There Is No Empirical Evidence for Critical Positivity Ratios: Comment on Fredrickson (2013)

@article{Nickerson2018ThereIN,
  title={There Is No Empirical Evidence for Critical Positivity Ratios: Comment on Fredrickson (2013)},
  author={Carol A. E. Nickerson},
  journal={Journal of Humanistic Psychology},
  year={2018},
  volume={58},
  pages={284 - 312}
}
  • C. Nickerson
  • Published 1 May 2018
  • Psychology
  • Journal of Humanistic Psychology
Fredrickson and Losada (American Psychologist, 2005, 60, 678-686) theorized that a ratio of positive affect to negative affect (positivity ratio) of 2.9013 acts as a critical minimum for well-being. Recently, Brown, Sokal, and Friedman (American Psychologist, 2013, 68, 801-813) convincingly demonstrated that the mathematical work underlying this critical minimum positivity ratio was both flawed and misapplied. This comment addresses Fredrickson’s (American Psychologist, 2013, 68, 814-822… 
Implications of Debunking the “Critical Positivity Ratio” for Humanistic Psychology: Introduction to Special Issue
An extraordinary claim was made by one of the leading researchers within positive psychology, namely, there is a universal–invariant ratio between positive to negative emotions that serves as a
Scientific Pollyannaism of Authentic Happiness, Learned Optimism, Flow and the Empirically Correct Positivity Ratios
This chapter positions contemporary “positive psychology as an iteration of scientific Pollyannaism,” tracking the development of this movement, including the financial and political support it was
Debating the scientific credibility of industrial and organisational psychology: A rebuttal
Problematisation: The credibility and transparency of industrial and organisational psychological (IOP) research within South Africa was recently challenged by Efendic and Van Zyl (2019). The authors

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 67 REFERENCES
No empirical evidence for critical positivity ratios.
TLDR
It is pointed out many times over many years that the data and the analysis used to test a theory should correspond to that theory and that a test of a within-person theory nearly always requires within- person data and analysis.
The persistence of wishful thinking.
TLDR
In response to a critique, Fredrickson and Losada withdrew their nonlinear dynamics model, but Fredricks on (December December 2013) reaffirmed some claims concerning positivity ratios on the basis of empirical studies and the alleged supporting evidence is reviewed.
Updated thinking on positivity ratios.
TLDR
Even when scrubbed of Losada's now-questioned mathematical modeling, ample evidence continues to support the conclusion that, within bounds, higher positivity ratios are predictive of flourishing mental health and other beneficial outcomes.
An empirical ratio in search of a theory.
TLDR
This comment shows how to account for the phenomenon of the 3:1 ratio using a mathematical model of reflexive awareness that captures the property of the mind to model self and other at increasing levels of awareness.
Theory/Analysis Mismatch: Comment on Fredrickson and Joiner’s (2002) Test of the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions
Fredrickson’s (1998, ‘What good are positive emotions?’, Review of General Psychology 2, pp. 300–319; 2001, ‘The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of
Positive psychology and romantic scientism.
TLDR
It is hoped that the revelation of the problems with the critical positivity ratio ultimately demonstrates the success of science as a self-correcting endeavor, but it would have greatly preferred it if the work had not been necessary in the first place.
The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: the critical positivity ratio.
TLDR
It is concluded that Fredrickson and Losada's claim to have demonstrated the existence of a critical minimum positivity ratio of 2.9013 is entirely unfounded and is urged to exercise caution in the use of advanced mathematical tools, such as nonlinear dynamics, and in particular to verify that the elementary conditions for their valid application have been met.
The place of mathematical models in psychology and the social sciences.
TLDR
Although Brown et al.'s critique of the work of Fredrickson and Losada serves an important role in identifying potential flaws in the theory, it goes too far by using terms such as "completely illusory 'applications' of mathematics" and may inadvertently discourage junior researchers in pursuing the use of mathematical methods in psychology.
Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the prediction of behavior.
TLDR
Different approaches to prediction with single items of behavior are discussed, and it is concluded that single items tend to be too unreliable and too narrow in scope to measure broad dispositions such as traits.
Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing.
TLDR
Findings suggest that a set of general mathematical principles may describe the relations between positive affect and human flourishing.
...
...