English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The states of mind (SOM) model-related ratios of positive/negative affect to psychological functioning, findings that were later integrated into Lefebvre’s mathematical model of self-awareness. Using a different mathematical model, Fredrickson and Losada proposed a ‘tipping point’ that distinguished ‘languishing’ from ‘flourishing groups,’ but a critique of their work led to a retraction. This cast doubt on positivity ratios and left the concept without mathematical underpinnings. This article highlights critical differences between  tipping points  and  balance points , the latter used by the SOM model and not subject to the same criticisms. An experiment using Fredrickson’s and Losada’s model was re-analyzed comparing their method with the SOM model, revealing a higher concordance of ratios with existing norms using the SOM method. Since positive and negative affect are important mental-health indicators, restoring a valid mathematical model strengthens the scientific status of this phenomenon and provides a robust theory for positive psychology research.

Positive ratios revisited: reports of the theory’s death have been greatly exaggerated