Strengths deployment as a mood-repair mechanism: Evidence from a diary study with a relationship exercise group

Abstract

Character strengths represent positive durable attributes of individuals, and their deployment is hypothesized to positively affect mood and well-being. Furthermore, strengths deployment may serve as a mood-repair strategy which promotes growth. Close relationships, being potential facilitators of personal growth, were hypothesized to amplify these two effects. These hypotheses were examined in a quasi-experimental diary study. Participants (N = 150) completed daily measures of strengths deployment and mood. They were randomly assigned to a relationship-exercise condition (writing a daily note to a loved one), or to one of two control conditions. Previous-day strengths deployment was associated with more positive daily mood, and previous-day adverse mood predicted increased strengths deployment. The first effect seemed to be somewhat stronger in the relationship-exercise condition. These results highlight positive daily effect of strengths deployment, demonstrate the use of strengths to combat adverse mood, and suggest that close relationships enhance the positive effects of strengths deployment.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Ben Gurion University of the Negev]
On: 16 December 2014, At: 04:30
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to
furthering research and promoting good practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20
Strengths deployment as a mood-repair mechanism:
Evidence from a diary study with a relationship
exercise group
Shiri Lavya, Hadassah Littman-Ovadiab & Yariv Barelib
a Department of Leadership and Policy in Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
b Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
Published online: 14 Jul 2014.
To cite this article: Shiri Lavy, Hadassah Littman-Ovadia & Yariv Bareli (2014) Strengths deployment as a mood-repair
mechanism: Evidence from a diary study with a relationship exercise group, The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to
furthering research and promoting good practice, 9:6, 547-558, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2014.936963
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936963
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Strengths deployment as a mood-repair mechanism: Evidence from a diary study with a
relationship exercise group
Shiri Lavy
a
*, Hadassah Littman-Ovadia
b
and Yariv Bareli
b
a
Department of Leadership and Policy in Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel;
b
Department of Behavioral Sciences,
Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
(Received 19 June 2013; accepted 21 May 2014)
Character strengths represent positive durable attributes of individuals, and their deployment is hypothesized to positively
affect mood and well-being. Furthermore, strengths deployment may serve as a mood-repair strategy which promotes
growth. Close relationships, being potential facilitators of personal growth, were hypothesized to amplify these two
effects. These hypotheses were examined in a quasi-experimental diary study. Participants (N= 150) completed daily
measures of strengths deployment and mood. They were randomly assigned to a relationship-exercise condition (writing
a daily note to a loved one), or to one of two control conditions. Previous-day strengths deployment was associated with
more positive daily mood, and previous-day adverse mood predicted increased strengths deployment. The first effect
seemed to be somewhat stronger in the relationship-exercise condition. These results highlight positive daily effect of
strengths deployment, demonstrate the use of strengths to combat adverse mood, and suggest that close relationships
enhance the positive effects of strengths deployment.
Keywords: character strengths; strengths deployment; mood; mood-repair; close relationships; intervention; strength;
personal growth
Most people generally desire to be satisfied and experi-
ence positive mood in their daily life (Diener, 2000).
Recent studies suggest that daily use of simple cognitive
and behavioral strategies may be one of the most benefi-
cial paths to increase well-being (Sin & Lyubomirsky,
2009), while also enhancing positive emotions and a
positive mood (Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot, 1991; Urry
et al., 2004). Accordingly, the predominant body of
recent studies suggests that happiness may be largely
subjected to individuals’control, through the activities
they choose and by the ways they construe and respond
to situations in their lives (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, &
Schkade, 2005). Character strengths –positive psycho-
logical attributes reflecting various aspects of human ful-
fillment (Peterson & Seligman, 2004)–capture those
qualities that are best about people and capture their
potential to achieve well-being, including positive affect
(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Thus, character-strengths
deployment can be regarded as a means of enabling ful-
fillment and growth as well as promoting positive mood
(in the short term), and promoting life satisfaction (in the
long term). The positive effects of close relationships on
well-being (e.g. Ryan & Deci, 2001) and functioning
(Feeney & Collins, 2014; Wekerle, Waechter, & Chung,
2011) are hypothesized to be related to (and perhaps
result from) their enhancement of character-strengths
deployment.
In the present study, we focused on character-
strengths deployment as a mechanism for enhancing
positive daily mood, which can also be applied strategi-
cally to repair adverse moods. We further explored close
relationships as a factor which may enhance the positive
effect of strengths deployment on mood, and the use of
strengths deployment to repair adverse moods.
Character strengths
Character strengths have been extensively studied by
Peterson and Seligman (2004), who also developed a
classification of character strengths called values in
action, based on a comprehensive literature review and
professional consensus. This classification comprises 24
character strengths, each related to one of six broader
virtues: (a) creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of
learning, and perspective –all related to the virtue of
wisdom and knowledge; (b) bravery, integrity, persis-
tence, and zest –related to the virtue of courage; (c)
kindness, love, and social intelligence –related to the
virtue of humanity; (d) fairness, leadership, and team-
work –related to justice; (e) forgiveness, modesty, pru-
dence, and self-regulation –related to temperance; and
(f ) appreciation of beauty, gratitude, hope, humor, and
spirituality –related to transcendence.
*Corresponding author. Email: shirilavy@gmail.com
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2014
Vol. 9, No. 6, 547–558, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936963
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

These character strengths were argued to be the basis
for individuals’greatest accomplishments, life satisfac-
tion, and positive affect (Seligman, 2012). Empirical
examination of this idea has shown that, indeed, the
endorsement of character strengths was associated with
life satisfaction for almost all strengths (with the excep-
tions of three of the 24 strengths: appreciation of beauty,
creativity, and modesty), and that the relationship
between strengths and life satisfaction was monotonic
(i.e. having extremely high scores for any given strength
did not diminish life satisfaction; Littman-Ovadia &
Lavy, 2012; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004; Ruch
et al., 2010). In addition, people’s overall levels of char-
acter strengths were positively related to satisfaction with
the past (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), optimism about
the future (Duckworth, Steen, & Seligman, 2005), and
meaning in life (Littman-Ovadia & Steger, 2010).
Beyond the value for well-being of seeing oneself as
possessing character strengths, one of the central ideas in
character-strengths theory is their deployment in daily
situations (Littman-Ovadia & Steger, 2010). Peterson and
Seligman (2004) argued that character strengths can be
deployed in mundane ways on a daily basis in life, and
their deployment increases individuals’sense of well-
being and fulfillment. This statement has received initial
empirical support in a study associating strengths deploy-
ment at work with employees’and volunteers’life satis-
faction and job satisfaction (Littman-Ovadia & Steger,
2010). Additional support has been gained from studies
demonstrating the positive effects of deploying specific
strengths. For example, keeping a daily record of grati-
tude-inducing experiences lead to increased well-being in
the short term and long term (Emmons & McCullough,
2003; see Wood, Froh, & Geraghty, 2010, for a review),
and exercising hope/optimism on a daily basis was asso-
ciated with decreased pessimism, negative affect, and
emotional exhaustion (Littman-Ovadia & Nir, 2014).
Along similar lines, performing acts of kindness boosted
participants’perceived autonomy or choice, which, in turn,
predicted increases in their happiness and decreases in
negative affect (Della Porta, Jacobs Bao, & Lyubomirsky,
2012), and practicing meditation of loving kindness
(Carson et al., 2005; Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, &
Finkel, 2008) was associated with increased well-being
and decreased levels of pain and distress.
The mechanisms which underlie the positive effect of
strengths deployment on well-being have not been fully
understood to date (e.g. see Emmons and Mishra (2011)
for suggestions related to a specific strength: gratitude).
However, the increase of positive affect (along with the
related antecedents of positive affect) which follows
strengths deployment, are one of the common hypothe-
sized reasons for the enhancement of well-being. For
example, Lyubomirsky, Dickerhoof, Boehm, and Sheldon
(2011) cited positive events that occur over the course of
strengths deployment, as well as the satisfaction of sig-
nificant human needs, as possible mediators underlying
gains in well-being, and Dickerhoof (2007) suggested
that strengths deployment increases satisfying
experiences.
These findings, indicating that deployment of a spe-
cific strength can decrease adverse emotional states and
increase positive emotional states, set the ground for a
broader examination of the effects of deployment of multi-
ple strengths. The single-related study (Littman-Ovadia &
Steger, 2010), which explored general strengths deploy-
ment effects (i.e. deployment of all 24 strengths) in a
cross-sectional survey, indicated the association of deploy-
ment of multiple strengths with well-being and provided
initial support for the suggested positive effect.
Thus, the first goal of the present study was to
empirically examine the effects of strengths deployment
as a general construct (without focusing on a specific
strength). We aimed to learn about the direct effect of
deployment of strengths as an aggregate of all that is
good about humans (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In an
attempt to avoid cognitive bias related to individuals’
generalization of their experiences, and to capture what
individuals actually experience in situ (Schwartz,
Kahneman, & Xu, 2009), we chose to focus on
strengths-deployment effects on general mood –a simple
variable which can vary daily. Our first hypothesis was:
H1: Deployment of character strengths on one day will
increase positive mood on the following day.
Moreover, if strengths deployment proves to have a posi-
tive effect on mood, it has the potential of serving as a
mechanism for combating negative mood –a mood-repair
strategy. The motivation to avoid adverse mood and
enhance positive mood is considered universal (Larsen,
2000). Studies have demonstrated people’s use of various
strategies to repair their mood, with some strategies
known to be more effective than others, and some more
adaptive than others (Larsen, 2000; Larsen & Diener
1987; Morris & Reilly, 1987; Zelenski & Larsen, 1999).
If our first hypothesis is supported, it will suggest that
strengths deployment can be an effective mood-repair
strategy, because it promotes a more positive mood. And
since character strengths represent positive attributes hav-
ing the potential to contribute to individuals and their
environment (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), strengths
deployment can also be considered an adaptive mood-
repair strategy, as it facilitates individuals’personal
growth, for their own benefit and for the benefit of others
in their environment (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The use of strengths for the aim of mood repair has
not been assessed previously. Thus, the second goal of
this study was to examine the use of strengths deploy-
ment as a mood-repair strategy. Specifically, if strengths
548 S. Lavy et al.
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

deployment functions as a mood-repair strategy, people
will tend to apply their strengths more when experienc-
ing a more adverse mood. Hence, we hypothesized that:
H2: Experiencing an adverse mood (low mood) on a cer-
tain day will increase deployment of character strengths
on the following day.
Close relationships –a potential moderator
The effects of positive activities (Lyubomirsky et al.,
2011) such as strengths deployment, as well as the use
of more effective and adaptive mood-repair strategies
(Josephson, Singer, & Salovey, 1996), are influenced by
various factors in individuals’environment. Among these
factors, close relationships are among the most influential
in various life domains. In this section, we argue that
close relationships can enhance the positive effects of
strengths deployment and increase the use of strengths
deployment as a strategy for mood-repair.
Close relationships –which can be broadly defined
as the perceived or actual closeness or support one
receives from at least one other individual –have been
associated with better health (Loving & Slatcher, 2013),
well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001), and functioning
(Wekerle et al., 2011). Individuals involved in relation-
ships demonstrated a greater capacity to cope with diffi-
culties and overcome physical and psychological hurdles
than individuals who were not in relationships (e.g.
Younger, Aron, Parke, Chatterjee, & Mackey, 2010).
These positive effects were most often examined in con-
texts of romantic relationships (e.g. Loving & Slatcher,
2013), but several studies cite positive effects of other
close relationships, such as nonromantic friendships (e.g.
Demir, Orthel, & Andelin, 2013) and close sibling
relationships (Bank, Patterson, & Reid, 1996), on well-
being, happiness, and growth.
However, despite the robustness and consistency of
the positive effects of close relationships, empirical evi-
dence regarding the mechanisms underlying these effects
is existent, but still lacking. One line of evidence, focus-
ing on the positive association between close relation-
ships and well-being, shows that relationships and
relationship-related phenomena moderate (or buffer) pro-
cesses which decrease well-being. For example, social
support was identified as a moderator of the negative
effects of stress on well-being and on various health
indicators (e.g. Cobb, 1976), and partner support moder-
ated the negative effects of a disease on self-image and
experienced pain (Kudel, Edwards, Raja, Haythornthwa-
ite, & Heinberg, 2008). Saphire-Bernstein and Taylor’s
(2013) review also highlight the role of social support
and its salutary effects on mental and physical health,
but add the human need to belong, and the importance
of intimacy.
Along similar lines, several studies demonstrate the
role of a secure relationship with a significant other in
moderating negative effects of stress (e.g. Davidovitz,
Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007; see Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007 for a review) and of conflict (Feeney &
Cassidy, 2003), and the role of internal representations of
such secure relationships in facilitating individuals’ability
to develop adaptive emotion regulation strategies. In this
regard, relational regulation theory (RRT; Lakey &
Orehek, 2011) poses even more specific suggestions about
the mechanism underlying the positive effects of relation-
ships on mental health, and proposes that people regulate
their affect, thought, and action through ordinary yet affec-
tively consequential conversations and shared activities
with others (Lakey & Orehek, 2011). However, research-
ers assume that there are additional mechanisms, which
have not been broadly studied, which underlie the associa-
tion between relationships and happiness, and have yet to
be explored (Saphire-Bernstein & Taylor, 2013).
But as stated above, relationships are hypothesized to
facilitate well-being not only by buffering negative
affect, but also by promoting personal growth and
enhancing other desirable outcomes. The role of relation-
ships and relationship-related phenomena in enhancing
such outcomes has been increasingly studied in the last
few decades. For example, spouse secure-base behavior
(availability, encouragement, and non-intrusiveness) has
been shown to facilitate exploration behavior and goal
strivings (Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010). In this
context, Mikulincer and Shaver (2013) convincingly
argue that even insecure adults who have a secure rela-
tionship partner, in either marriage or psychotherapy, can
become more secure, and improve their well-being.
Another example is Gable and colleagues’work on capi-
talization support (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004)
which demonstrates the potential benefits of sharing
positive events in ordinary social interactions with
friends. When the close other responds in an active and
constructive manner to the positive shared information,
the discloser experiences increased subjective well-being,
and self-esteem, and decreased loneliness (Gable &
Reis, 2010).
The present study attempts to advance the under-
standing of relationships’role in enhancing personal
desirable outcomes, and to provide initial insight into a
specific mechanism through which relationships may
promote personal growth and fulfillment. We investigated
the impact of a two-week relationship-exercise interven-
tion on the association of daily deployment of strengths
with participants’mood on the following day: We asked
individuals in the experimental group to write a daily
note to someone that they love, regarding their apprecia-
tion of the relationship. This intervention was intended
to evoke daily reminders of a meaningful close
relationship, and of the love they feel and receive. Daily
The Journal of Positive Psychology 549
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

reminders of close relationships may amplify the positive
effects of character strengths deployment on mood (gen-
erating positive mood), by highlighting the positive
aspects of this deployment for individuals’growth and
engagement in life opportunities. Thus, we hypothesized
that a daily relationship exercise would amplify the posi-
tive feelings following strengths deployment by high-
lighting individuals’positive, competent self, as reflected
in their loved ones’perspective (see also Rusbult, Finkel,
& Kumashiro, 2009).
H3: The positive association between previous-day
strengths deployment and daily mood will be amplified
among participants who complete a daily relationship
exercise.
Moreover, if close relationships amplify the positive
effects of daily strengths deployment on mood, individu-
als who enjoy such relationships may be prompted to
increase their daily strengths deployment as a mood-
repair strategy. Thus, close relationships may promote
individuals’personal growth and flourishing by enhanc-
ing their strengths deployment (in order to combat a neg-
ative mood and perhaps in other cases as well).
These ideas correspond with the literature linking
relationships to growth and fulfillment (e.g. Feeney &
Collins, 2014; Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1993),
and may provide insight into a specific path through
which relationships strengthen the tendency to deploy
strengths as a mechanism for improving mood. We aimed
to investigate the contribution of relationships to individu-
als’use of their personal strengths to repair their mood,
while coping with daily adversity (manifested in negative
daily affect; see Feeney & Collins, 2014 for an elaboration
on this idea). Based on several studies that demonstrated
relationships’contribution to adopting effective, construc-
tive affect-regulation strategies (see Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007, for a review), and on Bowlby’s(1969/1982)
descriptions of relationships’role in launching exploration
and development, we suggest that daily reminders of a
relationship with a specific loved one can lead individuals
to increase their daily deployment of character strength,
especially upon encountering adversity.
Another theoretical and empirical base for the role of
relationship in enhancing strengths deployment, as a path
for personal growth, is the Michelangelo phenomenon,
one of the most prominent interpersonal models of how
close partners promote individuals’pursuit of ideal-self
goals (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999).
The idea behind this phenomenon is that the ideal self
comprises the skills, traits, and resources that an individ-
ual ideally endeavors to acquire, providing direction to
personal-growth strivings (Higgins, 1987; Markus &
Nurius, 1986), and the acquisition of new skills, traits,
and resources is shaped by interpersonal experience.
Hence, partner perceptual and behavioral affirmation of
the individual’s ideal self helps the individual to move
closer to his or her ideals, and enjoy enhanced personal
well-being (e.g. Drigotas et al., 1999; Rusbult et al.,
2009).
Following Feeney and Collins’(2014) theoretical
model for understanding the importance of relationships
in the promotion of thriving through adversity, corre-
sponding to the protective function theoretically attributed
to character strengths (Park, 2004), and based on the
Michelangelo phenomenon, our fourth hypothesis was:
H4: The association between previous-day adverse mood
and increased strengths deployment will be amplified
among participants who complete a daily relationship
exercise.
Finally, to gain a broader understanding of the effects
of our daily relationship intervention, we wanted to
explore the kinds of responses that participants generate
when asked to write a daily note to someone they love.
Therefore, we conducted a content analysis of the items
listed in the intervention condition to identify the various
themes. The aim of the content analysis was twofold.
First, to serve as a manipulation check for the interven-
tion condition; and second, to learn more about the
underlying psychological processes by revealing the
types of themes people elicit upon contemplating a
meaningful relationship with a close other. To the best of
our knowledge, this is the first study that addresses this
aim in a daily context, in regard to a relationship inter-
vention. Note that Rash, Matsuba, and Prkachin (2011)
did so in the context of a gratitude intervention, and
Littman-Ovadia and Nir (2014) in the context of an
optimism intervention.
Method
Participants
The study included 150 Behavioral Science students
(133 women, 17 men), aged 18–34 (M= 22.84, SD =
2.19), who received course credit for their participation.
About half (79) reported being involved in a meaningful
romantic relationship during the study. The time span of
these relationships ranged from 1 to 40 months (Mean =
32 months, Med = 35 months, SD = 25.66).
Measures
Daily strengths deployment was assessed using a 24-item
Hebrew questionnaire (Littman-Ovadia & Steger, 2010),
based on Peterson and Seligman’s(
2004) list of character
strengths. The names of the 24 character strengths from
the inventory of strengths were presented (‘Creativity’,
‘Fairness’,‘Perspective’,‘Leadership’) and participants
were requested to indicate the extent to which they
550 S. Lavy et al.
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

deployed each of the 24 strengths during the day (e.g. to
what extent have you used the strength ‘creativity’
today?). Items were rated on a seven-point scale, ranging
from 1 (very little) to 7 (very much). Daily strengths
deployment was computed for each day by summing all
item scores for that day. (Daily scores ranged from 24 to
168).
Daily mood was assessed using a single question:
How would you describe your mood today? Participants
responded on a scale from 1 (very bad)to7(very good).
Procedure
Students were contacted in class and via an online exper-
iment system, and were invited to participate in the study
for course credit. Those expressing an interest were pro-
vided a detailed explanation of the study, including the
requirement to complete daily online questionnaires over
the course of 14 days. Upon providing their consent,
students were randomly assigned to one of three experi-
mental conditions: participants (N= 50) in the relation-
ship-exercise condition (the experimental condition) were
asked to think about a person that they love, specify
their relationship with that person, and then write a brief
letter to this person, in which you tell him/her that you
love them. You can try to link your love to something
that happened today (not mandatory). (The message was
not forwarded to the relationship-partner).Participants
(N= 50) in the placebo control condition were asked to
write about the daily weather: Think about the weather
today. Try to write a brief description of what the
weather was like today. Participants (N= 50) in the con-
trol condition were not assigned any additional tasks
beyond completing the daily questionnaire. There were
no significant differences among participants in the three
conditions in gender (χ
2
(2) = 2.12, p= 0.35) or in
romantic relationship status (χ
2
(2) = 0.21, p= 0.90). All
150 participants completed questionnaires assessing daily
strengths deployment and mood.
In the experimental condition, nearly all participants
wrote meaningful notes to their loved ones every day
(only one participant failed to write a note on one day ).
The notes were written in a variety of relational contexts:
most notes were written to a close friend (33% of the
notes: 25% to a same-sex friend, 8% to a friend from the
other sex), to a romantic partner (29% of the notes), or
to a close family member (i.e. mother, 12%; father, 6%;
brother, 7%; or sister, 7%). But some notes were also
addressed to other family members (e.g. grandmother/
grandfather, 2%; aunt/uncle, sister-in-law, or niece,
< 1%), or to a supervisor (< 1%), among others. The
different relational context of the notes did not result in
differences in mood or strengths deployment on the
following day.
1
Participation was monitored online on a daily basis,
and reminders were sent to participants who failed to
complete the survey on a particular day. Participants who
missed a day or two completed an extra day at the end
(to ensure the effect). Participants who missed more than
two days (N= 4) were dismissed from the study.
Results
The variables’means and standard deviations for each
experimental group are presented in Table 1. To examine
the research hypotheses, we conducted two-level HLM
analyses, with Level 1 representing the day level (infor-
mation from the daily measures) and Level 2 representing
the participant level. The variables were entered to the
equation uncentered (to maintain scale consistency across
the independent and dependent variables). The HLM
unstandardized coefficients are presented in Tables 2
and 3.
Predicting daily mood
We explored the effects of previous-day strengths
deployment, the experimental condition, and interaction
between previous-day strengths deployment and the
experimental condition, on participants’daily mood
(hypotheses 1 and 3). Preliminary analyses indicated the
need for HLM analysis in this case, as the interclass cor-
relation coefficient (ICC) of daily strengths deployment
was 0.33 (p< 0.001).
Level 1 predictors included previous-day strengths
deployment, which was entered as an independent
(explanatory) variable, and previous-day mood, which
was entered as a control variable. At Level 2, the experi-
mental condition was entered as an independent factor
(the variable was dummy coded, and the reference group
was the experimental group). The cross-level interaction
between previous-day strengths deployment and the
experimental condition was also entered as a predicting
factor. The following equation summarizes the examined
model:
Mood on the following dayðÞ
¼b0jþb1jStrengths Deploymentij þb2jMoodij
þeij0
b0j¼a0þa1Group þu0j0
b1j¼c0þc1Group
Results (presented in Table 2) supported H1. Type
III tests of fixed effects showed that more previous-day
strengths deployment predicted a more positive daily
mood (F(Num, Den) = F(1, 856) = 23.10, p< 0.001).
The effect of the experimental group was also significant
The Journal of Positive Psychology 551
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

(F(2, 619) = 4.15, p< 0.05),
2
as was the cross-level
interaction between previous-day strengths deployment
and the experimental condition (F(2, 839) = 3.62,
p< 0.05), indicating that the effect of previous-day
strengths deployment was qualified by the experimental
condition. The specific equations for the three experi-
mental groups (based on the results presented in Table 2)
were as follows:
(a) The equation for the relationship-exercise con-
dition group:
Mood on the following dayðÞ
¼3:54 þ0:29 Strengths Deployment þ0:07
Mood
Table 1. Means and standard errors of the study variables.
Daily strengths deployment Daily mood
Experimental group Placebo control Empty control Experimental group Placebo control Empty control
Mean 4.38 4.24 4.54 5.22 5.05 5.38
SD 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10
Table 2. HLM coefficients predicting mood on the following day from strengths deployment and experimental group.
Parameter estimates (B) SE df tFValues
Intercept 3.54*** 0.28 787 12.61
Level 1
Strengths deployment 0.29*** 0.06 1035 4.85 23.10***
Mood 0.07** 0.02 1964 4.85 9.52**
Level 2
Condition 4.15*
Condition (Exp. vs. Placebo) 0.35 0.38 619 0.94
Condition (Exp. vs. Empty) 1.15** 0.40 666 2.83
Cross-level interaction
Condition 3.62*
Strengths deployment X −0.11 0.08 857 −1.35
Condition (Exp. vs. Placebo)
Strengths deployment X −0.23** 0.08 906 −2.69
Condition (Exp. vs. Empty)
Note: Exp = Experimental; Model fit indices: AIC = 6149.76, Generalized χ
2
= 2234.80, Generalized χ
2
/df = 1.13.
*p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001.
Table 3. HLM coefficients predicting strength deployment on the following day from mood and experimental group.
Parameter estimates (B)SE df tFValues
Intercept 3.31*** 0.16 705 20.23
Level 1
Strengths Deployment 0.33*** 0.02 1831 14.08 198.33***
Mood −0.07*** 0.02 1914 −3.30 8.76***
Level 2
Condition 3.22*
Condition (Exp. vs. Placebo) −0.47* 0.21 549 −2.29
Condition (Exp. vs. Empty) −0.04 0.21 590 −0.19
Cross-level interaction
Condition 1.90
Strengths deployment X 0.06 0.03 1919 1.91
Condition (Exp. vs. Placebo)
Strengths deployment X 0.04 0.03 1912 1.30
Condition (Exp. vs. Empty)
Note: Exp = Experimental; Model fit indices: AIC = 3931.53, Generalized χ
2
= 668.52, Generalized χ
2
/df = 0.34.
*p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001.
552 S. Lavy et al.
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

(b) The equation for the placebo-control condition
group:
Mood on the following dayðÞ
¼3:89 þ0:18 Strengths Deployment þ0:07
Mood
(c) The equation for the empty-control condition
group:
Mood on the following dayðÞ
¼4:69 þ0:06 Strengths Deployment þ0:07
Mood
These equations suggest that the there is a difference
between the experimental groups in the strength of the
positive effects of previous-day strengths deployment on
mood, and that these effects are strongest in the relation-
ship-exercise group (but are also evident in the placebo
control group).
The covariance parameter estimates were significant
(z= 6.05, p< 0.001 for the intercept, and z= 30.01,
p< 0.001 for the residual), suggesting that the model
was appropriate (ICC = 0.24). The model’s AIC was
6149.76, and the generalized χ
2
/df was 1.13 (Table 2).
Predicting daily deployment of strengths
We explored the effects of previous-day mood, the
experimental condition, and interactions between previ-
ous-day mood and the experimental condition, on daily
strengths deployment (hypotheses 2 and 4). Preliminary
analyses indicated the need for HLM analysis in this
case, as the ICC of daily strengths deployment was 0.72
(p< 0.001).
Level 1 predictors composed of previous-day mood,
which was entered as an explanatory variable, and previ-
ous-day strengths deployment, which was entered as a
control variable. At level 2, the experimental condition
was entered as an independent factor (the variable was
dummy coded, and the reference group was the experi-
mental group). The cross-level interaction between previ-
ous-day mood and the experimental condition was also
entered as a predicting factor. The examined model is
presented in the following equation:
Strength deployment on the following dayðÞ
¼b0jþb1jStrengths Deploymentij þb2jMoodij
þeij0
b0j¼a0þa1Group þu0j0
b2j¼c0þc1Group
Results (presented in Table 3) supported H2. Type III
tests of fixed effects showed that previous-day negative
mood predicted more daily strength deployment (F(Num,
Den) = F(1, 1918) = 8.76, p< 0.01). The effect of the
experimental group was also significant (F(2, 569) = 3.22,
p< 0.05);
3
however, the cross-level interaction between
previous-day mood and the experimental condition was
not significant (F(2, 1916) = 1.90, p= 0.15). The specific
equations for the three experimental groups ( based on the
coefficients presented in Table 3) were as follows:
(a) The equation for the relationship-exercise con-
dition group:
Strength deployment on the following dayðÞ
¼3:31 0:07 Mood þ0:33
Strengths Deployment
(b) The equation for the placebo-control condition
group:
Strength deployment on the following dayðÞ
¼2:84 0:01 Mood þ0:33
Strengths Deployment
(c) The equation for the empty-control condition
group:
Strength deployment on the following dayðÞ
¼3:27 0:03 Mood þ0:33
Strengths Deployment
These results suggest that there were no significant
group differences in the use of strengths deployment as a
mood-repair strategy, although participants in the rela-
tionship-exercise group seemed to use strengths deploy-
ment as a mood-repair strategy somewhat more than the
participants in the control groups.
The covariance parameter estimates were significant
(z= 6.80, p< 0.001 for the intercept, and z= 29.86,
p< 0.001 for the residual), suggesting that the model
was appropriate (ICC = 0.54). The model’s AIC was
3931.53, and the generalized χ
2
/df was 0.34 (Table 3).
The experimental condition: descriptive information
and qualitative analysis
In the experimental condition, most notes reflected on
the relationship or on a specific behavior and acknowl-
edged its meaningfulness and contribution, but there
were also other themes, with varying levels of complex-
ity. A qualitative analysis conducted in three steps helped
shed light on the major themes comprising participants’
The Journal of Positive Psychology 553
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

responses. In the first step of the analysis, participants’
daily notes (673) to a loved one were divided into mini-
mal content units. This resulted in 2751 content units (an
average of 4.09 items per note). In the second step, com-
mon themes were identified by openly coding partici-
pants’descriptions; 17 categories were generated based
on these themes. In the third step, two judges (graduate
psychology students) independently sorted the content
units into the various content categories, achieving good
inter-rater reliability (κ= 0.90). Differences were resolved
through discussion. Next, categories occurring in a mar-
ginal 5% or less of the responses (six categories) were
incorporated into related categories. This resulted in a
final set of 11 categories which included all the content
units, across the different daily responses of all the par-
ticipants in the experimental condition.
Almost all the responses (92.6%) included expres-
sions of love toward the target person (e.g. I love you so
much; you are one of the most precious people in my
life), and most of them (66%) also included a salutation
to the relationship partner (e.g. honey;my dear love;
dear Mom). These reminders of love and of a specific
loved one are the most dominant component of the vast
majority of the daily responses in the experimental
condition.
Several responses (50.4%) also included expressions
of gratitude toward the loved one (e.g. thank you for
everything that you have done for me), positive feelings
of happiness and enjoyment related to the relationship
(31.9%, e.g. you are the most fun person to be with;I
was so happy to see you), and descriptions of the target’s
positive attributes (22.4%; e.g. you are a charming sis-
ter;you have a huge heart, sensitivity and modesty’).
Participants also wrote about the relationship itself, high-
lighting its uniqueness and strength (25.1%; e.g. Our
relationship exceeds other relationships that I know, and
it feels right for me to be with you), discussing the hope
for its continuity (18.9%; e.g. I hope our relationship
will continue to be this way forever), but sometimes also
mentioning negative or undesirable aspects of the rela-
tionship (18.9%) and of the relationship partner (10.8%;
e.g. although sometimes you are inconsiderate …). Some
responses included expressions of longing for the rela-
tionship partner when apart (18.7%; You are not here
yet, but I’m waiting for you breathlessly, I miss you so
much), wishes for the relationship partner (18.4%; e.g. I
hope you have a wonderful week), and descriptions of
support (or wishing to support) the relationship partner
(14.9%; e.g. I am here for you whenever you need me,
even when things get tough …).
Taken together, these themes (the vast majority of
which were positive) reflect attributes of the relationship
and its meaning for the participants. They provide insight
concerning the ways in which relationship prompts can
remind individuals of the resources they have. Some of
these resources are provided by the relationship partners
(as can be seen in expressions of gratitude, positive attri-
butes of the relationship partner, etc.) or the relationship
itself (e.g. in expressions of its uniqueness and strength),
and some of them are reminders of the participants’
strengths, as the relationship provides fertile soil to dem-
onstrate them (e.g. expressions of love and descriptions
of help and support to the relationship partner).
Discussion
Human well-being and flourishing are core interests of
positive psychologists and of people in general
(Seligman, 2012). The present 14-day diary study
attempted to advance our understanding of these issues,
by examining the daily dynamics of strengths deploy-
ment and mood, and the role of a certain aspect of close
relationships in qualifying these dynamics.
The study’sfindings link strengths deployment on a
certain day with elevated mood on the following day.
This finding suggests that daily use of strengths posi-
tively effects individuals’mood, and thus strongly sup-
ports Peterson and Seligman’s(
2004) theoretical claim
that character strengths can be a tool to promote positive
affect. Specifically, demonstrating this effect in a longitu-
dinal, daily-diary study supports the hypothesized causal
effect of strengths deployment, suggesting that strengths
deployment and mood are not merely correlated, but that
an increase in daily strengths deployment (on a certain
day) can produce an enhancement in daily mood (on the
following day). As far as we know, this effect has not
been demonstrated in previous studies of the 24
strengths, although a causal positive effect of a specific
strength has been suggested (e.g. see the review of Wood
et al. (2010) regarding the effects of gratitude).
Furthermore, if deployment of character strengths is
taken as an example of fulfilling one’s potential (Peterson
& Seligman, 2004), this finding demonstrates a mecha-
nism underlying the positive effect of fulfillment on well-
being, while examining it at the daily level (and gaining
information from daily fluctuations in fulfillment-related
and mood measures). Positive psychology would benefit
from the further examination of daily effects of strengths
deployment on individuals (e.g. on their daily sense of
efficacy and health) and on others in their environment.
The study’s results also linked decreased mood on a
certain day with increased strengths deployment on the
following day, thus supporting the hypothesis that
strengths deployment serves as a mood-repair strategy.
This finding highlights the role of character-strengths
deployment in reducing negative affect. Furthermore, it
draws attention to a new mood-repair strategy that
appears to be effective at the daily level, and potentially
encompasses long-term benefits for the individual (and
perhaps also for others, if indeed character strengths
554 S. Lavy et al.
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

deployment reflects individuals’fulfillment of their
potential for their own benefit as well as that of those
around them; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Future studies
should examine the effectiveness of strengths deploy-
ment as a mood-repair strategy for specific moods in dif-
ferent situations (e.g. in relationships or at work ), as
well as the long-term consequences of using this mood-
repair strategy with respect to a sense of self-fulfillment,
self-esteem, well-being, personal functioning, and rela-
tionship maintenance.
The present study also explored the qualifying effects
of a daily relationship-activation exercise (writing a letter
to a loved one) on the daily dynamics of strengths
deployment and mood. It showed differences between
the experimental groups, which suggest that the positive
effect of daily strengths deployment on mood (on the
following day) is strongest for people in the relationship-
exercise group (although it was also notable for people
in the placebo-control group). This finding suggests that
acknowledging the value of a close relationship may
increase the benefits of using strengths (and perhaps sim-
ilar benefits related to promoting the fulfillment of our
personal potential). This may point to one of the mecha-
nisms underlying the positive effects of close relation-
ships and the hypothesized related growth-promoting
processes (e.g. Feeney & Collins, 2014): by amplifying
the positive affect following the fulfillment of one’s per-
sonal potential, close partners may promote performance
of behaviors which advance this kind of personal fulfill-
ment. However, more research is needed to show the
replicability and robustness of the unique effects of rela-
tionships on facilitating this kind of positive-affect effect
(as noted above, in the present study the differences
between the relationship-exercise group and the placebo-
control group were not very large).
Our fourth hypothesis, that a daily relationship-
exercise would enhance the use of strengths deployment
as a mood-repair strategy, was not supported. Although
participants in the relationship-activation exercise group
used this strategy somewhat more than participants in
the control groups, this difference was not significant.
This finding may be related to methodological limitations
of the study (discussed below), but it may also suggest
that using strengths deployment as a mood-repair mecha-
nism is not related to relationships. For example, it may
be a mechanism related to other environmental factors
(such as the daily work surrounding), to self-agency
mechanisms, or it may be a general mechanism, applica-
ble to most individuals. This last option supports the idea
that human beings naturally aspire to fulfill their poten-
tial (Rogers, 1980).
In this study, we used a new intervention –writing a
daily brief letter to a loved one. This intervention proved
effective in amplifying the positive effect of strengths
deployment on mood. This simple intervention may be a
useful contribution to the toolkit of positive psycholo-
gists (researchers and practitioners), and it opens a way
to experimentally examine relationship-related phenom-
ena. The analysis of the letters’content revealed several
themes, which may comprise the building blocks of daily
positive relationship-related cognitions. These responses,
as reflected in the components of the content analysis
(and of the letter-writing exercise in general) may play a
role in a relationship-affirmation process, reminding indi-
viduals of their close relationships and their value. Fur-
ther research on the positive components relating to
daily relationship cognitions and their effects on various
aspects of well-being would be valuable in advancing
our understanding of the contribution of relationships to
positive psychological processes and growth (such
research has already begun, e.g. Gordon, Arnette, &
Smith, 2011). Moreover, since participants in the rela-
tionship exercise condition wrote notes to their partners
in different kinds of relationships, it would be interesting
to see a whether the findings could be replicated when
focusing on specific relationships. Although most close
relationships share similar features, their roles and func-
tions differ depending on age and relationship status.
Examining this intervention in specific relationship con-
texts and in relationships with different characteristics
(i.e. different relationship length) may shed light on the
role of different types and characteristics of relationships
in promoting individuals’flourishing. In a similar vein, it
may be useful to examine individual differences in the
effects revealed in this study, especially individuals dif-
ferences related to the study variables (e.g. relationship-
related characteristics, motivation and effort; see
Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013).
This was the first daily experimental field study of
the dynamics associating strengths deployment and
mood, using a new relationship-related intervention. As
such, it suffered from some methodological limitations.
First, it examined short-term associations between mood
and strengths deployment, which are subjected to self-
reporting bias. However, we believe that the longitudinal
design of the study (i.e. the repeated assessment over 14
days) increases the likelihood that the findings reflect
valid effects. Another methodological limitation is the
nonrepresentative student sample used in this study
which was dominated by females, and warrants replica-
tion in more heterogeneous populations (in terms of gen-
der, age, and occupation, among other variables). In
addition, the experimental intervention in the present
study focused on internal representations of a variety of
relationships. The findings should be replicated using
other methodologies to increase their validity, and the
cumulative effects of the intervention should also be
examined by comparing mood and strengths deployment
of individuals in the intervention and control groups
before the study to their mood and strengths deployment
The Journal of Positive Psychology 555
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

reports after the study. This would provide clearer
insights about the effects of relationship-related interven-
tions (in the short and long term).
The study only examined the deployment of the 24
strengths as a cluster, and did not examine antecedents
or effects of deploying specific strengths. The positive
effects of strengths deployment demonstrated in the
present study highlight the need for profound research
of the antecedents and effects of specific strengths
(which may be generating the effects reported here).
Similarly, it would also be valuable to compare the
effects of a daily relationship exercise to those of other
positive interventions (such as counting the blessings or
looking forward to tomorrow; Emmons & McCullough,
2003; Littman-Ovadia & Nir, 2014) in order to gain a
deeper understanding of the unique mechanisms related
to close relationships, and differentiate them from
mechanisms related to other aspects of positive
psychology.
This is the first study to examine the daily deploy-
ment of the 24 strengths and reveal its positive effect on
mood, and the role of a relationship exercise in amplify-
ing this effect. The study also uncovers the use of
strengths deployment as an effective mood-repair mecha-
nism. We hope that its findings will inspire more
research of outcomes and antecedents of strengths
deployment along with other growth-related mechanisms.
Such research could incorporate a broader exploration of
the effects revealed in the current study over a longer
time period, using several additional measures (e.g.
external and physical evaluations of well-being and per-
formance appraisals), and examining other relationship-
related interventions (for example, interventions focusing
on the self-in-relation) and their effects on relevant
behavioral strategies.
Notes
1. ANOVAs conducted to examine differences in daily reports
of mood and strengths deployment after writing to different
relationship partners showed no significant effects. Rela-
tionship contexts which appeared in less than 3% of the
notes were not included in this analysis, for statistical rea-
sons.
2. When the analysis was conducted without the interaction
factor as a predictor (only previous-day strengths deploy-
ment, previous-day mood and group were entered as inde-
pendent variables), the positive effect of previous-day
strengths deployment was maintained, but the group effect
was not significant. These results were taken into account
when interpreting the findings.
3. When the analysis was conducted without the interaction
factor as a predictor (only previous-day strengths deploy-
ment, previous-day mood and group were entered as inde-
pendent variables), the positive effect of previous-day
mood was maintained, but the group effect was not signifi-
cant. These results were taken into account when interpret-
ing the findings.
References
Bank, L., Patterson, G. R., & Reid, J. B. (1996). Negative sib-
ling interaction patterns as predictors of later adjustment
problems in adolescent and young adult males. In G. E.
Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and conse-
quences (pp. 197–229). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attach-
ment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original
work published 1969).
Carson, J. W., Keefe, F. J., Lynch, T. R., Carson, K. M., Goli,
V., Fras, A. M., & Thorp, S. (2005). Loving-kindness med-
itation for chronic low back pain: Results from a pilot trial.
Journal of Holistic Nursing, 23,1–18.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300–314.
Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., &
Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’
attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental
representations and followers’performance and mental
health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
632–650. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.632
Della Porta, M. D., Jacobs Bao, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012).
Does supporting autonomy facilitate the pursuit of happi-
ness? Results from an experimental longitudinal well-being
intervention. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Demir, M., Orthel, H., & Andelin, A. (2013). Friendship and
happiness. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. Conley Ayers
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 860–870).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dickerhoof, R. (2007). Expressing optimism and gratitude A lon-
gitudinal nvestigation of cognitive strategies to increase well-
being. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sci-
ences and Engineering, 68, 4174 (UMI no. 3270426).
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happi-
ness and a proposal for a national index. American Psy-
chologist, 55,34–43.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the
frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative
affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Sub-
jective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.
119–139). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S.
(1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behav-
ioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323.
Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005).
Positive psychology in clinical practice. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 1, 629–651.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting bless-
ings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of grati-
tude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389.
Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal
strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,631–648.
Feeney, B. C., & Cassidy, J. (2003). Reconstructive memory
related to adolescent-parent conflict interactions: The influ-
ence of attachment-related representations on immediate
perceptions and changes in perceptions over time. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 945–955.
Feeney, B. C. & Collins, N. L. (2014). A theoretical perspective
on the importance of social connection for thriving. In M.
Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of social con-
nection: From brain to group (pp. 291–314). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
556 S. Lavy et al.
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences
on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and func-
tion of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98,57–76. doi:10.1037/a0016961
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., &
Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive
emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation,
build consequential personal resources. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062. doi:10.1037/
a0013262
Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2010). Good news! Capitalizing
on positive events in an interpersonal context. In M.Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol.
42, pp. 198–257). New York, NY: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/
S0065-2601(10)42004-3
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004).
What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal
and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228–245.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
Gordon, C. L., Arnette, R. A. M., & Smith, R. E. (2011). Have
you thanked your spouse today?: Felt and expressed grati-
tude among married couples. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 339–343.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self
and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.
Josephson, B. R., Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Mood
regulation and memory: Repairing sad moods with happy
memories. Cognition and Emotion, 10, 437–444.
Kudel, I., Edwards, R., Raja, S., Haythornthwaite, J., &
Heinberg, L. J. (2008). The association of perceived part-
ner-related social support with self-reported outcomes in
women post-mastectomy. Journal of Health Psychology,
13, 1030–1039.
Lakey, B., & Orehek, E. (2011). Relational regulation theory:
A new approach to explain the link between perceived
social support and mental health. Psychological Review,
118 , 482–495. doi:10.1037/a0023477
Larsen, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 129–141.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an indi-
vidual difference characteristic: A review. Journal of
Research in Personality, 21,1–39.
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993).
Long-term marriage: Age, gender and satisfaction. Psychol-
ogy and Aging, 8, 301–313.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Lavy, S. (2012). Character strengths in
Israel. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28,
41–50.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Nir, D. (2014). Looking forward to
tomorrow: The buffering effect of a daily hope interven-
tion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 122–136.
Retrieved October 28, 2013.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. (2010). Character strengths
and well-being among volunteers and employees: Toward
an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
5, 419–430.
Loving, T. J., & Slatcher, R. B. (2013). Romantic relationships
and health. In J. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 617–637).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K.
M. (2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a
proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to
boost well-being. Emotion, 11, 391–402.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive
activities increase well-being? Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 22,57–62. doi:10.1177/09637214
12469809
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pur-
suing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change.
Review of General Psychology, 9,111–131.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American
Psychologist, 41, 954–969.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adult-
hood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). Adult attachment and hap-
piness: Individual differences in the experience and
consequences of positive emotions. In S. A. David,
I. Boniwell, & A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of happiness (pp. 834–846). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morris, W. N., & Reilly, N. P. (1987). Toward the self-regula-
tion of mood: Theory and research. Motivation and Emo-
tion, 11, 215–249.
Park, N. (2004). Character strengths and positive youth devel-
opment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 591,40–54.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths
of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 23, 603–619.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths
and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Rash, J. A., Matsuba, K. M., & Prkachin, K. M. (2011). Grati-
tude and well-being: Who benefits most from a gratitude
intervention? Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being,
3, 350–369.
Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. New York, NY: Hough-
ton Mifflin Company.
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.
Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The
Michelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 18, 305–309.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). To be happy or to be self-
fulfilled: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic
well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Saphire-Bernstein, S., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Close relation-
ship and happiness. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, &
A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness
(pp. 821–833). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, N., Kahneman, D., & Xu, J. (2009). Global and epi-
sodic reports of hedonic experience. In R. Belli, D. Alwin,
& F. Stafford (Eds.), Using calendar and diary methods in
life events research (pp. 157–174). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). Flourish. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being
and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychol-
ogy interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Jour-
nal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487.
Urry, H. L., Nitschke, J. B., Dolski, I., Jackson, D. C., Dalton,
K. M., Mueller, C. J., …Davidson, R. J. (2004). Making a
life worth living: Neural correlates of well-being. Psycho-
logical Science, 15, 367–372.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 557
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014

Wekerle, C., Waechter, R., & Chung, R. (2011). Contexts of
vulnerability and resilience: Childhood maltreatment, ado-
lescent cognitive functioning and close relationships. In M.
Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience (pp.
187–198). New York ,NY: Springer.
Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. (2010). Grati-
tude and well-being: A review and theoretical integration.
Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 890–905. doi:10.1016/
j.cpr.2010.03.005
Younger, J., Aron, A., Parke, S., Chatterjee, N., & Mackey, S.
(2010). Viewing pictures of a romantic partner reduces
experimental pain: Involvement of neural reward systems.
PLoS ONE, 5, e13309. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013309
Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (1999). Susceptibility to affect.
A comparison of three personality taxonomies. Journal of
Personality, 67, 761–791.
558 S. Lavy et al.
Downloaded by [Ben Gurion University of the Negev] at 04:30 16 December 2014