Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Which character strengths may build
organizational well-being? Insights from an
international sample of workers
Nicole CasaliID
1
*, Tommaso FeracoID
2
1Department of Criminology, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Freiburg,
Germany, 2Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
*n.casali@csl.mpg.de
Abstract
The nature and composition of well-being has been the subject of ongoing debate in the
field of positive psychology. Recent discussions identify Seligman’s PERMA dimensions as
concrete pathways to achieve subjective well-being, rather than a distinct type of well-being.
Four additional “building blocks” have been categorized to define positive functioning at
work (PERMA+4). The present study adds another level of inquiry, by newly examining the
relationships of character strengths and a general factor or character with PERMA+4 and
life satisfaction in a large international sample of 5,487 employees. We found that 21 of the
24 character strengths were significantly (yet only slightly) more strongly correlated with
PERMA+4 than with life satisfaction, and that PERMA+4 was consistently related to life sat-
isfaction. The happiness strengths (hope, gratitude, zest, curiosity and love) and the general
factor of character were also directly and indirectly related to life satisfaction. Taken
together, these results suggest that the PERMA+4 dimensions may help bridge the gap
between strengths and well-being, explaining how individuals with good character are also
those who report higher life satisfaction. Future longitudinal studies should build on the pres-
ent findings and examine whether character strengths can act as the “building blocks of the
building blocks” of life satisfaction.
Introduction
In the field of positive psychology, there has long been a discussion about well-being: What is
it? How can it be defined? What are its components, and the psychological mechanisms that
enable it? Several theories have been proposed over the past four decades, with recent models
focusing on specific populations, such as employees, to frame well-being in the work domain.
In fact, according to Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi’ [1], positive psychology is precisely “the
science of positive subjective experience [such as subjective well-being], positive individual
traits [like the 24 character strengths proposed by Peterson & Seligman [2]], and positive insti-
tutions [e.g., organizations]” (p. 1). In this paper, we will attempt to bridge these three levels of
inquiry and advance the hypothesis that character strengths are dispositional characteristics
that support components of well-being and ultimately lead to life satisfaction.
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 1 / 16
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Casali N, Feraco T (2024) Which
character strengths may build organizational well-
being? Insights from an international sample of
workers. PLoS ONE 19(10): e0312934. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934
Editor: Paulo Alexandre Soares Moreira, ECHS:
Universidade de Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Escola de Ciencias Humanas e Sociais, PORTUGAL
Received: May 27, 2024
Accepted: October 15, 2024
Published: October 30, 2024
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
benefits of transparency in the peer review
process; therefore, we enable the publication of
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934
Copyright: ©2024 Casali, Feraco. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: There are legal
restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set,
namely that the data are owned by a third-party
organization (i.e., the VIA Institute on Character)
Theories of well-being
Subjective well-being (SWB), as described by Diener et al. [3], is defined as a hedonic type of
well-being that focuses on the individual’s evaluation of what’s pleasurable. It consists of a cog-
nitive component (satisfaction with life) and two affective components (positive and negative
affect). Since its conceptualization, this construct has been at the forefront of positive psychol-
ogy research, and it has been investigated in thousands of studies. It is commonly considered
in the literature as distinct from psychological well-being (PWB), which instead represents the
eudaimonic type of well-being, i.e., a focus on growth and optimal psychological functioning,
with a greater attention to the interpersonal dimension [4]. For example, Ryff’s [5] model of
PWB includes six dimensions: self-acceptance, environmental mastery, positive relationships
with others, autonomy, purpose in life, and personal growth.
More recently, Seligman [6] proposed the so-called PERMA framework (Positive Emotion,
Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment) as a way to more comprehen-
sively capture the nature of well-being and thereby also reconcile the distinction between psy-
chological and subjective well-being. This model has been saluted as a parsimonious yet
exhaustive way to study well-being and has led to a thriving literature applied to diverse con-
texts and populations [7–12].
PERMA: The “Building Blocks” of well-being
However, some authors have questioned the need for yet another theory of well-being, as well as
its separation from subjective well-being [13]. Using various statistical techniques (including both
confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis, as well as cluster analysis), Goodman and colleagues
[13] provided strong evidence of an overlap between the two models of well-being, leading them
to conclude that PERMA does not represent a distinct, new type of well-being. This study sparked
some debate about the nature of PERMA and prompted Seligman himself to respond to these cri-
tiques [14]. In his response, the author clarified that PERMA does not in fact constitute a new
type of well-being, but rather the “building blocks” (as he calls them) that lead to SWB, which he
sees as a “useful final common path of the elements of well-being (that are PERMA dimensions)”
(p. 1). In other words, PERMA can be seen as a useful guide for building well-being and develop-
ing interventions to achieve the ultimate goal of being satisfied with one’s life conditions. Seligman
also proposed some criteria to expand and evaluate prospective elements of well-being (e.g., con-
tribute to well-being, be pursued for their own sake). As a result, Donaldson et al. [15,16] have
proposed the Positive Functioning at Work model, also known as PERMA+4, as it adds four addi-
tional dimensions to Seligman’s PERMA framework (physical health, mindset, environment, and
economic security). This model aims to strengthen the PERMA framework by adapting it to the
work domain, thus providing a more holistic picture of organizational well-being (see S1 Table
for an overview of the above models). In their study of knowledgeable co-worker pairs, Donaldson
and colleagues [15] found that self-reported PERMA significantly predicted both self- and other-
reported SWB; the same was true for self-reported PERMA+4, and both other-reported PERMA
and PERMA+4. These findings support the idea that PERMA (+4) dimensions may indeed be
better understood as foundational elements of well-being and clear pathways towards it, rather
than new types of well-being to be studied separately.
Character strengths: The building blocks of the building blocks?
Character strengths are 24 positive, trait-like individual qualities that were theorized by Peter-
son and Seligman [2] as the psychological ingredients that constitute and lead to six higher-
order, more abstract moral virtues (wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, tem-
perance, and transcendence, see S2 Table for an overview); although morally valued on their
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 2 / 16
that has imposed such restrictions. The data
requests can be sent to the VIA Institute on
Character at research@viacharacter.org. Others
would be able to access these data in the same
manner as the authors; the authors did not have
any special access privileges that others would not
have.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
own right, strengths are bound to produce positive outcomes, and account for the good life.
Recently, some authors proposed an additional level of analysis, namely a general factor of char-
acter (see the next paragraph) that describes the general dispositional positivity of individuals
[17–19]. Literature studies have confirmed the important role of single strengths for well-being
time and again [see 20,21 for an overview] with evidence for the relevant effect of a general factor
of character [17,22]. In addition, recent theorizations [23] have detailed various functions that
character strengths play in helping individuals thrive. Specifically, character strengths have a
strong positivity effect, helping us to take advantage of and optimize opportunities: priming
them (preparing us to use our best qualities when the situation calls for them); being present to
them through mindfulness (thus helping us to balance our resources, and adapt them to the situ-
ation); and appreciating them (acknowledging their value after they occurred). Consistent with
Fredrickson’s [24] broaden-and-build model, character strengths expand our skill set and sup-
port our positive response to what’s present, while also helping us build resources for future
opportunities. Put another way, these 24 strengths may represent the foundations of well-being
because they are trait-like, relatively stable [25], universal qualities that can be cultivated to
increase well-being [26]. But how is this possible? Which are the specific mechanisms connecting
strengths with well-being? This is still an open but fundamental question [26,27]. We speculate
that the PERMA+4 dimensions (the building blocks of work-related well-being in Seligman’s
view) may represent such pathways and may help us understand how building strengths can also
lead to greater life satisfaction. The workplace represents one of the levels of inquiry originally
identified by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi’[1] in their manifesto on positive psychology. The
workplace is a targeted yet highly relevant domain of life that has been shown to offer multiple
opportunities for individuals to realize their potential and achieve a sense of purpose and mean-
ing [28–31]. Organizational well-being therefore here refers to both the eudaimonic (PERMA+4
dimensions) and hedonic (life satisfaction) components of well-being experienced by workers, in
line with established frameworks [32]. These different kinds of well-being represent “what” con-
stitutes organizational well-being, while strengths have to do with “how” to enhance well-being
in the workplace [32]. In this sense, character strengths could be considered as the “building
blocks of the building blocks” of well-being, or, put differently, as more distal predictors of life
satisfaction compared to PERMA+4. Looking more closely at the criteria proposed by Seligman
[14] for assessing potential elements of well-being, we could argue that character strengths meet
most of them. First of all, there is accumulating evidence that character strengths are significantly
associated with both life satisfaction [13,33] and PERMA [12,13], which would fulfill the crite-
rion “contribute to well-being”. Then, for the criterion “to be pursued for their own sake (rather
than as means to an end)”, strengths are, by definition, intrinsically morally valued and do not
depend on potential positive outcomes to be classified as such [2], as also shown empirically [34].
Although the classification has been subject to criticism and revision [35], it was also developed
after intensive historical, cross-cultural, and philosophical review, making it rather comprehen-
sive, which would speak in favor of the taxonomy being “exclusive and exhaustive”. As briefly
mentioned, there are a variety of character strengths based interventions [27,35], and there is
strong evidence for their efficacy on life satisfaction [26], with some encouraging evidence of
their ability to increase strengths trait levels [36]. This evidence would support that character
strengths can indeed be translated into specific interventions to build each other as well as well-
being. Although 24 traits are quite a large number of variables to be considered, strengths can be
considered as a unique factor [17,22], as recently reviewed by McGrath (18, and see next para-
graph for a more detailed description), making the list more parsimonious. Lastly, although
strengths are highly correlated with each other, they can be assessed separately using the VIA-IS
questionnaires [2] and have shown differential correlations with well-being indicators. As such,
they can be defined and measured independently.
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 3 / 16
A general factor of character?
Similar to other fields (e.g., intelligence, personality, or psychopathology), there has been
increasing discussion of the possibility of a general factor of character, i.e., a common core
shared by the specific character strengths. These two levels of analysis have implications that
are theoretical (they tap into different hierarchical layers of character), statistical (they can help
reduce the number of variables to be considered and disentangle their specific roles), and prac-
tical (they can suggest what is most important and thus should be targeted in interventions). It
has been shown that a bifactor model, in which items load on both a general factor of character
and on the corresponding specific strength, can indeed represent the data well [17,19], and
that the general factor has incremental predictive validity over the specific character strengths
factors, at least for life satisfaction [17].
Rationale and hypotheses
The present study aims to make an initial contribution to the recent debate on well-being and
its constitutive elements, or “building blocks” [13,15,16] by proposing to consider an addi-
tional level of analysis, namely the role of character strengths. To rigorously examine the rela-
tionships among these three constructs, we will use a two-stage approach (see the Data
Analysis section) and a large international sample of employees.
We will test the following hypotheses:
• Hypothesis 1: Character strengths (in terms of the 24 strengths and the general factor of
character) will be positively related to both PERMA+4 total score and life satisfaction. Previ-
ous studies only examined the relationship between the single 24 strengths and Seligman’s
original PERMA dimensions [12,13] and found that hope, love, gratitude, and zest were the
strengths with the highest correlations; similarly, Bruna et al. [33] meta-analysis evidenced
zest, hope, gratitude, curiosity, and love as the strengths most strongly related to life satisfac-
tion. Goodman et al. [13] reported very similar (but slightly stronger for PERMA) correla-
tions of strengths with PERMA and SWLS, once again finding gratitude, hope, and zest as
the strengths most strongly related to well-being. We aim to extend these findings to the
PERMA+4 dimensions and to a different level of analysis (i.e., the general factor of charac-
ter), which has recently proposed as a valid measure of character [17,22]. These relationships
would provide a first indication of the role of strengths as building blocks (of the building
blocks) of life satisfaction;
• Hypothesis 2: PERMA+4 will be positively related to SWB, as previously reported by
Donaldson and colleagues [15,16], further supporting the notion that it may represent the
building block of life satisfaction;
• Hypothesis 3: PERMA+4 will mediate the relationship between strengths and SWLS, i.e.,
when controlling for the effect of PERMA+4 dimensions, the relationship between character
strengths and life satisfaction may disappear.
Collectively, our hypothesis would provide a first indication in favor of these relationships,
although they would not reveal any causality.
Method
Participants and procedure
Data from 14364 participants were kindly collected by the VIA Institute on Character, by ask-
ing individuals filling out the VIA-IS-P through the Institute’s website to also complete the
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 4 / 16
Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) and the PERMA+4 (in this order), and then to provide
standard demographic information. No IRB approval was required according to the University
of Padova Ethics Committee, since the data was collected through an independent, interna-
tional body (i.e., the VIA Institute). Although no informed consent was formally required, par-
ticipants were informed of the VIA Institute’s privacy policy (https://www.viacharacter.org/
privacy-policy, which they could access at any time by clicking at the bottom of each page) and
could opt out of the survey at any moment and skip any questions they did not feel comfort-
able answering. For instance, they were informed that if they opted in to participate in the
study, the VIA Institute could share the de-identified results (i.e., without the participant’s
name or email address) with the researchers. To the aim of the present study, data were
retained only if participants completed both SWLS and PERMA+4, as well as if they indicated
to be employed, as PERMA+4 specifically addresses the work environment. Our final sample
thus consists of 5487 employees. The majority was employed full-time (80%), while the
remaining (20%) was employed part-time (i.e., up to 39 hours per week). Participants worked
in a variety of sectors: 1323 (24.1%) in business and administration, 817 (14.9%) in education
and teaching, 698 (12.7%) in STEM professions, 564 (10.3%) in health professions, 270 (4.9%)
in the military, 194 (3.5%) in counselling, 83 (1.5%) in legal professions, and the remaining
1455 (26.5%) in other, not specified areas; 293 (5.3%) did not report their occupation sector.
Among the participants, 944 (17.2%) were in the age range between 18 and 24, 1515 (27.6%)
between 25 and 34, 1411 (25.7%) between 35 and 44, 1095 (20%) between 45 and 54, 451
(8.2%) between 55 and 64, 66 (1.2%) between 65 and 74, and 5 (0.1%) older than 75. As for
education, 88 (1.6%) did not complete high school, 1142 (20.8%) had a high school diploma,
1998 (36.4%) had a Bachelor’s degree, 1269 (23.1%) had a Master’s degree, 235 (4.3%) had a
Ph.D. degree or above, and 721 (13.1%) an associate/professional degree; 34 (0.6%) did not
report their education. Gender was not available.
Materials
The VIA-IS-P [37] measures the 24 character strengths. This consists of 96 positively keyed
items (four for each strength) scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very much unlike me;
5 = very much like me). Examples of items include “I always speak up in protest when I hear
someone say mean things” for bravery, or “I am an extremely grateful person” for gratitude.
The measure displayed satisfactory internal consistency for both strengths (Cronbach’s αrang-
ing from .65 for humility to .87 for love) and virtues (Cronbach’s αranging from .62 for tem-
perance to .79 for transcendence). Similarly, satisfactory properties were found in the present
sample for strengths (Cronbach’s αranging from .67 for judgement to .87 for love), virtues
(Cronbach’s αranging from .81 for justice to .87 for transcendence) and character overall
score (α= .95).
The Positive Functioning at Work Scale (16) measures the PERMA+4 dimensions. This
consists of 29 items, evaluating nine dimensions on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree, 7 = strongly agree): Positive emotions (three items, e.g., “I feel joy in a typical workday”);
engagement (three items, e.g., “I lose track of time while doing something I enjoy at work”);
relationships (four items, e.g., “I can receive support from coworkers if I need it”); meaning
(three items, e.g., “My work is meaningful”); accomplishment (three items, e.g., “I typically
accomplish what I set out to do in my job”); physical health (four items, e.g., “I typically feel
physically healthy”); mindset (three items, e.g., “I believe I can improve my job skills through
hard work”); environment (three items, e.g., “There is plenty of natural light in my work-
place”); and economic security (three items, e.g., “I am comfortable with my current income”).
The internal consistency of the overall scale is reportedly excellent (α= .94), while the
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 5 / 16
reliability for the subscales ranges from .76 for environment to .93 for positive emotions.
These results were replicated in our sample for both the overall score (α= .91) and the sub-
scales (alpha ranging from .66 for environment to .93 for positive emotions).
The Satisfaction With Life Scale [3] measures the cognitive component of subjective well-
being. This comprises five items scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree,
7 = completely agree) measuring overall life satisfaction (e.g., “The conditions of my life are
excellent”). The scale showed good internal consistency in the original form (α= .87) as well as
in the present sample (α= .88).
Data analysis
To examine the relationships of character strengths and overall character with SWLS and
PERMA+4 we first computed the correlation sizes and compared them using Fisher’s ztrans-
formation to get an initial indication of any stronger relationships with PERMA+4 as com-
pared to SWLS. Descriptively, we also computed the correlations between character strengths
and each of the PERMA+4 dimensions, interpreting correlations below .20 as modest, between
.20 and .30 as small, and above .30 as moderate. We then fitted two path models using the R
package lavaan [38], considering the items as ordinal. Figs 1and 2show graphical representa-
tions of the two models. Model 1 had the 24 character strengths (modelled as latent variables)
as predictors, while Model 2 had the general character factor and the specific strengths (i.e.,
calculated after accounting for the variance explained by the general character factor) as
orthogonal predictors. In both models, life satisfaction (modelled as a latent variable) was the
dependent variable, and Positive Functioning at Work (also modelled as a unidimensional
Fig 1. Graphical representation of the first hypothesized path model (M1).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934.g001
Fig 2. Graphical representation of the second hypothesized path model (M2).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934.g002
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 6 / 16
latent variable) was the mediator. Due to the large sample size obtained in the present study,
we only considered standardized betas with associated p�.001 as significant.
Results
Correlations with positive functioning at work and life satisfaction
Table 1 shows the correlations of character strengths and overall character scores with both
SWLS and PERMA+4 total scores. Correlations were generally significantly stronger for
PERMA+4 than for SWLS, with the exception of gratitude, that correlated more strongly with
SWLS. Specifically, correlations with PERMA+4 were significantly stronger for 21 out of 24
strengths, and not significantly different for two strengths, namely love (p= .26) and prudence
(p= .11). The difference in correlation size ranged between .02 for love to .13 for love of learn-
ing, with a mean difference of .07 (median difference = .06).
Correlations with positive functioning at work dimensions
Table 2 shows the correlation of character strengths and overall character with PERMA+4. For
positive emotions, three character strengths showed correlations above .30 (zest: r= .48, hope:
r= .45; gratitude: r= .39). For engagement, the correlations were mostly very modest, with
only love of learning (r= .29) and curiosity (r= .23) showing correlations above .20. For
Table 1. Correlations of character strengths and character with life satisfaction and PERMA+4.
αSWLS PERMA+4 |Δr| Test statistic p
Appreciation of beauty .80 .10*.14*.04 2.13 .03
Bravery .73 .11*.21*.10 5.38 <.001
Creativity .78 .08*.17*.09 4.79 <.001
Curiosity .70 .23*.27*.04 2.23 .03
Fairness .82 .16*.22*.06 3.26 <.001
Forgiveness .71 .17*.23*.06 3.27 <.001
Gratitude .76 48*.43*.05 −3.30 <.001
Honesty .70 .25*.30*.05 2.83 <.001
Hope .73 .47*.51*.04 2.76 .01
Humility .68 .07*.12*.05 2.64 .01
Humor .85 .13*.18*.05 2.68 .01
Judgement .67 .12*.19*.07 3.76 <.001
Kindness .72 .11*.20*.09 4.83 <.001
Leadership .83 .23*.32*.09 5.10 <.001
Love .87 .26*.24*.02 −1.12 .26
Love of learning .80 .14*.27*.13 7.12 <.001
Perseverance 82 .25*.36*.11 6.36 <.001
Perspective .79 .19*.25*.06 3.30 <.001
Prudence .81 .16*.19*.03 −1.62 .11
Self-regulation .79 .27*.35*.08 4.64 <.001
Social intelligence .71 .17*.23*.06 3.27 <.001
Spirituality .81 .20*.27*.07 3.88 <.001
Teamwork .68 .16*.28*.12 6.61 <.001
Zest .81 .40*.48*.08 5.20 <.001
Character .95 .39*.50*.11 7.20 <.001
Note.*p<.001
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934.t001
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 7 / 16
relationships, two correlations were above .30 (teamwork: r= .33, hope: r= .32). For meaning,
four correlations resulted stronger than .30 (hope: r= .36, gratitude: r= .34, zest: r= .32, and
spirituality: r= .31). For accomplishment, the correlations were generally stronger, with eight
correlations exceeding .30 (with the top three correlated strengths being hope: r= .47, perse-
verance: r= .45, and self-regulation: r= .40). With respect to the additional four PERMA
dimensions, the correlations were mostly small. For physical health, four correlations exceeded
.30 (zest: r= .38, hope: r= .38, self-regulation: r= .35, and gratitude: r= .30). In terms of mind-
set, three strengths showed a correlation above .30 (hope: r= .39, zest: r= .35, and gratitude: r
= .31). For environment, only four correlations were between .20 and .30 (zest: r= .27, hope: r
= .27, gratitude: r= .25, and perseverance: r= .20). Finally, the correlations for economic secu-
rity were very low, except for a small correlation with self-regulation (r= .21).
Character strengths, PERMA+4, and SWLS
Table 3 presents the main results of the first model (M1, see Fig 1). This path model (with the
24 latent character strengths as predictors, life satisfaction as latent dependent variable, and
latent positive functioning at work as mediator) showed good fit to the data (CFI = .932, TLI =
.928, RMSEA = .044, SRMR = .050). All item loadings were significant, with a mean of .81 for
life satisfaction and of .61 for positive functioning at work. Results indicated that only three
Table 2. Correlations of character strengths, virtues, and character with PERMA+4 dimensions.
P E R M A PH MI EN ES
Appreciation of beauty .13*.15*.09*.13*.11*.06*.07*.12*−.03
Bravery .20*.13*.08*.18*.27*.12*.15*.12*.02
Creativity .16*.19*.04** .14*.22*.08*.13*.10*0
Curiosity .23*.23*.13*.18*.24*.19*.20*.13*.06*
Fairness .17*.11*.17*.18*.19*.12*.17*.10*.06*
Forgiveness .22*.08*.20*.17*.15*.16*.17*.13*.06*
Gratitude .39*.11*.28*.34*.35*.30*.31*.25*.14*
Honesty .20*.13*.18*.20*.33*.22*.19*.17*.13*
Hope .45*.16*.32*.36*.47*.38*.39*.27*.17*
Humility .07*.04** .07*.07*.09*.12*.09*.08*.04
Humor .16*.07*.14*.11*.17*.14*.14*.10*0
Judgment .09*.12*.09*.09*.23*.15*.15*.07*.12*
Kindness .19*.14*.19*.19*.21*.06*.17*.13*−.04
Leadership .26*.15*.20*.23*.36*.16*.26*.17*.11*
Love .22*.05*.21*.20*.21*.13*.16*.17*.02
Love of learning .22*.29*.12*.21*.27*.11*.20*.14*.07*
Perseverance .26*.07*.16*.21*.45*.29*.24*.20*.19*
Perspective .16*.15*.15*.19*.30*.14*.18*.11*.10*
Prudence .08*.03*.12*.10*.24*.16*.12*.08*.16*
Self-regulation .22*.04** .16*.18*.40*.35*.22*.18*.21*
Social intelligence .21*.10*.19*.19*.23*.13*.20*.15*−.01
Spirituality .28*.08*.16*.31*.27*.11*.23*.16*−.01
Teamwork .24*.07*.33*.20*.19*.14*.25*.16*.05**
Zest .48*.14*.27*.32*.40*.38*.35*.27*.15*
Character .42*.22*.31*.37*.50*.33*.37*.28*.14*
Note. P = Positive emotions, E = Engagement, R = Relationships, M = Meaning, A = Accomplishment, PH = Physical health, MI = Mindset, EN = Environment,
ES = Economic security, *p<.001
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934.t002
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 8 / 16
out of 24 character strengths were significantly positively related to life satisfaction, namely
gratitude (β= 1.13), curiosity (β= .63), and leadership (β= .21). In turn, positive functioning
at work was also significantly positively associated with life satisfaction (β= .48). Three
strengths, namely hope (β= .83), zest (β= .28), and spirituality (β= .12), were positively associ-
ated with positive functioning at work. We also observed small, negative relationships of spiri-
tuality (β=−.28), zest (β=−.28), love of learning (β=−.24), appreciation of beauty (β=−.24),
and creativity (β=−.23) with life satisfaction. None of the indirect effects of character
strengths on SWLS through the mediation of positive functioning at work were significant.
The model explained 66% of the variance in SWLS, and 41% of variance in positive function-
ing at work. We also fitted a multiple linear regression model with the 24 character strengths
and PERMA+4 as independent variables and SWLS as dependent variable and obtained simi-
lar results, with hope, love, and zest also showing small positive effects on life satisfaction (see
S3 Table). Although the parameters were normally estimated by the model, high collinearity
between the strengths may have led to imprecision in the beta estimates, as indicated by the
large confidence intervals. This also suggests that it might indeed be useful to model the com-
mon variance as a general factor of character, which we did in Model 2.
Table 3. Results of the first path model (M1),with character strengths as predictors, positive functioning at work as mediator, and life satisfactionas dependent
variable.
Life satisfaction Positive Functioning at Work Indirect effect
Predictor ΒCI βCI βCI
Appreciation of beauty −.24*[−.31, −.17] −.00 [−.06, .05] .00 [−.01, .01]
Bravery −.01 [−.08, .05] −.05 [−.11, .00] .00 [−.00, .00]
Creativity −.23*[−.32, −.14] −.08 [−.16, −.01] .02 [.00, .04]
Curiosity .63*[.46, .80] −.11 [−.24, .03] −.07 [−.16, .03]
Fairness −.02 [−.10, .06] .12 [.05, .19] −.00 [−.01, .01]
Forgiveness .01 [−.08.11] −.13 [−.21, −.05] −.00 [−.02, .01]
Gratitude 1.13*[.76, 1.50] −.45 [−.76, −.15] −.51 [−.98, −.05]
Honesty .04 [−.02, .09] .07 [.02, .12] .00 [−.00, .01]
Hope −.52 [−.96, −.08] .83*[.47, 1.20] −.43 [−.93, .07]
Humility −.09 [−.15, −.04] −.04 [−.09, .00] .00 [.00, .01]
Humor −.02 [−.04, .07] −.04 [−.08, .00] −.00 [−.00, .00]
Judgment .00 [−.18, .19] −.19 [−.35, −.03] −.00 [−.04, .04]
Kindness −.25 [−.40, −.11] .16 [.04, .27] −.04 [−.09, .01]
Leadership .21*[.15, .28] .03 [−.03, .08] .01 [−.01, .02]
Love −.01 [−.06, .05] .07 [.03, .11] −.00 [−.00, .00]
Love of learning −.24*[−.33, −.17] .10 [.03, .16] .02 [−.04, .00]
Perseverance .16 [.03, .29] −.08 [−.19, .03] −.01 [−.04, .01]
Perspective −.05 [−.11, .02] .08 [.03, .13] −.00 [−.01, .00]
Prudence .08 [−.10, .25] .13 [−.02, .27] .01 [−.01, .00]
Self-regulation .04 [−.03, .12] −.03 [−.09, .03] −.00 [−.01 .03]
Social intelligence .13 [−.02, .28] −.19 [−.31, −.07] −.03 [−.01, .00]
Spirituality −.29*[−.37, −.21] .12*[.05, .18] −.03 [−.06, −.01]
Teamwork −.05 [−.12, .02] .04 [−.01, .10] −.00 [−.01, .00]
Zest −.28*[−.39, −.17] .28*[.19, .36] −.08 [−.12, −.03]
Positive Functioning at Work .48*[.43, .53] - -
R
2
.66 .41 -
Note. SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale, PERMA+4 = Positive Functioning at Work Scale. β= standardized beta coefficient, CI = 95% Confidence Intervals, R
2
=
percentage of variance explained, *=p<.001
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934.t003
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 9 / 16
Table 4 shows the results of the second model (M2, Fig 2). This path model (with the 24 spe-
cific character strengths and the general factor of character as predictors, life satisfaction as
dependent variable, and positive functioning at work as mediator) showed a descriptively
poorer fit to the data (CFI = .898, TLI = .894, RMSEA = .089, SRMR = .076). All item loadings
were significant, with a mean of .81 for life satisfaction, of .61 for positive functioning at work,
and of .43 for the general factor of character. The amount of variance in the specific strengths
that was explained by the general factor ranged from .31 (hope) to .85 (prudence). Results indi-
cated positive, significant associations with life satisfaction for the general factor of character
(β= .34) and five of the specific strengths of gratitude (β= .44), hope (β= .37), zest (β= .23),
self-regulation (β= .09), and love (β= .08). We also observed small, negative effects on life sat-
isfaction for the specific strengths of kindness (β=−.16), creativity (β=−.16), bravery (β=
−.13), social intelligence (β=−.11), love of learning (β=−.09), appreciation of beauty (β=
−.08), humility (β=−.08), and judgment (β=−.06). Positive functioning at work was also posi-
tively associated with life satisfaction, although to a descriptively lesser degree than in M1 (β=
Table 4. Results of thesecond path model (M2), with specific character strengths and general factor of characteras predictors, positive functioning at work as medi-
ator, and life satisfaction as dependent variable.
Life satisfaction Positive Functioning at Work Indirect effect
Predictor βCI βCI βCI
Appreciation of beauty −.08*[−.11, −.05] −.13*[−.15, −.10] .01*[.01, .02]
Bravery −.13*[−.16, −.10] −.10*[−.13, −.08] .01*[.01, .02]
Creativity −.16*[−.19, −.12] −.16*[−.18, −.13] .03*[.02, .03]
Curiosity −.05 [−.08, −.02] −.11*[−.14, −.09] .01 [.00, .01]
Fairness −.04 [−.06, −.01] −.05*[−.08, −.03] .00 [.00, .00]
Forgiveness −.03 [−.05 .00] −.05*[−.07, −.02] .00 [.00, .00]
Gratitude .44*[.41, .47] .10*[.07, .12] .04*[.03, .06]
Honesty .06 [.03, .09] .00 [−.02, .03] .00 [−.00, .00]
Hope .37*[.33, .41] .17*[.14, .20] .06*[.05, .08]
Humility −.08*[−.11, −.05] −.12*[−.13, −.08] .01*[.00, .01]
Humor −.04 [−.06, .01] −.05*[−.07, −.02] .00 [.00, .00]
Judgment −.06*[−.09, −.03] −.10*[−.12, −.07] .01 [.00, .01]
Kindness −.16*[−.20, −.12] −.12*[−.14, −.09] .02*[.01, .03]
Leadership −.00 [−.03, .03] −.02 [−.04, .01] .00 [.00, .00]
Love .08*[.05, .11] −.03 [−.05, −.01] .00 [−.00, .00]
Love of learning −.09*[−.12, −.06] −.03 [−.05, −.01] −.00 [.00, .01]
Perseverance .05 [.02, .08] .07*[.05, .09] .00 [.00, .01]
Perspective −.04 [−.15, −.01] −.07*[−.10, −.05] .00 [.00, .00]
Prudence .01 [−.06, .01] −.06*[−.08, −.04] −.00 [−.00, .00]
Self-regulation .09*[.05, .11] .05*[.02, .07] .00 [.00, .01]
Social intelligence −.11*[−.15, −.07] −.15*[−.17, −.12] .02*[.01, .02]
Spirituality −.03 [−.05, .00] −.04 [−.06, −.02] .00 [.00, .01]
Teamwork −.04 [−.07, −.02] .02 [−.01, .04] −.00 [−.00, .00]
Zest .23*[.20, .26] .18*[.15, .20] .04*[.03, .05]
General factor of character .34*[.29, .40] .57*[.55, .60] .20*[.16, .23]
PERMA+4 .15*[.08, .23] - -
R
2
.80 .55 -
Note. SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale, PERMA+4 = Positive Functioning at Work Scale. β= standardized beta coefficient, CI = 95% Confidence Intervals, R
2
=
percentage of variance explained, *=p<.001
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934.t004
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 10 / 16
.15). In turn, the general factor of character showed a strong positive association with Positive
Functioning at Work (β= .57), followed by small positive associations of five specific strengths,
namely zest (β= .18), hope (β= .17), gratitude (β= .10), perseverance (β= .07), and self-regula-
tion (β= .05). Small negative associations appeared for 13 specific strengths, namely creativity
(β=−.16), social intelligence (β=−.15), appreciation of beauty (β=−.13), kindness (β=−.12),
humility (β=−.12), curiosity (β=−.11), bravery (β=−.10), judgment (β=−.10), perspective
(β=−.07), prudence (β=−.06), fairness (β=−.05), forgiveness (β=−.05), and humor (β=
−.05). Ten of the indirect effects of character strengths on SWLS through the mediation of pos-
itive functioning at work were significant and positive. These regarded overall character (β=
.20) and the specific strengths of hope (β= .06), gratitude (β= .04), zest (β= .04), creativity (β
= .03), kindness (β= .02), social intelligence (β= .02), appreciation of beauty (β= .01), bravery
(β= .01), and humility (β= .01). The model explained 80% of the variance in life satisfaction,
and 55% of the variance in positive functioning at work.
Discussion and conclusions
Building well-being in the workplace begins with identifying the pathways that lead to it, and
then developing diverse interventions that take advantage of these mechanisms. The more we
are able to identify meaningful and alternative ways to build well-being, the greater the num-
ber of people we can benefit. Rather than focusing prescriptively on single, one-size-fits-all fea-
tures, researchers should aim to illustrate descriptively the multiple ways in which individuals
can develop their own well-being. In this sense, studying character and PERMA as building
blocks of well-being means attempting to advocate for a diversity of possible successful path-
ways to reach life satisfaction. In this study, we hypothesized that strengths and character
would be positively related to the nine elements of well-being identified by Donaldson et al.
[15,16] in their model of positive functioning at work, and that these in turn would positively
affect life satisfaction. We respond here to the authors’ call to “position PERMA+4 as a process
factor, and not an active or targeted antecedent of well-being” (Donaldson et al., [39], p. 9) by
placing the focus on character strengths, here considered as potential factors “needed to acti-
vate PERMA+4 as a means to enhance work-related well-being” (ibidem).
The results of the correlational analyses provided preliminary evidence in support of this
line of reasoning, by showing (slightly) stronger correlations between character strengths and
PERMA+4 compared to life satisfaction. These findings are consistent with Goodman et al.
[13], who also found small differences in correlation magnitudes between SWLS and the origi-
nal PERMA measure, favoring the latter. In addition, we examined correlations with the nine
dimensions of PERMA+4 separately. Our results showed that strengths were meaningfully
related to all nine dimensions, with more and stronger correlations for accomplishment and
positive emotions, and fewer and weaker correlations for environment and economic security.
Some strengths correlated moderately with several of the PERMA+4 dimensions, while others
were descriptively more related to some dimensions than to all others. The first group of
strengths were hope, zest, and gratitude, which were the strengths most related to seven, five,
and four of the nine PERMA+4 dimensions, respectively. These strengths have previously
been identified as “happiness strengths” (along with curiosity and love, [40]) and may indeed
represent common correlates of well-being, across different indicators–perhaps similar to the
concept of transdiagnostic markers of psychopathology [41]. On the other hand, teamwork
appeared to be specifically related with positive relationships (i.e., correlated more strongly
than with any other dimension). This was also the case in a previous examination of character
strengths and PERMA dimensions [12], and may reinforce the well-known notion that healthy
interpersonal relationships are built on trust and cooperation (rather than competitiveness,
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 11 / 16
[42]). A number of strengths (bravery, honesty, judgment, leadership, perseverance, perspec-
tive, prudence) and the general factor of character appeared to be specifically related to accom-
plishment. These strengths were not as clearly related to this dimension in Wagner et al. [12]
and one may speculate that they may rather be strengths that are particularly valued in the
organizational context, and therefore especially related to employees’ sense of achievement.
The results of the path models shed light on the respective relationships of character
strengths (Model 1) and specific strengths and the general factor of character (Model 2) with
life satisfaction and positive functioning at work. Model 1 showed that hope, zest, and (to a
lesser extent) spirituality were the only three strengths positively related to positive functioning
at work. Gratitude, curiosity, and leadership were instead the only three strengths positively
related to life satisfaction. These results further strengthen the correlational findings that the
“happiness strengths” being the most consistently related to well-being [32,42], consistent
with our expectations (H1). These results suggest that only a few single character strengths
may represent direct and indirect pathways to well-being. When all 24 strengths are consid-
ered simultaneously through latent factor scores, single character strengths seem to lose their
predictive power, with very few exceptions. This may be due to the strong inter-correlations
between the 24 strengths (e.g., over .70 for gratitude, hope, and zest), but it also calls into ques-
tion the role of individual strengths with respect to outcomes such as life satisfaction and posi-
tive functioning at work, suggesting that the importance of strengths may lie in what they
share. Indeed, most of the variance that strengths share is partialed out multiple regressions
are run, as in this case, consequently losing a potentially important part of what character
strengths represent or affect.
Our results on the general factor of character support this possibility. The results for Model
2 indicated that the general factor of character was significantly related to both positive func-
tioning at work and life satisfaction. Interestingly, when the general factor of character was
included among the predictors, the relationship between positive functioning at work and life
satisfaction dropped quite significantly (from .48 to .15). In Model 2, only specific zest, hope,
gratitude, perseverance, and self-regulation resulted as positively related to positive function-
ing at work, and only specific gratitude, hope, zest, love, and self-regulation to life satisfaction.
Again, these were primarily happiness strengths [40], together with self-regulation and perse-
verance, reinforcing the possibility that these two may be specific to the organizational context.
Taken together, these findings suggest that having a good character in general (without the
need to prescribe specific strengths to account for it) may help build the elements of well-
being and ultimately promote life satisfaction. This general factor of character may represent
an underlying positive attitude towards life, as previously suggested by other authors [19],
which captures what all character strengths have in common. Nurturing character would then
mean training all character strengths together, relying on the evidence that it is this general
positivity that then explains the positive effects on both the work-related elements of well-
being and general life satisfaction.
In line with our hypothesis (H2), positive functioning at work was positively related to life
satisfaction in both models, consistent with previous findings suggesting that these nine
dimensions represent pathways for building well-being (15). This confirms that employees
who express a higher satisfaction with their life are those who also experience more positive
emotions, feel more engaged, have better relationships, see meaning in their work, and feel
they can achieve their desired goals, while also feeling better physically, having a growth mind-
set, enjoying their environment, and not worrying about money. Thus, the present results rep-
licate the findings of Donaldson and colleagues and provide further support for their model,
while also contributing to the debate sparked by Goodman et al. [13] on the nature and signifi-
cance of Seligman’s [6] PERMA model. More specifically, our results provide initial support
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 12 / 16
for Seligman’s claim that PERMA dimensions are better understood as pathways to reach well-
being, or as “psychological ingredients” that constitute well-being, rather than representing a
distinct type of well-being, to be separated from subjective or psychological well-being.
Of note, we also observed several small negative associations between specific character
strengths and the two outcomes, possibly because the general factor of character (what charac-
ter strengths have in common) carries the most explanatory power. However, when looking at
the mediating effect of positive functioning at work though, we found several small positive
indirect effects (H3), suggesting that some specific strengths may still contribute to a more pos-
itive work functioning, which in turn may lead to greater life satisfaction.
All in all, why are strengths related to life satisfaction? What is the process that links
strengths to such a conceptually broad and far-reaching outcome? Our results show that the
PERMA+4 dimensions, that represent positive functioning at work, may bridge this gap and
represent work-related pathways to life satisfaction that are more frequently adopted by people
who show higher character strengths. Overall, it appears that strengths, especially as general
character, may play a prominent role in building work-related PERMA dimensions, and that
PERMA+4 dimensions are in turn relevant to overall life satisfaction. These findings have
practical implications, at the organizational and individual levels. They suggest that promoting
the awareness and development of PERMA+4 elements in organizational contexts may have
effects on the employees life satisfaction, and that helping them be aware, explore, and apply
[43] their character qualities through formal (character strengths-based interventions) and
informal (by highlighting them as core organizational values) practices may further strengthen
their well-being.
The present study also has some limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study
does not allow causality to be inferred. Future studies should examine these relationships lon-
gitudinally, to assess whether character strengths and PERMA+4 actually predict life satisfac-
tion over time, not just cross-sectionally. Second, we only focused on domain-general
satisfaction, and only on the cognitive component of subjective well-being. Future work
should also consider domain-specific forms of satisfaction, such as job satisfaction, and posi-
tive and negative affect as a relevant outcome that may be associated with both character
strengths and PERMA+4. In addition, studies are needed to assess whether the PERMA+4
dimensions mediate the efficacy of strengths interventions, thereby further elucidating the
mechanisms linking the “building blocks of well-being” to well-being itself. In this regard,
there is some evidence that working with strengths and mindfulness positively impact PERMA
dimensions in working undergraduates [44].
In summary, the present study newly examined character strengths as the building blocks
of the building blocks (i.e., PERMA+4 dimensions) of life satisfaction, and found evidence that
character as a whole, and the happiness strengths (gratitude, hope, zest, curiosity and love)
may support employees’ PERMA+4 dimensions and, indirectly, overall life satisfaction.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Overview of the presented well-being theories.
(DOCX)
S2 Table. The VIA classification. Adapted from Peterson and Seligman (2004, pp. 29–30).
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Linear multiple regression with PERMA+4 and character strengths as predictors,
and life satisfaction as outcome. Note.ß= standardized beta coefficient; *p<.05, ** p<.01,
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 13 / 16
*** p<.001.
(DOCX)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Nicole Casali, Tommaso Feraco.
Data curation: Nicole Casali.
Formal analysis: Nicole Casali.
Methodology: Nicole Casali, Tommaso Feraco.
Supervision: Tommaso Feraco.
Writing – original draft: Nicole Casali.
Writing – review & editing: Tommaso Feraco.
References
1. Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist.
2000; 55(1):5–14.
2. Peterson C, Seligman MEP. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Wash-
ington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association; 2004.
3. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment. febbraio 1985; 49(1):71–5.
4. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. J Happiness Stud. gennaio
2008; 9(1):1–11.
5. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989; 57(6):1069–81.
6. Seligman M. Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schus-
ter; 2011.
7. Butler J, Kern ML. The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. Intnl J Wellbe-
ing. 13 ottobre 2016; 6(3):1–48.
8. Coffey JK, Wray-Lake L, Mashek D, Branand B. A Multi-Study Examination of Well-Being Theory in Col-
lege and Community Samples. J Happiness Stud. febbraio 2016; 17(1):187–211.
9. Kern ML, Waters L, Adler A, White M. Assessing Employee Wellbeing in Schools Using a Multifaceted
Approach: Associations with Physical Health, Life Satisfaction, and Professional Thriving. PSYCH.
2014; 05(06):500–13.
10. Kern ML, Waters LE, Adler A, White MA. A multidimensional approach to measuring well-being in stu-
dents: Application of the PERMA framework. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 4 maggio 2015; 10
(3):262–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936962 PMID: 25745508
11. Tansey TN, Smedema S, Umucu E, Iwanaga K, Wu JR, Cardoso E da S, et al. Assessing College Life
Adjustment of Students With Disabilities: Application of the PERMA Framework. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin. aprile 2018; 61(3):131–42.
12. Wagner L, Gander F, Proyer RT, Ruch W. Character Strengths and PERMA: Investigating the Relation-
ships of Character Strengths with a Multidimensional Framework of Well-Being. Applied Research
Quality Life. aprile 2020; 15(2):307–28.
13. Goodman FR, Disabato DJ, Kashdan TB, Kauffman SB. Measuring well-being: A comparison of subjec-
tive well-being and PERMA. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 4 luglio 2018; 13(4):321–32.
14. Seligman M. PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 4 luglio
2018; 13(4):333–5.
15. Donaldson SI, Heshmati S, Lee JY, Donaldson SI. Examining building blocks of well-being beyond
PERMA and self-report bias. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2 novembre 2021; 16(6):811–8.
16. Donaldson SI, Donaldson SI. The Positive Functioning at Work Scale: Psychometric Assessment, Vali-
dation, and Measurement Invariance. J well-being assess. luglio 2020; 4(2):181–215.
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 14 / 16
17. Feraco T, Casali N, Meneghetti C, Greiff S, Cona G. Is Good Character All that Counts? A Comparison
Between the Predictive Role of Specific Strengths and a General Factor of “Good Character” Using a
Bifactor Model. J Happiness Stud. ottobre 2023; 24(7):2353–76.
18. McGrath RE. The VIA virtue model: Half-Baked or brilliant? The Journal of Positive Psychology. 4
marzo 2022; 17(2):250–6.
19. Ng V, Cao M, Marsh HW, Tay L, Seligman MEP. The factor structure of the Values in Action Inventory
of Strengths (VIA-IS): An item-level exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) bifactor analysis.
Psychological Assessment. agosto 2017; 29(8):1053–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000396 PMID:
27736126
20. Niemiec RM. VIA Character Strengths: Research and Practice (The First 10 Years). In: Knoop HH,
Delle Fave A, curatori. Well-Being and Cultures [Internet]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013
[citato 23 marzo 2022]. p. 11–29. (Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology; vol. 3). Dispo-
nibile su: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-4611-4_2
21. Ruch W, Stahlmann AG. 15 years after Peterson and Seligman (2004): a brief narrative review of the
research on the 12 criteria for character strengths–the forgotten treasure of the VIA Classification.
Zusammen wachsen–Fo¨rderung der positiv-psychologischen Entwicklung von Individuen, Organisatio-
nen und Gesellschaft. 2020;142–72.
22. Casali N, Feraco T, Meneghetti C. Character strengths sustain mental health and post-traumatic growth
during the COVID-19 pandemic. A longitudinal analysis. Psychology & Health. 21 luglio 2021;1–17.
23. Niemiec RM. Six Functions of Character Strengths for Thriving at Times of Adversity and Opportunity: a
Theoretical Perspective. Applied Research Quality Life. aprile 2020; 15(2):551–72.
24. Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions. American Psychologist. 2001; 56(3):218–26.
25. Gander F, Hofmann J, Proyer RT, Ruch W. Character Strengths–Stability, Change, andRelationships
with Well-Being Changes. Applied Research Quality Life. aprile 2020; 15(2):349–67.
26. Schutte NS, Malouff JM. The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions: A Meta-analysis. J
Happiness Stud. aprile 2019; 20(4):1179–96.
27. Ruch W, Niemiec RM, McGrath RE, Gander F, Proyer RT. Character strengths-basedinterventions:
Open questions and ideas for future research. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2 settembre 2020;
15(5):680–4.
28. Dubreuil P, Forest J, Courcy F. From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious pas-
sion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 4 luglio 2014; 9(4):335–
49.
29. Harzer C, Ruch W. The Application of Signature Character Strengths and Positive Experiences at
Work. J Happiness Stud. giugno 2013; 14(3):965–83.
30. Harzer C, Ruch W. The relationships of character strengths with coping, work-related stress, and job
satisfaction. Front Psychol [Internet]. 26 febbraio 2015 [citato 6 aprile 2022];6. Disponibile su: http://
journal.frontiersin.org/Article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00165/abstract PMID: 25767452
31. Lavy S, Littman-Ovadia H. My Better Self: Using Strengths at Work and Work Productivity, Organiza-
tional Citizenship Behavior, and Satisfaction. Journal of Career Development. aprile 2017; 44(2):95–
109.
32. Page KM, Vella-Brodrick DA. The ‘What’, ‘Why’ and ‘How’ of Employee Well-Being: A New Model. Soc
Indic Res. febbraio 2009; 90(3):441–58.
33. Bruna MO, Brabete AC, Izquierdo JMA. Reliability Generalization as a Seal of Quality of Substantive
Meta-Analyses: The Case of the VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) and Their Relationships to Life Sat-
isfaction. Psychol Rep. giugno 2019; 122(3):1167–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118779198
PMID: 29848214
34. Stahlmann AG, Ruch W. Scrutinizing the Criteria for Character Strengths: Laypersons Assert That
Every Strength Is Positively Morally Valued, Even in the Absence of Tangible Outcomes. Front Psychol.
30 settembre 2020; 11:591028. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591028 PMID: 33101158
35. Feraco T, Casali N, Meneghetti C. Do Strengths Converge into Virtues? An Item-, Virtue-, and Scale-
Level Analysis of the Italian Values in Action Inventory of Strengths-120. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment. 6 luglio 2021;1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1934481 PMID: 34227909
36. Gander F, Wagner L, Niemiec RM. Do Character Strengths-Based Interventions Change Character
Strengths? Two Randomized Controlled Intervention Studies. Collabra: Psychology. 4 aprile 2024; 10
(1):108604.
37. McGrath RE. Technical report: The VIA Assessment Suite for Adults: Development and initial evalua-
tion (rev. ed.). VIA Institute on Character; 2019.
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 15 / 16
38. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An RPackage for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Soft [Internet]. 2012 [citato 2
gennaio 2022];48(2). Disponibile su: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
39. Donaldson SI, van Zyl LE, Donaldson SI. PERMA+4: A Framework for Work-Related Wellbeing, Perfor-
mance and Positive Organizational Psychology 2.0. Front Psychol. 24 gennaio 2022; 12:817244.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.817244 PMID: 35140667
40. Littman-Ovadia H, Lavy S, Boiman-Meshita M. When Theory and Research Collide: Examining Corre-
lates of Signature Strengths Use at Work. J Happiness Stud. aprile 2017; 18(2):527–48.
41. Lynch SJ, Sunderland M, Newton NC, Chapman C. A systematic review of transdiagnostic risk and pro-
tective factors for general and specific psychopathology in young people. Clinical Psychology Review.
luglio 2021; 87:102036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102036 PMID: 33992846
42. Balliet D, Van Lange PAM. Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin.
2013; 139(5):1090–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030939 PMID: 23231532
43. Niemiec RM. Character strenghts interventions: A field guide for practitioners. Hogrefe Publishing;
2017.
44. Wingert JR, Jones JC, Swoap RA, Wingert HM. Mindfulness-based strengths practice improves well-
being and retention in undergraduates: a preliminary randomized controlled trial. Journal of American
College Health. 3 aprile 2022; 70(3):783–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1764005 PMID:
32432990
PLOS ONE
Character strengths and organizational well-being
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934 October 30, 2024 16 / 16
