Envisioning the future of positive psychology requires looking at its past. To that end, I first review prior critiques of PP to underscore that certain early problems have persisted over time. I then selectively examine recent research to illustrate progress in certain areas as well as draw attention to recurrent problems. Key among them is promulgation of poorly constructed measures of well-being and reliance on homogeneous, privileged research samples. Another concern is the commercialization of PP, which points to the need (...) for greater oversight and quality control in profit-seeking endeavors. Looking ahead, I advocate for future science tied to contemporary challenges, particularly ever-widening inequality and the pandemic. These constitute intersecting catastrophes that need scientific attention. Such problems bring into focus “neglected negatives” that may be fueling current difficulties, including greed, indifference, and stupidity. Anger, which defies easy characterization as positive or negative, also warrants greater scientific study. Going forward I advocate for greater study of domains that likely nurture good lives and just societies – namely, participation in the arts and encounters with nature, both currently under study. Overall, my entreaty to PP is to reckon with persistent problems from its past, while striving toward a future that is societally relevant and virtuous. (shrink)

Our current work examined the interface between thinking style and emotional experience at both the behavioral and neuropsychological levels. Thirty-nine Chinese participants completed the triad task, and we calculated the rate of individually selected relationship pairings to overall selections to represent their holistic thinking tendencies. In addition, participants in the top one-third of the ratio score were classified into the high holistic thinking group, while those in the bottom one-third of the ratio score were classified into the low holistic thinking (...) group. We used the sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire to examine how people elicit positive and negative affective behaviors. Additionally, we examined the volume of the amygdala and nucleus accumbens and their functional connectivity in the resting-state. We found that high holistic thinkers were much less sensitive to rewards than low holistic thinkers. In other words, individuals with high holistic thinking are less likely to pursue behaviors that have positive emotional outcomes. Furthermore, their bilateral nucleus accumbens and right amygdala volumes were smaller than those of low holistic thinkers. Hierarchical regression analysis showed that holistic thinking tendency can negatively predict the volume of the left nucleus accumbens and right amygdala. Finally, resting-state functional connectivity results showed increased functional connectivity FC between left nucleus accumbens and bilateral amygdala in high holistic thinkers. These findings provide emotion-related manifestations of thinking styles at the behavioral and neural levels. (shrink)

Creativity is critical to organizational success. Understanding the antecedents of creativity is important. Although there is a growing body of research on how (mixed) emotions affect creativity, most of the work has focused on intrapersonal processes. We do not know whether contrasting emotions between interacting partners (i.e., interpersonal mixed emotions) have creative consequences. Building on information processing theories of emotion, our research proposes a theoretical account for why interpersonal mixed emotions matter. It hypothesized that mixed- (vs. same-) emotion interactions would (...) predict higher collective creative performance. We tested the hypothesis in two-party integrative negotiations (105 dyads). We manipulated negotiators’ emotional expressions (angry-angry, happy-happy, angry-happy dyads) and measured the extent to which they generated creative solutions that tapped into hidden integrative potential in the negotiation for a better joint gain. The results overall supported the hypothesis: i) there was some evidence that mixed-emotion dyads (i.e., angry-happy) performed better than same-emotion dyads; ii) mixed-emotion dyads, on average, achieved a high level of joint gain that exceeded the (non-creative) zero-sum threshold, whereas same-emotion dyads did not. The findings add theoretical and actionable insights into our understanding of creativity, emotion, and organization behavior. (shrink)