Opportunities for Practitioners in the Positive Psychology of Science

When I was an undergraduate majoring in chemistry, a guest professor warned our qualitative organic analysis class that chemistry can often be very frustrating. Experiments fail. Results disappoint. My R&D work over more than thirty years indeed brought me much frustration, but also satisfaction. In my many episodes of reflection I’ve pondered the traits, the attitudes and the behaviors that got me and my more prolific peers over obstacles to bring discoveries and inventions that often matter. I strongly suspected that it was more than intelligence or talent, but particular strengths, as well as grit. In this article, I want to take a broader look at opportunities for application of positive psychology in the physical sciences. Acting on those opportunities will first benefit scientists like me who still have a deep desire to build their abilities to do quality work. The eventual outcomes I suggest will be profound at a critical time in view of the urgent need for progress on the pandemic and climate change.

The Key Questions

Many of us in positive psychology know of Ed Diener at the University of Illinois for his prolific empirical research on well-being at a societal level. Not as many of us may be familiar with Prof. Dean Keith Simonton's work at the University of California, Davis, which largely focused on creative, prodigious individuals with high impact in the arts but mainly the sciences.

In 2007 Ed Diener asked Prof. Simonton, “What question or questions will most advance your field, or psychology in general?”

In response to Prof. Diener, Prof. Simonton wrote the article “Applying the Psychology of Science to the Science of Psychology,” in which I noticed two salient themes: 1) how psychology research would progress by doing more to understand the psychology of science; and 2) the potential impact of such research for scientists. Simonton raised many questions about the psychology of science that on reflection will reveal some vital opportunities in particular for Applied Positive Psychology. Those may be interventions with the average physical scientist in mind, for example. The impact, I believe, will be scientists who generally feel better about their life’s work, which I can’t help but think will lead to more good science writ large.

Not only does society rely on the eminent, prolific researchers on whom Prof. Simonton largely focuses, but all physical scientists who create many of the practical means to make our lives safer, better, healthier and more fulfilling. The sense of urgency builds as we see now with scientists devoted to resolving the pandemic, as well as climate change, while confronting sometimes troublesome, unfounded skepticism about basic scientific principles.

Among the questions Prof. Simonton raises in his article are the basic ones under cognitive psychology, such as, “What are the mental processes that contribute to scientific discovery?” and under social psychology, such as, “Is creative development partly a function of the larger sociocultural milieu?” Though generally important and probably more interesting to the researcher in positive psychology, the only such question to mention here before going on to the more practical ones is: “What is the psychology of science?” I understand it to be a specialty under psychology in part focused on the “behavioral, cognitive and affective” variables in doing good physical and social science, both basic and applied.

Important Traits for Success

At the nexus of cognitive psychology and identification in Simonton’s discussion are the traits that might describe a young person as having predisposition for a fruitful scientific career. I think of the VIA signature strengths I might share with many of my peers. Love of learning, perseverance, and curiosity about the world are among them, though I strived for years to develop humility as well as a sense of perspective. The former three strengths seem somewhat obvious, less so the latter two.

I’ve long defined humility, which is distinct from modesty, as an active commitment to pursuing accurate self-knowledge. A mentor of mine told me years ago he had a hard time “keeping his head above the water” with the furious pace of progress in magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Humility entails having somewhat more than a vague sense of what the scientist does not know. That sense to me is often frustrating but sometimes interesting. The frustration and curiosity can lead me to want to keep learning. In my early professional life I wish I had gotten more counseling that would help me to keep my head above the water.

To face the inevitable setbacks, especially in R&D, a scientist with resilience or grit would likely do well. Those same traits would also help that person deal with boredom. The general public tends to get the impression that STEM work is often exciting. Indeed, it can be exciting; but more often it is boring with its attention to detail and repetition.

Opportunities in Education

Many of us MAPP graduates do work in education. Still, I suspect there is ample, special opportunity in STEM education to incorporate these concepts. As Simonton indicates, psychology has much to learn about the creative process, particularly, I would add, about STEM R&D. As I recall my creative moments, there was curiosity and attention to detail about surprising results, which led to discovery. Much of what I learned later about Broaden and Build applies to discovery, creativity, and invention. The scientist needs to be open to surprise while overcoming any tendency to get frustrated with a phenomenon that may first appear as an annoying distraction or setback, as with a trial adhesive that bonds small slips of paper but only weakly. One expects 3M in its long-held commitment to innovation to encourage its R&D scientists to nevertheless persevere and create products such as Post-it® notes.

Still under education, Simonton poses questions a scientist might ask: “Should I give up hobbies, music, or sports? Should I instead devote even more attention to my work?” I think positive psychology research gave us an obvious answer: No! Avocations for many people enhance their quality of life, as we well know, but they likely enhance creativity for scientists in particular. Sometimes when in frustration I took breaks from full concentration on a science problem, even if just a walk on the lakefront, the solution would then come soon upon my return to work. A subconscious process seemed to take place that, perhaps also with a little meditation, led to a key insight.

Evaluation, Conclusions & Further Work

Finally, Simonton discusses evaluation: evaluation of how the psychology of science may come to benefit psychology as a science. That goes beyond my intentions for this article. I will only mention that I believe positive psychology as a relatively young specialty under psychology overall would benefit especially to consider whether, for example, it needs to conduct more research in the psychology of science. A topic for a future MAPP Magazine article perhaps, or a MAPP Capstone project by a future student.

This article likely covered but a fraction of opportunities for the positive psychology practitioner. I encourage you to read Prof. Simonton’s article. You may then find further work still to be done in organizational psychology for example, specifically with Research & Development and Human Resources directors of technical workplaces, where professional growth of scientists ought to be a top concern. Regardless of what you might do as a result of having read this essay, I hope you will at least help educate the general public about how scientists think and feel about their work, and how the overall quality of life of physical scientists has a wide, strong impact on us all.

Reference

Simonton, D. K. (2009). Applying the psychology of science to the science of psychology: Can psychologists use psychological science to enhance psychology as a science? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 2-4.

About the author

Greg Quinting, PhD (Analytical chemistry U. Wisconsin-Madison,1985) and MAPP (2007) completed research projects ranging from basic physical chemistry, surface science and engineering to linguistic analysis. Retired since 2017, his current research continues in genealogy of his German ancestors, including his mother who earned her PhD in zoology shortly after WWII and his father who patented several automotive safety inventions.