Actually, the best balance you could strike lies within a "zone:" a minimum positive/negative (P/N) of 2.9 and a maximum P/N of 11.6. High performance teams and marriages that last and are happy with their relationship will have a P/N ratio around 5. Low performance teams and marriages ending in divorce typically have a ratio between 0.4 and 0.9; i.e., more negativity than positivity. If your P/N ratio is above 11.6 you don't have enough grounding and your excess of optimism will soon be deflated by a world that requires a healthy dosis of negative feedback.

I read this and want to cry. It must be the lateness of the hour...of course people do better when you praise them. You NEED a study to know this? Freud must be screaming right now.
We should be printing this in the paper in bold type, teaching this in management schools, hiring consuyltants to run around the drag America's awful mid-managers into schools and get ear-fulls of this until they roll over and vomit.
This is an awful lot like, " how do you legislate morality?" How do you get morally bankrupt imbeciles to open their eyes, see the light, make the bell ring, GET IT??
As Ms Roosevelt used to say, "the journey of a thousand miles...first step." Ok, you've said it, we all know it's true - WHERE DO YOU GO FROM HERE?
$###

Yes, you NEED a study to determine what is the right PROPORTION of positive to negative feedback. Both are needed for optimal functioning in life. The questions are: what is the minimum proportion for good performance? Is there an upper limit on positive to negative feedback beyond which performance deteriorates? The answer to those questions is NOT obvious, that's why you need a study.

I accept the validity and the applicable wisdom this study. My question is, how the heck to do know that ratios higher than 12 to 1 net positive don't work? I can give you a hundred examples of 1 to 12 net negative relationships but I can't think of one 12 to 1 net positive example. There is also a big difference between a CAUSAL relationship and a POSITIVE CORRELATION in statistical analysis. My guess is there is lots more going in these relationships than negative or positive feedback. I fear this is yet another example of attempting to distill complex human relationships into sterile bromides.

I hope the writers of the new TV show, The Office, get hold of this one. I'm already laughing just imagining Steve Carrel's character tracking his positive feedback to his team on a spreadsheet and then calling someone into his office to randomly berate them because his records indicate its time for some negative feedback!

http://kurtmaddox.tblog.com

Kurt Maddox is right, there is a lot more going on than just the positive/negative ratio in human interaction (though this ratio has more power than we aware of). In the "Meta Learning" model (see "meta learning" and "positivity/negative ratio" in Wikipedia) there are two bipolar variables that are critical in human performance. These are inquiry/advocacy and other/self; i.e., external vs. internal orientation. Low performace teams tend to gravitate to advocacy and self orientation, while high performance teams keep a dynamic balance among these polarities.

Regarding causality and correlation, this does not apply in the study on "Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing" forthmcoming in the October issue of American Psychologist. In this study a nonlinear dynamical model, the "Meta Learning" model, is introduced where one-directional causality does not apply.

...or you could suddenly realize that all people are different and motivated by different things. if you are using / quantifying 'praise ratios' you have lost touch with humankind. maybe it would be better to just look at the recipient's face and determine whether they are motivated or demotivated by what you just said? maybe it would be better to just be straightforward and honest with what you see your employee accomplishing and then allow for him/her to respond without inhibition. (naturally this is overly simple. just as a study on this matter is overly complex)

The point is not to go looking for opportunities to give negative feedback, but to avoid overdoing it on praise. Any of us would become jaded if we were to receive a "9 thumbs up" review after every task.

It seems to me, that praise is felt equally by all people. It just is how much distrust do you have towards the other, giving the praise. The more confidence you have in your own abilities, the less praise you need and the least distrust towards praise you will have.
But how much did this research look at the way the feedback was given, and how much the giver was taking the receiver into account?
Before I put any other questions forward, I will first read the study's report.

In any company,may it be manufacturing,may it be service industry,may it be menpower management,
where ever we go,feedback is required to evaluate
performance of a company and to make a realistic proejection and the company people work on it for betterment of their organisation and for achivement of the desired objective.Feed back is essential to judge one's self.It may be good and it may be bad.The policy makers take their clue from it and it is essential.

I was struck by the comments about management. I've discovered you can take individual manager shortfalls in positive recognition out of the equation. Establish strategic organizational processes that create a "fabric of recognition" where all participate all year long.