Figure - available from: Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
Means and 95% confidence intervals (with Bonferroni correction) of the Character Strengths’ Moral Evaluation Task’s (CS-MET) ratings as functions of the 24 VIA character strengths and the three Dark Triad traits. The panels depict the ratings for the different trial types: (A) stories without consequences, (B) stories with positive consequences, (C) stories with mixed consequences, and (D) stories with negative consequences. N = 230.
Source publication
This study examines Peterson and Seligman’s (2004, p. 19) claim that every VIA character strength “(…) is morally valued in its own right, even in the absence of obvious beneficial outcomes”. Although this criterion assumes a pivotal role in distinguishing character from personality, no previous study has investigated its validity. Based on what Pe...
Citations
... Character strengths are positive personality traits that are reflected in thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, can be developed (Niemiec & Pearce, 2021;, and are of moral value Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020). Through people's actions and intentions, character strengths influence interpersonal relationships, self-regulatory capacities, cognition, and problem-solving (Character Lab, n.d.). ...
In the United States, approximately two-thirds of children will be exposed to a traumatic event by the age of 16. Experiencing trauma can impact domains of positive development that may affect functioning at school. These challenges can alter learning and lead students to require a comprehensive psychoeducational assessment to determine if additional services are necessary in the school setting. Common assessment practices are often deficit-based and do not provide insights into areas of strength. Though strengths-based assessments exist, they lack a key component of strengths, character strengths. Character strengths provide insight into pathways that can foster well-being, positive relationships, and academic success. This study aimed to develop a trauma-informed assessment of student character strength usage, a teacher report, for use with primary through secondary students to examine a student’s character strength usage at school. A mixed methods design was used, including a comprehensive literature review, focus group with educators, expert feedback, cognitive interviews with teachers, and a pilot study. The final Character Strengths Usage Profile for Students (CSUP-S) version consisted of 33 items measuring 11 character strengths identified best to assess student character strength usage from a trauma-informed lens. The preliminary validation sample consisted of 47 K-12 general education teachers who completed several surveys for a subset of students (n = 221) who represented 14 school districts in the United States. A CFA was tested on a first- and second-order model, with the first-order model exhibiting an acceptable fit. Findings suggest the CSUP-S demonstrates an adequate first step toward demonstrating evidence of content validity and construct validity. Several considerations for the next steps in instrument development are provided.
... Interestingly, this rich literature has arguably suffered from lack of cross-fertilization with neighbouring fields. To exemplify, although character strengths are considered morally valued by both laypeople and experts (Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020;Wagner et al., 2021), there is no mention of them in the prominent review of the moral psychology literature by Ellemers et al. (2019). As previously mentioned, character strengths can be considered as a subset of personality traits , yet very few studies have tried to explicitly locate them within basic personality traits frameworks such as the Big Five or HEXACO (see Bainbridge et al., 2022). ...
Character strengths were introduced into the positive psychology literature twenty years ago. The present bibliometric analysis quantitatively summarizes the research conducted in the field so far in terms of impact and themes analyzed. We conduct performance analysis to examine the total number of publications on character strengths, their bibliometric indices, the main journals contributing to the field, and the countries involved in such knowledge accumulation and how this has changed over time. We furthermore conduct science mapping analysis using the keywords of the papers. Specifically, we describe the time-varying occurrence of specific keywords and use network and thematic mapping analyses to determine the dynamic intercorrelations among the emerging research topics. Our results show the significant and growing contribution of character strengths to the positive psychology literature and beyond, but also the need for cross-fertilization with neighboring fields. We also highlight an increasing contribution from non-WEIRD countries in recent years, which calls for in-depth cross-cultural research. Topics such as measurement and well-being appear to be well-established and integrated, while there’s an emerging interest in mental health research. Overall, the present analysis illuminates on the past, present, and upcoming trends in the field.
... First of all, there is accumulating evidence that character strengths are significantly associated with both life satisfaction [13,33] and PERMA [12,13], which would fulfill the criterion "contribute to well-being". Then, for the criterion "to be pursued for their own sake (rather than as means to an end)", strengths are, by definition, intrinsically morally valued and do not depend on potential positive outcomes to be classified as such [2], as also shown empirically [34]. ...
The nature and composition of well-being has been the subject of ongoing debate in the field of positive psychology. Recent discussions identify Seligman’s PERMA dimensions as concrete pathways to achieve subjective well-being, rather than a distinct type of well-being. Four additional “building blocks” have been categorized to define positive functioning at work (PERMA+4). The present study adds another level of inquiry, by newly examining the relationships of character strengths and a general factor or character with PERMA+4 and life satisfaction in a large international sample of 5,487 employees. We found that 21 of the 24 character strengths were significantly (yet only slightly) more strongly correlated with PERMA+4 than with life satisfaction, and that PERMA+4 was consistently related to life satisfaction. The happiness strengths (hope, gratitude, zest, curiosity and love) and the general factor of character were also directly and indirectly related to life satisfaction. Taken together, these results suggest that the PERMA+4 dimensions may help bridge the gap between strengths and well-being, explaining how individuals with good character are also those who report higher life satisfaction. Future longitudinal studies should build on the present findings and examine whether character strengths can act as the “building blocks of the building blocks” of life satisfaction.
... This approach positions character strengths as enduring, universally valued qualities with moral significance, serving as foundational elements in leader development across diverse cultural contexts. While Peterson, Seligman [91] and subsequent studies by Peterson, Park [129] have debated whether all strengths are morally valued, recent research by Stahlmann, Ruch [113] suggests that strengths are generally perceived as morally significant, even in the absence of positive outcomes. A strengths-based approach adopts a different perspective in viewing individuals, families, and communities [95,114]. ...
A substantial amount of research, resources, and effort has been invested in the search for a 'holy grail' of twenty-first century leadership competencies. Ironically, despite the increasing significance of leadership and the substantial investments in uncovering the attributes of successful leaders, concerns persist regarding the quality of leadership worldwide. While the literature extensively outlines 'what' twenty-first century-ready leaders should embody, there remains a gap in outlining 'how' to nurture such leaders. We contrast existing practices that have focused on teaching functional content and relying on retrospective and deficit-based competency models by advocating for a strengths-based perspective. While there has been an increasing interest in positive psychology, which promotes a shift away from prevalent deficit correction approaches towards a framework that emphasises social-emotional and meta-cognitive strengths, character strengths have received little attention in corporate leader development programmes. We argue that nurturing character strengths offers a more sustainable, self-reinforcing process for twenty-first century leader development to overcome the limitations of short-lived leadership training results that fade over time. The Values in Action Classification of Character Strengths and Virtues provides a robust framework for identifying and nurturing these strengths. However, character strengths have traditionally been viewed as personal attributes, rather than leadership competencies. We challenge traditional views on leader development by arguing that character strengths reflect the competencies required of twenty-first century-ready leaders, as these more 'humane' characteristics remain relevant over time and valued across cultures because they represent qualities that are universally appreciated in defining 'what makes a good person'.
... According to Wagner et al. (2020), there are 24 specific character qualities that fall under these six overarching virtues. These qualities are considered ethically valuable in their own right, even when there are no immediate positive outcomes (Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020). Research has also shown that certain character strengths, like love, persistence, and honesty, are associated with lower levels of aggression, anxiety, and depression (Park & Peterson, 2008), highlighting the benefits of cultivating these qualities. ...
This critical review explores the potential of positive psychology interventions to cultivate a thriving school community by fostering positive relationships between teachers and students and among staff members. The highlights the ever-increasing recognition of the importance of positive relationships within schools for fostering student wellbeing, academic success, and staff satisfaction. The review synthesizes findings from various studies, examining the impact of positive psychology interventions on communication, trust, collaboration, and overall school climate. Both positive outcomes, such as increased student engagement and improved teacher-wellbeing, and potential challenges encountered during implementation are discussed. Additionally, the review considers factors that influence the effectiveness of interventions, such as school context, leadership support, and teacher training. The review acknowledges limitations in the current research base, including the need for more longitudinal studies and research investigating the long-term impact of positive psychology interventions. Furthermore, the review highlights the importance of considering contextual factors within schools that may influence the success of intervention implementation. In conclusion, this critical review underscores the potential of positive psychology interventions as a valuable tool for promoting positive relationships within schools. By cultivating a more positive and collaborative school environment, these interventions can benefit student wellbeing and academic achievement, staff satisfaction, and overall school climate. Future research is necessary to further refine these interventions and optimize their application within diverse educational settings. Ultimately, integrating positive psychology into school practices can contribute significantly to building thriving school communities where both students and staff can flourish.
... More precisely, research suggests that character strengths can be considered a subset of personality traits that specifically concern "goodness" and moral behavior (McGrath et al., 2020). Indeed, they are morally valued per se, even in the absence of tangible positive outcomes (Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020); therefore, they are culturally and socially encouraged, and possibly shaped by specific factors, such as economic inequality, that precisely influence moral behavior and prosociality Wilkinson & Pickett, 2017). Importantly, the VIA framework arose from an extensive philosophical and historical investigations of what constitutes a "good character" throughout different times and cultures around the world. ...
Environmental factors are crucial in shaping individual characteristics. One key contextual factor is economic inequality, which is increasing in most OECD countries and negatively impacting individuals and societies, including personality traits. To date, no studies examined the relationship between economic inequality and positive personality traits such as character strengths. In a large cross-cultural study (N = 980,807, 68 countries) we investigated the relationship between country-level economic inequality and the level of the 24 character strengths. Across countries, we found consistent, robust evidence that economic inequality is positively linked to 22 character strengths, even after controlling for the Human Development Index, population density, urbanization, and climate of each country. On average, inequality explained 34% of the between-country variance in character strengths. Different alternative explanations for such unexpected effects, including increased competitiveness or resilience in the face of adversity, are discussed. Our research provides novel insights into the importance of environmental factors in shaping human character.
... Yet, for all the depth of practical research, a disconcerting gap exists in its theoretical grounding. While numerous studies highlight positive impacts, the core hypotheses of the handbook largely remain untested, leaving the research on potentially uncertain footing (Ruch & Stahlmann, 2019;Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020). The handbook's creation was the culmination of a protracted and occasionally intricate development process, with numerous contributors and a myriad of ideas that were juggled until an initial consensus was reached (see Blyth et al., 2000;Clifton et al., 1999). ...
... The classification of strengths under core virtues has received similarly little attention, and only recently have serious attempts at reformulation been initiated (Ruch et al., 2020a(Ruch et al., , 2021Ruch & Proyer, 2015). Most importantly, there have been almost no dedicated attempts to systematically evaluate character strengths against the 10 criteria (Ruch & Stahlmann, 2019;Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020). In essence, it remains unclear whether the 24 character strengths themselves meet the criteria set out to define them. ...
... This step was taken in response to the identification of numerous potential strengths, necessitating a means of consolidation . Over subsequent years, these seven criteria were expanded into 10 and ultimately 12 criteria for character strengths (Ruch & Stahlmann, 2019;Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020). ...
While both practitioners and the public regard character strengths positively, some psychologists and philosophers harbor skepticism. In this analytical commentary on current research and literature, we trace such skepticism to a premature focus on positive outcomes, which eclipsed the theoretical groundwork outlined in the 2004 handbook. We propose solutions to ten key issues which, in our estimation, not only sustain this skepticism but also hinder meaningful advancement in the field of character strengths research: (1) Criteria evaluation, (2) Virtue functions, (3) Situational affordances, (4) Content validity, (5) Criterion validity, (6) Fulfillment conceptualization, (7) Adverse outcome modeling (8) Moral excellency, (9) Strengths conservatism, and (10) Methodological mainstream thinking. We contend that resolving these issues is necessary to uphold the standing of character strengths and positive psychology among its counterparts, and to establish a potent foundation for effective character development.
... We argue that, when it comes to dispositional traits, the five-factor model might not sufficiently capture the traits that predispose individuals to exemplary behaviors. Therefore, we study a family of explicitly positively valued traits, namely character strengths Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020). ...
Objective
Which traits best describe individuals who are recognized as exemplary in different domains? And can self‐rated positively valued personality traits distinguish such individuals from the general population?
Background
The study of exemplary individuals’ personality traits traditionally focused on general and broad traits. Using character strengths, which are narrower and designed to describe desirable behavior, could provide new insights.
Method
In this study, we examined 204 outstanding individuals—exemplars who received or were nominated for a public award recognizing their exemplary behavior (e.g., a Carnegie Rescuers Award; n = 119), individuals holding a patent ( n = 62), and individuals living in a religious order ( n = 23). We compared these exemplars to comparison samples matched based on demographic variables. All participants completed self‐report questionnaires assessing character strengths and well‐being (e.g., satisfaction with life).
Results
Results showed that the three groups of exemplars differed meaningfully in their character strengths and well‐being from the matched comparison groups. Compared with matched counterparts, moral exemplars scored higher on the strengths related to the virtues of courage, humanity, and justice as well as the character strength of humility, creative exemplars scored higher on the character strengths of creativity and honesty, and religious exemplars scored higher on gratitude and spirituality.
Conclusion
Overall, our findings suggest that character strengths are a useful framework for studying exemplary behavior.
... However, future research can be planned to explore the distinctive nature of character strengths with personality traits. For this purpose, insight can be taken from Stahlmann and Ruch (2020) who examined the criteria of character strengths (i.e., morally valued). Furthermore, considering the malleable nature of character strengths to some extent (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), early development and training programs can nurture these positive traits. ...
Character strengths as positive attributes have been valued universally and theorized to improve the functioning of individuals and society. Considering their importance in positive psychologyand the assertion of the VIA framework about the ubiquity ofcharacter strengths, the present study aimed to investigate the universality of character strengths in Pakistan. Moreover, the role of gender and age in possession of character strengths was examined. For this purpose, a sample of 497 participants (M age =27.41 years, SD age = 8.41) from Pakistani adults was taken. Participants provided information regarding the possession of character strengths. Results showed that character strengths were prevalent in Pakistani participants as indicated by the mean scores of all character strengths. Honesty, kindness, fairness, spirituality, and gratitude emerged as the top-ranked character strengths. Rank profile of current data strongly converged with the rank profile of the pre-existing Pakistani sample and moderately converged with the rank profile of the pre-existing US sample (McGrath, 2015). Moreover, the results showed that men scored significantly higher than women on creativity and curiosity whereas women scored significantly higher than men on honesty, gratitude, and spirituality. Lastly, the possession of five character strengths (i.e., creativity, perspective, bravery, perseverance, and gratitude) significantly differed among participants of different age groups. All the findings supported the notion of the VIA framework about the universality of character strengths across cultures as well as the specificity of ranking in a particular culture.
... Since their theorization, character strengths' associations with several desirable outcomes have been studied (see Niemiec, 2013;Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020), ranging from positive functioning at work (Dubreuil et al., 2014;Harzer & Ruch, 2012, 2013, to flourishing interpersonal relationships (Goodman et al., 2018;Lavy et al., 2014), academic learning and satisfaction (Lounsbury et al., 2009), and personal growth Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017;Peterson et al., 2008). Particular focus has been devoted to subjective well-being, and especially life satisfaction (Bruna et al., 2019) -which has been used as the gold standard for external validity in almost every validation study of character strengths measures (e.g., VIA-IS measures) -and there is a growing interest in their protective role against depressive symptoms and mental health issues (e.g., Casali et al., 2021;Petkari & Ortiz-Tallo, 2018;Tehranchi et al., 2018) and in their relationship with more comprehensive conceptualizations of well-being ( e.g., PERMA, Wagner et al., 2020). ...
Character strengths have been found to consistently predict many positive psychological outcomes, such as well-being, life satisfaction, and mental health, but research on the topic is still at its infancy and some methodological limitations must be overcome to better understand what character strengths are and what is their role. One main issue concerns the structure of character strengths and virtues, which may undermine the credibility and replicability of previous findings. Using two different samples (with 13,439 and 944 participants), we confirm that character strengths can be well described by a bifactor model reflecting the simultaneous existence of a general factor of ‘good character’ and the 24 specific character strengths. We found that the general factor consistently predicts participants’ life satisfaction, mental health, and distress symptoms. In addition, we show that the specific character strengths (with the few exceptions represented by gratitude, hope, and zest) do not predict life satisfaction and mental health above and beyond the general factor. These results highlight the need to better understand what this general factor really represents to finally capture the mechanisms linking character strengths between each other and with external outcomes. Implications for the measurement and interpretation of character strengths and for strength-based interventions are discussed.
