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 rational-

choice 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 uneconomicoperating maneuvers so that they could meet earnings targets they had announced. Worse still, after exhausting all that operating acrobatics woulddo, they sometimes played a wide variety of accounting games to ‘make thenumbers.’ These accounting shenanigans have a way of snowballing: once acompany moves earnings from one period to another, operating shortfalls thatoccur thereafter require it to engage in further accounting maneuvers that mustbe 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 home-

improvement 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 jobperformance: 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 PsychologicalAssociation.

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: Berrett-Koehler.

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 opportunityof 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 largeacquisitions: 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 andstructure: 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, 189-206.

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 forthe 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: Effectsof 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 ofManagement, 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 accuracyover general mental ability. Personnel Psychology, 61, 113-139.

Newby-Clark, I. R., Ross, M., Buehler, R., Koehler, D. J., & Griffin, D. (2000). People focuson 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 toharness 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. 236-259). New York: Guilford Press.

Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). The optimum level of well-being: Can people be toohappy? 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-love-quotes.com/quote/927049

Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk- taking: 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-and-the-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?detailsPage=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: PrincetonUniversity 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=156987

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: Across-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-beingamong 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 forsome, 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 habit-formation. 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.