The Neuroscience of Positive Psychology — Christina Kushnir
Tina (she/her/hers) is a fourth year Psychological and Brain Sciences major and Applied Psychology Minor. Besides her volunteer work with the Carol Ackerman Positive Psychology Clinic, Tina is also a research assistant at the Yu Emotions Science Lab and the Social Evaluation and Emotions Lab at UCSB. Her research interests focus on the effects of trauma on morphological and psychosocial levels, mathematical language models, and intergroup conflict. As she enters into graduate school, she hopes to continue to incorporate an intersectional approach into scientific research and address discrepancies in trauma care and other mental health services.
Click through the sections below to read the paper.
-
In response to traditional psychotherapies that focus on maladaptive behaviors and mental illnesses, Martin Seligman introduced the notion of positive psychology—an emerging subfield defined as the study of human flourishing, strengths, and well-being at the subjective, individual, and group levels (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Given its relatively novel status, positive psychology has been associated with pop psychology and is prone to misunderstanding —specifically, that it prioritizes happiness while discounting any negative emotions or struggle. However, the psychotherapeutic applications of this subfield are far more complex and nuanced than simply telling patients to “Be happy.” In fact, positive psychotherapy emphasizes context-dependent implementation of positive helping skills so that a person's trauma and pain can be sufficiently validated and addressed without pathologizing the individual (Gable & Haidt, 2005). Furthermore, it is the person’s strengths that are ultimately reinforced (Park et al., 2004; Rashid, 2015). By focusing on the positive qualities within oneself and in their life, the individual is lifted up and becomes more capable of responding to adverse events through a lens of hope and reassurance.
Positive neuroscience can be described as the research of neural mechanisms involved in adaptive psychological states and positive well-being (Greene & Seligman, 2016). Whereas previous research has primarily investigated the various etiologies of brain dysfunction and malformation, positive neuroscience studies aspects of life associated with thriving—overlapping with the core values of positive psychology. By better understanding the mechanisms underlying human flourishing and positive living, future interventions can develop a more humanistic approach that uplifts the individual, as opposed to highlighting their faults and weaknesses. This article will be broken down into sections providing a brief overview of the neurobiology of several branches of positive neuroscience: empathy, social bonds, and resilience.
-
Within the last decade, there has been an increasing amount of research on the neural systems related to empathy. In a review of past literature, Zaki and Ochsner (2012) established three distinct but interconnected processes of empathy: 1) experience sharing, in which one person’s affective state is shared and felt by another person; 2) mentalizing, which involves the ability to employ Theory of Mind and understand others’ perspectives (Leslie & German, 2004); and prosocial concern, wherein the individual feels motivated to alleviate another person’s suffering. Studies related to empathy have often examined at least one or more of these processes in great detail, theorizing their implications for prosocial behavior and community relations.
Which brain regions are implicated in empathic concern?
A leading study by Singer et al. (2004) investigated the experience sharing and mentalizing components of empathy through the creation of an empathy-experiencing “in vivo” paradigm, which they structured around known pain-related neural circuitry (also referred to as the pain matrix). Sixteen couples were recruited for the study and were placed in an fMRI where either they or their partner received a low or high electrical shock to their hand. Couples could not see each other’s faces—only their hands—and were instead provided visual cues on a large screen that informed them whether they or their partner would be shocked. The participants were then administered questionnaires to provide reports of general subjective empathy. The researchers found that different regions of the brain became active when participants either experienced pain or knew that their partner was experiencing pain, illustrating that self-experienced pain and the empathic experience of others’ pain are maintained in anatomically different neural substrates. Additionally, participants who scored higher on the general empathy questionnaires also showed greater activation in the brain regions associated with empathizing with their partner’s pain—specifically the rostral anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula. These findings suggest that empathy does not rely on the sensory dimensions of pain but rather on the affective re-representation of another person’s negative experiences (Singer et al., 2004). Our brains are capable of predicting the pain that a person might feel and forming subsequent unconscious responses that can motivate us to help them.
-
Humans are social creatures by nature—so much so that there is compelling empirical evidence to suggest that a person's social relationships play a direct role in safeguarding them from serious mental illness, physical maladies, and premature mortality (House et al., 1988). It is also well-researched that parent-infant bonds and attachment play a significant role in the development of the child’s social functioning (Bohlin et al., 2002). Attachment theory, first proposed by psychoanalyst John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth in 1979, suggests that having a secure attachment with the parent/caregiver allows the child to feel a sense of safety and security. Children who have insecure attachments with their parents/caregivers ultimately lack this comfort and exhibit markedly increased risks of anxiety and challenges with social competency as they age (Bowlby, 1988; DiTommaso et al., 2003).
Safety Signaling in Romantic Attachments
Related research on attachment theory has taken core components of Bowlby’s work and applied them to the framework of romantic relationships—with notable overlaps (Simpson, 1990). One particularly interesting study used a neurobiological approach to explore the function of attachment in a romantic context. Specifically, the researchers investigated the idea that romantic partners may serve as “attachment-induced” safety signals during fear response and pain mitigation (Eisenberger et al., 2011). When female participants in committed relationships were given painful heat stimuli while viewing images of their significant other, they showed significantly greater activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex—a primary executive brain region involved in safety cues and fear extinction. Researchers also found that participants reported lower levels of discomfort while they were viewing images of their partner and, yet, as they viewed neutral control images, they reported a higher level of pain discomfort even though they were administered the exact same amount of heat stimuli. Higher ventromedial prefrontal cortical activity was also correlated with couples in longer relationships, which Eisenberger and colleagues theorized was due to a greater demonstration of commitment to one another (and, ultimately, of security in the relationship). These findings are essential to understanding the benefits of social relationships in the context of overcoming traumatic and difficult experiences. By surrounding oneself with people who represent love and safety, the stressful hurdles of life become less threatening and more manageable—all of which can inspire strength and hope.
-
Resilience can be defined as the “ability to bounce back from negative emotional experiences and by flexible adaptation to the changing demands of stressful experiences” (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004, p. 320). However, in understanding resiliency, one must also understand why people vary so much in their responses to positive and negative life events. Why is it that some people appear to deal with stress more easily? Why is it that others seem to be constantly brought down by difficult situations? Before further discussion, it is important to note that certain groups of people are forced to deal with challenging circumstances that others are not—whether it be racial injustice, gender violence, or income inequality. This section provides a review of general research on human behavior and neural circuitry in relation to the psychological phenomena of resilience, however systemic and social contexts of marginalized communities should be taken into consideration.
-
Relevant literature has highlighted the amygdala as the primary brain region involved in emotional stimuli processing. In a recent publication, Cunningham and Kirkland (2014) found that people with higher trait happiness had increased amygdala activation in response to positive stimuli than those who were less happy. Vice versa, people with lower trait happiness had greater amygdala activation in response to negative stimuli. Results also indicated that happier people showed no significant difference in activation between positive and negative stimuli. In short, happier people had an enhanced reactivity to positive stimuli, but were also equally capable of recognizing and processing negative information. The authors suggest that happy people have greater “affective flexibility” and are thus more capable of handling difficult obstacles while also being tuned to the more positive aspects of their environment.
-
Highlighting the importance of developing a more positive, balanced mindset, one study conducted by Hammen (1991) examined how existing in a perpetual state of negative affect can result in a self-sustained cycle of continuous hardship and struggle. This one-year longitudinal study examined a group of women suffering from major depressive disorder and compared life stress data with three other groups (bipolar disorder, chronic medical issues, and healthy control). Hammen found that the depressed cohort experienced the highest rates of stress, exposure to stressful events, and interpersonal conflict amongst all other groups. She theorized that this occurrence resulted from a combination of both personal characteristics and symptoms, as well as a proclivity to being involved in high risk, insecure environments and relationships. In the concluding section, she explains: “Persons contribute to the stream of events that provoke further depression and a sense of personal depletion and inefficacy. Negative cognitions about themselves and events may alter their responses to circumstances or may contribute to an inability to cope with emergent situations… they may also determine reactions to personally meaningful events” (Hammen, 1991, p. 559).
-
It appears that not only do happier people tend to have a more balanced and positive life, but that for people with unhappy mentalities, their predisposition to the negative attracts a greater rate of difficult situations and emotional suffering—and ultimately can generate a cycle of more extreme and detrimental symptoms and struggles. However, it is necessary to reiterate that well-being is determined both by the individual’s characteristics as well as by their environment—and that, in certain unsafe contexts, the implementation of otherwise beneficial positive processes can cause more harm (McNulty & Fincham, 2012, p. 102). In such situations, positive psychology recognizes the importance of contextually dependent therapeutic approaches and prioritizes the individual’s safety and circumstances, before beginning the process of adopting positive processes. Furthermore, additional coping skills created to specifically address extreme adverse events or trauma can be actively interwoven into the overall therapeutic approach alongside positive processes. In general, positive psychotherapy can be implemented to promote a gradual shift in the individual’s outlook on themselves and their surroundings so that they become rewired—both metaphorically and neurologically—to recognize the positive aspects of situations, rather than dwelling on only the negative.
-
Bohlin, G., Hagekull, B., & Rydell, A. M. (2000). Attachment and social functioning: A longitudinal study from infancy to middle childhood. Social development, 9(1), 24-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00109
Bowlby. (1979). The Bowlby-Ainsworth attachment theory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(4), 637–638. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00064955
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
Cunningham, W. A., & Kirkland, T. (2014). The joyful, yet balanced, amygdala: Moderated responses to positive but not negative stimuli in trait happiness.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(6), 760-766. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst045
DiTommaso, E., Brannen-McNulty, C., Ross, L., & Burgess, M. (2003). Attachment styles, social skills and loneliness in young adults. Personality and individual differences, 35(2), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00190-3
Eisenberger, N. I., Master, S. L., Inagaki, T. K., Taylor, S. E., Shirinyan, D., Lieberman, M. D., & Naliboff, B. D. (2011). Attachment figures activate a safety signal-related neural region and reduce pain experience. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(28), 11721-11726. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108239108
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103
Greene, J. D., & Seligman, M. E. (Eds.). (2016). Positive neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
Hammen, C. (1991). Generation of stress in the course of unipolar depression.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(4), 555-561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.555
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241(4865), 540-545. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3399889
Leslie, A. M., Friedman, O., & German, T. P. (2004). Core mechanisms in ‘theory of mind’. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(12), 528-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.001
McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67(2), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024572
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748
Rashid, T. (2015). Positive psychotherapy: A strength-based approach. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.920411
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971-980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.971
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157-1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093535
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient Individuals Use Positive Emotions to Bounce Back From Negative Emotional Experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320-333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature neuroscience, 15(5), 675-680. https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3085
