wong(2006)1 strengths therapy

8/17/2019 Wong(2006)1 Strengths Therapy

1/14

STRENGTH-CENTERED THERAPY: A SOCIALCONSTRUCTIONIST, VIRTUES-BASED PSYCHOTHERAPY

Y. JOEL WONGUniversity of Texas at Austin

This article describes Strength-Centered Therapy, a new therapeutic modelbased on the positive psychology of character strengths and virtues as wellas social constructionist perspectives on psychotherapy. The contributions of the positive psychology of character strengths and social constructionist conceptualizations of psychotherapy areexamined. In addition, the theoreticalassumptions, applications, and limita-tions of Strength-Centered Therapy arediscussed. It is argued that Strength-Centered Therapy might contribute tothe revival of character strengths and virtues in psychotherapy.

Keywords: positive psychology, socialconstructionism, psychotherapy, coun-seling, character strengths, virtues

Positive psychology is a burgeoning move-ment that aims to correct mainstream psycholo-gy’s preoccupation with human weaknesses anddiseases by promoting a greater emphasis on pos-itive human qualities (Aspinwall & Staudinger,2003b; Keyes & Haidt, 2003; Linley & Joseph,2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Shel-don & King, 2001; Synder & Lopez, 2002). Of-cially launched in 1998 during Martin Selig-man’s presidency at the American PsychologicalAssociation, the positive psychology movementseeks to understand and foster the factors that

enable individuals, communities, and societies toourish. Specically, positive psychology hasbeen described as comprising the study of 3 do-mains: Positive subjective experience (e.g., pos-itive emotions such as joy and contentment), pos-itive individual traits, that is, character strengthsand virtues, and positive institutions and commu-nities that enable the rst 2 (Seligman & Csik-szentmihalyi, 2000).

It did not take long for scholars to speculate onthe implications of positive psychology for psy-chotherapy. Conveniently labeled “positive ther-apy” (Joseph & Linley, 2004), recent scholarlydiscussions on the application of positive psy-chology to psychotherapy have focused on thesecond domain of positive psychology: Clients’character strengths and virtues (e.g., Gelso &Woodhouse, 2003; Joseph & Linley, 2004; Se-ligman, 2002; Seligman & Peterson, 2003).

Nevertheless, the emphasis on positivity is nota new phenomenon in psychotherapy. For exam-ple, the eld of counseling psychology has a longtradition of emphasizing individuals’ strengthsand assets (Gelso & Woodhouse, 2003). Further,the decade preceding the advent of positive psy-chology witnessed the growth in popularity of several social constructionist therapies that ex-plicitly focus on the positive (e.g., de Shazer &Berg, 1992; Freedman & Combs, 1996; Gutter-man, 1996; Lipchik, 2002; White & Epston,1990). Although social constructionist therapiesand the positive psychology of characterstrengths and virtues share similar interests inindividuals’ positive resources, scholars haverarely explored their commonalities or respectivecontributions to each other (see Held, 2002, foran exception). It is argued that virtues-based andsocial constructionist perspectives on psychother-apy can be complementary and mutually enrich-ing. Thus, the purpose of this article is to suggest

a new approach to conceptualizing psychother-apy by incorporating the positive psychology of character strengths and virtues as well as socialconstructionist perspectives on psychotherapy.This new social constructionist, virtues-based

I thank Leslie Moore, Kristin Savicki, and W. Angie Wongfor providing thoughtful feedback on earlier versions of this

article.Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed

to Y. Joel Wong, MA, Department of Educational Psychol-ogy, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University StationD5800, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: [email protected]

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association2006, Vol. 43, No. 2, 133–146 0033-3204/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-3204.43.2.133

133


2/14

therapeutic model is called Strength-CenteredTherapy (ST).

This article presents the contributions of thepositive psychology of character strengths and

virtues as well as social constructionism, dis-cusses how both perspectives are incorporatedwithin the theoretical assumptions of ST, anddescribes how ST is conducted. Finally, somecautions and limitations in the use of ST areproposed.

Character Strengths and Virtues

A character strength or virtue has been denedas “any psychological process that consistently

enables a person to think and act so as to yieldbenets to himself or herself and society” (Mc-Cullough & Synder, 2000, p. 3). Although differ-ent conceptualizations of character strengths andvirtues exist, most psychology scholars agree thatvirtues and character strengths (1) have trait-likequalities; (2) are concerned with what kind of person one ought to be (as opposed to the eld of ethics which concerns what a person ought todo); (3) are, to some extent, malleable (e.g., peo-ple can become more courageous, humble, or

open-minded over time); (4) have moral qualities,that is, virtues are considered good or desirable;and (5) are heterogeneous in that most peoplepossess some character strengths but not others(Cawley, Martin, & Johnson, 2000; McCullough& Synder, 2000; Peterson & Seligman, 2004;Sandage & Hill, 2001; Worthington & Berry,2005). According to Peterson and Seligman(2004), character strengths can be distinguishedfrom talents (e.g., the ability to play the violinwell) and abilities (e.g., academic success) in that

character strengths appear relatively more mal-leable, usually require more effort and will, andfall within the moral domain of life. The differ-ence between the terms “character strengths” and“virtues” in the positive psychology literature issomewhat unclear (Sandage, Hill, & Vang, 2003;for different denitions, see McCullough & Syn-der, 2000, and Peterson & Seligman, 2004) andare, therefore, used interchangeably in thisarticle.

Although character strengths and virtues have

been the subject of scholarly inquiry for thou-sands of years, they lost favor in modern socialscience because of their moral valence (Cawley,Martin, & Johnson, 2000; McCullough & Synder,2000; Sandage & Hill, 2001). Virtues and char-

acter strengths conjured up images of Victorianmorality and were considered unsuitable for thedevelopment of psychology as a scientic disci-pline. Hence, the more morally neutral language

of “personality” replaced virtues and characterstrengths in the scientic lexicon (Sandage &Hill, 2001). The decline of the importance of virtues and character strengths in psychology wasalso evident in the development of Western psy-chotherapy (Cushman, 1995; Doherty, 1995).Most Western therapeutic models are presentedas morally neutral, objective processes and do notexplicitly address the role of morality and virtuesin psychotherapy (Cushman, 1995; Richardson,2005).

With the recent rise of positive psychology aswell as post-positivistic approaches to the philos-ophy of science, there appears to be a renewedinterest in virtues and character strengths in psy-chology and psychotherapy (Fowers, 2005a;Sandage & Hill, 2001). In 2000, a special issue of the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychologywas devoted to a discussion of classical humanstrengths and virtues (McCullough & Synder,2000). More recently, a handbook of characterstrengths and virtues has proposed a classication

scheme of 24 “universal” character strengths1

(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Similarly, somescholars have argued for a greater attention tovirtues in psychotherapy (Cushman, 1995;Doherty, 1995; Fowers, 2005b; Richardson,2005).

There are several potential advantages of ad-dressing character strengths and virtues explicitlyin psychotherapy. First, such an approach sup-ports a more holistic conceptualization of mentalhealth that includes not just mental illnesses, but

also optimal functioning and human ourishing(Keyes, 2003; Maddux, Synder, & Lopez, 2004;Ryff & Singer, 1998). A virtues-based approachto psychotherapy inevitably elicits therapeuticdiscourse about the positive aspects of humanfunctioning and dovetails with recent calls fortherapists to pay more attention to harnessingclients’ strengths instead of merely being preoc-

1 The 24 “universal” character strengths are creativity, cu-riosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective, brav-

ery, persistence, integrity, vitality, love, kindness, social in-telligence, citizenship, fairness, leadership, forgiveness andmercy, humility/modesty, prudence, self-regulation, appreci-ation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, andspirituality.

Wong

134


3/14

cupied with alleviating pathology (Gelso &Woodhouse, 2003; Seligman & Peterson, 2003).

Second, an attention to character strengths iscompatible with the increasingly important role

of managed care in psychotherapy. Althoughsome scholars have argued that the concept of virtues seem irrelevant in the context of anamoral, efciency-based culture of managed care(e.g., Cushman & Gilford, 1999), others haveoffered more optimistic views of the role of vir-tues and character strengths (e.g., Sandage &Hill, 2001). Arguably, the culture of managedcare practices and the character strengths per-spective converge on the notion that humans havethe resources to change quickly for the better (cf.,

Gelso & Woodhouse, 2003; Sandage & Hill,2001). An attention to character strengths alsocan be viewed as a form of health promotion andprevention (with the therapist helping the clientto develop strengths that buffer the stressors of life), a perspective shared by many managed carepractices (Sandage & Hill, 2001).

Finally, an explicit focus on character strengthsand virtues is congruent with lay people’s con-ceptualizations of human ourishing and solu-tions to life’s challenges. McCullough and Syn-

der (2000) argue that many people seek to be“good” in addition to being free from mentalillness. An emphasis on character strengths mightbroaden the scope of therapeutic goals and inter-ventions to include those that are personallymeaningful to clients. This virtues-based perspec-tive is an important contribution to social con-structionist approaches to psychotherapy becauseit transforms psychotherapy from simply beingan engagement in positive behaviors, cognitions,and emotions to a focus on what clients strive to

be (cf. McCullough & Snyder, 2000; Peterson &Seligman, 2004). Many clients might nd theexplicit goal of being more courageous, caring, orhonest more inspiring than those of simply solv-ing problems or engaging in more positivethoughts or actions.

Despite the above benets, a virtues-centeredpsychotherapy based entirely on the theoreticalfoundations of positive psychology suffers fromseveral potential weaknesses. Positive psychol-ogy has been criticized for focusing excessively

on Western notions of optimal human function-ing, failing to consider multicultural conceptual-izations of strengths, and paying insufcient at-tention to the interface between societaloppression and the development of strengths

(D’Andrea, 2005; Sue & Constantine, 2003). An-other concern relates to positive psychologists’alleged reication of the modernist, scientic ap-proach to knowledge acquisition and their rejec-

tion of other forms of epistemology (see Held,2004, for a review). As demonstrated in the fol-lowing sections, many of these concerns can beaddressed by incorporating recent social con-structionist conceptualizations of psychotherapy.

Social Constructionist Perspectives onPsychology and Psychotherapy

For much of the 20th century, psychology andpsychotherapy have been based largely on mod-

ernist notions such as the search for universaltruths, the possibility of attaining objectiveknowledge of reality, an emphasis on morallyneutral scientic inquiry, and the view that lan-guage is representative of reality. Social con-structionism is a postmodern philosophicalmovement that challenges these assumptionsthrough its twin emphases on the social and lin-guistic invention of knowledge (Burr, 2003; Ger-gen, 1985, 1999; Kulka, 2000). According tosocial constructionists, knowledge is a product of

social consensus. Social experiences shape one’sperception of reality and truth in 2 ways (Burr,2003). At the macro level, the meanings we at-tach to our experiences are shaped by culturalforces and institutionalized practices. At the mi-cro level, social construction takes place withinday-to-day discourses between people in interac-tion. The self is understood as interpersonallyconstructed and constantly being redenedmoment-by-moment within each social interac-tion (Neimeyer, 1998).

From a social constructionist viewpoint, thesocial construction of knowledge is mediatedthrough language. Language is not merely a re-ection of thoughts and feelings within individ-uals, but also a tool for social action (Burr, 2003).It highlights certain features of the world andonce accepted in common use, it alters how in-dividuals perceive the world. Hence, how peopledescribe their experiences transforms what theirexperiences are (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1997).

The implications of social constructionism for

psychological research and psychotherapy areprofound. Many social constructionists do notobject to traditional empirical research, but areconcerned that it is often passed off as “objectivescience” (Burr, 2003). Social constructionists

Strength-Centered Therapy

135


4/14

stress that the researchers’ culture, morality, andbiases are inseparable from the research process(Gergen, 1999). Hence, they are concerned withwhat types of theories and research questions are

privileged or silenced. For example, social con-structionists might point out that even thoughsome psychologists proclaim the universality of the virtue of forgiveness, their research on for-giveness reect an unacknowledged Western, in-dividualist bias by focusing more on issues re-lated to forgiving others rather than seekingforgiveness (cf. Sandage et al., 2003).

With regards to psychotherapy, social con-structionists challenge the notion that the thera-pist is an objective expert on clients’ problems

(Gutterman, 1994). Greater attention is paid toclients’ subjective views of problems and well-being. Instead of the therapist actively dispensingprofessional knowledge to the client, psychother-apy is one of joint meaning making between bothparties (Gergen, 1999). Social constructionismhas become popular as a theoretical base forseveral recent therapeutic models such assolution-focused therapies (de Shazer & Berg,1992; Gutterman, 1996; Lipchik, 2002), narrativetherapy (Freedman & Combs, 1996; White &

Epston, 1990), and Anderson and Goolishian’s(1992) collaborative language systems approachto therapy.

Despite its growing popularity in psychother-apy, social constructionism has not escaped crit-icism. Specically, scholars have voiced con-cerns about its perceived relativism andantirealist positions (e.g., Hansen, 2004; Held,1995; Lee, 2004). If knowledge and truth aremerely socially constructed, then 1 version of knowledge and truth cannot be preferred over

another, and there is no real basis for one’s moralchoices and political allegiances (Burr, 2003).Because of its perceived relativism, social con-structionist therapies have been criticized for notadvocating a more political stance with regards tooppressed groups (Biever, De Las Fuentes, Cash-ion, & Franklin, 1998) and for its contradictorypositions in denying essential truths about moral-ity, but adopting an implicit moral view thatracism is wrong (Lee, 2004).

Another concern relates to social construction-

ists’ alleged denial of personal agency, that is,one’s free will and ability to act and makechoices voluntarily (Burr, 2003). If social andlinguistic forces, rather than psychological struc-tures such as beliefs, values, or attitudes form

personhood, the concept of personal agency ap-pears illusory. At rst blush, this position seemsincompatible with the positive psychology of character strengths in which personal agency is

viewed as the basis of one’s ability to developcharacter strengths (cf. Peterson & Seligman,2004).

Largely absent from scholarly discussions onthe application of social constructionism to psy-chotherapy is the diversity of positions withinsocial constructionism (see Neimeyer, 1998, foran exception; see Nightingale & Cromby, 1999;Stam, 2001, for a survey of diverse social con-structionist positions). For the purposes of peda-gogical clarity, the various camps within social

constructionism can be roughly classied into 2categories: Strong and moderate social construc-tionism. Exemplied by the writings of KennethGergen (1991, 1999), strong social construction-ism embraces relativism as well as socially andlinguistically determined views of selfhood thatare antithetical to the concept of personal agency(cf. Neimeyer, 1998). In contrast, moderate socialconstructionists (1) view language as both thecreator and conveyor of meaning (Terrell & Lyd-don, 1996); (2) believe that experience can havean extralinguistic form (Burr, 1999); (3) adopt anonrelativist, critical realist position in whichone’s perceptions reference the real world insome way even if they are partially generatedthrough social and linguistic structures (e.g.,Hruby, 2001; Nightingale & Cromby, 2002; Wil-lig, 1999); (4) are more willing to articulate moralvisions (e.g., Howard, 1992; Shotter, 1992); and(5) accord some form of personal agency along-side the social construction of personhood (e.g.,Burr, 2003; Harre, 2000; Mascolo & Dalto,1995).

In sum, moderate social constructionism canbe understood as adopting a less absolutisticstance in its objection to modernist assumptionsabout human functioning. 2 Arguably, many of the above criticisms directed against social con-structionism are more applicable to its strongerform rather than its moderate version. It is pro-posed that the positive psychology of character

2

The arguments advanced by advocates of moderate socialconstructionism are complex, and space does not permit afuller treatment of this subject. Interested readers should referto Burr (2003), Robinson (1992), and Nightingale andCromby (1999).

Wong

136


5/14

strengths is incompatible with strong social con-structionism but can nd common ground withmoderate social constructionism because of thelatter’s stance that knowledge and truth are inu-

enced but not exclusively determined by socialand linguistic structures. Interestingly, broadlysimilar arguments were proffered by Sandage andHill (2001) who proposed a rapprochement be-tween postmodernism and the positive psychol-ogy of virtues. By distinguishing skeptical andafrmative postmodernism (resembling some of the differences between strong and moderate so-cial constructionism), Sandage and Hill (2001)argued that positive psychology and the conceptof virtue are compatible with the metatheoretical

underpinnings of afrmative postmodernism. Inaddition, both perspectives share commonaltiessuch as a focus on individuals’ strengths and thecommunity orientation of virtues (Sandage &Hill, 2001).

In the following section, the theoretical base of ST is presented, with attention given to how STcan engage the strengths of moderate social con-structionist and virtues-based perspectives to psy-chotherapy. Henceforth, references to social con-structionism in this article denote moderate social

constructionism.3

Theoretical Assumptions of ST

ST is founded on a constellation of premisesdescribing the nature of psychotherapy. First, STfocuses on harnessing clients’ positive resourcesand not merely alleviating pathology, a commonperspective shared by social constructionist per-spectives on psychotherapy and the positive psy-chology of character strengths (e.g., Anderson,

1997; Sandage & Hill, 2001). Consistent with thestance of many social constructionist psychother-apies (e.g., Anderson, 1997; Freedman & Combs,1996; Lipchik, 2002), as well as some positivepsychologists (e.g., Maddux et al., 2004),strength-centered therapists view diagnostic la-bels and their accompanying conceptions of ab-normality as socially constructed. Although notdenying that clients’ mental health concerns areoften related to biological and psychological pro-cesses, strength-centered therapists are concerned

that diagnostic terminologies such as “disorder”and “manic” also shape the “realities” by whichpeople live (e.g., by negatively inuencing theirself-concepts). Strength-centered therapists be-lieve that diagnostic labels are merely one of

several ways to discuss clients’ concerns; theirpreferred set of linguistic terms in therapeuticconversations is that of character strengths andvirtues.

Second, ST seeks to incorporate the perspec-tives of social constructionism and positive psy-chology on the nature of character strengths andvirtues. Positive psychologists tend to conceptu-alize character strengths as traits residing withinindividuals (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004).Strength-centered therapists recognize the bene-ts of describing character strengths in terms of traits because they are meaningful expressions of goals that clients can identify with (e.g., “I wantto be more patient.”) From a social construction-ist viewpoint, character strengths also are concep-tualized as actions performed within particularcontexts. This contextual account enables thetherapist to explore situations in which the clientis willing to enact a particular character strengtheven if he4 claims he does not possess thestrength. In addition, a contextual perspectivestresses the importance of clients’ exibility inthe performance of their character strengths ac-cording to situational demands 5 (Aspinwall &Staudinger, 2003a).

Third, ST emphasizes the social constructionistview that the therapist and client participate in thecocreation of new meanings concerning clients’subjective experiences (Gergen, 1999). Themeanings clients attach to their life experiencesmight revolve around problems, and they tend tolive their lives according to these meanings. Cli-ents often do not recognize their strengths andmay not have clear conceptions of how their livescan be better. A central goal of ST is for thetherapist and client to cocreate new meanings

3 Unfortunately, it is difcult to classify specic socialconstructionist therapies as either moderate or strong becausescholars who have described the theoretical underpinnings of such therapies tend not to distinguish explicitly among dif-ferent forms of social constructionism. Hence, in describinghow social constructionism shapes the theoretical base of ST,several meta-theoretical moderate social constructionist per-spectives on psychotherapy are used rather than the theoriesof specic social constructionist therapies.

4 In this article, unless the context indicates otherwise, the

male gender is used when referring to the client and thefemale gender is used when referring to the therapist.

5 See the following section “Description of How ST IsConducted” for an example of the exible use of characterstrengths according to situational demands.


137


6/14

about the client’s character strengths through 2social constructionist metastrategies: The cre-ative use of language and polyvocality.

Since language is viewed as inuencing the

“realities” by which people live (cf., Anderson,1997; Neimeyer, 1998), strength-centered thera-pists creatively employ the metaphor of characterstrengths to create new meanings concerning cli-ents’ experiences. Strength-centered therapistsprefer to talk about clients’ problems in terms of unrealized character strengths and therapeuticgoals as preferred character strengths (e.g., seren-ity) and not simply the reduction of pathology(e.g., less anxiety). An important implication of these new linguistic conceptualizations of clients’

experiences is that there are no distinctionsamong the assessment, goal-setting, and interven-tion stages of psychotherapy. Hence, the labelingof existing and desired character strengths is aninherently therapeutic strategy in ST and notmerely an assessment or a goal-setting strategy.The identication of desired character strengthsreshapes clients’ present understanding of theiridentity and experiences, for example, from per-ceiving oneself as a depressed person to one whodesires to be more courageous.

Further, because the meaning of words areuid and negotiated within the therapeutic con-text (Anderson, 1997), the therapist does not as-sume her conceptualization of a particular char-acter strength is identical to that of her client evenif they use the same words to describe thatstrength. Meanings of words are understood onlyin the context of explicit therapeutic discussion(Rosen, 1996). This perspective is liberating be-cause the therapist and the client are not obligedto describe character strengths according to the

names of specic virtues listed by scholars. Nei-ther must their understanding of particular char-acter strengths conform to that dened by re-searchers. The terms “character” and “virtue”need not even be used in psychotherapy unlessthey are meaningful to clients. Rather, the thera-pist engages the client in the creative labeling of identied and desired character strengths to pos-itively restructure the client’s experiences. Forexample, a client who is a fan of the Star Warsmovie series might label his strength of authen-

ticity as the Luke Skywalker strength.The second metastrategy used in ST to createnew meanings concerning clients’ characterstrengths is the use of what Kenneth Gergen(1999) has termed “polyvocality.” Polyvocality

refers to the use of clients’ interpersonal andsocial resources to expand the number of voicesbearing on the clients’ experiences (Gergen,1999). The use of this metastrategy is a natural

expression of the social constructionist notionthat the meanings clients attach to characterstrengths are not just a product of their minds, butare shaped by interpersonal forces. Hence, clientscan signicantly expand their understanding of character strengths when they consider the per-spectives of people they trust or admire (althoughclients are free to decide whether they agree withthese perspectives). The therapist might encour-age polyvocality by inviting the client to considerwhat another person (e.g., a close friend) would

say concerning his existing and desired characterstrengths. Alternatively, polyvocality might in-volve interviews with signicant persons in theclient’s life. In addition, character strengths areoften embodied in paragons of virtues (Peterson& Seligman, 2004). Hence, clients can be askedto reect on the lives of people who embody thecharacter strengths they desire.

In this regard, polyvocality serves as a foil tothe individualistic bias in many modern therapieswhere the goals of self-focus, self-actualization,and self-reliance are paramount (Cushman, 1990;Doherty, 1995; Richardson, 2005). In contrast,ST actively encourages the cultivation of andreliance on healthy interpersonal relationshipsand role models to generate new meanings toclients’ experiences.

Fourth, strength-centered therapists pay closeattention to how systematic, cultural, and politi-cal forces structure the meanings clients attach totheir character strengths. From a social construc-tionist viewpoint, what is considered virtuous andthe salience of specic character strengths varyacross cultures (cf. Sandage & Hill, 2001). Forinstance, some scholars have identied fa-milismo, a strong familistic orientation, as astrength that might be more relevant and valuedin Latino cultures than in European Americanculture (Santiago-Rivera, Arredondo, &Gallardo-Cooper, 2002). Further, even if thesame virtue is equally valued across cultures, itmight be expressed or dened differently in di-

verse cultures. In a description of traditionalHmong culture, Sandage et al. (2003) argued thatthe Hmong conceptualization of forgiveness isassociated with the restoration of social face toone’s community compared to dealing with a

Wong

138


7/14

specic individual in Western perspectives onforgiveness.

Because of the abovementioned cultural diver-sity, it is important that the strength-centered

therapist’s conceptions of character strengths donot simply reect the views of people in positionsof power within the elds of psychology andpsychotherapy, for example, White, male, hetero-sexual, middle class, nonreligious, able-bodiedpeople. The strength-centered therapist recog-nizes that what she personally considers dysfunc-tional might be perceived as character strengthsby her client, for example, a lack of assertivenessmay be regarded as the virtue of humility bysome religious clients. Hence, the therapist ac-

tively seeks to learn how culture inuences herclients’ and her own conceptualizations of char-acter strengths, and where appropriate discuss theinterface of culture and character strengths withher clients.

A second implication of the social-culturalcontext of character strengths for ST is its sensi-tivity to sociopolitical discourses, an importanttheme in some social constructionist therapies(e.g., Anderson, 1997; Freedman & Combs,1996). Strength-centered therapists are interested

in how racial and gender-related experiencesstructure the meanings clients ascribe to characterstrengths and how such meanings can be re-shaped. For instance, a male client who wants todevelop emotional intimacy, but believes thatmen are incapable of being emotionally expres-sive, might be invited to consider how he em-braced these socially constructed messages aboutmasculinity, and how he can challenge them (cf.Wong & Rochlen, 2005).

Fifth, consistent with social constructionist

views on psychotherapy, the therapist is viewedas inseparably connected to, rather than indepen-dent, of her client (Gutterman, 1994). Neither thetherapist nor the client is the dominant agent of the therapeutic process; rather, therapeuticprogress is a coconstructive process arising fromthe therapist-client relationship. Because the ther-apist is not seen as an expert on the client’sproblems, her comments and suggestions are al-ways expressed tentatively so that the client hasthe opportunity to disagree with her. On the other

hand, the therapist recognizes that she does notmerely provide the client with values clarication(as is commonly assumed in traditional modernpsychotherapy), but takes seriously her inevitablemoral inuence on the client’s life (Johnson &

Sandage, 1999). It is, thus, important for thestrength-centered therapist to be conscious of hermoral values. Where appropriate, the therapistand client should explicitly discuss how their

respective moral values inuence their conceptu-alizations of character strengths and the therapeu-tic process.

Description of How ST Is Conducted

Having described the theoretical foundationsof ST, what follows is a description of how ST ispracticed. ST can be described in terms of 4phases of psychotherapy: the explicitizing, envi-sioning, empowering, and evolving phases. With

the exception of the evolving phase which is mostrelevant during the termination stage of psycho-therapy, the other phases should be viewed asthemes to be revisited several times in the courseof psychotherapy rather than distinct linearstages. It is also not necessary to cover all 4phases to experience therapeutic growth. Work-ing on the basis of weekly sessions, it is antici-pated that psychotherapy for most clients can becompleted within a few weeks or months.

Before describing the 4 phases of ST, 2 com-

ments are needed. First, although examples of various strategies are given to illustrate the ther-apeutic work in each phase, many of these strat-egies can be used in another phase. Further, the 2metastrategies described in the previous section,the creative use of language and polyvocality,permeate the therapeutic work in all phases. Sec-ond, although the conceptualization of the 4phases is presented as an original contribution tothe practice of psychotherapy, readers familiarwith social constructionist therapies might notice

that some of the specic techniques within eachphase bear some resemblance to those used inother social constructionist therapies. Where suchpotential similarities exist, brief comparisons be-tween ST and these therapies are provided in thefootnotes.

Explicitizing Phase

The process of explicitly identifying the cli-ent’s existing character strengths is termed “ex-

plicitizing.” Character strengths are assumed tobe implicit within the client’s presenting con-cerns, and the therapist and client collaborate tomake these strengths explicit . Explicitizing isconducted using a variety of therapeutic strate-


139


8/14

gies. The therapist can tentatively point out herperceptions of the client’s strengths or ask him toidentify his character strengths. As shown in thefollowing vignette, the therapist might also reect

the client’s presenting concerns in a way thathighlights his existing character strengths withoutnegating his painful experiences:Client: I kept working on the project even though I hated it.Yes, I hated it!

Therapist: It sounds like you really disliked the project. Andat the same time, you demonstrated a lot of perseverance.

Another useful explicitizing strategy involvesreframing an apparent weakness as a characterstrength (cf. Gelso & Woodhouse, 2003). Forexample, defensive pessimism has been de-scribed as an adaptive strategy in which individ-uals set unrealistically low expectations, then de-vote considerable energy to reect on worse-casescenarios so as to achieve the best possible out-come (Norem & Chang, 2002). Thus, the thera-pist might tentatively suggest to a pessimisticclient who often achieves better than expectedoutcomes that he has been using the strength of defensive pessimism.

Polyvocality can be used in several ways toexplicitize clients’ character strengths. The ther-apist can tap into the client’s network of support-ive interpersonal relationships by inviting 1 or 2close friends to participate in a session of psy-chotherapy. These friends could be asked by thetherapist (in the presence of the client) to identifythe character strengths they have observed in theclient’s life. 6 Alternatively, the therapist couldconduct a virtual interview with the client’sfriends, for example, “If your best friend Frank were here listening to our conversation, whatwould he identify as some of your strengths?”

Consistent with social constructionist views onlanguage, the therapist and the client collaboratein ascribing personally meaningful labels to theclient’s identied character strengths. The fol-lowing vignette illustrates this therapeutic strat-egy:Therapist: Last night, your boyfriend was screaming at you,yet you remained calm. What was it about you that helped youremain calm?

Client: Actually I was very angry. But I thought to myself, “If I yell at him, we’re going to have another shouting match, so

it’s better to tell him I can’t talk to him now, and we need towait till we both calm down before we talk.”

Therapist: This ability to observe what was going on betweenyou and your boyfriend and to pull back from a shoutingmatch, can you give it a name?

Client [after a pause]: I’ll call it my “junior-year strength,”‘cos it was in my junior year that I began to use it.

Therapist: Tell me about how you used this strength in your junior year.

In the above example, the creation of thelabel “junior-year strength” is signicant be-cause it enables the client to interpret a recentunhappy incident in light of more fullling pastexperiences. 7

Importantly, the identication of clients’ char-acter strengths is never done at the expense of clients’ freedom to explore negative emotionsand cognitions. Many clients have had their con-cerns dismissed by others prior to commencingpsychotherapy, and, as such, strength-centeredtherapists must communicate that they are genu-inely interested in their clients’ concerns, even if they relate to negative experiences. Nevertheless,the process of explicitizing can co-occur with anexploration of clients’ negative experiences. Forexample, when a therapist expresses appreciationfor the client’s authenticity and courage in dis-closing his feelings of distress to her, she isvalidating his subjective painful experiences aswell as his strengths of authenticity and courage.

Envisioning Phase

This phase involves clients envisioning thecharacter strengths they wish to develop as wellas how they can use the strengths identied dur-ing the explicitizing phase to advance their ther-apeutic goals. Clients could be asked directly,“What strengths would you like to develop?”Alternatively, clients who have specied theirown therapeutic goals (e.g., “I want to be happy”)can be asked what character strengths they candevelop to achieve their goals. Importantly, char-acter strengths are not described in terms of char-acteristics to avoid. For instance, a client whosegoal is to be less envious of others is encouraged

6 This technique is broadly similar to the strategy of build -ing an audience for change used in narrative therapy in whichthe client’s signicant others (e.g., friends and family mem-bers) are encouraged to provide support and afrmation to theclient (O’Connor, 1999).

7 The technique of labeling clients’ character strengths in

ST is arguably a mirror image of the externalization strategyused in narrative therapy. Whereas the externalization strat-egy helps the client disidentify with a problem by objectifyingor naming it, labeling a character strength encourages theclient to incorporate it as part of his identity.

Wong

140


9/14

to think of a positive word or phrase to describeher goal, for example, be more content.

Where it is helpful to the client, the therapistsdiscusses how character strengths might contrib-

ute to other therapeutic goals. Hence, a clientwho says his goal is to have better public-speaking skills might be asked, “What characterstrengths would help you become better at publicspeaking?” A strategy that can help clients con-ceptualize their therapeutic goals in terms of character strengths is the sentence completiontechnique. Clients complete the following sen-tence, “I am more likely to achieve my goal of [client’s goal] if I am a(an) ____ person.” Clientsare encouraged to think of as many words as

possible to insert in the blank space in the sen-tence. Many of the words that clients think of arelikely to be character strengths. Further, clientscould be asked to think of people they admire andto reect on their character strengths.

As is the case in the explicitizing phase, clientsare encouraged to give personally meaningfullabels to their desired character strengths. It alsois important that clients elaborate the meanings of the character strengths they wish to develop. Forexample, if the client’s goal is to grow in the

strength of humility, he could be asked to projectinto the future and describe in detail a day in thelife of “humble [client’s name]. 8 ”

Empowering Phase

This phase involves clients experiencing em-powerment in the development of their desiredcharacter strengths. Clients are more likely toexperience empowerment when they have ampleopportunities to use their desired character

strengths and are motivated to do so. To increasethe frequency in which a character strength isused, a client might be encouraged to develop ahabit that facilitates the tangible expression of thestrength. If a client’s goal is to cultivate gratitude,he could begin the habit of describing 5 things heis grateful for in a journal each week. To increaseclients’ motivation to exercise their desired char-acter strengths, clients could be asked to write aletter to themselves from the vantage point of awise person they admire describing the benets

of developing those strengths. Clients also areasked about who can support them in their pro-cess of developing their preferred and existingcharacter strengths (e.g., “Who can encourageyou to be more prudent?”)

Drawing from social constructionist views onthe contextual nature of character strengths, theempowering phase involves clients learning toappreciate that situational variability necessitates

the exible use of character strengths. Characterstrengths are more optimally utilized when cli-ents are able to discern when, to whom, where,and how they exercise their character strengths.For example, in helping a client who wants todevelop emotional authenticity, the therapistmight discuss situations where it would be help-ful to be authentic about one’s intense negativeemotions (e.g., when conding in a close friend)and instances where it might be appropriate torein in one’s feelings (e.g., when talking to one’s

supervisor at work).The therapist regularly discusses the client’sperceived therapeutic progress during the em-powering phase. A linguistic strategy that helpsclients identify character growth is the use of metaphorical sign-posting. The client is asked tothink of a metaphor that denotes different grada-tions of character growth, for instance, differentrooms in a house or the gears of a manual-transmission car. This metaphor is used to track the client’s perceived growth in his desired char-

acter strengths, for example, the 5th gear of amanual transmission car can denote the highestlevel of growth. This technique might enable thetherapist and the client to identify the perceivedingredients of growth, for example, “What led tothe change from second to third gear?”

Evolving Phase

This phase is most salient during the termina-tion stage of psychotherapy. The phrase “evolv-

ing” signies that the process of growing in char-acter strengths is never-ending and continueseven after the completion of psychotherapy. Dur-ing this phase, the therapist and the client reviewand celebrate gains made by the client in psycho-therapy, focusing particularly on growth in char-

8 This technique bears some resemblance to the miraclequestion technique used in solution-focused therapy in whichclients are asked about how their lives would be different if amiracle happens and their problems no longer exist (e.g.,

Hurn, 2003). Both techniques help clients to picture them-selves accomplishing their therapeutic goals. However, theenvisioning phase focuses on the realization of desired char-acter strengths as opposed to the absence of problems used inthe miracle question technique.


141


10/14

acter strengths. Also, the therapist and the clientwork together to identify areas for further growth(e.g., “What would your life look like in sixmonths if you continue becoming more compas-

sionate toward others?”) as well as how the clientcan utilize existing character strengths to addressfuture challenges (e.g., “What strengths can yourely on if this problem arises again?”).

The use of polyvocality can be encouraged byasking the client about signicant changes he hasmade in character development and to identifyfuture areas of growth from the perspective of signicant others (e.g., friends and family mem-bers) in his life.

Case Vignette

The following case vignette illustrates thepractice of ST. Yeo-Jung, a Korean Americanwoman presented her concerns as helplessness,bitterness, and indecision regarding her recentdivorce as well as how to respond to a suitinitiated by her ex-husband for custody of their 2children. Born and raised in Korea, Yeo-Jung metand married her husband Joe 15 years ago whenhe served as a U.S. military serviceman in Korea.

Yeo-Jung emigrated to the United States after Joereturned to the United States 12 years ago.The couple recently divorced after Yeo-Jung

discovered Joe’s affair with another woman.Yeo-Jung was awarded custody of their children,although Joe has requested custody, citing Yeo-Jung’s alleged “verbal abuse” of their children.Yeo-Jung wants to retain custody of her children,but fears she cannot outwit Joe’s legal maneuver-ings. She says she often ruminates about what herlife would be like without her children. Yeo-Jung

admits she is still bitter about Joe’s indelity andtheir divorce.The therapist expresses empathy for Yeo-Jung

and also explores the character strengths she hasrelied on to cope with her current difculties(explicitizing phase). Yeo-Jung realizes she oftenthinks of the worst-case scenario when trying tosolve a problem so that the fear of failure wouldmotivate her to achieve her goal. The therapist,who is familiar with Korean culture as well asresearch on Asian Americans and optimism/

pessimism, explores the cultural signicance andadaptive value of Yeo-Jung’s pessimism (cf.Peterson & Chang, 2003). Together, the therapistand Yeo-Jung identify defensive pessimism as acharacter strength she has used to cope with her

life’s difculties. 9 Yeo-Jung labels this strengthof hers as “planning for a rainy day.” Whileproviding examples of how she has used thisstrength in the past, she comes to the conclusion

that she intends to contest her husband’s custodysuit.When asked about her interpersonal resources,

Yeo-Jung replies that her friends from churchhave been her only source of support (Yeo-Jungis very religious and is an active member of aKorean church). Yeo-Jung singles out Mandy, afriend from church, as someone she is close toand whom she respects.

During the envisioning phase, the therapistasks Yeo-Jung about the strengths she hopes to

develop to address her current situation. Yeo-Jung replies that she wants to be more forgivingand condent. However, apart from saying shehopes to forgive Joe, Yeo-Jung is unable to ex-plain how her life would be different if she weremore forgiving and condent. Yeo-Jung is giventhe assignment of interviewing Mandy aboutwhat she would see in Yeo-Jung’s life if she werea more forgiving and condent person. Throughher discussions with Mandy, Yeo-Jung realizedthat if she were more forgiving and condent, she

would spend less time ruminating about her hus-band’s adultery, be more patient with her chil-dren, and nd a job to support her family.

During the empowering phase, the therapistand Yeo-Jung work on strategies to help her liveout her vision of being a forgiving and condentperson. The therapist and Yeo-Jung explore theimportance of forgiveness within the context of her Christian beliefs. Yeo-Jung invites Mandy toparticipate in a session for psychotherapy. Thetherapist and Mandy help Yeo-Jung to devise aprayer ritual in which Yeo-Jung confesses herbitterness and asks for strength from God to for-give Joe. As Yeo-Jung grows in her strength of forgiveness, she notices she also has becomemore patient with her children.

Yeo-Jung believes she probably needs to nd a job to supplement her family income that is basedentirely on child support from Joe. However, sheis terried of applying for a job because she hasnever held a job before. The therapist discussesthe gendered and racial origins of Yeo-Jung’sfears that prevent her from being more condent

9 Refer to the discussion on defensive pessimism in theearlier section “Explicitizing Phase.”

Wong

142


11/14

in her job application. Yeo-Jung discloses that thelast time she applied for a job, she was laughed atby the interviewer because of her accent. She alsostruggles with the belief that the role of the

woman is at home and not at work. The therapistasks Yeo-Jung to reect on female Korean Amer-ican role models who have deed racism andsexism in their careers. The therapist also dis-cusses other areas of Yeo-Jung’s life where shefeels more condent of herself. Yeo-Jung con-cludes she is most condent when doing volun-teer work for her church. After some brainstorm-ing, Yeo-Jung decides to explore the possibilityof working for her church. Yeo-Jung eventuallynds a part-time job as an administrative assistant

in her church.Toward the end of psychotherapy (evolvingphase), Yeo-Jung’s perception of herself haschanged from that of a helpless, bitter, indecisivedivorcee to that of a single-parent who is strug-gling but trying her best for the sake of herchildren. Yeo-Jung and the therapist discuss howher life would look like in a year’s time if shecontinues being more forgiving and condent. Tocelebrate the gains Yeo-Jung has made, Mandyand Yeo-Jung’s children are invited for a session

where they give feedback on the characterstrengths she has developed.

Cautions and Limitations

Several cautions and limitations in the use of ST should be noted. ST should not be viewedmerely as a therapeutic approach to help theclient feel and think more positively. Neithershould ST be understood as discouraging discus-sions of client’s negative experiences (see Held,

2002, for allegations that postmodern therapistsseek to eliminate all therapeutic discussions of negativity). Therapeutic discussions of client’snegative experiences are sometimes essential tofacilitating perceived growth in some characterstrengths. For instance, the expression of nega-tive thoughts and emotions to others might beperceived by some clients as important ingredi-ents in fostering the strengths of authenticity,humility, and help-seeking.

Further, although the process of therapeutic

change often will be uplifting to the client, it alsomight involve hard work and pain because char-acter development sometimes takes place throughthe experience of adversity (Tedeschi, Park, &Calhoun, 1998; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Hence, therapeutic conversations on characterstrengths must be balanced with genuine empathyfor clients’ subjective experience of suffering.

In addition, the practice of ST might have to be

modied when working with clients presentingwith severe psychopathology. Because some cli-ents might not initially possess the psychologicalresources to reect on their strengths due to ex-treme levels of distress, the use of ST might beneed to be supplemented by the use of othertherapeutic strategies that provide support andenhance emotional stability (e.g., the use of dia-lectical behavioral therapy with suicidal clients;Linehan, 1987).

The focus of this article has been on character

strengths within the context of individual psycho-therapy. Hence, ST might appear less relevant tofamily and couples therapy. Nevertheless, it ispossible to apply principles in ST to couples orfamily therapy. In addition to considering clients’individual character strengths, couples and fami-lies can learn to identify relationship or familystrengths (Sandage & Hill, 2001). For example, acouple might identify the mutual expression of appreciation as one of their core relationshipstrengths.

Conclusion

This article has presented ST as a therapeuticapproach based on the positive psychology of character strengths and virtues as well as moder-ate social constructionist perspectives on psycho-therapy. Compared to other social constructionisttherapies, ST’s most distinctive feature is its cen-tral focus on clients’ character strengths andvirtues.

Nevertheless, ST shares some common theo-retical features with these therapies such as ade-emphasis on clients’ pathology and the cocon-struction of meaning. Further, several therapeuticstrategies used in other social constructionisttherapies might be used in a theoretically consis-tent manner with ST. For example, the use of scaling questions in solution-focused therapy canbe used in ST to track different gradations of perceived growth in character strengths. In addi-tion, techniques used in narrative therapy for

providing a context for clients’ new story(Semmler & Williams, 2000) can be used togenerate new meanings concerning clients’strengths. Hence, one fruitful area of futurescholarly exposition is a comparison of similari-


143


12/14

ties and differences between ST and other socialconstructionist therapies as well as an explorationof a theoretically progressive integration of STwith these therapies (cf. Neimeyer, 1993).

The development of ST is in its infancy. Futureempirical research can compare ST with othermore established therapeutic approaches as wellas investigate the types of clients and presentingproblems that benet most from this approach.Another interesting research question relates tothe kind of therapists who are most effective inutilizing ST. It is suggested that individuals withthe character strength of encouragement (Dagleyet al., 1998) are more likely to be effectivestrength-centered therapists because therapeutic

discussions of client’s character strengths mightrequire the therapists to genuinely communicatetheir faith in clients’ strengths. In addition, re-searchers should also use qualitative researchmethods to explore the subjective therapeutic ex-periences of clients and therapists who use ST.

After decades of scholarly and empirical ne-glect, positive psychology has ushered the returnof character strengths and virtues as importantthemes in psychology (Jorgensen & Nafstad,2004; Seligman, 2002). In the same vein,

Strength-Centered Therapy, cast as a social con-structionist psychotherapy, might contribute tothe revival of character strengths and virtues inpsychotherapy.

References

A NDERSON , H. (1997). Conversation, language, and pos- sibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. NewYork: Basic Books.

A NDERSON , H., & G OOLISHIAN , H. A. (1992). The clientas expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In S.McNamee and K. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction, (pp. 25–39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

A SPINWALL , L. G., & STAUDINGER , U. M. (2003a). Apsychology of human strengths: Some central issues of an emerging eld. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M.Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths:Fundamental questions and future directions for a pos-itive psychology (pp. 9–22). Washington, DC: APABooks.

A SPINWALL , L. G., & STAUDINGER , U. M. (Eds.) (2003b). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental ques-tions and future directions for a positive psychology.Washington, DC: APA Books.

BIEVER , J. L., D E LAS FUENTES , C., CASHION , L., &FRANKLIN , C. (1998). The social construction of gender:A comparison of feminist and postmodern approaches.Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 163–180.

BURR , V. (1999). The extra-discursive in social constru-cionsim. In D. J. Nightingale & J. Cromby (Eds.), Social

constructionist psychology: A critical analysis of theoryand practice (pp. 113–126). Buckingham, UK: OpenUniversity Press.

BURR , V. (2003). Social constructionism. London:Routledge.

CAWLEY , M. J., MARTIN , J. E., & J OHNSON , J. A. (2000).A virtues approach to personality. Personality and In-dividual Differences, 28, 997–1013.

CUSHMAN , P. (1990). Why the self is empty. AmericanPsychologist, 45, 599– 611.

CUSHMAN , P. (1995). Constructing the self, constructing America: A cultural history of psychotherapy. Reading,MA: Addison Wesley.

CUSHMAN , P., & G ILFORD , P. (1999). From emptiness tomultiplicity: The self at the year 2000. PsychohistoryReview, 27, 15–31.

D’A NDREA , M. (2005, January). Reclaiming positive psy-chology from a multicultural perspective: Combatingnew forms of racism and ethnocentrism in psychology :Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalMulticultural Conference and Summit, Hollywood,CA.

D AGLEY , J. C., CALHOUN , G. B., G LASER , B. A., B RYANT ,T., P HILPOTT , S. Y., K INOSHITA , N., ET AL . (1998, Octo-ber). The psychology of encouragement. Paper pre-sented at the annual convention of the South CarolinaSociety for Adlerian Psychology, Myrtle Beach, SC.

D E SHAZER , S., & BERG , I. K. (1992). Doing therapy: Apost-structural re-vision. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 18, 71–81.

D OHERTY , W. J. (1995). Soul-searching: Why psychother-apy must promote moral responsibility. New York: Ba-sic Books.

FOWERS , B. J. (2005a). Virtue and psychology: Pursuingexcellence in ordinary practices. Washington, DC: APABooks.

FOWERS , B. J. (2005b). Psychotherapy, character, and thegood life. In B. D. Slife, J. S. Reber, & F. C. Richardson(Eds.), Critical thinking about psychology: Hidden assumptions and plausible alternatives (pp. 39–59). Wash-ington, DC: APA Books.

FREEDMAN , J., & COMBS , G. (1996). Narrative therapy:The social construction of preferred realities. New York:Norton.

G ELSO , C. J., & WOODHOUSE , S. (2003). Toward a posi-

tive psychotherapy: Focus on human strength. In W. B.Walsh (Ed.), Counseling psychology and human strengths (pp. 344–369). NY: Erlbaum.

G ERGEN , K. J. (1985). The social constructionist move-ment in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40,266–275.

G ERGEN , K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

G ERGEN , K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction.London: Sage.

G UTTERMAN , J. T. (1994). A social constructionist posi-tion for mental health counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 16, 226–244.

G UTTERMAN , J. T. (1996). Doing mental health counsel-ing: A social constructionist revision. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18, 228–253.

H ANSEN , J. T. (2004). Thoughts on knowing: Epistemicimplications of counseling practice. Journal of Counsel-ing and Development, 82, 131–139.

Wong

144


13/14

H ARE -MUSTIN , R., & M ARECEK , J. (1997). Abnormal andclinical psychology: The politics of madness. In D. Fox& I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An intro-duction (pp. 104–120). London: Sage.

H ARRE , R. (2000). Personalism in the context of a social

constructionist psychology: Stern and Vygotsky. Theory& Psychology, 10, 731–748.H ELD , B. S. (1995). Back to reality: A critique of post-

modern theory in psychotherapy. New York: Norton.H ELD , B. S. (2002). The tyranny of the positive attitude in

America: Observation and speculation. Journal of Clin-ical Psychology, 58, 965–992.

H ELD , B. S. (2004). The negative side of positive psychol-ogy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44, 9 –46.

H OWARD , G. S. (1992). Can there be a just and moralsocial constructionist psychology? In D. L. Robinson(Ed.) Social discourse and moral judgment (pp. 151–165). New York: Academic Press.

H RUBY , G. G. (2001). Sociological, postmodern and newrealism perspectives in social constructionism: Implica-tions for literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 48– 62.

H URN , R. (2003). Butteries in possibility land: An ex-ample of the miracle question when counselling briey.Counselling Psychology Review, 18, 17–27.

JOHNSON , E. L., & SANDAGE , S. J. (1999). A postmodernreconstruction of psychotherapy: Orienteering, religionand the healing of the soul. Psychotherapy, 36, 1–15.

JORGENSEN , I . S. , & NAFSTAD , H. E. (2004). Positivepsychology: Historical, philosophical, and epistemolog-ical perspectives. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.),Positive psychology in practice (pp. 15–34). Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.

JOSEPH , S., & LINLEY , P. A. (2004). Positive therapy: Apositive psychological theory of therapeutic practice. InP. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 354–368). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

KEYES , C. L. M. (2003). Complete mental health: Anagenda for the 21 st Century. In C. L. M. Keyes & J.Haidt. (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and thelife well-lived (pp. 293–312). Washington, DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association.

KEYES , C. L. M., & H AIDT , J. (Eds.). (2003). Flourishing:Positive psychology and the life well lived. WashingtonDC: American Psychological Association.

KULKA , A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philoso- phy of science. New York: Routledge.LEE , C. (2004). Agency and purpose in narrative therapy:

Questioning the postmodern rejection of metanarra-tive. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32 ( , 221–231.

LINEHAN , M. M. (1987). Dialectical behavioral therapy:A cognitive behavioral approach to parasuicide. Jour-nal of Personality Disorders, l, 328–333.

LINLEY , P. A., & J OSEPH , S. (Eds.). (2004). Positive psy-chology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

LIPCHIK , E. (2002). Beyond technique in solution-focusedtherapy. New York: Guilford Press.

MADDUX , J. E., SNYDER , C. R., & L OPEZ , S. J. (2004).Positive clinical psychology: Deconstructing the illnessideology and constructing an ideology of health andhuman potential. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.),Positive psychology in practice (pp. 320–334). Hobo-ken, NJ: Wiley.

MASCOLO , M. F., & D ALTO , C. A. (1995). Self and mo-dernity on trial: A reply to Gergen’s Saturated Self. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8, 175–191.

MCCULLOUGH , M. E., & SNYDER , C. R. (2000). Classicalsources of human strength: Revisiting an old home and

building a new one. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-chology, 19, 1–10.NEIEMYER , R. A. (1993). Constructivism and the problem

of psychotherapy integration. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 3, 133–157.

NEIMEYER , R. A. (1998). Social constructionism in thecounselling context. Counselling Psychology Quarterly,11, 135–149.

NIGHTINGALE , D. J., & C ROMBY , J. (2002). Social con-structionism as ontology: Exposition and example. The-ory and Psychology, 12, 701–713.

NIGHTINGALE , D. J., & C ROMBY , J. (Eds.). (1999). Social constructionist psychology: A critical analysis of theory

and practice. Buckingham, UK: Open UniversityPress.NOREM , J . K. , & CHANG , E. C. (2002). The positive

psychology of negative thinking. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 993–1001.

O’C ONNOR , T. (1999). Climbing mount purgatory:Dante’s cure of souls and narrative family therapy.Pastoral Psychology, 47, 455–457.

PETERSON , C., & CHANG , E. C. (2003). Optimism andourishing. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flour-ishing: Positive psychology and the life well lived (pp.55–80). Washington DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

PETERSON , C., & SELIGMAN , M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A classication and handbook.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

R ICHARDSON , F. C. (2005). Psychotherapy and moderndilemmas. In B. D. Slife, J. S. Reber, & F. C. Richard-son (Eds.), Critical thinking about psychology: Hiddenassumptions and plausible alternatives (pp. 17–38).Washington, DC: APA Books.

R OBINSON , D. L. (Ed.). (1992). Social discourse andmoral judgment. New York: Academic Press.

R OSEN , H. (1996). Meaning-Making Narratives: Founda-tions for constructivist and social constructionist psy-chotherapies. In H. Rosen., & K. T. Kuehlwein (Eds.),Constructing realities: Meaning-making perspectives for psychotherapists (pp. 3–54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

R YFF , C. D., & S INGER , B. (1998). The contours of pos-itive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.

SANDAGE , S. J., & H ILL , P. C. (2001). The virtues of positive psychology: The rapprochement and chal-lenges of an afrmative postmodern perspective. Jour-nal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 31, 241–260.

SANDAGE , S. J., H ILL , P. C. , & V ANG , H. C. (2003).Toward a multicultural positive psychology: Indigenousforgiveness and Hmong culture. Counseling Psycholo- gist, 31, 564–592.

SANTIAGO -R IVERA , A., A RREDONDO , P., & G ALLARDO -COOPER , M. (2002). Counseling Latinos and la familia: A guide for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SELIGMAN , M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positiveprevention, and positive therapy. In C. R. Snyder &S. J. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology.(pp. 3–9). New York: Oxford University Press.


145


14/14

SELIGMAN , M. E. P., & C SIKSZENTMIHALYI , M. M. (2000).Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psy-chologist, 55, 5–14.

SELIGMAN , M. E. P., & P ETERSON , C. (2003). Positiveclinical psychology. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M.

Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths(pp. 305–318). Washington, DC: American Psycholog-ical Association.

SEMMLER , P. L., & W ILLIAMS , C. B. (2000). A storiedcontext for multicultural counseling. Journal of Multi-cultural Counseling & Development, 28, 51–61.

SHELDON , K. M., & K ING , L. (2001). Why positive psy-chology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56, 216–217.

SHOTTER , J. (1992). Social constructionism: Relativism,moral sources, and judgments of adequacy. In D. L.Robinson (Ed.), Social discourse and moral judgment (pp. 183–206). New York: Academic Press.

STAM , H. J. (2001). Introduction: Social constructionismand its critics. Theory & Psychology, 11, 291–296.

SUE , D. W., & C ONSTANTINE , M. G. (2002). Optimalhuman functioning in people of color in the UnitedStates. In W. B. Walsh (Ed.), Counseling psychologyand human strengths. (pp. 151–169). NY: Erlbaum.

SYNDER , C. R. , & L OPEZ , S. J. (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. London: Oxford University Press.

TEDESCHI , R. G., P ARK , C. L., & CALHOUN , L. G. (Eds.).(1998). Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in theaftermath of crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

TERRELL , C. J., & LYDDON , W. J. (1996). Narrative andpsychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 9,27–44.

WHITE , M., & E PSTON , D. (1990). Narrative means totherapeutic ends. New York: Norton.

WILLIG , C. (1999). Beyond appearances: A critical realistapproach to social constructionist work. In D. J. Night-ingale & J. Cromby. (Eds.), Social Constructionist Psy-chology: A critical analysis of theory and practice (pp.37–51). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

WONG , Y. J., & R OCHLEN , A. B. (2005). Demystifyingmen’s emotional behavior: New directions and implica-tions for counseling. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,6, 62–72.

WORTHINGTON , E. L., & B ERRY , J. W. (2005). Virtues,vices, and character education. In W. R. Miller & H. D.Delaney (Eds.), Judeo-Christian perspectives on psy-chology: Human nature, motivation, and change (pp.145–164). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Wong

146

wong(2006)1 strengths therapy

Documents