Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap), a construct within positive organizational behavior, has gained significant prominence since its introduction by Luthans in 2002. PsyCap, which encompasses hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism, has been linked to various positive workplace outcomes across diverse contexts. However, despite its growth and empirical support, PsyCap research has faced several criticisms, including weak theoretical foundations, lack of methodological rigor, and accusations of cronyism within the field.
To address these criticisms, this study examines the intellectual foundations of positive psychological capital (PsyCap) research using bibliometric analysis. The authors analyze nearly 30,000 documents cited by PsyCap studies to investigate criticisms that the field lacks theoretical grounding, methodological rigor, and diverse perspectives. Through document, source, and author co-citation analyses, they find that PsyCap research is built on established psychological theories published in reputable journals. However, the field relies heavily on correlational methods rather than more rigorous experimental designs.
The results show PsyCap’s intellectual roots span numerous researchers and academic outlets across psychology and organizational behavior, countering claims of insularity. While early PsyCap work was dominated by a core group of scholars, the field has diversified over time. The authors conclude that PsyCap has strengths in its theoretical foundations but limitations in its methodological approaches. They recommend future PsyCap research employ more rigorous experimental and longitudinal designs to advance the field. Overall, this comprehensive analysis provides an objective assessment of PsyCap’s scholarly foundations and offers a roadmap for its continued development.
