Critical positivity ratio

Last updated

The critical positivity ratio (also known as the "Losada ratio" or the "Losada line"[ not verified in body ]) is a largely discredited concept in positive psychology positing an exact ratio of positive to negative emotions which distinguishes "flourishing" people from "languishing" people.[ citation needed ] The ratio was proposed by psychologists Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada, who believed that they had identified an experimental measure of affect whose model-derived positive-to-negative ratio of 2.9013 defined a critical separation between flourishing and languishing individuals, as reported in their 2005 paper in American Psychologist . [1] [ non-primary source needed ] This concept of a critical positivity ratio was widely embraced by academic psychologists and the lay public; Fredrickson and Losada's paper had been cited more than 320 times by January 2014, [2] [3] [4] and Fredrickson wrote a popular book expounding the concept of "the 3-to-1 ratio that will change your life". [5] In it she wrote, "just as zero degrees Celsius is a special number in thermodynamics, the 3-to-1 positivity ratio may well be a magic number in human psychology." [3] That sentence may be confusing zero degrees Celsius with zero degrees Kelvin. The latter is used to define a system with zero Entropy according to the Third law of thermodynamics.

Contents

The first consequential re-evaluation of the mathematical modeling behind the critical positivity ratio was published in 2008 by a group of Finnish researchers from the Systems Analysis Laboratory at Aalto University (Jukka Luoma, Raimo Hämäläinen, and Esa Saarinen). [6] The authors noted that "only very limited explanations are given about the modeling process and the meaning and interpretation of its parameters... [so that] the reasoning behind the model equations remains unclear to the reader"; moreover, they noted that "the model also produces strange and previously unreported behavior under certain conditions... [so that] the predictive validity of the model also becomes problematic." [6] Losada's 1999 modeling article was also critiqued by Andrés Navas in a French language publication, a note in the CNRS publication, Images des Mathématiques. [7] [8] Neither of these articles received broad attention at the times of their publication.[ citation needed ]

Later, but of critical importance, the Fredrickson and Losada work on modeling the positivity ratio aroused the skepticism of Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology, who questioned whether such work could reliably make such broad claims, and perceived that the paper's mathematical claims underlying the critical positivity ratio were suspect. [9] Brown contacted and ultimately collaborated with physics and maths professor Alan Sokal and psychology professor Harris Friedman on a re-analysis of the paper's data [9] (hereafter the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal [10] ). They argued that Losada's earlier work on positive psychology and Fredrickson and Losada's 2005 critical positivity ratio paper contained "numerous fundamental conceptual and mathematical errors", [10] errors of a magnitude that completely invalidated their claims.[ citation needed ]

Fredrickson wrote a response in which she conceded that the mathematical aspects of the critical positivity ratio were "questionable" and that she had "neither the expertise nor the insight" to defend them, but she maintained that the empirical evidence for the existence of a critical positivity ratio was solid. [11] Brown, Sokal, and Friedman, the rebuttal authors, published their response to Fredrickson's "Update" the next year, maintaining that there was no evidence for a critical positivity ratio. [8] Losada declined to respond to the criticism (indicating to the Chronicle of Higher Education that he was too busy running his consulting business). [9] [ verification needed ] Hämäläinen and colleagues responded later, passing over the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal claim of failed criteria for use of differential equations in modeling, instead arguing that there were no fundamental errors in the mathematics itself, only problems related to the model's justification and interpretation. [12] [ non-primary source needed ]

A formal retraction for the mathematical modeling elements of the Losada and Fredrickson (2005) paper was issued by the journal, American Psychologist, concluding that both the specific critical positivity ratio of 2.9013 and its upper limit were invalid. [13] The fact that the problems with the paper went unnoticed for years despite the widespread adulatory publicity surrounding the critical positivity ratio concept contributed to a perception of social psychology as a field lacking scientific soundness and rigorous critical thinking. [14] [9] [15] Sokal later stated, "The main claim made by Fredrickson and Losada is so implausible on its face that some red flags ought to have been raised", [9] as would only happen broadly in graduate student Brown's initiating the collaboration that resulted in the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal. [9]

Background

Building on research by Barbara Fredrickson suggesting that individuals with a higher ratio of positive to negative emotions tend to have more successful life outcomes, [16] and on studies by Marcial Losada applying differential equations from fluid dynamics to human emotions,[ citation needed ] Fredrickson and Losada proposed as informative a ratio of positive to negative affect derived from nonlinear dynamics modelling (based on Lorenz systems), which appeared in 2005 in a paper in American Psychologist . [1] The derived combination of expressions and default parameters led them to conclude that a critical ratio of positive to negative affect of exactly 2.9013 separated flourishing from languishing individuals, and to argue that the ideal positivity/negativity ratio lies between 2.9013 and an upper limit ratio of 11.6346. Hence, they claimed that their model predicted cut-off points for the minimum and maximum positivity ratios within which one should observe qualitative changes in an individual's level of flourishing, specifically, that those within this range of ratios would "flourish", and those outside would "languish". [1] [ non-primary source needed ] As of January 2014, the 2005 Fredrickson and Losada's paper had been cited more than 320 times in the psychology literature. [2] [3] [4] [ better source needed ]

Criticism

Initially ignored questioning

The first critical evaluation of the mathematical modeling behind the critical positivity ratio was published by a group of Finnish researchers—Luoma, Hämäläinen, and Saarinen of the Systems Analysis Laboratory at Aalto University—in 2008. [6] The authors noted that "[o]nly very limited explanations are given about the modeling process and the meaning and interpretation of its parameters... [so that] the reasoning behind the model equations remains unclear to the reader"; moreover, they noted that "the model also produces strange and previously unreported behavior under certain conditions... [so that] the predictive validity of the model also becomes problematic." [6] Not widely impactful at the time,[ citation needed ] Losada's earlier modeling article was also critiqued by Andrés Navas in a French language publication, a note in the CNRS publication, "Images des Mathématiques", [7] which also failed to attract a wide readership.[ citation needed ] In their followup to Fredrickson's immediate response to the rebuttal, Brown, Sokal, and Friedman note as a footnote to their submission:

After the publication of Brown et al. (2013), Andrés Navas kindly drew our attention to his article (Navas, 2011) in which a very similar (though briefer) critique of Losada (1999) was made. [This footnote was unfortunately omitted from the published version of this article, due to space limitations.] [8]

The Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal

The Fredrickson and Losada work on modeling the positivity ratio aroused the skepticism of Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology, who questioned whether such work could reliably make such broad claims, and perceived that the paper's mathematical claims were suspect. [9] Brown contacted and ultimately collaborated with physics and maths professor Alan Sokal and psychology professor Friedman on a re-analysis of the paper's data. [9] The result was a strong critique of the critical positivity ratio in its entirety by Brown, Sokal, and Friedman, that appeared in a 2013 article in American Psychologist , here referred to as the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal. [10] These authors argued that Losada's conclusions in previous papers using modelling from fluid dynamics, and those in his paper co-authored with Fredrickson, were not only based on poorly reported experiments, but also that it was difficult to draw conclusions from Losada's previous cited studies because critical details were omitted, "interpretations of results [were] made with little or no justification", and that elementary errors were made in the application of differential equations. [10]

Among the severe flaws claimed by Brown et al. in the positivity-ratio theory and its presentation were that: [10]

With regard to these, and especially the last, the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal argues that it is likely that Fredrickson and Losada did not fully grasp the implications of applying nonlinear dynamics to their data. [10] Brown, Sokal, and Friedman state that one can:

only marvel at the astonishing coincidence that human emotions should turn out to be governed by exactly the same set of equations that were derived in a celebrated article several decades ago as a deliberately simplified model of convection in fluids, and whose solutions happen to have visually appealing properties. An alternative explanation – and, frankly, the one that appears most plausible to us – is that the entire process of "derivation" of the Lorenz equations has been contrived to demonstrate an imagined fit between some rather limited empirical data and the scientifically impressive world of nonlinear dynamics.

They "urge future researchers to exercise caution in the use of advanced mathematical tools, such as nonlinear dynamics". [10]

Responses to the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal

Fredrickson and Am. Psychol. retraction

Fredrickson responded to the critique by agreeing that Losada's mathematical modelling was "questionable" and did not show that there are precise values of the ratio, but also arguing that the evidence for the benefits of a high positivity/negativity ratio is solid. Fredrickson noted that Losada declined to respond to the criticism. [11] The American Psychologist proceeded to formally retract as invalid the mathematical modeling elements of Fredrickson and Losada's paper, including the specific critical positivity ratios of 2.9013 and its upper limit. [13]

Other respondents

In a follow-up to the 2013 papers—the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal, and the Fredrickson response—American Psychologist published further scholarly responses, mostly supportive, but some critical of at least some aspects of the rebuttal.[ citation needed ] The series of responses culminated in a further response to these from Brown, Sokal, and Friedman. [8] C.A. Nickerson, an independent scholar formerly at the University of Colorado, Boulder,[ citation needed ] concurred with the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal conclusion of the lack of empirical evidence for a critical positivity ratio, and noted the necessity of distinguishing between within-person-across-time versus within-time-across-persons theories. [17] [ verification needed ] Emeritus professor Raimo Hämäläinen and colleagues responded, passing over the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal claims of failed criteria for use of differential equations in modeling, instead arguing that there were no fundamental errors in the mathematics itself, only problems related to the model's justification and interpretation. [12]

Follow-up from Brown, Sokal, and Friedman

The original rebuttal authors were openly critical about Fredrickson's partial retraction, and American Psychologist published their response to it in 2014, where they emphatically argued that there was no evidence whatsoever, as of that date, for the existence of a critical positivity ratio (i.e., a tipping-point for positivity). [8] In 2014, the rebuttal authors also responded to comments from others on their 2013 work,

The original rebuttal authors conclude this salvo by lamenting that the "unbridled romanticism" of which humanist psychology has been accused has not been replaced with a rigorous evidence-based psychology—as Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi promised in their founding manifesto of positive psychology—rather, the widespread acceptance of the critical positivity ratio shows that positive psychology has betrayed this promise, stating that "the sin is now romantic scientism rather than pure romanticism is not, in our view, a great advance." [18]

J. Humanist. Psychol. special issue, and other follow-up

As of January 2014, as Andrew Anthony notes from his preparation for his article in The Observer from that period, Fredrickson continued to maintain "on empirical grounds" that "tipping points [in relation to positive emotions and flourishing] are highly probable", as communicated to him via email. [3]

In 2018, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology published a special issue focused on the aftermath to the rebuttal of the original Fredrickson and Losada article, where Harris L. Friedman and Nicholas J. L. Brown served as monitoring editors. [19]

As of this date,[ when? ] the 2005 report of Fredrickson and Losada has been described as discredited.[ citation needed ]

The concept of a critical positivity ratio advanced by Fredrickson and Losada in 2005 was embraced by the lay public.[ clarification needed ] [14] [ verification needed ] Prior to the appearance of the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal and the ensuing retraction, Fredrickson had written a popular book, Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3-to-1 Positivity Ratio that Will Change Your life. [5] Andrew Anthony, writing for The Guardian in January 2014, noted that in it, Fredrickson had written, "Just as zero degrees Celsius is a special number in thermodynamics, the 3-to-1 positivity ratio may well be a magic number in human psychology." [3] Anthony also noted that following the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal, Fredrickson has "removed the critical chapter that outlines Losada's input from further editions of Positivity", and that she has largely avoided engaging the popular press. [3]

Reporting from a variety of sources, including The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Scientist , the fact that the problems with the critical positivity ratio paper and concept went unnoticed for years (despite widespread adulatory publicity) contributed to a public perception of social psychology being a field that lacks scientific soundness and rigorous critical thinking. [14] [9] [15] Sokal would state that the paper's "main claim... is so implausible on its face that some red flags ought to have been raised", [9] as would only happen broadly with graduate student Brown's initiating the collaboration that resulted in the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal. [3] [9]

Related Research Articles

Positive psychology studies the conditions that contribute to the optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions. It studies "positive subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions... it aims to improve quality of life."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alan Sokal</span> American physicist and mathematician (born 1955)

Alan David Sokal is an American professor of mathematics at University College London and professor emeritus of physics at New York University. He works in statistical mechanics and combinatorics. He is a critic of postmodernism, and caused the Sokal affair in 1996 when his deliberately nonsensical paper was published by Duke University Press's Social Text. He also co-authored a paper criticizing the critical positivity ratio concept in positive psychology.

Clinical psychology is an integration of human science, behavioral science, theory, and clinical knowledge for the purpose of understanding, preventing, and relieving psychologically-based distress or dysfunction and to promote subjective well-being and personal development. Central to its practice are psychological assessment, clinical formulation, and psychotherapy, although clinical psychologists also engage in research, teaching, consultation, forensic testimony, and program development and administration. In many countries, clinical psychology is a regulated mental health profession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Martin Seligman</span> American psychologist and writer (born 1942)

Martin Elias Peter Seligman is an American psychologist, educator, and author of self-help books. Seligman is a strong promoter within the scientific community of his theories of well-being and positive psychology. His theory of learned helplessness is popular among scientific and clinical psychologists. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Seligman as the 31st most cited psychologist of the 20th century.

Robert Bolesław Zajonc was a Polish-born American social psychologist who is known for his decades of work on a wide range of social and cognitive processes. One of his most important contributions to social psychology is the mere-exposure effect. Zajonc also conducted research in the areas of social facilitation, and theories of emotion, such as the affective neuroscience hypothesis. He also made contributions to comparative psychology. He argued that studying the social behavior of humans alongside the behavior of other species, is essential to our understanding of the general laws of social behavior. An example of his viewpoint is his work with cockroaches that demonstrated social facilitation, evidence that this phenomenon is displayed regardless of species. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Zajonc as the 35th most cited psychologist of the 20th century. He died of pancreatic cancer on December 3, 2008 in Palo Alto, California.

Attitudes are associated beliefs and behaviors towards some object. They are not stable, and because of the communication and behavior of other people, are subject to change by social influences, as well as by the individual's motivation to maintain cognitive consistency when cognitive dissonance occurs—when two attitudes or attitude and behavior conflict. Attitudes and attitude objects are functions of affective and cognitive components. It has been suggested that the inter-structural composition of an associative network can be altered by the activation of a single node. Thus, by activating an affective or emotional node, attitude change may be possible, though affective and cognitive components tend to be intertwined.

Mathematical psychology is an approach to psychological research that is based on mathematical modeling of perceptual, thought, cognitive and motor processes, and on the establishment of law-like rules that relate quantifiable stimulus characteristics with quantifiable behavior. The mathematical approach is used with the goal of deriving hypotheses that are more exact and thus yield stricter empirical validations. There are five major research areas in mathematical psychology: learning and memory, perception and psychophysics, choice and decision-making, language and thinking, and measurement and scaling.

The word complexor was coined by Marcial Losada derived from the words "complex order", to refer to chaotic attractors that are strange and thus have fractal structure.

Meta-learning is a branch of metacognition concerned with learning about one's own learning and learning processes.

Quantitative psychology is a field of scientific study that focuses on the mathematical modeling, research design and methodology, and statistical analysis of psychological processes. It includes tests and other devices for measuring cognitive abilities. Quantitative psychologists develop and analyze a wide variety of research methods, including those of psychometrics, a field concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barbara Fredrickson</span> American psychology professor

Barbara Lee Fredrickson is an American professor in the department of psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she is the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Psychology. She is also the Principal Investigator of the Positive Emotions and Psychophysiology Lab (PEPLab) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emotional exhaustion</span> Chronic state of physical and emotional depletion

Emotional exhaustion is symptom of burnout, a chronic state of physical and emotional depletion that results from excessive work or personal demands, or continuous stress. It describes a feeling of being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one's work. It is manifested by both physical fatigue and a sense of feeling psychologically and emotionally "drained".

Marcial Losada (1939–2020) was a Chilean psychologist, consultant, and former director of the Center for Advanced Research (CFAR) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He is known for his work in academia and business focusing on the development of "high performance teams", and having participated in partially retracted collaborative work with Barbara Fredrickson of the University of North Carolina, a retraction for which he has been assigned the culpability.

The broaden-and-build theory in positive psychology suggests that positive emotions broaden one's awareness and encourage novel, exploratory thoughts and actions. Over time, this broadened behavioral repertoire builds useful skills and psychological resources. The theory was developed by Barbara Fredrickson around 1998.

Flourishing, or human flourishing, is the complete goodness of humans in a developmental life-span, that somehow includes positive psychological functioning and positive social functioning, along with other basic goods. The term has gained more usage and interest in recent times, but is rooted in ancient philosophical and theological usages. Aristotle’s term eudaimonia is one source for understanding human flourishing. The Hebrew Scriptures, or the Old Testament, also speak of flourishing, as they compare the just person to a growing tree. Christian Scriptures, or the New Testament, build upon Jewish usage and speak of flourishing as it can exist in heaven. The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas drew from Aristotle as well as the Bible, and utilized the notion of flourishing in his philosophical theology. More recently, the Positive Psychology of Martin Seligman, Corey Keyes, Barbara Fredrickson, and others, have expanded and developed the notion of human flourishing. Empirical studies, such as those of the Harvard Human Flourishing Program, and practical applications, indicate the importance of the concept and the increasingly widespread use of the term in business, economics, and politics. In positive psychology, flourishing is "when people experience positive emotions, positive psychological functioning and positive social functioning, most of the time," living "within an optimal range of human functioning." It is a descriptor and measure of positive mental health and overall life well-being, and includes multiple components and concepts, such as cultivating strengths, subjective well-being, "goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience." In this view, flourishing is the opposite of both pathology and languishing, which are described as living a life that feels hollow and empty.

Positive affectivity (PA) is a human characteristic that describes how much people experience positive affects ; and as a consequence how they interact with others and with their surroundings.

Savoring is the use of thoughts and actions to increase the intensity, duration, and appreciation of positive experiences and emotions. It is a topic commonly studied in the domain of positive psychology. It can also be referred to simply as the up-regulation of positive emotions. Traditional psychology attempts to develop methods of coping and dealing with negative emotions. Positive psychology uses the concept of savoring as a way to maximize the potential benefits that positive experiences and emotions can have on peoples' lives. The opposite of Savoring is known as dampening. Dampening is a method of dealing with positive affect by trying to feel worse, or down-regulate positive emotions.

Elevation is an emotion elicited by witnessing actual or imagined virtuous acts of remarkable moral goodness. It is experienced as a distinct feeling of warmth and expansion that is accompanied by appreciation and affection for the individual whose exceptional conduct is being observed. Elevation motivates those who experience it to open up to, affiliate with, and assist others. Elevation makes an individual feel lifted up and optimistic about humanity.

Well-being is a multifaceted topic studied in psychology, especially positive psychology. Biologically, well-being is highly influenced by endogenous molecules that impact happiness and euphoria in organisms, often referred to as "well-being related markers". Related concepts are eudaimonia, happiness, flourishing, quality of life, contentment, and meaningful life.

Coaching psychology is a field of applied psychology that applies psychological theories and concepts to the practice of coaching. Its aim is to increase performance, self-actualization, achievement and well-being in individuals, teams and organisations by utilising evidence-based methods grounded in scientific research. Coaching psychology is influenced by theories in various psychological fields, such as humanistic psychology, positive psychology, learning theory and social psychology.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Fredrickson BL, Losada MF (2005). "Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing". Am. Psychol. 60 (7): 678–86. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678. PMC   3126111 . PMID   16221001.
  2. 1 2 Bower, Bruce (August 12, 2013). "Ratio for a Good Life Exposed as 'Nonsense'". Sci. News . Retrieved 2013-08-15. 'What's shocking is not just that this piece of pseudomathematical nonsense received 322 scholarly citations and 164,000 web mentions, but that no one criticized it publicly for eight years, not even supposed experts in the field,' Sokal says.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Anthony, Andrew (18 January 2014). "Interview: The British Amateur Who Debunked the Mathematics of Happiness". The Guardian . Retrieved February 10, 2022. Fredrickson subsequently removed the critical chapter that outlines Losada's input from further editions of Positivity. She has avoided speaking to... the press but in an email ... maintained that "on empirical grounds, yes, tipping points are highly probable" in relation to positive emotions and flourishing.
  4. 1 2 Will Wilkinson, writing for The Daily Beast , see citation following, states that Fredrickson & Losada (2005) "garnered almost 1,000 citations in less than a decade", which places it at odds with The Guardian, who interviews Brown and suggests it had been cited ca. 350 times by January 2014 (which is at about at the same one decade mark). Likewise, the Science News source, see preceding, quoting Sokal, sets the number just above 320. The Guardian interview with Brown's and the Science News with Sokal's more conservative numbers are the basis for the statement here.
  5. 1 2 Fredrickson, Barbara (2009). Positivity: Top-notch research reveals the 3-to-1 ratio that will change your life. Harmony. ISBN   9780307393746.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Luoma, Jukka; Hämäläinen, Raimo P.; Saarinen, Esa (2008-08-27). "Perspectives on team dynamics: Meta learning and systems intelligence" . Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 25 (6): 757–767. doi:10.1002/sres.905. ISSN   1092-7026 . Retrieved February 11, 2022.
  7. 1 2 Navas, Andrés (2011). "Un cas d'inconscience (?) [A case of unconsciousness (?)]". Images des Mathématiques (in French). Retrieved February 11, 2022. Outre le fait qu'il n'y a pas de justification théorique du modèle proposé, sa pertinence peut être mise en cause par le fait que les enregistrements auxquels on se réfère ne sont pas fournis dans l'article plus risquées. [Besides the fact that there is no theoretical justification for the proposed model, its relevance can be questioned by the fact that the records to which reference is made are not provided in the article.] For the full machine translation, by Google Translate, on February 11, 2022, see this link.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Brown NJ, Sokal AD, Friedman HL (2014). "The Persistence of Wishful Thinking". Am. Psychol. 69 (6): 629–32. arXiv: 1409.4837 . doi:10.1037/a0037050. PMID   25197848. S2CID   12697463.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bartlett, Tom (5 August 2013). "The Magic Ratio That Wasn't". Chron. High. Educ. Retrieved February 11, 2022.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Brown NJ, Sokal AD, Friedman HL (2013). "The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: the critical positivity ratio". Am. Psychol. 68 (9): 801–13. arXiv: 1307.7006 . doi:10.1037/a0032850. PMID   23855896. S2CID   644769.
  11. 1 2 Fredrickson BL (2013). "Updated thinking on positivity ratios". Am. Psychol. 68 (9): 814–22. doi:10.1037/a0033584. PMID   23855895. S2CID   29283230.
  12. 1 2 Hämäläinen, Raimo P.; Luoma, Jukka; Saarinen, Esa (2014). "Mathematical modeling is more than fitting equations" . Am. Psychol. 69 (6): 633–634. doi:10.1037/a0037048. ISSN   1935-990X. PMID   25197850 . Retrieved February 10, 2022.
  13. 1 2 Fredrickson, Barbara L.; Losada, Marcial F. (2013). "Correction to Fredrickson and Losada (2005)" . Am. Psychol. 68 (9): 822. doi:10.1037/a0034435 . Retrieved February 10, 2022.
  14. 1 2 3 Wilkinson, Will (16 August 2013). "Barbara Fredrickson's Bestselling 'Positivity' Is Trashed by a New Study". Daily Beast .
  15. 1 2 Cossins, Dan (August 7, 2013). "'Positivity Ratio' Debunked" . The Scientist . Retrieved February 11, 2022.
  16. ↑ E.g., see Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). "The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 359 (1449): 1367–1377. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1512. PMC   1693418 . PMID   15347528.
  17. ↑ Nickerson, C. A. (2014). "No empirical evidence for critical positivity ratios". Am. Psychol. 69 (6): 626–628. doi:10.1037/a0036961. PMID   25197846.
  18. 1 2 3 Brown NJ, Sokal AD, Friedman HL (2014). "Positive psychology and romantic scientism". Am. Psychol. 69 (6): 636–7. arXiv: 1409.5172 . doi:10.1037/a0037390. PMID   25197852. S2CID   207577657.
  19. ↑ Friedman, Harris L.; Brown, Nicholas J. L. (2018). "Implications of Debunking the "Critical Positivity Ratio" for Humanistic Psychology: Introduction to Special Issue". J. Humanist. Psychol. 58 (3): 239–261. doi:10.1177/0022167818762227. PMC   5898419 . PMID   29706664.

Further reading

Scholarly sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.