Am Psychol. 2014 Sep;69(6):626-8. doi: 10.1037/a0036961.
Comments on the article by Fredrickson and Losada (see record 2005-11834-001). Fredrickson (2013) herself, in reply to Brown et al. (2013), remarked that "most valuable to the maturation of this work will be longitudinal field studies and experiments that use densely repeated measures of emotions and relevant outcomes" (p. 820). This remark raises the question of why, if Fredrickson understands that a longitudinal (within-person across-time) study is needed to test the theory, this was not acknowledged in the initial article (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), in the book that highlights the research of that article (Fredrickson, 2009, Chapter 7), or in the correction to the original article (Fredrickson & Losada, 2013), the latter of which insisted on the validity of the results of Fredrickson and Losada's (2005) within time across-persons study. Indeed, why wasn't the appropriate study design used in the first place? After all, it has been 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. Doing research the wrong way, while delaying doing it the right way "until later," is not acceptable after so many years of discussions of this issue.
评论弗雷德里克森和洛萨达（见记录 2005-11834-001）的文章。弗雷德里克森（2013 年）本人在回复布朗等人（2013 年）时指出，“对这项工作的成熟最有价值的将是使用情绪和相关结果的密集重复测量进行的纵向实地研究和实验”（第 820 页）。这一言论提出了一个问题，即如果弗雷德里克森明白需要进行纵向（个体内随时间变化）研究来检验该理论，那么为什么在最初的文章（弗雷德里克森和洛萨达，2005 年）、强调该文章研究的书中（弗雷德里克森，2009 年，第 7 章）或在最初文章的更正中（弗雷德里克森和洛萨达，2013 年）都没有承认这一点，后者坚持弗雷德里克森和洛萨达（2005 年）的个体内跨时间研究结果的有效性。事实上，为什么一开始没有使用适当的研究设计？毕竟，多年来多次指出，用于检验理论的数据和分析应该与该理论相对应，而对个体内理论的检验几乎总是需要个体内数据和分析。在讨论这个问题多年之后，以错误的方式进行研究，而推迟以正确的方式进行研究“直到以后”，是不可接受的。
