lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Implications of Debunking the "Critical Positivity Ratio" for Humanistic Psychology: Introduction to Special Issue
University of Florida, USA;University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1579-0730
2018 (English)In: Journal of humanistic psychology, ISSN 0022-1678, E-ISSN 1552-650X, Vol. 58, no 3, p. 239-261Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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 unique tipping point between flourishing and languishing in individuals, marriages, organizations, and other human systems across all cultures and times. Known as the “critical positivity ratio,” this finding was supposedly derived from the famous Lorenz equation in physics by using the mathematics of nonlinear dynamic systems, and was defined precisely as “2.9013.” This exact number was widely touted as a great discovery by many leaders of positive psychology, had tremendous impact in various applied areas of psychology, and, more broadly, and was extensively cited in both the scientific literature and in the global popular media. However, this finding has been demonstrated to be bogus. Since its advent as a relatively new subdiscipline, positive psychology has claimed superiority to its precursor, the subdiscipline of humanistic psychology, in terms of supposedly both using more rigorous science and avoiding popularizing nonsense. The debunking of the critical positivity ratio demonstrates that positive psychology did not live up to these claims, and this has important implications, which are discussed in terms of “romantic scientism” and “voodoo science.” In addition, articles in the special issue on the “Implications of Debunking the ‘Critical Positivity Ratio’ for Humanistic Psychology” are introduced, as they also delve into these concerns.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2018. Vol. 58, no 3, p. 239-261
National Category
Psychology
Research subject
Social Sciences, Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-108203DOI: 10.1177/0022167818762227ISI: 000429874500001PubMedID: 29706664OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-108203DiVA, id: diva2:1614156
Available from: 2021-11-24 Created: 2021-11-24 Last updated: 2021-11-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records

Brown, Nicholas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Brown, Nicholas
In the same journal
Journal of humanistic psychology
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 56 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf