Individual Differences Research www.idr-journal.

com
2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 ISSN: 1541-745X
© 2009 Individual Differences Association, Inc.

An Investigation of Character Strengths in

Relation to the Academic Success
of College Students

John W. Lounsbury*, Leslee A. Fisher,

Jacob J. Levy, & Deborah P. Welsh
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

*John W. Lounsbury; Department of Psychology; University of Tennessee; Knoxville, TN

37996-0900; [email protected] (email).

ABSTRACT – Based on a sample of 237 university undergraduate students, we

examined the 24 Values in Action (VIA) character strengths in relation to two
indices of academic success--student satisfaction and grade point average (GPA).
All 24 character strengths were positively and significantly related to General Life
Satisfaction; 22 were significantly, positively related to College Satisfaction; and 16,
to GPA. Multiple correlations for each of these sets of predictors were, respectively:
R = .57, .47, and .41. Similarities to and differences between the present results and
cognate studies based on adult and young adult samples were noted. Individual
results were discussed in terms of construct meaning and functional relationships for
college student behavior. Findings were interpreted from the perspectives of lifespan
development, college student behavior, identity theory, “emerging adulthood”, Big
Five personality model, and personality research on life satisfaction. Potential
implications for college student interventions were drawn, the rich potential for
elaborating the construct validity of character strengths vis-à-vis college student
behavior was noted, and results were interpreted as providing strong support for the
usefulness of the VIA inventory in the college context.

The purpose of this study was to examine character strengths in relation to the
academic performance and satisfaction among college students. Although positive
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 53

psychology is a relatively new area of inquiry (cf. Seligman, 2002; Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), there is already a burgeoning line of conceptual and
empirical work devoted to the topic (see, e.g., the special issue of the American
Psychologist, 2000; and Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Positive psychology represents
a movement away from psychological problems, psychopathology, weaknesses,
victimology, and deficits in human nature toward a focus on positive behavior,
human strengths, virtues, and “what makes life worth living” (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 13). An additional goal of positive psychology is to build
human strengths and civic virtue (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
A fertile setting for studying character strengths is college (by which we are also
referring to “university”). The college experience is widely regarded as providing
many opportunities for students to develop on a variety of psychological dimensions
including values, competences, attitudes, knowledge, beliefs, identity, self-concept,
and personality traits (e.g., Astin, 1993; Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991). In their synthesis of more than 20 years of empirical research
and 2,600 studies, Pascarella and Teremzini (ibid) conclude that there is a relatively
consistent set of impacts of college on students that include:
“an increase in cultural and artistic interests and activities…more
positive self concepts; and there is an expansion and extension of
interpersonal horizons, intellectual interests, individual autonomy, and
general psychological maturity and well-being” (p. 565).
Apart from, perhaps, schools at the elementary through high school levels, it is
hard to think of a more propitious setting for studying the gamut of character
strengths than college. The purpose of the present investigation was to examine how
character strengths of college students are related to two key outcome variables—the
academic performance and satisfaction of college students. These variables
correspond to the two main types of educational outcomes identified by Astin
(1977)—cognitive and affective. Both of these outcomes will be described separately
before turning to the specific research goals of the current study.
Academic performance, as represented by a student’s cumulative grade-point
average (GPA), is generally viewed as the most important indicator of college
student performance (cf. Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Moreover, there
has been a long-standing emphasis in psychological research on grades. By way of
example, the college students’ grades have been studied for over 80 years as a
criterion variable against which personality constructs have been validated (e.g.,
May, 1923; McFadden & Dashiell, 1923).
To date, no published research has examined the relationship between character
strengths and GPA; however, significant associations may be expected. As relatively
54 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69

stable traits which contribute to the fulfillment of desired goals and positive
outcomes (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), character strengths should be directly related
to the grades of college students, given the overarching importance of grades in the
eyes of students, faculty, administrators, and society at large (e.g., Becker, Geer, &
Hughes, 1968; Milton, Pollio, & Eison, 1986). In addition, the four Big Five
personality traits which Peterson and Seligman conceptualize as having clear
counterparts to character strengths—Conscientiousness, Openness, Agreeableness,
and Extraversion—have previously been found to be related to collegiate GPA and
course grades (Lounsbury, Huffstetler, Leong, & Gibson, 2005; Lounsbury,
Sundstrom, Loveland, & Gibson, 2003; Musgrave-Marquart, Bromley, & Dalley,
1997).
The second outcome of interest in this study, the satisfaction of college students,
has long been viewed as a key outcome of higher education (Astin, 1977; 1993). As
Benjamin and Hollings (1997) observed, “Student satisfaction is an important
outcome variable because it appears related to a variety of other variables in which
educators place great value…” (p. 213), such as institutional policies, university
services, quality of teaching, living arrangements, student involvement in campus
activities, courseload, student goals and motivation, among others. Various types of
student satisfaction have been studied, ranging from satisfaction with a specific
aspect of experience—such as satisfaction with advising—to global life satisfaction.
In the interests of parsimony, we followed the conceptual model of Benjamin and
Hollings (1995) in viewing student satisfaction as: a) satisfaction with specific
domains of college experience (“College Satisfaction”); and b) satisfaction with life
as a whole without reference to domains of college experience (General Life
Satisfaction). This approach is similar to the larger literature on life satisfaction that
distinguishes global life satisfaction and domain-specific satisfaction (Andrews &
Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976).
One of the central tenets of positive psychology is that character strengths
contribute to individual well-being and happiness. Accordingly, higher levels of
character strengths should be associated with higher levels of life satisfaction. This
proposition was clearly verified in a recent study of middle-aged adults (average age
35-40 years) by Park, Peterson, and Seligman (2004). Their results were based on an
on-line study that utilized the VIA to assess character strengths and looked at their
associations with life satisfaction. All but four of the 24 VIA subscales (Modesty,
Creativity, Appreciation of Beauty, and Love of Learning) were significantly related
to (general) life satisfaction and six of the VIA subscales—Hope, Zest, Gratitude,
Curiosity, Love, and Persistence—were correlated with life satisfaction at the level
of .30 and higher. Partial correlations were used for these analyses, with age, gender,
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 55

and U.S. citizenship controlled for in the correlations. These findings were
interpreted as providing support for the proposition that the character strengths
measured in the VIA “are on the whole associated with life satisfaction, expected
given their definition as psychologically fulfilling” (Park et al., 2004, p. 612).
Researchers have begun to investigate the nature of these processes from a
developmental perspective. A recent study by Isaacowitz, Vaillant, & Seligman
(2004) indicates that there is likely to be both continuity and change in the
relationship of character strengths to life satisfaction when different segments of the
lifespan are considered. They investigated the relationship between character
strengths and life satisfaction as a function of differences on the adult lifespan.
Specifically, they examined strengths and life satisfaction in three community
samples—young adult (age 18-25), middle age (age 36-59), and older adult (age 60
and above). While higher levels of most strengths were positively related to higher
levels of life satisfaction for all three groups, there were several differential findings
by age group that fit with current lifespan developmental theories. For example, as
befits their stage of life, young adults had the highest mean scores on strengths
associated with exploring the world creatively, whereas middle-age adults had higher
mean scores on “generativity-relevant strengths such as citizenship and kindness, just
as Erickson predicts” (ibid, p. 195). Also, when the amount of unique variance in life
satisfaction predicted by each character strength was examined, Hope was the sole
significant predictor for young adults and Loving Relationships was the sole
significant predictor for middle-age adults. These results are consistent with the
major developmental tasks for each age group.
The central research issue we addressed in the present investigation was the
relationship between character strengths and academic success, where success is
partitioned into academic performance and student satisfaction. In light of the
literature reviewed above, we expected positive relationships between character
strengths as assessed by the VIA and: GPA, General Life Satisfaction, and College
Satisfaction. The following research questions were addressed:
1) Regarding academic performance, we expected to find positive correlations
between the character strengths and GPA. Given the diverse psychosocial
environments on campus (Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002) and the multiple
pathways for development of strengths in the college setting (Chickering & Resisser,
1993), we saw no reason not to expect all 24 of the VIA character strengths to be
positively and significantly related to GPA. Given the paucity of prior research on
the relationship between character strengths and academic performance, we could
advance more differentiated hypotheses for only three individual character strengths:
1a) We expected relatively higher magnitude correlations with GPA for the
56 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69

character strengths of Persistence, Self-Regulation, and Love of Learning. Our

rationale for Persistence and Self-Regulation being more highly related to GPA than
the other character strengths is that these are the two strengths assessed by the VIA
that correspond to Conscientiousness (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). As noted earlier,
Conscientiousness is the trait most commonly associated with collegiate GPA
(Musgrave-Marquart, Bromley, & Dalley, 1997; Schuerger & Kuna, 1987). As for
Love of Learning, this is the character strength assessed by the VIA which is most
directly linked at the conceptual level to learning and academic performance. As
noted by Peterson and Seligman (2004), love of learning is the “strength that
teachers would like to see in their students.” (p. 162).
2) Regarding student satisfaction, we initially expected all 24 of the character
strengths assessed by the VIA to be positively related to both General Life
Satisfaction and Campus Satisfaction. We included Campus Satisfaction in this
hypothesis because prior research has shown that General Life Satisfaction and
College Satisfaction show similar patterns of relationship to personality traits
(Lounsbury, et al, 2005). In terms of more specific expectations, we hypothesized
that the six character strengths most highly related to life satisfaction and with effect
sizes greater than .30 in previous research with middle-aged adults (Park et al., 2004)
would be the most highly related to General Life Satisfaction in the present study
2a) In light of Isaacowitz et al.’s (2004) conclusion that there are both
convergences as well as differences in the relationship between character strengths
and life satisfaction as a function of life span stage, we also compared the pattern of
relationships between character strengths and life satisfaction for college students in
our sample with the main adult sample collected by Peterson and Seligman (2004).
We compared the young adult and middle-aged adult samples by asking a series of
three questions: (a) Which of the 24 correlations between the character strengths and
life satisfaction were statistically significant and non-significant in both samples? (b)
Which of the character strength-life satisfaction correlations were of “medium” (r =
.30-.49) and “large” ( r ≥ .50) effect sizes (Cohen, 1977)? (c) What is the rank-order
correlation of all 24 correlation coefficients between the college and middle-aged
adult samples?
3) In addition, we made an initial estimate of the overall predictability of student
success from the assessment of students’ character strengths using stepwise multiple
regression analysis. More specifically, three sets of stepwise multiple regression
analyses were performed with students’ character strengths serving as predictors and
GPA, General Life Satisfaction, and College Satisfaction serving as the dependent
variables. This type of analysis was not performed by Peterson and Seligman, so
similar comparisons cannot be made to their middle aged adult samples; however,
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 57

such an analysis will facilitate comparisons to other studies which have examined the
multiple correlation of personality traits regressed on collegiate GPA (e.g.,
Lounsbury, Huffstetler, et al., 2005; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001; Paunonen & Nicol,
2001).

Method

Overview of Research Setting

This study represents a field study with a single occasion of measurement. The
sample is basically a convenience sample limited in scope to a single university and
does not represent a broad sampling of colleges. However, as will be seen below,
there is sufficient variability of the measures administered and covariation among
measures to permit meaningful statistical inferences to be drawn.

Participants
Students enrolled in two undergraduate psychology courses at a large
southeastern state university were recruited to participate in this study. Of the 237
participants in this study, 41% were male (59% female). The age distribution of the
sample was: Under 20 years—6%, 20-21—32%, 22-25—47%, 26-30—9%, and over
30---6%. The vast majority of the participants were White, non-Hispanic (97%,
n=229). Other racial/ethnic groups represented include two African American
females (< 1%), one Hispanic female (< 1%), three Hispanic males (< 1%), and one
Asian American male (< 1%). Although the university in which this data was
collected is predominately White, non-Hispanic, it should be noted that this sample
does under-represent certain racial/ethnic groups, specifically African Americans
which constitute the largest minority group on campus.
Procedure
After obtaining human subjects approval from the university’s Institutional
Review Board, we solicited students in two upper-division psychology courses to
participate in the study. Participants received extra course credit for completing an
online questionnaire, containing a character strength inventory and student
satisfaction scales (described below) along with demographic items assessing age,
gender, and traditional versus non-traditional student status (cf. University of
Oregon, 2005). Immediately upon completion of the VIA, participants were provided
a 5-6 page feedback report summarizing their scores on each dimension and
providing in-depth descriptions of the VIA character strengths on which they scored
most highly.
58 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69

Character strengths. The Values In Action (VIA) inventory (Peterson, Park, &
Seligman, 2004) was used to measure character strengths. The VIA has 240 items
representing 24 character strengths which are listed in Table 2 (for a brief summary
of each strength, see Park et al, 2004; for more detailed descriptions, see Peterson &
Seligman, 2004). For this administration of the VIA, each item was answered on a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree with
a midpoint of 3=Neutral/Undecided.
Satisfaction. Our student satisfaction measure was taken directly from
Lounsbury et al’s. (2005) study, which used a set of 22-items to measure General
Life Satisfaction and College Satisfaction. Fifteen General Life Satisfaction items
asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with “Yourself”, “How much fun you are
having”, “the place where you live”, health and physical condition, financial
situation, friendships, “your love life”, social life as a whole, safety and security,
“Your level of personal maturity”, job (if applicable), prospects for the future, and
“Your Life as a Whole”. Seven College Satisfaction items asked respondents how
satisfied they were with “How much you are learning in school”, “Your rate of
progress toward a college degree”, “The availability of courses you want or need”,
“The general quality of professors you have taken courses from”, “The availability
and quality of academic advisors”, “Your academic major” and “Your GPA”.
Responses for the satisfaction items were made on a seven-point Likert scale: 1—
Very Dissatisfied, 2—Dissatisfied, 3—Slightly Dissatisfied, 4—Neutral, 5—Slightly
Satisfied, 6—Satisfied, 7—Very Satisfied.
Academic Performance. The student’s academic performance was measured by
self-reported grade-point-average (GPA). Students indicated their cumulative GPA
on a seven-point scale used previously by Lounsbury, et al, 2005): 1—less than 1.50,
2—1.50-1.99, 3—2.00-2.49, 4—2.50-2.99, 5—3.00-3.49, 6—3.50-3.99, and 7—
4.00. This seven-point, self-reported GPA scale was found in a separate study to be
correlated .77 with actual cumulative GPA for non-Freshmen (Lounsbury et al.,
2005).

Results
Descriptive statistics and coefficient alphas for the study variables are presented
in Table 1 along with the correlations between the 24 VIA measures and: General
Life Satisfaction, College Satisfaction, and GPA. It should first be noted that
coefficient alphas for the VIA strengths were generally quite good (cf., Lounsbury,
Gibson, & Saudargas, 2006), with 18 of the alpha’s in the .80 and above range, and
the other six alphas in the .76 to .79 range. Regarding the first research question, as
can be seen in Table 2, sixteen of the VIA strengths were significantly, positively
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 59

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Coefficient Alphas
for theVIA and Satisfaction Measures
VIA Measure Coefficient
Mean SD
alpha
Beauty 3.57 .74 .86
Bravery 3.76 .59 .80
Citizenship 3.82 .56 .76
Creativity 3.69 .65 .87
Curiosity 3.85 .58 .81
Fairness 3.89 .60 .84
Forgiveness 3.60 .68 .86
Gratitude 4.00 .62 .85
Hope 3.90 .56 .79
Humor 3.97 .63 .86
Integrity 3.95 .53 .78
Judgment 3.84 .57 .82
Kindness 4.03 .61 .85
Leadership 3.79 .60 .83
Love 4.04 .61 .81
Love of Learning 3.45 .70 .82
Modesty 3.43 .65 .81
Persistence 3.73 .65 .86
Perspective/Wisdom 3.80 .55 .80
Prudence 3.40 .64 .79
Self-Regulation 3.43 .66 .76
Social Intelligence 3.84 .54 .81
Spirituality 3.75 .80 .89
Zest 3.68 .59 .79
Note. n = 237

correlated with GPA, ranging from a high of r = .31 (p < .01) for Persistence to a low
of r = .13 (p < .05) for Modesty. As predicted, higher magnitude correlations with
60 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69

GPA were observed for the VIA strengths of Persistence (the highest correlation
among the 24), Self-Regulation (3rd highest), and Love of Learning (4th highest).

Table 2
Correlations of VIA Strengths with General Life
Satisfaction, College Satisfaction, and GPA
General College
VIA Life Satisfaction GPA
Measure Satisfaction
Zest .48** .29** .16*
Love .45** .15* .02
Hope .43** .37** .22**
Self-
.41** .34** .26**
Regulation
Curiosity .41** .22** .19**
Leadership .40** .26** .14*
Citizenship .40** .25** .14*
Forgiveness .40** .26** .10
Social
.40** .13 .10
Intelligence
Fairness .39** .31** .24**
Integrity .39** .25** .15*
Perspective/
.38** .26** .21**
Wisdom
Humor .38** .14* -.01
Kindness .37** .18** .05
Bravery .36** .16* .14*
Gratitude .35** .20** .09
Persistence .32** .34** .31**
Spirituality .30** .17* .17*
Beauty .28** .19** .15*
Judgment .25** .26** .27**
Prudence .22** .32** .25**
Love of
.21** .16* .26**
Learning
Creativity .20** .10 .06
Modesty .16* .26** .13
Note. n = 205 for all correlations involving GPA; n = 237 for
all other correlations
*p < .05 **p < .01
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 61

Regarding the second research question, as can be seen in Table 2, all 24 of the
VIA strengths were significantly, positively correlated with General Life
Satisfaction, ranging from a high of r = .48 (p < .01) for Persistence to a low of r =
.16 (p < .05) for Modesty. Also, all but two of the VIA strengths (Social Intelligence
and Creativity) were significantly, positively correlated with College Satisfaction,
with correlations ranging from a high of r = .37 (p < .01) for Hope to a low of r = .10
(n.s.) for Creativity. In terms of magnitude of effect for the correlations between VIA
strengths and General Life Satisfaction, none were in the high range (i.e. r ≥ .50);
however, nine of the correlations were in the medium effect size range of .30-49,
namely, Zest, Love, Hope, Self-Regulation, Curiosity, Leadership, Citizenship,
Forgiveness, and Social Intelligence. The pattern of correlations between VIA
strengths and General Life Satisfaction were fairly similar to the corresponding
correlations between VIA strengths and life satisfaction in Park et al. (2004)’s
Sample 1. We computed a Spearman rank-order correlation between these 24
correlations in our study and Park et al’s, which produced a value of rho = .71 (p <
.01).
Regarding the third research question, when a stepwise multiple regression
analysis was performed to examine the predictability of General Life Satisfaction
from the set of 24 VIA measures, four variables entered the equation at a significant
level—Zest, Love, Self Regulation, and Judgment , producing a multiple correlation
of R =.57 (R2 = .325, p < .01). With College Satisfaction as the dependent variable,
again four variables entered the equation at a significant level—Hope, Social
Intelligence, Self Regulation, and Fairness—producing a multiple correlation of R =
.47 (R2 = .22, p < .01). In the case of GPA as the dependent variable, five significant
predictors emerged—Persistence, Love of Learning, Humor, Fairness, and
Kindness—producing a multiple correlation of R = .41 (R2 = .17, p < .01).

Discussion
The present findings provide extensive support for the general hypothesis that
character strengths are positively related to the academic success of college students,
where success is operationalized as both student satisfaction and academic
performance. Given that college is a milieu where students typically are free from
parental oversight and the constraints of occupation and parenting, and in view of the
multiple pathways for development of strengths and the different ways such positive
outcomes can be achieved on campus (cf. Chickering & Reisser, 1993), it is not
surprising that so many of the character strengths assessed by the VIA were related
to student satisfaction (all 24 in the case of General Life Satisfaction and 22 of the 24
62 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69

in the case of College Satisfaction) and to GPA (16). It is interesting to note that
there were generally higher magnitude correlations between character strengths and
general life satisfaction in our college sample—with the median r = .38—than in the
adult samples reported by Park et al. (2004) where, for example, the median
correlation was r = .235 in their Sample 1. This difference (which is significant)
could reflect either contextual differences about the college environment itself or
developmental/maturational differences between early and mid-adults. The college
environment is much less structured and constrained than the home/work
environment of most adults. Factors not typically relevant for college students may
moderate the association between character strengths and general life satisfaction in
older adult populations including characteristics of the work environment, the
presence and quality of marital relationships, and the presence and age of children.
Fortunately, one of the samples in the Isaacowitz et al. (2004) can help shed some
light on whether the generally higher magnitude correlations between character
strengths and life satisfaction in our study may be attributable to the college
environment or age level. They recruited a community sample of young adults in the
18-25 age range through “written and electronic advertisements.” Although some
individuals in their young adult sample were college students (they did not specify
how many), Isaacowitz and his colleagues treated their sample as representative of
the larger community and so shall we. We observe that the median correlation
between character strengths and life satisfaction in their young adult sample was r =
.25 (p < .01). Comparing this value to the .235 value reported above for the Park et
al. (2004) adult sample and our .38 sample, we suggest that the generally higher
magnitude of correlations between VIA strengths and life satisfaction in our sample
versus the Park et al’s (2004) adult sample and Isaacowitz et al’s young adult sample
may be attributable to this being a sample of college students in the college setting,
with its multiple and diverse pathways for personal development and expression of
values (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Hamrick et al, 2002).
On the other hand, the VIA was developed as a general instrument applicable for
a wide range of individuals varying with respect to age, gender, ethnicity,
occupation, and other demographic characteristics (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Thus, we would expect our findings to be similar to equivalent findings in other
samples, and they were. For example, the rank order of correlations between the VIA
strengths and life satisfaction in Isaacowitz et al’s (2004) main sample of adults was
similar to those in our study. Hope and Zest were the first and second highest
correlations in their sample, versus first and third in ours; Humor and Bravery were
ranked 12 and 14 in their sample versus 13 and 15, respectively, in ours; and, finally,
Modesty was lowest and Creativity was second to lowest in both their sample and
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 63

ours. The relatively high rank-order correlation between the rankings of correlations
in their samples and ours further demonstrates the overall similarity of relationships.
The individual relationships between character strengths and academic success
are also interesting in their own right. In the case of academic performance, there is a
fairly straightforward interpretation, based on construct meaning, for the higher
magnitude relationships. To illustrate, regarding the five character strengths
(Persistence, Judgment, Self-Regulation, Love of Learning, and Prudence) which
correlated at a magnitude of .25 or higher with GPA, students who have higher levels
of self-regulation, persist more in their studies, and engage in objective analysis and
critical thinking are likely to have higher GPA’s than students who are lower on
these characteristics. Also, students who have a greater love of learning would be
expected to engage voluntarily in a number of behaviors leading to better grades,
including attending classes, reading and studying course materials, and mastering
concepts presented in textbooks and lectures. In addition, students who are more
prudent in how they spend their time and what decisions they make, are more likely
to perform better academically. In the case of life satisfaction, because all of the
character strengths were significantly correlated with General Life Satisfaction and
all but six of the correlations were of a least medium effect size, a focus on
individual correlations is less interesting than the broader question of why there was
such a pervasive pattern of positive relationships. Although there are many different
conceptual approaches one could take to address this question, three important
considerations are the multi-dimensional nature of life satisfaction, the rich
opportunities for positive experiences available on campus, and the different ways
character strengths can affect life satisfaction. A clear and consistent meta-result
from reviews of research findings on life satisfaction and subjective well-being (e.g.,
Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976; Diener, 1984) is
that there are many domains of experience that contribute to global life satisfaction,
such as friendships, romantic relationships, type of living situation, leisure activities,
recreational pursuits, religious faith, health, involvement in organizations, and
educational involvement and attainment, to name but a few. The attributes
represented by the VIA strengths may affect any of these domains individually or in
concert, and, thus, contribute to life satisfaction. Similarly, many different pathways
(such as student-faculty relationships, participation in learning communities, and
developmental advising), that lead to positive student outcomes can be found in
compendia of research on college student adjustment and development (e.g., Astin,
1977; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). These pathways
may be directly or indirectly influenced by the various character strengths
considered. In some cases, there is a direct correspondence between character
64 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69

strengths and important developmental factors for college students. For example, the
VIA measure of Integrity is fully consonant with one of Chickering and Reisser’s
(1993) seven key developmental vectors for college students—Developing Integrity.
The third consideration is the different ways character strengths can affect life
satisfaction. Each of the character strengths can lead to different behaviors and
experiences that influence life satisfaction, such as Love of Learning leading to
mastering new areas of knowledge which, in turn, leads to intrinsic satisfaction and
extrinsic satisfaction resulting from recognition for good grades. Also, in the present
context character strengths can color perceptions of events such that different
students “experience the same life events in a more positive or negative fashion”
(DeNeve & Cooper, 1998, p. 215), as is likely the case for such traits as Zest and
Hope. Also, character strengths may help diminish the impact of stressful events for
students, such as failing an exam, through cognitive appraisal which can lead to more
positive and persistent coping mechanisms (cf. McNeil, Kozma, Stones, & Hannah,
1986) by students who are, say, higher on Hope.
Components of the present results are also consistent with several different
theoretical positions and empirical trends. Positive correlations with student
satisfaction for Love, Leadership, Gratitude, and Humor are consistent with
movement away from isolation and toward intimacy, which are the basis for
Erikson’s Stage 6 developmental crisis for young adults (Erikson, 1957). Also,
several of the VIA strengths can be viewed as reflecting intrinsic motivation (cf.
Deci, 1975) or intrinsic values, in which case the positive relationships between
student success and such character strengths as Love of Learning, Creativity,
Curiosity, and Beauty are consonant with research showing a normative shift over
the college years toward intrinsic values, interests, and activities (Astin, 1993;
Sheldon, 2005). In their comprehensive review of how college affects students,
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) summarize the results of many different studies as
demonstrating relatively consistent, positive psychosocial changes, social/political
attitudes and values, and moral development that correspond to many of the V IA
character strengths, including Love, Self-Regulation, Citizenship, Fairness, Integrity,
Kindness, Perspective/Wisdom, and Beauty. In addition, VIA strengths such as Zest
and Humor are concordant with Arnett’s (2000) conceptualization of “emerging
adulthood” as a time of dynamic, fluid experiences.
Taken as a whole, the findings of our study indicate that character strengths are
extensively, positively related to student success with all 24 strengths significantly
correlated with General Life Satisfaction, 22 strengths significantly correlated with
Campus Satisfaction, and 16 strengths significantly related to GPA. It is clear to us
that in the college context the VIA is a very germane, useful instrument that holds
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 65

great promise for the study of character strengths of college students. The extent of
bivariate relationships, as well as the magnitude of many individual correlations and
the multiple correlations, demonstrates that the VIA can generate substantial
criterion-related validity in this context. Also, in view of the convergence of the
present findings with similar results using other types of personality constructs,
diverse theoretical frameworks, and different types of samples, we surmise that
future research is likely to establish a rich nomological network and substantial
construct validity for character strengths.
Some important implications of the present study can be drawn for practitioners,
including college student personnel, counselors, advisers, and psychotherapists who
work with students in college. There are many different kinds of activities and
interventions that can be developed to increase positive psychological outcomes
based on character strengths (see, for example, Linley & Joseph, 2004; Seligman,
Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Some relatively simple techniques such as asking
people to write about three good things that happened each day and why they
happened have been found to make people feel happier and less depressed for up to
six months (Seligman et al., 2005). What is appealing about the practical value of the
present results is that practitioners have so many different options to choose from
when trying to work with a college student to increase their well-being or academic
success by emphasizing character strengths. If, for example, one considers a strategy
of identifying a student’s top five character strengths (i.e., what Seligman et al., 2005
term “signature strengths”), and developing procedures to increase positive actions
and experiences, there should always be several different approaches available for
any given student. Moreover, for any individual character strength there should be
multiple types of interventions, which increases the opportunities for identifying and
tailoring procedures that best fit the student’s needs, resources, constraints, and
personal preferences.
While the present results are encouraging, an open question at this point is how
character strengths compare to other constructs such as values and personality traits
(e.g., the Big Five) in accounting for variation in GPA and life satisfaction. The
multiple correlation for predicting GPA using the VIA in this study (R = .41)
compares favorably to at least one other study (Lounsbury, Huffstetler, Leong, &
Gibson, 2005) using the Big Five (R = .30) and the Big Five plus one narrow trait (R
= .34). The multiple correlation for predicting General Life Satisfaction using the
VIA in this study (R = .57) is slightly below that of another study (Lounsbury,
Saudargas, Gibson, & Leong, 2005) using the Big Five (R = .67) and the Big Five
plus narrow traits (R = .72). One important question for future research to address is
the relative efficacy of character strengths in accounting for variation in important
66 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69

criteria such as GPA and life satisfaction compared to other types of constructs such
as values and personality traits. In this vein, we are currently conducting a
comparison of the joint and unique predictability of GPA and life satisfaction based
on the Big Five personality traits, narrow personality traits, and the VIA. Other
possible areas for future investigation include whether character strengths can predict
actual GPA, based on objective data rather than self report; and criteria measured in
a predictive paradigm, rather than the concurrent design used here. Other important
criteria could also be examined in relation to character strengths, particularly college
completion and dropout. In addition, longitudinal research in this area is needed to
help clarify the stability of character strengths and casual relations with other
variables. Repeated measures of the character strengths would allow researchers to
assess how strengths change over time, and, as a function of different kinds of
experience, such as changing majors or studying abroad.
There are several limitations of the current study that should be acknowledged.
Since a single university in the Southeastern U. S. served as the study setting, the
generalizability of the findings to other colleges and universities in different
geographic locales is unknown. Also, over four-fifths of the study participants were
Caucasian and under age 26 which leaves the generalizability of findings to different
races or ethnicities and different age groups an open question. Then, too, we only
examined self-reported GPA rather than actual GPA from student records.
Nevertheless, the results of the present study are noteworthy insofar as they
demonstrate extensive, and in some cases, substantial, relationships between
character strengths and student satisfaction and academic achievement. Overall, the
present results show convergence with, as well as divergence from, other studies of
character strengths and life satisfaction using adult and community samples. We
conclude that the college setting offers a rich opportunity to elaborate the construct
validity relations for character strengths, whether considered individually or in
concert. We expect to see future studies clarify and extend the present findings for
the criterion-related validity of character strengths.

References
Andrews, F. M. & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York:
Plenum.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late
teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Astin, A. W. (1977) Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and
knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 67

Astin, A. W. (1993) What matters most in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1997). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., & Hughes, E.C. (1968). Making the grade: The academic
side of college life. New Brunswick, NJ, US: Transaction Publishers.
Benjamin, M., & Hollings, A. E. (1995). Toward a theory of student satisfaction: An
exploratory study of the “Quality of Student Life”. Journal of College Student
Development, 36(6), 574-586.
Benjamin, M., & Hollings, A. (1997). Student satisfaction: Test of an ecological
model. Journal of College Student Development, 38(3), 213-228.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E. & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American
life. New York: Russell Sage.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of
137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-
575.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Hamrick, F. A., Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. H. (2002). Foundations of student affairs
practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Isaacowitz, D. M., Vaillant, G. E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Strengths and
satisfaction across the adult lifespan. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development. 57(2), 181-201.
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2004). Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Lounsbury, J. W., Gibson, L. W., & Saudargas, R. W. (2006). Scale development. In
F. T. L. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds). Psychology research handbook: A guide for
graduate students and research assistants (2nd ed.) (pp. 125-146). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lounsbury, J. W., Huffstetler, B. C., Leong, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2005). Sense of
identity and collegiate academic achievement. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 501-514.
Lounsbury J. W., Saudargas, R. A., Gibson, L. W., & Leong, F. T. (2005). An
68 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69

investigation of broad and narrow personality traits in relation to general and

domain-specific life satisfaction of college students. Research in Higher
Education, 46(6), 707-729.
Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2003)
Intelligence, “Big Five” personality traits, and work drive as predictors of course
grade. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1231-1239.
May, M. A. (1923). Predicting academic success. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 14, 429-440.
McFadden, J. H., & Dashiell, J. F. (1923). Racial differences as measured by the
Downey Will-Temperament Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 30-53.
McNeil, K., Kozma, A., Stones, M. J., & Hannah, E. (1986). Measurement of
psychological hardiness in older adults. Canadian Journal on Aging, 5(1), 43-
48.
Milton, O., Pollio, H. R., & Eison, J. A. (1986). Making sense of college grades. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Musgrave-Marquart, D., Bromley, S. P., & Dalley, M. B. (1997). Personality,
academic attrition, and substance abuse as predictors of academic achievement
in college students. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12(2), 501-511.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well
being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603-619.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings
and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C., (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the
prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3),
524-539.
Paunonen, S. V., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2001). The personality hierarchy and the
prediction of work behaviors. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds). Personality
psychology in the workplace (pp. 161-191). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A
handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Assessment of character
strengths. In G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S.S. Hill, III (Eds). Psychologists’
desk reference. (2nd ed., pp. 93-98). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schuerger, J. M., & Kuna, D. L. (1987). Adolescent personality and school and
college performance: A follow-up study. Psychology in the Schools, 24(3), 281-
285.
 Lounsbury et al. / Individual Differences Research, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 52-69 69

Seligmann, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology

to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: Free Press.
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.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Eds.). (2000). Positive psychology
[Special issue] American Psychologist, 55(1).
Sheldon, K. M. (2005). Positive value change during college: Normative trends and
individual differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 209-223.
University of Oregon (2005). Nontraditional student resource guide.
http://studentlife.uoregon.edu/nontrad/Resource%20Guide.pdf. Retrieved,
January 6, 2005.