Content uploaded by Claudia Harzer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Claudia Harzer
Content may be subject to copyright.
This manuscript was published as:
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character
strengths and positive experiences at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14,
965-983. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0
Running Head: Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
1
The Application of Signature Character Strengths and
Positive Experiences at Work
Claudia Harzer* and Willibald Ruch
Section on Personality and Assessment, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich,
Binzmühlestrasse 14/ Box 7, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland
*Corresponding author:
Phone: 0041 44 635 75 26
Fax: 0041 44 635 75 29
Email: c.harzer@psychologie.uzh.ch
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
2
The Application of Signature Character Strengths and
Positive Experiences at Work
1 Introduction
Psychology has long focused on pathology and the development of treatments for various
disorders. In contrast, the main focus of positive psychology is on what makes our lives most
worth living (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Three topics are at the center of positive
psychology: (a) positive subjective experiences (e.g., happiness or satisfaction); (b) positive
individual traits (e.g., character strengths or talents); and (c) positive institutions (e.g.,
families or workplaces) (Peterson 2006; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Positive
institutions should enable the display of positive traits, like character strengths, which in turn
foster positive experiences (Peterson 2006). The work environment is seen as one of the
natural environments for positive psychology (Park and Peterson 2007). Therefore, the paper
addresses the relationships between the application of character strengths at work and
positive experiences at work.
1.1 Character Strengths
Peterson and Seligman (2004) introduced the Values in Action (VIA) classification of
strengths to describe the good character as an important instance of optimal human
functioning. Character strengths represent the components of the good character as
measurable positive individual differences that exist as continua and not as categories
(McGrath, Rashid, Park, and Peterson 2010). The VIA classification describes 24 character
strengths. Cognitive strengths like creativity, curiosity, judgment, love of learning, and
perspective entail the acquisition and use of knowledge. Emotional strengths like bravery,
perseverance, honesty, and zest involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of
external or internal opposition. Interpersonal strengths like capacity to love and be loved
(short: love), kindness, and social intelligence involve “tending and befriending” others.
Civic strengths like teamwork, fairness, and leadership underlie healthy community life.
Strengths protecting against excess are forgiveness, modesty, prudence, and self-regulation.
Strengths of transcendence are appreciation of beauty and excellence (short: beauty),
gratitude, hope, humor, and religiousness.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
3
The character strengths can be ranked for each individual with respect to how central
they are to the individual. Peterson and Seligman (2004, p. 18) stipulate that most people
have between three and seven core or “signature” strengths. Signature strengths are the ones
“[…] that a person owns, celebrates, and frequently exercises”. Several studies highlighted
that the application of individual signature strengths is related to overall positive experiences
like life satisfaction, well-being, and meaning in life (e.g., Littman-Ovadia and Steger 2010;
Proctor, Maltby, and Linley 2011; Seligman, Steen, Park, and Peterson 2005; Wood, Linley,
Maltby, Kashdan, and Hurling 2011). Such findings suggest that positive experiences in the
work environment would be fostered when the individual signature strengths are applied at
work.
1.2 Application of Signature Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
Positive experiences are manifold. The focus of the present paper was on satisfaction and
happiness at work. Satisfaction with life is defined as a global, cognitive assessment of the
quality of life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin 1985). More specifically, job
satisfaction, or the domain satisfaction relating to work (Diener, Suh, Lucas, and Smith
1999), was of interest in this study. According to Peterson, Park, and Seligman (2005b),
pleasure (hedonism), engagement (flow), and meaning (eudaimonia) comprise three separate,
yet related routes of life to obtain happiness. Furthermore, the use of the individual strengths
is thought to facilitate engagement and meaning. Engagement can be reached by using one’s
strengths (Seligman 2002) and leads to more flow – the state of mind when being absorbed
by an engaging activity that matches an individual's abilities (Csikszentmihalyi 1990).
Identifying one’s character strengths, cultivating them and living in accordance with them to
achieve a higher purpose leads to meaning. Accordingly, work allows for engagement and
meaning when individual character strengths can be used to perform the work tasks.
In line with this theory, the deployment of character strengths at work relates to job
satisfaction and meaning at work (Littman-Ovadia and Steger 2010). This relationship has
not been studied so far with respect to pleasure and engagement. However, Park and Peterson
(2007) reported that people most appreciated a job congruent with their signature strengths.
Consequently, there are hints that the application of individual signature strengths might
indeed be related to positive experiences at work (i.e., job satisfaction as well as pleasure,
engagement, and meaning at work).
However, the application of a character strength depends on two conditions. Firstly
(like for every trait; cf., Fishbein and Ajzen 2010; Saucier, Bel-Bahar, and Fernandez 2007),
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
4
an individual needs to possess the strength to a certain degree to be able to show strength-
related behavior (i.e., apply it)1. The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS;
Peterson, Park, and Seligman 2005a) is the standard measure for the possession of character
strengths in adults. A variety of studies demonstrate its reliability and validity (e.g., Huta and
Hawley 2010; Peterson et al. 2005a; Shimai, Otake, Park, Peterson, and Seligman 2006).
Secondly, situational circumstances (e.g., at the workplace or in private life) need to
allow or call for the demonstration of a strength, as trait-related behavior needs conducive
circumstances to be displayed (Saucier et al. 2007; Ten Berge and De Raad 1999). Formal
situations like the workplace might not always encourage behavior that suits an individual’s
trait pattern (Ten Berge and De Raad 1999). For example, norms given by the job
description, supervisors or co-workers restrict the range of suitable behaviors. Therefore, the
applicability of a given character strength may be defined as the degree to which situational
circumstances allow an individual to display strengths-relevant behavior. Until now, there
was no sophisticated instrument measuring the situational circumstances regarding character
strengths-related behavior in a certain environment independent from the degree of the
individual possession of a strength. Therefore, the present study was in a first step aimed at
examining a new measure of the degree of applicability of character strengths prior to further
studying the role of the application of character strengths in positive experiences at work.
1.3 Measuring the Applicability of Character Strengths
The situational circumstances (e.g., at the workplace or in private life) can be both external,
relating to environmental aspects mainly independent of the individual, and internal, relating
more to the individual’s perception of the environment (cf., Saucier et al. 2007). The
Applicability of Character Strengths Rating Scales (ACS-RS) measures two external and two
internal influences perceived by the individual for each of the 24 character strengths. The two
external influences are (a) the normative demands of a situation and (b) the appropriateness
of certain behavior within a given situation. The two internal influences are (c) the perceived
presence of factors that may facilitate or impede a behavior like time pressure and (d) the
intrinsic motivation to show a certain behavior. Three out of the four influences (a to c) were
based on suggestions of Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) regarding the influences on actual human
social behavior. As highlighted by Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) in their reasoned action model,
1 As it is the case for personality assessment in general, character strengths as personality
traits are theoretical constructs and it is not possible to possess or apply them technically
speaking. Nevertheless, one can endorse statements relating to the character strengths.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
5
(a) normative beliefs refer to the perceived behavioral expectations of important referent
individuals or groups, such as the supervisor and coworkers, as well as the formal job
description. Items should therefore assess the strength of norms regarding the behavior of
interest (i.e., “it is demanded” in the job description and/or within the team). Furthermore,
Fishbein and Ajzen emphasize the role of (b) behavioral beliefs that the behavior of interest
leads to expected outcomes. Items should therefore assess the degree of appropriateness of
the behavior of interest (i.e., “it is helpful” for managing the job tasks). Finally, Fishbein and
Ajzen highlight (c) control beliefs defined as the perceived presence of factors that may
facilitate or impede a behavior (e.g., perceived time pressure would impede behavior). Items
should therefore assess the degree of control and confidence to perform certain behavior (i.e.,
“I do it”). We added a fourth aspect namely (d) the motivation to behave in a certain way in a
certain environment, because the expression of traits also depends on individual motives (Ten
Berge and De Raad 1999). Items should therefore ask for the individuals’ evaluation of the
relative importance of the behavior of interest (i.e., “it is important for me” to behave in line
with the behavior of interest). The ACS-RS assesses the applicability of the character
strengths as the individually perceived frequency (never to [almost] always) to which those
four influences allow for the display of strengths-relevant behavior in a certain environment
(here: work and private life).
These four ratings might be highly similar within a specific job. However, examples
can be imagined where the ratings do not necessarily highly correspond with each other. For
example, a nurse’s job description entails many comments about hygiene, but nothing about
kindness. Also, nurses rarely talk much about kindness in their teams. Thus, job demands are
rather low regarding kind behavior. However, a nurse might realize that caring for patients is
easier when being kind to them and, therefore, kind behavior is helpful. Furthermore, a nurse
might regard kind behavior as very important because she likes to treat people the way she
would like to be treated by others. However, the workload of nurses is very high, which
impedes kind interactions.
It might be more parsimonious to ask for the use of strengths in general (Wood et al.
2011) or utilize single- item measures for the frequency of application of each of the
character strengths (Littman-Ovadia and Steger 2010). However, those approaches do not
allow for the discrimination of the various influences on actual behavior (i.e., the degree of
possession as well as the four aspects of applicability) influencing the application of character
strengths.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
6
1.4 The Present Study
The present study primarily aimed at investigating the role of the application of the individual
character strengths at work in reporting positive experiences at work, namely job satisfaction
as well as pleasure, engagement, and meaning. We expected the application of the individual
signature strengths to be positively correlated with positive experiences at work. The degree
of congruence between a person and his/her job might increase with the number of signature
strengths that one can apply at work and with the extent to which one can do so. Therefore,
three hypotheses on the role of the application of signature strengths for positive experiences
at work were derived. (a) The degree of applicability of the strengths and the amount of
positive experiences are related to each other. (b) The correlation coefficients increase with
the rank of the strengths (irrespective of the nature of the strengths). They are highest for the
signature strengths (ranks 1 to 7) and lower for the strengths ranked lowest (ranks 8 to 24) for
an individual. (c) There is a “satiation point” for the number of applied signature strengths.
This satiation point may be expected to be located between three and seven strengths. We
expect, the use of two rather than one signature strength would increase positive experience
at work but the increment of predictive validity of any further signature strength would be
consecutively lower, reaching a plateau past the hypothesized number of signature strengths.
Prior the examination of the hypotheses, the measure assessing the applicability of
character strengths in work life and private life, namely the ACS-RS, was examined to study
its usability. Of special interest were the descriptive statistics of the 24 scales (total scores of
the four ratings for the applicability of each strength), their internal consistencies as
indicators of homogeneity of the four ratings for each of the character strengths, and the
interrater reliability. We expected that different persons rating (their perceptions of) the
external influences (i.e., normative demands and appropriateness) within the same
environment would agree in their judgments. We expected the 24 scales of the ACS-RS to be
separate yet related, and therefore, intercorrelations of the 24 scales were examined. Non-
redundancy was assumed if correlation coefficients were below internal consistencies.
Furthermore, this study examined the following four groups of theory-driven
hypotheses as indicators for the validity of the ACS-RS. (1) Peterson and Seligman (2004; p.
23) highlighted that some strengths are tonic (i.e., show themselves “steadily in a variety of
settings” like humor and kindness) while others are phasic (i.e., “comes and goes because it is
relevant only in settings that afford it” like bravery). Generally, we assume that tonic
strengths are more often applicable than phasic strengths (i.e., mean differences in the
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
7
applicability scores). For example, strengths of humanity are relevant in interactive situations
that emerge relatively often, while bravery needs a more specific situation of threat, like
standing up for someone who is excluded from a group. (2) According to Ten Berge and De
Raad (1999), functions and roles of individuals within a given context are important for
actual behavior as well. The workplace as a formal situation is more restricted in roles and
functions than the private life as an informal situation. Therefore, we expect that applicability
of character strengths at work is smaller in magnitude than in private life. (3) We expect
differential enabling or disabling situational conditions regarding the character strengths at
work compared to private life, as different situations are more appropriate for the display of
different traits (cf., Ten Berge and De Raad 1999). For example, the character strengths of
leadership may be more applicable at the workplace. Religiousness (except for job groups
like priests and nuns) and love seem to be more private and therefore, may be more
applicable in private life. (4) People tend to choose environments fitting their dispositions
(Caspi and Herbener 1990). Consequently, we expect positive relationships between the
degree of possession and the degree of applicability of the 24 character strengths.
2 Method
2.1 Participants
The sample consisted of 1,111 German-speaking employed adult volunteers (479 men, 632
women). Their mean age was 43.53 years (SD = 10.02; range 18-65 years). Concerning
educational level, n = 649 indicated having a Master degree, n = 250 had an apprenticeship,
and n = 138 a PhD. Participants represented a wide array of occupations (e.g., like medical
doctors, sales personnel, engineers, mechanists, and office workers). The most prevalent
occupational fields (n > 50) included n = 127 teachers, n = 79 participants with commercial
education, n = 67 nurses, and n = 51 engineers. Three quarter of the participants had 80% up
to full time employment (M = 84.42, SD = 22.41; n = 610 worked full time).
2.2 Instruments
The Applicability of Character Strengths Rating Scales (ACS-RS) measure the extent to
which each of the 24 character strengths of the VIA classification is applicable in a) private
and b) work life. For each of the character strengths, short paragraphs are provided describing
character strengths-relevant behavior based on the definitions by Peterson and Seligman
(2004; e.g., kindness: Being nice, helpful, kind, and caring without expecting any reward).
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
8
These behaviors are rated on a 5-point Likert-scale (1 = never though 5 = [almost] always)
for (a) normative demands of a situation (actual wording in the ACS-RS: “it is demanded”),
(b) appropriateness of the behavior (“it is helpful”), (c) perceived presence of factors that
may facilitate or impede the behavior (“I do it”), and (d) intrinsic motivation to show it (“it is
important for me”). As these ratings are very abstract, an example in the instructions
highlights their specific meaning2. The environment of interest (i.e., at work, in private life) is
mentioned in the instructions as well and different environments are rated independently
from each other. For each environment, a total of 96 items measures the applicability of the
24 character strengths with the 4 ratings for each of the strengths.
The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson et al. 2005a) is a
questionnaire consisting of 240 items in a 5-point Likert-scale (from 1 = very much unlike me
through 5 = very much like me) measuring the possession of 24 character strengths. Sample
items are “I expect the best” (hope) or “I never quit a task before it is done” (perseverance).
The responses are averaged across the 10 items per character strength. The German version
of the VIA-IS (Ruch, Proyer, Harzer, Park, Peterson, and Seligman 2010) showed high
reliability (median α = .77) and high stability over 9 months (median test-retest correlation
= .73). Self- and peer-rating forms correlated in the expected range (median correlation
= .40).
The Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (JSQ; Andrews and Withey 1976) consists of five
items in a 7-point Likert-scale (from 1 = terrible through 7 = delighted) measuring job
satisfaction. Sample items are “How do you feel about your job?” or “How do you feel about
the people you work with- your co-workers?” The responses are averaged to provide a total
job satisfaction score. The JSQ showed high reliability (α = .81) and convergent validity (r
= .70) to other measures of job satisfaction (Rentsch and Steel 1992). Three psychologists
translated the JSQ, and the initial version of the German JSQ was created by committee
approach (Butcher and Pancheri 1976). A bilingual retranslated this version, a few
modifications were made to the initial version, and items were checked for understandability.
2 Example given in the instruction is about kindness rated by a nurse: A nurse’s job
description entails many comments about hygiene but nothing about kindness and they do not
talk much about it in the team. That is why she would rate “it is demanded” as seldom (rating
= 2). As she realized that caring for patients is easier when being kind to them she rates that
“it is helpful” often (rating = 4). Furthermore, it is usually important for her to interact with
patients in a kind way and she therefore would rate “it is important for me” as 4 = often.
However, the workload is very high and therefore impedes kind interactions some of the time
(“I do it” = 3). In total kindness would have an applicability score of 3.25, which means that
kindness is sometimes applicable at work.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
9
The Work Context Questionnaire (WCQ; Ruch, Furrer, and Huwyler 2004) is a three-
item self-report questionnaire measuring the extent to which one’s job allows for pleasure, to
which it fosters one’s potentials (engagement) and to which it allows for meaning. Answers
are given on a 5-point Likert-scale (1 = totally disagree through 5 = totally agree). Validity
of the ratings was supported, as they were meaningfully associated with other variables. For
example, engagement was positively related to the promotion level of employees. Pleasure
and meaning were positively related to satisfaction with the job.
2.3 Procedure
2.3.1 Data collection
The study was advertised through press coverage (e.g., newspaper and several magazines)
highlighting the requirement for participation of having a job with a percentage of
employment of at least 50%. Participants completed the questionnaires and provided
information on demographics via the Internet (67.5% of those who started to fill in the survey
also completed it). Respondents were not paid for participating, but were given feedback
concerning their individual results when interest was expressed.
2.3.2 Construction of items in the ACS-RS
The short paragraphs describing character strengths-relevant behavior were developed in
several steps in a committee approach procedure (cf., Butcher and Pancheri 1976). Four
individuals (including the first author) with advanced knowledge in positive psychology read
Peterson and Seligman (2004), summarized definitions of the strengths, and reworded them
as necessary in a less scientific language independently from each other. Those solutions
were compared to each other and integrated into the final form.
2.3.3 Pretest of the ACS-RS
Psychometric properties of the ACS-RS were examined in a sample of 152 employed adult
volunteers (83 men, 69 women) from various occupations. Their mean age was 40.39 years
(SD = 9.48; range 19-70 years). Participants judged the applicability of the character
strengths in their work life. Internal consistencies were ≥ .74 for all scales (median α = .80).
Corrected item-total correlations of the ACS-RS were acceptable as they ranged from .36
to .91 with a median of .65. Mean scores out of the four ratings for each of the character
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
10
strengths were normally distributed. Summing up, findings showed that there was no need to
revise the ACS-RS for this research.
2.3.4 Interrater Reliability of the ACS-RS
The interrater reliability of the ACS-RS was tested by means of intra-class correlations
(absolute agreement). If the measures were reliable, different persons rating the strength-
related external demands (i.e., mean of the two ratings regarding normative demands and
appropriateness) within the same environment (i.e., their workplace) would agree in their
judgments. Three different workplaces – a road traffic department, a company for the
inspection of construction material, and a department for scientific research in psychology –
were studied by using six or seven raters each. ICC(2) coefficients were computed to test the
reliability of unit members’ average ratings. Interrater reliability was moderate to strong with
ICC(2, 7) = .73, ICC(2, 6) =.57, and ICC(2, 7) = .77, for administrative officials, inspectors
of construction material, and teaching and research associates, respectively (cf. LeBreton and
Senter 2008; F-tests associated with ICC values were statistically significant, all p < .001).
Agreement among inspectors of construction material was lower as they did not have tasks as
homogeneous as the administrative officials, and the teaching and research associates.
Furthermore, there were differences between the three groups in the applicability of certain
character strengths that can by traced back to the contents of each environment. For example,
teamwork was more applicable for the administrative officials and the inspectors of
construction material than for the teaching and research associates, who usually work alone.
The administrative officials shared a landscaped office and the inspectors of construction
material usually worked in groups of two together with the construction crew when
inspecting an ongoing building site.
3 Results
3.1 Preliminary Analyses
3.1.1 Descriptives and internal consistencies of the instruments
For an examination of the measurements, minima, maxima, means, standard deviations,
skewness, and kurtosis were computed for all scales. Furthermore, reliability analyses
(Cronbach’s alpha) were conducted for the scales that were not measured by single items.
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
11
Insert Table 1 about here
Table 1 shows that the means were slightly above the scale midpoint of 3 in VIA-IS and
ACS-RS (except for the religiousness scales). As often observed for satisfaction scales, the
mean for the JSQ was considerably above the scale midpoint of 4 (M = 5.40). However,
skewness and kurtosis indicated normal distribution of the scales. Internal consistencies were
≥ .70 for all scales (except honesty and kindness in the VIA-IS with α = .67 and .69,
respectively) and were higher for the ACS-RS (median α = .80 and .84 for work life and for
private life, respectively) than for the VIA-IS (median α = .76). This might be due to higher
standard deviations in the ACS-RS compared to the VIA-IS. Corrected item-total correlations
of the ACS-RS were satisfactory as they ranged from .36 to .87 with a median of .66 and
from .48 to .91 with a median of .70 for work life and for private life, respectively.
3.1.2 Intercorrelations of the ACS-RS scales
To find out the magnitude to which the 24 applicability ratings within each area of life were
associated with each other, Pearson correlations were computed. The correlation coefficients
ranged from -.01 (creativity and self-regulation) to .70 (beauty and gratitude) with a median
of .26 in work life. In the private life, correlation coefficients ranged from .06 (zest and self-
regulation) to .60 (beauty and gratitude) with a median of .26. Notably, all coefficients were
lower than the internal consistencies indicating that the participants can discriminate between
the applicability of the 24 different character strengths in both the work life and the private
life.
Furthermore, we were interested in the relationships between the applicability ratings
in the work life and the private life for each of the 24 character strengths. As people tend to
choose environments fitting their traits (cf., Caspi and Herbener 1990), simple relationships
might be inflated due to the underlying character strengths as traits that determine
individuals’ choices for similar environments. Hence, we computed partial correlations
between the applicability of each strength in work life and its applicability in private life
controlling for the VIA-IS score for the particular strength. The correlation coefficients
ranged from .09 (kindness) to .46 (bravery) with a median of .31 indicating that those ratings
are representations of separate (yet related) constructs.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
12
3.1.3 Correlations with demographics
Correlations of scales with age, gender, and educational level were modest in size; shared
variance between scales and demographics rarely exceeded 5% (maximum was 10%).
However, there were some noteworthy correlation patterns: Females had systematically
higher scores in the scales regarding appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, and the
strengths of humanity (in the VIA-IS, and in the ACS-RS for work and private life). The
higher the education the more likely people rated the strengths of wisdom and knowledge
higher on the VIA-IS and on the ACS-RS for work. Finally, age was positively related to
religiousness (on the VIA-IS, and on the ACS-RS for work and private life) as well as to job
satisfaction, engagement, and meaning. Hence, it was decided to control for demographics in
the subsequently conducted analyses.
3.2 Examination of the Validity of the ACS-RS
3.2.1 Applicability of Character Strengths in Private and Work Life
In order to examine whether certain character strengths can be applied more than others and
whether there were differences in private and work life, several analyses were conducted.
Firstly, a 2 (environment: private vs. work life) x 24 (the character strengths) ANCOVA was
computed with environment and character strengths as repeated measures variables, and
demographics (i.e., age, gender, and education) as covariates. Partial η2 was computed as the
effect size index with scores between .01 and .05, between .06 and .13, and .14 and higher
indicating small, medium, and large effects, respectively (Cohen 1988). Secondly, post hoc
tests (Bonferroni) were computed for pairwise comparisons to further examine the nature of
main effects. Thirdly, to break down the interaction effect between environment and
character strengths, t-tests for dependent samples were computed comparing the applicability
for each of the 24 character strengths in private versus work life.
As sphericity was violated, the multivariate test statistics were used as they do not
depend upon the assumption of sphericity. Both, the main effects and the interaction were
significant (p < .001). The pairwise comparison for the small main effect of environment
(F[1, 1107] = 16.80, p < .001, partial η2 = .015) indicated that, overall, the character
strengths were more often applied in private life than in work life (M = 3.66 vs. M = 3.46; p
< .001). Furthermore, the pairwise comparisons for the large main effect of character
strengths (F[23, 1085] = 8.62, p < .001, partial η2 = .154) indicated that the character
strengths that were least often applied were religiousness (M = 2.31) and bravery (M = 2.63;
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
13
all p < .001). Scores between 2 and 3 indicate that strengths were applicable seldom to
sometimes. All other strengths were more often applicable. Honesty (M = 4.18) and social
intelligence (M = 3.98) could be most often applied (all p < .001) with means indicating that
theses strengths can be applied often to (almost) always (score = 4.00 to 5.00, respectively).
Furthermore, the statistically significant interaction (F[23, 1085] = 3.77, p < .001,
partial η2 = .074) with a medium effect size indicated that different character strengths
yielded different patterns in their applicability in private versus work life. Fig. 1 shows the
pattern of applicability of the 24 character strengths in private and in work life.
Insert Fig. 1 about here
As indicated by Fig. 1, the t-test for dependent samples showed that all character strengths of
the virtue wisdom and knowledge and the character strengths of leadership, prudence, and
self-regulation were more applicable in work than in private life (all p < .001; except for
curiosity, p < .05). All character strengths assigned to the virtues courage, humanity, and
transcendence, as well as the character strengths of forgiveness and modesty could be more
applied in private than in work life (all p < .001). Applicability in working and private life for
fairness and teamwork did not differ (p = .70).
3.2.2 Relationships Between Possession and Applicability of Character Strengths
To examine the relationships between possession and applicability of character strengths, and
whether there are differences in the relationships for the two environments (i.e., private vs.
work life), several analyses were conducted. Firstly, partial correlations (controlled for age,
gender, and education) were computed between the corresponding character strengths
measured by the VIA-IS and the ACS-RS (separately for private and work life). Secondly,
differences between correlation coefficients were tested for significance for each of the
character strengths (see Table 2).
Insert Table 2 about here
Table 2 shows that all relationships between possessing (VIA-IS) and applying character
strengths (ACS-RS) were positive for both, private and work life. The median of correlations
was .34 for both, private (ranging from .21 to .82) and work life (ranging from .16 to .73),
respectively. In 12 out of 24 character strengths, correlation coefficients did not differ
between private life and work life; 11 out of 12 were higher for private life than for work life
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
14
(e.g., capacity to love and be loved, religiousness, hope, and prudence). The only exception
was leadership, which showed a stronger relationship between possessing the character
strength and its applicability in work than in private life.
3.3 Relationships Between Applicability of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
as a Function of the Centrality of the Strengths
It was expected that the applicability of strengths with highest ranks (i.e., high fit of
possession and application of strengths) would yield stronger relationships to positive
experiences at work than the applicability of strengths with lower ranks. Positive experiences
at work studied here were job satisfaction (JSQ) as well as pleasure, engagement, and
meaning fostered by one’s work (WCQ). For an examination of this expectation, partial
correlations (controlled for age, gender, and education) between the applicability of the
individuals’ highest (rank 1), second highest (rank 2), and so forth up to the 24th character
strength (rank 24) and the indicators of positive experiences at work were computed. A first
inspection of the correlation coefficients indicated that correlation coefficients decreased as
the rank of character strengths increased. To test the statistical significance of the decreases,
Spearman rank correlations were computed between the 24 ranks and the corresponding
correlation coefficients (N = 24) for each of the positive experiences. Correlation coefficients
were significant for job satisfaction (r = -.63, p < .01), pleasure (r = -.59, p < .01), and
engagement (r = -.65, p < .01). Meaning (r = -.35) did not yield significant correlation
coefficients; nevertheless, the correlation was in the expected direction (p > .05).
For an in depth examination of the nature of the trend in the positive experiences at
work, several analyses were conducted. Firstly, in order to increase reliability of the single
item measures of positive experiences at work, a composite score was computed by
conducting a principal component analysis using the variables clearly related to positive
experiences at work by content (the JSQ and the three WCQ ratings). The Eigenvalues were
2.66, .54, .48, and .32 indicating that there was a clear one-dimensional factor solution
explaining 66.49% of the variance. Factor loadings ranged from .77 (job satisfaction) to .86
(engagement at work). The factor was labeled as “positive experiences at work”. Factor
scores were computed by means of regression. Secondly, partial correlations were computed
(controlled for age, gender, and education) between the applicability of the individuals'
highest strength (rank 1), second highest (rank 2), and so forth up to the 24th character
strength (rank 24) and the factor scores of “positive experiences at work”. Fig. 2 presents the
pattern of the correlation coefficients depending on the rank.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
15
Insert Fig. 2 about here
Fig. 2 shows that the coefficients tended to decrease from rank 1 to rank 5 or 6, followed by a
plateau up to rank 16, with another decrease until rank 24. Thirdly, to investigate the form of
the relationships, these 24 correlation coefficients were entered into a regression analysis as
criterion variables, with rank as the predictor variable, testing the linear, quadratic, and cubic
trends. The linear and cubic trends were significant. The former explained 46% of the
variance in the correlation coefficients (F[1, 22] = 18.93, p < .001) and the linear and cubic
trends together explained 61% of the variance (F[3, 20] = 10.57, p < .001).
3.4 The Number of Applied Signature Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
To examine, whether there is a satiation point for the number of applied signature strengths
located between three and seven strengths with respect to the effect on positive experiences at
work, several analyses were conducted. Firstly, groups were computed defining participants
that can apply 0 to 7 of their seven highest character strengths. A conservative way was
selected in order to minimize effects of answer styles. A character strength among the seven
highest within an individual was only defined as being applied, if (a) the ACS-RS score was
4 or higher (i.e., this is equal to an applicability that is a least rated as “often”) and if (b) the
VIA-IS score was 3.5 or higher (i.e., this is equal to possessing a character strength at least
slightly). It was assumed that people could not apply character strengths-relevant behavior
that they do not possess to, at least, a small degree. Secondly, a univariate ANCOVA was
computed with the number of character strengths that are applied at work as classification
variable (8 groups: 0 to 7 strengths applied; with group sizes ranging from 59 to 181) and the
factor scores of “positive experiences at work” as the dependent variable. Again, age, gender,
and education entered the analysis as covariates. Repeated contrasts were utilized to check
whether positive experiences differed when using one strength instead of none, two strengths
instead of one, three strengths instead of two etc. The ANCOVA indicted a large effect of the
number of strengths that were applied at work on positive experiences at work, F(7, 1106) =
33.15, p < .001, η2 = .175. Fig. 3 shows the average of positive experiences at work as a
function of number of the seven highest character strengths applied at work.
Insert Fig. 3 about here
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
16
Fig. 3 shows that group means in positive experiences at work ranged from -.78 to .76 when
applying zero to seven of the highest strengths, which was a range equivalent to 1.5 standard
deviations. The repeated contrasts revealed that using one instead of no strength (p < .01),
two instead of one (p < .01), and three instead of two (p < .05) yielded in a significant
increase in positive experiences at work. The curve subsequently flattened; applying four
instead of three or five instead of four did not make a difference in positive experiences at
work. There seemed to be a satiation point between three and five strengths. However,
positive experiences at work slightly increased when six or seven strengths could be applied
(i.e., one half standard deviation). When considering the eight or nine highest character
strengths, there was no significant increase in positive experiences at work. Interestingly,
group size dropped for the groups being able to apply six (n6 = 94) or seven strengths
(n7 = 59) indicating that applying a sixth or seventh signature strengths was relatively rare.
4 Discussion
The combination of the ACS-RS and the VIA-IS gives a new approach for the investigation
of the congruence between signature strengths and the situational circumstances in specific
environments of interest. The present study compared the character strengths of a person with
the situational circumstances in his/her workplace. In line with the expectation, there were
positive relationships between the degree of congruence and positive experiences at work.
Correlations between applicability of strengths and positive experiences increased with the
centrality of the strengths (irrespective of the nature of the strengths). This study provides
strong empirical evidence supporting the construct validity of signature strengths.
Independent from content, character strengths differ in their importance. Actually, the
amount of positive experiences at work increased with the number of signature strengths that
could be applied. A “satiation point” was observed at around four strengths, which is within
the range of the number of signature strengths (i.e., between three and seven) stipulated by
Peterson and Seligman (2004). However, this finding does not mean that each person owns
four signature strengths. This number results from analyzing data across but not within
participants. There will be individual differences in the number of signature strengths.
Peterson and Seligman (2004) assumed that signature strengths are characterized by ten
criteria (e.g., a sense of ownership, a feeling of excitement while using it, and an intrinsic
motivation to use it). These criteria would need to be considered in future studies
investigating individual differences in the number of signature strengths.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
17
Studies of the congruence between the signature strengths and the situational
circumstances should not to be confused with studies of the fit between other characteristics
of a person and the attributes of the work environment. This fit has often been highlighted in
psychological research on career choice and development as being decisive for positive
work-related outcomes (e.g., Brown 2002; Caplan 1987; Holland 1997). For example, the
degree of fit relates to job satisfaction (e.g., Gati, Garty, and Fassa 1996; Lyons and O’Brian
2006) and pleasure as a positive emotion towards the job (Edwards 1996). The specific role
of character strengths as important characteristics of a person within the workplace remains
understudied. The congruence between the job tasks and the individual signature strengths
can be interpreted as both a need-supplies and a demands-abilities related fit (cf., Kristof
1996). The individual’s signature strengths form the individual’s need to be allowed to
behave congruent with those strengths. If the job tasks do allow for them, then the job
supplies this need. This notion is also in line with research that highlights the need for
opportunities for the use of individual capacities for promoting job satisfaction, engagement,
or productivity at work (e.g., Lowe 2010; Walton 1975). However, the job tasks may demand
strengths-related behavior that a person is able to show (or not) due to the degree of
possession of the relevant strengths. The need-supplies related fit was most of interest here as
the starting point was the constellation of strengths within the individual and their
applicability at work, but not the strengths most required by the job. Additionally,
incremental validity might be studied with respect to common operationalizations of person-
job fit like values, abilities or interests (e.g., Holland 1997; Kristof 1996) when predicting job
satisfaction or other work related outcomes. Nevertheless, the present study provides initial
evidence that the strength-related congruence between a person and his/her job might play a
role in positive experiences at work.
As a methodological extension of the present research, the applicability of character
strengths might be measured by means of peer-ratings as well. A replication of the findings
using peer-ratings would also provide further validation, as the findings regarding the
congruence between the signature strengths of a person and the applicability of those
strengths could in part be due to methodological reasons – both, possession and applicability
of character strengths as well as the positive experiences at work were measured through self-
ratings. However, the identification of signature strengths was a conservative one, because
they were identified by rank ordering the scores in possessing the character strengths.
Consequently, the impact of response styles was kept constant at least to some degree.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
18
Furthermore, generalizability of results to less educated people should be examined, as
individuals with a very high educational level characterized the sample for this study.
Despite the implicit assumption that the positive experiences at work are the result of
the application of individual signature strengths, causality cannot be established from the
cross-sectional data reported here. This paper examined whether the application of individual
signature strengths was robustly associated with positive experiences at work. Further
research utilizing longitudinal design or intervention studies would be needed to address the
assumed causality.
The focus of the present paper was on an individual worker’s perspective. However,
the work context is much more complex and therefore, antecedents of positive experiences at
work are manifold as well. For example, the relationships among co-workers as well as
between employees and managers, organizational culture, and leadership practices may play
important roles (cf., Lowe 2010). Furthermore, positive experiences at work like job
satisfaction and engagement relate to efficiency and effectiveness (e.g., Judge, Thoresen,
Bono, and Patton 2001; Stairs and Galpin 2010). Further research needs to study more
complex models moving beyond the individual worker’s perspective to study the application
of strengths within a broader context, for example, to study how different leadership practices
foster or hinder the application of strengths.
Compared to the possession of character strengths, variance in the applicability of
character strengths-relevant behavior tended to be higher. Hence, it might be interesting to
investigate specific jobs, as the sample investigated here was a mixed sample with employees
from very different occupations. However, it might be of interest to study which character
strengths are the most appropriate ones within certain occupational fields as well. Research
has already pointed to the role of specific character strengths within certain jobs; for example,
the strengths of humanity were especially related to job satisfaction in jobs that involve other
people like teaching or sales (Peterson and Park 2006). Additionally, strengths like bravery,
honesty, and teamwork discriminate between a civilian sample and military samples
(Matthews, Eid, Kelly, Bailey, and Peterson 2006). It might be expected, that those persons
who especially possess (and apply) those strengths, better fit into these environments.
Consequently, their job satisfaction and job performance should be higher. Results of studies
investigating these questions will provide further evidence for the role of character strengths
in the workplace as well.
The present study indicated that the ACS-RS seems to be a reliable and valid
instrument for the measurement of situational circumstances that foster or hinder character
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
19
strengths-relevant behavior. Reliability was satisfactory in terms of internal consistency and
interrater-reliability. Validity of the ACS-RS was studied by means of replicating knowledge
from research on situational influences on personality and extending it to the concept
character strengths. As people tend to choose situations suiting their personality (Caspi and
Herbener 1990), possession and applicability of character strengths were positively related.
Furthermore, the situational influences on trait-relevant behavior have been noted
earlier in personality research (Ten Berge and De Raad 1999), but this study extends this to
the trait concepts of the character strengths as postulated by Peterson and Seligman (2004).
Kenrick, McCreath, Govern, Kind, and Bordin (1990) found that some traits could be
observed across more situations than others. This was found for character strengths as well;
bravery and religiousness were the strengths least often applicable, and honesty and social
intelligence were the ones most often applicable with the rest of the strengths ranging in
between. Differences in the degree of applicability as measured with the ACS-RS can be
interpreted as first hints that character strengths do differ in the degree of being tonic vs.
phasic. Nevertheless, frequency of applicability is an approximation for the degree of being
tonic vs. phasic. Further studies are needed, for example, examining whether the degree of
being tonic vs. phasic is one dimensional.
Additionally, applicability of certain character strengths as measured with the ACS-
RS differed with respect to the environment considered (i.e., private life vs. work life). For
example, leadership was more applicable at work than at home and the capacity to love and
be loved was more applicable at home. This result is in line with previous research stipulating
that situations differ in their suitability for the expression of certain traits (Ten Berge and De
Raad 1999; Kenrick et al. 1990).
The paragraphs describing strength-relevant behavior in the ACS-RS rely on the
definitions presented by Peterson and Seligman (2004). Those paragraphs entail more
information than simple labels of the strengths. This makes sure the whole bandwidth of the
character strengths is presented with less room for interindividually different interpretations
regarding the meaning of the character strengths. In the present study, the applicability of
character strengths at work and in the private life were studied. However, another or more
specific environments or situations (e.g., leisure time, project a vs. project b) can be studied
by emphasizing it in the instruction of the ACS-RS.
This study showed that character strengths matter in vocational environments
irrespective of their content. Strengths-congruent activities at the workplace are important for
positive experiences at work, like job satisfaction as well as experiencing pleasure,
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
20
engagement, and meaning fostered by one’s job. One operationalization of strengths-
congruence could be the overlap between the signature strengths (as positive traits) of an
individual and the demands of the workplace. Using the VIA-IS and the ACS-RS together in
career counseling could give information on the signature strengths of an individual and the
degree of applicability of these strengths in their work. Any discrepancies identified might be
addressed by a systematic, individualized intervention strategy to reduce them (e.g., by
changes in workplace design and job tasks), which in turn could lead to an increase in job
satisfaction and happiness at work.
Acknowledgments
The authors like to thank Yves Weibel who helped with the data collection and the compilation of the ACS-RS.
References
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Butcher, J. M., & Pancheri, P. (1976). A handbook of cross-national MMPI research. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Brown, D. (Ed .). (2002). Career choice and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-Environment Fit Theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time
perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-
X
Caspi, A., & Herbener, E. S. (1990). Continu ity and change: Assortativ e marriage and the consistency of
personality in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250-258. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.58.2.250
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress.
The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 292-339. doi:10.2307/256782
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York,
NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Gati, I., Garty,Y., & Fassa, N. (1996) Using career-related aspects to assess person-environment fit. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 43, 196-206. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.2.196
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
21
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of work personalities and work environments.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.
Huta, V., & Hawley, L. (2010). Psychological strengths and cognitive vulnerabilities: Are they two ends of the
same continuum or do they have independent relationships with well-being and ill-being? Journal of Happiness
Studies, 11, 71-93. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9123-4
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.127.3.376
Kenrick, D. T., McCreath, H. E., Gover, J., King, R., & Bordin, J. (1990). Person-environment intersections:
Everyday settings and common trait dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 685-698.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.685
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An investigative review of its conceptualizations, measurement,
and implication. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater
agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. F. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and
employees: Toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 419-430.
doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.516765
Lowe, G. (2010). Creating healthy organizations. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Pr ess.
Lyons, H. & O’Brian, K. M. (2006). The role of person-environment fit in the job satisfaction and tenure
intentions of African American employees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 387-396. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.53.4.387
Matthews, M. D., Eid, J., Kelly, D., Bailey, J. K. S., & Peterson, C. (2006). Character strengths and virtues of
developing military leaders: An international comparison. Military Psycho logy, 18(Suppl.), 57-68.
doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_5
McGrath, R. E., Rashid, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2010). Is optimal functioning a distinct state? The
Humanistic Psychologist, 38, 159-169. doi:10.1080/08873261003635781
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2007). Methodological issues in positive psychology and the assessment of character
strengths. In A. D. Ong, & M. H. M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 292-
305). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2006). Character strengths in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
1149-1154. doi:10.1002/job.398
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005a). Assessment of character strengths. In G. P. Koocher, J. C.
Norcross, & S. S. Hill III (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 93-98). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005b). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full
versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25-41. doi:10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtu es: A handbook and classification.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
22
Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1992). Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and Withey Job
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 357-367.
doi:10.1177/0013164492052002011
Ruch, W ., Furrer, G., & Huwyler, D. (2004). Work Context Questionnaire (WCQ). Unpublished instrument,
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ruch, W ., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Values in Action
Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and Validation of the German Version and the Development of a
Peer-Rating Form. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138-149. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000022
Saucier, G., Bel-Bahar, T., & Fernandez, C. (2007). What modifies the expression of personality tendencies?
Defining basic domains of situation variables. Journal of Personality, 75, 479-503. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2007.00446.x
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American
Psychologist, 55, 5-14. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical
validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410-421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410
Shimai, S., Otake, K., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Convergence of character strengths
in American and Japanese young adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 311-322. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-
3647-7
Stairs, M., & Galpin, M. (2010). Positive engagement: from employee engagement to workplace happiness. In
P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea, Oxford handbook of positive psychology at work (pp. 155-172). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.87.2.245
Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective. A
review. European Journal of Personality, 13, 337-360. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0984(199909/10)13:5<337::AID-PER363>3.0.CO;2-F
Walton, R. E. (1975). Criteria for quality of working life. In L. E. Davis, & A . B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of
working life (Vol. 1, pp. 91-104). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wood, A. M., Linley, A. P., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psychological
strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths
use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 15-19. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.004
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
23
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of The Measures for Possession (VIA-IS) and Applicability (ACS-
RS) of Character Strengths as Well as For Positive Experiences (WCQ, JSQ)
Scales
M
SD
α
M
SD
α
M
SD
α
Character strengths
VIA-IS
ACS-RS Work Life
ACS-RS Private Life
Creativity
3.55
0.63
.88
3.68
0.76
.82
3.51
0.78
.87
Curiosity
4.10
0.47
.79
3.56
0.76
.81
3.50
0.77
.87
Judgment
3.85
0.45
.79
3.56
0.76
.81
3.46
0.75
.85
Love of learning
3.91
0.55
.82
3.93
0.67
.77
3.65
0.73
.85
Perspective
3.54
0.45
.75
3.74
0.76
.84
3.53
0.74
.87
Bravery
3.59
0.48
.74
2.37
0.87
.86
2.90
0.82
.88
Perseverance
3.55
0.57
.84
3.56
0.76
.78
3.67
0.73
.84
Honesty
3.80
0.40
.67
4.11
0.64
.72
4.24
0.57
.76
Zest
3.70
0.52
.77
3.72
0.67
.71
3.98
0.63
.78
Love
3.82
0.46
.73
2.88
0.99
.90
4.20
0.70
.87
Kindness
3.75
0.44
.69
3.65
0.76
.79
4.01
0.63
.79
Social Intelligence
3.67
0.44
.73
3.81
0.75
.81
4.14
0.61
.80
Teamwork
3.64
0.47
.74
3.62
0.72
.79
3.61
0.76
.87
Fairness
3.90
0.45
.76
3.71
0.76
.80
3.72
0.81
.88
Leadership
3.66
0.45
.72
3.66
0.86
.86
3.34
0.92
.91
Forgiveness
3.54
0.51
.78
3.30
0.74
.79
3.68
0.71
.81
Modesty
3.22
0.54
.79
3.56
0.73
.74
3.71
0.67
.79
Prudence
3.35
0.50
.72
3.72
0.73
.79
3.55
0.80
.87
Self-regulation
3.32
0.53
.71
3.51
0.74
.76
3.20
0.76
.84
Beauty
3.59
0.52
.73
3.31
0.88
.85
3.96
0.67
.83
Gratitude
3.70
0.51
.80
3.25
0.88
.85
3.99
0.67
.82
Hope
3.60
0.54
.80
3.60
0.75
.80
3.90
0.67
.81
Humor
3.61
0.55
.85
3.34
0.77
.80
3.76
0.69
.83
Religiousness
2.81
0.87
.91
1.98
1.02
.90
2.63
1.17
.94
Positive experiences
WCQ
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
24
Pleasure
3.83
0.90
–
Engagement
3.88
0.98
–
Meaning
3.76
1.03
–
Job satisfaction
5.40
0.95
.80
Note. N = 1,103-1,111. Love = Capacity to love and be loved; Beauty = Appreciation of beauty and excellence.
– an em dash indicates that the internal consistencies were not computed (single item measures).
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
25
Table 2 Partial Correlations (Controlled For Age, Gender, and Education) Between the VIA-IS Scales and the
ACS-RS Scales (For Private Life and Working Life Separately) and Comp arison of the Correlations
Character strengths
Private life
Working life
t
Creativity
.53
.45
2.94**
Curiosity
.33
.27
1.91
Judgment
.36
.25
3.28**
Love of learning
.46
.37
2.90**
Perspective
.26
.19
2.10*
Bravery
.26
.22
1.38
Perseverance
.29
.31
-0.64
Honesty
.30
.21
2.72**
Zest
.47
.43
1.50
Love
.53
.28
7.74**
Kindness
.32
.27
1.52
Social Intelligence
.28
.24
1.21
Teamwork
.34
.37
-0.91
Fairness
.37
.37
0.00
Leadership
.32
.42
-3.11**
Forgiveness
.33
.38
-1.71
Modesty
.33
.24
2.98**
Prudence
.34
.20
4.51**
Self-regulation
.21
.16
1.53
Beauty
.47
.40
2.56*
Gratitude
.51
.48
1.17
Hope
.53
.41
4.79**
Humor
.58
.55
1.35
Religiousness
.82
.73
7.63**
Note. N = 1,111. All correlation coefficients are significant at p < .001. Love = Capacity to love and be loved;
Beauty = Appreciation of beauty and excellence. t = significance test for difference between correlation
coefficients for the comparison of dependent correlations Steiger (1980).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
26
Fig. 1 Applicability of the 24 character strengths (ACS-RS score with 95% confidence interval) in private and in
work life. Love = Capacity to love and be loved; Beauty = Appreciation of beauty and excellence
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
27
Fig. 2 Partial correlation coefficients (controlled for age, gender, and education) between applicab ility of
character strengths and positive experiences at work as a function of the character strengths’ rank (i.e.,
centrality). Computed regression lines of linear and cubic regression analysis are presented
Application of Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work
28
Fig. 3 Average factor scores in positive experiences at work (with 95% confidence interval) as a function of
number of the seven highest character strengths applied at work. Group sample sizes were n0 = 123, n1 = 152, n2
= 181, n3 = 175, n4 = 171, n5 = 151, n6 = 94, and n7 = 59
