Failing Grade for Highly Cited Meta-Analysis of Positive Psychology Interventions
The many sins of Sin and Lyubomirsky
I recently blogged about Linda Bolier and colleagues’ meta-analysis* of positive psychology interventions [PPIs] in BMC Public Health. It is the new kid on the block. Sin and Lyubomirsky’s meta analysis is accepted as the authoritative summary of the evidence and has been formally identified by Web of Science as among the top 1% in terms of citations of papers in psychology and psychiatry for 2009, with 187 citations according to Web of Science, 487 citations according to Google Scholar.
This meta-analysis ends on a resoundingly positive note:
Do positive psychology interventions effectively boost well-being and ameliorate depression? The overwhelming evidence from our meta-analysis suggests that the answer is ‘‘yes.’’ The combined results of 49 studies revealed that PPIs do, in fact, significantly enhance WB, and the combined results of 25 studies showed that PPIs are also effective for treating depressive symptoms. The magnitude of these effects is medium-sized (mean r =.29 for WB, m…