Fabian Gander’s research while affiliated with University of Basel and other places

Objective Does whole trait theory work for character strengths? This study examines the daily within‐ and between‐person variability of the manifestations of positively valued lower‐order personality characteristics, namely character strengths, their convergence with trait character strengths, and their relationships to daily measures of affect. Background Manifestations of personality traits vary both between‐ and within people. So far, research has focused on between‐person differences in character strengths, while within‐person differences have been neglected. Methods German‐speaking participants ( N = 199, 84.3% women; mean age = 26.0 years) participated in a two‐week daily diary study. They completed a baseline measure of character strength traits and daily measures of character strength states and positive and negative affect. Results Results suggested that character strength traits converged well with aggregated states. Further, we observed high within‐person variability in most character strengths. The trait‐state convergence and the amount of within‐person variability were predicted by whether the character strengths were rather phasic (i.e., more dependent on situational characteristics) or rather tonic (i.e., less dependent on situational characteristics). Higher within‐person variability in character strengths was related to trait levels of perspective, honesty, social intelligence, and fairness. Regarding relationships between character strengths and affect, within‐person associations were widely parallel to previously reported between‐person associations and largely independent of trait levels of character strengths. Conclusion These findings inform research on whole trait theory and character–strengths‐based interventions.

Relationship beliefs (i.e., destiny and growth beliefs) are associated with important relationship outcomes. Destiny beliefs describe the belief that a relationship is meant to be while growth beliefs describe the tendency that relationships can be cultivated and maintained through effort. Based on a longitudinal sample of people in romantic relationships ( N = 904 couples), we examined whether destiny and growth beliefs predict current levels and trajectories of relationship satisfaction across 2 years. Using dyadic growth curve models, we found that individuals with stronger destiny beliefs generally reported higher initial relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, those with higher growth beliefs experienced a slower decline in relationship satisfaction over time. Vice versa, higher relationship satisfaction also predicted increases in growth beliefs, but not destiny beliefs over time. These findings were also supported when directly asking participants about their subjectively perceived trajectories of relationship satisfaction: Growth beliefs, but not destiny beliefs, went along with the perception that relationship satisfaction has increased in the past and will further increase in the future. The findings suggest that relationship beliefs are relevant for long-term outcomes and could have important implications for developing interventions to help couples maintain relationship satisfaction in the long term.

Character strengths-based interventions are effective for increasing well-being. However, whether such interventions also change character strengths has never been tested. In Study 1, we studied the effects of seven different variants of character strengths-based interventions on well-being, ill-being, and character strengths traits and states (i.e., frequency of behavior during one week). We analyzed data of N = 1,163 participants (82.3% women, aged 18 to 78; Md = 45) who were randomized to seven intervention conditions lasting one week; (1) learning about the VIA classification of character strengths, (2) learning about one’s own strengths, using signature strengths (3) in a new way, (4) with a minor challenge, (5) with a larger challenge, (6) for other people, (7) forming a strengths-based habit, or a placebo control condition (early memories). Results showed that using signature strengths in a new way led to increased well-being, social well-being, as well as character strengths states and traits. Forming a strengths-based habit also increased well-being and character strengths states. No effects on ill-being were found. In Study 2, we tested a four-week multi-component program that combined several interventions tested in Study 1 in a sample of N = 254 participants (77.8% women, aged 19 to 87; Md = 42). Compared to a waitlist control group, the intervention condition showed increases in well-being and character strengths states, and reductions in stress and neuroticism. We conclude that character strengths interventions may not only affect well-being but also character strengths states and traits, as well as broader personality traits such as neuroticism.

Objective Which traits best describe individuals who are recognized as exemplary in different domains? And can self‐rated positively valued personality traits distinguish such individuals from the general population? Background The study of exemplary individuals’ personality traits traditionally focused on general and broad traits. Using character strengths, which are narrower and designed to describe desirable behavior, could provide new insights. Method In this study, we examined 204 outstanding individuals—exemplars who received or were nominated for a public award recognizing their exemplary behavior (e.g., a Carnegie Rescuers Award; n = 119), individuals holding a patent ( n = 62), and individuals living in a religious order ( n = 23). We compared these exemplars to comparison samples matched based on demographic variables. All participants completed self‐report questionnaires assessing character strengths and well‐being (e.g., satisfaction with life). Results Results showed that the three groups of exemplars differed meaningfully in their character strengths and well‐being from the matched comparison groups. Compared with matched counterparts, moral exemplars scored higher on the strengths related to the virtues of courage, humanity, and justice as well as the character strength of humility, creative exemplars scored higher on the character strengths of creativity and honesty, and religious exemplars scored higher on gratitude and spirituality. Conclusion Overall, our findings suggest that character strengths are a useful framework for studying exemplary behavior.

Most people want to change some of their personality traits, typically those they and others perceive as lacking. However, past research focused on student samples and higher-order traits and has not fully explored the attributes of traits that predict change goals. As a replication and extension of previous findings, two studies examined (1) whether people want to change their character strengths and how character strengths change goals relate to (2) character strength levels, (3) age, and (4) well-being. Further, we examined which (5) attributes of character strengths, such as their association with morality or well-being, predict change goals. Participants (Study 1: N = 2,792 German-speaking adults, 79.2% women, median = 46 years; Study 2: N = 6,787 English-speaking adults, 67.0% women, median = 32 years) completed measures of character strengths, character strengths change goals, and well-being. A subsample ( n = 1,739) provided informant ratings. Results showed that participants wanted to increase all 24 character strengths. Most change goals showed negligible associations with participants’ well-being and age. Except for spirituality, participants—especially the less happy—wanted to change those character strengths they lacked. The character strengths’ relationship with well-being, but not their moral value, predicted the goals to change them.

Character strengths-based interventions are effective for increasing well-being. However, whether such interventions also increase character strengths has never been tested. In Study 1, we studied the effects of seven different variants of character strengths-based interventions on well-being, ill-being, and character strengths traits and states (i.e., frequency of behavior during one week). We analyzed data of N = 1,163 participants (82.3% women, aged 18 to 78; Md = 45) who were randomized to seven intervention conditions lasting one week; (1) learning about the VIA classification of character strengths, (2) learning about one's own strengths, using signature strengths (3) in a new way, (4) with a minor challenge, (5) with a larger challenge, (6) for other people, (7) forming a strengths-based habit, or a placebo control condition (early memories). Results showed that using signature strengths in a new way led to increased well-being, social well-being, as well as character strengths states and traits. Forming a strengths-based habit also increased well-being and character strengths states. No effects on ill-being were found. In Study 2, we tested a four-week multi-component program that combined several interventions tested in Study 1 in a sample of N = 254 participants (77.8% women, aged 19 to 87; Md = 42). Compared to a waitlist control group, the intervention condition showed increases in well-being and character strengths states, and reductions in stress and neuroticism. We conclude that character strengths interventions may not only affect well-being but also character strengths states and traits. Our study also confirms that forming habits increases intervention effectiveness.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented changes to numerous aspects of work such as working conditions, workload, income, nature of duties, or work-home balance that may eventually pose significant risks to employee well-being and career development. Using a person-centred approach, we examined how these changes cluster together, defining the experiences of different employee sub-groups. We then compared these groups regarding their background characteristics and selected aspects of occupational well-being (i.e., job satisfaction, job insecurity, turnover intention, work engagement, and exhaustion). A sample of professionally active adults (N = 600; 55% women) completed a baseline cross-sectional survey, while a subsample (n = 426) further responded to brief daily questionnaires, reporting their job satisfaction, engagement, and exhaustion over a course of five workdays. Results suggested three different patterns (i.e., latent classes) of pandemic-related changes at work. They characterized workers who experienced a strong decline in their workload and income (‘precarious’), those who experienced an increase in workload and a change in the quality of working conditions (‘challenged’), and those whose work situation was mostly unaffected (‘status quo’). These worker groups differed regarding their personal and professional background as well as occupational well-being outcomes. Those more strongly affected by the pandemic (the challenged or precarious pattern) were more likely to show initial background vulnerabilities, while those in the status quo group were more likely to benefit from working from home and reported the least detrimental outcomes. We discuss the implications of these findings within the conservation of resources and career sustainability frameworks.

Which traits best describe individuals who are recognized as exemplary in different domains? And can self-rated positively valued personality traits distinguish such individuals from the general population? In the present study, we examined 204 outstanding individuals – exemplars who received or were nominated for a public award recognizing their exemplary behavior (e.g., a Carnegie Rescuers Award; n = 119), individuals holding a patent (n = 62), and individuals living in a religious order (n = 23). We compared these exemplars to a total of n = 2,040 comparison individuals matched based on demographic variables (10 controls per exemplar). All participants completed self-report questionnaires assessing character strengths and well-being (e.g., satisfaction with life). Results showed that the three groups of exemplars differed meaningfully in their character strengths and their well-being from the matched comparison groups. In addition to the strengths related to the virtues of courage, humanity, and justice (moral exemplars), and the character strengths of creativity (creative exemplars), gratitude and spirituality (religious exemplars), exemplars tended to score higher on humility. Overall, our findings suggest that character strengths are a useful framework for studying exemplary behavior.

To describe vulnerabilities and resources in career development, it is important to consider a life-span and life-long perspective, the different layers of a person’s self, and the interaction between the person and the surrounding environment. To this end, macro- (i.e., public policies, labor market transformations), meso- (i.e., family structure, organizations), and micro-level (i.e., personal factors) determinants have to be considered. The impact of these different levels in our contemporary word leads to a destandardization of career paths and to an increase in the number and complexity of career transitions posing a challenge to people because of the associated risk of marginalization, especially for disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. To understand the dynamics of career development and related adjustment processes, it is important to consider the interplay between work-related vulnerabilities and employees’ adjustment resources. Several contextual resources, such as peer support, or personal resources, such as adaptability, are known to promote work-related and general well-being. This carries important implications for policy-making, promoting life-long learning and guidance, decent and sustainable work, and social inclusion. Moreover, it informs various interventions, in particular those aimed at increasing access to life-long guidance for all.

Recent studies suggested that most people want to change some of their personality traits, typically those they and others perceive to be lacking. However, change goals have not been studied in the context of character strengths despite the popularity of character strengths-based interventions. In this study, we investigate (1) to what extent people want to change their character strengths and how character strengths change goals relate to (2) character strength levels, (3) age, and (4) well-being. A sample of N = 2,792 German-speaking adults (79.2% women; median age = 46 years) completed measures of character strengths, character strengths change goals, and well-being. For a subsample, n = 1,970 close others (51.8% women; median age = 46 years) provided informant ratings of character strengths. Results showed that (1) participants wanted to increase all 24 character strengths. The character strengths of zest, hope, self-regulation, bravery, creativity, perseverance, love, gratitude, and humor yielded the greatest desire for positive change. Overall, character strengths change goals negatively related to (2) self- and informant-rated levels of character strengths, (3) age, and (4) well-being. People want to change their character strengths for the better, particularly those they lack and that are most strongly related to well-being.