Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training

2006, Vol. 43, No. 2, 151153

Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association

0033-3204/06/$12.00
DOI: 10.1037/0033-3204.43.2.151

THE FUTURE OF POSITIVE THERAPY

Y. JOEL WONG
University of Texas at Austin

In their commentary on strengthcentered therapy (ST), Lopez and Kerr

(2006) called for an open-source approach to developing positive psychological practices. In this rejoinder, the
author responds to their comments,
provides clarifications on ST, and discusses the future of positive therapy.
Specifically, the author calls for future
scholarship to address (1) the contributions of social constructionist therapies,
(2) positive systemic influences in psychotherapy, and (3) diverse conceptualizations of strengths and optimal human
functioning.
Keywords: social constructionist, positive psychology, counseling, psychotherapy, strength-centered psychotherapy, positive therapy
I thank Lopez and Kerr (2006) for their
thoughtful comments on strength-centered therapy (ST). In this rejoinder, I respond to their
commentary, provide clarifications on ST, and
discuss the future of positive therapy by identifying 3 critical areas that deserve greater scholarly attention.
Lopez and Kerr (2006) expressed the view that
the description of ST relies on overly abstract
terms (e.g., explicitize) that are not accessible
to clients. It might be helpful to reiterate that the
social constructionist foundation of ST requires
the therapist to pay careful attention to the use of
language in her therapeutic conversations with
the client. Although I introduced several new
Y. Joel Wong, University of Texas at Austin.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to
Y. Joel Wong, MA, Department of Educational Psychology,
University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station D5800,
Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: joelwong@mail.utexas.edu

terms to describe the practice of ST (e.g., the

explicitizing, envisioning, empowering, and
evolving phases), it is the principles inherent in
these terms, rather than the actual use of these
words in psychotherapy, that is important. From a
social constructionist standpoint, the meaning of
words is constantly negotiated within the therapeutic context (Anderson, 1997). Terms such as
virtues or explicitize should not be used in
psychotherapy unless they are meaningful to clients. Over time, the therapist and client develop a
shared vocabulary of terms that is unique to the
therapeutic context. For example, a therapist and
her client might use the phrase our detective
work instead of explicitizing to refer to the
process of identifying the clients strengths.
Lopez and Kerr also were concerned that the
closing in on one approach to ST may discourage the development and examination of many
strength-based approaches. It might be worthwhile clarifying the distinction between strengthcentered therapy and positive therapy. In my article on ST (Wong, 2006 [this issue]) as well as in
this rejoinder, strength-centered therapy refers to
a specific therapeutic approach based on the positive psychology of character strengths and social
constructionist perspectives on psychotherapy,
whereas the term positive therapy is used more
generically to refer to any therapeutic approach
that emphasizes clients strengths and positive
assets. I consider therapeutic approaches such as
ST (Wong, 2006), hope therapy (Lopez, Flyod,
Ulven, & Synder, 2000), and solution-focused
therapy (de Shazer & Berg, 1992) to be specific
applications of positive therapy. Although I advocate the practice of ST, I do not view it as the
only way to practice positive therapy. Like Lopez
and Kerr (2006), I advocate the cross-fertilization
of ideas from different therapeutic approaches.
I concur with Lopez and Kerrs main message
that the development of strength-centered therapy
and positive psychological practices would benefit from an open-source approach in which a
diverse pool of professionals build on each others work. Specifically, I found their proposal to
include the therapeutic use of the working alli-

151

Wong
ance and hope to be potentially useful contributions to the refinement of ST.
Recommendations for Future Scholarship
In the remainder of this article, I address the
broader question of the future of positive therapy.
In the spirit of Lopez and Kerrs (2006) open
source ideal, I offer recommendations on three
critical areas in positive therapy that require more
scholarly attention. Guided by social constructionist ideals, my suggestions focus on the need
for a greater emphasis on (1) the contributions of
social constructionist therapies, (2) harnessing
the strengths of positive systemic influences in
psychotherapy, and (3) diverse conceptualizations of strengths and optimal human functioning.
First, therapists interested in the clinical applications of positive psychology should pay more attention to the contributions of social constructionist
therapies, especially solution focused therapy (de
Shazer & Berg, 1992) and narrative therapy (White
& Epston, 1990). A decade before positive psychologists began to articulate the clinical applications of
positive psychology (e.g., Seligman, 2002), Steve
de Shazer and his colleagues (e.g., de Shazer &
Berg, 1992) were actively promoting their groundbreaking approach to psychotherapy which emphasizes clients past and existing successes and their
vision of a satisfying future. Similarly, White and
Epston (1990) have proposed a narrative therapeutic approach that includes strengths-based elements
such as identifying unique outcomes to clients
problems (usually involving success stories). In my
earlier article (Wong, 2006), I acknowledged aspects of ST that converge with or are related to the
principles and techniques of solution-focused therapy and narrative therapy. Unfortunately, these
therapeutic approaches have received significantly
less attention in recent scholarly discussions on the
clinical application of positive psychology (e.g.,
Seligman, 2002). Future scholarly discussion on
positive therapy would benefit from a careful consideration of these therapeutic approaches.
Second, the application of positive psychology
to psychotherapy has focused largely on individuals strengths. Relatively little attention has been
given to harnessing the strengths of positive institutions, communities, and relationships in psychotherapy (cf. Gable & Haidt, 2005, for a similar critique of positive psychology). If we accept
the social constructionist notion that the meaning
clients attached to their life experiences are

152

forged by interpersonal and social influences

(Wong, 2006), then it seems reasonable to expect
that positive systemic forces in our clients lives
can also be used to advance their therapeutic
goals. I envisage that future scholarship on positive therapy would pay more attention to issues
such as how clients religious communities, families, romantic relationships, best friends, workplaces, and neighborhoods can be used optimally
as agents of change in psychotherapy. In this
regard, I recommend that we look beyond psychology to other disciplines that have traditionally emphasized a more ecological view of human functioning (e.g., marriage and family
studies, sociology, and social work) for assistance in developing theories of therapeutic
change.
Third, social constructionism asserts that our
knowledge of reality is inextricably linked to our
values, interests, and cultural background (Burr,
2003). Hence, a focus on strengths and optimal
human functioning in psychotherapy inevitably
begs the question, which or whose version of the
good life are we advocating? Thus far, positive
psychologists appear to emphasize transhistorical, universal strengths (e.g., Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005; Peterson & Seligman,
2004). However, some scholars have questioned
whether definitions of well-being and optimal
human functioning can ever be divorced from the
cultural context in which they arise (e.g., Christopher, 1999; Constantine & Sue, 2006). For example, Constantine and Sue (2006) have expressed the view that constructs such as
happiness, hope, subjective well-being, and selfdetermination proposed by positive psychologists
represent Western standards of optimal functioning that are of less relevance to people of color. In
order for positive therapy to thrive in an increasingly diverse society, an examination of how
culture influences clients and therapists conceptualization of the good life needs to be at the
forefront of scholarship and empirical research
on positive therapy.
Concluding Comments on the Future of
Positive Therapy
To summarize, I affirm Lopez and Kerrs
(2006) call to let a thousand flowers bloom in
the professional practice of positive psychology.
My hope is that the growth of positive therapy

Future of Positive Therapy

would be characterized by positive therapists
willingness to learn from diverse epistemological
perspectives, disciplines, and worldviews. Gazing into the proverbial crystal ball, I believe that
positive therapy has a bright future. As positive
therapists and scholars continue to develop, propagate, and research effective strengths-based
therapeutic strategies, the day will come when
positive therapy is discussed in major psychotherapy and counseling textbooks, taught in most
graduate counseling and psychotherapy programs, and regularly practiced by a significant
number of clinicians.
References
ANDERSON, H. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New
York: Basic Books.
BURR, V. (2003). Social constructionism. London: Routledge.
CHRISTOPHER, J. C. (1996). Situating psychological wellbeing: Exploring the cultural roots of its theory and
research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77,
141152.
CONSTANTINE, M. G., & SUE, D. W. (2006). Factors contributing to optimal human functioning in people of
color in the United States. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 228 244.

DAHLSGAARD, K., PETERSON, C., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P.

(2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Review of
General Psychology, 9, 203213.
DE SHAZER, S., & BERG, I. K. (1992). Doing therapy: A
post-structural re-vision. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 18, 71 81.
GABLE, S. L., & HAIDT, J. (2005). What (and why) is
positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9,
103110.
LOPEZ, S. J., FLOYD, R. K., ULVEN, J. C., & SNYDER, C. R.
(2000). Hope therapy: Helping clients build a house of
hope. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and interventions (pp. 123150). San Diego: Academic Press.
LOPEZ, S. J., & KERR, B. A. (2006). An open source
approach to creating positive psychological practice: A
comment on Wongs Strength-Centered Therapy. Psychotherapy, 43, 147150.
PETERSON, C., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P. (2004). Character
strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive
prevention, and positive therapy. In C. R. Snyder &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology.
(pp. 39). New York: Oxford University Press.
WHITE, M., & EPSTON, D. (1990). Narrative means to
therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.
WONG, Y. J. (2006). Strength-centered therapy: A social
constructionist, virtues-based psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 43, 133146.

153