Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 1–3 | Cite as

Introduction to Special Series: The Great Debate—Evaluating the Health Implications of Positive Psychology

  • Suzanne M. Miller
  • Allen C. Sherman
  • Alan J. Christensen
Introduction

Abstract

Background

In recent years, investigators have focused increased attention on positive psychology constructs and their associations with health outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and adaptation to illness. The database regarding some of these concepts and models has grown appreciably, but work in this area has been subject to controversy.

Purpose

This special series of papers offers contrasting perspectives regarding research on positive psychology and health. Both proponents and critics were invited to review recent developments concerning a number of positive constructs that have been evaluated in the oncology literature and in health research, more generally.

Methods

Papers are presented in the format of a debate. Significant advances are reviewed by one set of investigators, Drs, Lisa G. Aspinwall and Richard G. Tedeschi, while shortcomings and concerns are highlighted by another set of investigators, Drs. James C. Coyne and Howard Tennen. Each of these review papers is followed by a rebuttal by the opposing side. A commentary on the exchange is provided by Dr. Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin.

Results

These papers address a range of important considerations regarding conceptualization of constructs, methodological rigor, dissemination of findings, and implications for practice.

Conclusion

The critiques and recommendations offered in these papers may help inform future efforts in this area, as the field continues to evolve.

Keywords

Positive psychology Health Cancer Posttraumatic growth Benefit-finding Optimism Sense of coherence 

References

  1. 1.
    Special issue: Positive psychology. Rev Gen Psychol. 2005; 9: 99-192.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Special issue on positive psychology in behavioral medicine. Intl J Behav Med. 2005; 12:47-122Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Howell RT, Kern ML, Lyubomirsky S. Health benefits: Meta-analytically determining the impact of well-being on objective health outcomes. Health Psychol Rev. 2007; 1: 1-54.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychol Bull. 2005; 131: 925-971.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DP. Emotional style and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychosom Med. 2003; 65: 652-657.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reed MB, Aspinwall LG. Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health-risk information. Motiv Emot. 1998; 22: 99-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen S, Alper CM, Doyle WJ, Treanor JJ, Turner RB. Positive emotional style predicts resistance to illness after experimental exposure to rhinovirus or influenza a virus. Psychosom Med. 2006; 68: 809-815.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staw BM, Sutton RI, Peeled LH. Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organizational Sci. 1994; 5: 51-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marsland AL, Cohen S, Rabin BS, Manuck SB. Trait positive affect and antibody response to hepatitis B vaccination. Brain Behav Immun. 2006; 20: 261-269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steptoe A, O’Donnell K, Badrick E, Kumari M, Marmot M. Neuroendocrine and inflammatory factors associated with positive affect in health men and women: The Whitehall II study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167: 96-102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lazarus RS. Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychol Inquiry. 2003; 14: 93-109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lazarus RS. The Lazarus manifesto for positive psychology and psychology in general. Psychol Inquiry. 2003; 14: 175-189.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tennen H, Affleck G. While accentuating the positive, don’t eliminate the negative or Mr. in-between. Psychol Inquiry. 2003; 14: 163-169.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harvey JH, Pauwels BG. The ironies of positive psychology. Psychol Inquiry. 2003; 14: 125-128.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campos JJ. When the negative becomes positive and the reverse: Comments on Lazarus's critique of positive psychology. Psychol Inquiry. 2003; 14: 110-113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aspinwall LG, Tedeschi RG. The value of positive psychology for health psychology: Progress and pitfalls in examining the relation of positive phenomena to health. Ann Behav Med.; 2010; 39(1): this issue Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coyne JC, Tennen H. Positive psychology in cancer care: Bad science, exaggerated claims, and unproven medicine. Ann Behav Med.; 2010; 39(1): this issue Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aspinwall LG, Tedeschi RG. Of babies and bathwater: A reply to Coyne and Tennen's views on positive psychology and health. Ann Behav Med.; 2010; 39(1): this issue Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coyne JC, Tennen H. Positive psychology in cancer care: A story line resistant to evidence. Ann Behav Med.; 2010; 39(1): this issue Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gorin SS. Theory, measurement, and controversy in positive psycholology, health psychology, and cancer: Basics and next steps. Ann Behav Med.; 2010; 39(1): this issue Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benjamins MR. Religious influences on preventive health care use in a nationally representative sample of middle-age women. J Behav Med. 2006; 29: 1-16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    True C, Phipps EJ, Braitman LE, Harralson T, Harris D, Tester W. Treatment preferences and advance care planning at end of life: The role of ethnicity and spiritual coping in cancer patients. Ann Behav Med. 2005; 30: 174-179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwartz MD, Hughes C, Roth J, et al. Spiritual faith and genetic testing decisions among high-risk breast cancer probands. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000; 9: 381-385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lutgendorf SK, DeBeest K, Sung CY, et al. Depression, social support, and beta-adrenergic transcription control in human ovarian cancer. Brain Behav Immun. 2009; 23: 176-183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lutgendorf SK, Lamkin DM, Jennings NB, et al. Biobehavioral influences on matrix metalloproteinase expression in ovarian carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14: 6839-6846.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Armaiz-Pena GN, Lutgendorf SK, Cole SW, Sood AK. Neuroendocrine modulation of cancer progression. Brain Behav Immun. 2009; 23: 10-15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Costanzo ES, Lutgendorf SK, Sood AK, et al. Psychosocial factors and interleukin-6 among women with advanced ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2005; 104: 305-313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzanne M. Miller
    • 1
  • Allen C. Sherman
    • 2
  • Alan J. Christensen
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Population Science, Psychosocial and Biobehavioral ProgramBehavioral Research Core Facility, Behavioral Center of Excellence in Breast Cancer, Fox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Behavioral Medicine, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer InstituteUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations