What exactly is “toxic positivity,” and how is it different from having a genuinely positive or hopeful outlook on life?
Toxic positivity is different from authentic positivity, as positivity is mandated without considering the experiences and circumstances of the person. For example, an employee who has contributed significantly to an organisation receives a low performance rating from their boss. When the employee raises concerns about this rating, instead of addressing the issue, the boss may force the employee to look at the brighter side, saying that others have received even lower ratings, their marks are average, and they should be happy about it. The employee’s negative emotional response is considered inappropriate, and they are encouraged to focus only on the positive aspects. In such situations, this pressure to remain positive can become a source of harm, burnout, and other negative outcomes rather than promoting well-being.
A positive mindset is indeed a powerful coping mechanism. Differentiating toxic positivity from authentic positivity is essential: toxic positivity compels people to minimise and suppress negative feelings, whereas authentic positivity recognises negative emotions as adaptive, informational signals and encourages constructive efforts to address them. Although maintaining a hopeful mindset during adversity serves as a valuable coping mechanism, applying positivity in an insincere, blanket manner that ignores complex feelings can be damaging. It reinforces unrealistic expectations, hinders genuine emotional expression, and discourages people from seeking help.
Your research identifies four important dimensions: emotional suppression, emotional invalidation, unrealistic optimism, and disingenuous happiness. Could you explain these in simple terms with some everyday examples?
Emotional suppression involves hiding or masking one’s true feelings rather than expressing them openly. For example, someone feeling anxious before a presentation may say, “Totally fine, no stress!” despite feeling otherwise. Research suggests that repeatedly suppressing emotions can worsen mood and reduce positive feelings. Emotional invalidation occurs when someone’s feelings are dismissed or considered unimportant. For instance, telling a friend experiencing heartbreak, “It’s good for you; there are so many others to choose from,” may unintentionally make them feel guilty or ashamed of their emotions. Unrealistic optimism involves expecting positive outcomes regardless of circumstances, often overlooking genuine difficulties. When someone loses a job, saying “Everything happens for a reason; something better will come” without offering practical support is one example. Disingenuous happiness refers to displaying happiness despite feeling otherwise, often due to social expectations. For example, someone experiencing stress and burnout may still post “blessed and grateful” on social media to maintain a positive image. These four dimensions often overlap. Even a simple statement such as “Leave it, it’s fine, it will be better soon” can simultaneously dismiss genuine emotions, encourage unrealistic optimism, and create pressure to appear happy.
Why can phrases such as “just stay positive” or “look on the bright side,” although usually well-intentioned, sometimes make a person experiencing distress feel worse rather than better?
Phrases like these frame negative emotions as something to be corrected or dealt with, rather than something that should be understood. The phrase is aimed at reducing the suffering , but the listener is given the onus of fixing the negative emotions, and lead to judgements along the lines of they are choosing negativity or misfortune by dwelling on it. The oversimplification of complex situations using these, can trivialize the distress of the person, and may lead to self blame. Imagine, somebody got a serious medical diagnosis, but the partner or a friend says, ‘ Think positive! Everything will be fine!, you may feel like you are wrong for being afraid in the setting. The pressure to ‘stay positive’ can create secondary emotions of shame and guilt. Other famous phrases like happiness is a choice, good vibes only etc transfers the onus of emotional experience to the person struggling already, which can further trigger stigma and minimizes the person’s struggles, than validating them.
What role do social media, cultural expectations, and the pressure to appear successful and happy play in encouraging toxic positivity?
The toxic positivity or positivity mandate did not appear out of nowhere, the social-cultural antecedents are societal expectations, social media influence, cultural and historical influence, and misinterpretation of positive psychology movement . The ideas like New thought movement, and American Dream, promoted positive thinking as a route to success. While it is inspirational, when we dwell on the idea that positive thinking will alone determine the outcomes, irrespective of the contextual realities are problematic as we have seen already . Best sellers like Rhonda Byrne’s ‘The Secret’ promoted the same idea ,. This belief is not harmful in itself, however, it can contribute to harmful norms like if positive thinking makes things work, then things that don’t work must be your fault, which place the responsibility for wellbeing on the individual, while overlooking the structural issues such as inequality, economic insecurity, and unequal access to opportunity and healthcare, to name a few.
Social media today functions largely as a curated highlights reel, where people showcase their success and achievements while hiding setbacks and doubts. For a person on the viewing side, this can create a reassurance to be positive at all times. Constant exposure to highly curated and idealised content may contribute to the normalisation of a perpetual state of happiness and to an overestimation of positive outcomes, leading to unrealistic optimism . People compare their unfiltered private lives with others’ public curated presentations and conclude their struggles are abnormal and shameful. This results in ordinary negative emotions such as sadness, anxiety, and frustration feeling like evidence of personal inadequacy. Taken together these factors produce a culture that fosters inauthentic self-representation where people learn to suppress, hide or reframe negative feelings to fit what is socially acceptable. This leads to a productivity focused environment where individuals are expected to stay upbeat and resilient regardless of workload, stress or life circumstances.
Can constantly suppressing sadness, fear, anger, or disappointment affect a person’s emotional well-being and relationships over time?
Constant suppression of negative emotions can lead to increased distress and worsening mental health outcomes such as anxiety and depression. Studies have shown that emotional suppression is specifically linked to worsening mood, sympathetic activation, negative feelings about social interactions and continued or worsened emotions alongside a decrease in positive emotions.
It can also undermine the authenticity of relationships. When their distress is invalidated, individuals may feel lonely and isolated, and they may stop sharing how they truly feel. It can also create a mismatch between a person’s emotional needs and the support they receive. Someone who genuinely needs their feelings validated and a chance to vent may instead be met with forced optimism, such as being told to “look for the silver lining. “The feeling of being alone, not understood/ even invalidated, even when surrounded by multiple others. Constant emotional suppression can result in sympathetic activation- flight or fight response resulting in physical symptoms as well.
Toxic positivity can also appear in workplaces, schools, and healthcare settings. How can we encourage optimism and resilience without dismissing genuine difficulties or negative emotions?
In workplaces, toxic positivity often turns structural concerns like excessive workload, job insecurity, poor leadership or burnout into an employee’s responsibility to “stay positive,” or practice self-care. As a solution to issues like understaffing or u reasonable performance expectation, organizations create appreciation events, mindfulness sessions or motivational messaging.
In schools, toxic positivity can affect both students and staff alike. Asking teachers to prioritize students and school over their wellbeing, treating poor academic performance solely as student’s lack of persistence rather than addressing their actual needs and framing emotional wellness as an individual attitude are examples of that.
In health care settings, overemphasis on courage or “fighting spirit” imply that recovery and survival depend on a patient’s attitude rather than disease characteristics, and care provided. These narratives are never against authentic positive attitudes or never push one to abandon hope or positive attitude, rather, positivity should not be overgeneralized or applied to every situation. Additionally, it is important not to dismiss negative emotions, without understanding the root cause or not acknowledging the difficulty or structural concerns. Additionally, ensuring support that matches the distress is also imperative. If a teacher is overwhelmed by their workload, offer practical assistance. If a patient is distressed by a diagnosis, ask what specifically is troubling them and provide targeted support. Ultimately, an empathetic and authentic approach to emotional well-being, one that embraces the full range of emotions, is warranted, rather than blanketing with mandated positive thinking.
Research on toxic positivity is still developing. What are the most important questions scientists need to investigate next, and could better ways of measuring toxic positivity help us understand its impact on mental health?
The Scoping review calls for the need of psychometrically valid measures to operationalize the concept- toxic positivity, which comprehensively address the four major clusters. The most urgent gap is measurement. Imagine trying to study fever without a thermometer. Currently, the only tool available, the IDRlabs 3-Minute Toxic Positivity Test, whose psychometric properties “have not been documented” (p. 3). As the research in the area is in its nascent stage a good measure will be a game changer. Considering this need, a second-order-construct based tool to measure toxic positivity is patented by the researchers and will be made available for future researchers. Additionally, the evidence available is primarily descriptive or opinion based, hence more valid empirical research on the causes, and consequences are highly recommended. The immediate tools of the cultural translation of toxic positivity, through family, parenting etc need to be addressed.
Note: The page numbers mentioned are corresponding to the original publication’s page numbers.
