ArticleJournal of humanistic psychology2018
Implications of Debunking the "Critical Positivity Ratio" for Humanistic Psychology: Introduction to Special Issue.
Article in Journal of humanistic psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Positive psychology 4.0: a science of consequence for a world that can no longer wait.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Addressing the criticisms and critiques of positive psychology: recommendations for improving the science and practice of the field.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Science, method and critical thinking.Microbial biotechnology · 2023Article
- Engaging in the good with technology: a framework for examining positive technology use.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Grand Challenges for Positive Psychology: Future Perspectives and Opportunities.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- The Role of Adolescents' Personal and Social Resources in Achieving Desired Emotional and Behavioral Outcomes during an Anxiety-Provoking Pandemic Outbreak.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- PERMA+4: A Framework for Work-Related Wellbeing, Performance and Positive Organizational Psychology 2.0.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Editorial: Positive Organizational Interventions: Contemporary Theories, Approaches and Applications.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.