A bibliometric study of positive psychological capital: investigating intellectual foundations through co-citation and content analyses

Abstract Since its inception in the early 2000s, the growing popularity of positive psychological capital (i.e., PsyCap) has been accompanied by robust debates. Critics assert that PsyCap research is plagued by suboptimal theoretical foundations, disregard for rigorous methodologies, and cult-like cronyism. Leveraging bibliometric data based on 937 primary documents, 28,428 secondary documents, 9714 sources, and 18,247 authors, we conduct document, source, and author co-citation analyses to examine the intellectual foundations of PsyCap and, thus, the veracity of these critiques. We extend this comprehensive scientific mapping of the PsyCap field with an in-depth content analysis of the 100 most frequently co-cited secondary documents. Results suggest that the PsyCap field is built upon solid theoretical foundations in psychology published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. The authors of secondary documents consider the typical organizational behavior methodological approaches, emphasizing correlational designs. And, although somewhat insular, the research that underlies the PsyCap field consists of a distribution of contributing authors and journals. Finally, we discuss implications for the practical application of positive psychology tenets and prescriptions for scholars researching PsyCap.