theories that support strengths-based practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac -...

23
Therapeutic Recreation Journal VOL. XLVI, NO. 2 pp. 106-128 2012 Linda A. Heyne is a professor in Recreation and Leisure Studies at Ithaca, New York. Lynn S. Anderson is a professor and director of the Inclusive Recreation Resource Center at the State University of New York in Cortland. Please send correspondence to [email protected] Conceptual paper Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in Therapeutic Recreation Linda A. Heyne Lynn S. Anderson Abstract Health and human services are gradually moving from a medical, deficits- based model of practice toward an orientation that emphasizes participant strengths and capacities. This article presents theories relevant to therapeutic recreation that reflect this shift toward accentuating strengths. The theories are presented in two categories: (a) theories that support well-being within the indi- vidual and (b) theories that pertain to contextual factors that support well-being. The first category features happiness theory, broaden-and-build theory of posi- tive emotions, learned optimism, and character strengths and virtues. The second category highlights recent theories of health, disability, community building, and resiliency. Strengths are also defined, the strengths and deficits approaches com- pared, and the importance of a theoretical grounding to therapeutic recreation strengths-based practice emphasized. A companion to this article, “Flourishing Through Leisure: An Ecological Extension of the Leisure and Well-Being Model in Therapeutic Recreation Strengths-Based Practice,” also appears in this issue and applies these theories to practice. Keywords: Strengths-based practice, theory, therapeutic recreation, well-being, ecological approach 106

Upload: others

Post on 20-May-2020

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Therapeutic Recreation Journal Vol. XlVI, No. 2 • pp. 106-128 • 2012

Linda A. Heyne is a professor in Recreation and Leisure Studies at Ithaca, New York. Lynn S. Anderson is a professor and director of the Inclusive Recreation Resource Center at the State University of New York in Cortland.

Please send correspondence to [email protected]

Conceptual paper

Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in Therapeutic Recreation

Linda A. HeyneLynn S. Anderson

Abstract

Health and human services are gradually moving from a medical, deficits-based model of practice toward an orientation that emphasizes participant strengths and capacities. This article presents theories relevant to therapeutic recreation that reflect this shift toward accentuating strengths. The theories are presented in two categories: (a) theories that support well-being within the indi-vidual and (b) theories that pertain to contextual factors that support well-being. The first category features happiness theory, broaden-and-build theory of posi-tive emotions, learned optimism, and character strengths and virtues. The second category highlights recent theories of health, disability, community building, and resiliency. Strengths are also defined, the strengths and deficits approaches com-pared, and the importance of a theoretical grounding to therapeutic recreation strengths-based practice emphasized. A companion to this article, “Flourishing Through Leisure: An Ecological Extension of the Leisure and Well-Being Model in Therapeutic Recreation Strengths-Based Practice,” also appears in this issue and applies these theories to practice.

Keywords: Strengths-based practice, theory, therapeutic recreation, well-being, ecological approach

106

Page 2: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 107

A sea change is occurring in health and human services with widespread implications for therapeutic recreation practice. This movement traces the shift from a deficits and problem-based orientation, often referred to as the medical model, toward an approach grounded in participant strengths, capabilities, and aspirations (Anderson & Heyne, 2012; Saleebey, 2006; Utesch, n.d.; World Health Organization, 2004). Professions that support indiv-iduals and communities are slowly reorienting themselves to a strengths perspective. The positive psychology movement (Fredrickson, 2001, 2009; Lyubomirsky, 2008; Seligman, 2003, 2009), the focus on resiliency in youth development (Search Institute, 2012), the recovery model in mental health (Conley, 2004; Deegan, 1988; Jacobson & Curtis, 2000), and the asset-building approach in community visioning and coaching (Cohen, 2005) are four such examples. New research in brain functioning also provides scientific evidence that a strengths orientation is far more effective in creating positive growth than an approach geared toward correcting deficits (Koyama, McHaffie, Laurienti, & Coghill, 2005; Rock, 2006; Rock & Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz, Stapp, & Beauregard, 2005).

To apply a strengths approach to therapeutic recreation, it is important to understand the theories that underlie and guide strengths-based practice. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of strengths-based theories, chosen either because they are new to the field of therapeutic recreation or because they are established theories that have not been interpreted as cultivating strengths. Derived from psychosocial literature, the theories are presented in two groupings: (a) theories

that primarily support well-being with-in the individual and (b) theories that primarily emphasize ecological factors that can contribute to a person’s well-being.

This paper introduces the theories by defining strengths, both internal and external, and by clarifying the differences between strengths-based and deficits-based approaches in health and human services. The importance of theory to guide therapeutic recreation practice is also stressed.

The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of strengths-based theory for therapeutic recreation practice as segue to a com-panion paper that also appears in this issue, “Flourishing Through Leisure: An Ecological Extension of the Leisure and Well-Being Model in Strengths-Based Therapeutic Recreation Practice.” As the title suggests, this second article describes a new model for strengths-based therapeutic recreation practice called Flourishing Through Leisure: An Ecological Extension of the Leisure and Well-Being Model (Anderson & Heyne, 2012), which is founded on the theories presented in this article. The model extends and broadens the Leisure and Well-Being Model developed by Carruthers and Hood (2007) and Hood and Carruthers (2007) by embracing the ways in which environmental factors contribute to well-being.

Strengths Defined

Strengths are at the heart of therapeutic recreation practice. When therapeutic recreation specialists fo-cus on strengths-oriented aspects such as what people hope for in their lives, what they are good at, what they value, and what is supportive

Page 3: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

108 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

in their environment, they can best help participants reach their goals and aspirations (Anderson & Heyne, 2012). Strength is commonly defined as the quality or state of being strong and the capacity for exertion and endurance (Webster’s New College Dictionary, 2008). More relevant to helping professions, strengths include desirable personal qualities, characteristics, talents, skills, environments, interests, and aspirations (Rapp & Goscha, 2006). Strength is also the ability to consistently produce a positive outcome (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001), even in the face of challenge or adversity (Carruthers & Hood, 2007; Hood & Carruthers, 2007; O’Keefe, n.d.). Strengths may be internal, within an individual, or external, within the environments and contexts in which an individual lives,

works, or plays (Anderson & Heyne, 2012), as described in the following two sections.

A visual depiction of strengths ap-pears in Figure 1. While internal and external strengths are presented as two distinct spheres, a very dynamic and complex relationship actually exists be-tween them, as suggested by the dotted line that separates the two circles. This permeable dotted line implies a symbi-otic interplay between the two kinds of strengths: Internal strengths can be directed toward building external en-vironmental supports; environmental supports can strengthen and nurture internal strengths. For ease of orga-nization and discussion in this paper, however, strengths are designated as in-ternal or external according to whether they primarily occur within or outside

THEORIES THAT SUPPORT STRENGTHS 5

Figure 1. Internal and External Strengths

Internal Strengths

§ Interests and preferences § Attitudes and beliefs § Talents and abilities § Skills and competencies § Knowledge § Aspirations and goals § Character strengths/virtues

THE PERSON

External Strengths and Resources

§ Family support and involvement

§ Friendships and social support

§ Home resources

§ High expectations and positive attitudes

§ Community and environmental resources

§ Opportunities for participation and contribution (inclusive communities)

THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1. Internal and External Strengths

Page 4: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 109

THEORIES THAT SUPPORT STRENGTHS 5

Figure 1. Internal and External Strengths

Internal Strengths

§ Interests and preferences § Attitudes and beliefs § Talents and abilities § Skills and competencies § Knowledge § Aspirations and goals § Character strengths/virtues

THE PERSON

External Strengths and Resources

§ Family support and involvement

§ Friendships and social support

§ Home resources

§ High expectations and positive attitudes

§ Community and environmental resources

§ Opportunities for participation and contribution (inclusive communities)

THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1. Internal and External Strengths

the individual, with the understanding that strengths in both categories are of-ten in continual flux and interaction.

Internal Strengths

Internal strengths belong to the individual. While not an exhaustive list, a person’s interests, preferences, knowledge, talents, skills, abilities, aspirations, and goals encompass internal strengths (Anderson & Heyne, 2012; Rapp & Goscha, 2006). They also include character strengths and virtues, which are the positive traits that define who we are as human beings (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In the strengths-based approach, the therapeutic recreation specialist identifies and assesses internal strengths and builds upon them to help the participant reach his or her goals and aspirations.

External Strengths

A strengths-based approach means understanding people in the contexts of their daily lives as well as their potential future environments. External strengths are those ecological factors that can be drawn upon to support a person’s well-being. In therapeutic recreation practice, external strengths could include family members, friends, and recreation materials and opportunities, among other resources. The role of the therapeutic recreation specialist is to identify or help build external supports both in the home and in the community and to incorporate them into an intervention or program plan to help participants reach their goals and dreams.

Recreation as a Strength

Recreation and leisure, which are the foundation of positive change for a high quality of life, have historically been the focus of therapeutic recreation

practice (Carruthers & Hood, 2007; Dattilo, Kleiber, & Williams, 1998; Gunn & Peterson, 1978; Howe-Murphy & Charboneau, 1987; Sylvester, 2006; Sylvester, Voekl, & Ellis, 2001). Recreation and leisure have the power to help people feel good about their lives and to make the beneficial changes to further their well-being. When people pursue their recreation interests, preferences, talents, and passions, they feel alive, vibrant, strong, and complex as a human being. Their lives are textured and interesting (Pedlar, Haworth, Hutchinson, Taylor, & Dunn, 1999), infused with meaning and purpose (Anderson & Heyne, 2012; O’Keefe, n.d.).

A philosophical basis also exists in the profession of therapeutic recreation for favoring a strengths-based approach over the medical model. In Recreation: A Medical Viewpoint, Haun (1965) viewed recreation as a medical specialty that responded to a basic human need for enjoyment and fun. Because of the uni-versality of the recreation experience, however, he resisted framing it within the medical model. Mobily (1985) viewed recreation as essentially thera-peutic because of the existential ben-efits it holds, which rest on a person-centered orientation that fosters client choice making and sense of control over environment. Howe-Murphy and Charboneau (1987) criticized the field of therapeutic recreation for its lack of biopsychosocial approaches and rec-ommended that the profession adopt a more holistic “ecological perspective” (p. xxi). Sylvester (1987) articulated the ethical association of play, leisure, and recreation in relation to ultimate ends, or the highest good, in a philosophy that was inherently strengths-based. And O’Keefe (2005) considered how to

Page 5: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

110 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

“reconcile the objectified, impersonal approach to treatment [of the medical model] with the ethical imperative to understand the personal experience of illness” (p. 73). In doing so she adopted an approach to therapeutic recreation practice called an “ethic of care,” which views the client as a “growing person” instead of a diagnosis and regards cli-ent–professional interaction as more relational than clinical.

These pioneering works laid the groundwork for recent endeavors that more explicitly call for a strengths approach in therapeutic recreation. Specifically, the Leisure and Well-Be-ing Model developed by Carruthers and Hood (2007) and Hood and Car-ruthers (2007) advocates expressly for a strengths orientation in two main areas of therapeutic recreation service: enhancing the leisure experience and developing resources. This paper and its companion article continue this re-cent trend to unequivocally draw on both internal and external strengths to improve well-being through therapeu-tic recreation.

As illustrated in Figure 1, recre-ation is a key strength, both internal and external to the person. As an in-ternal strength, for example, a person may possess an avid recreation pas-sion, leisure competencies, or extensive knowledge of a recreation activity. Ex-ternal strengths of a participant might include having family support, several opportunities available to engage in community recreation, and various recreation partners with whom to par-ticipate.

Recreation and leisure are also considered strengths because of their potential to produce innumerable benefits. Through recreation and lei-sure individuals can gain tremendous outcomes related to psychological, emotional, cognitive, physical, social, and spiritual well-being (Anderson & Heyne, 2012; Carruthers & Hood, 2007; Shank & Coyle, 2002; Stumbo & Peter-son, 2004; Sylvester et al., 2001). Recre-ation and leisure also provide an arena for other strengths to be discovered, developed, and exercised. For instance, participants can learn to take public transportation, budget money for rec-reation pursuits, or use the Internet to locate recreation resources. Unlike the deficits approach, strengths-based prac-tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and build resources that improve well-being.

Strengths and Deficits Approaches Compared

Understanding how the strengths-based approach differs from a deficits-based orientation can help a therapeutic recreation specialist address participants’ strengths, capa-cities, and aspirations throughout the therapeutic recreation process. This section examines the key elements and assumptions of each approach (see Figure 2 for a comparison of the two paradigms).

Page 6: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 111

Deficits Approach

The primary purpose of a problem-oriented or deficits-based approach is the amelioration of problems through assessment and prescribed interventions (Anderson & Heyne, 2012; Saleebey, 2006). The person’s deficits, illness, disability, poor functioning, or other negative states are typically assessed. A problem list is developed, from which emanate goals and interventions. Professionals work with the person to fix the problems they have identified, using interventions aimed specifically at those problems. A person’s strengths may be tapped to help fix the problem, but the nature of the therapeutic relationship is defined by problems. The deficits approach assumes the professional is

the expert in the therapeutic process and, because individual problems are the target of interest, contexts are typically regarded as irrelevant. While the deficits approach provides a greater understanding of the problem, it does not necessarily help a participant meet broader goals for well-being.

Strengths Approach

The main purpose of the strengths- or capability-based approach is to help people reach their goals and aspirations related to their well-being and quality of life (Anderson & Heyne, 2012; Saleebey, 2006). Assessments focus on how people want their lives to look and on the strengths and resources they have and will need to help them realize their vision. An understanding

THEORIES THAT SUPPORT STRENGTHS

6

6

Figure 2. The Strengths and Deficits Paradigms Compared

From  a  Deficits  Approach…   To  a  Strengths  Approach  

Person  is  a  “case”  or  a  “diagnosis”   Person  is  unique  with  talents  and  resources  

Emphasis  is  on  what  is  wrong,  missing,  or        abnormal  

Emphasis  is  on  strengths,  resources,  capabilities,  aspirations,  and  adaptive  processes  

Participant  is  viewed  as  a  problem  needing  to  be  fixed;  intervention  is  problem  focused  

Participant  is  viewed  as  potential  waiting  to  be  developed;  intervention  is  possibility  focused  

Professional  is  the  expert  concerning  the  individual’s  life    

Individuals,  families,  and  communities  are  viewed  as  the  experts  

Expert  professional  interprets  the  person’s  story  to  arrive  at  a  diagnosis  

The  professional  knows  the  person  through  the  person’s  interpretation  of  events  and  meanings  

The  professional  develops  a  treatment  plan  for        the  individual  

Aspirations  of  the  individual,  families,  and  communities  are  the  focus  of  the  work  to  be  done—the  plan  is  developed  in  collaboration  

A  framework  and  vocabulary  is  developed  to  describe  problems  

A  framework  and  vocabulary  is  developed  to  describe  strengths  

Play,  recreation,  and  leisure  are  viewed  as  superfluous  experiences  only  tangentially  related      to  improving  a  person’s  health  

Play,  recreation,  and  leisure  are  viewed  as  integral  to  well-­‐being  and  are  essential  to  recovery  and  rehabilitation  

Absence  of  illness  or  dysfunction  is  the  goal   Well-­‐being,  thriving,  and  high  quality  of  life  are  the  goals  

Medical  model  is  used   Ecological  model  is  used  

       Anderson  and  Heyne  (2012);  Saleebey  (2006)   Figure 2. The Strengths and Deficits Paradigms Compared

Page 7: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

112 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

of environmental factors and resources is crucial to the therapeutic process. Goals and interventions are driven by aspirations the participant has identified. Strengths are the focus of intervention and change; weaknesses or problems are managed and given just enough attention so they do not interfere with working toward goals. This approach assumes the participant is, or has the potential to be, the expert on his or her own life. It engenders a trusting relationship between the participant and practitioner; builds collaboration instead of expert domination; empowers participants to take the lead on developing their own well-being; taps into personal resources of motivation; and sustains positive change through learning, growth, and capacity-building. As can be seen in the following section, the strengths approach has a strong theoretical foundation.

Theories That Support Strengths-Based Practice

Strengths-based theories capitalize on people’s potentiality within the naturally occurring supports of their environments (e.g., social support, high expectations for performance, natural consequences) and empower people to lead with their strengths to achieve a greater sense of well-being. This section presents several theories, derived from a broad literature, that center around internal and external strengths. They provide a useful framework for understanding and facilitating change in human behavior through therapeutic recreation. The theories are presented in two categories: (a) theories that primarily support well-being within the individual (i.e.,

internal strengths) and (b) theories that primarily pertain to ecological factors that can elevate individual well-being (i.e., external strengths). Table 1 provides an overview of the theories in the first category; Table 2 presents the theories in the second category.

Due to the space limitations of this journal, only those theories that are relatively new to the field of therapeutic recreation (e.g., happiness theory, resiliency theory) are described in the next two sections. The more well-known theories in therapeutic recreation (e.g., self-efficacy, normalization) are included in Tables 1 and 2 but not described in the narrative. The reader is encouraged to explore the references to delve more deeply into any theories of interest.

Theories That Support Well-Being in the Individual

This section features theories that focus on internal strengths that can cultivate well-being within the individual: (a) happiness theory, (b) broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, (c) learned optimism, and (d) character strengths and virtues. These four theories derive from recent findings in positive psychology, which Seligman (2009) defined as “the scientific study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive” (p. 1). The more familiar theories in Table 1 (i.e., flow, leisure coping, self-determination, self-efficacy) are not included in this discussion.

Happiness theory.

Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life,

the whole aim and end of human existence.

–Aristotle, 384-322 B.C.

Page 8: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 113

THEORIES THAT SUPPORT STRENGTHS 1

Table 1 Theories of Well-Being in the Individual Theory Central Theme

Happiness One can control one’s level of happiness much more than previously thought possible. Approximately half of one’s total capacity for happiness is determined genetically and 10% is determined by life circumstances (e.g., health, income, partner status), which leaves 40% within one’s power to intentionally enhance (Fredrickson, 2009; Lyubomirsky, 2008; Seligman, 2002).

Learned Optimism

An optimistic outlook can be learned by gaining awareness of one’s thoughts and how they influence one’s feelings and, therefore, one’s behavior. Consciously developing optimism can potentially change a lifetime of habitual negative responses to adverse life events into more positive and constructive interpretations and behaviors (Seligman, 1991).

Broaden-and Build Theory of Positive Emotions

Positive emotions (e.g., curiosity, joy, love) “broaden” one’s outlook and “build” resources over time, adding value to one’s life. Positive emotions provide pleasurable experiences in the moment that also impel one to expand one’s everyday limits, thus tapping into capacities and resources that strengthen oneself over time (Fredrickson, 2001, 2009).

Character Strengths and Virtues

Six virtues (e.g., wisdom, courage, justice) and 24 character strengths (e.g., kindness, zest, humor), which are pathways to virtues, have been identified that define who one is as a human being. The more one’s character strengths and virtues are exercised, the more one will experience a greater sense of well-being (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Flow When one’s skill level is matched with the appropriate level of challenge, one can experience a sense of flow—those “exceptional moments” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 29) in which one feels very much alive, in the moment, focused, and in control. Time appears to stand still as one experiences a sense of mastery and intense engagement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997).

Leisure Coping

Leisure is an ideal context to support coping (Hood & Carruthers, 2002; Hutchinson, Loy, Kleiber, & Dattilo, 2003; Iwasaki & Mannell, 2000). Hood and Carruthers recommended incorporating four stages of coping by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) into therapeutic recreation interventions: (a) appraisal of the situation, (b) assessment of coping resources, (c) applying the coping strategy, and (d) evaluation. Hood and Carruthers emphasized increasing positive physical, psychological, social, and lifestyle resources to encourage effective coping.

Self-Determination

Self-determination implies that a person acts as the causal agent in his or her life, without excessive external influence. Self-determination involves a variety of skills and sensibilities including self-awareness, intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, self-confidence, self-advocacy, and the ability to make choices and decisions (Bullock, Mahon, & Killingsworth, 2010; Dattilo, 2008; Ryan & Deci; 2000; Wehmeyer & Berkobien, 1991).

Self-Efficacy Without the perception that one’s actions can produce intended results, one has little incentive to act. Perceived self-efficacy refers to one’s belief in one’s capability to act in ways that exert control over the events that affect one’s life (Bandura, 1977, 2000).

Table 1

Theories of Well-Being in the Individual

Seligman (2002), the “father of positive psychology,” asserted that the ideal pathway to finding meaning and happiness in life is active and virtuous engagement with life through the use of one’s strengths and talents. For Selig-man, engagement with life includes involvement in recreation: “Authen-

tic happiness comes from identifying and cultivating your most fundamen-tal strengths and using them in work, love, play, and parenting” (p. xiii). He, along with other happiness theo-rists (Fredrickson, 2009; Lyubomirsky, 2008), has discovered that people can control their levels of happiness more

Page 9: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

114 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

THEORIES THAT SUPPORT STRENGTHS 2

Table 2

Theories of Well-Being in Contexts and Environments

Theory Central Theme

International Classification of Function, Health, and Disability

The World Health Organization (2004, 2012) reconceptualized how health and disability are viewed and measured in a new framework, the International Classification of Function, Health, and Disability (ICF). The ICF accounts for both individual and environmental factors on three levels: (a) body function and structures, (b) personal characteristics, and (c) social and environmental contexts.

Healthy People 2020

A national health agenda is redeveloped every 10 years in the United States called Healthy People (2012), which sets goals and objectives to promote long, healthy lives in all segments of society. In addition to focusing on health determinants and interventions at the individual level, the latest rendition, Healthy People 2020, emphasizes the development of social and physical environments that support well-being.

Normalization Principle

People with disabilities have the right to the same opportunities, conditions, and culturally relevant patterns of living as people without disabilities in society (Nirje, 1992; Wolfensberger, 1972). Culturally relevant patterns include typical rhythms of the day, week, year, and life cycle; respect for the individual; right to self-determination; and customary sexual, economic, and environmental patterns (Nirje,1999). Leisure is an important aspect of everyday living.

Social Role Valorization

When people with disabilities have social roles and life conditions that are valued by society, their social status and acceptance increases. Social value can be improved by (a) enhancing the person’s social image and (b) enhancing the person’s skills and competencies (Wolfensberger, 1983).

Community Building Theory

Social capital, the basis for community building, refers to relationships that arise in community and to the value members place on those relationships (Condeluci, 2002).Community building, unlike conventional human services, cultivates reciprocal relationships, cooperative solutions, and acceptance of people with disabilities as valued contributing members of society (Condeluci, 1995; McKnight, 1987; O’Brien, 1986).

Resiliency Theory

Resilience is “the capacity to prevail in the face of adversity” (Ryff & Singer, 2003, p. 16). Recent research has focused on the merits of internal and external protective factors derived from personal, family, environmental, and institutional strengths for enhancing resiliency (DuPlessis VanBreda, 2001; Polk, 1997; Search Institute, 2012).

 

 

Table 2

Theories of Well-Being in Contexts and Environments

than previously thought possible. Selig-man (2002) found that approximately one half of one’s capacity for happi-ness—one’s happiness “set point” or “set range”—is determined genetically. Though one may experience tremen-dous joy or sorrow, eventually one returns to this personal baseline level of happiness. Everyone’s set point is unique, and rather than a static condi-tion, it is a starting point upon which to build further happiness.

Lyubomirsky (2008) defined happi-ness as “the experience of joy, content-

ment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is good, meaningful, and worthwhile” (p. 32). Happiness, she argued, lies on a contin-uum similar to height or temperature. It fluctuates depending on the situation and one’s purposeful efforts to increase happiness. Lyubomirsky found that in addition to the 50% of one’s happiness that is determined genetically another 10% is influenced by life circumstances (e.g., partner status, geographic loca-tion, income, health). The remaining 40% is within one’s influence to inten-tionally enhance.

Page 10: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 115

According to Lyubomirsky (2008), what one thinks and what one does from day to day have a tremendous im-pact on how much happiness is expe-rienced. Lyubomirsky found that one’s sense of well-being can be elevated by duplicating the thought and behav-ior patterns of people who consider themselves happy. By systematically observing and comparing very happy people with very unhappy people, she documented the thoughts and be-haviors of the happiest individuals. Happiness-enhancing thoughts in-cluded being grateful, staying optimis-tic, living in the present, and savoring life’s pleasures. Happiness enhancing behaviors included building relation-ships, exercising regularly, developing meaningful leisure, and helping oth-ers. Lyubomirsky (2008) has developed several “happiness activities” based on these positive thought and behavior patterns, which have consistently in-creased levels of happiness among her research participants. These activities include strengthening goal commit-ment, reminiscing about positive life events, cultivating flow, practicing for-giveness, expressing gratitude through journaling, and performing acts of kindness, among others. When prac-ticed regularly, these activities can help harness the 40% of potential happiness within one’s power to elevate.

Learned optimism. Seligman (1975), who developed the theory of learned helplessness, subsequently de-veloped the converse theory of learned optimism (1991). He surmised that if one can learn to be helpless, one can also learn to be optimistic. Even if one’s happiness set point is low, optimism can be cultivated by gaining awareness of one’s thoughts in adverse situations and how they influence one’s feelings

and, consequently, one’s behavior. As Seligman observed, “Our thoughts are not merely reactions to events; they change what ensues” (p. 7).

To construct the theory of learned optimism, Seligman (2002) examined the distinctly different thought pro-cesses of optimistic and pessimistic people. He found that optimistic peo-ple “make permanent and universal ex-planations for good events, as well as temporary and specific explanations for bad events” (p. 93). That is, the optimist sees the permanent causes of good events as originating from his or her personal traits and abilities (e.g., diligence, compassion) and allows the positivity of good events to spill over to enhance other life areas. When unfor-tunate events occur, the optimist gives rational situation-specific explanations for them, containing negativity to the one specific occurrence. Pessimistic people show the opposite tendencies. They “make temporary and specific explanations for success, and perma-nent and universal explanations for setbacks” (p. 93).

Cultivating optimism is a conscious choice one can make to enhance well-being. It requires intentionality, awareness, and discipline, yet it can alter a lifetime of habitually negative responses by producing more positive and constructive interpretations and behaviors.

Broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Fredrickson (2009) proposed that positive emotions (e.g., joy, interest, love, contentment) are central to human flourishing. Her broaden-and-build theory maintains that positive emotions “broaden” one’s outlook and “build” resources over time that strengthen and add value to one’s life. Unlike negative emotions

Page 11: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

116 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

that tend to narrow and constrict one’s outlook, positive emotions “open our hearts and our minds, making us more receptive and creative” (p. 21).

The broaden-and-build theory suggests two core truths about positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001). First, the momentary positivity gained through pleasurable experiences impels one to “broaden” one’s experience by playing, exploring, and expanding one’s everyday limits. Second, this broadening impulse creates a sense of possibility that prompts one to engage in activities such as learning and building new skills, connecting with new people, and experimenting with new ways of being. Thus, one “builds” on the initial positive emotion by tapping into intellectual, psychological, social, physical, and spiritual resources that strengthen one’s capacities and well-being over time.

Through her empirically based research, Fredrickson (2009) found that for optimal well-being a person needs to experience a positivity ratio of three positive emotions to every one negative emotion. In fact, this 3:1 ratio is the “tipping point” that predicts whether a person will flourish or languish. Maintaining a 3:1 positivity ratio not only elevates one’s happiness, it also engages one in life—in relationships, work, and community—thus enhancing an overall sense of well-being.

Character strengths and vir-tues. Peterson and Seligman (2004) defined character strengths and virtues as the positive traits that comprise who one is as a human being. They under-took an exhaustive review of literature with an international interdisciplinary team to identify character strengths and

virtues that have been valued across time and culture. The results yielded six core virtues and 24 strengths, which are the processes and pathways that support the development and manifes-tation of virtues (see Table 3).

Peterson and Seligman (2004) put forth that “…character strengths are the bedrock of the human condition and … strength-congruent activity represents an important route to the psychological good life” (p. 4). According to their criteria, a character strength (a) leads to fulfillment when exercised, (b) is morally valued, (c) does not diminish others when exercised, (d) has a negative opposite, (e) is generalizable across situations and stable across time, (f) is distinct from other strengths, (g) is role modeled in one’s culture, (h) expresses itself early in life, (i) can be completely lacking in a person, and (j) is nurtured by society through institutions and rituals.

The character strengths and virtues that Peterson and Seligman (2004) identified are classified in a volume titled Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. In contrast to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), which focuses on understanding psychological illnesses, the Handbook seeks to understand psychological health from a strengths perspective.

Theories That Support Well-Being in the Environment

Recent strengths-based theories highlight the important role that con-textual and environmental factors play in elevating well-being. This section discusses new definitions of disability and health and theories related to resil-

THEORIES THAT SUPPORT STRENGTHS 3

Table 3 Six Core Virtues and 24 Character Strengths

Virtue One: Wisdom

• Curiosity • Love of learning • Judgment • Ingenuity • Perspective

Virtue Two: Courage

• Valor • Perseverance • Integrity • Zest and vitality

Virtue Three: Humanity

• Kindness • Loving • Social intelligence

Virtue Four: Justice

• Citizenship • Fairness • Leadership

Virtue Five: Temperance

• Self-control • Prudence • Humility • Forgiveness

Virtue Six: Transcendence

• Appreciation of beauty • Gratitude • Hope • Spirituality • Humor

Peterson and Seligman (2004)

 

 

   

Page 12: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 117

THEORIES THAT SUPPORT STRENGTHS 3

Table 3 Six Core Virtues and 24 Character Strengths

Virtue One: Wisdom

• Curiosity • Love of learning • Judgment • Ingenuity • Perspective

Virtue Two: Courage

• Valor • Perseverance • Integrity • Zest and vitality

Virtue Three: Humanity

• Kindness • Loving • Social intelligence

Virtue Four: Justice

• Citizenship • Fairness • Leadership

Virtue Five: Temperance

• Self-control • Prudence • Humility • Forgiveness

Virtue Six: Transcendence

• Appreciation of beauty • Gratitude • Hope • Spirituality • Humor

Peterson and Seligman (2004)

 

 

   

Table 3

Six Core Virtues and 24 Character Strengths

iency and community building. Again, due to space limits, the more well-known theories of normalization and social role valorization are summarized in Table 2 only.

International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. In 2001 the World Health Organization (2004, 2012) adopted a new strengths-oriented framework for viewing and measuring health and dis-ability: the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The ICF replaced the deficits-oriented International Classification of Impairment, Disability, and Handicaps, which had existed since 1980. Distinct philosophical differences divide the two classifications. Rather than view

health as a personal problem, the ICF regards health as a responsibility shared by society. Disability is no longer con-sidered a minority issue; it is seen as a universal human experience. People with disabilities require more than medical care; they also require social integration. Interventions are designed not around deficits and diagnoses but around ability and functionality. Prog-ress is seen as interactive, not as linear. Ultimately the ICF recognizes that an understanding of contexts and the con-cept of inclusiveness is central to the promotion of health and well-being.

The ICF provides a framework that is scientific, evidence based, and trans-cultural. It is conceptualized at three levels: (a) body function and struc-

Page 13: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

118 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

tures (e.g., physical functioning related to cognition, speech, cardiovascular health, digestion, and related systems), (b) the person (e.g., age, lifestyle, edu-cation, assets), and (c) social and envi-ronmental contexts (e.g., physical envi-ronment, social attitudes, interpersonal relationships). As such, health condi-tions are described holistically from three perspectives: the body, the indi-vidual, and society.

At the level of social and environ-mental contexts, the ICF acknowledges the vital role of activities and partici-pation in health and well-being. This area addresses a person’s capacity and performance in a number of life areas (e.g., learning, communication, self-care), including recreation and leisure. Activities identified under recreation and leisure consist of informal or orga-nized play and sports, physical fitness, relaxation, crafts and hobbies, reading for enjoyment, playing musical instru-ments, and tourism, among several others.

Sylvester (2011) noted that the ICF integrates the medical model with the social model, offering the field of therapeutic recreation an important biopsychosocial approach to practice. Combining these two models, he observed, results in a holistic understanding of health within the contexts of how people actually live their lives. Sylvester recommended that the new orientation of the ICF, along with the capability approach (Nussbaum, 2006; Nussbaum & Sen, 1993) discussed later in this article, guides therapeutic recreation professionals toward holistic theory and practice, scientific inquiry, and action in the area of social justice.

Healthy People 2020. The United States has adopted a health

agenda called Healthy People (2012) that embraces both internal and external strengths. Based initially on the Surgeon General’s Report in 1979, Healthy People initiatives are re-envisioned every 10 years through a lengthy interdisciplinary and collaborative process. Whereas previous Healthy People initiatives focused primarily on health determinants and interventions at the individual level, Healthy People 2020 more fully assumes a strengths approach by emphasizing the interrelationships of organizational, social, environmental, and policy factors in determining health.

Healthy People 2020 envisions “a society in which all people live long, healthy lives” (Healthy People, 2012, p. 1). Four overarching goals guide the initiative: (a) high-quality, lengthy lives free of preventable disability and disease; (b) health equity; (c) healthy social and physical environments; and (d) quality of life through healthy development and behaviors.

The prime aim of Healthy People is to set comprehensive priority objectives for the nation and provide research-based benchmarks related to health promotion and disease prevention. These objectives serve as a strategic road map to encourage collaboration, measurement, and tracking by diverse individuals and communities as they design programs and environments to ensure all people enjoy health. Healthy People 2020 objectives address 42 areas, from education and community-based programs to social determinants of health as well as specific health concerns such as dementia, heart disease, and substance abuse. The current emphasis on the creation of healthy social and physical environments takes into

Page 14: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 119

account social and economic factors, natural and built environments, and policies and programs.

Community building theory. Community connectedness is an im-portant external strength as well as an intervention to support well-being (Anderson & Heyne, 2012; O’Brien & Lyle O’Brien, 1996). The concept of so-cial capital captures the essence of the relationship-based nature of communi-ty building. Condeluci (2002) defined social capital as “the connections and relationships that develop around com-munity and the value these relation-ships hold for the members” (p. 12). Social capital, he maintained, enables people to resolve collective problems more easily, widens awareness of the ways people are linked, increases tol-erance, lessens aggressive tendencies, allows communities to advance more smoothly, and enhances psychologi-cal processes and, as a result, biological processes.

O’Brien and Lyle O’Brien (1996) viewed community as “the intentional creation of relationships and social structures that extend the possibilities for shared identity and common action among people outside usual patterns of economics and administrative interaction” (p. 76). Condeluci (2002) identified the essential elements of community: (a) a common, unifying theme; (b) membership, which may be formal or informal; (c) common rituals; (d) cultural patterns of behavior; (e) jargon; (f) a collective memory; and (e) gatekeepers that influence the community makeup and culture.

O’Brien (1986) advised that human services be evaluated on the degree to which they build or stymie commu-nity. He recommended challenging

the assumptions that guide human services and perpetuate conventions of segregation, professionalization, and bureaucracy. In the same vein, McK-night (1987) compared the ways that human services and communities oper-ate. He noted that human service sys-tems operate on control, are often slow and deliberate, and require solutions to go through channels. By contrast, communities operate on consent, can respond quickly, and inspire creative solutions through dialogue.

Similarly, Condeluci (1995) dis-tinguished assisted human services from strengths-oriented community support. In assisted settings (a) people are known by what is wrong; (b) rela-tionships are unequal as workers do for clients; (c) people are separated into groups; (d) problems are solved by consulting authorities, policies, and procedures; and (e) solutions are based primarily on reason. However, in com-munity support (a) people are known as individuals; (b) relationships are re-ciprocal; (c) people are accepted as part of the whole of society; (d) answers arise from experience and the wisdom of others; and (e) discovering solutions leaves room for uncertainty, mystery, and acknowledgment of phenomena beyond human control.

Community building theory sup-ports findings that social relationships are the primary contributor to personal health and happiness. A lack of mean-ingful social relationships weakens psychological, emotional, and physical health (House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988; Lynch, 1979), whereas strong social ties support overall well-being (Lyubomirsky, 2008; Peterson, 2006).

Resiliency theory. Ryff and Singer (2003) defined resilience as “the

Page 15: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

120 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

capacity to prevail in the face of adver-sity” and “flourishing under fire” (p. 16). They saw resilience as the power to derive strength from hardship and suf-fering.

Early resiliency research in the 1980s and 1990s reported that children, despite enduring chronic poverty and negative family situations (e.g., parental psychopathology, inadequate care giving, war trauma), often became competent and well-adjusted adults. Out of these studies grew an interest in strengths-based protective factors that help people resist stressors and thrive despite them. Protective factors derive from personal, family, environmental, and institutional strengths and serve as a kind of safety net to keep psychological well-being intact. Werner (1995) viewed protective factors as mechanisms to help regulate reactions to stress and to allow successful adaptation to unfavorable conditions.

Polk (1997), in her synthesis of re-siliency literature, noted four patterns of protective factors. First, dispositional patterns pertain to self-perceptions (e.g., self-worth, autonomy, self-reliance) and physical attributes (e.g., good physical health and appearance). Second, rela-tional patterns include the breadth of re-lationships experienced, from intimate ones to social contacts within broader society. Third, situational patterns reflect the ability to interact constructively with stressful situations (i.e., evaluate situations realistically, problem solve, take action toward a positive outcome). Last, philosophical patterns reflect a worldview that life has purpose, per-sonal development is important, and positive meaning can be derived from all experiences. Another synthesis of research on resiliency found that chil-dren are more apt to rebound from ad-

versity if they have internal strengths and qualities such as a personality that is socially open, cooperative, and like-able; flexible coping skills; special inter-ests and hobbies; and a strong locus of control (DuPlessis VanBreda, 2001).

The Search Institute (2012) has developed a framework of 40 research-based Developmental Assets for children and youth aged 3 to 18, which include both internal and external protective factors. Internal assets consist of a commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies, and positive identity. External assets include constructive use of time, including leisure; support from parents and family, other adults, and caring neighborhoods and schools; boundaries and expectations; and empowerment.

The study of resiliency in adults falls into two areas: (a) understand-ing how people continue to develop as human beings despite the presence of risk factors and (b) recovery from trauma (Ryff & Singer, 2003). The first area focuses primarily on how people successfully negotiate the challenges of aging. Research has shown that re-silience in aging derives from an in-dividual’s willingness and capacity to grow and change as a person. It also stems from the ability to adapt and perform effectively when adjusting to changes in physical and psychologi-cal health, work, social situations, and world events. In the second area, recov-ery from trauma, research has uncov-ered that adults who cope successfully with trauma often experience a sense of transformation, rebirth, and renewal. Some professionals have reframed the study of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as Posttraumatic Growth, highlighting the positive outcomes that can result from suffering. Ryff and Singer cited

Page 16: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 121

positive effects such as viewing oneself as a survivor rather than a victim, in-creased self-reliance and disclosure, cre-ated greater compassion and generosity toward others, and deeper spirituality.

For the field of therapeutic rec-reation, O’Keefe (n.d.) reported how recreation provides a venue for sup-porting resilience in people who have a disability, experience poverty, or live in institutional settings. She credited rec-reation for helping children from im-poverished backgrounds see new possi-bilities for their lives and improve their self-image, communication, and social interaction skills. For those in hospice care, recreation provides the freedom to choose how to spend one’s remaining time doing what is most meaningful to them. Individuals who have experi-enced a stroke or spinal cord injury can build upon familiar recreation activities and connect to community resources, which afford them the resilience to suc-cessfully move from dependence to in-dependence.

Core Capabilities for Well-Being

This discussion of strengths-based theories concludes with a synopsis of Nussbaum’s (2006) capability approach, which conceptualizes well-being holis-tically as both internal (i.e., how well one is able to be and to achieve) and external (e.g., public action and social policy). Nussbaum conceptualized two main aspects related to well-being in her capability approach: functionings and capabilities. Functionings refer to what one wishes to be and do in life, which is driven by one’s values, dreams, and aspirations. Capabilities are the op-portunities and possibilities available in society through which people can be and do what they value in life, as well

as the freedom to choose to partake in those opportunities.

Nussbaum (2006) affirmed that 10 core capabilities must be present for one to experience the “good life” and that these core capabilities represent the bare minimum of what human dignity requires, whether or not one has a disability. According to Sylvester (2011), the core capabilities also “con-stitute a defensible set of human rights” (p. 93). As can be seen in Table 4, Play, or recreation, is identified as one of the fundamental capabilities that a culture or community must support for people to achieve their goals and experience well-being. The area of play includes opportunities, for example, to choose one’s recreation interests, make friends, volunteer, and take part in recreation activities free of architectural and atti-tudinal barriers.

Sylvester (2011) viewed Nuss-baum’s capability approach as a social framework through which to deepen therapeutic recreation’s association with the ICF. Beyond the essential core capability of Play, Sylvester recognized that recreation and leisure can support other core capabilities in significant ways. For example, therapeutic rec-reation has a long history of helping people restore and maintain their Bodi-ly Health. As people with disabilities or other limitations are supported in inclusive recreation to use their leisure time however they choose, Bodily Integ-rity and freedom of movement are up-held. Senses, Imagination, and Thought is frequently cultivated through thera-peutic recreation through artistic, reli-gious, and political pursuits. Expressing a range of Emotions, with their corre-sponding physical and psychological benefits, is an important element of therapeutic recreation practice. Cen-

Page 17: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

122 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

tral to the capability of Practical Reason, self-determination and autonomy are long-standing outcomes for therapeu-tic recreation. The therapeutic recre-ation profession is fulfilling the area of Affiliation by facilitating socialization, friendship, and community belong-ing for individuals with disabilities. Control Over Environment is also accom-plished through therapeutic recreation by helping people with disabilities use their free time to volunteer, influence the political process, and effect social change. In summary, Nussbaum’s capa-bility approach is a tremendously rel-evant and comprehensive framework for therapeutic recreation to foster both internal and external strengths.

Conclusion and Implications for Therapeutic Recreation

Practice

Therapeutic recreation is known for its holistic approach, creative use of resources, openness to collaboration, and far-reaching positive outcomes.

As such, the profession of therapeutic recreation is well poised to align with the strengths approach. While some developments in the field appear to be pulling us away from our roots in recreation and a strengths approach (e.g., the recent dissolution of the National Therapeutic Recreation Society, the omission of the word recreation in the definition of therapeutic recreation by the American Therapeutic Recreation Association, the development of the Committee on Accreditation of Recreational Therapy Education [CARTE] standards, which are more aligned with a medical model than a biopsychosocial model), other trends are drawing us closer. The outgrowth of theories presented in this paper coupled with the profession’s historical foundation in recreation and its expanding awareness of the value of strengths-based practice position the field to more fully adopt a strengths approach through recreation-oriented activity.

THEORIES THAT SUPPORT STRENGTHS 4

Table 4 Core Capabilities for Well-Being

1. Life Is able to live to the natural end of a human life

2. Bodily Health Has good health and adequate nourishment

3. Bodily Integrity Is secure and safe, without fear of harm traveling from place to place

4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought

Can think, reason, and imagine, informed by an adequate education; has freedom of expression and freedom to have pleasurable experiences

5. Emotions Has opportunities to love and be loved and to experience a broad range of emotions

6. Practical Reason Can form an idea about goodness and engage in critical reflection on one’s life and its direction

7. Affiliation Lives and engages fully with others, with self-respect and nondiscrimination

8. Other Species Lives in a sustainable, respectful way with the natural world

9. Play Enjoys recreational activities; has opportunities to laugh and play

10. Control Over Environment

Participates in the political process, has material possessions, and works in respected employment

Nussbaum (2006)

Table 4Core Capabilities for Well-Being

Page 18: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 123

The theories presented in this article hold several implications for strengths-based practice in therapeutic recreation. Grounding the therapeutic recreation process in strengths-based theory encourages practitioners to intentionally tap into and build the internal and external strengths of participants. Leisure and recreation are ideal environments for developing such strengths and offer rich opportunities to apply strengths-based theory. The ICF (WHO, 2004, 2012) and Healthy People 2020 (2012) provide a solid foundation and rationale for strengths-based recreation interventions by acknowledging the importance of leisure and recreation in people’s lives, thus affirming and embracing the profession of therapeutic recreation. These two initiatives also stress the necessity to view health and disability within the wide contexts of society and community resources, including leisure resources. Similarly, the broad-based normalization principle (Nirje, 1992, 1999; Wolfensberger, 1972) and social role valorization theory (Wolfensberger, 1983) assume recreation is a natural part of everyday living and provide basic human rights guidelines for planning community involvement by people with varying abilities.

Further, in the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001, 2009), positive emotions experienced during recreation experiences are worth cul-tivating for two reasons. They can be enjoyed as ends in themselves, as plea-surable experiences in the present mo-ment (“broadening”); they also serve as the means to access resources that lead to psychological and emotional growth and improved well-being over time (“building”). Recreation experi-ences that produce positive emotion

can serve as the basis for interventions that promote the core aims of the theo-ries of happiness, character strengths and virtues, learned optimism, leisure coping, self-determination, self-effi-cacy, flow, community building, and resiliency. For instance, the happiness activities developed by Lyubomir-sky (2008) are scientifically proven methods that are readily adoptable by therapeutic recreation specialists. As-sisting participants to exercise charac-ter strengths and virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) in recreation settings can promote higher levels of well-being (Anderson & Heyne, 2012; Rath, 2006). Self-determination (Bullock, Mahon, & Killingsworth, 2010) can be enhanced by providing opportunities during lei-sure to build self-awareness, gain au-tonomy, and make choices. Techniques to learn optimism (Seligman, 1991), to cope more effectively (Hood & Car-ruthers, 2002), and to experience flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997) can also be the focus of therapeutic recreation intervention. In fact, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) recognized that most flow states result from engagement in recreation and leisure activities. Finally, when planning for discharge, community re-integration, and inclusion, therapeutic recreation specialists can design ser-vices to build community (Condeluci, 2002) and to augment protective fac-tors that strengthen resiliency, draw-ing from both internal and external strengths (Ryff & Singer, 2003; Search Institute, 2012).

The theory of core capabilities (Nussbaum, 2006; Nussbaum & Sen, 1993) holds particularly far-reaching relevance for therapeutic recreation, of-fering us a broad lens through which to view the importance of our work. As Sylvester (2011) pointed out, thera-

Page 19: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

124 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

peutic recreation has the capacity to widely address the 10 core capabilities to support individual well-being within the context of society. Nussbaum serves to guide our profession to respond to individual human rights of people with varying abilities by more strongly advocating for social justice. Positive societal change in politics, econom-ics, health, the legal system, housing, transportation, recreation, and related arenas are all within the purview of our work in therapeutic recreation. By following Nussbaum’s comprehensive framework, therapeutic recreation spe-cialists can exert tremendous influence to improve quality of life and well-be-ing for individuals and their communi-ties.

To move the field of therapeutic recreation toward strengths-based prac-tice, we need to learn about strengths-based approaches and put them into practice within the wide range of set-tings in which we work. We need to as-sure that Nussbaum’s core capabilities are addressed throughout the thera-peutic recreation process whenever possible. We need to explore through scientific inquiry questions such as the following:

• What strength-based practices areparticularly effective for a given population?

• How should strengths-basedpractices be evaluated?

• How can strengths-based practicebe applied to promote social justice?

• Whatstepsneedtobetakennexttopromote strengths-based practice in our field?

We also need to express our views in support of a biopsychosocial model of therapeutic recreation practice within our professional organizations and assume leadership roles to effect changes that embrace this more holistic approach. Ultimately we need to adopt an unrestricted view of the impact that therapeutic recreation can have on helping people with health conditions flourish in ways that sustain both them and the communities in which they live.

The companion article in this jour-nal, “Flourishing Through Leisure: An Ecological Extension of the Leisure and Well-Being Model in Strengths-Based Therapeutic Recreation Practice,” ex-plains in greater detail the application of strengths-based theory to therapeu-tic recreation practice. The Flourishing Through Leisure Model described in the companion article illustrates how strengths-based theory aligns so com-patibly with the spirit of the therapeu-tic recreation profession for promoting internal and external well-being.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR (4th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

Anderson, L., & Heyne, L. (2012). Therapeutic recreation practice: A strengths approach. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

Page 20: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 125

Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy. In A. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 212–213). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York: The Free Press.

Bullock, C., Mahon, M., & Killingsworth, C. (2010). Introduction to recreation services for people with disabilities: A person-centered approach (3rd ed.). Urbana, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Carruthers, C., & Hood, C. (2007). Building a life of meaning through therapeutic recreation: The Leisure and Well-Being Model, part I. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 41(4), 276–297.

Cohen, K. (2005). Complexity, content, and community coaching: A new method for collective decision-making. eReview of Tourism Research, Conference Abstracts. Retrieved from http://ertr.tamu.edu/index.cfm

Condeluci, A. (1995). Interdependence: The route to community. Winter Park, FL: G. R. Press.

Condeluci, A. (2002). Cultural shifting: Community leadership and change. St. Augustine, FL: Training Resources Network.

Conley, J. (2004). The national registry of effective programs and practice (NREPP): Recent developments and future direction. Evaluation FastFacts, 3(3), 1–4.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: HarperCollins.

Dattilo, J. (2008). Leisure education program planning: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Dattilo, J., Kleiber, D., & Williams, R. (1998). Self-determination and enjoyment enhancement: A psychologically-based service delivery model for therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 32(4), 258–271.

Deegan, P. (1988). Recovery: The lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 11(4), 11–19.

DuPlessis VanBreda, A. (2001). Resiliency theory: A literature review. Pretoria, South Africa: South African Military Health Service. Retrieved from http://www.vanbreda.org/adrian/resilience/resilience7.pdf

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to embrace the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive. New York: Crown.

Gunn, S. L., & Peterson, C. (1978). Therapeutic recreation program design: Principles and procedures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Haun, P. (1965). Recreation: A medical viewpoint. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Healthy People. (2012). Healthy People 2020. Retrieved from http://www.

healthypeople.gov/about/2020/default.aspxHood, C., & Carruthers, C. (2002). Coping skills theory as an underlying framework

for therapeutic recreation services. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 36(2), 137–153.

Page 21: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

126 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

Hood, C., & Carruthers, C. (2007). Enhancing leisure experience and developing resources: The Leisure and Well-Being Model, part II. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 41(4), 298–325.

House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 293–318.

Howe-Murphy, R., & Charboneau, B. (1987). Therapeutic recreation intervention: An ecological perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hutchinson, S. L., Loy, D. P., Kleiber, D. A., & Dattilo, J. (2003). Leisure as a coping resource: Variations in coping with traumatic injury and illness. Leisure Sciences, 25(2), 143–161.

Iwasaki, Y., & Mannell, R. C. (2000). Hierarchical dimensions of leisure stress coping. Leisure Sciences, 22, 163–181.

Jacobson, N., & Curtis, L. (2000). Recovery as policy in mental health services: Strategies emerging from the states. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 13(2), 1–14.

Koyama, T., McHaffie, J., Laurienti, P., & Coghill, R. (2005). The subjective experience of pain: Where expectations become reality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(36), 12950–12955.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lynch, J. (1979). The broken heart: The medical consequences of loneliness. New York: Basic Books.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. New York: The Penguin Press.

McKnight, J. (1987). Regenerating community. Social Policy, Winter, 54-58.Mobily, K. (1985). A philosophical analysis of therapeutic recreation: What does

it mean to say “We can be therapeutic”? Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 19(1), 14–26.

Nirje, B. (1992). The normalization principle papers. Uppsala, Sweden: Centre for Handicap Research, Uppsala University.

Nirje, B. (1999). How I came to formulate the normalization principle. In R. J. Flynn & R. A. Lemay (Eds.), A quarter-century of normalization and social role valorization: Evolution and impact (pp. 17–47). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, and species membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (1993). The quality of life. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Brien, J. (1986). Discovering community. Atlanta: Responsive Systems Associates. O’Brien, J., & Lyle O’Brien, C. (1996). Members of each other: Building community in

company with people with developmental disabilities. Toronto, Ontario: Inclusion Press.

O’Keefe, C. (n.d.). An essay for students interested in therapeutic recreation. Retrieved from http://www.nrpa.org/content/default.aspx?documentId=956

O’Keefe, C. (2005). Grounding the therapeutic recreation process in an ethic of care. In C. Sylvester (Ed.), Philosophy of therapeutic recreation: Ideas and issues (Vol. III). Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Page 22: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

Heyne and Anderson 127

Pedlar, A., Haworth, L., Hutchinson, P., Taylor, A., & Dunn, P. (1999). A textured life: Empowerment and adults with developmental disabilities. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.

Polk, L. V. (1997). Toward a middle-range theory of resilience. Advances in Nursing Science, 19(3), 1–13. Retrieved from http://www.pediatricnursing.org/article/S0882-5963(05)00296-4/

Rapp, C., & Goscha, R. (2006). The strengths model: Case management with people with psychiatric disabilities. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rath, T. (2006). Vital friends. New York: Gallup Press.Rock, D. (2006). Quiet leadership. New York: HarperCollins.Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The neuroscience of leadership. Strategy + Business,

43(2), 1–10.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation

of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2003). Flourishing under fire: Resilience as a prototype of challenged thriving. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (p. xi). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Saleebey, D. (2006). The strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Schwartz, J., Stapp, H., & Beauregard, M. (2005). Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: A neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 10, 1–19.

Search Institute. (2012). What kids need: Building blocks for children and youth. Retrieved from http://www.search-institute.org/developmental-assets

Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Seligman, M. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize

your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: The Free Press.Seligman, M. (2003). Foreword: The past and future of positive psychology. In C.

Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. xi-xx). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Seligman, M. (2009). Positive Psychology Center. Retrieved from http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/index.html

Shank, J., & Coyle, C. (2002). Therapeutic recreation in health promotion and rehabilitation. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Stumbo, N., & Peterson, C. (2004). Therapeutic recreation program design: Principles and procedures (4th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education.

Sylvester, C. (2006). With leisure and recreation for all: Preserving and promoting a worthy pledge. Purpose, passion, progress: Celebrating 40 years of NTRS. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Page 23: Theories that Support Strengths-Based Practice in ... · deficits approach, strengths-based prac - tice values recreation as an important area of life upon which to concentrate and

128 Strengths-Based Practice in TR

Sylvester, C. D. (1987). The ethics of play, leisure, and recreation in the twentieth century, 1900–1983. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 173–187.

Sylvester, C. (2011). Therapeutic recreation, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, and the Capability Approach. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 45(2), 85–104.

Sylvester, C., Voelkl, J., & Ellis, G. (2001). Therapeutic recreation practice: Theory and practice. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Utesch, W. (n.d.). From a glass half empty to a glass half full: A review of the transition from deficit to strength-based approaches. Fort Wayne, IN: Foellinger Foundation.

Webster’s New College Dictionary (Eds.). (2008). Webster’s new college dictionary (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Berkobien, R. (1991). Self-determination and self-advocacy: A case of mistaken identity. The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps Newsletter, 7, 4.

Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 81–85.

Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation, 21(6), 234–239.

World Health Organization. (2004). Joint position paper—Community-based rehabilitation: A strategy for rehabilitation, equalization of opportunities, poverty reduction, and social inclusion of people with disabilities. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

World Health Organization. (2012). About WHO. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/about/en