New York University.
Saybrook University.
Am Psychol. 2014 Sep;69(6):629-32. doi: 10.1037/a0037050.
Comments on the article by Fredrickson and Losada (see record 2005-11834-001). Recently the current authors (Brown, Sokal, & Friedman, 2013) debunked the widely cited claim made by Fredrickson and Losada (2005) that their use of a mathematical model drawn from nonlinear dynamics (namely, the Lorenz equations from fluid dynamics) provided theoretical support for the existence of a pair of critical positivity-ratio values (2.9013 and 11.6346) such that individuals whose ratios fall between these values will "flourish," whereas people whose ratios lie outside this ideal range will "languish." For lack of space in our previous article, we refrained from addressing, except in passing, the question of whether there might be empirical evidence for the existence of one or more critical positivity ratios ("tipping points"). In response to our critique, Fredrickson and Losada (2013) withdrew their nonlinear dynamics model, but Fredrickson (December December 2013) reaffirmed some claims concerning positivity ratios on the basis of empirical studies. We would therefore like to comment briefly on these claims and the alleged supporting evidence.
评论弗雷德里克森和洛萨达（参见记录 2005-11834-001）的文章。最近，作者（布朗、索卡尔和弗里德曼，2013）驳斥了弗雷德里克森和洛萨达（2005）的广泛引用的说法，即他们使用从非线性动力学（即来自流体动力学的洛伦兹方程）得出的数学模型为存在一对关键正性比值（2.9013 和 11.6346）提供了理论支持，使得比值落在这些值之间的个体将“茁壮成长”，而比值落在这个理想范围之外的人将“萎靡不振”。由于我们之前的文章篇幅有限，我们除了顺便提到外，没有解决是否存在一个或多个关键正性比值（“临界点”）的实证证据的问题。针对我们的批评，弗雷德里克森和洛萨达（2013）撤回了他们的非线性动力学模型，但弗雷德里克森（2013 年 12 月）根据实证研究重申了一些关于正性比值的主张。因此，我们想简要评论这些主张和所谓的支持证据。
