{"id":4546,"date":"2018-10-27T14:29:24","date_gmt":"2018-10-27T18:29:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/?p=4546"},"modified":"2019-05-25T23:17:57","modified_gmt":"2019-05-26T03:17:57","slug":"strengths-and-virtues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/positive-psychology\/strengths-and-virtues\/","title":{"rendered":"Strengths and Virtues"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Today\u2019s Goals<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Looking ahead (proposal, exam review)<\/li>\n<li>Mini-Review: Religion<\/li>\n<li>Become familiar with the VIA strengths &amp; virtues<\/li>\n<li>Understand the background of the strengths<\/li>\n<li>Become familiar with assessment of and initial findings on strengths Consider critiques of the strengths<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Mini Review: Religion &amp; SWB \u2022 What is the religion paradox?<\/p>\n<p>Religion is making people happy, yet more people are beginning to drop it<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>When (where) is religion most important for SWB?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>During times of difficulty<\/p>\n<p>GWP: poorer countries (where people feel unsafe), US (education is lower, where people feel unsafe)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Why (how) does religion contribute to SWB?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Some of the mediators<\/p>\n<p>Gives a purpose in life, social support, more respect<\/p>\n<p>Got more out of religion if you were part of a religious society<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Which religion produces the most SWB?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>None &#8211; they are all equal<\/p>\n<p>Not one that stands out as being more associated with happiness than the other<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How can we resolve the religion paradox?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Religion makes some people happy (when circumstances are not as good)<\/p>\n<p>Religion doesn&#8217;t make much of a difference when circumstances are good &#8211; aren&#8217;t getting anything out of being religious &#8211; sensibility<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Strengths &amp; Virtues Background<\/h2>\n<p><em>(Chapter 1 of book linked in Ares)<\/em><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Similar to general arguments for positive psychology<\/li>\n<li>Addresses the \u20182nd pillar\u2019 of positive individual differences<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Refer back to 3 pillars of positive experience<\/p>\n<p>Attempt to identify important positive influences<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Assumes virtue &amp; character essential to the \u2018good life\u2019 (cf., Aristotle &amp; eudaimonia)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Refer back to Aristotles approach &#8211; the way we evaluate the &#8216;good life&#8217; There are some things that are valued, and others that are not<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Comparison with DSM for disorders<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Classification (not taxonomy per se)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>DSM &#8211; provides the rules\/classification for mental disorders Strengths and weaknesses associated<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Potential benefits of both &#8211; strengths (things wanted to preserve)\n<ul>\n<li>Common language<\/li>\n<li>Directs research &amp; assessment<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Helps define things so they can be helped\/measured<\/p>\n<p>Aid in assessment o Provides \u2018map\u2019 for other institutions<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Important differences &#8211; weaknesses o Categories vs. dimensions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Have something or you don&#8217;t &#8211; doesn&#8217;t follow a continuum (and it should) o Number of constructs<\/p>\n<p>(aspires to) greater validity, more universal<\/p>\n<p>Maximize validity &#8211; been sacrificed through reliability Universal: across different cultures<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Defining Strengths<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Morally valued (positive)<\/li>\n<li>Compared to skills &amp; talents o Perhaps less \u2018innate\u2019, but really morality again<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Viewing strengths as something that is cultivated<\/p>\n<p>Character strengths are <u>morally<\/u> valued &#8211; good to have them (not just nice to have them) Skill\/Talent: potential to not be used, wasted<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Compared to traits<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Ex: the big 5 o Similar as units (relative stability, consistency)<\/p>\n<p>Relatively stable and consistent over time &#8211; more or less on average when compared to the opposite o Role for situations<\/p>\n<p>Outdated: trait needs to be available over all situations &#8211; always<\/p>\n<p>Known that situations have large influences over traits\/personality aspects<\/p>\n<p>Plays a role, even in context of situational differences o content differs (?), breadth<\/p>\n<p>5 traits, 24 strengths<\/p>\n<p>Character strengths more nuanced<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Hierarchical conceptual structure o Virtues, strengths, situational themes<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Virtues: broad things, to be a good person need to have sum of all<\/p>\n<p>Situational Themes: particular kinds of situations elicit particular kinds of responses<\/p>\n<p>Cover similar space &#8211; started in different ways (traits vs. strengths)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Development of Strengths List<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Discussions among psychologists<\/li>\n<li>Consulted philosophers\u2019 lists<\/li>\n<li>Consulted literature &amp; pop culture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Found characters in literature seen as more desirable<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Consulted institutions (e.g., boy scouts)<\/li>\n<li>Looked across cultures<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Looking as widely as they could across all philosophers<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Hoping for universal agreement (except situational themes) Figured cultures would differ on situational themes<\/li>\n<li>Criteria for \u2018family resemblance\u2019, debatable<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h1>Classification System<\/h1>\n<ul>\n<li>Wisdom: curiosity, love of learning, perspective, creativity<\/li>\n<li>Courage: honesty (authenticity), bravery, persistence, zest<\/li>\n<li>Humanity: kindness, love, social intelligence<\/li>\n<li>Justice: fairness, leadership, teamwork<\/li>\n<li>Temperance: forgiveness, humility, prudence, self-regulation<\/li>\n<li>Transcendence: humor, spirituality, appreciation, gratitude, hope<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Virtues: character strengths<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Criteria for Strengths<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Contributes to fulfillment o Beyond coping &amp; merely feeling good o Recall eudaimonia<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Signature strengths as authentic &amp; intrinsic*<\/p>\n<p>Notion that each person has a couple of strengths they are higher in Authentic to the individual<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Strengths valued themselves o Beyond outcome; invokes social\/moral value<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>o Compare to ability or talent<\/p>\n<p>Not necessarily doing &#8211; but the results<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Using it does not diminish others o More admiration than jealousy o Criteria for Strengths<\/li>\n<li>No obvious, positive opposite o Within reason, e.g., honesty &#8212; tact &#8212;rudeness<\/li>\n<li>Trait-like (stable, consistent) o Note \u2018tonic\u2019 vs. \u2018phasic\u2019 continuum<\/li>\n<li>Distinctive from other strengths o keeps list manageable, combinations possible<\/li>\n<li>Has paragons<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>o Cf., \u2018cardinal\u2019 traits<\/p>\n<p>Person is a paragon of <em>x<\/em> &#8211; totally exemplifies them<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Has prodigies o , multiple intelligences<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Strengths that are obvious in children or younger individuals<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Selective absences o As above, some distinct cause or function (?)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Ex: psychopaths &#8211; having a complete absence of 1 (or more) strength<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cultivated by institutions and rituals o g., youth activities o Assessing character strengths<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Assessing Character Strengths<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Usually self-report o Consider social desirability o But compare other constructs, validity o Adult and youth questionnaire<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Adult tends to be quite long<\/p>\n<p>Youth: rephrased to be more understandable, shorter to accommodate attention spans<\/p>\n<p>People need to be willing and able to tell about themselves<\/p>\n<p>Looking for what character strengths individuals are scored higher in<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Other approaches o Structured interview for signature strengths<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Aimed at signature strengths o Content analysis (synonyms, etc.)<\/p>\n<p>Analyze words people use &#8211; conduct &#8216;fancy word counts&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>Can be applied into text &#8211; twitter feed, etc. (emerging field, not extremely accurate)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Initial Findings<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Internally consistent &amp; stable<\/li>\n<li>Agreement with peer reports<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>What individuals tend to report are agreed with<\/p>\n<p>Supports reliability\/validity<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Similar levels across cultures o Kindness, fairness, authenticity, gratitude (high)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>VERSUS<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Self-regulation, modesty, prudence (low)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Rank order of the strengths tend to be the same across cultures<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, strengths that are rated lower were found to be the same across cultures<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Age differences (US) o Hope, teamwork &amp; zest (youth)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>VERSUS<\/em> o Authenticity, leadership, appreciation, open (adults)<\/p>\n<p>Younger people vs. older folks<\/p>\n<p>Is this generational or actually age? Would have to conduct longitudinal studies by reassessing the same &#8220;youth&#8221; generation when they become classified as &#8220;old&#8221; Cultural differences within culture &#8211; generation-wise<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Two possible dimensions o Heart vs. Mind<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>More intellectual\/mental vs. individual o Focus on Self vs. Others<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u2018Strengths of the heart\u2019 and life satisfaction o Zest, gratitude, hope, vs. love of learning<\/li>\n<li>Predicts \u2018best\u2019 job, love, friend, hobby<\/li>\n<li>Effects of crisis o Illness and bravery &amp; humor<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>o 9-11 and gratitude, hope, teamwork, leadership<\/p>\n<p>Look at what goes right &#8211; even in difficult circumstances<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Some Critique<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Much still to be tested\u2026<\/li>\n<li>Application has outpaced research<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>People tend to take these tests as individual feedback \u2022 \u2018Structure\u2019 not as implicitly described \u2022 How unique is the approach?<\/p>\n<p>o Similar to Big 5 space (DSM vs. personality) o Heritability overlaps other traits o Minor role for shared environment<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today\u2019s Goals Looking ahead (proposal, exam review) Mini-Review: Religion Become familiar with the VIA strengths &amp; virtues Understand the background of the strengths Become familiar with assessment of and&hellip; <a class=\"continue\" href=\"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/positive-psychology\/strengths-and-virtues\/\">Continue Reading<span> Strengths and Virtues<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[116],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4546"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4546"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4834,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4546\/revisions\/4834"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}