When the Brain Becomes Overly Optimistic
Toxic positivity refers to a dysfunctional form of optimism in which negative emotions aren’t properly acknowledged or processed. Instead, there’s “pressure to stay cheerful regardless of the circumstances”—even in the face of loss, stress, or hardship. This excessive focus on the positive often involves suppressing or denying natural feelings like sadness, fear, or anger. Well-intentioned advice such as “Think positive!” or “Look on the bright side—things could be worse” is everywhere—especially on social media, where slogans like “Good vibes only” abound. Classic calendar quotes meant to make us smile each day can leave us with a subtle, nagging feeling by evening—a twinge of guilt because it simply wasn’t the right day to fire up the confetti cannon. While these sayings can be motivating in moderation, psychologists warn that too much forced positivity can be counterproductive. When distressing emotions are constantly brushed off with phrases like “Everything will be fine,” it can hinder emotional coping. Over the past few years, the term “toxic positivity” has attracted considerable attention (interest in it has risen sharply since around 2019) because it succinctly captures a widespread societal phenomenon: In a culture that idealizes success and happiness, many people feel pressured to remain upbeat at all times—often at the expense of their mental well-being.
Societal Relevance: Why Is This Topic Important?
For one thing, it directly affects our emotional well-being: Anyone who feels compelled to suppress negative emotions risks burning out internally or developing mental health issues. In addition, toxic positivity creates a climate of emotional suppression: In relationships, in the workplace, and online, it subtly sends the message that negative feelings are unwelcome. This can lead people with genuine problems to feel ashamed or isolate themselves instead of seeking support.
Toxic positivity is a timely, socially relevant issue that deserves close scrutiny—especially because optimism itself is often seen as a virtue. In what follows, we will take a comprehensive look at where this trend comes from, the psychological mechanisms at work, its impact on our society, and how researchers critically evaluate it.
Historical Development of Positive Psychology
The roots of Positive Psychology as a field of research trace back to the late 1990s. In 1998, American psychologist Martin Seligman—then President of the American Psychological Association—called for psychology to focus not only on illnesses and deficits, but also on the beneficial forces of human experience (e.g., happiness, optimism, strengths). Seligman’s own research interests stemmed from earlier studies on learned helplessness: In experiments with dogs, he demonstrated that a persistent sense of lost control leads to resignation.
Applied to humans, this meant that after traumatic or frustrating experiences, people often become passive and show depressive symptoms—a concept Seligman termed “learned helplessness.” The question “How can we overcome this sense of helplessness?” eventually led to Seligman’s subsequent interest in “learned optimism” and, ultimately, in Positive Psychology. The goal was for it to become the “science of a fulfilling life”: Rather than merely treating disorders, the aim was to investigate what promotes mental health and life satisfaction.
During the 2000s, Positive Psychology rapidly gained traction. Researchers identified the core components of well-being and organized them into models—such as Seligman’s “PERMA model,” which defines five pillars of happiness: Positive Emotions, Engagement (immersion in an activity), Relationships (interpersonal connections), Meaning (a sense of purpose), and Accomplishment (achievement or goal attainment). Numerous empirical studies examined how factors like gratitude, optimism, mindfulness, or social connectedness influence well-being. These findings gave rise to interventions (e.g., gratitude journals, meditation training) that showed promising results in initial studies. Some studies suggest that focused positive thinking and gratitude exercises can indeed increase life satisfaction. Physiological benefits have also been documented: Individuals with a markedly optimistic outlook tend to have better health indicators on average and often live longer. A meta-analysis by Boehm and Kubzansky (2012) indicates that optimism correlates with greater life expectancy. These findings bolstered early enthusiasm for Positive Psychology and led to its concepts being integrated into therapy, coaching, and even policy-making (keyword: happiness indicators).
Despite these advances, Positive Psychology is not without controversy—in fact, in recent years, debate over its limitations has grown. A central criticism is that some branches of Positive Psychology have been overly simplistic and insensitive to context. Researchers argue that the early proponents of this movement often overlooked the societal context of well-being.
Happiness and success were primarily presented as individual achievements—the implicit message being that if you’re unhappy, you simply need to work on yourself. However, this strong focus on the individual fails to consider social causes of suffering (e.g., poverty, working conditions, trauma). Even within the field, dissent has arisen: Some psychologists point out that Positive Psychology was never intended to be a cure-all—it is primarily aimed at healthy individuals in typical life situations and cannot replace psychotherapy or social change.
Nevertheless, the movement’s reputation was somewhat tarnished when popular self-help authors promoted a dogmatic fixation on happiness (“Think positive!” at any cost). These developments form the backdrop for the phenomenon of toxic positivity: a distorted version of the originally balanced idea, which has been observed more and more in practice and is therefore drawing increased scrutiny.
Psychological Mechanisms Behind Toxic Positivity
Our perception and processing of emotions are governed by fundamental neurological mechanisms. From an evolutionary standpoint, humans exhibit a pronounced negativity bias: dangers and losses leave especially strong impressions, as the early detection of threats was crucial for survival.
In the brain, structures such as the amygdala play a key role, reacting powerfully to negative stimuli (for example, fear). Under normal circumstances, the prefrontal cortex—especially the ventromedial PFC—helps regulate these emotional responses by inhibiting excessive fear signals from the amygdala.
A well-balanced interaction among these brain areas allows us to handle stress without being overwhelmed by negative emotions. Toxic positivity can be viewed as an overextension of this regulation: individuals use their willpower (prefrontal control) to suppress all negative feelings in order to maintain an artificially positive state of mind. In doing so, they ignore the fact that moderate negative emotions are actually normal and appropriate—grief following a loss or anger over injustice, for example. In neuroscientific terms, the permanent suppression of negative affect creates chronic stress: the brain remains on high alert because these supposedly “switched off” emotions linger in the background and activate the body’s stress axes (elevated cortisol levels, tension). Paradoxically, trying to be compulsively positive can therefore increase stress levels.
Psychologically, toxic positivity can also be seen as a cognitive distortion. Healthy optimism—expecting that things can turn out well—generally serves as a protective and motivating factor. However, when optimism spins out of control, it becomes unrealistic. Psychologists refer to it as the optimism bias or “naive optimism” when people systematically underestimate their own risk. A classic example is the so-called “optimistic fallacy” in health behavior: many smokers believe they themselves won’t get lung cancer, even though they fully recognize the danger for others—a misconception stemming from exaggerated optimism.
Toxic positivity often relies on such distorted thinking: negative information or warning signs are ignored (“Nothing’s going to happen to me”) while positive aspects are overstated. Studies during the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, showed that some people denied the risks and clung solely to optimistic slogans—which sometimes led them to behave recklessly. Psychologists explain that toxic positivity arises because we tend to underestimate negative experiences and overestimate positive ones. By putting a consistently positive spin on everything, we deliberately avoid confronting negative aspects.
This amounts to a form of repression: instead of examining problems or allowing emotions, they are cognitively swept aside—providing a short-term sense of relief but ultimately distorting reality. Emotional suppression is at the heart of toxic positivity. Psychologically, it represents a (maladaptive) emotion regulation strategy: feelings deemed “negative” are actively pushed away, ignored, or covered up with forced cheerfulness. Numerous studies indicate that chronic suppression of emotions is harmful in the long run. For example, research shows that people who frequently hide their true feelings tend to develop more depressive symptoms on average. Negative emotions don’t simply vanish—they become “internalized” and can result in inner tension, rumination, and lower self-esteem. Patel and Patel (2019) report that constant emotional suppression can also impact physical health, including raising blood pressure, weakening the immune system, and reducing overall quality of life.
Repressed emotional strain often finds other outlets, such as sleep disturbances, psychosomatic complaints, or irritability. By contrast, a far healthier approach is emotional acceptance. Studies show that individuals who learn to acknowledge negative feelings—without immediately labeling or suppressing them—achieve better psychological outcomes. Experimental research found that participants who consciously recognized and accepted their sadness or fear reported fewer lingering negative emotions afterward than those who tried to suppress everything.
Long-term data support this: people who adopt the mindset “It’s okay not to be okay sometimes” are less likely to develop depression under stress. Acceptance works like a release valve: the feeling is allowed to exist and thus dissipates more quickly, while suppression acts like a lid under which pressure continues to build. Toxic positivity prevents precisely this healing acceptance. Instead of allowing oneself to feel sadness, anger, or disappointment (and possibly draw strength from it), an inner conflict arises: on the one hand, the person senses these distressing feelings; on the other, they “mustn’t” exist. This discrepancy between internal experience and external demand leads to cognitive dissonance and often to feelings of shame and guilt (“Something must be wrong with me if I’m not happy despite everything”). Psychologists point out that toxic positivity suggests negative emotions are a sign of weakness or personal failure. As a result, those affected not only suffer from their original distress but also grapple with shame, guilt, or the sense of being “defective.”
Toxic positivity is thus grounded in a combination of cognitive distortions (excessive optimism, denial of reality) and maladaptive emotion regulation (suppression, denial). In the short term, this strategy may yield a brief mood lift, but it undermines psychological stability over time. The neural systems responsible for healthy emotional processing (the PFC-amygdala regulation) become overtaxed if negative feelings are continually pushed aside. Psychologically, internal tension builds as the natural balance of emotions is disrupted. Unsurprisingly, toxic positivity is now considered a risk factor for emotional well-being—a point illustrated by empirical findings in the next section.
Societal Impact and Emotional Suppression
Social Pressure and the “Good Mood” Mandate: Toxic positivity isn’t limited to individual psychology—it has distinct societal dimensions as well. In many social contexts, there’s an unspoken expectation to always appear positive. Even as children, we often hear the phrase “Don’t cry, be brave.” As adults, we’re expected to tackle our problems “with a smile.” This norm is reinforced by media and culture—for instance, self-help books and influencers frequently promote a lifestyle ideal of perpetual happiness.
Anyone who brings up negative topics in social settings risks being labeled a downer, creating a culture of emotional suppression: people tend to keep their worries to themselves so they don’t “spoil” the mood. A clear example is social media. Platforms like Instagram, Facebook, or TikTok serve as stages for personal “highlight reels,” where people mostly share achievements, happy moments, and positivity. This selectively positive stream of posts measurably affects users. Studies show that the constant display of upbeat success on social media places pressure on many—particularly young people—and can spark negative emotions.
Teenagers compare themselves to the seemingly perfect lives of others, leaving them feeling inadequate or “not happy enough.” One empirical study found that simply viewing friends’ upbeat posts can lower a person’s self-esteem in the short term, since their own problems stand out more starkly by comparison. Meanwhile, it appears everyone else has their life under control and is always cheerful, which encourages individuals to hide their own worries even more for fear of looking different. Thus, social media perpetuates a cycle: everyone shares only their “sunny side,” which in turn increases the pressure for everyone else to do the same. Ultimately, this can lead to feelings of loneliness and depression, as people feel their genuine struggles remain invisible.
Toxic positivity online also fosters emotional isolation: even though you might be “connected” to hundreds of “friends,” you rarely have authentic discussions about fears and doubts—superficial “everything’s great!” exchanges predominate. We also see societal consequences in the workplace. Some companies have an “always smile” culture where employees are expected to remain positive at all times, regardless of stress levels or legitimate criticisms. Organizational psychologists see this as highly problematic: toxic positivity at work means employees’ negative emotions or concerns are swept under the rug—often because they fear appearing disloyal or weak.
If an employee feels overwhelmed but the company motto is “Stay positive!” they’ll likely hide their stress. Managers who gloss over real issues with motivational slogans (“Everything’s great, we’ve got this”) may ensure short-term calm, but unspoken conflicts will build in the long run. This can result in reduced motivation, burnout, and high turnover. Indeed, surveys indicate that nearly half of employees have experienced sleepless nights caused by work stress, and in many cases, a “positivity facade” in the workplace made problem-solving more difficult.
The social mandate to stay positive can impede communication—important conversations about genuine problems don’t happen, which hurts both individuals and the organization as a whole. It’s also noteworthy that cultural norms significantly shape how we handle negative emotions. Some cultures (e.g., in the U.S.) have a deeply rooted tradition of optimism, while others (e.g., in Europe) are more accepting of direct discussion of problems. A comprehensive study by Tsai and colleagues (2015) compared American and German participants’ expressions of sympathy in tragic situations. The results were clear: Americans used fewer negative and more positive phrases even in condolences, whereas Germans addressed negative aspects more directly. For example, American sympathy cards more often included comforting messages (“He’s in a better place now…”), while German cards more frequently acknowledged shared sorrow (“It’s incredibly painful…”). The researchers also found that American participants were significantly more inclined to avoid negative feelings compared to German participants.
These cultural differences show up in everyday behavior, too: in the U.S., being consistently upbeat is considered a virtue—the country is known for its “American smile” and pervasive optimism. In Germany and some other European cultures, a certain degree of criticism or pessimism isn’t automatically judged negatively; openly discussing problems is often seen as honesty rather than weakness. It’s therefore no surprise that the term “toxic positivity” became especially popular in the United States. Experts say this mindset is deeply ingrained in American culture, where positive thinking is glorified as part of the “American way.”
Fueled by the globalization of pop culture and social media, this positivity mandate is now spreading into many societies. When the overarching message is “Just don’t think negative thoughts,” some people feel their legitimate worries aren’t being taken seriously.
This can lead to a loss of trust in media and institutions. It also curbs open dialogue: critical voices might be dismissed as “too negative” and thereby lose traction. One example is the conversation around mental health: for a long time, the stigma was that you shouldn’t broadcast your problems. Those who talked publicly about depression, trauma, or anxiety often encountered little understanding. However, a countertrend has emerged—campaigns like “It’s okay not to be okay” emphasize that feeling bad sometimes is normal and valid, calling for more empathy.
Such efforts are a direct response to society’s toxic positivity: a call to move away from superficiality and toward genuine emotional authenticity. Overall, toxic positivity leads to the suppression of emotion on a societal level—whether individually (when people keep their feelings hidden), interpersonally (when genuine empathy is replaced by platitudes), or collectively (when social issues are waved off with optimism). The resulting distortions can affect social structures: groups or communities that allow only positive feedback risk falling into groupthink—a psychological phenomenon in which dissenting or critical opinions are suppressed to maintain group cohesion. This can cause problems to go unaddressed or flawed decisions to be made because the culture defaults to blanket agreement. Yet real improvement depends on recognizing negative conditions and addressing them constructively.
An “always positive” mantra can also reinforce existing inequalities: if a company only rewards employees who constantly appear cheerful and never complain, it inadvertently discriminates against those with heavier burdens—such as family or health issues. Anyone who voices legitimate complaints or points out systemic problems may be perceived as “negative” and taken less seriously. Over time, this leads to a requirement for conformity that reduces social diversity and openness, because only those who fit the “positive” narrative are recognized.
In other words, emotional pressure generates social pressure—anyone who refuses to adopt the culture of forced positivity risks social isolation or professional disadvantages. The following empirical findings and case studies shed more light on these outcomes.
Empirical Research and Case Studies
Over the past decade, research on toxic positivity and emotional suppression has grown significantly. Below are some key studies and findings:
Link Between Emotional Suppression and Psychological Well-Being:
A range of studies shows a clear link between constant suppression of negative emotions and poorer mental health. For example, Wang et al. (2022) examined more than 600 young adults and found that those with a strong tendency to suppress their feelings reported significantly more symptoms of depression and anxiety. These findings align with earlier lab studies in which participants who were required to suppress their facial expressions and emotional responses showed heightened physiological stress reactions (heart rate, skin conductance) compared to those who were free to express their emotions. The consistent takeaway: perpetually “smiling away” your troubles acts as a stressor on both mind and body.
Physical Health Consequences:
The effects of emotional suppression are also evident in physical health parameters. A review by Patel & Patel (2019) synthesized recent findings and concluded that suppressed emotions can harm one’s health. Specifically, chronic emotional suppression may weaken the immune system, raise blood pressure, and contribute to an increase in somatic complaints (e.g., headaches, muscle tension). The authors note a decline in overall well-being and urge greater focus on this factor in preventive health measures. These results are consistent with research in psychoneuroimmunology, which examines how emotional expression (even negative experiences like crying when grieving) correlates with better immune function over time compared to continually “bottling up” emotions. Psychosomatic case studies show that patients who always tried to be “the strong one” and never complained had a disproportionately high incidence of stress-related illnesses (such as stomach issues or chronic pain). Empirically, this underlines the warning that toxic positivity isn’t just a buzzword but a tangible health risk factor.
Protective Mechanisms: Emotional Acceptance:
Research also identifies protective factors that can break the toxic positivity cycle, with emotional acceptance playing a central role. In a widely discussed longitudinal study (Brett Ford et al., 2018), researchers tracked how people’s handling of negative emotions affected their mental health over several months. They found that individuals who tended to accept their own negative feelings subsequently had significantly fewer depressive symptoms—especially after stressful life events. This correlation held true even when initial stress levels were taken into account. The authors conclude that acceptance acts like an emotional buffer: someone who admits, “I’m really disappointed right now, and that’s understandable,” initially experiences the unpleasant emotion but sees it subside more quickly, without spiraling into rumination. By contrast, participants who judged or suppressed negative emotions tended to have more lingering effects (longer-lasting low mood, higher anxiety). Clinical psychology supports this finding: acceptance-based therapies (such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, or ACT) are effective in treating anxiety disorders and depression, precisely because they teach people not to fight every bout of sadness, but to acknowledge it and let it pass. Thus, the empirical evidence offers a healthy counterpoint to toxic positivity: welcoming your emotions instead of suppressing them supports mental health.
Social Media and Well-Being:
A recent data analysis explored how the “positivity bias” on social media platforms impacts users. Browning et al. (2021) collected millions of Instagram posts and discovered that consistently cheerful content did indeed garner more “likes.” However, in subsequent surveys, heavy users of such platforms often reported feeling sad, anxious, or inadequate if their own lives didn’t appear equally perfect. Researchers interpreted this discrepancy as a social comparison effect: the ubiquitous display of 24/7 happiness triggers comparison pressures that measurably lower young people’s sense of well-being. A critical discourse analysis revealed that while encouraging remarks may be well-intended, they frequently miss the mark and are perceived by those affected as downplaying their concerns.
Such research empirically illustrates what many people intuitively sense: an excess of superficial positivity in social interactions can erode genuine empathy and connection.
Case Study: “Workplace Positivity”
A real-world example comes from the analysis of a large U.S. tech company where the unofficial motto was “Never complain.” In employee feedback, many reported feeling unheard—problems were dismissed with “We’ve got this!” slogans. As a result, sick leaves and resignations rose significantly. Only when leadership introduced open communication workshops and made it easier for employees to offer negative feedback did the work climate improve. This example shows that toxic positivity in the workplace can have very concrete consequences: reduced performance, burnout, and waves of resignations. On the plus side, it also demonstrates that solutions exist (more on that in the conclusion).
Collectively, empirical studies reinforce the core message: ignoring or suppressing negative emotions (in the name of perpetual positivity) leads to poorer mental health and can strain social relationships. At the same time, the data suggest that approaches recognizing all emotions produce far healthier outcomes—an insight critics of toxic positivity continue to emphasize.
Criticism of Toxic Positivity
From the perspective of many experts, toxic positivity faces fundamental criticism because it clashes with core insights from psychology and sociology. Below are key arguments made by scientists, psychologists, and sociologists against an “always be positive” mindset:
Denial of Emotional Reality: A primary critique is that toxic positivity devalues the full range of human emotions. In Bittersweet (2022), author Susan Cain describes the phenomenon as the “tyranny of the positive”—a cultural expectation that demands optimism even in difficult times. This social norm can lead people to hide their genuine feelings.Psychologists emphasize that negative emotions serve an evolutionary function: fear signals danger, sadness helps process loss, and anger motivates change (Gross & John, 2003). When these emotions are suppressed, individuals lose touch with themselves. Whitney Goodman, psychotherapist and author of Toxic Positivity (2022), warns, “It’s perfectly fine to feel sad when you’re sad, and angry when you’re angry.” A culture of toxic positivity hinders genuine emotional experience and growth.
Loss of Learning and Adaptation Processes: Psychological research shows that negative emotions can also foster personal development. Difficult experiences can build resilience—they allow individuals to learn from mistakes, solve problems, and adapt to challenges (Ford et al., 2018).However, when every unpleasant experience is belittled by toxic positivity (“Cheer up, it’s not that bad”), an important learning opportunity is lost. In The Coddling of the American Mind (2018), psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that excessive emotional protection can actually heighten psychological vulnerability in the long run. People who are never confronted with negative emotions often develop lower frustration tolerance.
Social Validation and Loss of Empathy: Another criticism is that toxic positivity leads to more superficial interpersonal relationships. Studies on grief processing indicate that people who encounter dismissive positive encouragement (“Just focus on the good memories!”) suffer longer and more deeply than those who receive genuine empathy (Stroebe et al., 2008).Someone who only wants to “look on the bright side” is often unwilling to engage with another person’s concerns. The result is emotionally distancing conversations in which those affected feel misunderstood. Psychologist Brené Brown refers to this as “spiritual bypassing”—rather than offering compassion, people distract themselves and others with superficial optimism.
Ideological Co-Optation and Victim Blaming: From a sociological standpoint, toxic positivity can also function as a tool of social control. In Smile or Die (2009), Barbara Ehrenreich argues that the American “positive thinking” movement promotes a subtle form of victim blaming: if you’re sick or unemployed, you should just “think more positively” instead of pointing out structural problems.This mindset has roots in the history of American capitalism: Susan Cain notes that in the 19th century, success increasingly came to be viewed as a personal achievement, while failure was interpreted as the result of a “wrong internal attitude.” That “positivity mandate” persists today—whether in the expectation that employees keep smiling despite poor working conditions, or in the ideology that happiness is merely a matter of personal mindset.
Possible Solutions
Toxic positivity results from a misinterpretation of otherwise well-intentioned ideas. Originally, Positive Psychology aimed to broaden our perspective to include the beautiful and constructive aspects of life—not to ignore negative experiences entirely. Seligman (1998) emphasized that Positive Psychology should not involve denying negative emotions but rather complement traditional clinical psychology. When positivity becomes an obligation, its effect reverses: instead of fostering resilience, it undermines mental health and authenticity in social relationships. The studies and arguments examined here clearly show how psychological mechanisms (e.g., emotion suppression, optimism bias, inducing shame) drive toxic positivity and how it negatively impacts emotional well-being (via stress, depression, isolation) as well as social structures (communication climate, cultural norms). However, it’s crucial not to interpret these findings as an argument against positivity itself. Rather, it’s about balance and genuineness. So, how can we act on these insights? Below are several potential approaches and future perspectives:
Culture of Emotional Openness
Both individually and socially, we should create space for the full range of emotions. The motto “It’s okay not to be okay” captures this perfectly—it’s normal and human to feel bad at times. Spreading this awareness helps reduce the pressure to be relentlessly cheerful. Practically, that means allowing negative feelings in daily life: when you’re sad, letting yourself feel sad; when talking to friends, being honest instead of automatically saying “Everything’s great!” On social media, it might mean occasionally posting about challenges or setbacks rather than only sharing glossy highlights. We’re already seeing early trends in this direction—with more influencers showcasing less-than-perfect experiences to foster authenticity.
Emotional Validation and Empathy
Instead of defaulting to upbeat reassurances, we should learn to actively listen and validate others’ emotions. In interpersonal contexts, anyone can help defuse toxic positivity by not immediately responding to someone’s worries with “It’ll be fine!” but rather asking questions and showing empathy. Psychologists recommend a formula: first allow the person to feel their emotions, and only then work toward solutions. Concretely, phrases like “That sounds really tough, and I can see why it’s getting you down” communicate that a person’s feelings are heard and acknowledged. Only afterward might you gently look ahead (“Is there anything that might help you?”). This validation helps people feel taken seriously and encourages them to open up—which may seem paradoxical but ultimately leads to more positive change than if problems are swept under the rug. While this is standard in therapy and counseling, the challenge is to anchor this empathic stance more broadly in society through awareness-raising and role models.
Constructive Handling of Negative Feelings
As an antidote to toxic positivity, psychological programs can teach methods for dealing with negative emotions in a constructive way. In schools, for instance, lessons on emotional literacy can train children to name and tolerate different feelings. Businesses can hold training sessions on how to give and receive feedback on difficult topics in a respectful manner. Even within Positive Psychology itself, a shift in thinking is underway—often referred to as “Second Wave Positive Psychology.” In response to the first wave’s overemphasis on happiness, Paul Wong (2011) developed PP2.0, which integrates negative experiences as part of a fulfilling life and emphasizes concepts like post-traumatic growth (growth through suffering) and tragic optimism (hope in spite of adversity). By incorporating such holistic perspectives into training and coaching, we can correct the onesidedness of the original focus on happiness. People should realize that optimism doesn’t mean denying the negative but rather maintaining a belief in the positive while remaining aware of life’s challenges.
Changing Workplace and Organizational Cultures
At the societal level—particularly in the workplace—structural measures can help. Companies that value employee well-being are increasingly adopting open feedback cultures. This means leadership explicitly signals that criticism and concerns may be voiced without being labeled “negative.” Some organizations use anonymous suggestion boxes or periodic “mood checks” to provide an outlet for negative feedback. Leaders can serve as role models by admitting, for instance, “The situation is tough, and it’s weighing on me too,” thereby building trust and reducing the pressure to always project unwavering strength. Research suggests that teams with a sense of psychological safety (where members can voice concerns without fear) are more productive and innovative than those that suppress criticism. In the long run, performance and creativity benefit from moving away from a culture of toxic positivity.
Media and Public Representation
Finally, a potential solution lies in broadening the public discourse around emotions. Media outlets could highlight more stories and perspectives that emphasize balance: success stories alongside “lessons learned” from failures, joyous events alongside honest portrayals of grief. Initiatives aimed at destigmatizing mental illness are a step in this direction—showing that it’s normal not to be constantly happy and mentally strong. When public figures openly discuss their own crises (something we’re seeing more often in recent years), it helps mitigate societal pressure. Sharing current research findings—like those in this text—can raise awareness that too much positivity can actually be harmful. Gradually, people begin to understand that “positive thinking” alone doesn’t solve everything, and genuine life satisfaction requires more than a forced smile.
Future Outlook
It appears toxic positivity will remain a hotly debated topic in the coming years—within psychology, among the public, and likely in politics (for example, regarding working conditions or health prevention). The challenge will be finding a middle ground: using the valuable insights of Positive Psychology (optimism, gratitude) without veering into absolute terms. The most fruitful mindset might be an accepting optimism—holding onto positive expectations while fully acknowledging reality’s highs and lows. Or as one saying goes, “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.” In psychological terms, this is resilience, built on both positive resources and the ability to navigate negative experiences. For individuals, it ultimately means allowing yourself to be genuine. From a scientific standpoint, this isn’t a license for pessimism—on the contrary, true well-being arises from emotional integrity. A person capable of laughing and crying will, over the long term, lead a healthier, more fulfilling life than someone stuck in a constant forced grin. That’s a conclusion that resonates on a personal level: psychological health always includes a full range of emotions—light and shadow. Toxic positivity ignores this fact; a more holistically aware society will learn to make space for both. Or, to put it poetically: without rain, there’s no rainbow—we need honest acceptance of both pain and joy if we want to move forward with genuine optimism (rather than toxic positivity).
The Substance: A Cinematic Example of Toxic Positivity
The Substance tells the story of Elisabeth Sparkle, a former fitness TV host who desperately tries to reclaim her youth and achieve perfection. Through stark imagery and a multilayered plot, the film serves as a powerful example of where forced self-optimization and relentless positive vibes can lead. The Substance pushes this pressure for perfection to its extreme. The protagonist, Elisabeth Sparkle—portrayed by Demi Moore—faces immense expectations for success and beauty as an aging fitness icon. As she gets older, she risks losing her value in a youth-obsessed media world, leaving her vulnerable to radical solutions. When she learns of a mysterious substance that promises a younger, flawless version of herself, she succumbs to its allure.
This decision is far from unique; it symbolizes a widespread societal trend: the belief that one can (and must) “optimize” oneself to meet external expectations. The film positions itself as a commentary on what women endure because of societal ideals—whether from external pressure or the demands they place on themselves.
Demi Moore drew deliberate parallels between her own experiences with body image and public scrutiny for the role: in her youth, she inflicted hardships on herself to conform to beauty standards. This personal aspect gave her performance depth—she plays a woman who “goes to extreme lengths to regain her former self, even if it leads to self-destruction.” That’s precisely where the film’s critique lies: our society imposes an unrealistic standard of perfection that drives people (especially women) to make enormous sacrifices for the illusion of eternal youth, beauty, and constant good cheer.
A central motif of The Substance is the loss of one’s identity under the pressure of continual self-improvement. Elisabeth’s desire to be young and radiant again literally splits her self: the mysterious substance creates a second version of her—the flawless Sue—and at first, they even share the same consciousness. But as soon as someone occupies a physical body and begins having individual experiences, a split occurs. This separation of the perfected Sue from the original Elisabeth mirrors the central theme: the growing gap between our true selves and the idealized versions that society demands. Elisabeth increasingly loses touch with her authentic self, while her constructed ideal image takes over—an extreme illustration of how toxic positivity can alienate people in the real world. In reality, such a loss of identity usually happens more subtly. Anyone who constantly suppresses negative emotions in order to fit the ideal of perpetual good humor risks losing contact with their true self.
In the film, this process is made tangible: Elisabeth’s real self increasingly decays while her artificially created optimal self-presentation gains the upper hand. The result is an almost total loss of identity—a stark warning about what can happen when the pursuit of a perfect self-image goes too far.
The Horror of Forced Positivity
Coralie Fargeat illustrates the danger of forced positivity by translating it into body horror. The disturbing, grotesque visuals in The Substance are more than just shock tactics—they represent psychological processes. Elisabeth’s attempt to shed all imperfections manifests in a physical metamorphosis reminiscent of David Cronenberg’s The Fly. Step by step, she undergoes a troubling deterioration, while Sue—the embodiment of flawless perfection—becomes ever more dominant. The practical special effects make the audience “feel every inch of Elisabeth’s physical decline.” This slow, visceral horror makes one thing clear: the compulsion to be constantly positive and perfect is unnatural and disturbing, something that can destroy a person from the inside out. The body horror here serves as a metaphor for the psychological damage toxic positivity can inflict.
Psychologically, the film tackles several mechanisms. On one hand, it shows the consequences of chronic emotional suppression: Elisabeth ignores all the warning signs from her body, much like real people who dismiss negative signals and deny danger to cling to a deceptive “everything will be fine” mindset. This refusal to see problems is known as optimism bias or a cognitive distortion—convincing oneself that all good things will inevitably happen and systematically shutting out the bad.
The Substance takes this mechanism to its extreme: Elisabeth clings so desperately to the supposed solution to all her problems (youth, beauty, bliss) that she accepts increasingly grotesque physical changes. On the other hand, the film addresses the violence one does to oneself and others by enforcing “Good Vibes Only.” Rather than letting herself feel the grief of aging, Elisabeth “paints over” her pain with a dangerous chemical solution—a choice that ultimately leads to bodily mutilation and psychotic madness. The horror depicted in The Substance is not gratuitous; it’s a potent image for the often invisible but very real psychological and physical harm toxic positivity can cause. As one review aptly puts it, the film is “a bold statement on how far we’ll go for validation and the painful consequences that often follow.” It confronts us with the painful truth that, behind the façade of the forced smile, there can be hidden depths of despair.
The Substance explores these ideas artistically. In a world that some writers have described as a “tyranny of the positive,” the film holds up a stark mirror to our society. It shows how far people will go to meet expectations of eternal youth, beauty, and cheerfulness—and the monstrous results that can unfold. In doing so, The Substance provides an important critical examination of our zeitgeist: the horror on screen compels us to reflect on the more subtle horrors of everyday life, namely the pressure to smile at all costs. The societal implication of this cinematic parable is clear. We must question the ideal of perpetual perfection and relearn how to allow vulnerability and genuine emotion. Otherwise, the film warns, we risk surrendering our humanity to a poisonous façade of happiness. Ultimately, The Substance calls for greater authenticity and self-acceptance.
The film makes invisible conflicts visible and demands a new way of thinking: true emotional balance requires embracing all our feelings rather than dissolving into the emptiness of forced cheerfulness.
📢 Werbung
The Substance on Blue Ray
“Magnificent… Could just be your new favorite horror movie” – Phil de Semlyen, TimeOut
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.*
- Toxic Positivity and Emotional Suppression
Excessive positivity can suppress emotions and harm mental health. Learn how toxic positivity affects society and why emotional acceptance is key. - The Burden of Words: A Psychological Analysis of Writer’s Block
The Burden of Words: Writer’s block – a state that feels like an invisible prison, shackling thoughts and suffocating every creative impulse. It creeps in insidiously, like a shadow darkening even the brightest light. Those who have experienced it know the feeling of emptiness, the endless staring at the blinking cursor, taunting like a mocking… Read more: The Burden of Words: A Psychological Analysis of Writer’s Block - Why Negative Headlines Work – And How Ethical Journalism Can Compete
In today’s digital world, where headlines compete for our attention, one constant remains: Negative news captivates us like a magnet. But why is that? A recent study confirms that negative words in headlines significantly boost click-through rates (CTR), while positive words are less reliable in driving clicks. This finding raises questions about the psychology of… Read more: Why Negative Headlines Work – And How Ethical Journalism Can Compete - What’s Love Got to Do with Rationality? The Psychology of Money in Relationships
The Psychology of Money: Financial security has taken center stage in modern relationships—so much so that for many, it now eclipses traditional romantic ideals. A recent study by Simplii Financial reveals that more than two-thirds of Canadians consider financial stability a crucial factor when selecting a partner. Even more striking, over half of singles would… Read more: What’s Love Got to Do with Rationality? The Psychology of Money in Relationships
