ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Exploring the potential solutions to the criticisms of positive psychology: But can the bold, idealistic visions of positive psychologists survive real-world scrutiny?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Teachers' Well-Being and Health in Germany: Representative Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Positive psychology 4.0: a science of consequence for a world that can no longer wait.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cracks in the JD-R model? The failure of strengths use, job crafting, and home-work spillover to support wellbeing during COVID-19.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positive psychology has faced growing criticism regarding its scientific foundations and applied impact. To encourage constructive dialog, this study employs a Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach to co-create potential ways to address the critiques of positive psychology. By engaging positive psychological practitioners and scholars, we investigate their perspectives on addressing the discipline's theoretical, methodological, and practical challenges and critically evaluate the viability of these solutions. Purposive sampling gathered data from 213 positive psychology researchers and practitioners. Participants were familiarized with the main criticisms through a participatory online workshop and then engaged in small group discussions to generate potential solutions to such. Content analysis identified 16 themes and 37 categories of proposed solutions. While the proposed solutions showed promise, some appear idealistic given academic realities. This participatory study empowers positive psychologists to actively shape the evolution of their field through ongoing dialog, reflective co-creation and knowledge generation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.