{"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":"

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