Psicología positiva y psicología popular de la autoayuda: un romance histórico, psicológico y cultural / Positive psychology and self-help popular psychology: a historical, psychological and cultural romance

En este trabajo analizamos las semejanzas y las diferencias que existen entre el discurso sobre el sujeto de la psicología positiva y el de la literatura de autoayuda. Para delimitar nuestro objeto de estudio definimos un conjunto de categorías y subcategorías psicológicas, al cual hemos denominado individualismo "positivo" y cuyo análisis cultural e histórico hemos desarrollado en otros trabajos. Además, comparamos otros factores como el tipo de vocabulario y el tipo de retórica que utilizan uno y otro tipo de literatura para defender sus argumentos. Para llevar a cabo estos análisis utilizamos una metodología de tipo mixto, en la cual combinamos el uso de la lexicometría, el ANOVA, el análisis de correspondencias y la recuperación de palabras en contexto, todo ello combinado con una discusión crítica de los textos apoyados en la bibliografía existente. El conjunto de hipótesis planteadas en este trabajo postulan que la psicología positiva y la literatura de autoayuda comparten unas raíces psicológicas comunes: persiguen el mismo horizonte de bienestar, utilizan conceptos y caracterizaciones psicológicas muy parecidas para hablar, describir y explicar al individuo, y desarrollan técnicas y prácticas similares con el fin de que los sujetos actúen sobre sí mismos en busca de su propia felicidad. También planteamos que esta comunalidad, sin embargo, no es compartida por otros tipos de psicología de objetivos prácticos e interventivos similares, como la psicoterapia cognitivo-conductual, tipo de literatura que también añadimos a los análisis. Los resultados obtenidos apuntan en la dirección del conjunto de hipótesis planteadas

In this paper, the psychological discourse about the subject provided both by positive psychology and by self-help literature is compared. To specify the object of analysis we define a set of psychological categories and subcategories, to which we have dubbed as "positive" individualism and which cultural and historical back-ground has been analyzed in previous works. Besides these categories, we analyze other aspects such as the kind of vocabulary and the type of rhetoric deployed by both kind of literature to defend their arguments. To carry out these analyses we used a mixed methodology, combining the word-count technique, the ANOVA, the correspondences analysis, and key-words in context. We added a critic discussion of the texts to the data obtained. The hypothesis set out here postulate that both positive psychology and self-help literature share common psychological roots: they defend the same idea of happiness in a similar way psychological concepts in order to describe and explain the individual, and develop analogous psychological practices and techniques aiming to help the individual to search his own well-being. We also postulate that this commonality is not shared by other psychological models, although they have a comparable interventional and practical vein, such as cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy, which we also analyze in this paper. The results obtained are congruent with the set of hypothesis here suggested

On the nature of motivational orientations: implications of assessed goals and gender differences for motivational goal theory.

In a historical revision of the achievement goal construct, Elliot (2005) recognized that there is little consensus on whether the term "goal" in "achievement goal orientations" (GO) is best represented as an "aim", as an overarching orientation encompassing several "aims", or as a combination of aims and other processes -self-regulation, etc.-. Elliot pointed also that goal theory research provides evidence for different models of GO. As there were no consensus on these issues, we decided to get evidence about the nature and structure of GO, about the role of gender differences in the configuration of such structure, and about relations between GO, expectancies, volitional processes and achievement. A total of 382 university students from different faculties of two public universities of Madrid (Spain) that voluntarily accepted to fill in a questionnaire that assessed different goals, expectancies and self-regulatory processes participated in the study. Scales reliability, confirmatory factor analyses, multiple-group analyses, and correlation and regression analyses were carried out. Results support the trichotomous model of GO, the consideration of GO as a combination of aims and other psychological processes, showed some gender differences and favour the adoption of a multiple goal perspective for explaining students' motivation.

On the nature of motivational orientations: implications of assessed goals and gender differences for motivational goal theory

In a historical revision of the achievement goal construct, Elliot (2005) recognized that there is little consensus on whether the term «goal» in «achievement goal orientations» (GO) is best represented as an «aim», as an overarching orientation encompassing several «aims», or as a combination of aims and other processes -self-regulation, etc.-. Elliot pointed also that goal theory research provides evidence for different models of GO. As there were no consensus on these issues, we decided to get evidence about the nature and structure of GO, about the role of gender differences in the configuration of such structure, and about relations between GO, expectancies, volitional processes and achievement. A total of 382 university students from different faculties of two public universities of Madrid (Spain) that voluntarily accepted to fill in a questionnaire that assessed different goals, expectancies and self-regulatory processes participated in the study. Scales reliability, confirmatory factor analyses, multiple-group analyses, and correlation and regression analyses were carried out. Results support the trichotomous model of GO, the consideration of GO as a combination of aims and other psychological processes, showed some gender differences and favour the adoption of a multiple goal perspective for explaining students’ motivation (AU)

En una revisión histórica del constructo «metas de logro», Elliot (2005) reconocía que no hay consenso sobre si el término «meta» en la expresión «orientación a metas» (OM) debe concebirse como un «objetivo específico», como un concepto que abarca varias metas, o como una combinación de metas y otros procesos –autorregulación, etc.-. Asimismo señalaba que la investigación sobre la «teoría de metas» apoya diferentes modelos de OM. Al no existir consenso sobre estos temas, decidimos obtener evidencia sobre la naturaleza y estructura de las OM, sobre el papel de las diferencias de género en la configuración de esta estructura, y sobre las relaciones entre OM, expectativas, procesos volitivos y logros académico. Un total de 382 estudiantes universitarios de diferentes facultades de dos universidades públicas de Madrid (España) que aceptaron voluntariamente completar un cuestionario que evaluaba metas, expectativas y procesos autorregulatorios participaron en el estudio. Se realizaron deferentes análisis: fiabilidad, factoriales confirmatorios, multigrupo y de regresión. Los resultados apoyaron el modelo tricotómico de OM, la consideración de las OM como combinación de metas y otros procesos psicológicos, la adopción de la perspectiva de “múltiples metas” para explicar la motivación de los estudiantes, y pusieron de manifiesto algunas diferencias de género (AU)