Identifying facial expressions in dogs: A replication and extension study.

This study replicated and extended previous research (Bloom & Friedman, 2013) indicating that humans can correctly identify emotional expressions in photographs of dog faces when tested with one breed (i.e., a Malinois). It examined the effect of dog facial morphology on accuracy of emotion identification by using images of a Malinois, as well as two-different breeds (Doberman and Rhodesian Ridgeback) expressing six-discrete emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, surprise). Using a sample of 105-undergraduate students, participants were shown slides presenting four different expressive images of the same breed and asked to identify the image that best depicted one of the six emotions. Analyses indicated that participants were able to correctly identify all emotions across all dog breeds significantly better than chance, replicating the previous study for the Malinois, and extending its findings to additional breeds. Accuracy of emotion identification was predicted to be lower for the Doberman due to its darker coloration, possibly interfering with recognition of subtle emotional cues, but was found to be highest for the Malinois, followed by the Doberman, and then the Rhodesian Ridgeback.

Implications of Debunking the "Critical Positivity Ratio" for Humanistic Psychology: Introduction to Special Issue.

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.

More Questions than Answers: Continued Critical Reanalysis of Fredrickson et al.'s Studies of Genomics and Well-Being.

We critically re-examine Fredrickson et al.'s renewed claims concerning the differential relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic forms of well-being and gene expression, namely that people who experience a preponderance of eudaimonic well-being have gene expression profiles that are associated with more favorable health outcomes. By means of an extensive reanalysis of their data, we identify several discrepancies between what these authors claimed and what their data support; we further show that their different analysis models produce mutually contradictory results. We then show how Fredrickson et al.'s most recent article on this topic not only fails to adequately address our previously published concerns about their earlier related work, but also introduces significant further problems, including inconsistency in their hypotheses. Additionally, we demonstrate that regardless of which statistical model is used to analyze their data, Fredrickson et al.'s method can be highly sensitive to the inclusion (or exclusion) of data from a single subject. We reiterate our previous conclusions, namely that there is no evidence that Fredrickson et al. have established a reliable empirical distinction between their two delineated forms of well-being, nor that eudaimonic well-being provides any overall health benefits over hedonic well-being.

The need for a more nuanced conclusion than life is pretty meaningful.

Comments on the original article "Life is pretty meaningful," by S. J. Heintzelman and L. A. King (see record 2014-03265-001). Heintzelman and King explored meaning in life (MIL), which they acknowledged "remains, in some ways, a construct and experience shrouded in mystery" (p. 561). Unfortunately, they dealt with this complex topic in a very simplistic way. They claimed that "from an existentialist perspective, human life has no inherent meaning" (p. 568), but this is not true for all existentialists. They then implied that their data had somehow refuted this existentialist view, proving it false. In fact, nothing of the sort has been proven, as only a distorted straw existentialist position has been challenged by data of questionable worth for this task, and used to draw the trite conclusion that life is pretty meaningful-and the implication that existentialists must be wrong. This oversimplicity does great injustice not only to the many nuanced existentialist positions but also to the mystery of MIL.

Spirituality as a scientific construct: testing its universality across cultures and languages.

Using data obtained from 4004 participants across eight countries (Canada, India, Japan, Korea, Poland, Slovakia, Uganda, and the U.S.), the factorial reliability, validity and structural/measurement invariance of a 30-item version of Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI-R) was evaluated. The ESI-R measures a five factor model of spirituality developed through the conjoint factor analysis of several extant measures of spiritual constructs. Exploratory factor analyses of pooled data provided evidence that the five ESI-R factors are reliable. Confirmatory analyses comparing four and five factor models revealed that the five dimensional model demonstrates superior goodness-of-fit with all cultural samples and suggest that the ESI-R may be viewed as structurally invariant. Measurement invariance, however, was not supported as manifested in significant differences in item and dimension scores and in significantly poorer fit when factor loadings were constrained to equality across all samples. Exploratory analyses with a second adjective measure of spirituality using American, Indian, and Ugandan samples identified three replicable factors which correlated with ESI-R dimensions in a manner supportive of convergent validity. The paper concludes with a discussion of the meaning of the findings and directions needed for future research.

The persistence of wishful thinking.

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.

Positive psychology and romantic scientism.

Replies to the comments of Nickerson (see record 2014-36500-010), Guastello (see record 2014-36500-011), Musau (see record 2014-36500-013), Hämäläinen et al. (see record 2014-36500-014), and Lefebvre and Schwartz (see record 2014-36500-015) on the authors article (see record 2013-24609-001). Fredrickson and Losada's (2005) article was the subject of over 350 scholarly citations before our critique (Brown et al., 2013) appeared, and its principal "conclusions" have been featured in many lectures and public presentations by senior members of the positive psychology research community, although its deficiencies ought to have been visible to anyone with a modest grasp of mathematics and a little curiosity. Unfortunately- because human behavior is, after all, complex and difficult to understand-we have no way of knowing whether the fact that it took so long for these deficiencies to be recognized was due to an unwarranted degree of optimism about the reliability of the peer-review process, a reluctance to make waves in the face of powerful interests, a general lack of critical thinking within positive psychology, or some other factor. We hope that our revelation of the problems with the critical positivity ratio ultimately demonstrates the success of science as a self-correcting endeavor; however, we would have greatly preferred it if our work had not been necessary in the first place.

A critical reanalysis of the relationship between genomics and well-being.

Fredrickson et al. [Fredrickson BL, et al. (2013) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(33):13684-13689] claimed to have observed significant differences in gene expression related to hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being. Having closely examined both their claims and their data, we draw substantially different conclusions. After identifying some important conceptual and methodological flaws in their argument, we report the results of a series of reanalyses of their dataset. We first applied a variety of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques to their self-reported well-being data. A number of plausible factor solutions emerged, but none of these corresponded to Fredrickson et al.'s claimed hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions. We next examined the regression analyses that purportedly yielded distinct differential profiles of gene expression associated with the two well-being dimensions. Using the best-fitting two-factor solution that we identified, we obtained effects almost twice as large as those found by Fredrickson et al. using their questionable hedonic and eudaimonic factors. Next, we conducted regression analyses for all possible two-factor solutions of the psychometric data; we found that 69.2% of these gave statistically significant results for both factors, whereas only 0.25% would be expected to do so if the regression process was really able to identify independent differential gene expression effects. Finally, we replaced Fredrickson et al.'s psychometric data with random numbers and continued to find very large numbers of apparently statistically significant effects. We conclude that Fredrickson et al.'s widely publicized claims about the effects of different dimensions of well-being on health-related gene expression are merely artifacts of dubious analyses and erroneous methodology.

The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: the critical positivity ratio.

We examine critically the claims made by Fredrickson and Losada (2005) concerning the construct known as the "positivity ratio." We find no theoretical or empirical justification for the use of differential equations drawn from fluid dynamics, a subfield of physics, to describe changes in human emotions over time; furthermore, we demonstrate that the purported application of these equations contains numerous fundamental conceptual and mathematical errors. The lack of relevance of these equations and their incorrect application lead us to conclude that Fredrickson and Losada's claim to have demonstrated the existence of a critical minimum positivity ratio of 2.9013 is entirely unfounded. More generally, we urge future researchers to exercise caution in the use of advanced mathematical tools, such as nonlinear dynamics, and in particular to verify that the elementary conditions for their valid application have been met.

Measures of spiritual and transpersonal constructs for use in yoga research.

This article presents information on standardized paper-and-pencil measures of spiritual and transpersonal constructs that hold promise for use in yoga research. Nine instruments are discussed at length including the Assessment Schedule for Altered States of Consciousness, Ego Grasping Orientation, Expressions of Spirituality Inventory, Hindu Religious Coping Scale, Measures of Hindu Pathways, Self-Expansiveness Level Form, Spiritual Orientation Inventory, Spiritual Transcendence Scale, and the Vedic Personality Inventory. As well, a listing of an additional 14 measures, along with primary citations, is provided. In conclusion, the authors proffer recommendations for the use of psychometric tests and provide a general proposal for programmatic research.