What this video adheres to is probably Predicting Marital Happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions by Gottman, Coan, Carrere and Swanson.
Haven't read the whole paper and I have little clue how much the claims stood the test of time. I've found some published information that indeed the Gottman therapy of couples has positive impact on couples. Therefore, let's assume that the study is valid, at least in some sense.
The abstract claims 80% accuracy of marriage satisfaction and 83% on whether the couple will divorce or not, which is profound.
It also introduces different models and in the Balance models section on page 8 and 9 the aspect ratio is presented.
Gottman (1994) reported that in three types of stable marriages that he identified, the ratio of positive to negative interaction during conflict resolution was 5 to 1, whereas the ratio was .8 to 1 in unstable marriages.
However, a few paragraphs before it also cites another study:
The ratio of pleases to displeases in Birchler, Weiss, and Vincent's study (1975) also discriminated between the groups. (The ratio was 29.66 for nondistressed couples and 4.30 for distressed couples.)
As per using the conflict resolution term in the first quote and different ratios, I'm still a little bit uncertain if 5:1 is not a gross oversimplication of the body of research conducted on the topic.
As suggested in the Gottman study, removing all negative interactions from a relationship would be a kind of abomination – a declaration of war on negative affect. However, no specific ratios are specified in the study.
Another paper by Fredricson and Losada (2011) uses ratio of 2.9 in people in general as a bifurcation point of the proposed model and presents other studies as supportive for the model (Schwartz's 4.3 and Gottman's 5 are given as an example).
0.5 and 0.8 are given as examples of people suffering clinical depression and divorcing couples.
Then, an upper limit is introduced.
Past mathematical work on Lorenz equations (Frøyland & Alfsen, 1984; Michielin & Phillipson, 1997; Sparrow, 1982) suggests an upper limit. Using the established link between P/N and r, we estimate that disintegration of the complex dynamics of flourishing first becomes evident at a positivity ratio of 11.6346.
Two intertwined lessons within Figure 2 are that (a) problems can occur with too much positivity (a point also raised by Schwartz et al., 2002) and (b) appropriate negativity may play an important role within the complex dynamics of human flourishing. Without appropriate negativity, behavior patterns calcify. We use the term appropriate negativity because we suspect that certain forms of negativity promote flourishing better than others.
To be sure, some kind of negative affect is required and there's consensus on that. As for the ratio... it depends on whether the suggested model bears any kind of resemblance to reality – and a simple nonlinear system might be too weak to describe model of a team of people.
We could describe the ratio of positive-negative interactions as a kind of Gaussian function or some other nonlinear function, with interesting points around 3 (zero), 5 (peak) and 11 (another zero).
Tthe idea that too much positivity reduces the number of possible states the person can be in (which causes stagnation and other effects as well) is a pretty interesting one.
What does it mean is that we should operate within full spectrum of our ability to feel. That way we'll be able to generate a wider range of responses to that, what stimulates us and makes us grow. Certainly we shouldn't remove certain kinds of affect from our lives.
In order to operate effectively we should strive for optimum, but it also doesn't mean that a ratio of 1 or 0.5 is something that we should avoid at all cost too. Nor fearing for it. It's important to find means to resolve these kinds of relationships as quickly as possible.
I'm still curious about this ratio. On one side its a kind of reflection of the reality and of Nature that has indifference towards whether we'll be struck by a negative or a positive situation, but the ratio seems... off. Or rather, biased towards a positive outlook on future. Or maybe it's a cultural expectation. Was it similar throughout the history? Or maybe people were accustomed to more grief in the past and the current ratio is a product of recent times?
Or perhaps it's an indicator of the difference of our alertness to weak negative stimuli (or numbness to satisfying stimuli)?
The ratio does not tell us anything about the amplitude of negative and positive interations. It might resemblance to Machiavelli's words that:
Injuries, therefore, should be inflicted all at once, that their ill savour being less lasting may the less offend; whereas, benefits should be conferred little by little, that so they may be more fully relished.
TODO