A Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Group Positive Psychotherapy and Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Flourishing, Happiness and Satisfaction with Life: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Linda Maria Furchtlehner, Elena Fischer, Raphael Schuster, Anton-Rupert Laireiter
{"title":"A Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Group Positive Psychotherapy and Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Flourishing, Happiness and Satisfaction with Life: A Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Linda Maria Furchtlehner, Elena Fischer, Raphael Schuster, Anton-Rupert Laireiter","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00806-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The present study examines the efficacy of Positive Psychotherapy (PPT) on psychological well-being, happiness, and satisfaction with life. We investigated people suffering from different kinds of depressive disorders, comparing it to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). PPT is an empirically validated intervention targeting positive resources and personal strengths. It aims at amplifying well-being while also ameliorating the impact of symptoms. In a controlled two-center-study, we randomly assigned 92 out-patient participants with a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depressive disorder and/or Dysthymia to 14 sessions of manualized PPT or CBT group therapy. We assessed outcomes related to well-being using the Flourishing Scale, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the Positive Psychotherapy Inventory (PPTI). The PPTI represents the five components of Seligman’s PERMA-model of flourishing, encompassing positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. We took measurements before and after the intervention, and at a 6-months follow-up. Moreover, we considered a list of moderators that may impact the efficacy of PPT. PPT resulted in significant improvements in all measures, and these improvements remained stable for up to 6 months. Using 2 × 2 mixed-effects models (T1 vs. T2), we found significant interactions for all three main scales and two out of the five PPTI subscales. These interactions depicted significantly better outcomes for PPT at post-treatment. Regarding the follow-up (T1 vs. T3), we did not find significant interactions, and thus, there were no differences between the two therapies. No demographics or characteristics of the treatments were significant moderators. Summarized, these findings provide support for the effectiveness of PPT in increasing happiness, well-being, and quality of life. We can confirm that PPT is an additional tool for the enhancement of positive mental health.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00806-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The present study examines the efficacy of Positive Psychotherapy (PPT) on psychological well-being, happiness, and satisfaction with life. We investigated people suffering from different kinds of depressive disorders, comparing it to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). PPT is an empirically validated intervention targeting positive resources and personal strengths. It aims at amplifying well-being while also ameliorating the impact of symptoms. In a controlled two-center-study, we randomly assigned 92 out-patient participants with a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depressive disorder and/or Dysthymia to 14 sessions of manualized PPT or CBT group therapy. We assessed outcomes related to well-being using the Flourishing Scale, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the Positive Psychotherapy Inventory (PPTI). The PPTI represents the five components of Seligman’s PERMA-model of flourishing, encompassing positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. We took measurements before and after the intervention, and at a 6-months follow-up. Moreover, we considered a list of moderators that may impact the efficacy of PPT. PPT resulted in significant improvements in all measures, and these improvements remained stable for up to 6 months. Using 2 × 2 mixed-effects models (T1 vs. T2), we found significant interactions for all three main scales and two out of the five PPTI subscales. These interactions depicted significantly better outcomes for PPT at post-treatment. Regarding the follow-up (T1 vs. T3), we did not find significant interactions, and thus, there were no differences between the two therapies. No demographics or characteristics of the treatments were significant moderators. Summarized, these findings provide support for the effectiveness of PPT in increasing happiness, well-being, and quality of life. We can confirm that PPT is an additional tool for the enhancement of positive mental health.
期刊介绍：
The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work.
The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields.
The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments.
The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes.
Central Questions include, but are not limited to:
Conceptualization:
What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being?
How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life?
Operationalization and Measurement:
Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life?
How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain?
What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions?
Prevalence and causality
Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings?
How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)?
What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions?
Evaluation:
What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress?
Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers?
Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health?
Interdisciplinary studies:
How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines?
Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research?
What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
