Cited by 2,955Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: a practice-friendly meta-analysis

Open access
Sin, Nancy L., Lyubomirsky, Sonja·2009·Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Do positive psychology interventions-that is, treatment methods or intentional activities aimed at cultivating positive feelings, positive behaviors, or positive cognitions-enhance well-being and ameliorate depressive symptoms? A meta-analysis of 51 such interventions with 4,266 individuals was conducted to address this question and to provide practical guidance to clinicians. The results revealed that positive psychology interventions do indeed significantly enhance well-being (mean r=.29) and decrease depressive symptoms (mean r=.31). In addition, several factors were found to impact the effectiveness of positive psychology interventions, including the depression status, self-selection, and age of participants, as well as the format and duration of the interventions. Accordingly, clinicians should be encouraged to incorporate positive psychology techniques into their clinical work, particularly for treating clients who are depressed, relatively older, or highly motivated to improve. Our findings also suggest that clinicians would do well to deliver positive psychology interventions as individual (versus group) therapy and for relatively longer periods of time.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This meta-analysis of 51 positive psychology interventions with 4,266 participants found that such interventions significantly improved well-being and reduced depressive symptoms. Effects were medium-sized and moderated by participant and intervention features, supporting clinical use especially for depressed, older, self-selected clients and individual, longer formats.

Key findings

  • Across 49 well-being studies (4,235 participants), the mean effect size was r = .29 (median .24; range −.31 to .84; 96% positive), significant in fixed- and random-effects models; the fail-safe N was 2,519 versus a tolerance level of 255.
  • Across 25 depression studies (1,812 participants), the mean effect size was r = .31 (median .26; range −.28 to .81; 80% favoring the intervention), significant in both models; the fail-safe N was 420 versus a tolerance level of 135.
  • Moderators: depressed status and self-selection predicted greater benefit in fixed-effects analyses only; older age predicted greater benefit in both models; individual therapy outperformed group and self-administered formats in both models; longer duration predicted greater well-being gains in fixed effects (random-effects p = .09) but not depression; comparison group type moderated well-being in fixed effects only.
  • A binomial effect size display indicated that in a hypothetical group of 200, 65 intervention recipients versus 35 controls would improve well-being, and 66 versus 34 would reduce depression.

Methods

  • Meta-analysis of English-language positive psychology intervention studies from 1977–2008. Inclusion required an intervention aimed at increasing positive feelings, behaviors, or cognitions; pre- and post-intervention well-being or depression measures; a comparison group; and effect-size information. Physical health/physical activity and mood-induction studies were excluded.
  • Coded moderators included depression status, age, self-selection, intervention format, duration, and comparison group type. Effect sizes were computed as r from d, F, t, p, or descriptive statistics; multiple measures were averaged via Fisher Z transformations.
  • Analyses used fixed- and random-effects models, Stouffer-combined significance tests, one-sample t-tests on mean Fisher Z effects, fail-safe N and tolerance estimates, chi-square heterogeneity tests, and contrast/correlation tests for moderators.

Limitations

  • The authors state that the meta-analysis is not exhaustive and that moderator findings cannot be interpreted causally because studies were not randomly assigned to moderator levels. They also note likely file-drawer bias for well-being, though the fail-safe N exceeded the tolerance level.
  • Evident from the text: the review is limited to English-language studies from 1977–2008 and samples adjacent literatures (e.g., mindfulness, life review, forgiveness), which may restrict generalizability. Fixed- and random-effects models disagreed for some moderators (depression status, self-selection, and comparison group type for well-being), and older adults could not be analyzed for depression because too few studies were available.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jclp.20593

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 9 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 13 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 1
12 of 12
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The number of unpublished studies is not five times greater than the number of published studies.

    “The tolerance level was also computed to estimate the number of irretrievable studies that possibly exist, based on the assumption that the number of unpublished studies is not five times greater than the number of published ones (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2008, p. 689).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No systematic quantitative review of positive psychology intervention research had been published before this meta-analysis.

    “The general effectiveness of PPIs remains unclear, as no systematic quantitative review of the research has yet been published.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 69 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Della Porta M.D., 2008, Searching for the placebo effect in happiness‐enhancing interventions: An experimental longitudinal study with depressed and nondepressed participants
  2. *Lyubomirsky S. Dickerhoof R. Boehm J.K. &Sheldon K.M.(2008).Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: Two experimental longitudinal interventions to boost well‐being. Manuscript under review.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,201–1,300 of 2,952

Metadata

Authors
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
  • Sin, Nancy L.
  • Lyubomirsky, Sonja
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03-19
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
467-487
ISSN
  • 0021-9762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4679
OpenAlex
W2038506024
Cited by
2,955
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 107 · 2025: 175 · 2024: 168 · 2023: 196 · 2022: 231 · 2021: 319 · 2020: 257 · 2019: 246 · 2018: 214 · 2017: 186 · 2016: 212 · 2015: 182 · 2014: 157 · 2013: 104 · 2012: 80
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
positive psychology interventions, well-being, depressive symptoms, depression treatment, intervention effectiveness, self-selection, intervention duration, age differences, clinician guidance
MeSH terms
Depression, Depressive Disorder, Emotions, Humans, Personal Satisfaction, Psychology, Clinical, Psychotherapy, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review