James C Coyne1, Howard Tennen, Adelita V Ranchor. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3535 Market St., Room 676, Philadelphia, PA, USA, jcoyne@mail.med.upenn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aspinwall and Tedeschi (Ann Behav Med, 2010) summarize evidence they view as supporting links between positive psychological states, including sense of coherence (SOC) and optimism and health outcomes, and they refer to persistent assumptions that interfere with understanding how positive states predict health. PURPOSE: We critically evaluate Aspinwall and Tedeschi's assertions. METHODS: We examine evidence related to SOC and optimism in relation to physical health, and revisit proposed processes linking positive psychological states to health outcomes, particularly via the immune system in cancer. RESULTS: Aspinwall and Tedeschi's assumptions regarding SOC and optimism are at odds with available evidence. Proposed pathways between positive psychological states and cancer outcomes are not supported by existing data. Aspinwall and Tedeschi's portrayal of persistent interfering assumptions echoes a disregard of precedent in the broader positive psychology literature. CONCLUSION: Positive psychology's interpretations of the literature regarding positive psychological states and cancer outcomes represent a self-perpetuating story line without empirical support.
BACKGROUND: Aspinwall and Tedeschi (Ann Behav Med, 2010) summarize evidence they view as supporting links between positive psychological states, including sense of coherence (SOC) and optimism and health outcomes, and they refer to persistent assumptions that interfere with understanding how positive states predict health. PURPOSE: We critically evaluate Aspinwall and Tedeschi's assertions. METHODS: We examine evidence related to SOC and optimism in relation to physical health, and revisit proposed processes linking positive psychological states to health outcomes, particularly via the immune system in cancer. RESULTS: Aspinwall and Tedeschi's assumptions regarding SOC and optimism are at odds with available evidence. Proposed pathways between positive psychological states and cancer outcomes are not supported by existing data. Aspinwall and Tedeschi's portrayal of persistent interfering assumptions echoes a disregard of precedent in the broader positive psychology literature. CONCLUSION: Positive psychology's interpretations of the literature regarding positive psychological states and cancer outcomes represent a self-perpetuating story line without empirical support.
Authors: Hilary A Tindle; Yue-Fang Chang; Lewis H Kuller; JoAnn E Manson; Jennifer G Robinson; Milagros C Rosal; Greg J Siegle; Karen A Matthews Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-08-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Edward H Romond; Edith A Perez; John Bryant; Vera J Suman; Charles E Geyer; Nancy E Davidson; Elizabeth Tan-Chiu; Silvana Martino; Soonmyung Paik; Peter A Kaufman; Sandra M Swain; Thomas M Pisansky; Louis Fehrenbacher; Leila A Kutteh; Victor G Vogel; Daniel W Visscher; Greg Yothers; Robert B Jenkins; Ann M Brown; Shaker R Dakhil; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Wilma L Lingle; Pamela M Klein; James N Ingle; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James C Coyne; Thomas F Pajak; Jonathan Harris; Andre Konski; Benjamin Movsas; Kian Ang; Deborah Watkins Bruner Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Suzanne C Danhauer; Gregory B Russell; Richard G Tedeschi; Michelle T Jesse; Tanya Vishnevsky; Kristin Daley; Suzanne Carroll; Kelli N Triplett; Lawrence G Calhoun; Arnie Cann; Bayard L Powell Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2013-03