2024-2025 Writing Showcase: Medical Science Research

    Addiction is one of the most frequent and devastating psychological conditions society faces in the modern age. The rates of it are increasing exponentially, thanks to factors such as increased stress, economic struggle, and exploitation of vulnerable populations (Lo et al., 2020). In a world where people must fight and struggle to scrape by, the allure of escape becomes more and more tempting. That’s where addictive substances and behaviors come into play. 

    What starts as a temporary relief and maybe even a feeling of exhilaration can easily warp into a dangerous pattern. The human brain can become both structurally and biologically dependent on these chemicals, whether they’re from an outside source or an endorphin rush from participating in addictive behaviors (Samanta et al., 2024). The more these things are sought out, the more tolerant a person can become. A cyclical pattern begins to form, where the victim must indulge more and more to gain any positive symptoms out of it. And even worse, dependency means the body goes through severe withdrawals after any attempt on cutting back: tremors, nausea, panic attacks, sweating, physical pain, to name a few (Comer & Comer, 2025). Addiction is dangerous, can happen to any demographic, and can be lethal if unchecked. It is almost certain these days that any given person has a loved one who struggles with addiction. 

    The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) defines substance-use disorders and gambling disorders as conditions which cause significant, long-term distress and impairment (Comer & Comer, 2025). It is far more serious than just a personality trait, and it is far more complex than a “moral failing”. It is a debilitating and uncontrollable condition; one surrounded by intense stigma and exploitation. To be able to provide proper treatment and resources for victims to get help, there must be an understanding of why people get addicted. 

    It is understood now about the psychological and biological aspects of addiction, but are some people more inherently predisposed than others? Is this condition perhaps hereditary, and if it is, why does this matter? My paper will go into depth about the evidence supporting genetics being an aspect of addiction, how outside factors come into play, and how this perspective changes stigma.

The Genes Behind Addiction

    Addiction has become an incredibly prevalent issue across the planet, meaning that understanding the cause of it is of top priority. When many people think about addiction, they think about behavior, trauma, and stress. All these factors are essential to consider, yes, but more and more research is highlighting the fact that genetics can also play a role in addiction. A meta-analysis by Agrawal et al. (2012) has found and compiled numerous twin studies examining substance use’s connection to heritability, and while specific percentages vary, there is a frequent pattern of dependence being an inheritable trait. This was not found in just one substance either, but with alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, opiates, and even gambling.

    A specific gene that leads to addiction hasn’t really been identified, but there are many candidates that are commonly found in addicted populations. Agrawal et al.’s comprehensive review of past research on the heritability of addiction cites many of them, along with the actual changes they make to cellular functioning that would impact a person’s reaction or dependence on substances (p. 3). One example is DRD2, a gene that has been found in many replicated studies as a risk marker for alcoholism. That is to say, there is no singular “addict gene” that all people struggling with addiction have. Rather, it is how specific genes may interact with one another within the body, and the interplay between outside chemicals and internal functioning. This system of multiple genes co-presenting is not something exclusive to addiction, as Bryson (2003) describes in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything: “our fate and comfort… are determined not by individual genes but by complexes of genes working in alliance”. There are numerous combinations of person’s genetic information can take, which makes understanding the patterns and systems that promote addictive disorders so essential to find.   

    In fact, because multiple genes are at work to lead to the presentation of addiction, this also means that there is a huge genetic overlap between those who suffer from completely different addictions. Uhl et al. (2008) formed a review detailing how genome-wide association (GWA) has been used to examine the genomes of addicts to find common features between them. It goes over the evidence supporting the idea that addiction is polygenic -- relies on the interaction between many genes (p. 321) -- the ethical connotations of recording the genotypes of these individuals (p. 344), and the technical aspects on how GWA works to find these connections (p. 345).

    But what’s key from this compilation of information is the fact that different substance addictions are not just comorbid (commonly co-occurring) with one another, but other heritable mental disorders as well. The exact phrasing used is “Many of the chromosomal regions identified…harbor genes whose expression levels are co-regulated…including addiction, memory, anxiety, and other neuropsychiatric phenotypes”. It is conditions such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety which share genetic markers for substance-dependent addiction. And because these conditions have a higher chance of co-occurring with addictive behaviors, these conditions are also more likely to interact and worsen one another’s presentation.

Considering Neurodivergency and Environmental Factors

    Neurodivergence is another important facet which can tie into addiction and heritability of addictive behaviors. Being a neurodivergent individual is defined as anyone whose “…neurocognitive functions/neurodevelopmental differences fall outside prevalent societal norms” (Shah et al, 2022). To summarize, if one’s development and cognition are different from the majority or the standard, they’re considered neurodivergent. This is a huge umbrella, encompassing a broad range of disabilities, conditions, and disorders. Specific examples include autism spectrum disorder (ASD), dyslexia, dyspraxia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and much more. 

    The reason considering neurodiversity is essential to discussing addiction and heredity is because the world is full of people whose functioning is different, also meaning they may be more affected by or predisposed to addiction. One that has been especially well researched is the connections between ADHD and addictive disorders. ADHD has been found to have both high comorbidity with addictive behaviors (due to struggles with risk assessment and impulse control associated with the disorder), but also an actual genetic correlation as well. A longitudinal study by Biderman et al. (2008) found that performing blind assessments on boys with and without ADHD, that those with the disorder were far more likely to present with addictive symptoms. The family members and relatives of the subjects with ADHD also were more likely to present with addictive disorders, giving a high indication that ADHD and genetics are commonly comorbid. Since ADHD is found to be hereditary in this study and others (Adler 2008, Vilar-Ribó 2021), that implies that if addiction is co-occurring with it, meaning addiction can also be hereditary. 

    Relatedly, one’s environment also alters how genes may or may not present. Talking about genetics is impossible without considering how outside factors alter one’s phenotypes (outward presentation of genes). Many genes lay dormant until outside stressors activate them, and this is just the case for addiction. Buchanan and Lovallo (2019) wrote a review highlighting this very thing, and they make it very clear that environment and biology are irreversibly connected. Some people may share genetic features that would mark them as at risk for developing an addiction, but only one of them struggles with it. Why?

    One’s upbringing has a direct effect on their coping skills, resilience, and behaviors. Trauma occurring early in life is heavily comorbid with the development of mental health disorders, such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and more. An unsatisfactory home life, maternal deprivation, and witnessing addiction firsthand will alter how people react to stressors and the behaviors they take on to cope. And these impacts go far earlier than simply childhood, as even “work from animal models as well as human development has demonstrated lasting effects of stress from prenatal development through old age” (Buchanan & Lovallo 2019). Heritability and environment function one in the same, and you cannot recognize one’s history without acknowledging possible genetic predispositions as well.

    It's probably easier to imagine substance-dependence being partially caused by hereditary factors. After all, it’s due to the brain’s biological dependence on certain chemicals being hardwired into the brain’s functioning after excessive use. That’s why processes such as tolerance (growing resistance due to consistent use) and withdrawal (negative symptoms when cutting back on a substance) occur. But does that mean non-substance use addictive disorders aren’t genetic? This couldn’t be further from the truth. Gambling addiction has also been found to have prominent genetic correlations.

    In a meta-analysis study performed by Xuan et al. (2017), 18 different twin studies revealed that there is indeed a moderate correlation between addiction, genetic factors, and environmental factors. It’s also important to note demographic factors that also impacted the results. Genetic influence was found to be present more often for adults than adolescents, and for genetics to be impacting male participants more than the female participants. There is, at the very least, a strong correlation between gambling addiction and genetics. This has been found in reviews done by other researchers as well, such as Ibáñez et al.’s (2003) work on pathological gambling (PG). According to them, research on molecular genetics has been able to identify specific genetic markers shared among those suffering with PG.

The Lived Experience of Addicts

    But all of this is being discussed from an outside, clinical perspective. What is it like for recovering addicts with real lived experience? Dingel et al (2018) performed a self-report study where sixty-three participants in treatment programs were asked to discuss how the concept of geneticization fits into their lives. Geneticization as a concept simply means applying genetic perspectives into the treatment of people’s health. Results were differing for each participant, as they had unique family history, cultures, and backgrounds.

    Those who had come from a long line of addicts firmly believed in the notion that addiction runs in the family. A specific example is Irene, who is in treatment for a smoking addiction and has a family history of addiction (both her parents and her older brother). Strikingly, she said “I saw both my parents drink and I knew I wasn’t going to be a drinker and so I made that decision ahead of time. I don’t want to be like you…” She seemed to have believed that if she is exposed to the substance at all, it will become an inevitable downhill spiral. Clearly, she has the perspective that heredity plays a powerful role in being predisposed to addiction, but interestingly, environmental factors were not something she mentioned. 

    It represents a clear spectrum amongst those who do believe in heritable addiction, as some other participants placed genetics and addiction on an equal pedestal. Mike, who is in recovery for an alcohol and nicotine addiction, cited the metaphor of “monkey see, monkey do” to describe why some family members take after a behavior while others do not. Both sides of his family have grappled with addiction, but not every single person. Mike believes that this has to do with the fact that other families can drink for celebratory use but not chronically, and that their children will recognize this and absorb it into their own behavior. Whether you’re someone like Irene who sees addiction as a purely genetic affliction or Mike who sees it as a strong determining factor, if you have a family history, you’re more likely to believe genetics has some sort of hand to play.

    Those without any relatives suffering with addiction, on the other hand, used their own experience to explain their disbelief in this concept. June, for example, states that “I’m addicted to smoking, [but] not because it was passed along to me. Because I have family members who don’t smoke, so it is like, why don’t they if I do—if we have the same genes?”. Understandably, the fact that some people in her family escaped the path of addiction while others didn’t is conflicting. If it is so genetic, why aren’t entire family lines plagued with it? What dictates who avoids addiction and who does not? Another perspective is Julia, who shares a mirrored skepticism on environmental determinism. In her own experience, she and her sister were raised in the same house, with the same parents, in the same way. And yet, her sister can drink without dependency, and Julia is recovering from an alcohol addiction. Both June and Julia do not have a family history, and yet both are skeptical for entirely different reasons. What they do have in common is the key question: “Why did I alone struggled with this?”.

    What was interesting is that despite these wildly unique perspectives, one thing was repeated and clear: genetics actively changes how people perceive addiction. And if people perceive addiction differently, it can either reduce or increase stigma. Even if, despite all the existing evidence, there is no real linkage between genetics and addiction, it is obvious that the topic impacts people’s treatment. Genetics is essential to discuss when thinking about addiction, because even those struggling view their treatment and history differently depending on how they think genetics impacted their situation. 

    For many, the concept of geneticization when it comes to addiction brings more questions than answers. If one’s addictive disorder truly is born from the results of genes, why did it appear in this specific person? How does it appear within a family in the first place? A heritable basis for addiction can explain why someone now struggles with addiction, but it doesn’t answer any philosophical questions on why such a condition afflicts a certain lineage. Many people grapple with that uncertainty: they wonder why they, of all families, of all people, were chosen to bear that burden. And the hard truth that geneticization brings as a theory is this: there is much that still isn’t understood. Patterns unveil themselves and the consequences are evident, and yet each person builds their own narrative on why this happened to them at this moment in time.

Risks of Geneticization

    Another key aspect of genetics that must be addressed when discussing any heritable trait is the historical role of racism. Throughout the years, genetics has been cited by prejudiced institutions and people to “explain” why some genetic lines are supposedly superior over others. This hateful legacy remains a powerful force today, inciting stigma against minority populations and claiming they are more prone to addiction and “delinquency”. This is seen blatantly in the lived account of Floyd, a Native American man in recovery for opiate addiction. He visibly holds resentment for the idea of addiction being passed via a family line due to the cruel assumptions made about him due to his race. The way he describes it is that “I hear people say just because I’m Native I’m automatically alcoholic or something like that…so many native men, they realize, you know when they get out there everybody is such racism…then we tend to get excluded so many of them just give up and just go to drinkin’ …people just give up … it is a social exclusion because I have no people left” (Dingel et al, 2018)

     His perspective is shaped by the genocide, segregation, and bigotry against people like him and his very way of life. Many people in such a situation will resort to substances as an escape from the mistreatment they face in every aspect of their lives. It’s very akin to the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy…the reason many resort to harmful behavior is because that’s all that society can see them doing, and that all their efforts to do otherwise were rejected and scorned. It’s a harsh reality that must be acknowledged when considering the role of geneticization in healthcare; what draws the line between recognizing a genetic connection versus accusing an entire race of being prone to harmful behavior? As always, we must be cautious in the way medicine and healthcare can be used to perpetuate oppression.

    It is also important to be diligent and wary, because there is a real threat of “over-pathologizing” addiction. In a study conducted by Lebowitz and Appelbaum (2018), participants were instructed to read a story about a hypothetical scenario. One section of the group read about a man with a genetic explanation for his condition (either being randomly assigned as gambling or alcohol use). The other group’s scenario involved the man having a nongenetic cause for his struggle. Those who perceived his story from the lens of being caused by genetics blamed him less for his condition. They were also more likely to believe that medication would be effective. However, these very same participants also had decreased expectation for therapy to be impactful.

    Perhaps worse of all, they had perceived the hypothetical man as being less capable of self-control and agency. So yes, stigma can be decreased by understanding the genetic implications of addiction. But if we are not careful, we will prevent those suffering from being treated as people with self-autonomy to make decisions for themselves. And if all they are seen as is a statistic, they are also more likely to be taken advantage of. Addicted populations are already more likely to have their genetic information and biological data analyzed for research, but how far does that go? It is essential to remain conscious of the humanity of those with addictive disorders, and to also still hold them accountable for their recovery.

Conclusion

    Why does all of this matter in the first place? Well, it’s the harsh reality of our times now that basically everyone knows and loves someone struggling with addiction, and many are addicts themselves. People can become dependent on any substance or on any behavior, and the chronic stress of modern times certainly does not help. Understanding that addiction is a disorder with a biological basis, just like any other physical or neurological condition, can help everyone better understand how to help the people they care about.

    Addiction isn’t a choice. It can’t be judged by society’s lens of morality. Because what it is in the end is a psychological condition requiring treatment. There is strong, repeated, and prevalent evidence proving that this is true. There are many genes found to be markers, many similarities between the genomes of addicted people, and numerous studies showing that heredity has a hand to play. Even if one were to consider the environment as an important influence (which it is), environment cannot be considered without also recognizing the symbiotic role it plays with genetics. A person’s environment is what can trigger their underlying predisposition, and at the very least a multidimensional perspective is what is needed. Hereditary evidence cannot be ignored and should not be ignored.

    Many addicted people are shunned for their strife, when what they really need is support and access to resources. To provide care for as many people as possible, it must be recognized that people have agency, deserve assistance, and should be heard. Genetics should not be used as a weapon against those suffering, whether it be to promote a racist ideology or to infantilize those with mental disorders. Rather, genetics is an unavoidable truth that must be recognized to make progress. By understanding the full reality of addiction, and therefore the genetic background behind it, society can open the door to equity and understanding.

REFERENCES

Adler, L. A. (2008). Familial Transmission of ADHD and Psychoactive Substance Use Disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(1), 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07101614 

Agrawal, A., Gillespie, N. A., Heath, A. C., Lessov-Schlaggar, C. N., Lynskey, M. T., Martin, N. G., Nelson, E. C., Slutske, W. S., Verweij, K. J. H., & Whitfield, J. B. (2012). The genetics of addiction—a translational perspective. Translational Psychiatry, 2(7), e140. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/tp.2012.54

Bevilacqua, L., & Goldman, D. (2009). Genes and addictions. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 85(4), 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2009.6  

Bryson, B. (2003). A short history of nearly everything. Broadway Books.

Buchanan, T. W., & Lovallo, W. R. (2019). The role of genetics in stress effects on health and addiction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 27, 72–76. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.09.005.  

Comer, J. S., & Comer, R. J. (2025). Fundamentals of Psychopathology (11th ed.). Worth Publishers.

Dingel, M. J., Koenig, B. A., McCormick, J., & Ostergren, J. (2018). “Why did I get that part of you?” Understanding addiction genetics through family history. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 53–67. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0963662518785350  

Ibáñez, A., Blanco, C., Perez de Castro, I., Fernandez-Piqueras, J., & Sáiz-Ruiz, J. (2003). Genetics of pathological gambling. Journal of gambling studies, 19(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021271029163 

Lebowitz, M. S., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction. The International journal of social psychiatry, 63(8), 717–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764017737573  

Lo, T. W., Yeung, J. W. K., & Tam, C. H. L. (2020). Substance Abuse and Public Health: A Multilevel Perspective and Multiple Responses. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(7), 2610. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072610 

Samanta, S., Bagchi, D., Gold, M. S., Badgaiyan, R. D., Barh, D., & Blum, K. (2024). A Complex Relationship Among the Circadian Rhythm, Reward Circuit and Substance Use Disorder (SUD). Psychology research and behavior management, 17, 3485–3501. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.2147/PRBM.S473310  

Shah, P. J., Boilson, M., Rutherford, M., Prior, S., Johnston, L., Maciver, D., & Forsyth, K. (2022). Neurodevelopmental disorders and neurodiversity: definition of terms from Scotland’s National Autism Implementation Team. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 221(3), 577–579. doi:10.1192/bjp.2022.43 

Vilar-Ribó, L., Sánchez-Mora, C., Rovira, P., Richarte, V., Corrales, M., Fadeuilhe, C., Arribas, L., Casas, M., Ramos-Quiroga, J. A., Ribasés, M., & Soler Artigas, M. (2021). Genetic overlap and causality between substance use disorder and attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder. American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics, 186(3), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.32827  

Xuan, Y. H., Li, S., Tao, R., Chen, J., Rao, L. L., Wang, X. T., & Zheng, R. (2017). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Gambling: A Meta-Analysis of Twin Studies. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02121 

Uhl, G.R., Drgon, T., Johnson, C., Li, C.Y., Contoreggi, C., Hess, J., Naiman, D. and Liu, Q.R. (2008), Molecular Genetics of Addiction and Related Heritable Phenotypes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1141(1), 318–381. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1196/annals.1441.018

Imagine waking up each day with a sense of purpose, resilience in the face of challenges, and a deep connection to those around you. This vision captures the heart of positive psychology - a field devoted to understanding and promoting human flourishing. Emerging in the late 20th century, positive psychology marked a shift in psychology’s focus, from pathology to human potential (Seligman and Schulman). Championed by Martin Seligman, the movement emphasizes fostering positive emotions, character strengths, and overall life satisfaction. 

Complementing this approach is polyvagal theory, which highlights the crucial role of the autonomic nervous system, particularly the vagus nerve, in emotional regulation and the need for safety and connection to support well-being (Porges). Despite its contributions, positive psychology is not without its criticism. Some argue that an overemphasis on positivity can lead to “toxic positivity”, deny negative emotions, and neglect cultural and individual differences. 

While positive psychology offers a valuable framework for enhancing well-being through its emphasis on its core tenets, a balanced approach that acknowledges its limitations, integrates insights from polyvagal theory, and addresses criticisms is essential for promoting a comprehensive and fulfilling life. 

The Promise of Positive Psychology 

Positive psychology enhances well-being by emphasizing on three core pillars: positive emotions, character strengths, and flourishing. These pillars contribute to a more fulfilling and resilient life. Positive emotions- such as joy, gratitude, and hope- expand cognitive flexibility, boost creativity, and foster resilience, which in turn enhances problem-solving abilities and strengthens our social bonds, which collectively improve problem-solving and resilience (Seligman 23). Character strengths like kindness, curiosity, and perseverance, are not only linked to personal fulfillment but also to improved mental health and life satisfaction (Cherry). 

Research consistently demonstrates that intentionally cultivating these virtues leads to lasting psychological benefits (Seligman 34). Flourishing, a broader concept than mere happiness, encompasses elements like engagement, meaning, and a sense of achievement. Seligman’s PERMA model offers a useful system for understanding this comprehensive well-being, outlining its five core components: Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. Interventions grounded in these principles have proven effective in various settings, including education, therapy, and workplaces, promoting resilience and improving quality of life (Stemmler et al. 102022). 

Addressing the Limitations of Positive Psychology 

Despite its promise, positive psychology has faced several critiques- among them, concerns about toxic positivity, neglect of negative emotions, lack of cultural sensitivity, and disregard for individual differences. Critics argue that overemphasizing positivity can create unrealistic expectations, invalidating people’s genuine struggles. As Barbara Held points out, the pressure to always “think positively” can undermine emotional authenticity and discourage vulnerability (Held, “The Negative Side” 12). 

However, positive psychology does not inherently promote the denial or suppressing of negative emotions. Rather, it encourages building resilience and developing effective coping strategies in the face of adversity. Negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, or fear, serve adaptive functions. They alert us to unmet needs and motivate us to take meaningful action. 

Research confirms that acknowledging and processing these emotions is essential for resilience and personal growth (Held, “The Negative Side” 14). A balanced psychological approach embraces both the light and dark aspects of human emotion. 

Another key limitation of positive psychology is its lack of cultural sensitivity. Much of the research in this field is rooted in Western ideals of happiness and individualism, which assumes that happiness is a universal goal. This assumption can alienate those from collectivist cultures, where social harmony and interdependence are more central to well-being (Wilding). To become truly holistic, positive psychology must evolve to include culturally sensitive practices and challenge systemic inequities. Integrating polyvagal theory– especially its focus on social connection and safety– can make interventions more relevant and effective across diverse social and cultural contexts, as these factors are essential for both individual and collective well-being (Manzotti et al.). 

Moreover, the success of positive psychology interventions is not universal. Their effectiveness can vary based on individual factors, such as comorbidities, personal beliefs, and pre-existing mental health conditions. For example, studies show that patients with multiple mental health challenges may find it more difficult to engage with or benefit from interventions aimed at increasing positive emotions or character strengths (Vasilenko et al). This highlights the importance of tailoring personalized interventions to meet the unique needs of each individual, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model. 

In sum, while positive psychology offers valuable insights and interventions for enhancing well-being, it is essential to acknowledge and address its limitations. A more nuanced and balanced approach is needed to ensure its effectiveness and applicability across diverse populations and cultural backgrounds. By confronting these shortcomings, the field can continue to evolve– becoming more inclusive, impactful, and relevant to the complex realities of human experience. 

The Importance of Individual Differences 

Given the wide variation in psychological and emotional makeup across individuals, it s essential for positive psychology to recognize these differences, as factors such as comorbidities and personal attitudes significantly influence how people respond to interventions. For instance, a study on patients with depression found that those with co-occurring mental health conditions were less likely to benefit from standard positive psychology interventions (Vasilenko et al.). 

Individuals facing multiple mental health challenges may struggle to access or engage with strategies aimed at enhancing positive emotions or character strengths. Tailoring interventions to accommodate these unique needs can substantially improve their effectiveness. 

Personal attitudes also play a critical role. Personal beliefs and openness to positive psychology can strongly impact how successful an intervention may be. Those with a growth mindset, who believe change is possible, may be more likely to engage with and benefit from these interventions (Cherry). Conversely, individuals who are skeptical or resistent to these practices may not fully commit, reducing their effectiveness. Therefore, understanding and addressing these individual attitudes and personal beliefs can help practitioners design more personalized and effective approaches to fostering well-being. 

Integrating positive psychology with other therapeutic modalities, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), can also address individual differences. Combining approaches that focus on changing negative thought patterns with those that emphasize character strengths and positive emotions can provide a more comprehensive treatment plan, addressing both the negative and positive dimensions of an individual’s mental health. These individual differences are not only psychological but also physiological. Understanding how the nervous system shapes our emotional experiences is key to creating more effective interventions—a topic explored in the next section through the lens of polyvagal theory. 

The Role of Polyvagal Theory 

Stephen Porges’s polyvagal theory provides a neuroscientific framework for understanding emotional regulation and well-being, emphasizing the role of the vagus nerve in modulating emotional responses. According to Porges, feelings of safety and social connection are fundamental to psychological health, with individuals experiencing chronic stress or trauma often having dysregulated nervous systems that hinder their engagement in positive psychology interventions (Porges 36; Manzotti et al). 

A crucial concept within polyvagal theory is "glimmers"— micro-moments of positivity that signal safety to the nervous system. Deb Dana, PhD, a leading expert in the application of polyvagal theory to therapeutic practices, builds on this idea by highlighting how these glimmers are essential for fostering emotional regulation. She defines glimmers as “micro moments of regulation that foster feelings of well-being,” (Dana qtd. in Emanuel) found in everyday life sensory experiences (Emanuel). However, because of the brain’s negativity bias- its tendency to focus more on threats than positive cues- people often overlook these gentle signals of safety, missing opportunities to nourish their nervous system. 

Dana’s work stresses the importance of recognizing and cultivating glimmers to promote sustained well-being. She argues that integrating polyvagal theory into positive psychology provides a more nuanced understanding of emotional health, allowing for a deeper connection between mind and body. Therapeutic practices, such as mindfulness and breathing exercise, which stimulate the vagus nerve, can improve emotional regulation and enhance the effectiveness of positive psychology interventions (Rhythm of Regulation). 

It’s important to recognize that triggers and glimmers, while vastly different in their effects, are often two sides of the same coin. Both can be evoked by the same sensory experience or memory, but whether they elicit a positive or negative response depends on an individual’s history and nervous system state. Understanding this dynamic allows for more personalized approaches to emotional well-being and highlights the importance of tailoring interventions to meet each individual where they are, both psychologically and physiologically. 

My own experiences vividly illustrate the concept of triggers and glimmers described in polyvagal theory. As someone diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and PTSD, I’ve come to understand the powerful influence of both negative and positive emotional experiences on my nervous system. There are moments, like the one I described with my infant son, where a seemingly ordinary sensory detail - in that case, the smell of baby formula - became a trigger. In an instant, I was transported back to a time marked by trauma and helplessness. According to Porges, such triggers activate the more primitive, defensive branches of the autonomic nervous system, eliciting feelings of fear, anxiety, and dysregulation (Porges). At that time in my life, I was merely trying to survive, and experiences like this shaped my relationship and sense of self. 

In contrast, I’ve also discovered the quiet yet profound power of “glimmers,” those small moments of joy, safety, and connection that signal to my nervous system it is safe to relax and thrive. I remember the feelings of my husband’s gentle support and deep connection I felt with my newborn daughter. Remarkably, the smell of baby formula that once triggered fear became a symbol of safety and love. This experience, as polyvagal theory suggests, activated the ventral vagal complex, promoting feelings of calm, connection, and well-being. These glimmers have become anchors for healing, gradually shifting me from a state of survival to one of thriving. Learning to recognize and intentionally cultivate these moments has been essential to my journey toward emotional regulation and resilience. I’ve come to see that I am the author of my own story, and I can choose to focus on the glimmers. 

The contrast between these two experiences powerfully illustrates how our nervous system responds to both threats and signals of safety, shaping our emotional landscape. By understanding the principles of polyvagal theory and embracing the practice of seeking glimmers I’ve been able to reshape my relationship with my own emotions and move towards a more balanced and fulfilling life. This understanding has not only laid the foundation for my own personal healing but also reaffirmed the importance of incorporating these principles into positive psychology interventions to foster deeper and more inclusive well-being for others. 

Counterarguments and Rebuttals 

Critics of positive psychology often question its scientific rigor, especially when it comes to measuring subjective experiences like happiness and well-being. Some argue that the emphasis on positivity may lead to toxic positivity - the pressure to maintain a cheerful outlook even in the face of genuine suffering - which can invalidate the full spectrum of human emotion As Barbara Held points out, this focus on well-being can sometimes obscure the importance of acknowledging pain, struggle, and complexity in human experience (Held, “The Negative Side” 10). However, a growing body of empirical studies supports the legitimacy and effectiveness of positive psychology principles. For example, research on “learned optimism” shows that cognitive restructuring techniques can help individuals shift their mindset, leading to improved resilience and reduced symptoms of depression (Cherry). Seligman, a leading figure in the field, presents evidence in Authentic Happiness that these techniques are grounded in both psychological theory and experimental findings. In the book, he introduces the concept of the “happiness formula” (H = S + C + V), which asserts that happiness is influenced by a combination of genetic set-point (S), life circumstances (C), and voluntary activities (V). This framework emphasizes that while certain elements of happiness may be biologically predetermined, intentional practices such as gratitude, savoring, and acts of kindness can significantly increase one’s well-being. Seligman also discusses interventions like the “three good things” exercise, which has shown measurable improvements in mood and life satisfaction over time. These techniques move beyond vague positivity and offer structured, testable strategies for enhancing mental health (Seligman 23). 

Furthermore, the integration of neuroscience, particularly through theories like the polyvagal theory, provides a more evidence-based approach to understanding well-being. Porges discusses how this theory offers a physiological explanation for how our sense of safety and connection impacts our emotional state (Porges 41). This interdisciplinary approach strengthens the field’s foundation and counters critiques by showing that positive psychology is not about ignoring hardship, but about expanding our tools for healing and growth. 

Conclusion 

Positive psychology, with its emphasis on positive emotions, character strengths, and flourishing, has profoundly reshaped our understanding of human well-being. However, to realize its full potential, the field must address its limitations, including the risks of toxic positivity, the neglect of negative emotions, and the lack of cultural sensitivity. By integrating insights from polyvagal theory and acknowledging individual differences, positive psychology can evolve into a more inclusive and nuanced framework. As the field progresses, incorporating knowledge from neuroscience, emotional regulation, and cultural perspectives will be essential for creating a truly comprehensive approach to well-being—one that nurtures not only happiness but also resilience, authenticity, and meaningful connection. 

Works Cited

Cherry, Kendra. “What Is Learned Optimism?” Verywell Mind, www.verywellmind.com/what-is-learned-optimism-2331515. Accessed 1 May 2024.

Emanuel, Gabrielle. “‘Glimmers’ Are the Opposite of Triggers, and Can Improve Your Mental Health.” WBUR, 4 Mar. 2025, https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2025/03/04/glimmers-mental-health.

Held, Barbara S. “The Negative Side of Positive Psychology.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, 2004, pp. 9–46.

Jones, Myrella. The Glimmers In Life. 9 Feb. 2025. Google Docs, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zb8sA7oWX0nWGWX92eZMejoTgtSzE2EerfM6 7on7HpQ.

Manzotti, Riccardo, et al. “How the Polyvagal Theory Can Inform the Understanding of the Therapeutic Relationship: A Scoping Review.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, 2023, www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1130027/full.

Newport Institute. "Glimmers of Connection: Micro-moments of Positivity." Newport Institute, https://www.newportinstitute.com/resources/treatment-approach/glimmers-of-connection/. Accessed 1 May 2024.

Porges, Stephen W. The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company, 2022. 

Rhythm of Regulation. "Polyvagal Exercises for Vagal Tone and Regulation." Rhythm of Regulation, https://rhythmofregulation.com/polyvagal-exercises/. Accessed 1 May 2024.

Seligman, Martin E. P. Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Enduring Fulfillment. Free Press, 2002. Pp. 23-45

Seligman, Martin E. P., and Peter Schulman. “Can Positive Psychology Contribute to Psychiatry?” The American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 161, no. 5, 2004, pp. 936–946, https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.5.936.

Stemmler, Mark, et al. "How Effective Are Positive Psychology Interventions for People Suffering from Mental Health Problems? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Clinical Psychology Review, vol. 87, 2021, p. 102022.

Vasilenko, Valeriy I., et al. "The Effectiveness of Positive Psychology Interventions for Inpatients with Depression and Comorbid Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, 2021, p. 719223.

Wilding, Craig. "How Culture Impacts Happiness." Verywell Mind, https://www.verywellmind.com/how-culture-impacts-happiness-4153942. Accessed 1 May 2024.