![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
We tested the relationship between flourishing and positivity ratio while accounting for different measures of affect and rating scale formats. We further examined age-related differences in positivity ratio. Studies 1 and 2 showed that positivity ratio is affected by the measure used, but not by the rating scale format. Study 3 further showed that positivity ratio is higher among older adults. The above pattern of methodological variations was replicated in Study 4 with daily ratings of emotions and in Study 5 where emotions were rated on an extended scale. Study 5 also replicated the aforementioned age effect. Together these studies suggest that positivity ratio is moderated by methodological variants and individual differences, such as chronological age. Future studies should account for these possible moderation effects when exploring the positivity ratio and its relationship to flourishing.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. We also performed all analyses without including measures with internal reliability below .60 (personal growth, social coherence, and social actualization) in the mental health index. Results remained the same in terms of significant effects. Kruskal–Wallis analyses of variance found that mental health groups differed in positivity ratio (p < .0001) for the different measures and scales.
2. We also performed all analyses without including measures with internal reliability below .60 (social acceptance) in the mental health index. Results remained the same in terms of significant effects. Kruskal–Wallis analyses of variance found that mental health groups differed in positivity ratio for both those who used 5-point scale (p < .01) and those who used 8-point scale (p < .0001).
3. In supplementary univariate analysis of covariance, we divided the older adults into two groups: those who are up to the age of 79 (n = 211) and those 80 and above (n = 100). There were main effects for mental health and for age (p < .0001). Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that both older adults up to the age of 79 (M = 2.14, SD = .75) and those 80 and above (M = 2.06, SD = .69) had a higher positivity ratio than younger adults (M = 1.64, SD = .65).
4. In supplementary 3 × 3 mixed analysis of covariance, we divided the older adults into two groups: those who are up to the age of 79 (n = 68) and those 80 and above (n = 24). There were main effects for measure (p = .001), mental health (p < .0001), but not for age (p = .447). All other effects were not significant.
5. In a supplementary 3 × 3 mixed analysis of covariance, we divided the older adults into two groups: those who are up to the age of 79 (n = 73) and those 80 and above (n = 44). There were main effects for measure (p = .047) mental health (p = .020) and for age (p = .044). Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that those 80 and above (M = 2.95, SD = 1.79) had a higher positivity ratio than younger adults (M = 1.84, SD = 1.50). Older adults up to the age of 79 (M = 2.69, SD = 1.96) has a marginally significant higher positivity ratio than younger adults. The Measure × Mental health group interaction remained significant, but other effects were not significant.