Implications of Debunking the “Critical Positivity Ratio” for Humanistic Psychology: Introduction to Special Issue

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.

The Humanistic Revolution in Psychology: Its Inaugural Vision

“…The details of this or other innovative strategies could be worked out in due time. Second, there needs to be a continued effort to highlight the value that humanistic psychology places on rigor in research (e.g., Applebaum, 2010, 2012; Beck et al, 1994; Fischer, 1994, 2003; Friedman & Brown, 2018; Giorgi, 1975). In suggesting these strategies, it only seems appropriate to conclude by turning once again to Sutich’s (1961) introductory remarks, still relevant today:A rapidly increasing number of important [humanistic] contributions have neither been published nor are they otherwise readily available.…”

Impact of Organizational Virtuousness on Workplace Spirituality with the Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support

“…Subjection to the five kinds of organizational virtuousness assists employees to perceive their work environment in an efficacious way as a source of vitality and recuperation, thus leading to positive dispositions and meaningful practices at work. Addressing the call for research on organizational virtuousness (Friedman & Brown, 2018), we scrutinized it as an imperative precursor for workplace spirituality. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) shifted the trend from pathological research to positive research in organizational studies.…”

“…These days organizations are showing a growing interest in social responsibility and corporate ethics due to the decline of morals and positivity at the workplace (Magnier-Watanabe, Uchida, Orsini, & Benton, 2020;Cameron, Bright, & Caza, 2004;Lukaszewski, Stone, Barclay, Markel, & Yugo, 2012). Following this trend, researchers and practitioners are diverting their interest towards virtue and inducing virtuousness in organizations' policies (Friedman & Brown, 2018). Organizational virtuousness is linked with the resilience and long-term productivity of organizations because of its core features embedding ethical values, positive influence on individuals, and improving the common good (Cameron et al, 2004;Kooshki & Zeinabadi, 2016).…”

Debating the scientific credibility of industrial and organisational psychology: A rebuttal

“…This rapid adoption of advanced analytics could be seen as an attempt to enhance the level of perceptive sophistication of a given paper or to ensure that the analytical complexity justifies a theoretical contribution (Auyang, 1998;Nickerson, 2018;Pichard, 2015. Either way, it seems as though some may use advanced statistical analytics as a defence against the complexity of human behaviour, or to mystify reviewers or editors (Abramson, 2005;Delgado, Garretson & Delgado, 2019;Friedman & Brown, 2018).…”