Symposium Summary:
A significant body of research suggests positive psychological interventions (PPIs) are effective. However, much of this research has focused on adult or college student samples and outcomes of wellbeing and depression (e.g., Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009). As a result, nuance related to the effectiveness of the interventions, the types of PPIs available, and their generalizability to diverse populations is ripe for further study. The aim of this symposium is to share timely research that extends our knowledge of PPIs, particularly related to populations that often receive less attention in the literature and/or that extends our understanding of how PPIs work. Specifically, Dr. Owens will present a classification matrix on different forms of PPIs and findings from a meta-analysis on child and adolescent PPIs in clinical-based contexts. Dr. Waters will present findings from a meta-analysis on child and adolescent PPIs in school settings. Mr. Kraiss will present findings from a meta-analysis on PPIs with individuals with severe mental illness. Finally, Dr. Gander will present findings related to perceptions on the malleability of wellbeing in PPIs.
Symposium Presentation 1 Proposal (20 minutes; 2 presenters):
Title: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Positive Psychological Interventions with Children and Adolescents
Presenters: Rhea Owens, Lea Waters, Rick LaCaille, Josh Schlueter, Maggie Yuhas, Hannah Pannell, & Jason Kolbert
Abstract:
A common misconception of positive psychology is that it only focuses on the “positive” (e.g., Magyar-Moe et al., 2015; Owens et al., 2019). However, the intention of positive psychology was to bring about greater balance to the field of psychology, and in practice includes a balanced focus on human functioning (Owens et al., 2019; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Past reviews of PPIs (e.g., Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009) have perhaps unintentionally contributed to this misconception by focusing exclusively on interventions that include positive processes/content and positive outcomes.
To help address this misconception more explicitly and expand future research on PPIs to address barriers and challenges more extensively, Owens & Waters (2020) developed a 3x3 matrix to classify different forms of PPIs. This classification model includes nine different types of interventions, eight of which meet the criteria to be called a PPI. Specifically, the classification examines whether the intervention focuses on positive, remedial, or both positive and remedial processes/content and whether the intervention aims to evade or address challenges/deficits/disorders or elicit positive outcomes.
Additionally, to date, no meta-analysis has been conducted to examine the effectiveness of PPIs with children and adolescents. Building from the recent review of PPIs for children and adolescents conducted by the authors (Owens & Waters [2020]), a meta-analysis is in progress to examine the effectiveness of PPIs with young people and will be completed by the time of the World Congress on Positive Psychology. Data extraction and analysis involves population (e.g., children only, adolescent only, combined), intervention (e.g., category as defined by the 3x3 matrix, intervention format [individual or group]), and study characteristics (e.g., duration, quality of research design). Beyond the sample of interest, unique to this study will be the variety and number of outcomes evaluated beyond wellbeing (e.g., resilience, mental health, regulation) and the categorization of the type of PPI conducted using the 3x3 matrix. Moreover, results from the meta-analysis will be reported in terms of context, including clinically-based and school-based PPIs. Main findings, practical implications, limitations, and future directions will be discussed.
Symposium Presentation 2 Proposal (12 minutes; 1 presenter):
Title: The Effect of Positive Psychology Interventions on Wellbeing and Psychopathology in Patients with Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Presenter: Jannis T. Kraiss, MSc
Abstract:
A growing number of studies evaluated the effect of PPIs for people with serious mental illness (SMI). To date, however, there has not yet been a comprehensive synthesis of PPIs in this patient group. The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize studies examining the effect of PPIs for people with SMI and meta-analyze the effect of the interventions on outcomes of wellbeing and psychopathology.
We searched the databases Scopus, PubMed and PsycINFO for relevant studies from 1998 to 2020. Data was extracted based on population, intervention, and study characteristics. The primary and secondary outcomes were wellbeing and psychopathology at post-test, respectively.
We identified 16 studies (nine RCTs), including 729 patients. Studies strongly varied in terms of study and intervention characteristics. Meta-analyses showed that PPIs had no significant effect on wellbeing compared with control conditions, but within-group effect sizes revealed a significant moderate effect on wellbeing (Hedge’s g = 0.40) and large effect on psychopathology (Hedge’s g = 0.70). Moderator analyses suggested that the effect of PPIs did not depend on the format and duration of the intervention and not on type of SMI diagnosis.
Although PPIs in the current study were not effective when compared with other active control conditions, our results provide preliminary evidence that people with SMI benefit from PPIs. These findings are discussed in light of limitations as well as implications for clinical practice and future research.
Symposium Presentation 3 Proposal (12 minutes; 1 presenter):
Title: Beliefs About the Malleability of Wellbeing in Positive Psychology Interventions
Presenter: Fabian Gander, PhD
Abstract:
While there is ample evidence that positive psychology interventions (PPI) are effective in increasing wellbeing, the knowledge on under what conditions such interventions work best is still limited. The present study examines the role of one specific moderator in a placebo-controlled online study; namely, the beliefs about the malleability of wellbeing in positive psychology interventions. We test how these beliefs affect (a) the outcomes of an intervention and (b) how people work with the intervention.
A sample of N = 267 participants conducted the “three good things” exercise or a placebo control exercise and completed measures of wellbeing at baseline, after the one-week intervention, and at follow-ups after 2, 4, and 12 weeks. Additionally, participants completed a measure on beliefs about the malleability of wellbeing at baseline, encompassing questions on whether participants believe that wellbeing can be influenced, whether they could influence their wellbeing themselves, and whether they knew how to influence their wellbeing.
Results suggested that beliefs about the malleability of wellbeing goes along with better liking the exercise, perceiving more subjective benefit from the exercise, and considering it less difficult to conduct. Further, stronger beliefs went along with stronger increases in wellbeing following the exercise in both conditions, while the relationship between these beliefs and the increases in wellbeing was more pronounced in the intervention condition.
Overall, convincing participants that they can change their wellbeing before an intervention may be beneficial for the outcome of the intervention.