Page 1 of 35
Positive Thinking: Too Much of a Good Thing?
C. W. Von Bergen
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Page 2 of 35
Abstract
Many traits, states, and experiences have costs that at high levels may begin to outweigh their
benefits, creating an inverted-U-shaped relationship in which performance, adaptation, and
health are optimal at moderate levels. By attending more carefully to this “too much of a good
thing” principle, it is believed that management professionals can develop a deeper, more
effective understanding of the conditions that facilitate well-being and performance in
themselves and their employees. After reviewing this principle across various domains, a
comprehensive examination of how the relentless promotion of positive thinking as a key to
obtaining success and prosperity is reviewed and shown that at excessive levels likewise has a
dark side.
Page 3 of 35
Positive Thinking: Too Much of a Good Thing?
Ne quid nimis. (In all things moderation.)
—Publius Terentius Afer (Terence), c. 171 B.C.
There is a tendency to conclude that if a little is good then more must be better. But life is
rarely linear and in most cases, what is good in small quantities often becomes harmful in large
doses (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Paracetamol is a widely used over-the-counter pain reliever and
fever reducer. It is commonly used for the relief of headaches, other minor aches and pains, and
is a major ingredient in numerous cold and flu remedies and can also be used in the management
of more severe pain such as post-surgical pain and providing palliative care in advanced cancer
patients. While generally safe at recommended doses, excessive levels of paracetamol can cause
potentially fatal damage and is the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western world and
accounts for most drug overdoses in the United States, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and
Australia (Daly, Fountain, Murray, Graudins, & Buckley, 2008).
Consider also drinking wine. According to the American Heart Association (AHA), more
than 60 prospective studies have suggested that moderate alcohol consumption—defined by the
Department of Health and Human Services Dietary Guidelines for Americans as having no more
than one drink per day for women and no more than two drinks per day for men—may decrease
the risk of chronic heart disease (CHD), ischemic heart disease and stroke, and other causes of
mortality. Research shows that moderate drinkers are at less of a risk for CHD and other causes
of mortality than nondrinkers though heavy drinkers are at a much greater risk (Rudis, 2010).
While a glass or two of wine daily can be beneficial, no one is suggesting that individual’s drink
Page 4 of 35
a bottle of wine daily. Such examples demonstrate that the reality of human nature is far more
complex than suggested by the popular belief that if some is good then more must be better.
Underlying the vast majority of existing theory and research in psychology and
management is the assumption that positive traits, experiences, and emotions have monotonic,
linear effects on adaptation and performance. For example, Seligman (2002) proposed that to
increase well-being and effectiveness, people should begin by identifying their signature
strengths and then seek to develop them. This theory assumes that “the more developed any
strength is, the better people are” (Schwartz & Sharpe, 2006, p. 380). Such a belief may be naïve
at best and wrong at worst. As suggested above, this paper argues that when carried to extremes
many positive phenomena exhibit inverted-U-shaped effects on well-being and performance as
illustrated in Figure 1. After reviewing the evidence of such non-linear effects on a range of
activities and events, particular attention is focused on the downside of excessive levels of
positive thinking. Looking on the bright side is addressed because American culture tends to
passionately encourage being cheerful, optimistic, and upbeat and that such positive attitude is an
absolute good. The paper concludes with a prescriptive note to exhibit moderation in human
behavior.
Figure 1. General curvilinear relationship between well-being/performance and many events.
Page 5 of 35
In the following section, a review of research that identifies well-being and performance
costs of high levels of various phenomena. Choice, freedom, volunteering, empathy, happiness,
self-esteem, and conscientiousness were selected, in part, because of the belief that these factors
are generally considered positive and where excessive levels may not have been intuitively
considered to have a dark side.
Selected Phenomena Exhibiting the Ubiquitous Inverted-U Shape Relationship
Choice
It is a common belief in modern U.S. society that the more choices, the better—that the
human ability to manage, and the human desire for, choice is infinite. Economic models of
choice and intuition suggest that having more options is preferable because it increases the
chance of finding one’s most preferred option. Decades of research suggest that choice increases
satisfaction (e.g., Langer & Rodin, 1976) and larger assortments increase the likelihood that
consumers will find an option that matches their preferences (Lancaster 1990). However, recent
research has highlighted downsides of “too many choices.” Excessive choice may result in
choice overload and can make a person question the decisions they make before they even make
them, setting up an individual for unrealistically high expectations which can make people blame
Page 6 of 35
themselves for any and all failures. In the long run, this can lead to anxiety and perpetual stress.
College students, for example, were more likely to write an extra-credit essay and wrote better
essays when they had 6 topics from which to choose than when they had 30 options (Iyengar &
Lepper 2000). Furthermore, Iyengar, Jiang, and Huberman (2004) found that adding mutual fund
options to a 401(k) menu decreased the rate of participation. Participation rate droped 2% for
each 10 options, even though, by failing to participate, employees pass up significant amounts of
matching money from their employers. This stream of research demonstrates that a large number
of options is paralyzing rather than liberating, and that choice in excessive levels may be
debilitating. The commercial world seems already to know this and is changing. Proctor and
Gamble, for instance, reduced the number of versions of its popular Head and Shoulders
shampoo from 26 to 15, and experienced a 10% increase in sales (Osnos, 1997).
Freedom
In a similar vein, Schwartz (2000) argued that freedom, autonomy, and self-determination
can become excessive, and that when that happens, freedom can be experienced as a kind of
tyranny. He further contended that unduly influenced by the ideology of economics and rationalchoice theory, modern American society has created an excess of freedom, with resulting
increases in people’s dissatisfaction with their lives and in clinical depression. There is a dark
side to freedom from constraint which emphasizes individuals as the makers of their own worlds
and destinies. It leaves people indecisive about what to do and why. Schwartz (2000) concludes
that “Freedom of choice is a two-edged sword, for just on the other side of liberation sits chaos
and paralysis” (p. 87). O’Connor, Stravynski, and Hallam (1997) have identified a similar state
as “freedom anxiety”—a clinical condition in which clients feel that expectations or rules about
Page 7 of 35
how to act are absent, and they lack a sense of identity. They are lost if they cannot act in
conformity with a listed role, and if they are not continuously acknowledged by relevant others.
Volunteering
A parallel pattern has emerged with respect to the relationship between volunteering and
well-being. In a departure from past research on the well-being benefits of volunteering,
Windsor, Anstey, and Rodgers (2008) proposed that at very high levels, volunteering would
decrease psychological well-being through two mechanisms: increasing role overload and
reducing time and energy available for other meaningful activities. Data from a sample of adults
in their 60s revealed the predicted inverted-U-shaped relationship of time spent volunteering
with psychological well-being. Although moderate levels of volunteering predicted higher
positive affect, lower negative affect, and higher life satisfaction, high levels of volunteering
were associated with lower positive affect, higher negative affect, and lower life satisfaction. The
negative affect costs of high levels of volunteering were especially pronounced for participants
without partners. Perhaps very high levels of volunteering reduce well-being by creating
overload and limiting engagement in other meaningful activities. As the authors explained, “The
highest well-being scores were evident among those who engaged in at least 100 hr of volunteer
activity per year but fewer than 800 hr . . . engaging in high levels of volunteering can have
adverse effects on well-being as a result of an increased burden of responsibility” (Windsor et
al., 2008, pp. 67, 69).
Empathy
Another manifestation of an inverted-U-shaped function involves empathy, the feeling of
concern for others in need. Although empathy increases prosocial behavior (for a review, see
Batson, 1998), there is evidence that very high levels of empathy can be emotionally aversive
Page 8 of 35
and undermine prosocial behavior. Eisenberg (2000) summarized research on the “empathic
overarousal” (p. 674), in which a strong experience of empathy cultivates feelings of distress,
which have the boomerang effect of distracting attention away from others and toward managing
one’s own aversive feelings.
Research also suggests that empathy runs the risk of undermining task performance. High
levels of empathy can cloud judgment, leading to self-sacrificing behaviors that benefit others at
the expense of achieving one’s own goals (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008) or
sometimes, even, fail to benefit others. For example, Groopman (2007) chronicles his own
failure to diagnose a life-threatening infection in a hospitalized cancer patient because his
empathy for the patient’s discomfort in the face of grueling chemotherapy induced him not to ask
the patient to roll over and be examined for bedsores.
Doctors, lawyers, counselors, and other professionals are constantly balancing the
competing calls for empathy and detachment (e.g., Kronman, 1993). In addition, psychological
and business research demonstrates that high empathy can encourage unethical behaviors that
help the targets of empathy but violate principles of fairness and justice (Gino & Pierce, 2009).
Happiness
Even happiness can have a dark side. According to Gruber, Mauss, and Tamir (2011)
people who strive for happiness may end up worse off than when they started. For example, one
study by Mauss, Tamir, Anderson, and Savino (2011) found that people who read a newspaper
article extolling the value of happiness felt worse after watching a happy film than people who
read a newspaper article that didn’t mention happiness—presumably because they were
disappointed they didn’t feel happier. When people do not end up as happy as they would have
expected, their feeling of failure can make them feel even worse. Extremely cheerful people,
Page 9 of 35
furthermore, engage in riskier behaviors (Martin, Friedman, Tucker, Tomlinson-Keasey, Criqui,
& Schwartz, 2002), sometimes live shorter lives (Friedman, Tucker, Tomlinson-Keasey,
Schwartz, Wingard, & Criqui, 1993), and earn lower salaries (Oishi, Diener, & Lucas, 2007).
One study followed children from the 1920s to old age and found that those who died
younger were rated as highly cheerful by their teachers. Researchers have found that people who
are feeling extreme amounts of happiness may not think as creatively and also tend to take more
risks (Gruber et al., 2011). For example, people who have mania, such as in bipolar disorder,
have an excess degree of positive emotions that can lead them to take risks, like substance abuse,
driving too fast, or spending their life savings. But even for people who do not have a psychiatric
disorder, “too high of a degree of happiness can be bad” (Gruber et al., 2011, p. 230). It would
appear that extreme happiness fails to produce the “slight dissatisfaction” (Oishi et al., 2007, p.
349) that motivates people to set high goals, work to create change, seek out more money, and
purse education and self-improvement.
Self-esteem
Over the past few decades, the need for high self-esteem, defined as global feelings of
self-liking, self-worth, respect, and acceptance (e.g., Rosenberg, 1965) has risen from an
individual to a societal concern. “North American society in particular has come to embrace the
idea that high self-esteem is not only desirable in its own right, but also the central psychological
source from which all manner of positive behaviors and outcomes spring” (Baumeister,
Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003, p. 3). The corollary, that low self-esteem lies at the root of
individual and thus societal problems, has sustained an ambitious social agenda for decades and
campaigns to raise people’s sense of self-worth abound. Such programs seem to have been
effective in raising children’s self-esteem scores, on average, on self–esteem measures over the
Page 10 of 35
last several decades (Twenge & Campbell, 2001). In the rush to create self-worth, our culture
may have opened the door to something darker and more sinister—narcissism which is defined
as a positive and inflated view of oneself, a view associated with materialism, a sense of
entitlement, a lack of empathy, aggression, and relationship problems (Twenge & Campbell,
2009). Narcissists are not just confident, they’re overconfident. At its core, narcissism is the
fantasy that a person is better than he or she actually is and certainly superior to others. In trying
to build a society that celebrates high self-esteem, self-admiration, self-adulation, and “loving
yourself,” Americans have inadvertently created more narcissists with their problematic
behaviors and attitudes.
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness refers to the extent to which persons are dependable, persistent,
organized, and goal directed (Barrick & Mount, 2005). Past personality research has consistently
found that conscientiousness is positively related to job performance and that this relationship is
generalizable across settings and types of jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Compared to those who
are low in conscientiousness, highly conscientious persons tend to be more motivated to perform
well on the job (Judge & Ilies, 2002) and therefore are likely to achieve better performance
through careful planning, goal setting, and persistence (Barrick & Mount, 1991). However, after
a point, high conscientiousness may no longer be helpful to task performance because excessive
levels of often result in paying too much attention to the small stuff, overlooking bigger goals,
and having rigidity which might actually interfere with ongoing professional development.
Such persons often pay too much attention to minutia and overlook more important goals
required on the job (Mount, Oh, & Burns, 2008). Highly conscientious people are likely to be
more prone to self-deception and rigidity, which may inhibit learning new skills and knowledge,
leading to lower performance (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Moscoso and Salgado (2004)
Page 11 of 35
argued that extreme levels of conscientiousness may not be beneficial to job performance,
“because the maladaptive tendencies of conscientiousness (compulsive style) produce an
interference with the practices considered as signs of a good quality job” (p. 360). As such,
although the relationship between conscientiousness and task performance is positive at lower
levels of conscientiousness, it may become weaker and eventually disappear at higher levels of
the construct. Indeed, Le, Oh, Robbins, Ilies, Holland, and Westrick (2011) found that
conscientiousness has an inverted-U-shaped relationship with job performance, especially in
simple jobs, presumably because extremely high conscientiousness involves perfectionism and
an excessive focus on details at the expense of the bigger picture; high conscientiousness will
initially lead to better performance but the relationship will become weaker and then eventually
disappear after it reaches a certain point.
It appears, then, that across many domains one finds that X increases Y to a point, and
then it decreases Y which Grant and Schwartz (2011) call the nonmonototic effects of strengths
and virtues. As Schwartz and Sharpe (2006) argued, “too much of a virtue can be as big an
enemy of eudaimonia as too little” (p. 383) and that too much of a good thing can be problematic
and that more is not necessarily better. This phenomenon may also apply to positive thinking.
Positive Thinking
Positive thinking, expecting that things will turn out well in any given situation, goes by
many common names including optimism, positive affect, confidence, self-efficacy, hopefulness,
positivity, being upbeat and cheerful, seeing the glass as half full, and looking at the bright side
of things. The central claim of positive thinking is that “positivity is good and good for you;
negativity is bad and bad for you” (Held, 2005, p. 2). It sounds like a formula for achievement
and productivity and many psychologists would offer today that optimism improves health,
Page 12 of 35
personal efficacy, confidence, and resilience making it easier to accomplish our goals. Other
more mystical personnel would tell us that our thoughts can directly affect the physical world.
Negative thoughts are said to produce negative outcomes, while positive thoughts realize
themselves in the form of health, prosperity, and success. For both rational and mystical reasons,
then, the effort put into positive thinking is said to be well worth an individual’s time and
attention, whether this means reading relevant (self-help) books, attending seminars, speeches
and sermons that offer the appropriate mental training and worship, or just doing the solitary
work of concentration on desired outcomes—a better job, a beautiful partner, world peace
(Ehrenreich, 2009). Positivity has motivational value and is generally perceived as good and
helpful in contemporary America but at very high levels such positive thinking can be costly to
performance, interpersonal relationships, health, and a host of other factors. In this section we
review the positive thinking zeitgeist in America and then present a number scenarios that
demonstrate an inverted-U-shaped relationship between positive thinking and performance
suggesting that high levels of positive thinking may indeed be too much of a good thing.
Positivity in America
Positive attitudes have been expressed in U.S. aphorisms and music. Consider the
following maxims: “Cheer up, things could be worse;” “Smile, look on the bright side;” and
“Stop complaining, it’s not that bad.” In our music we have been told to “Ac-cent-tchu-ate the
Positive” (Mercer & Arlen, 1945), to “Put on a Happy Face (Adams & Strouse, 1960), and not to
be anxious—“Don’t Worry, Be Happy” (McFerrin, 1988).
Evangelical mega-churches preach the good news that one has only to want something to
get it, because God wants to “prosper” people (Osteen, n.d.). The new positive theology offers
promises of wealth, success, and health in this life now, or at least on the horizon. The medical
Page 13 of 35
profession prescribes positive thinking for its reputed health benefits and cancer is often
reframed not as a health crisis but as an “opportunity of a lifetime,” or “a makeover opportunity.”
Academia has made room for the new disciplines of “positive psychology” (Seligman &
Pawelski, 2003), “positive organizational behavior,” (Luthans & Youssef, 2007), and
“appreciative inquiry” (Cooperrider & Sekerka, 2003). Harvard even offers new courses in
happiness and regularly draws almost 900 students. The peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness
Studies (Quality of Life Research, n. d.) is devoted to the scientific understanding of subjective
well-being and addresses the conceptualization, measurement, prevalence, evaluation,
explanation, imagination, and study of positive thinking and joy.
Many children are raised to see the glass as half full, spot the silver lining on every cloud,
and to make lemonade out of lemons. Americans expect optimism in its leaders and politicians
compete to be seen as the sunniest candidate. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt
indicated that “The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us
move forward with strong and active faith” (Luntz, 2007, p. 220). Americans are also
accustomed to seeing the bright side from its military commanders. General Dwight Eisenhower,
for instance, said that “Pessimism never won any battle” (Luntz, 2007, p. 221) while General
Colin Powell said that “Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier” (Harari, 2003, p. 16).
In U.S. media, magazines and television offer feature stories illustrating how thinking
positively can turn poverty into riches. Consider also the long tradition in the U.S. of “self-help”
books promising people victory and accomplishment if they only think positively (Starker,
1989). From Eleanor Porter’s Pollyanna (“The glad game,” 1913) to Watty Piper’s The Little
Engine That Could (“I think I can, I think I can ...,” 1930) to Dale Carnegie’s How to Win
Friends and Influence People (“believe that you will succeed, and you will,” 1937) to Norman
Page 14 of 35
Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking (“the man [sic] who assumes success tends
already to have success,” 1952) to Spencer Johnson’s Who Moved My Cheese? (“accept layoffs
with a positive attitude,” 1998) to Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret (“think positive thoughts because
you become or attract what you think about the most,” 2006), people are surrounded by those
who promote an optimistic, confident, positive outlook.
Being positive has also taken firm root within the corporate world. Cultural norms about
good business practice stress looking at the sunny side and deemphasizing the problematic.
Being pessimistic is especially objectionable because it is enervating and deflating and
frequently interpreted as disloyalty (Lovallo & Kahneman, 2003). “A lot of upper level managers
only want to hear the good news. No one wants to be the bearer of bad news. The messenger gets
shot a lot” (Badaracco & Webb, 1995, p. 17). Moreover, CEOs are coming to think of
themselves as motivators geared toward persuading employees to work harder for less pay and
no job security. Historically, the science of management was that of a rational enterprise, where
spreadsheets were developed, logic trees created, and decisions made based on careful analysis.
All that was swept aside for a new notion of what management is about. The word now used is
leadership—particularly the charismatic and transformational leadership models (Yukl, 2002)—
where executives are primarily charged with inspiring the workforce with their positivity.
In summary, faith in the power of positive thinking has become so ingrained in American
culture that positive seems to not only be normal but also normative—the way a person should
be. Despite the exhortations to be positive in the professional and lay literatures it is believed that
being positive likewise exhibits an inverted-U-shaped function and that too much positive
thinking, optimism, and confidence has a dark side. Several areas are presented below which call
into question the supposed beneficial effects of positive thinking.
Page 15 of 35
Optimism
Although optimism frequently has positive effects, allowing people to stay engaged with
goals and maintain health (Taylor & Brown, 1988), it can also lead to negative outcomes.
Optimism is a double-edged sword on the one hand, generating high levels of activity,
motivation, and persistence; but, on the other hand, discouraging us from looking too deeply at
our assumptions in case we find something disconcerting. Puri and Robinson (2007) found in a
finance-related investigation that too much optimism can be a problem and that people who are
extremely optimistic tend to have short planning horizons and act in ways that are generally not
considered wise. They found, for example, that extreme optimists1) worked significantly fewer
hours; 2) saved less money; and 3) were less likely to pay off their credit card balances on a
regular basis. The differences between optimists and extreme optimists were remarkable, and
suggest that excessive optimism may in fact lead to behaviors that are unwise. In modest doses
optimism can be beneficial, but extreme optimists display financial habits and behavior that are
generally not considered prudent.
Other research has demonstrated inverted-U-shaped relationships between positive
thinking conceptualized as optimism and performance (Brown & Marshall, 2001). At moderate
levels, optimism provides confidence and increases planning, but very high optimism levels lead
to inadequate preparation and the underestimation of risks. Those who misjudge their risk are
routinely less likely to show interest in taking preventive action such as not wearing seat belts or
condoms (Weinstein & Klein, 1996). As Haaga and Stewart (1992) explained, optimism can “be
too extreme, leading to inappropriate complacency about the adequacy of one’s skills for coping
with difficult situations” (p. 27). Similarly, research shows that high levels of self-efficacy
constitute overconfidence, which can result in groupthink (Whyte, 1998), persistence with failing
Page 16 of 35
strategies (Whyte & Saks, 2007), less time and energy invested in learning and planning
(Vancouver & Kendall, 2006), and poor performance (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Hayward
& Hambrick, 1997). Bandura and Locke (2003) noted, “In preparing for challenging endeavors,
some self-doubt about one’s performance efficacy provides incentives to acquire the knowledge
and skills needed to master the challenges” (p. 96).
With respect to health-related issues, studies have shown that moderate optimism is
associated with more effective coping with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease (De
Ridder, Schreurs, & Bensing, 2000), slower HIV disease progression (Milam, Richardson,
Marks, Kemper, & McCutchan, 2004), and lower sympathetic nervous system arousal
(Segerstrom, 2001). Very high levels of optimism appear to be costly because they encourage
riskier health behaviors and high expectations that are difficult to meet. In summary, Milam et al.
(2004) concluded that ‘‘the nonlinear relationship between optimism and an objective health
outcome provides evidence that there could be an ‘optimal’ margin of optimism’’ (p. 177).
Other areas where high levels of positive thinking are problematic are addressed below.
These include goal setting, decision-making, leadership, ethics, planning, and entrepreneurial
activities.
Goal setting
Highly optimistic individuals not only tend to set unrealistically high goals, but are also
overconfident that their goals will be attained. This wishful thinking can distract people from
making concrete plans about how to attain goals (Oettingen, 1996). Taken together, evidence
suggests that across many different tasks, performance increases with optimism, but only up to a
point. Further increments actually reduce performance (Brown & Marshall, 2001). Relatively
small positive distortions of reality enable one to look at the facts in a more optimistic way.
Page 17 of 35
Giving a situation a positive spin often allows one to function more effectively. Although
illusions involve a degree of self-deception, they often provide individuals a sense of mastery
fueling a sense of well-being but at higher levels such illusions become delusions.
Striving for success without the resources to achieve it takes its toll on individuals who
face limitations on possibilities regardless of how hard they work. Such people will channel their
efforts to what can be attained regardless of how hard they work. If not, people will channel their
efforts into unattainable goals and become exhausted, ill, and demoralized (Peterson, 2000).
Pursuing a dream of enduring greatness may divert attention from the pressing need to win
immediate battles. Unrelenting optimism precludes the caution, sobriety, and conservation of
resources that accompany goal attainment.
Decision making
It has been said that “no problem in judgment and decision making is more prevalent and
more potentially catastrophic than overconfidence” (Plous, 1993, p. 217). This error is so
prevalent that it is called the overconfidence bias. For example, when individuals are given
factual questions and asked to judge the probability that their answers are correct, they tend to be
far too optimistic. Studies have found that when people say they say they are 100% sure, they
tend to be 70 to 85% correct (Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtenstein, 1977). One outrageous example
indicated that 90% of U.S. adults said they expected to go to heaven while another poll noted
that only 86% thought Mother Theresa was in paradise (Robbins & Judge, 2009)!
Excessive optimism is a contributing factor to a well-documented decision-making
error—entrapment. Brockner (1992) describes this bias as escalation of commitment to a failing
course of action. Because many executives are overly optimistic about their strategies and
reluctant to face reality, they are hesitant to back away and look for new alternatives. This was
Page 18 of 35
supported in a study by Audia, Locke, and Smith (2000) who noted that managers that had
experienced success in the past, and thus more confident, were inclined to stay with an original
course of action when the environment they were operating in had changed. Such decision biases
cost much time, money, and energy which could better be spent on other activities.
Similarly, Finkelstein conducted a six-year examination of 51 companies and published
his results in Why Smart Executives Fail (2003a). A key finding was that executives of
unsuccessful companies clung to an inaccurate view of reality that consistently underestimated
obstacles. Finkelstein (2003b) noted that: “… blind adherence to “positive thinking” became a
dominant corporate value that was often at the foundation of organizational failure” (pp. 2-3).
The executives’ view of the future undermined the realities of the present. When reality surfaced,
it was often whitewashed for reasons of face-saving and hubris.
Overconfidence frequently leads to wrong decisions, shrinking profit margins, firings, or
bankruptcies (Russo & Schoemaker, 1989). One study of Fortune 500 CEOs showed that many
were overconfident and their perceived infallibility regularly caused them to make bad decisions
(Malmendier & Tate, 2005). Such individuals holding unrealistic expectations often discount
negative information and mentally reconstruct experiences so as to avoid such information
(Geers & Lassiter, 2002). In contrast, moderately optimistic persons possess a more balanced
view and are more sensitive to negative information and less likely to gloss over incongruities
(Spirrison & Gordy, 1993), less easily persuaded by positive information (Geers, Handley, &
McLarney, 2003), and less likely to have an attentional bias in favor of positive stimuli
(Segerstrom, 2001). When considering these findings it seems likely that highly confident
persons may be prone to make less than optimal strategic decisions.
Leader hubris
Page 19 of 35
Another problem in overconfidence is the conviction that one’s performance is quite
adequate though evidence suggests the opposite. There are many documented negative effects of
this “dark side” of excessive confidence (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997; Hiller & Hambrick,
2005). Throughout history, hubris has been cited as a common reason for leadership failure (e.g.,
Napoleon, Hitler; Kroll, Toombs, & Wright, 2000). In Greek tragedy hubris was considered the
greatest of sins severely punished by the gods and Proverbs 16:18 tells us that “Pride comes
before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall.” “Self-confidence is rocket fuel for
leaders. Used carefully and ignited under the proper conditions, it propels you and those around
you to remarkable heights. Too little confidence and leaders are perceived as weak. … Too much
self-confidence becomes that most destructive of all leadership attributes, hubris” (Petty, 2009).
Overvaluing themselves, and deluded by the self-satisfied thinking that usually follows,
some arrogant executives develop descending contempt for competitors and critics that drives
them to create a reality that further reinforces their self-importance (Sankowsky, 1995). Reality
is bent to the service of these disorders, reality testing is compromised, and organizational
learning is interrupted. An additional manifestation of this need for self-enhancement is the
tendency to distort reality by focusing on the positive aspects about themselves and only the
selective memories that support their self-concept (Markus & Wurf, 1987). Warping reality to
suit such self-centered views rewrites facts and often reduces a firm’s performance. If the vision
is confronted managers accuse foes of being timid, weak, incapable of seeing the possibilities,
thus getting their way.
Hubris may pave a perilous path for corporate acquisitions. Roll (1986) suggested that
takeover attempts often result from the erroneous belief that executives can greatly improve the
target firm’s efficiency. The executive rejects feedback from others and believes that despite the
Page 20 of 35
often overpaid premium for the targeted firm he or she will overcome all obstacles and increase
the acquired firm’s value (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). This is similar to the well documented
blunder known as the winner’s curse (Hendricks, Porter, & Tan, 2008), an occurrence akin to a
Pyrrhic victory in which individuals bid above an item’s (e.g., an acquisition or merger) true
value and thus are “cursed” by acquiring it (Lovallo, Viguerie, Uhianer, & Horn, 2001). By
exaggerating the likely benefits of a project and ignoring the potential pitfalls, executives often
lead their organizations into initiatives that are doomed to fall well short of projections. This can
be costly in terms of money, jobs, prestige, or even lives when overly optimistic expansions and
acquisitions lead to bankruptcy and layoffs (Norem & Chang, 2002).
Ethical considerations
In an interesting study, Schrand and Zechman (2009) showed that overconfident
managers are more likely to commit financial reporting fraud. The study used the prevalence of
the CEO’s photo in the annual report and the difference in compensation with the second-highest
paid official in the company as alternative proxies and showed that overconfident managers are
more likely to commit financial reporting fraud. Such arrogance was the defining quality of
Enron and a central element to the ethical lapses that eventually destroyed the firm. Arrogance
goes hand in hand with corruption as the corrupt organization arrogates to itself special
privileges and exemptions. They believe themselves above the laws of lesser mortals.
Schrand and Zechman (2009) describe a path often leading to fraud: an overconfident
executive believes the firm is facing only a bad quarter. The CEO also believes it is in the best
interest of everyone with a vested interest in the organization to cover up the problem in the short
term so that constituents do not misinterpret the current poor performance as a sign of the future.
The executive is convinced that the company will make up for losses later. Rules get stretched in
Page 21 of 35
those ‘gray areas’ of earnings management. If they are wrong and things do not reverse, they
have to make up for the prior period. This requires continuing unethical behavior and the
executive has to do even more in the current quarter.
Warren Buffet, one of the world’s most successful investors, cautioned against what he
called “cock-eyed optimism” (2001, p. 5) in earnings forecasts. He warned that lofty predictions
not only spread unwarranted optimism but also corrode CEO behavior:
“... I have observed many instances in which CEOs engaged in uneconomic
operating maneuvers so that they could meet earnings targets they had
announced. Worse still, after exhausting all that operating acrobatics would
do, they sometimes played a wide variety of accounting games to ‘make the
numbers.’ These accounting shenanigans have a way of snowballing: once a
company moves earnings from one period to another, operating shortfalls that
occur thereafter require it to engage in further accounting maneuvers that must
be even more ‘heroic.’ These can turn fudging into fraud” (Buffet, 2001, p. 6).
Planning fallacy
People often underestimate how long it will take to complete a task. The Sidney Opera
House took 16 years to complete instead of the 6 years originally planned (Hall, 1980). The
Channel Tunnel between France and England and the Big Dig in Boston similarly, and famously,
ran far behind schedule. In a multibillion dollar business, such as software design, overly
optimistic estimations of completion time can prove to be extremely expensive and frustrating
due to missed deadlines, cost overruns, and general aggravation (Connolly & Dean, 1997). On a
less spectacular scale, Kidd and Morgan (1969) noted that production managers persistently
predicted better performance for their operations than was later obtained, a result derived from
overly optimistic self-impressions. And most of us are all too familiar with the term paper that
was supposed to be done in a couple of days but took a whole week to complete, or the homeimprovement project that was planned for a weekend but took a month of weekends.
Page 22 of 35
Multiple laboratory studies have also documented systematic overoptimism in people’s
estimates of the time required to complete various tasks. In one study, students thought they
needed 34 days to finish their academic theses, whereas on average, the theses were completed in
56 days (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994). This is such a common occurrence that it has been
labeled the “planning fallacy”—the tendency to underestimate time to completion despite
knowing similar tasks previously took longer than predicted (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
This error of reasoning occurs during the planning phase. Individuals ignore the very real
chance that things won’t go as anticipated; i.e., individual’s future plans tend to be “best-case
scenarios” (Newby-Clark, Ross, Buehler, Koehler, & Griffin, 2000). They do not consider
alternative possibilities and underrate the likelihood of unforeseen complications and unexpected
obstacles. Indeed, when formulating a plan, these individuals do not like to reflect upon past
experiences (Buehler & Griffin, 2003). Instead, they like to consider positive outcomes and fail
to review previous lessons. In team settings especially, persons of this bent are increasingly
likely to underestimate the time needed to complete a project (Buehler, Messervey, & Griffin,
2005). Presumably, they feel the need to impress others by being perceived as optimistic and
efficient further magnifying the planning fallacy.
Entrepreneurial activities
Optimism is vital in overcoming the anxiety about starting a new venture, but too much
optimism can keep entrepreneurs from acknowledging that there are risks involved. Some
entrepreneurs bite off more than they can chew. Some launch businesses that do not have a
marketable product or service. Some do not raise adequate capital to survive early cash flow
crises (Trevelyan, 2007). Such optimism develops because when entrepreneurs evaluate
situations they typically magnify their strengths and opportunities and minimize the importance
Page 23 of 35
of weaknesses and threats (Palich & Bagby, 1995). They also tend to treat their assumptions as
facts and do not see uncertainty associated with conclusions stemming from those assumptions
(Simon, Houghton, & Aquino, 2000). Moreover, they perceive less risk because they are more
optimistic about those assumptions (Russo & Schoemaker, 1992) which results in less
information search (Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2001). Such excessive optimism has been cited as a
primary reason for the high incidence of failure among start-ups (Gartner, 2005)—45% of newly
created firms fail before their fifth birthday (Shane, 2008). Furthermore, Landier and Thesmar
(2009) investigated different levels of optimism in entrepreneurs and found that overly confident
entrepreneurs were more likely to be associated with failing businesses and noted that “The
enthusiasm of optimistic entrepreneurs is their strength and their weakness. They work hard, but
are reluctant to adapt their initial idea” (p. 128). Moreover, Ranft and O’Neill (2001) noted that
“The major problems for boards in successful entrepreneurial firms is [the] need to develop the
capability to counter the entrepreneur’s naturally occurring overconfidence” (p. 129).
Summary and Conclusion
Positive thinking is endemic in American culture where it is often believed that more is
better. As indicated above, however, scholars have increasingly discovered that at high levels,
positive effects across a number of variables begin to turn negative. The emphasis on moderation
advocated in this paper is consistent with the long-held Aristotelian philosophical belief that
well-being and success are functions of cultivating virtues that exist between the extremes of
deficiency and excess (Nussbaum, 1995). For example, in the domain of self-presentation,
honesty is the mean between the deficiency of self-deprecation and the excess of bragging. In the
domain of pleasing others, friendliness is the mean between the deficiency of quarrelsomeness
and the excess of ingratiation (Grant & Schwartz, 2011). The emphasis on balance is analogous
Page 24 of 35
to the Confucian guiding principle of the “doctrine of the mean” or “golden mean” (Lugenbehl,
2000). For every action two extremes must be avoided: the extreme of excess and the extreme of
deficiency. What lies between these extremes is virtue and the right way to act. Similarly, the
Buddha taught in India that the right course is the “middle way” (Gerhards, 2007).
America’s fascination with all things positive may be specific to Western cultures. At
other times and places great cultures incorporated in their worldviews elements of negative
thinking. Muslims, in general, see grief, sadness, and other dysphoric emotions as concomitants
of religious piety and correlates of the painful consequences of living justly in an unjust world
(Woolfolk, 2002). Sorrow marks the depth of personality and understanding. In Iran, for
example, pathos is central to the Iranian ethos. Sadness for Iranians is associated with maturity
and virtue. A person who expresses happiness too quickly often is considered socially
incompetent (Good, Good, & Moradi, 1985). Sadness is also valued in Japan.
On an empirical level, the classic inverted-U-shaped function may be a manifestation of
the Yerkes-Dodson law, a long-established psychological principle, which indicates that human
performance at any task varies with arousal in a predictable parabolic curve (Yerkes & Dodson,
1908). At low arousal, people are lethargic and perform badly. As arousal increases, performance
also increases—but only to a point. When levels of arousal become too high, performance
decreases. The process is often illustrated graphically as a nonmonotonic curve that increases and
then decreases with higher levels of arousal. To achieve happiness and success, then, it is
desirable to cultivate skills and abilities that are somewhere between excesses and deficiencies.
The goal of this paper has been to question the wholesale endorsement of all things
positive, the wisdom of always being cheerful, and the belief that high levels of positive thinking
are good. Studies were presented that showed that moderate levels of optimism, confidence, and
Page 25 of 35
positive thinking are associated with more effective coping and performance and that these
factors display the shape of an inverted U. A more balanced approach is required rather than the
“accentuate the positive” mantra advanced by self-help manuals and lifestyle gurus as the key to
health, wealth, love, and success. Holding and acting on such naïve, simplistic, and inaccurate
theories of the human experience is problematic.
If positive thinking can be so bad, should we all think negatively instead? Of course not.
Saying that negative thinking is the alternative to positive thinking is a false choice. Just as
obesity researchers are not saying that Americans should all become anorexic, we are not
suggesting negative thinking for all. Some amount of negative thinking, however, can be healthy
for some. Consider the extensive work by Norem and her colleagues on defensive pessimism
(Norem, 2001; Norem & Chang, 2002) who found that some people are negative because their
pessimism helps to shield them from potential pain—the sting of more optimistic expectations
failing to materialize. Studies have found that people who exhibit defensive pessimism are
actually less stressed when they indulge in this personal routine than when they are forced to
express more optimistic thoughts. For defensive pessimists, worrying about upcoming challenges
is a way of life. It is also a healthy coping strategy that helps them prepare for adversity. Norem
has shown that when deprived of their pessimism, defensive pessimists’ performance levels drop.
For defensive pessimists, being positive has a decidedly negative side.
Other research by Wood, Perunovic, and Lee (2009) likewise found that positive thinking
and the repetition of stock optimistic phrases such as “I can do it” or “I will succeed” do more
harm than good for some people. Specifically, the researchers concluded that repeating positive
affirmations may benefit certain people, such as individuals with high self-esteem, but backfire
for those with low self-esteem, the people who need them the most. Wood et al. (2009) asked
Page 26 of 35
people with high and low self-esteem to repeat a number of positive self-statements and then
measured the participants’ moods and their feelings about themselves. The low-esteem group felt
worse afterwards compared with a control group while people with high self-esteem on the other
hand felt better after repeating the positive affirmations—but only slightly. The researchers then
asked the participants to list negative and positive thoughts about themselves. They found,
paradoxically, that those with low self-esteem were in a better mood when they were allowed to
have negative thoughts than when they were asked to focus exclusively on affirmative thoughts.
Thus, although positive thinking is useful for some people some of the time, a purely positive
approach to everyday life appears to backfire for others.
To be clear, this paper is not advocating underconfidence or negative or pessimistic
thinking. It does, however, call into question the exaggerated benefits attributed to being highly
positive encouraged by magazine columnists, self-help books, talk-show hosts, business
associates, selected religious authorities, and friends and neighbors. Like most things in life,
positive thinking is better in moderation. There is no such thing as an unmitigated good for
which costs do not emerge at high levels.
Page 27 of 35
References
Adams, I., & Strouse, I. (1960). Put on a happy face.
Aristotle. (trans. 1999). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Kitchener, Ontario, Canada:
Batoche Books.
Audia, P. G., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2000). The paradox of success. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 837-53.
Badaracco, Jr., J. L., & Webb, A. P. (1995). Business ethics: A view from the trenches.
California Management Review, 37, 8-28.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important
matters. Human Performance, 18, 359-372.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 282-316). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem
cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.
Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward
theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review, 11, 39-67.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Great expectations: Optimism and pessimism in
achievement settings. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism & pessimism: Implications for
theory, research, and practice (pp. 239-255). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Buehler, R., & Griffin, D. (2003). Planning, personality, and prediction: The role of future focus
in optimistic time predictions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
92, 80-90.
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people
underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 366-381.
Page 28 of 35
Buehler, R., Messervey, D., & Griffin, D. (2005). Collaborative planning and prediction: Does
group discussion affect optimistic biases in time estimation? Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 97, 47-63.
Buffet, W. E. (2001, May/June). The perils of cock-eyed optimism. Journal of Business Strategy,
5-6, citing “The Chairman’s Letter,” Berkshire Hathaway 2000 Annual Report.
Byrne, R. (2006). The secret. New York: Atria Books/Beyond Words.
Carnegie, D. (1937). How to win friends and influence people. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Connolly, T., & Dean, D. (1997). Decomposed versus holistic estimates of effort required for
software writing tasks. Management Science, 43, 1029-1045.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Sekerka, L. E. (2003). Toward a theory of positive organizational
change. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 225-240). San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren't we happy? American Psychologist,
54, 821-827.
Daly, F. F., Fountain, J. S., Murray, L., Graudins, A, & Buckley, N. A. (2008). Guidelines for the
management of paracetamol poisoning in Australia and New Zealand—explanation and
elaboration. A consensus statement from clinical toxicologists consulting to the
Australasian poisons information centres. Medical Journal of Australia, 188, 296-301.
De Ridder, D., Schreurs, K., & Bensing, J. (2000). The relative benefits of being optimistic:
Optimism as a coping resource in multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. British
Journal of Health Psychology, 5, 141-155.
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health,
education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69-106.
Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has
undermined America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 51, 665-697.
Finkelstein, S. (2003a). Why Smart Executives Fail, and What You Can Learn from Their
Mistakes. Penguin Group.
Finkelstein, S. (2003b). Why Smart Executives Fail. Retrieved January 14, 2010, from
http://www.executiveforum.com/PDFs/syd_synopsis.pdf
Page 29 of 35
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The
appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 3, 522-564.
Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E.,Wingard, D. L., & Criqui,
M. H. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 176-185.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the
head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in
negotiations. Psychological Science, 19, 378-384.
Gartner, J. D. (2005). America’s manic entrepreneurs. American Enterprise, 16, 18-21.
Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., & McLarney, A. R. (2003). Discerning the role of optimism in
persuasion: The valence-enhancement hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 554-565.
Geers, A. L., & Lassiter, G. D. (2002). Effects of affective expectations on affective experience:
The moderating role of optimism-pessimism. Personality and Social Psychological
Bulletin, 28, 1026-1039.
Gerhards, P. (2007). Mapping the Dharma: A concise guide to the middle way of the Buddha.
Vancouver, WA: Parami Press.
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20,
1153-1160.
Good, B. J., Good, M., & Moradi, R. (1985). The interpretation of dysphoric affect and
depressive illness in Iranian culture. In A. Kleinman & B. J. Good (Eds.), Culture and
depression: Studies in the anthropology and cross-cultural psychiatry of affect and
disorder, (pp. 369-428). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity
of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 61-76.
Groopman, J. (2007). How doctors think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How, when, and why
happiness Is not always good. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 222-233.
Haaga, D. A. F., & Stewart, B. L. (1992). Self-efficacy for recovery from a lapse after smoking
cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 24-28.
Hall, P. (1980). Great planning disasters. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Page 30 of 35
Harari, O. (2003). The leadership secrets of Colin Powell. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large
acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 103-127.
Held, B. S. (2005). The “virtues” of positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psychology, 25, 1-34.
Hendricks, K., Porter, R., & Tan, G. (2008). Bidding rings and the winner’s curse. RAND
Journal of Economics, 39, 1018-1041.
Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper)
core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26,
297-319.
Iyengar, S. S., Jiang, W., & Huberman, G. (2004). How much choice is too much? Contributions
to 401(k) Retirement Plans. In O. S. Mitchell & S. Utkus (Eds.) Pension design and
structure: New lessons from behavioral finance (pp. 83-95). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much
of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995-1006.
Johnson, S. (1998). Who moved my cheese?: An amazing way to deal with change in your
work and in your life. New York: Penguin Putnam.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Is positiveness in organizations always desirable? Academy
of Management Executive, 18, 151-155.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures.
TIMS Studies in Management Sciences, 12, 313-327.
Kidd, J. B., & Morgan, J. R. (1969). A predictive information system for management.
Operational Research Quarterly, 20, 149-170.
Kroll, M. J., Toombs, L. A., & Wright, P. (2000). Napoleon’s tragic march home from
Moscow: Lessons in hubris. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 117-128.
Kronman, A. (1993). The lost lawyer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lancaster, K. J. (1990). The economics of product variety: A survey. Marketing Science, 9, 189206.
Landier, A., & Thesmar, D. (2009). Financial contracting with optimistic entrepreneurs. Review
of Financial Studies, 22, 117-150.
Page 31 of 35
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for
the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 191-98.
Le, H., Oh, I. S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a
good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113-133.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects
of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel
Psychology, 53, 563-593.
Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines
executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81, 56-63.
Lovallo, D., Viguerie, P., Uhlaner, R., & Horn, J. (2001). Deals without delusions. Harvard
Business Review, 85, 92-99.
Lugenbehl, D. E. (2000). The Golden Mean. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from
https://teach.lanecc.edu/lugenbehld/201/handouts/Golden%20Mean.htm
Luntz, F. I. (2007). Words that work: It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. New York:
Hyperion.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 33, 321-349.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. Journal of
Finance, 60, 2661-2700.
Markus, H. R., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Martin, L. R., Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Criqui, M. H., & Schwartz,
J. E. (2002). A life course perspective on childhood cheerfulness and its relation to
mortality risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1155-1165.
Mauss, I. B., Tamir, M., Anderson, C. L., & Savino, N. S. (2011). Can seeking happiness make
people happy? Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness. Emotion, 11, 1-9.
McFerrin, B. (1988). Don’t worry, be happy.
Mercer, J., & Arlen, H. (1945). Ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive.
Milam, J. E., Richardson, J. L., Marks, G., Kemper, C. A., & McCutchan, A. J. (2004). The roles
Page 32 of 35
of dispositional optimism and pessimism in HIV disease progression. Psychology and
Health, 19, 167-181.
Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). “Dark Side” personality styles as predictors of task,
contextual, and job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12,
356-362.
Mount, M. K., Oh, I., & Burns, M. (2008). Incremental validity of perceptual speed and accuracy
over general mental ability. Personnel Psychology, 61, 113-139.
Newby-Clark, I. R., Ross, M., Buehler, R., Koehler, D. J., & Griffin, D. (2000). People focus
on optimistic scenarios and disregard pessimistic scenarios when predicting task
completion times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 171-182.
Norem, J. K. (2001). The positive power of negative thinking: Using defensive pessimism to
harness anxiety and perform at your peak. New York: Basic Books.
Norem, J. K., & Chang, E. C. (2002). The positive psychology of negative thinking. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 58, 993-1001.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Poetic justice. Boston: Beacon Press.
O’Connor, K., Stravynski, A., & Hallam, R. (1997). Freedom and therapy: From self-liberation
to self-control. Psychotherapy, 34, 144-153.
Oettingen, G. (1996). Positive fantasy and motivation. In P. M. Gollwitzer, & J. A. Bargh
(Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 236259). New York: Guilford Press.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). The optimum level of well-being: Can people be too
happy? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 346-360.
Osnos, E. (1997, September 27). Too many choices? Firms cut back on new products.
Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. DI, D7.
Osteen, J. (n.d.). Joel Osteen Quote. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from http://www.1-lovequotes.com/quote/927049
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risktaking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 425-38.
Peale, N. V. (1952). The power of positive thinking. New York: Ballantine Books.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55.
Petty, A. (2009, August 30). Leadership Caffeine: Is Your Self-Confidence In Danger of Burning
Page 33 of 35
Out of Control? Retrieved September 9, 2010, from http://artpetty.com/tag/hubris-andthe-leader/
Piper, W. (1930). The little engine that could. NY: Platt & Munk.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, E. H. (1913). Pollyanna. Harrap: London.
Puri, M., & Robinson, D. T. (2007). Optimism and economic choice. Journal of Financial
Economics, 86, 71-99.
Quality of Life Research. (n.d.). Journal of Happiness Studies. Retrieved December 20, from
http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/quality+of+life+research/journal/10902?det
ailsPage=description
Ranft, A. L., & O’Neill, H. M. (2001). Board composition and high-flying founders: Hints of
trouble to come? The Academy of Management Executive, 15, 126-138.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Roll, R. (1986). The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. Journal of Business, 59, 197-216.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rudis, J. (2010). True or False: Drinking a Glass of Red Wine a Day Can Increase Longevity.
Retrieved June 23, 2011, from
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/HolisticHealth/HealthMythsCenter.aspx?ChunkID=15
6987
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1989). Decision traps: The ten barriers to brilliant
decision-making and how to overcome them. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management
Review, 33, 7-17.
Sankowsky, D. (1995, Spring). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of
power. Organizational Dynamics, 57-71.
Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & Oh, I. S. (2008). Increased accuracy of range restriction
corrections: Implications for the role of personality and general mental ability in job and
training performance. Personnel Psychology, 61, 827-868.
Schrand, C. M., & Zechman, S. L. C. (2009). Executive Overconfidence and the Slippery Slope
Page 34 of 35
to Fraud (April 1, 2010). AAA 2009 Financial Accounting and Reporting Section
(FARS) Paper; Chicago Booth Research Paper No. 08-25. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1265631
Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55,
79-88.
Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2006). Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive psychology.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 377-395.
Segerstrom, S.C. (2001). Optimism, goal conflict, and stressor-related immune change. Journal
of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 441-467.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Pawelski, J. O. (2003). Positive psychology: FAQs. Psychological
Inquiry, 14, 159-169.
Shane, S. A. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepreneurs,
investors, and policy makers live by. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk perception and venture
formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15,
113-134.
Spirrison, C. L., & Gordy, C. C. (1993). The constructive thinking inventory and detecting errors
in proofreading. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 631-634.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective
on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Trevelyan, R. (2007). Optimal optimism. Business Strategy Review, 18, 18-22.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A
cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321-344.
Twenge, J., M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of
entitlement. New York: Free Press.
Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation
and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1146-1153.
Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 1-8.
Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis’ groupthink model: The key role of collective efficacy in
Page 35 of 35
decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 185-209.
Whyte, G., & Saks, A. M. (2007). The effects of self-efficacy on behavior in escalation
situations. Human Performance, 20, 23-42.
Windsor, T. D., Anstey, K. J., & Rodgers, B. (2008). Volunteering and psychological well-being
among young-old adults: How much is too much? The Gerontologist, 48, 59-70.
Wood, J. V., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Lee, J. W. (2009). Positive self-statements: Power for
some, peril for others. Psychological Science, 20, 860-866
Woolfolk, R. L. (2002). The power of negative thinking: Truth, melancholia, and the tragic
sense of life. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22, 19-27.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habitformation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zacharakis, A. L., & Shepherd, D. (2001). The nature of information and overconfidence on
venture capitalists’ decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 311-332.