No file available
To read the file of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Expressing Virtue in Natural Language: The Character Strengths Adjective Lists
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.
... Situational affordances enclosed in parentheses may be relevant to the expression of the character strength under certain conditions or at certain times They found significant differences among character strengths, such as social intelligence, judgment, and love (broader), compared to vitality, forgiveness, and gratitude (narrower). Stahlmann and Arbenz (2023) corroborated these findings through psycho-lexical analysis, revealing that narrower strengths often have comprehensive lexical representation-words that encapsulate the entire concept-whereas broader strengths lack this comprehensiveness. For instance, the adjectives 'vital,' 'zestful,' and 'vigorous' comprehensively capture the consensual definition of the character strength vitality. ...
... We believe that a strong theoretical basis is essential, rather than focusing solely on refining scales for statistical purposes. If there are valid grounds for breaking down broader character strengths into more specific elements, perhaps due to more distinct lexical meanings or findings from an act frequency methodology, such steps should be considered (see Ng et al., 2018;Stahlmann & Arbenz, 2023). However, these decisions should be guided by the need for theoretical clarity, not just the desire to improve statistical fit or reliability measures. ...
... Apart from the VIA framework, psycho-lexical investigations into character and virtues have produced lists of attributes that are not clearly represented in the current VIA classification (see, for example, Cawley et al., 2000;de Raad & van Oudenhoven, 2011;Morales-Vives et al., 2014). Semantic analyses reveal, for instance, that the word list by Cawley et al. (2000) includes terms like 'magnificent,' 'ascetic,' and 'idealistic,' whereas the list by de Raad and van Oudenhoven (2011) incorporates words such as 'civilized,' 'decisive,' and 'punctual,' none of which fall completely within the content domains of the current 24 character strengths (Stahlmann & Arbenz, 2023). Thus, it remains an open question-but a plausible one-whether these terms signal valid character strengths that have yet to be incorporated into the VIA classification. ...
While both practitioners and the public regard character strengths positively, some psychologists and philosophers harbor skepticism. In this analytical commentary on current research and literature, we trace such skepticism to a premature focus on positive outcomes, which eclipsed the theoretical groundwork outlined in the 2004 handbook. We propose solutions to ten key issues which, in our estimation, not only sustain this skepticism but also hinder meaningful advancement in the field of character strengths research: (1) Criteria evaluation, (2) Virtue functions, (3) Situational affordances, (4) Content validity, (5) Criterion validity, (6) Fulfillment conceptualization, (7) Adverse outcome modeling (8) Moral excellency, (9) Strengths conservatism, and (10) Methodological mainstream thinking. We contend that resolving these issues is necessary to uphold the standing of character strengths and positive psychology among its counterparts, and to establish a potent foundation for effective character development.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.