Abstract
In this paper I will discuss a comparison of positive psychology and master resiliency training (MRT). They compare in that one’s life, to be successful whether in the civilian world or military it is essential that the mindset maintains a positive outlook, additionally they are different in content rather than context. Positive Psychology and Resilience Factor
In a tactical shift from contemporary definition of psychology, positive psychology refers to the study of happiness. For a long time, psychology sought to define dysfunction among people with more focus on individuals who suffered mental illness and/ or psychological related problems. Psychologists always have the intention to help their patients, positive psychology regards it as one sided because it does not consider the positives of a psychologically tormented patient (Shatte & Reivich 2002). Therefore, this new field of psychology looks at how people can attain more happiness and life fulfillment. In this field, psychology researchers look at issues such as pleasure, strengths, and talents among others. The ability to carry on even when things are not going your way best defines resilience. When this happens, an individual is able to adapt to changes in situations. Resilience is a much needed ingredient to happiness and a happy life (2002). In this paper, analyses of positive psychology are discussed; furthermore, it will compare advocating a positive outcome, the development of self-esteem, and an individual’s choice of success. Additionally this paper will contrast positive psychology and MRT contrast in the scope of their definition.
Analysis of Positive Psychology and MRT
Analysis of both positive psychology and MRT indicates that, for one’s life to be successful and enjoyable, it is essential that the mindset is geared toward the positives of life and viewing adversities as life’s lessons that propel you toward being a better person (Shatte and Reivich 2002). In his book, The Resilience Factor, Shatte and Reivich indicate that even the most resilient individuals, whom the society looks up to; have their moments of depression and temptation to give up (2002). Positive psychology and MRT creates a difference between each other in the way they deal with their challenges. For strides to be made in life, focus and direction should be the key because they are part of what contributes toward an individual’s resilience. Instead of seeking answers to why we go through thoughts about what others think about us or if they hate us, we should focus on positive psychology through positive thoughts. Instead of questioning fate and blaming everyone else but us, an analysis of the mind and adopting constructive virtues could work magic in the individual’s life. In an indirect attack on conventional psychology, Carr (2004) observes how traditionally, focus has been on the deficits and the failures of humans (2004). In doing so, the early forms of psychology focused on negative aspects that even if corrected, provided no positive boost to the individual. Using positive psychology, the deficits and disability could be treated while simultaneously providing the appropriate attention to the positives and building on them. Nothing is perfect, and nothing is permanent. In a nut shell this, mantra is dictated by both positive psychology and resilience factors.
Comparison
Positive Mind Set
Another comparative aspect in the two theories of psychology is that they both advocate positive mindset for a positive outcome. Human beings are generally rational, but there is a huge argument in the way different people react to different situations. This difference is what can determines who ends up with a happier life than the other and who spends his entire life, literally, trying to make everything right and in the end gets frustrated. Although they acknowledge the fact that it is hard for some humans to control their emotions, Snyder and Lopez (2002) are fast to add that this should not deter the person from pursuing his mind (2002). Measures that are determined by an individual’s performance and values relates in a direct measure to the differences in reality negotiation (Snyder & Lopez, 2002). There are a few measures that have been linked directly to the resilience factor with the tendency of individual negotiation. Looking at this aspect of positive psychology and relating it to the resilience factor, it is apparent that one does not just wake up or sit back, and positive (or otherwise) things start to happen. It takes efforts of the mind to compel the body and spirit to respond in a particular way. Negotiating with the mind, especially when an individual is being resilient over a certain challenge, develops positive energy and enables relaxation and ultimately, and a tendency towards making informed choices in terms of the way they think and perceive life (Snyder & Lopez, 2002). This approach is critical to self-esteem.
Self Esteem
To develop self-esteem, proponents of resilience factors indicate that self-esteem among individuals are determined by how deeply one negotiates with the mind and choose the path that is to be taken. According to the positive psychology theory, this is echoed by the indication of the manner of negotiation (These two are similar in theory when it comes to explaining how self-esteem and confidence are attained). Snyder and Lopez (2002) are of the opinion that self-esteem is developed by an individual. Primarily, his way of thinking and how effectively he allows himself to give in into negative thoughts greatly determines the eventual level of self-esteem, which strongly impact’s an individual’s success.
Choice of Success
The third comparable aspect that is common to both theories is on the individual’s choice of success. According to both, success is psychological, and each one of us makes a choice on success based on the efforts we put into it (Shatte & Reivich 2002). It is worth bringing to the front that there is sometimes a difference in the way we view life and especially the way we are influenced by the family and society that we come from. This theory may hold true for someone brought up in a poor society than for someone brought up with a more fortunate background. Positive psychology explains this as a small factor that contributes to the eventual outcome in personality. Someone brought up in a successful setting may have a touch at success and self-belief, and this may propel him to success without too much struggle. For that person whose upbringing is less fortunate, the services of the psychologist comes in handy by influencing the positive side of mental thinking and hope that it is good enough to positively influence him. In defining how optimistically one should look at life, Shatte and Reivich (2002) indicate that excesses to this could be dangerous. They advocate for a keen and cautious approach to it. In as much as approaching life should be done with a clear perspective; an unrealistic sense of optimism can set an individual up for an unavoidable downfall. When an individual lives through a somewhat perceived perfect life where he never gets anxious, believes that everything has to work out as always and maybe has never had financial difficulties, does not do any exercises and believes that the future will be unaffected, he is living a lie. As echoed by the resilience theory, positive outcomes do not come easily (Shatte & Reivich, 2002), but are worth the effort for a positive outcome.
Contrast
Positive psychology is defined as focusing on improving the mental function of human beings above that of normal mental health( Charlene M. Proctor Ph. D.). Resilience is defined as the ability to succeed and prosper even after facing setback, and hardships (Thill, 2011).
When it comes to establishing the existing contrasts between positive psychology and resilience factors, it is more or less an issue of content rather than context. This is so because, as described above, one is a component of the other and the difference is mostly in the scope of their definition. One makes more reference to practical application while the other is more about defining the whole concept of psychology that has long been ignored by psychologists.
Positive psychology defines a collective application of ways to improve an individual’s personality and influence his thinking; pliability is best described as the final product of intuitive practice of positive psychology (Beazley). Resilience refers to the possession and access of individual characteristics, those life-protective factors that can be unleashed while dealing with adversities in life. According to Beazley, the contribution that this makes to the victim is that he ends up in the same position he was prior to the adversity or ends up at a better position. Resilience is a collection of traits possessed by an individual, a process, or both. In contrast, positive psychology is itself a science of positive traits possessed by individuals. An example of this is happiness and adaptation of virtues (Diener-Biswas, 2011). It is, therefore, the study of human aspects that promotes and allows individuals to thrive. In essence, positive psychology regards all the aspects of human thinking and conduct that influence happiness. This theory works towards influencing an individual positively and helps scientists understand those areas that, when worked on, will produce positive outcomes for the individual. On the other hand, resilience is more practical and not just a matter of a definition of concepts. Unlike positive psychology, which is rather theoretical, resilience factors are those actions that protect and propel individuals as they go through various struggles in life. Shatte and Reivich (2002) have made reference to finding one’s inner strength so as to overcome the hurdles that are ever-present in life. Going into the details of the whole purpose of resilience, the authors describe its sole purpose as aimed towards helping individuals overcome challenges. In a way that has shied from this slightly, positive psychology does not only focus on overcoming challenges in life but rather in developing the individuals attitude positively in a way that his strong will, self-esteem, and preparedness are promoted to a higher state.
Conclusion
During the comparison and contrast it was brought to light that positive psychology and the resiliency factors have more in common than not. That the main comparison factors were demonstrated through a comparison of positive mind set, positive outcome, and development of self-esteem, clearly defining each theory. Additionally the scope of definition is different and thus is the most prominent contrast between the two. An analysis of both concepts shows their design to work together for a positive outcome.