At the 2026 Summit hosted by the International Positive Psychology Association (IPPA), one message became clear:

Artificial intelligence is no longer simply a technology conversation. It is becoming a wellbeing capability.

Across sessions exploring ethics, learning, and human-AI collaboration, a consistent theme emerged: wellbeing science is beginning to influence not only how AI is used, but how it is designed.

One signal of this shift appeared even before the Summit began.

Delegates were invited to complete an AI Learning Orientation program developed by Llewellyn van Zyl, Programme Chair of the IPPA AI and Wellbeing Summit. The intention was straightforward but significant: to strengthen AI literacy across the positive psychology community.

This reflects an important transition. AI literacy is becoming part of psychological literacy. Rather than evaluating technologies after deployment, wellbeing practitioners are increasingly being invited into conversations about how intelligent systems are shaped in the first place.

A research-track workshop titled Aligning Conversational AI with Human Values, led by Malak Sadek (University of Cambridge) and Dorian Peters, illustrated what this shift looks like in practice. The session explored how conversational AI systems can be designed using the PERMA framework—Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment and Health as a values-based scaffold for human-centred technology development (Butler & Kern, 2016; Seligman, 2011).

This represents an important change in orientation.

Wellbeing science is no longer positioned only as a way of measuring outcomes after technologies are deployed but is increasingly being used to guide design decisions upstream.

PERMA-H becomes even more powerful when considered alongside Self-Determination Theory, which identifies autonomy, competence and relatedness as core psychological needs shaping motivation and wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2016). As conversational AI systems influence how people receive feedback, make decisions and navigate work environments, they increasingly shape whether these needs are supported or constrained.

Psychological safety adds another critical lens. Traditionally understood as a feature of team culture, psychological safety is now also becoming a property of digital environments. Interaction design can influence whether systems feel collaborative or surveillant, enabling or controlling (Edmondson, 1999; Newman et al., 2017).

Digital-wellbeing researchers have already begun translating these insights into practical design principles for intelligent systems (Calvo et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2018), while ethical-AI scholarship emphasises the importance of aligning technologies with human values and societal wellbeing (Floridi et al., 2018).

Together, these developments signal that the future of wellbeing will be technology-informed and values-guided.

For practitioners working at the intersection of leadership, culture and wellbeing strategy, this matters. Increasingly, organisational wellbeing will be shaped not only by policies and programs, but by the intelligent systems structuring everyday work experience.

Understanding those systems is becoming part of wellbeing practice itself.

References

Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1–48.

Calvo, R. A., Peters, D., & Ryan, R. M. (2020). Supporting human autonomy in AI systems: A framework for ethical design. AI & Society, 35, 997–1007.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Floridi, L., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707.

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.

Peters, D., Calvo, R. A., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 797.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.

Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229.

How many positive experiences are required to overcome a negative experience?

I recently received feedback on an assignment. Out of all the encouraging comments from the marker, there was one critical comment, and it stayed with me for days.

It crowded out everything else. I consider myself an optimist, so the experience puzzled me. Why did one negative comment outweigh so many positive ones?

Positive psychology has a well-established explanation for this.

Why negative experiences feel stronger than positive ones

Negative emotions evolved to support immediate survival. They narrow attention and prepare the body for rapid action; fight, flight, or freeze. Positive emotions, by contrast, serve a different function.

Barbara Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions explains that positive emotions expand our thinking and behaviour over time, helping us develop psychological, social, and cognitive resources that support long-term wellbeing (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001).

Rather than helping us escape danger, positive emotions help us grow our capacity.

This is why they matter.

Is there really a “3-to-1 ratio”?

Early positive psychology research suggested that approximately three positive emotional experiences are needed to offset one negative experience in everyday functioning (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005).

While the precise mathematics of this ratio hasbeen debated, the broader insight remains influential:

·      wellbeing depends on experiencing more positive emotions than negative ones over time.

In practice, this doesn’t mean ignoring difficulty. It means ensuring that positive experiences are intentionally noticed, repeated, and integrated.

The remembering self shapes the story we live by

Another reason negative feedback can feel so powerful comes from how memory works.

Kahneman describes the difference between the experiencing self (the part of us living in the present moment) and the remembering self (the part that tells the story of what happened) (Kahneman, 2011).

The remembering self plays a major role in how we interpret events and make future decisions. If it fixates on criticism, it can quietly reshape how we see ourselves, even when most evidence is positive (Kahneman, 2011).

Learning how attention and memory interact with emotion helps explain why one comment can overshadow many strengths.

Positive emotion literally changes the brain

Neuroscience research shows that experience reshapes neural pathways through plasticity. When one system changes, connected systems change too (Merzenich, 2013).

Positive emotional experiences are not just “nice to have.” They help create new cognitive pathways that support flexibility, creativity, and resilience (Fredrickson, 2001).

Similarly, repeated emotional experiences strengthen neural associations over time. The brain continually links experience to either threat-based or reward-based processing systems (Doidge, 2007).

What we notice repeatedly becomes what the brain expects.

Positive emotions restore balance

Positive emotions can help undo the physiological effects of stress and support recovery after difficult experiences (Fredrickson et al., 2000).

This matters because many of us:

• pay close attention to our mistakes

• minimise our strengths

• and underestimate our progress

Simply understanding this pattern can shift how we interpret everyday feedback.

When we deliberately notice positive experiences, we support the mind and body to return to equilibrium, and strengthen the resources that help us respond effectively next time.

Positive emotion is not avoidance. It is regulation.

The idea that positive experiences accumulate psychological resources over time connects with research on explanatory style and optimism. In the companion article, I explore how optimism develops, whether it is inherited, and why strengthening optimism is not the same as “toxic positivity.”

#WellbeingScience #Flourishing #ToxicPositivity

References (APA 7)

Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. Penguin Books.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678

Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010796329158

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Merzenich, M. M. (2013). Soft-wired: How the new science of brain plasticity can change your life. Parnassus Publishing.

Most people are optimistic about things that have gone well for them in the past, or about areas of life where they feel capable and supported.

Optimism and pessimism are patterns of expectation that vary across situations and experiences (Carver & Scheier, 2014; Peterson, 2000).

Seligman, a co-founder of positive psychology, argued that classifying people as “optimists” and “pessimists” is simplistic. What matters more is how people explain events to themselves when challenges occur, or explanatory style (Seligman, 1998).

What happens when someone always expects the worst?

Most people know someone who assumes that small problems will become disasters. Sometimes it is ourselves.

Is optimism genetic?

Research suggests optimism is partly influenced by genetics but not determined by them.

Twin studies indicate approx. 25% of variation in optimism may be heritable, with the remainder shaped by environmental influences, social relationships, and learned patterns of interpretation (Plomin et al., 2016; Seligman, 1998).

Optimism is developed through:

• early experiences

• social support

• cultural expectations

• coping habits

• mastery

Optimism can change across the lifespan.

What separates optimism from pessimism?

Key differences between optimism and pessimism lies in how people interpret adversity (Seligman, 1998).

Optimistic explanatory styles interpret setbacks as:

• temporary

• specific

• changeable

Pessimistic explanatory styles are more likely to interpret the events as:

• lasting

• widespread

• and outside personal influence

These interpretations influence persistence, recovery, health outcomes, and motivation (Carver et al., 2010). Explanatory style is learnable. Optimism can be strengthened.

So why look on the bright side?

Optimism influences whether people continue trying when something is difficult, whether they seek support, and whether they interpret setbacks as signals to stop or signals to adapt (Carver et al., 2010).

Research across organisational and education settings shows that strengthening optimism and social connection improves engagement, learning outcomes, and productivity (Achor, 2010).

It is that interpretation that influences action.

Is focusing on optimism the same as toxic positivity?

Toxic positivity refers to pressure, internal or external, to maintain positive emotions while dismissing or minimising genuine distress or difficulty.

Examples include statements like:

• “Just stay positive”

• “Everything happens for a reason”

• “Others have it worse”

These responses can reduce psychological safety and discourage people from expressing what they are actually experiencing (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010).

Evidence-based wellbeing science recognises that:

• negative emotions are adaptive

• distress carries information

• resilience includes emotional flexibility

The ability to respond appropriately across emotional contexts is a stronger predictor of wellbeing than constant positivity (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010).

Can optimism be strengthened?

Research shows optimism can be developed through small, repeatable habits that influence how people interpret experience over time (Seligman, 1998):

• strengthening social connection

• noticing progress

• practising gratitude

• reframing setbacks as temporary

• supporting physical wellbeing through sleep and movement

These habits do not eliminate adversity. They strengthen the capacity to respond to it.

In the next article, I explore why a single critical comment can outweigh many positive ones, and what wellbeing science suggests about how positive experiences gradually rebuild psychological resources over time.

References

Achor, S. (2010). The happiness advantage: The seven principles of positive psychology that fuel success and performance at work. Crown Business.

Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (2002). When predictions fail: The dilemma of unrealistic optimism. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 334–347). Cambridge University Press.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2014). Dispositional optimism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(6), 293–299.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 879–889.

Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865–878.

Nes, L. S., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). Dispositional optimism and coping: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 235–251.

Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44–55.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.

Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3–23.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. Pocket Books.

One of the most intriguing recent episodes of Australian Story explored a surprising question emerging from microbiome research: could faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) play a role in treating depression?

Curious about the science behind this developing field, also managing long-term IBS, I attended Healthy Microbiome, Happy Brain? at the World Science Festival Brisbane, where Julia Baird spoke with Professor Parker and other researchers on a deceptively simple question:

What role does the microbiome play in how we think, feel and behave?

Psychiatrist Parker has documented cases in which FMT was used with patients experiencing mood disorders. The treatment transfers gut bacteria from a healthy donor to a recipient and is being investigated because the gut-brain axis allows gut microbes to influence inflammation, immune signalling and neurotransmitter systems associated with depression (Kelly et al., 2016).

While still emerging, this research reflects a broader shift underway in wellbeing science: increasing recognition that mental health cannot be understood independently from the body (Cryan & Dinan, 2012).

1. The gut–brain connection is real but still emerging

Researchers are increasingly identifying links between gut microbes and neurological and psychiatric conditions, including anxiety and depression.

These findings support a growing body of evidence describing the microbiota-gut-brain axis as a bidirectional communication system linking intestinal microbiota with emotional and cognitive processes (Cryan & Dinan, 2012; Kelly et al., 2016).

This does not yet mean microbiome interventions are ready for routine mental-health treatment, but it does signal a shift toward whole-system models of wellbeing.

2. Compelling cases are not the same as clinical evidence

Remarkable individual patient outcomes understandably capture public attention.

However, individual case reports are not sufficient evidence for widespread clinical adoption. Controlled trials remain essential before treatments can move into standard practice. As Parker (2023) and colleagues emphasise in ongoing microbiome-related psychiatric research, emerging interventions must be evaluated carefully before integration into routine care pathways.

Scientific progress depends not only on discovery, but on careful testing and replication.

3. Discovery is only the beginning ; translation is the real challenge

Even when promising evidence emerges, translating research into everyday healthcare practice takes time. On average, it takes approximately 17 years for research findings to become embedded in routine clinical practice (Morris et al., 2011).

Implementation science examines how evidence-based innovations are translated into sustained real-world use across complex service environments (Nilsen, 2015).

The microbiome story is a reminder that innovation succeeds when systems are prepared to support it.

What this means for wellbeing science

Many organisations invest in wellbeing initiatives but struggle to translate evidence into sustained organisational change. The same principles that support healthcare innovation apply to workplace wellbeing: diagnose the system, design the strategy, and support implementation.

Frameworks such as PERMA-H recognise that health forms part of the biological infrastructure supporting flourishing, alongside engagement, meaning, relationships and accomplishment (Seligman, 2011).

Microbiome research, therefore reinforces an important insight: flourishing is shaped by interconnected biological, psychological and environmental systems rather than any single intervention alone. This article forms part of a series exploring emerging science shaping how we understand flourishing; more to come.

Julia Baird #WellbeingScience #Flourishing #ImplementationScience #EvidenceBasedPractice #WorldScienceFestival

References

Cryan, J. F., & Dinan, T. G. (2012). Mind-altering microorganisms: The impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(10), 701–712.

Kelly, J. R., Borre, Y., O’Brien, C., Patterson, E., El Aidy, S., Deane, J., Kennedy, P. J., Beers, S., Scott, K., Moloney, G., Hoban, A. E., Scott, L., Fitzgerald, P., Ross, P., Stanton, C., Clarke, G., Cryan, J. F., & Dinan, T. G. (2016). Transferring the blues: Depression-associated gut microbiota induces neurobehavioural changes in the rat. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 82, 109–118.

Morris, Z. S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question: Understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 510–520.

Nilsen, P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(1), 53.

Parker, G. (2023). The potential role of the gut microbiome in mood disorders. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 57(6), 749–751.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.