正向心理學（Positive Psychology）與健康本源論（Salutogenesis）

正向心理學（Positive Psychology）與健康本源論（Salutogenesis）

    正向心理學運動產生了全新的概念框架、評量人們長處的工具，以及提升了人們對於樂觀、希望、制握信念（locus of control）、創意、自尊、情緒智商、同理心、幽默感和感恩等議題的興趣。正向心理學家也竭力地把這些新的發現應用在教育、健康和職場上。此外，社區研究者與公共政策規劃者提議把正向心理學從個人層面轉型到社會層面上。

    正向心理學和健康本源模式（salutogenic paradigm）都在挑戰有關病理焦點的主流思想，分別是1970年代的社會學和2000年代的心理學，去考慮健康服務的資源。在這方面，兩種做法看似採用相同的觀點。可是，其實兩種方法有所不同。臨床心理學傳統地採用診斷性語言與聚焦在病理學上，正向心理學則把注意力放到正常範疇和正向運作上，並且容許正常與異常之間的灰色地帶。Antonovsky的健康本源模式在另一方面為醫學中持續性紓解疾病提供了一個全新的定義，以此消除患病與健康之間的分別。

    即便兩者理論基礎不同，但健康本源論和正向心理學兩種模式的整合會在促進健康與幸福時具備更強的解釋力。我們相信正向心理學家將會於深入了解生命凝聚感（Sense of Coherence，SOC）的架構時獲益：第一，理解社會結構如何塑造生命凝聚感的優勢；第二，生命凝聚感如何在個體內為正向心理學之間的架構諸如希望、樂觀、感恩及幸福感提供認知機制。最後，健康本源論學家也有兩方面可受益於正向心理學。第一，正向心理學提供了一種全新的、有實證基礎的方法，能讓健康本源論在微觀與宏觀層面進行實踐。然而，第二，也是正向心理學最重要的貢獻是提醒健康本源論研究者，他們對於有關生命凝聚力的成果評估不一定是病態的。我們需要超越諸如消除抑鬱症、降低仇視等結果，而是如何包含幸福感的存在、同理心的發展，以及更多。在這個方向，我們開始可以看到兩種理論之間更棒的融合與健康本源正向心理學的出現。
 

• 生命凝聚感（sense of coherence）：生命凝聚感反映一個人對於生命的看法以及抗壓能力的限度。它是一個將生活視為結構化、可管理與有意義的整體方針。它是一個以內在信任（inner trust）的方式從事個人化的思考、存在、行動，以帶領人們定義、受益、使用與再利用他們擁有的資源。

• 基於健康本源理論的心理健康促進過程（談話療法）

參考文獻：
Mittelmark, M. B., Bauer, G. F., Vaandrager, L., Pelikan, J. M., Sagy, S., Eriksson, M., ... & Meier Magistretti, C. (2022). The handbook of salutogenesis.

Positive Psychology and Salutogenesis

The positive psychology movement has produced new conceptual frameworks, instruments to measure human strengths, and increased interest in topics such as optimism, hope, locus of control, creativity, self-esteem, emotional intelligence, empathy, humour, and gratitude. Positive psychologists have also endeavoured to apply this new work in educational, health, and workplace contexts. Moreover, community researchers and public policy planners have suggested transforming positive psychology from an individual level to a societal level as well.

Both positive psychology and the salutogenic paradigm challenged mainstream thought about the pathological focus of sociology in the 1970s, and psychology in the 2000s respectively, to consider the resources of healthy functioning. In this regard, both approaches seem to be adopting the same view. However, there was a difference between the two approaches. As clinical psychology had traditionally adopted diagnostic language and a focus on pathology, positive psychology turned its attention to the normal category and positive functioning, and by doing so implicitly condoned the dichotomy between the normal and the abnormal. Antonovsky’s salutogenesis paradigm, on the other hand, offered a new definition of the ease–dis-ease continuum in the medical discipline, thus dissolving the dichotomy between illness and wellness.

It appears that despite their different theoretical roots, the integration of the two paradigms—salutogenesis and positive psychology—have stronger explanatory power in promoting health and well-being. We trust that positive psychologists will benefit from a deeper appreciation of the SOC construct in two ways: firstly, in understanding how social structures shape the strength of SOC; and secondly, in how SOC provides the cognitive mechanisms within the individual that mediates the relationship between positive psychology constructs such as hope, optimism, gratitude, and well-being. Finally, there are two ways in which salutogenic researchers can benefit from positive psychology. Firstly, positive psychology offers a new and evidencebased means for putting salutogenesis into practice at both micro- and macro-levels. However, the second and most important contribution of positive psychology is in reminding salutogenic researchers that their evaluation of outcomes related to SOC need not be pathological. We need to move beyond outcomes such as the absence of depression, reduction in hostility, and the like, to include the presence of happiness, development of empathy, and more. In this way, we begin to see greater convergence between the two disciplines and the emergence of a salutogenic positive psychology.