{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029482841952634124, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025616239729337846, 'mean_word_length': 5.197604790419161, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Expression of Concern

The Editorial Board and Publisher of the American Behavioral Scientist hereby issue an Expression of Concern regarding the nonlinear dynamic model and subsequent model-based predictions in the article entitled “The Role of Positivity and Connectivity in the Performance of Business Teams: A Nonlinear Dynamic Model” published in the February 2004 issue of the American Behavioral Scientist. The non-linear dynamic model employed was first introduced in Losada (1999), expanded upon here and in Fredrickson & Losada (2005). This set of three papers was critically examined in a 2013 American Psychologist article (Brown, Sokal, & Freidman, 2013). Fredrickson and Losada (2005) was subsequently corrected by Fredrickson (with Losada’s assent). Specifically, the non-linear dynamic modeling element of the 2005 article was withdrawn as invalid and, along with it, the model-based predictions about the particular positivity ratios of 2.9 and 11.6. Other elements of the 2005 paper were upheld as valid, including the empirical evidence that linked higher positivity ratios to flourishing mental health (Fredrickson, 2013). As with Fredrickson & Losada (2005), Losada has chosen to not defend or comment on his non-linear dynamic model despite repeated requests over several months from the American Behavioral Scientist editorial board or the special issue editor of the issue in which Losada and Heaphy (2004) appeared. As such, the non-linear model used in the Losada and Heaphy (2004) may be invalid and the resulting predictions may be unfounded. Heaphy has been available for comment, but was not involved in the data collection, analyses, or interpretation of the analyses, which are of central concern here. She became involved after the paper had gone through one round of peer reviews, invited by the Special Issue Editors to help Losada link the findings to relevant organizational research and to make the paper understandable to an organizational audience. Thus, her contribution to the paper is not related to the expression of concern.