

E. I have a very clear idea about the purpose or meaning of my life.

and question 12,

A. In the grand scheme of things, my existence may hurt the world.

B. My existence neither helps nor hurts the world.

C. My existence has a small but positive effect on the world.

D. My existence makes the world a better place.

E. My existence has a lasting, large, and positive impact on the world.

I think that happiness can be measured at least as well (or as badly) as any other psychological object. As I detail in Chapter Nine of Tyson, Jones and Elcock there are problems with the whole psychometric enterprise, and measurements, be they attitudes, intelligence, personality, happiness or character strengths, are at best culturally and historically contingent and have meaning only in relation to the populations they have been developed within. For the happiness scale currently under development that population appears to be anglophone web users who are interested enough in the topic to use the website.

One of the dangers of all of these measuring tools is that they reify a particular working through of a concept, and that in turn may act as a political tool to promote one notion of what human beings are like.

All such measuring tools suffer from what Rom Harré called the 'meaning problem' which he applied more generally to the testing conditions in which psychology investigations take place. The problem is that people participating in a psychological experiment or survey may bring a variety of meanings to the situation, only some of which will match with what the investigator intends them to be. In effect these measuring scales may be measuring a varieties of happiness, not a single thing.

Multi-item scales tend to have better psychometric validity than single item scales, which leads to a second problem, people can respond to the individual items completely differently and yet be given the same overall score.

Finally there are a set of technical problems because the basis for these scales being equal interval scales is a, probably misapplied, principle of psychophysics, the just noticeable difference, which makes sense for an individual case, but may not when using aggregated data.

So can happiness be measured, a qualified yes. I prefer the types of metrics that the OECD use rather than the attempts to measure individual subjective happiness. If you believe personality tests measure personality, attitude scales measure attitudes or intelligence tests measure intelligence then happiness scales are just as good!

 

 

Division of Clinical Psychology Position Statement on Classification

The British Psychological Society, Division of Clinical Psychology, released this position statement yesterday. Some elements of it were discussed on Sunday in the Observer and on other media outlets.

What I intend to do here is briefly comment on each of the major sections of the statement.

Context

Much of the emphasis is on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorders rather than dementia, neuropsychology and learning disability. As the positions statement makes clear there has been considerable disquiet and debate about those diagnostic categories for over a decade. There is also growing disquiet about the ever increasing reach of diagnostic categories into everyday life and the medicalising of more and more aspects of everyday life.

The position statement is careful to note that biological factors are not being ignored, but that the primacy given to them by a disease model needs to be challenged.

The Role of Clinical Psychologists

Obviously the position statement re-affirms the role of clinical psychologists.

The Rationale for a Paradigm Shift

I am normally uneasy with the term paradigm shift being used in the social sciences, however this position statement does the use the term to mean a fundamental shift in world view, which would seem to fit well with the original meaning.

Core Issue 1: Concepts and models

Six conceptual issues are described:

1. Interpretation presented as objective fact
2. Limitations in validity and reliability
3. Restrictions in clinical utility and functions
4. Biological emphasis
5. Decontextualisation
6. Ethnocentric bias

While these are not a surprise to me it is apparent that much of that debate has not penetrated that far outside of the academy.

Core issue 2: Impact on service users

1. Discrimination
2. Stigmatisation and negative impact on identity
3. Marginalising knowledge from lived experience
4. Disempowerment

The hope is that this paradigm shift can address these issues.

There then follow five action points.

Action point 1
To share within the DCP and through pre-qualification training and continuing
professional development, the issues raised by this statement. The aim is to
achieve greater openness and transparency about the uses and limitations of
the current system, and enhance service users’ and carers’ awareness and
understanding of the issues.

Action point 2
To open up dialogue with partner organisations, service users and carers,
voluntary agencies, and other professional bodies in order to find agreed ways
forward. This will necessarily include safeguarding access to health and
social care, benefits, work support, and legal and educational services that are
currently diagnosis-based.

Action point 3
To support work, in conjunction with service users, on developing multifactorial
and contextual approaches which incorporate social, psychological
and biological factors.

 Action point 4
To ensure that a psychosocial perspective and psychological work are
included in the electronic health record.

Action point 5
For the DCP to continue to promote the use of psychological formulation as
one response to the concerns identified in this statement. 

 I feel in addition to these actions there is a need to enter into dialogue with people in general, as well as service users, carers and partner organisations.

Brains, Reality and Mental Distress

The Observer today has a number of interesting articles.

How to Spot a Murder's Brain

Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle
  
Medicine's big new battleground: does mental illness really exist?
 
Do we need to change the way we are thinking about mental illness?

Although the comments section after each of them are frustrating and annoying.


Three of them, all but the 'Murder's Brain' are part of a series brought about by the statement to be released on Monday 13 May from the Division of Clinical Psychology of the British Psychological Society calling for a fundamental re-thinking of how professionals understand and treat mental distress.

After that statement is released I will have a go at saying more about it.

Meanwhile mental distress exists and sometimes people need help with it from a range of sources including medicine. One of the potential upsides is that people will start looking beyond medicine at ways to make mental distress less likely and to ameliorate its effects. One of the potential down sides of moving away from the medical model is that it will become an excuse for further cutting the already inadequate services for people with mental distress. It is also important that we do not jump into the Positive Psychology position of just helping individuals with building up resilience but look at broader social and societal issues as well.

Positive Psychology, the Nudge Unit and 'Sham Tests'

There are a couple of articles in the Guardian about a 'sham test' that jobseekers are being compelled to do.

Main Guardian article

Follow up article

The video at the top of the article is worth looking at.

As is the original blog post about the test, and the test itself is worth looking at, signature strengths test.

I am horrified that people are being told that they have to take the test, with the threat of a sanction (removal of benefits) if they do not.

Having completed the test these were my results:

Thanks for completing the signature strengths questionnaire, your results are below.



This exercise has been shown to find peoples' strengths in scientific studies and you may find it useful to identify your strengths and use them to inform your job search, CV or use in interviews. You may also find it useful to try to incorporate your strengths in your daily life and play to them whenever you can.



You should aim to use your strengths whenever you can. This could be in the your job search choices, your CV or at interviews. You could also apply these to your daily life. <strong> You should aim to use each one of your signature strengths in a new way everyday for at least a week.</strong>



Strength 1. Fairness

Treating all people fairly is one of your abiding principles. You do not let your personal feelings bias your decisions about other people. You give everyone a chance.



Strength 2. Love of learning

You love learning new things, whether in a class or on your own. You have always loved school, reading, and museums-anywhere and everywhere there is an opportunity to learn.



Strength 3.  Originality

Thinking of new ways to do things is a crucial part of who you are. You are never content with doing something the conventional way if a better way is possible.



Strength 4. Bravery

 You are a courageous person who does not shrink from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain. You speak up for what is right even if there is opposition. You act on your convictions.



Strength 5. Loving

You value close relations with others, in particular those in which there is sharing and caring. The people to whom you feel most close are the same people who feel most close to you.

As far as I can tell this is a shotened version of the VIA character strengths survey, available upon registration here. That test has 240 items, compared to only 48 on this version, last time I took the VIA these were my top five.

Here are your scores on the VIA Survey of Character Strengths. For how to interpret and use your scores, see the book Authentic Happiness. The ranking of the strengths reflects your overall ratings of yourself on the 24 strengths in the survey, how much of each strength you possess. Your top five, especially those marked as Signature Strengths, are the ones to pay attention to and find ways to use more often

Your Top Strength

Curiosity and interest in the world You are curious about everything. You are always asking questions, and you find all subjects and topics fascinating. You like exploration and discovery.

Your Second Strength

Fairness, equity, and justice Treating all people fairly is one of your abiding principles. You do not let your personal feelings bias your decisions about other people. You give everyone a chance.

Your Third Strength

Forgiveness and mercy You forgive those who have done you wrong. You always give people a second chance. Your guiding principle is mercy and not revenge.

Your Fourth Strength

Love of learning You love learning new things, whether in a class or on your own. You have always loved school, reading, and museums-anywhere and everywhere there is an opportunity to learn.

Your Fifth Strength

Judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness Thinking things through and examining them from all sides are important aspects of who you are. You do not jump to conclusions, and you rely only on solid evidence to make your decisions. You are able to change your mind.

There are a number of issues that arise for me.

Coersion

Forcing people to take a test under threat of stripping their benefits does not seem a good way to get people to reflect upon themselves. (I know I've already mentioned this, but it is very important).

Lack of Validity of a Short Form

There are twenty four character strengths in the VIA, with ten  questions per strength.
 That allows for each character strength to have a score of (depending on scoring system, but lets assume 1-5 per question) of between 10 and 50. The short form allows between 2 and 10. With the possibility of multiple ties. Indeed completely tied responses give a 'top 5' character strengths. Precisely how those are chosen is very difficult to know and might be a propaganda tool.

This is not a personality test

This has been talked about as if it were a personality test. It is not. I obviously (see previous posts) have issues about positive psychology but it is deliberately trying to achieve something different to personality testing.

The allegiance between positive psychology and government

In my conference presentation, and in the paper I am working on, I am worried about the ways that positive psychology appears to be forming allegiances with aspects of state power. This continues to worry me and needs a more thorough analysis.


 

Conference Report!

The history and philosophy section conference was great!

The Monday was a day on resources in the teaching of Conceptual and Historical issues in Psychology.

Dai Jones did a session on using and choosing text books; which was good and informative. Then there were very informative sessions on the BPS origins project and what the Science Museum can offer to the teaching of psychology both for undergraduates and 'A' level students. Thanks to Kelly Auty and Phil Loving for those sessions. Chris Howard and Lovemore Nyatanga did a presentation about some of the ways they teach CHiPs at Derby, after some group discussions Alan Collins and Pete Lamont led a discussion on what next. Which sort of became a theme of the conference, which might be ironic for a History conference.

After a really enjoyable meal with all the contributors back to the Travel lodge and on to the next day.

Day One

Not going to describe every paper I went to, but they were interesting, witty and led to many things to think about.

Martyn Pickersgill gave the opening keynote and that set the historical scene very well, in terms of how the DSM was developed and although it is a history I know well there were still aspects I had not fully appreciated.

In the first session of papers I went to, session 1B (see conference programme linked earlier) the main theme was sex, especially the 'paraphilic disorders' but also more general sex and gender issues.

To some extent that theme carried over into the second set of papers I went to, 2A. Finally rounded that off with some more sex, with the papers from 3A.

I want to introduce some of that material into my Gender and Sexualities module at Gloucestershire.

Day Two

Spent the first session fretting about my paper rather than going to any papers.

Session two included my paper. But also there was an interesting linkage between all four of the papers, it was almost a spontaneous symposium.

Session three I went to the symposium developed by John Cromby, David Harper & Paula Reavey. Dai is hoping that some of that material can find its way into the Psychology and Mental Health module we run.

Finally a truly great keynote from Ian Parker to finish a very good conference indeed.

Thanks to everyone who was involved in organising, presenting and taking part!

Square Pegs Round Holes

Anarchistic Epistemology for Qualitative Psychology

 Paul Feyeraband 1924-1994

This isn't about positive psychology, but more about the gnawing despair I have when thinking about the current instantiation of qualitative methodologies within psychology.

Qualitative psychology appears to be falling into the same trap that some quantitative psychology fell into, the notion that by following a set of procedures then valid knowledge will follow.

There are a number of possible reasons why this has happened.

Wanting to be taken seriously

By having a set of prescriptions in parallel with the sorts of prescriptions that quantitative psychology has perhaps there is a hope that will promote qualitative psychology as worthy. The most successful qualitative research approach across the social sciences, grounded theory, has long adopted the notion that "Care in applying the grounded theory methodology correctly is the single most important factor in ensuring rigour" (Cooney, 2011, p17). And from one of the originators of grounded theory

Grounded theory refers to a specific methodology on how to get from systematically

collecting data to producing a multivariate conceptual theory. It is a total    methodological package. It provides a series of  systematic, exact methods that start with with collecting data and take the researcher to a theoretical piece that is publishable.

Glaser, 2010, p 1.

Despite the early authors in psychology, such as Potter and Wetherell (1987) are careful to point out that their guidelines are guidelines, not a recipe to follow, it feels that twenty six years later we have lost that sense, and instead there is an expectation that following rules will lead to positive outcomes.

Teaching qualitative methods

Doing qualitative methods as an undergraduate student can be threatening. Very often students are confronted with the idea that Psychology is not a natural science at the same time that they are trying to learn ways to do research. It is less threatening to be told as long as a set of prescriptions are followed then they will get good marks, than to be told that the heart of qualitative methods is a joyful confusion. This problem is exasperated when methods teaching is divorced from theoretical and conceptual issues. In these circumstances it is more likely that students are taught a set of procedures and exhorted to work hard. Just like with quantitative methods students are likely to take those lessons on board, research is hard work and not fun, and if they try to navigate the maze we have set for them then they will get their reward.

A tentative solution

Discover anarchistic epistemology, along with an expectation that doing qualitative research is fun.

I might return to this in a slightly more coherent form later in the year.  

References

Cooney, A. (2011). Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 17-22.  

Glaser, B. G. (2010). The Future of Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory Review, 9(2), 1-14.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology : beyond attitudes and behaviour  London : Sage