Updated Thinking on Positivity Ratios
Updated Thinking on Positivity Ratios
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0033584
复制
发表时间：
2013-12-01
影响因子：
16.4
通讯作者：
Fredrickson, Barbara L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fredrickson, Barbara L.
本文提出了我对Brown，索卡尔和弗里德曼（2013）的文章的回应，该文章批判性地审查了Losada的概念和数学工作（如Losada，1999; Losada & Heaphy，2004; Fredrickson&Losada; 2005），并得出结论，临界点积极率的数学主张是没有根据的。在本文中，我将最近的经验证据结合在一起，以支持计算和寻求提高积极率的持续价值。我还强调了对积极性比率的非线性效应进行建模的必要性，以及更一般地说，情感科学和积极心理学中系统科学方法的价值。即使剔除了洛萨达现在受到质疑的数学模型，充足的证据仍然支持这样的结论，即在一定范围内，更高的积极率可以预测蓬勃发展的心理健康和其他有益的结果。
This article presents my response to the article by Brown, Sokal, and Friedman (2013), which critically examined Losada's conceptual and mathematical work (as presented in Losada, 1999; Losada & Heaphy, 2004; and Fredrickson & Losada; 2005) and concluded that mathematical claims for a critical tipping point positivity ratio are unfounded. In the present article, I draw recent empirical evidence together to support the continued value of computing and seeking to elevate positivity ratios. I also underscore the necessity of modeling nonlinear effects of positivity ratios and, more generally, the value of systems science approaches within affective science and positive psychology. 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.