See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358701701

Assessment of character strengths

Preprint · February 2022

DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ed8ap

CITATIONS READS

2 1,637

2 authors:

Lisa Wagner Willibald Ruch

University of Zurich University of Zurich
62 PUBLICATIONS 1,542 CITATIONS 498 PUBLICATIONS 23,030 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Willibald Ruch on 30 January 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Psychological Assessment – Science and Practice

Handbook of Positive Psychology Assessment

Editors

Willibald Ruch1

Arnold B. Bakker2

Louis Tay3

Fabian Gander4

1
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2
Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam,

Rotterdam, Netherlands
3
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
4
Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
 2

About the Editors

Willibald Ruch, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Psychology, Personality and

Assessment, of the University of Zurich. He is a Fellow of the International Positive Psychology

Association, Senior Scientist, VIA-Institute of Character, Cincinnati, OH, and the past president

of the Swiss Association for Positive Psychology and the International Society for Humor

Studies. His research interests concern issues of defining and measuring personality and

character, in particular character strengths, virtues, humor, cheerfulness, and positive emotions.

Arnold B. Bakker, PhD, is Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at the Erasmus

University Rotterdam, and (distinguished) visiting professor at the University of Johannesburg,

North-West University, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Bergen. He is a fellow of

the Association for Psychological Science, the International Association of Applied Psychology,

and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Bakker is the former president

of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. His research interests

cover positive organizational phenomena such as work engagement, flow, playful work design,

and job crafting.

Louis Tay, PhD, is William C. Byham Associate Professor of Industrial-Organizational

Psychology at Purdue University. He obtained his Ph.D. in Industrial-Organizational Psychology

at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests cover methodology

(i.e., measurement, continuum specification, latent class modeling, Big Data / data science) and

well-being (i.e., societal well-being, wellness programs, work - leisure [e.g., arts/humanities

activities] interface).
 3

Fabian Gander, PhD, is a Post-Doc at the Department of Psychology at the University of Basel.

He received his PhD from the University of Zurich and he serves a Co-Editor of the Journal of

Happiness Studies. His research interests are personality traits and well-being, with a special

focus on changes in personality and well-being and their assessment.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all people who contributed to the creation of this book: Foremost,

we would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the authors of the individual

chapters who invested their effort and expertise in creating more or less comprehensive

overviews on the role of psychological assessment in their respective field. Furthermore, we are

very grateful for the contributions of numerous anonymous reviewers who provided critical

feedback on the manuscripts and thereby helped for improving the quality of the book chapters.
 179

6) ASSESSMENT OF CHARACTER STRENGTHS

Lisa Wagner

Willibald Ruch

Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

179
 180

Character strengths are among the most frequently studied research topics in positive

psychology (Donaldson et al., 2015). This chapter briefly introduces the VIA classification of

character strengths and virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and discusses some general

considerations when assessing character strengths. We then focus on reviewing different

instruments that have been used to assess character strengths across different age groups and

contexts. Overall, we aim to provide an overview of the instruments available and the

challenges that go along with assessing character strengths.

Introduction: Character strengths

As a result of a multi-year collaborative project, Christopher Peterson and Martin

Seligman published “Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification” in

2004, presenting the VIA classification of character strengths and virtues. The VIA

classification aimed to provide a framework for describing positively valued traits that are

believed to contribute to a “good life.” In creating this framework, Peterson and Seligman

(2004) considered a wide range of sources, such as virtue lists from various world religions

and philosophical traditions, developmental theories, youth programs and organizations, as

well as other sources, ranging from literature to popular culture.

To select character strengths, a set of criteria was used, most of which had to be met.

These criteria included the following: A strength should (1) contribute to fulfillments that

constitute the “good life,” both for the individual and for other people, (2) be morally

valuable in its own right (see Stahlmann & Ruch, 2020), (3) not demean others when

displayed, (4) not have an opposite term that could also be seen as a strength (see Seligman,

2015), (5) be manifested in thoughts, feelings, and actions and consequently be measurable,

and (6) be sufficiently distinct from all other strengths in the classification. Moreover, each

character strength should have (7) universally recognized paragons, (8) prodigies (see Park &

Peterson, 2006a), and (9) “imbeciles” who do not display the strength at all, and lastly, (10)

180
 181

societies should have institutions and rituals that are aimed at promoting the character

strength. In later publications, twelve criteria were listed (see discussion in Ruch &

Stahlmann, 2019). The VIA classification (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) is shown in Table 1.

Relevant definitions

The VIA classification assigned the 24 character strengths to six core virtues (see

Table 1). These core virtues resulted from reviewing various philosophical and religious

traditions across time and place (Dahlsgaard et al., 2005). On a hierarchically lower level,

situational themes are described. In this chapter, we define the relevant constructs of the VIA

classification (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) as follows:

Character strengths are positively valued traits that contribute to “the good life” for

an individual and others 4

Virtues are core characteristics that have been described and valued by both moral

philosophers and religious thinkers across time and cultures

Situational themes are habits that allow individuals to display a certain character

strength in a specific situation

Peterson and Seligman (2004) argue that virtues are too abstract to be assessed in

individuals. While ad-hoc measures based on the descriptions of the virtues (e.g., Ruch,

Heintz et al., 2020) or on items assessing character strengths (e.g., McGrath, 2019) exist for

research purposes, it is not recommended to use these for other purposes. We are not aware

of instruments designed specifically for assessing situational themes; thus, we will focus on

the assessment of character strengths in the following.

4
In their handbook, Peterson and Seligman define character strengths as “the psychological ingredients–
processes or mechanisms–that define the virtues. Said another way, they are distinguishable routes to displaying
one or another of the virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 13).” On page 4 of their handbook, Peterson and
Seligman (2004) also provide the description that character strengths “make the good life possible.” For
assessment purposes, it seems that a more operational definition would be helpful, which we provide here.

181
 182

Table 1

VIA-Classification of Character Strengths and Virtues

1. Wisdom and knowledge – Cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and use of
knowledge.
• Creativity [originality, ingenuity]: Thinking of novel and productive ways to
conceptualize and do things; includes artistic achievement but is not limited to it
• Curiosity [interest, novelty-seeking, openness to experience]: Taking an interest in
ongoing experience for its own sake; finding subjects and topics fascinating; exploring
and discovering
• Judgment [critical thinking]: Thinking things through and examining them from all
sides; not jumping to conclusions; being able to change one’s mind in light of evidence;
weighing all evidence fairly
• Love of Learning: Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge, whether on
one’s own or formally; obviously related to the strength of curiosity but goes beyond it
to describe the tendency to add systematically to what one knows
• Perspective [wisdom]: Being able to provide wise counsel to others; having ways of
looking at the world that make sense to oneself and to other people
2. Courage – Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in
the face of opposition, external or internal
• Bravery [valor]: Not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain; speaking up
for what is right even if there is opposition; acting on convictions even if unpopular;
includes physical bravery but is not limited to it
• Perseverance [persistence, industriousness]: Finishing what one starts; persisting in a
course of action in spite of obstacles; “getting it out the door”; taking pleasure in
completing tasks
• Honesty [authenticity, integrity]: Speaking the truth but more broadly presenting
oneself in a genuine way and acting in a sincere way; being without pretense; taking
responsibility for one’s feelings and actions
• Zest [vitality, enthusiasm, vigor, energy]: Approaching life with excitement and
energy; not doing things halfway or halfheartedly; living life as an adventure; feeling
alive and activated
3. Humanity – Interpersonal strengths that involve tending and befriending others
• Love: Valuing close relations with others, in particular those in which sharing and
caring are reciprocated; being close to people
• Kindness [generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruistic love, “niceness”]: Doing
favors and good deeds for others; helping them; taking care of them
• Social intelligence [emotional intelligence, personal intelligence]: Being aware of the
motives and feelings of other people and oneself; knowing what to do to fit into
different social situations; knowing what makes other people tick
4. Justice – Civic strengths that underlie healthy community life
• Teamwork [citizenship, social responsibility, loyalty]: Working well as a member of a
group or team; being loyal to the group; doing one’s share
• Fairness: Treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and justice; not

182
 183

letting personal feelings bias decisions about others; giving everyone a fair chance
• Leadership: Encouraging a group of which one is a member to get things done and at
the time maintain time good relations within the group; organizing group activities and
seeing that they happen
5. Temperance – Strengths that protect against excess
• Forgiveness: Forgiving those who have done wrong; accepting the shortcomings of
others; giving people a second chance; not being vengeful
• Humility: Letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves; not regarding oneself
as more special than one is
• Prudence: Being careful about one’s choices; not taking undue risks; not saying or
doing things that might later be regretted
• Self-regulation [self-control]: regulating what one feels and does; being disciplined;
controlling one’s appetites and emotions
6. Transcendence – Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide
meaning.
• Appreciation of beauty and excellence [awe, wonder, elevation]: Noticing and
appreciating beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in various domains of life,
from nature to art to mathematics to science to everyday experience
• Gratitude: Being aware of and thankful for the good things that happen; taking time to
express thanks
• Hope [optimism, future-mindedness, future orientation]: Expecting the best in the
future and working to achieve it; believing that a good future is something that can be
brought about
• Humor [playfulness]: Liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other people;
seeing the light side; making (not necessarily telling) jokes: liking to laugh and joke;
bringing smiles to other people
• Spirituality [faith, purpose]: Having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and
meaning of the universe; knowing where one fits within the larger scheme; having
beliefs about the meaning of life that shape conduct and provide comfort
© Copyright 2004-2021. VIA Institute on Character. All Rights Reserved. Used with
Permission. www.viacharacter.org

Relevance: Why should character strengths be assessed?

From a research perspective, we need sound measures of character strengths to

empirically study their relationship with indicators of the “good life” (first criterion described

by Peterson and Seligman, 2004). In addition, of course, it is also relevant to study their

relationships with related constructs, such as the five-factor model of personality (e.g.,

McGrath et al., 2020). However, next to their relevance for advancing research in positive

psychology (Donaldson et al., 2015), character strengths are also assessed in many practical

contexts. These contexts include, but are not limited to, psychotherapy (e.g., Chaves et al.,

183
 184

2019; Flückiger & Beesdo-Baum, 2020), vocational counseling (e.g., Littman-Ovadia et al.,

2014), coaching (e.g., Burke & Passmore, 2019), education (e.g., Norrish et al., 2013) and

finally, character strengths-based positive psychological interventions (e.g., Niemiec, 2017;

Ruch, Niemiec et al., 2020). The specific relevance might vary across different fields. Still, in

many cases, the main function of assessing character strengths in practice can be described as

resource activation (see Flückiger & Beesdo-Baum, 2020). Character strengths are typically

assessed to enable individuals to recognize strengths in themselves and then work with these

strengths in a coaching or therapy process.

General considerations in the assessment of character strengths

Before we review the different instruments for assessing character strengths, some

general questions on to the assessment of character strengths deserve mention. These

questions include: Is social desirability of particular relevance when character strengths are

assessed? Should measures of character strengths be scored normatively or ipsatively? Which

aspects of character strengths are assessed next to their trait levels?

Role of social desirability

Given the positive and morally valued nature of character strengths (Stahlmann &

Ruch, 2020), researchers and practitioners might be concerned about the potential influence

of a self-enhancement bias created by the character strengths’ social desirability on the results

obtained. In the past, researchers have relied on scales assessing social desirability to

determine the extent to which self-enhancement tendencies influence the scores obtained on

personality questionnaires. When using such a scale together with the VIA-IS, between two

(Peterson and Seligman, 2004: prudence and spirituality) and five (Macdonald et al., 2008:

curiosity, honesty, fairness, kindness, forgiveness) character strengths showed correlations of

at least r = .30 to a social desirability scale. Overall, the size of the correlations did not differ

from a measure of five-factor-model personality traits also used by Macdonald et al. (2008).

184
 185

Ruch, Proyer, Harzer et al. (2010) concluded that social desirability is not a strong threat to

the validity of the scores obtained by the VIA-IS. This conclusion is based on small

correlations between the Lie Scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) and the VIA-IS scales (using self-, median r = .06, and informant

ratings, median r = .06), as well as on a low correlation between a derived desirability index

(difference between self and informant rating) and the Lie scale (median r = .05). Still, the

correlation for prudence and teamwork were noteworthy and need to be considered. As “lie”

items often contain virtuous behaviors, it is, more likely that substance is responsible for

these correlations and not only response style. This idea is also supported by work on

impression management or social desirability scales (see, e.g., Zettler et al., 2015).

Another frequently used operationalization of self-enhancement is the discrepancy

between self- and informant reports (e.g., Müller & Moshagen, 2019). One might assume that

the discrepancy between both should be larger for ratings strongly affected by social

desirability. For both VIA-IS and the VIA-Youth, median self-informant correlations around

.40 have been reported (Ruch, Proyer, Harzer et al., 2010; Ruch, Weber et al., 2014). These

values are highly comparable to coefficients obtained for other, not explicitly positively

valued, personality traits (for a meta-analysis, see e.g., Connelly & Ones, 2010). Of note, if

any differences were observed, informants typically gave (at least descriptively) higher

ratings than self-raters (e.g., Ruch, Proyer, Harzer et al., 2010). This observation suggests that

the desirable nature of character strengths does not lead self-reports to be disproportionally

inflated by self-enhancement.

Ipsative vs. normative scoring and assessing signature strengths

While in most research studies, a normative approach to scoring measures of character

strengths has been applied, ipsative scoring is relevant to many practical contexts. In many

settings, it is not the most relevant to know how a person scores compared to others, but

185
 186

rather which character strengths are ranked highest within an individual. Also, many

strengths-based interventions build on so-called signature strengths. Signature strengths are

those character strengths that are highly typical of an individual and whose display is

rewarding (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), not unlike Allport’s (1961) notion of personal traits.

Peterson and Seligman (2004) claimed individuals have three to seven of these strengths.

However, empirical studies show that while the mean is typically between five and six, the

number of signature strengths individuals identify with varies widely (Blanchard et al., 2020;

McGrath, 2019).

At least in some character strengths-based interventions, individuals complete the

VIA-IS or the VIA-Youth to identify their most pronounced strengths. Then, they are asked

to display one (e.g., Seligman et al., 2005), three (e.g., Toback et al., 2016), four (e.g., Harzer

& Ruch, 2016), or five (e.g., Proyer et al., 2015) of these highest-ranking character strengths

in new ways. Overall, though, there is very little evidence that it makes a difference whether

the strengths used in an intervention are among the top or the bottom in an individuals’ rank

order of strengths (see Proyer et al., 2015). In addition, instruments intending to assess the

individual’s level of each of the character strengths and instruments intending to assess

signature strengths directly only converge modestly with each other (Blanchard et al., 2020:

McGrath, 2019). This finding suggests that what individuals consider their signature

strengths is not directly aligned with what character strengths measures assess. As a

consequence, it seems useful to always include an individual’s perception when determining

signature strengths.

Given that the items across all scales of the VIA-IS were not constructed to be of the

same psychometric difficulty, it would also seem useful to norm any data before providing an

individual’s rank order of character strengths. Such a procedure is done by some platforms

186
 187

that allow individuals to complete the VIA-IS online and to receive personal feedback (e.g.,

the German-speaking site www.charakterstaerken.org), but by far not in all cases.

Relatedly, some research articles make statements such as “the highest strengths in

this group of people (for instance, a certain profession) are X, Y, and Z” when comparing the

means across all 24 character strengths within this group. Such statements are not particularly

meaningful in light of varying psychometric difficulty across the scales. Of course, it is

possible to compare the rank order or the means of strengths between different groups but

making claims about the rank order within one group without comparisons seems

problematic. Thus, comparisons among character strengths should always be based on

normed data. Normative data for the US have recently been published (McGrath et al., 2021).

Assessing the application of character strengths in different life domains

Even if two individuals can be characterized by the same level of a given character

strength, such as creativity, we would not expect both individuals to show the same level of

creative behavior in their workplaces. The idea of differentiating between the “possession” or

“endorsement”, on the one hand, and the “use”, “application”, “display” or “deployment” of

character strengths, on the other hand, has led to the development of several scales that

capture this aspect. Generic measures of strengths use, such as the Strengths Knowledge

Scale and the Strengths Use Scale (Govindji & Linley, 2007), are independent of a specific

understanding of strengths. Such scales assess “strengths” without restricting respondents’

understanding of what “strengths” to consider (the items refer to “my strengths” and “things I

am good at”). As a consequence, individuals will vary greatly in the traits they include in this

very broad definition. It is thus not surprising that strengths use correlates highly with self-

esteem and self-efficacy (e.g., Govindji & Linley, 2007): It describes whether a person

perceives opportunities to do what they think they are good at and whether they believe they

show these behaviors; recent research has shown that two dimensions that underly the scores

187
 188

in the Strengths Use Scale can be distinguished: (1) perceiving many opportunities to display

one’s strengths and (2) displaying strengths-related behavior (van Zyl et al., 2021).

These two aspects have also been considered when explicitly using the VIA

classification (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) as framework for assessing character strengths. It

is both of interest to assess the extent to which individuals (1) perceive their environment as

conducive to displaying behavior in accordance with one’s character strengths and (2) show

character strengths-related behaviors. Harzer and Ruch (2013) define the applicability of a

character strength as “the degree to which situational circumstances allow an individual to

display strengths-relevant behavior” (p. 967). The applicability of strengths has been assessed

to complement an individual’s level of a given character strength. Individuals within the

same workplace showed a relatively strong inter-rater agreement regarding the aspects that

relate to perceived characteristics of a workplace (i.e., the degree to which a given character

strength is demanded and helpful; Harzer & Ruch, 2013). Thus, it is reasonable to assume

that these ratings indeed relate to characteristics of the (work) environment.

The life domains assessed have also been extended beyond work and studies (Kachel

et., 2020) to include domains such as leisure, romantic relationships, or close personal

relationships (Wagner et al., 2021), and it has been suggested to separate the items relating to

the strengths’ relevance in a given environment (i.e., “it is demanded,” “it is helpful,” and “it

is important to me”) from the item relating to behavior (i.e., “I do it”). The ACS-RS has also

been adapted for use with adolescents in the context of school (Wagner & Ruch, 2021). In

this version, only one external (“it is desired”) and one internal aspect (“I behave this way”)

is rated for each character strength.

Assessing the “underuse” and “overuse” of character strengths

By offering a systematic description of positive individual traits, Peterson and

Seligman (2004) view the VIA classification as a positive counterpart to classifications that

188
 189

describe mental illness, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). There are also attempts to characterize

mental illnesses by the opposite, the absence or the excess of the 24 character strengths

(Seligman, 2015). One attempt to assess the under- and overuse (roughly corresponding to

absence and excess) of character strengths is the Overuse/ Underuse/Optimal Use inventory

of strengths (OUOU; Freidlin et al., 2017). The OUOU asks participants to consider three so-

called facets (underuse, optimal use, and overuse) of each of the 24 character strengths and

allocate 100% among the three facets for each respective strength. For example, the overuse

of love of learning is described as “I seek knowledge so much that this negatively impacts my

relationships or my work/school.”

This approach has certain drawbacks. Namely, the three answers for each character

strength are not independent (in fact the answers to one facet are depending on the answers to

the other two facets), and, therefore, no comparisons between individuals regarding their

level of character strengths can be made. Also, the validity of the OUOU can be questioned.

In particular, the is no documentation on how the conceptualizations of under- and overuse

have been constructed or validated. Is there only one type of over- and underuse or more

different ones, that also may relate to different pathologies? There is also no evidence that the

level of a character strength is related to underuse, optimal use, and, especially, to overuse.

Such evidence would be important to support the claim that the same construct (namely, the

same character strength) is underlying all three facets. Previous studies on single character

strengths have also failed to identify the suggested “too much of a good thing” (e.g., Ruch,

Proyer, & Weber, 2010; Wiese et al., 2017; see Ng & Tay, 2020, for a discussion) and have

rather found a linear relationship between character strengths and well-being. In addition,

Freidlin et al. (2017) report a relatively high internal consistency (α = .75) for the 24 items

assessing the overuse of all character strengths. This finding is somewhat surprising as one

189
 190

would expect that individuals show overuse of specific character strengths and not of all

character strengths at the same time.

One might draw a parallel to other debates on the assessment of positively valued

constructs, such as the question of whether one can value happiness “too much” (Mauss et

al., 2011). As demonstrated by Luhmann et al. (2016), for the case of the Valuing Happiness

Scale (Mauss et al., 2011), correlations with negative outcomes can be artifacts of the

negative wording of a few items. Considering the example item mentioned above, it is not

surprising that the perception that one’s behavior impacts life domains negatively is related to

negative outcomes.

In light of these considerations and open questions, theoretical interpretations do not

seem warranted before the scale has been systematically validated. One could also argue that

the criteria put forward to describe character strengths do not apply to the overuse of

strengths; hence it cannot be an expression of character strengths. Overall, it seems that a

construct such as “overuse” of a trait cannot be described as an expression of a character

strength at a high level but rather as a construct separate from character strengths, which is

related to a generally negative self-evaluation.

Overview of instruments assessing character strengths

Table 2 gives an overview of commonly used instruments for the assessment of

character strengths. This overview is structured by the target group (adults vs.

children/adolescents). It first describes the standard instruments, then several shorter forms,

and finally, instruments assessing specific aspects of character strengths (i.e., signature

strengths, application of character strengths in different life domains, and over-/underuse of

character strengths). This overview is by no means comprehensive. In particular, it does not

include measures that used the VIA Classification as a starting point for their construction but

assess traits beyond the 24 character strengths (e.g., CIVIC, Ng et al., 2018) nor instruments

190
 191

that were only presented by Peterson and Seligman (2004) in their handbook, but never

published or validated beyond it (e.g., the VIA-Structured Interview for the assessment of

signature strengths or the VIA Rising to the Occasion Inventory, which asks participants to

reflect on their behavior in specific strengths-relevant situations). Thus, Table 2 does not

represent a complete overview of all existing measures of character strengths.

191
 192

Table 2

Psychometric Properties of Prevalent Instruments Assessing Character Strengths (Sorted Chronologically by Category)

Instrument Informant and Reliability (Convergent) Validity Languages available Notes

number of items
Adults
VIA Inventory Self-ratings αs = >.70 With informant-rating Afrikaans, Arabic,
of Strengths (240 items; 10 items rtt = >.70 (4 months) r = .26–.69 (mean r = .42) Chinese (Simplified),
(Peterson & per strength) Chinese (Traditional),
Seligman, 2004) (Peterson et al., 2004) (Ruch, Proyer, Harzer et al., Croatian, Danish,
2010) Dutch, French,
αs = .71–.90 German, Greek,
(median α = .76) Hebrew, Hindi,
Italian, Japanese,
rtt = .69–.87
Korean, Portuguese
(over 3 months)
(Brazil), Portuguese
rtt = .65–.85 (Portugal), Russian,
(over 6 months) Spanish, Swedish,
rtt = .62–.85 Turkish, Urdu, see
(over 9 months) supplementary Table
(Ruch, Proyer, Harzer S2 for an overview of
et al., 2010) published adaptations
(https://osf.io/2rzj3/ )
VIA-IS-R Self-ratings αs = .77–.91 (median With VIA-IS-120 English Data from a sample
(McGrath, (192 items; 8 items per α = .85), r = .59–.94 (mean r = .83) demographically
2019) 5 strength) (McGrath, 2019) representative of

5
The VIA Assessment Suite (McGrath, 2019) also contains several additional versions: VIA Inventory of Strengths-M (VIA-IS-M; containing the 96 items of the VIA-IS-R
with the highest item-total correlations); VIA Inventory of Strengths-P (VIA-IS-P; 96 items, exclusively positively-keyed items), Global Assessment of Character Strengths-
72 (GACS-72; three items per strength to assess its similarity to a signature strength), and Global Assessment of Character Strengths - 24 (GACS-24; version of the GAS-24
with one item per strength).

192
 193

With SSS the U.S. population

available (McGrath
αs = .75–.91 (median r = .30–.64 (mean r = .45) et al., 2021)
α = .85), (McGrath, 2019)
rtt = .76–.89 (mean r = With VIA-IS-120
.82, over 3 months)
r = .58–.88 (mean r = .77)
(McGrath & Wallace,
2021) (McGrath & Wallace, 2021)
IPIP-VIA Self-ratings (213/217 αs = .70–.91 Convergent validity not tested English, German, Short form
(Goldberg et al. items; 7-10 per scale) (McGrath, 2015) Polish containing 96 items
2006) used in Partsch et
al. (2021)
Version derived
using Rasch
modelling (du
Plessis & de Bruin,
2015)
Children and adolescents
VIA-Youth Self-ratings αs = .72–.91 With abstract judgements English, German,
(Park & (adolescents aged 10- (median α = .81) (summary self-ratings) Spanish
Peterson, 17) of 24 character rtt = .46–.71 (over 6 r = .18–.55 (mean r = .36)
2006b) strengths months; mean r = .58,
(198 items; 7-9 per With teacher ratings
50% overlapping
character strength) items) r = .14–.33 (mean r = .23)
(Park & Peterson, (Park & Peterson, 2006b)
2006b)
With parent-rating
αs = .65–.91 r = .22–.70 (mean r = .40)
(median α = .77) (Ruch, Weber et al., 2014)

193
 194

rtt = .61–.85 (over 4

months; mean r = .73)
(Ruch, Weber et al.,
2014)
Character Self-ratings (children αs = .73–.91 Convergent validity not tested English, Hebrew
Strengths aged 7-12) of 24 (median α = .82)
Inventory for character strengths (96 rtt n/a
Children (CSI- items; 4 per character
C; Shoshani & strength)
Shwartz, 2018)
Character Parent ratings αs = .71–.92 Convergent validity not tested English, Hebrew
Strengths (children aged 3-6) of (median α = .83)
Inventory for 24 character strengths rtt n/a
Early (96 items; 4 per
Childhood character strength)
(CSI-EC;
Shoshani, 2019)
Short forms
VIA-120 Self-ratings αs = .64–.90 with VIA-IS Arabic, Chinese 5 VIA-IS items for
(Littman- (120 items; 5 per (median α = .78) rs = .88–.96 (mean r = .93) (Simplified), English, each character
Ovadia, 2015) scale) (Littman-Ovadia, (Littman-Ovadia, 2015, Study German, Hebrew, strength with the
2015, Study 5) 1) Greek, Spanish highest corrected
αs = .58–.89 item-total
rs = .52–.87 (mean r = .75) correlations
(median α = .77) (Höfer et al., 2019, Study 1)
(Höfer et al., 2019,
Study 1) no evidence from
independent administrations
rtt n/a of both measures
VIA-72 Self-ratings ωs = .61-.81 Convergent validity not tested English, Portuguese, 3 VIA-IS items for
(72 items; 3 per scale) (Moreira et al., 2021) Urdu each character

194
 195

rtt n/a strength with the

highest corrected
item-total
correlations
Self-rated Self-ratings (24 items) rtt n/a Convergent validity not tested English
measure of
character
strengths
(Furnham &
Lester, 2012)
Character Self-ratings (24 items) rtt = .37–.69 Convergence with VIA-IS German Adapted for use in
strengths rating (over 2 years; ranging from r = .41 to r = .77 daily diary studies
form (CSRF; median rtt = .46, (mean r = .58) (Gander et al.,
Ruch, Martínez- Gander et al., 2020) (Ruch, Martínez-Martí et al., 2021) and for
Martí et al., 2014) informant ratings
2014) (Ruch, Heintz et
al., 2020)
Abbreviated Self-ratings (24 items, Six virtue dimensions: Correlations of virtue English
Character only 21 αs = .70–.84 dimensions with Big Five
Strengths Test items/character rtt n/a personality traits ranging
(ACST: strengths retained after from r = -.27 to r = .54
Vanhove et al., analysis)
2016)
Measures of specific aspects
Applicability of Self-ratings of Work life: αs = .71– Median of correlations with German Has been adapted
Character applicability (96 items .90 (median α = .80) VIA-IS: r = .66 for work life for use with
Strengths – in total; 4 per character Private life: αs = .76– and r = .70 for private life adolescents
Rating Scale strength) .94 (median α = .84) (Harzer & Ruch, 2013) (Wagner & Ruch,
(ACS-RS; 2021) and several
Harzer & Ruch, (Harzer & Ruch, life domains
2013) 2013)

195
 196

rtt n/a (Wagner et al.,

2021)
Optimal/Over/ Self-ratings of α = .84 underuse, α = Convergent validity not tested English Answer format:
Under Used underuse, optimal use, .89 optimal use, α = Respondents are
Strengths and overuse of the 24 .75 overuse asked to distribute
(OUOU; character strengths rtt n/a 100% across three
Freidlin et al., facets
2017)
Signature Overview of the 24 α n/a With VIA-IS-R English
Strengths character strengths, rtt n/a r = .30–.64 (mean r = .45)
Survey participants select (McGrath, 2019)
(SSS; McGrath, essential strengths in
two rounds With VIA-120
2019)
r = .24–.59 (mean r = .35)
(Blanchard et al., 2020)
Short forms assessing only some aspects of character strengths
Chinese Virtues Self-ratings of three αs = .83–.90 With Gratitude Chinese
Questionnaire virtues (Interpersonal, (Duan et al., 2012) Questionnaire-6
(CVQ-96; Duan vitality, cautiousness) r = .27–.47
et al., 2012) αs = .88–.92
(96 items; 32 items for With Hope Scale
interpersonal, 40 items rtt = .70–.76 (10
for vitality, and 24 weeks) r = .42–.52
items for cautiousness) (Duan et al., 2013) (Duan et al., 2013)
Brief Strengths Self-ratings αs = .72–.89 Convergent validity not tested Chinese, English
Scale-12 (BSS- (12 items in total; 4 rtt n/a
12; Ho et al., items each for
2016) temperance strength,
interpersonal strength,
and intellectual
strength)

196
 197

Three- Self-ratings αs = .79–.86 Convergent validity not tested Chinese

dimensional (15 items in total; 1 rtt n/a
Inventory of item each for curiosity,
Character humor, creativity,
Strengths social intelligence,
(TICS; Duan & zest, fairness,
Bu, 2017) leadership, teamwork,
authenticity, kindness,
regulation, prudence,
judgment,
perseverance, and love
of learning)
Notes. α = Cronbach’s alpha, ω = McDonald’s omega, rtt = test-retest reliability.

197
 198

Key research findings on the described measures

For several of the measures reviewed in Table 2, only very scare validity evidence has

been presented. For instance, for some of the measures, it is even unclear to which extent they

converge with other established methods for assessing character strengths (convergent

validity). Overall, we also know relatively little about the test-retest stability of the measures,

in particular over longer time intervals. Except for the VIA-IS, the VIA-IS-R, the VIA-Youth,

and the CSRF, we are not aware of data on the stability. This gap in the literature should be

addressed in future studies because knowledge on the test-retest stability of high relevance for

evaluating the effects of interventions on character strengths. The same conclusion is true for

divergent validity; for many of the measures, there is little to no evidence on their associations

with conceptually overlapping or distinct constructs, such as Big Five or HEXACO

personality traits (McGrath et al., 2020) or intelligence (Kretzschmar et al., 2021).

Research using the measures presented in Table 2 has mainly focused on criterion

validity. For instance, the relationships with well-being (e.g., Buschor et al., 2013; Hausler et

al., 2017; Wagner, Gander et al., 2020), achievement (e.g., Datu & Bernardo, 2020; Harzer &

Ruch, 2014; Wagner, Holenstein et al., 2020), and interpersonal relationships (e.g., Boiman-

Meshita, & Littman, 2021; Wagner, 2019) have been studied. To date, there is very little

research considering joint and interactive effects of character strengths (for an exception, see

Ruch, Platt et al., 2014), which might be a valuable avenue for future research.

Studying factor structure vs. assessing virtues

The VIA Classification was developed with a focus on the outcomes that character

strengths predict. In assessment terms, this means that the focus has been on criterion validity.

Even though the hierarchical structure of the classification reminds readers of factor models,

it has not been conceptualized as or intended to be a factor model. That is, the classification –

and the instruments used to assess the character strengths in the classification – were not

198
 199

developed with ideas about the structure of these strengths in mind. In other words, the VIA

Classification was not constructed with a factorial model in mind. Instead, Peterson and

Seligman (2004) describe character strengths as “distinguishable routes to displaying one or

another of the virtues” (p. 13). This idea implies that an individual will not necessarily (or

perhaps even rather unlikely) pursue all of those routes simultaneously, which would be

implied by a factorial model (see the discussion in Ruch & Proyer, 2015; p. 10–11). In

addition, Miller (2019) argued that there are several ways in which character strengths and

virtues could be related because Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) descriptions have not been

sufficiently clear in describing these relationships.

With these considerations in mind, it becomes evident that averaging those character

strengths theoretically assigned to a virtue to form a virtue score is not meaningful. The items

assessing character strengths were never constructed to assess virtues, and their contents do

not reflect the descriptions of the virtues. This also means that any success or failure to show

a six-factorial structure does not provide direct information on the appropriateness or validity

of the VIA classification. Recently, more direct approaches to testing the assignment of

character strengths to virtues (Gander et al., 2021; Giuliani et al., 2020; Ruch & Proyer, 2015;

Ruch, Heintz et al., 2020; Ruch et al., 2021) have been suggested. The results have provided

relatively consistent evidence for most assignments. However, these studies have also

suggested that character strengths may be assigned to more than one virtue and that the

character strength of humor may be better assigned to the virtue of humanity (instead of

transcendence).

Nonetheless, the higher-order structure of the instruments assessing the character

strengths of the VIA classification has been addressed repeatedly. However, in many cases,

items or scales had to be excluded to arrive at acceptable factor solutions; thus, many factor

solutions do not represent all 24 character strengths. We also hasten to emphasize that while

such higher-order factors describing which character strengths typically occur together might

199
 200

be useful for certain purposes, they hardly can be expected to represent the virtues described

in the VIA Classification. A large number of solutions regarding higher-order factors that

have been identified (see supplementary Table S1 available on the Open Science Framework:

https://osf.io/2rzj3/). These factor solutions range from one to six factors, suggesting that

there is no stable factor structure across the instruments and in most cases, also not within one

instrument. This makes comparing any two results based on factor scores very difficult.

Recently, McGrath (2015) and Partsch et al. (2021) have argued in favor of three-factor

structures, which have shown some degree of robustness across different samples. However,

the content and composition of the three factors suggested differ between the instruments

(e.g., the three factors extracted from the IPIP-VIA-R by Partsch and colleagues are not

comparable to those extracted from the VIA-IS or VIA-IS-R by McGrath), which makes a

coherent account of how the higher-order factors should be interpreted very difficult.

Using higher-order factors of character strengths also seems of limited usefulness for

many applications in research and practice. Studies often conclude that those strengths with

the highest relationships to relevant criteria load onto different factors (e.g., Wagner & Ruch,

2021). Therefore, reporting results on the level of factors may conceal the results and would

not allow conclusions on the specific contributions of the single character strengths. In

practice, most strengths-based interventions operate at the level of character strengths (e.g.,

Niemiec, 2017), as these are more concrete and arguably easier to implement than

interventions based on more abstract, higher-order concepts.

Equivalence between different measures

Given the availability of different measures of character strengths that are all based on

the VIA Classification, the question arises whether the scores assessed using different

instruments can be interpreted in the same way. Several studies that address the equivalence

between different character strengths measures were recently undertaken to answer this

question. First, the convergence of the revised (VIA-IS-R) with the original (VIA-IS-R)

200
 201

questionnaire is of interest in order to determine whether the results that were obtained using

one or the other questionnaire are sufficiently comparable. Using the German version of both

instruments, Vylobkova et al. (2021) showed that, overall, the VIA-IS and the VIA-IS-R

could be considered equivalent regarding internal consistency, correlations between the

scales, as well as criterion-related validity (relationships with well-being, moral behaviors,

and core virtues). Neither of the measures is clearly superior to the other in any of these

criteria, and, with a few exceptions, the overlap between the homologous scales was high.

McGrath and Wallace (2021) also report a high level of convergence between the different

instruments within the VIA Assessment Suite (VIA-IS-R, VIA-IS-P, VIA-IS-M, GACS). We

tentatively conclude from these results that results with the VIA-IS and the VIA Assessment

Suite, in particular with the VIA-IS-R, can be compared.

Second, despite some differences in the structure of the instruments, it is also of

interest to investigate the convergence of instruments designed for different age groups. To

this end, Kretzschmar et al. (2020) used a sample of 18-year-old students who completed both

the VIA-Youth and the VIA-IS, in addition to several well-being measures. The results

highlighted that the two instruments assessing character strengths converged well for many

strengths but less well for others (e.g., curiosity and leadership). In sum, Kretzschmar et al.

(2020) considered these differences to be too large to allow comparing scores between the

two instruments. Also, a meta-analysis on cross-sectional age differences in the 24 character

strengths (Heintz & Ruch, 2021) using 47 samples yielded a more substantial gap between

ages 17 and 18 (i.e., the oldest group that completed the VIA-Youth and the youngest that

completed in the VIA-IS) than between other age groups. Together, these findings suggest

that making statements about which character strengths are more or less pronounced in

adolescents compared to adults is not valid if such statements are based on different

questionnaires in both samples.

201
 202

As mentioned previously, only a moderate amount of agreement (mean r = .45)

between the VIA-IS-R and the SSS has been reported (McGrath et al., 2019). To our

knowledge, there are no studies directly comparing versions of the IPIP-VIA to the original

version(s). Therefore, we can make no conclusions regarding their equivalence.

Recommendations for instrument selection

Assessment contexts vary in their requirements, but some general recommendations

for instrument selection can be put forward. First, (very) short measures assessing character

strengths with only 1 to 3 items each, such as the CSRF and the VIA-72, should only be used

in large-scale studies, in which considerations of participant burden exclude the use of longer

measures and in which only group-level comparisons are of interest. However, researchers

should be aware that the use of these short forms comes with costs in terms of reliability and

validity. Second, for the assessment in individual contexts (e.g., in counseling), we do neither

recommend the use of shortened versions nor any instruments that primarily rely on factor-

level scales. Most applied work (e.g., Niemiec, 2017) focuses on the level of character

strengths or is interested in identifying signature strengths. Hence, it is most informative for

practitioners to use measures that allow assessing individual character strengths with

sufficient reliability and validity, that is, VIA-IS, VIA-IS-R, IPIP-VIA, and VIA-Youth.

Author Note

Disclosure statement: The second author is a Senior Scientist for the VIA Institute on

Character, which holds the copyright to the VIA Inventory of Strengths.

References

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (DSM-5) (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

202
 203

Blanchard, T., Kerbeykian, T., & McGrath, R. E. (2020). Why are signature strengths and

well-being related? Tests of multiple hypotheses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(6),

2095–2114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00170-2

Boiman-Meshita, M., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2021). Is it me or you? An actor-partner

examination of the relationship between partners’ character strengths and marital

quality. Journal of Happiness Studies. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00394-1

Burke, J., & Passmore, J. (2019). Strengths based coaching—A positive psychology

intervention. In L. E. Van Zyl & S. Rothmann Sr. (Eds.), Theoretical Approaches to

Multi-Cultural Positive Psychological Interventions (pp. 463–475). Springer

International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20583-6_21

Buschor, C., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2013). Self- and peer-rated character strengths: How

do they relate to satisfaction with life and orientations to happiness? The Journal of

Positive Psychology, 8(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.758305

Chaves, C., Lopez-Gomez, I., Hervas, G., & Vazquez, C. (2019). The Integrative Positive

Psychological Intervention for Depression (IPPI-D). Journal of Contemporary

Psychotherapy, 49(3), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-018-9412-0

Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic

integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin,

136(6), 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212

Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of

valued human strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology,

9(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.203

Datu, J. A. D., & Bernardo, A. B. I. (2020). The blessings of social-oriented virtues:

Interpersonal character strengths are linked to increased life satisfaction and academic

203
 204

success among Filipino high school students. Social Psychological and Personality

Science, 11(7), 983–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620906294

Donaldson, S. I., Dollwet, M., & Rao, M. A. (2015). Happiness, excellence, and optimal

human functioning revisited: Examining the peer-reviewed literature linked to positive

psychology. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 185–195.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.943801

du Plessis, G. A., & de Bruin, G. P. (2015). Using Rasch modelling to examine the

international personality item pool (IPIP) values in action (VIA) measure of character

strengths. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 25(6), 512–521.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2015.1124603

Duan, W., & Bu, H. (2017). Development and initial validation of a short three-dimensional

inventory of character strengths. Quality of Life Research, 26(9), 2519–2531.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1579-4

Duan, W., Ho, S. M. Y., Yu, B., Tang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, T., & Yuen, T. (2012). Factor

structure of the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire. Research on Social Work Practice,

22(6), 680–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512450074

Duan, W., Ho, S. M. Y., Bai, Y., & Tang, X. (2013). Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese

Virtues Questionnaire. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(3), 336–345.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731513477214

Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPQ

adults). Hodder and Stoughton.

Flückiger, C., & Beesdo-Baum, K. (2020). Ressourcenaktivierung [Resource activation]. In J.

Hoyer & S. Knappe (Eds.), Klinische Psychologie & Psychotherapie [Clinal

psychology & psychotherapy] (pp. 575–588). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

662-61814-1_23

204
 205

Freidlin, P., Littman-Ovadia, H., & Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Positive psychopathology: Social

anxiety via character strengths underuse and overuse. Personality and Individual

Differences, 108, 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.003

Furnham, A., & Lester, D. (2012). The development of a short measure of character strength.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 95–101.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000096

Gander, F., Hofmann, J., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2020). Character strengths – Stability,

change, and relationships with well-being changes. Applied Research in Quality of

Life, 15(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9690-4

Gander, F., Wagner, L., Amann, L., & Ruch, W. (2021). What are character strengths good

for? A daily diary study on character strengths enactment. The Journal of Positive

Psychology. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1926532

Giuliani, F., Ruch, W., & Gander, F. (2020). Does the excellent enactment of highest

strengths reveal virtues? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1545.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01545

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &

Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-

domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Govindji, R. & Linley, P.A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being:

Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International

Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 143–153.

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive

experiences at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 965–983.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0

205
 206

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2014). The role of character strengths for task performance, job

dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support. Human Performance,

27(3), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.913592

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2016). Your strengths are calling: Preliminary results of a web-based

strengths intervention to increase calling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(6), 2237–

2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9692-y

Hausler, M., Strecker, C., Huber, A., Brenner, M., Höge, T., & Höfer, S. (2017).

Distinguishing relational aspects of character strengths with subjective and

psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1159.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01159

Heintz, S., & Ruch, W. (2021). Cross-sectional age differences in 24 character strengths: Five

meta-analyses from early adolescence to late adulthood. The Journal of Positive

Psychology. Adavance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1871938

Ho, S. M. Y., Li, W. L., Duan, W., Siu, B. P. Y., Yau, S., Yeung, G., & Wong, K. (2016). A

Brief Strengths Scale for individuals with mental health issues. Psychological

Assessment, 28(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000164

Höfer, S., Hausler, M., Huber, A., Strecker, C., Renn, D., & Höge, T. (2019). Psychometric

characteristics of the German Values in Action Inventory of Strengths 120-Item Short

Form. Applied Research in Quality of Life. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9696-y

Kachel, T., Huber, A., Strecker, C., Höge, T., & Höfer, S. (2020). Development of cynicism

in medical students: Exploring the role of signature character strengths and well-being.

Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00328

Kretzschmar, A., Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2020). Character strengths in adults and

adolescents: Their measurement and association with well-being. PsyArXiv.

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/caemw

206
 207

Kretzschmar, A., Wagner, L., Gander, F., Hofmann, J., Proyer, R., & Ruch, W. (2021).

Character strengths and intelligence. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mh58j

Littman-Ovadia, H. (2015). Short form of the VIA Inventory of Strengths: Construction and

initial tests of reliability and validity. International Journal of Humanities Social

Sciences and Education, 2(4), 229–237.

Littman-Ovadia, H., Lazar-Butbul, V., & Benjamin, B. A. (2014). Strengths-based career

counseling: Overview and initial evaluation. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(3),

403–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713498483

Luhmann, M., Necka, E. A., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Hawkley, L. C. (2016). Is valuing

happiness associated with lower well-being? A factor-level analysis using the Valuing

Happiness Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 46–50.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.003

Macdonald, C., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2008). Values in action scale and the Big 5: An

empirical indication of structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 787–799.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.10.003

Mauss, I. B., Tamir, M., Anderson, C. L., & Savino, N. S. (2011). Can seeking happiness

make people unhappy? Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness. Emotion, 11(4), 807–

815. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022010

McGrath, R. E. (2015). Integrating psychological and cultural perspectives on virtue: The

hierarchical structure of character strengths. The Journal of Positive Psychology,

10(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994222

McGrath, R. E. (2019). The VIA Assessment Suite for adults: Development and initial

evaluation (revised edition) [Technical report]. VIA Institute on Character.

McGrath, R. E., Brown, M., Westrich, B., & Han, H. (2021). Representative sampling of the

VIA Assessment Suite for adults. Journal of Personality Assessment. Advance online

publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1955692

207
 208

McGrath, R. E., Hall-Simmonds, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2020). Are measures of character

and personality distinct? Evidence from observed-score and true-score analyses.

Assessment, 27(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117738047

McGrath, R. E., & Wallace, N. (2021). Cross-validation of the VIA Inventory of Strengths-

Revised and its short forms. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(1), 120–131.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1705465

Miller, C. B. (2019). Some philosophical concerns about how the VIA classifies character

traits and the VIA-IS measures them. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(1), 6–19.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1528377

Moreira, P. A. S., Inman, R. A., & Cloninger, C. R. (2021). Virtues in action are related to the

integration of both temperament and character: Comparing the VIA classification of

virtues and Cloninger’s biopsychosocial model of personality. The Journal of Positive

Psychology. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1975158

Müller, S., & Moshagen, M. (2019). Controlling for response bias in self-ratings of

personality: A comparison of impression management scales and the overclaiming

technique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(3), 229–236.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1451870

Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Character strengths interventions: A field guide for practitioners.

Hogrefe Publishing.

Ng, V., & Tay, L. (2020). Lost in translation: The construct representation of character

virtues. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 309–326.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619886014

Ng, V., Tay, L., & Kuykendall, L. (2018). The development and validation of a measure of

character: The CIVIC. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 346–372.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1291850

208
 209

Norrish, J. M., Williams, P., O’Connor, M., & Robinson, J. (2013). An applied framework for

Positive Education. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 147–161.

https://internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/250

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006a). Character strengths and happiness among young children:

Content analysis of parental descriptions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 323–341.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-3648-6

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006b). Moral competence and character strengths among

adolescents: The development and validation of the Values in Action Inventory of

Strengths for Youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 891–909.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.011

Partsch, M. V., Bluemke, M., & Lechner, C. M. (2021). Revisiting the hierarchical structure

of the 24 VIA character strengths: Three global dimensions may suffice to capture

their essence. European Journal of Personality. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211017760

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and

classification. Oxford University Press.

Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2015). Strengths-based positive

psychology interventions: A randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term

effects for a signature strengths- vs. a lesser strengths-intervention. Frontiers in

Psychology, 6, 456. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00456

Ruch, W., Gander, F., Wagner, L., & Giuliani, F. (2021). The structure of character: On the

relationships between character strengths and virtues. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 16(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1689418

Ruch, W., Heintz, S., & Wagner, L. (2020). Co-occurrence patterns of character strengths and

measured core virtues in German-speaking adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,

599094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.599094

209
 210

Ruch, W., Martínez-Martí, M. L., Proyer, R. T., & Harzer, C. (2014). The Character Strengths

Rating Form (CSRF): Development and initial assessment of a 24-item rating scale to

assess character strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 53–58.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.042

Ruch, W., Niemiec, R. M., McGrath, R. E., Gander, F., & Proyer, R. T. (2020). Character

strengths-based interventions: Open questions and ideas for future research. The

Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(5), 680–684.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1789700

Ruch, W., Platt, T., & Hofmann, J. (2014). The character strengths of class clowns. Frontiers

in Psychology, 5, 1075. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01075

Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2015). Mapping strengths into virtues: The relation of the 24 VIA-

strengths to six ubiquitous virtues. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 460.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00460

Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010).

Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the

German version and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual

Differences, 31, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000022

Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., & Weber, M. (2010). Humor as a character strength among the

elderly: Empirical findings on age-related changes and its contribution to satisfaction

with life. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 43(1), 13–18.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-009-0090-0

Ruch, W., & Stahlmann, A. G. (2019). 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. In M. Brohm-Badry, C. Peifer, J. M.

Greve, & B. Berend (Eds.), Zusammen wachsen – Förderung der positiv-

210
 211

psychologischen Entwicklung von Individuen, Organisationen und Gesellschaft (pp.

142-172). Pabst Science Publishers.

Ruch, W., Weber, M., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2014). Character strengths in children and

adolescents: Reliability and initial validity of the German Values in Action Inventory

of Strengths for Youth (German VIA-Youth). European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 30, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000169

Seligman, M. E. P. (2015). Chris Peterson’s unfinished masterwork: The real mental illnesses.

The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 3–6.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.888582

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology

progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–

421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

Shoshani, A. (2019). Young children’s character strengths and emotional well-being:

Development of the Character Strengths Inventory for Early Childhood (CSI-EC). The

Journal of Positive Psychology, 14, 86–102.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1424925

Shoshani, A., & Shwartz, L. (2018). From character strengths to children’s well-being:

Development and validation of the Character Strengths Inventory for Elementary

School Children. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2123.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02123

Stahlmann, A. G., & Ruch, W. (2020). Scrutinizing the criteria for character strengths:

Laypersons assert that every strength is positively morally valued, even in the absence

of tangible outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 591028.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591028

Toback, R. L., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Patel, P. D. (2016). Outcomes of a character

strengths–based intervention on self-esteem and self-efficacy of psychiatrically

211
 212

hospitalized youths. Psychiatric Services, 67(5), 574–577.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201500021

van Zyl, L. E., Arijs, D., Cole, M. L., Gliíska-Newes, A., Roll, L. C., Rothmann, S.,

Shankland, R., Stavros, J. M., & Verger, N. B. (2021). The Strengths Use Scale:

Psychometric properties, longitudinal invariance and criterion validity. Frontiers in

Psychology, 12, 2135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.676153

Vanhove, A. J., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, J. A. (2016). The Abbreviated Character

Strengths Test (ACST): A preliminary assessment of test validity. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 98(5), 536–544.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1148044

Vylobkova, V., Heintz, S., Gander, F., Wagner, L., & Ruch, W. (2021). Convergence and

psychometric properties of character strengths measures: The VIA-IS and the VIA-IS-

R. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8zvjb

Wagner, L. (2019). Good character is what we look for in a friend: Character strengths are

positively related to peer acceptance and friendship quality in early adolescents. The

Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(6), 864–903.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431618791286

Wagner, L., Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2020). Character strengths and PERMA:

Investigating the relationships of character strengths with a multidimensional

framework of well-Being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(2), 307–328.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9695-z

Wagner, L., Holenstein, M., Wepf, H., & Ruch, W. (2020). Character strengths are related to

students’ achievement, flow experiences and enjoyment in teacher-centered learning,

individual, and group work above the influence of cognitive ability. Frontiers in

Psychology, 11, 1324. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01324

212
 213

Wagner, L., Pindeus, L., & Ruch, W. (2021). Character strengths in the life domains of work,

education, leisure, and relationships, and their associations with flourishing. Frontiers

in Psychology, 12, 597534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.597534

Wagner, L., & Ruch, W. (2021). Displaying character strengths in behavior is related to well-

being and achievement at school: Evidence from between- and within-person analyses.

PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bphrk

Wiese, C. W., Tay, L., Duckworth, A. L., D’Mello, S., Kuykendall, L., Hofmann, W.,

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2018). Too much of a good thing? Exploring the

inverted-U relationship between self-control and happiness. Journal of Personality,

86(3), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12322

Zettler, I., Hilbig, B. E., Moshagen, M., & de Vries, R. E. (2015). Dishonest responding or

true virtue? A behavioral test of impression management. Personality and Individual

Differences, 81, 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.007

213

View publication stats