Comment: Homing in on a Balanced Psychology

Hernandez et al.’s (2018) review of the widespread effects of positive emotion on well-being indicate that the field has traveled far down “the road to a positive psychology” (Gillham & Seligman, 1999, p. S163). I suggest that it is now time to take a road away from a positive psychology and toward a balanced psychology, one that gives just as much attention to negative emotion as to positive emotion. Taking a balanced psychology approach requires attending to at least two sets of considerations that received relatively little attention in Hernandez et al.’s (2018) review.

First, a balanced psychology requires greater attention to the relationships between positive and negative affect. As Hernandez et al. (2018) noted, people can experience mixed emotions (Larsen, 2017; Larsen & McGraw, 2014), even in times of distress (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Nonetheless, positive and negative affect tend to be negatively correlated, so what might appear to be a beneficial effect of positive affect might actually be a detrimental effect of negative affect (Hernandez et al., 2017; Pressman & Cohen, 2005). Consider the implications of the results of Hoen, Denollet, de Jonge, and Whooley (2013), which is one of the studies reviewed by Hernandez et al. (2018). Hoen et al. (2013) found that positive affect was associated with lower mortality among coronary heart disease patients. Unfortunately, it cannot be known whether reduced mortality was a result of higher positive affect or lower negative affect because the battery of measures did not include a measure of negative affect (see Sin, Moskowitz, & Whooley, 2015). From a positive psychology perspective, prioritizing the measurement of positive affect over negative affect makes sense. From a balanced psychology perspective, including 10 items to measure positive affect (i.e., the positive affect portion of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and zero items to measure negative affect makes little sense.

Davidson, Mostofsky, and Whang (2010) and other studies reviewed by Hernandez et al. (2018) did include measures of both positive and negative affect. Moreover, Davidson et al. (2010) found that positive affect accounted for unique variance in the incidence of coronary heart disease after controlling for the effects of negative affect. From a positive psychology perspective, it makes sense to determine whether positive affect accounts for unique variance. From a balanced psychology perspective, it also makes sense to determine whether negative affect accounted for unique variance after controlling for positive affect. This analysis was not reported, so we end up with an incomplete picture of the effects of emotion on the incidence of coronary heart disease.

Second, a balanced psychology requires grappling with questions about whether experiencing more positive affect is always beneficial and more negative affect is always detrimental. From a positive psychological perspective, we might expect positive emotions to help people cope with stressors. Indeed, students who used more positive words when writing about transitioning to college showed better health outcomes (Pennebaker & Francis, 1996). In another study, however, people who used more positive words when writing about a severe trauma had worse health outcomes (Pennebaker, 1993). In addition, Low, Stanton, and Danoff-Burg (2006) found that women showed less symptom reduction after writing about their “positive [emphasis added] thoughts and feelings” than after writing about their “deepest [emphasis added] thoughts and feelings” (p. 183). This pattern was obtained despite the fact that those in the deepest thoughts condition used more negative words and fewer positive words. In fact, greater use of negative emotion words mediated the effect of the writing manipulations on symptom reduction.

Larsen, Hemenover, Norris, and Cacioppo (2003) developed the coactivation model of healthy coping to account for such seemingly disparate findings. According to the model, healthy coping may involve an optimal ratio of positive to negative emotional reactions to stressors, and that optimal ratio should be lower for severe stressors than for mild stressors (see Figure 1). By this account, healthy coping with breast cancer (Low et al., 2006) and other severe traumas (Pennebaker, 1993) requires experiencing and expressing more negative emotions (and/or fewer positive emotions) than does coping with less severe stressors (e.g., transitioning to college; Pennebaker & Francis, 1996).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The coactivation model of healthy coping. Curves depict the hypothesized effects of the ratio of positive to negative emotional reactions to health outcomes under varying levels of stress. Reprinted with permission from Larsen et al. (2003).

One implication of the coactivation model is that the linear relationship between positive affect and well-being (Hernandez et al., 2018) may be accompanied by a curvilinear component in times of stress (see also, Pressman & Cohen, 2005). Shrira et al. (2011) measured the traumatic distress of personnel at a hospital that was exposed to frequent rocket attacks. They also asked personnel to report how frequently they had experienced several positive affective states and negative affective states during the past week. Consistent with the coactivation model of healthy coping, they found that individuals with intermediate ratios of positive to negative affective states showed the highest levels of well-being. In another study, they found that gastric cancer patients with intermediate positivity ratios showed greater acceptance of their illness and perceived more benefits from their illness. Such findings indicate that negative emotions need not be all bad (and positive emotions not all good). In the face of trauma, well-being may hang in the balance between positive and negative affect.