Back to the directoryFind in the timeline
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi launch positive psychology
In January 2000 Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi introduced a special issue of American Psychologist on a science of positive experience, traits and institutions. Critics such as Lazarus and Held questioned its claims of novelty and its separatist message.
- Where it sits
- Academic psychologyResearch published for other researchers and students.
- Evidence level
- DocumentedThe event or practice is documented by primary or authoritative sources.
- Sources inspected
- 4 of 41 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 3 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.
What happened
In January 2000 the American Psychologist published a special issue on positive psychology, introduced by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. The abstract opens by naming a science of positive subjective experience, positive individual traits and positive institutions. It says the issue contains 15 articles, on topics including happiness, autonomy, optimism and health, wisdom and the development of talent.
The psychological idea
The abstract says psychology's long emphasis on pathology left out qualities such as hope, wisdom, creativity and perseverance. The authors propose a framework for a positive psychology, identify gaps in knowledge and predict that the field will help societies flourish. Their opening line names three levels: experience, individual traits and institutions.
In practice
The introduction sets out a research agenda and, according to its abstract, reports no intervention. Held (2004) links the movement's declaration of independence to the fragmentation of psychology. The sources opened document no clinical or commercial program tied to the launch, so none is claimed here. This record concerns an academic statement, not a consumer product or a therapy.
Why it mattered
Ryff says most people cite the 2000 article as the definitive statement of what positive psychology was about and why it was needed. She lists it among three foundational documents named by Pawelski (2016). Lazarus (2003) and Held (2004) are among the early critical responses.
Limits and qualifications
Ryff reports that the 2000 text described psychology as preoccupied with pathology, weakness and damage, and she reproduces her own earlier comment that nothing meant to exemplify the new movement was new. Lazarus (2003) published a target article titled Does the Positive Psychology Movement Have Legs?, but its content was not read. Held's abstract says the movement's strong focus on separation from other approaches has unintended costs. Only the abstract of the 2000 introduction was read, so its full argument is not assessed here.
Evidence behind the claims
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) introduced the American Psychologist special issue, whose abstract opens by naming a science of positive subjective experience, positive individual traits and positive institutions, and says the issue has 15 articles on topics including happiness, autonomy, optimism and health, wisdom and the development of talent.
The abstract says psychology's long emphasis on pathology left out traits such as hope, wisdom, creativity and perseverance, and that the authors propose a framework, identify gaps in knowledge and predict that the field will help societies flourish.
Ryff says most people cite Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) as the definitive statement of what positive psychology was about and why it was needed, and that the authors described psychology as preoccupied with pathology, weakness and damage.
Ryff reports that Pawelski (2016) described three foundational documents, which included Seligman (1999), Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) and an unpublished 2000 conference paper.
Ryff writes that three years later Psychological Inquiry published Lazarus's 2003 target article, and she reproduces a line from her own 2003 commentary that nothing meant to exemplify the new movement was new.
Lazarus published a target article titled Does the Positive Psychology Movement Have Legs? in Psychological Inquiry volume 14, pages 93 to 109, in April 2003.
Held's 2004 abstract says the movement's strong focus on separation from other approaches has unintended costs, and links its declaration of independence to the fragmentation of psychology.
People involved
- Martin Seligman. Co-author of the 2000 introduction
- Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Co-author of the 2000 introduction
- Richard S. Lazarus. Author of a 2003 critical target article
- Barbara S. Held. Author of a 2004 critique of positive psychology
- Carol D. Ryff. Author of a 2022 review of the field
In the Psy101 course
- OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 14.5: The Pursuit of HappinessChapter 14, Stress, Lifestyle, and Health. Concept. The section discusses this topic.Introduces positive psychology as the study of strengths and names Seligman as the psychologist who pushed it; it does not discuss the critiques.
This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.
Sources and inspection
4 of 4 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.
- [1]Positive psychology: An introductionSeligman, M; Csikszentmihalyi, M. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14 (record via Europe PMC), 2000. Journal article. Primary source.Abstract or publisher record onlyRead the abstract as returned by the fetch tool from a Europe PMC record. The full 2000 text was not opened.
- [2]Positive Psychology: Looking Back and Looking ForwardRyff, C. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 840062, 2022. Journal article. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead the first 100,000 of about 198,000 characters of the open-access review as returned by the fetch tool, including the passages on the 2000 article, Pawelski's three documents and Lazarus. The rest was not read.
- [3]Target article: Does the Positive Psychology Movement Have Legs?Lazarus, R. Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 93-109 (record via Crossref), 2003. Journal article. Critique or replication.Reference article readRead bibliographic metadata only; the record has no abstract. The article itself was not opened.
- [4]The Negative Side of Positive PsychologyHeld, B. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44(1), 9-46 (record via Crossref), 2004. Journal article. Critique or replication.Abstract or publisher record onlyRead the abstract as returned from the Crossref record. The SAGE page was not re-opened (the researcher reported a 403). Full text not read.
Access note: The 1998 APA presidential theme was not verified. The Lazarus article and the full 2000 text were not read.
Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.