The letter inviting me to participate in this project asked me to discuss my own thoughts and work in conjunction with the target article. In this case, the target article is very complex and ranges over a large number of topics, many of which invite comment. In the space available to me here, however, I cannot hope to comment on all, or even most, of those topics and issues, even though I would like to do so. Therefore, I will limit myself to presenting a few points that illustrate how my work relates to a few of the themes of the target article, and how my understanding of the research literature differs from that presented in the target article. I will address three issues: Some aspects of the historical account provided in the target article, which I think in several ways is misleading; internal inconsistency within the target article and the affect-infusion model (AIM); and, most importantly, research omitted from consideration in the target article that would have important implications for understanding the impact of positive affect on thinking and behavior if it were considered. For example, a central thesis of the target article’s treatment of positive affect is its assumption that the effect of positive affect, when it does impact thought and behavior, is generally to cause superficial, lazy, inattentive processing, and to interfere with careful, effortful, effective thought and problem solving. However, many of the omitted findings show that, under most circumstances, positive affect facilitates careful, effective, thorough thought and problem solving that is very responsive to the situation and task requirements. (Author/publisher)
Abstract