Despite a number of theoretical propositions suggesting that character strengths are multidimensional and may have darker sides, to date strengths have been approached strictly as a positive entity. ...The current study sought to (a) define and measure these darker sides of character strengths in the form of underuse-overuse, as well as their traditionally positive counterpart––optimal use––and their associations with positive and negative outcomes, and (b) explain the role of specific strengths' underuse-overuse in social anxiety.
Based on an international sample of 238 adults, we found that general character strengths underuse and overuse were related to negative outcomes, while optimal use was related to positive outcomes. The overuse of social intelligence and humility, and underuse of zest, humor, self-regulation and social intelligence was associated with social anxiety. Using discriminant analysis, this combination successfully re-sorted 87.3% of the participants into those that do and do not have clinical levels of social anxiety. These findings suggest that strengths are in fact multifaceted, providing novel insight into the role that sub-optimal-use facets play in undesirable outcomes, providing a glimpse of psychopathology through the lens of positive psychology.
•Optimal strengths use is positively correlated with life satisfaction and flourishing.•Underuse and overuse of strengths are positively correlated with depression.•Underuse of strengths has more negative consequences than overuse.•A combination of under-overuses of strengths predicts social anxiety.•A combination of under-overuses of strengths differentiates between SAD and non-SAD.
What does it mean to be "strengths-based" or to be a "strengths-based practitioner?" These are diffuse areas that are generic and ill-defined. Part of the confusion arises from the customary default ...of practitioners and leaders across many cultures to label anything positive or complimentary as "strengths-based," whether that be an approach, a theoretical orientation, an intervention, or a company. Additional muddle is created by many researchers and practitioners not making distinctions between very different categories of "strength" in human beings - strengths of character, of talent/ability, of interest/passion, of skill/competency, to name a few. To add clarity and unification across professions, we offer seven characteristics and a comprehensive definition for a character strengths-based practitioner. We center on the type of strength referred to as character strengths and explore six guiding principles for understanding character strengths (e.g., character is plural; character is being and doing) and their practical corollaries. Reflecting this foundation and based on character strengths research, our longstanding work with strengths, discussions with practitioners across the globe, and a practitioner survey asking about strength practices (
= 113), we point out several character strengths practices or approaches we describe as soaring (e.g., explore and encourage signature strengths; practice strengths-spotting), emerging (e.g., the integration of mindfulness and character strengths), or ripe with potential (e.g., phasic strengths; the tempering effect; the towing effect). We use the same framework for describing general research domains. Some areas of research in character strengths are soaring with more than 25 studies (e.g., workplace/organizations), some are emerging with a handful of studies (e.g., health/medicine), and others are ripe with potential that have none or few studies yet opportunity looms large for integrating character science (e.g., peace/conflict studies). Using this framework, we seek to advance the exchange and collaboration between researcher and practitioner, as well as to advance the science and practice of character strengths.
A growing body of research demonstrates the relevance of character strengths for flourishing in general, but also for important outcomes across different life domains (e.g., work performance and ...relationship satisfaction). Studies have also shown that there are differences in the extent to which character strengths are applied, that is, perceived as relevant and shown in behavior in a given context, between work and private life, but they have not considered other life domains. This study aims to close this gap by examining the life domains of work, education, leisure, close personal relationships, and romantic relationships. The present study investigates whether (a) strengths-related behavior across different life domains explains additional variance in flourishing beyond the trait level of each respective character strength and studies (b) differences in the relevance of character strengths and strengths-related behavior across different life domains, and examines (c) their relationships with flourishing. A sample of 203 German-speaking adults (78.8% females; mean age = 29.4 years) completed self-reports assessing flourishing and character strengths. They also indicated which of the five life domains were personally relevant to them (i.e., on average 4.23 life domains) and reported the character strengths' perceived relevance and the frequency of displaying strengths-related behavior for each of these life domains separately. The results demonstrate that (a) strengths-related behavior averaged across all relevant life domains explained unique variance in flourishing above the trait-level of character strengths in some cases (e.g., creativity, kindness, and fairness), (b) different life domains were characterized by specific profiles of character strength-regarding both their relevance and strength-related behavior. Moreover, (c) character strengths and strengths-related behavior in different life domains both showed substantial correlations with flourishing. In some cases, these associations were domain-specific (e.g., displaying love of learning in the context of education was related to higher levels of flourishing). In conclusion, we suggest that examining strengths-related behavior across different life domains represents a worthwhile addition to research on character strengths.
Signature strengths are individuals’ highest-ranked strengths, those that they own, celebrate, and frequently exercise. Their use has been theorized to elicit positive affect, and contribute ...significantly to individuals’ functioning and well-being. The present study examined two elements of these ideas in the work arena: (a) Associations of strengths use at work with work outcomes (work meaningfulness, engagement, job satisfaction, performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behaviors), focusing on differences in the associations of signature-strengths use, lowest-strengths use, and happiness strengths-use at work; (b) The role of positive affect in mediating these associations. The results, based on self-reports of an international sample of 1031 working individuals, generally indicated that the use of all kinds of strengths had positive correlates. As expected, using signature strengths had the highest, robust unique contribution to behavioral outcomes (performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and lower counterproductive work behavior). But unexpectedly, using happiness strengths (and not signature strengths) had the highest, robust unique contribution to psycho-emotional work-related outcomes (work meaningfulness, engagement, and job satisfaction). Positive affect mediated the association between strengths use and all work-related outcomes for the three kinds of strengths, when each was examined separately. However, when uses of the three kinds of strengths were examined together, positive affect mediated the effects of lowest strengths use and those of happiness strengths use, but not the effects of signature strengths use. These findings highlight the differential benefits of using different kinds of strengths, and suggest that additional (and different) mechanisms may underlie these effects.
Individual character strengths have been increasingly valued, as they facilitate social functioning, well-being, and performance. However, little is known about how individuals use their strengths ...for important but distinct goals including task accomplishment and relationship maintenance in organizations. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a Strengths Use Scale that can be used to measure the use of strengths for tasks and relationships in the workplace. For this purpose, we used the exploratory mixed-method design and conducted a series of studies. In Study 1, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to ensure the construct validity of the Strengths Use Scale on a sample of 187 employees. We found that the scale comprises two dimensions: strengths use for tasks and strengths use for relationships. In Study 2a, we verified the two-factor structure of the Strengths Use Scale using the confirmatory factor analysis on a separate sample of 213 employees. The results of Study 2b demonstrated that the scale has good measurement invariance across gender and age groups, on the sample of 205 employees. Moreover, strengths use for tasks and strengths use for relationships positively correlated with well-being and work engagement and negatively correlated with turnover intention, supporting the criterion-related validity of the scale. In Study 3, a test-retest reliability analysis with a sample of 94 employees indicated that the scale has high reliability. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
Numerous studies have confirmed the effectiveness of character strengths-based interventions for fostering well-being. However, there are still several open questions. The present article discusses ...some of the most important questions. We review the current body of research and provide ideas and possible future directions on issues such as: Should interventions be generic or personalized? What strengths should be addressed in a strengths-based intervention? What is the role of signature strengths? Do strengths-based interventions change the level of character strengths? How can you justify strengths-based interventions? We conclude that increasing knowledge has not tempered but rather has heightened the initial high expectations on the important contribution of strengths-based interventions in research and practice, but still much work remains to be done.
Theoretical propositions suggesting that character strengths (CSs) may have darker sides have triggered a new wave of studies, providing novel insight into the role that misuse of CSs play in ...psychopathology. Pioneering research in the field has addressed the challenge of constructing an instrument for measuring
over/under/optimal use
of CSs, and explaining the role of specific strengths’ underuse or overuse in social anxiety disorder. The present study sought to continue this line of research by examining the role of specific strengths’ underuse-overuse in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). An international sample of 970 adults completed online questionnaires derived from a CSs website. We first replicated findings that general CSs’ underuse and overuse were associated with negative outcomes, while optimal use was related to positive outcomes. Second, we found obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS) to be associated with the overuse of social intelligence, judgment, appreciation of beauty and excellence, fairness, perseverance, and prudence, as well as with underuse of forgiveness, self-regulation, curiosity, and creativity. Using simultaneous regression, the noted misuse of strengths, not including the overuse of perseverance and the underuse of curiosity and creativity, accounted for almost a quarter of the variance in OCS. Using discriminant analysis, the combination of the overuse of social intelligence, judgment, appreciation of beauty and excellence, fairness, and prudence, as well as the underuse of forgiveness and self-regulation, successfully re-sorted 89.3% of the participants into those that do and do not have clinical levels of OCD. These findings provide support to the role of strengths misuse in psychopathology.
Strengths use is an essential personal resource to consider when designing higher-educational programs and interventions. Strengths use is associated with positive outcomes for both the student ...(e.g., study engagement) and the university (e.g., academic throughput/performance). The Strengths Use Scale (SUS) has become a popular psychometric instrument to measure strengths use in educational settings, yet its use has been subjected to limited psychometric scrutiny outside of the U.S. Further, its longitudinal stability has not yet been established. Given the wide use of this instrument, the goals of this study were to investigate (a) longitudinal factorial validity and the internal consistency of the scale, (b) its equivalence over time, and (c) criterion validity through its relationship with study engagement over time. Data were gathered at two-time points, 3 months apart, from a sample of students in the Netherlands (
n
= 360). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analyses showed support for a two-factor model for overall strengths use, comprised of
Affinity for Strengths
and
Strengths Use Behaviors
. The SUS demonstrated high levels of internal consistency at both the lower- and upper bound limits at both time points. Further, strict longitudinal measurement invariance was established, which confirmed the instrument's temporal stability. Finally, criterion validity was established through relating strengths use to study engagement at different time stamps. These findings support the use of the SUS in practice to measure strengths use and to track the effectiveness of strengths use interventions within the higher education sector.
New rotational line strengths for the C2 Swan system (dΠg3–aΠu3) have been calculated for vibrational bands with v′=0–10 and v″=0–9, and J values up to J=34–96, using previous observations in 33 ...vibrational bands. Line positions from several sources were combined with the results from recent deperturbation studies of the v′=4 and v′=6 levels, and a weighted global least squares fit was performed. The updated molecular constants are reported. The line strengths are based on a recent ab initio calculation of the transition dipole moment function. A line list has been made available, including observed and calculated line positions, Einstein A coefficients and oscillator strengths (f-values). The line list will be useful for astronomers, combustion scientists and materials scientists who utilize C2 Swan spectra. Einstein A coefficients and f-values were also calculated for the vibrational bands of the Swan system.
► Line positions from several previous studies of the C2 Swan system are combined. ► Molecular constants have been recalculated including v′=4 and v′=6 perturbations. ► Rotational line intensities are calculated as Einstein A and f-values. ► Vibrational band Einstein Av′v″ and fv′v″ values are calculated. ► We give a line list up to v′=10, v″=9 with intensities for obs. and calc. lines.
The present article attempted to unravel the mechanism underlying the relationship between perceived supervisor support for strengths use (PSSSU) and employee strengths use behavior from the ...perspective of theory of planned behavior. Data were gathered at three time points, spaced by a four-week interval, with a convenience sample of 213 employees working in a broad variety of organizations in China. Results of structural equation modeling analyses revealed that PSSSU is positively related to employee strengths self-efficacy, intention to use strengths, and strengths use behavior. In addition, employee strengths self-efficacy mediated the linkage between PSSSU and strengths use behavior, and intention to use strengths also acted as a mediator in the relationship. More importantly, the positive association of PSSSU with strengths use behavior was fully mediated by strengths self-efficacy and intention to use strengths sequentially. The present article has crucial implications for understanding the relationship between PSSSU and strengths use behavior and its mechanisms.
PDF
