In Never Saw It Coming (The University of Chicago Press, 2006), Karen A. Cerulo, professor of sociology, School of Arts and Sciences, argues that most people can more readily envision a best-case scenario than foresee a disaster lurking in their futures. More than making a statement about the inherent optimism in us all, Cerulo’s research suggests this “positive asymmetry” is a cultural condition that plays a vital role in a society’s inability to confront such life-altering events as September 11, Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, and the current economic meltdown. After the book appeared, Cerulo did nearly 100 interviews in the press and on radio. “The question most people asked is, `If we develop this ability to see the worst-case scenario, won’t that hurt us?’ But it’s really just the opposite,” she says. Cerulo, who received her doctorate from Princeton University in 1985, has been with Rutgers for 20 years.

FOCUS: Is there a difference between hopeless optimism and the positive asymmetry you describe in your book?

Cerulo: I chose the term positive asymmetry to distinguish this phenomenon from human nature. Positive asymmetry is something that’s cultivated by some very clear-cut cultural traditions and practices. The term “hopeless optimism” sounds like an element of human nature.  I’m describing something very different.

FOCUS:  In what areas of daily living does the phenomenon of positive asymmetry play a role, for better or for worse?

Cerulo: It happens in personal areas such as romance or aging.  It happens in larger scales – in economics and international affairs.  Positive asymmetry is a widespread phenomenon. Think about people’s attitudes toward love and romance. Research shows that a large majority of us are sure we will be married to the same person for life, even in the face of our high divorce rates.  In preparing for old age, 75 to 80 percent of people think they’re going to be driving and exercising freely until the day they die, that they will die in their own home and have no financial worries, so they have been very cavalier about getting ready for old age. Few get long-term care insurance, for example. That’s illustrative of the phenomenon. In my own life, I start off the book telling about my own catastrophic illness. Despite the fact that I was getting difficult news, it never really occurred to me there was anything seriously wrong – even though I was out of work for over a year.

I’m hardly unique. In the face of major catastrophes, most people are sure they are going to pull through. I think that’s a mixed blessing. On one hand, where would people be if they couldn’t be optimistic about recovering from an illness? Where would nations be in the face of catastrophe if people couldn’t see a silver lining? Optimism is something you want in a society, and I would never want people to think my book is promoting pessimism. Rather, I’m looking for balance. People can develop the ability to forecast worst-case scenarios and plan for the future in positive ways. That’s what I’m advocating.

FOCUS: Is there something in the American psyche that makes the United States a nation of Pollyannas?

Cerulo: I think it’s true that Americans probably have an exaggerated case of positive asymmetry. It has to do with the roots of the American nation – the frontier mentality and the immigrant mentality that have always been part of the American story. You’re leaving behind something and looking for a better life – that’s optimism in its purest form. It’s great that we’re thinking optimistically, but again, I think if we were more balanced, we would be better prepared for a Katrina or a September 11, or an economic catastrophe. I believe we can learn to do this. There are case studies in my book, examples that teach us ways to recognize positive asymmetry and free us from its negative effects.

FOCUS: What is the impact of positive asymmetry on the American electoral process?

Cerulo: I think we’ve seen a number of candidates bite the dust because of Americans’ preference for optimistic news.  For example, some candidates never made it to the general election (Bruce Babbit comes to mind) or failed to win the general election (remember Walter Mondale), in part, because they told the truth about the need to raise taxes.  In the ’08 primaries, John McCain told people in Michigan that their jobs were not coming back; many analysts contend it cost his campaign dearly. In politics, being negative is one of the most detrimental things you can do. Both McCain and Obama know this, which explains why neither candidate will truly explain which of their programs can realistically be implemented in the current economic climate.