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

net/publication/266377975

Differential ratings and associations with well-being of character strengths in

two communities

Article in Health Sociology Review · January 2008

DOI: 10.5172/hesr.2012.21.3.299

CITATIONS READS

35 245

2 authors:

Hadassah Littman-Ovadia Shiri Lavy

Ariel University University of Haifa
38 PUBLICATIONS 1,624 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 1,942 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Positive Psychopathology View project

Israeli pilots' character strengths View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hadassah Littman-Ovadia on 03 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. Health Sociology Review (2012) 21(3): 299–312.

Differential ratings and associations with well-being

of character strengths in two communities

HADASSAH LITTMAN-OVADIA AND SHIRI LAVY

Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Ariel, Israel

A B S T R AC T : Strengths are presumed to be universal characteristics that are possessed by all people and explain well-
being. However, a few previous studies have demonstrated cultural differences in endorsement of certain strengths and in the
contribution of certain strengths to well-being. These studies suggest that sociological factors may differentially affect strength
endorsement and associations with well-being. In this study, we examined differences in personal strength endorsement and
associations with well-being between two distinct Israeli community samples: (1) 97 religious female youth-leaders aged
18–20; and (2) 100 secular male police investigators aged 23–50. All participants completed the Virtues in Action survey
and the well-being scale of the Mental Health Inventory. Results revealed significant differences between the samples on the
ratings of eight strengths, and on the strengths most highly associated with well-being. The differential relevance of certain
strengths to specific communities and their members’ well-being is discussed.

KEYWORDS: personal strengths, signature strengths, virtues in action (VIA), well-being, sociology

BACKGROUND 24 character strengths, each related to one of the

T here is growing interest in psychologi-

cal health and well-being in the recent
years (e.g., Dolan, Peasgood, & White, 2008;
following six broader virtues: (a) wisdom and
knowledge (including the strengths of creativity,
curiosity, judgment, love of learning, perspective);
Veenhoven, 2008). Important theorists in this (b) courage (including bravery, honesty, persis-
field have shown that human beings possess tence, zest); (c) humanity (including kindness,
positive characteristics, generally named ‘char- love, social intelligence); (d) justice (including
acter strengths’, which promote well-being and fairness, leadership, teamwork); (e) temperance
other positive outcomes, such as competency (including forgiveness, modesty, prudence, self-
(e.g., Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2011; Peterson & regulation); and (f) transcendence (including
Seligman, 2004; Steger, Hicks, Kashdan, appreciation of beauty, gratitude, hope, humour,
Krueger, & Bouchard, 2007). Character religiousness).
strengths are meant to capture those qualities that Seligman (2002) argued that the greatest suc-
are best about people and capture their potential cesses and satisfaction in life come from enhanc-
to contribute to the world around them. They ing and using one’s character strengths rather than
are conceived as being similar to positive per- focusing on one’s weaknesses. He described the
sonality traits in that they are durable individual five most highly endorsed strengths as an indi-
differences, manifested to various degrees in vidual’s ‘signature strengths’ (Seligman, 2002),
the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of differ- and claimed that people can enhance their hap-
ent people (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In the piness by discovering their signature strengths
present study, we focus on two communities and choosing to use them in the main realms
differing in demographic characteristics (gen- of life. Studies have shown that helping people
der, occupation, religiosity and age), and exam- use their signature strengths may help them pro-
ine differences in the strengths their members ceed on a path to a psychologically fulfilling life
endorse, and in the associations between these (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and that when
strengths and well-being. individuals identify their signature strengths and
Our examination is based on Peterson and use them in a new way at work, life satisfaction
Seligman’s (2004) taxonomy and assessment tool increases and depression decreases (Seligman,
of character strengths. Their classification includes 2002; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).

Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 HSR 299

HSR Hadassah Littman-Ovadia and Shiri Lavy

Several studies have focused on universal 2010). Thus, it can be inferred that different
attributes of character strengths that are sustain- working and living environments will pro-
able across different cultures. Most of these stud- mote the endorsement (and perhaps the posi-
ies focused either on identification of the most tive effects) of certain strengths (and not others)
commonly endorsed strengths (i.e., signature depending on the common values in these envi-
strengths) in different cultures, or on associations ronments, and on the opportunities to deploy
between strengths and well-being in different strengths presented in these environments. Such
cultures. When addressing the first subject, Park, differences will presumably be reflected in com-
Peterson, and Seligman (2006) reported remark- parisons of strengths in communities differing in
able similarities in the relative endorsement of the terms of demographics such as age, gender, reli-
24 character strengths in adults around the world. giosity or occupation. These ideas correspond
They found that the strengths most frequently with prevalent sociological theories regarding
endorsed as signature strengths in 40 different the effects of social contexts on well-being and
countries were kindness, fairness, honesty, grati- quality of life (e.g., Maryanski & Turner, 1992;
tude, and judgment (open-mindedness). On the Sanderson, 1995 and several others).
other hand, the strengths that received the low- The sociological findings regarding the
est ratings across these countries were prudence, effects of social contexts on well-being show,
modesty, and self-regulation (Park et al., 2006). for example, that modernization appears to have
The second group of studies about character boosted subjective well-being (Veenhoven,
strengths focused on associations between charac- 2005, 2006a), and that there is a clear relation
ter strengths and subjective well-being. Although between average happiness (in a certain society)
positive psychology assumes that the enactment and overall societal quality (Veenhoven, 2011).
of any character strength is fulfilling (Peterson & Comparative studies at the nation level also
Seligman, 2004), empirical data have shown that show higher subjective well-being in nations
certain character strengths are more robustly cor- with a well-functioning democracy and dense
related with (and are better predictors of) well- networks of voluntary associations (Veenhoven,
being, compared to other strengths. Specifically, 2008). Furthermore, sociological studies suggest
love, hope, gratitude, curiosity and zest were the that certain factors’ associations/effects with
five character strengths most highly related to well-being differ according to the sociological
well-being in several studies (e.g., Park, Peterson, context in which the individual resides. For
& Seligman, 2004, 2006; Park & Peterson, 2008). example, the role of paid work in maintaining
Moreover, in a longitudinal study, these strengths well-being, seems to dissolve with retirement,
foreshadowed life satisfaction measured months and vanishes in studies comparing homemaker
later, even when their initial levels were con- and working mothers (Veenhoven, 2006b).
trolled (Park & Peterson, 2008). Thus, in his excellent comprehensive review,
In the studies described above, researchers typ- Veenhoven (2008) argued that subjective well-
ically controlled for demographic variables such being is a subject for sociology, despite its com-
as gender, age, and religiosity, as their goal was mon conceptualization merely as a mental state.
to reveal common features of character strengths. He reasons that subjective well-being is both an
However, one of the central ideas in charac- outcome of social systems and a factor in their
ter strength theory is that the positive effects of functioning, and thus it fits core sociological
strengths and their endorsement are affected by interests. Moreover, Veenhoven (2004) claims
sociological contexts such as cultural values and that the study of well-being has important impli-
the opportunities for strengths’ deployment. It cations for creation of better societies. If people
may also affect the opportunity to deploy certain typically feel good, the social system is appar-
strengths, as well as the specific ways in which ently well suited for human habitation. Thus,
they can be deployed (e.g., Duckworth, Steen, the study of subjective well-being provides clues
& Seligman, 2005; Littman-Ovadia & Steger, for a more livable society, which is one of the

300 HSR Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 © eContent Management Pty Ltd
 Differential ratings and associations of character strengths with well-being HSR
aims of sociology and one of the reasons for the further research on situational or group-based
rising demand for information about social con- aspects of character strengths.
ditions that foster subjective well-being among
policymakers. This claim about the implications INTRODUCTION
of well-being studies for improving societies, In the present study we examined whether
was one of the inspirations for the current study, communities differing in demographic charac-
in which we explored community differences in teristics (gender, occupation, religiosity and age)
strengths’ associations with well-being, hoping differ in the strengths their members endorse,
to provide practical implications about the com- and in the associations between these strengths
munity specific (or otherwise universal) nature and well-being. Basing our rationale on the few
of these associations. studies about group and situational differences,
In one of his recent publications, Veenhoven we chose to study two very different communi-
(2011) makes a case that greater happiness for ties: The first was composed of religious Jewish
a greater number of people is indeed possible. women (aged 18–20) in voluntary national
Society plays an important role in creating service, serving as leaders in a religious youth
not only the external conditions that foster it, organization (‘Bnei Akiva’). The second was
but also in creating the subjective appraisal of composed of secular men (aged 23–50) work-
need gratification (Bandura, 1986; Veenhoven, ing as investigators at the police and at the Israel
2008, 2009). In turn, subjective well-being also Ministry of Defense.
has sociological outcomes, in terms of citizens’ We believed that if the demographic vari-
involvement and political behavior, not only big ables mentioned above indeed affect strengths
societies, such as nations, but also the function- endorsement and strengths associations with
ing of smaller (within nations) social systems, well being, these differences will be revealed
such as work organizations and friendship net- when comparing these two distinct groups
works (Veenhoven, 2008). to each other and to more heterogenic, large
However, despite those previous findings samples (e.g., Park et al.’s, 2004 sample). Our
emphasizing the importance of exploring com- chosen communities differ in their socializa-
munity-based differences in subjective well- tion processes, as well as in their values, clas-
being and related constructs/factors and the sifications and reward systems: Bnei Akiva is a
likelihood of revealing such differences, to date, religious youth organization aimed at defend-
few studies have examined community-based ing the preservation and fulfillment of Judaism’s
differences in the endorsement of strengths. values. Both the spiritual and practical aspects
One example for group-based differences in of Judaism are emphasized in its motto: ‘Tora
the endorsement of strengths can be found in Ve’avoda’ (‘Bible and work’; Bar-Lev, 1989,
Ruch, Furrer, and Huwyler (2004) vocational 1991). These values are endowed to the young
study, which showed that managers were more members of the youth movement via modeling
likely to endorse certain strengths (e.g., lead- of their volunteering youth-guides and troupe
ership, courage) that differed from strengths leaders (Bar-Lev, Cohen, & Rosner, 1987).
endorsed by non-managerial employees (e.g., The women youth leaders in the current
generosity, appreciation of beauty). Another is study are former members and youth-guides
Peterson, Stephens, Park, Lee, and Seligman in the organization who have been part of its
(2010) findings of significant interpretable dif- activities and socialization processes for several
ferences across occupations, for several charac- years. In their current position they have the
ter strengths, which also showed that workers key role in the troupe, and serve as leaders of
in a given occupation, who scored higher on a the children and of the youth guides (Bar-Lev et
strength which is less typical within that occupa- al., 1987). One of the criteria for the selection
tion, were more likely to be satisfied with their of these women for their role is their identifi-
work. These findings underscore the need for cation with the organizational values. They are

© eContent Management Pty Ltd Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 HSR 301
HSR Hadassah Littman-Ovadia and Shiri Lavy

expected to represent the organizational values Hinojosa, 2010). The selection and classifica-
of Bnei Akiva and serve as socialization agents tion processes in the police favor applicants and
of these values. policemen with higher self control and tolerance
In addition, these religious young women are – two scales of the California Psychological
expected to adhere to broader social norms sug- Inventory, which represent emotional constraints
gesting that femininity is related to nurturance (Hargrave & Hiatt, 1989). More specifically, the
and concern for others (Ye-Rang, 2005). This job of police investigators often requires them
expectation is consistent with previous research to conceal their emotions or ‘acting-out’, thus
indicating that sex-role orientation acquired training investigators to restrain their emotions.
from early socialization is very powerful in shap- In addition, investigators’ specific job stresses
ing the nature and degree of caregiving involve- the importance of the truth, and the diligent,
ment (Bem, 1981; Chesler & Parry, 2001; persistent pursuing of truth, under difficult cir-
Fuller-Jonap & Haley, 1995; Martin & Parker, cumstances, suggesting that investigators that are
1995; Risman, 1987; Segal, 1990) and with the more committed to revealing the truth and more
finding that ‘good’ women should find their persistent are more highly valued (and perhaps
happiness in the care and nurturance of others also more easily selected), and that new investi-
(Izraeli, Friedman, & Sharift, 1994). gators are encouraged to appreciate and develop
Thus, we hypothesised that the religious values of truth and persistence (through model-
female youth-leaders would highly endorse ing, myths about successful investigators etc.).
strengths related to empathy and care for oth- Following the social processes described above,
ers, such as kindness and love. We also thought we hypothesised that male investigators would
that their above described role in Bnei Akiva, an highly endorse strengths reflecting emotional
organization emphasizing religiousness, would restraint and endurance, such as self-regulation
cause higher endorsement of related strengths and persistence. We also believed that their
such as spirituality and gratitude (manifested in endorsement of strengths reflecting appreciation
daily gratitude and appreciation of the world’s of the truth like honesty would be especially high.
beauty, highlighted in several religious practices In short, when comparing the two groups, we
such as the daily morning-prayer). hypothesised that strengths’ endorsement would
The sociological factors effecting secu- be related to the group characteristics. Thus,
lar male police investigators are quite differ- strengths related to transcendence (spirituality,
ent from those described above, and thus we gratitude), and humanity (kindness, love) would
hypothesised their resulting endorsement of be more highly endorsed by female religious
strengths to differ as well. Men are generally youth-leaders, due to their gender, and to the
perceived as (and expected to be) less emo- religious and ideological environment in which
tional and more emotionally restrained than they were raised and in which they performed
women (Donaldson, 1993; Nicholson, 1993; their national service. However, strengths related
Schoenberg, 1993). These masculine char- to self constraint (i.e., self-regulation, persistence
acteristics are modeled, for example, by the and honesty) would be more highly endorsed by
media (e.g., Behm-Morawitz & Mastro, 2009; the secular male investigators, due to their gen-
Soulliere, 2006), are constructed in social activ- der and the features of their occupation.
ities from infancy through adulthood (Bandura, We had a few contrasting hypotheses about
1986; Mischel, 1966; Perry & Bussey, 1984), strengths associations with well-being: The first
and serve as an important element of masculine hypothesis assumes that Seligman’s (2002) argu-
jobs (e.g., Sasson-Levy, 2006). ment about the strong associations between sig-
Lower emotionality levels and higher emo- nature strengths and well being is applicable not
tional restraint are especially emphasized (and only for individuals but also for communities.
desired) in security-related jobs, where lower At the group/community level, strengths that
emotionality is often perceived as strength (e.g., are more highly valued in a certain community

302 HSR Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 © eContent Management Pty Ltd
 Differential ratings and associations of character strengths with well-being HSR
are also more rewarding for individuals in that sample comprised of 100 secular men aged
community (e.g., if nurturance is valued then 23–50 (M = 33), working as investigators. Their
behaviors that reflect nurturance are praised). primary concern at work is criminal evidence
Thus, the most highly endorsed strengths in collection and fact-finding.
each group (i.e., the ‘signature strengths’) will
predict well-being for this group’s members. Materials
An alternative hypothesis was based on Character strengths’ endorsement was measured
Peterson et al.’s (2010) findings that scoring higher using the VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS;
on a strength which is less typical for people in a Peterson & Seligman, 2004), a self-report ques-
certain occupation is related to higher work sat- tionnaire, assessing the endorsement of 24 char-
isfaction. Our second hypothesis is that the asso- acter strengths. In the VIA, 10 items are used
ciations between strengths and well-being will to evaluate each strength, resulting in a total of
follow patterns similar to the associations between 240 items (e.g., ‘Being able to come up with new
strengths and work satisfaction. This hypothesis and different ideas is one of my strong points’ for
follows a functional rationale, assuming that these creativity; ‘I never quit a task before it is done’
strengths are relatively rare among the commu- for persistence). Participants rate the extent to
nity members, and as ‘scarce resources’ they are which each item describes them on a five-point
more highly valued/rewarded, thus highly con- Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very
tributing to the well-being of individuals who much). In this study, we used a Hebrew version
endorse them. Following this rationale (and the of the VIA, approved by the VIA-Institute, also
above described results), the bottom-ranked used by Lavy and Littman-Ovadia (2011), vali-
strengths in each group will most highly correlate dated by Littman-Ovadia and Lavy (in press),
with well being in that group. and found to have psychometric characteris-
A third hypothesis, based on previous cross- tics and factor structure similar to that found in
cultural studies (e.g., Beermann, Park, Peterson, previous studies. Well-being was assessed with
Ruch, & Seligman, 2007) was that there would The Mental Health Inventory (MHI; Veit &
not be meaningful differences between the Ware, 1983), a structured self-report question-
groups in strengths’ associations with well-being, naire developed as part of the National Health
and the strengths that will most highly associate Insurance Study. Factor analytical evidence con-
with well-being will be the same ones found in firmed the structure of the scale, and the possi-
previous studies (e.g., Park et al., 2004): love, bility of using higher-order factor scores (distress
hope, gratitude, curiosity, and zest. This pos- and well-being) in the original version (Veit &
sibility suggests that community-specific socio- Ware, 1983) and in the Hebrew version used in
logical processes have small or no contribution the present study (Florian & Drori, 1990). We
to the associations between strengths and well used only the psychological well-being scale,
being, and supports notions about universality of which includes 16 items relating to the inten-
psychological processes. sity or frequency of the respondent’s feelings and
evaluations during the past month (e.g., ‘How
METHOD much of the time, during the past month, have
Participants you felt calm and peaceful?’). Responses are
Two samples of adult volunteers were recruited. given on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from
The first comprised of 97 religious women aged 1 (never) to 5 (all of the time). The average of the
18–20 (M = 19), serving as volunteer youth- 16 responses served as the well-being measure.
leaders at a religious youth organization (Bnei
Akiva). These young women are considered Procedure
to be social-ideological leaders, involved in The questionnaires described above were admin-
the informal socialization and moral educa- istered to participants at formal work-related con-
tion of youngsters and children. The second ferences and gatherings. The study was planned

© eContent Management Pty Ltd Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 HSR 303
HSR Hadassah Littman-Ovadia and Shiri Lavy

and conducted according to guidelines approved Youth-leaders gave higher ratings to two
by the University Center’s ethics committee. strengths: Gratitude, and spirituality.
In addition, using the computed ipsative
RESULTS scores of each strength (for each participant),
Statistical analyses using SPSS-18 were conducted we examined which strengths were among the
to examine the measures’ internal reliabilities and five most highly ranked strengths (i.e., signa-
the study’s hypotheses. ture strengths) for participants in each sample
(see Table 2; a similar procedure was used
Strengths ratings by Park et al., 2004). The most frequently
In the current study, the strengths scale internal endorsed signature strength for investigators
reliabilities exceeded 0.70 for most scales, with (reported by 46% of the investigators’ sample),
the exception of vitality (Cronbach’s α = 0.67), was honesty. Other signature strengths were
mercy (Cronbach’s α = 0.66), and self-regulation endorsed by smaller percentages of investiga-
(Cronbach’s α = 0.61, and increased to 0.64 after tors (e.g., persistence, reported by 24% of the
removing two items from the analysis). Scale investigators; fairness, reported by 22%; love and
internal reliabilities, means, and standard devia- spirituality, both reported by 21%). The most
tions are presented in Table 1. Scale scores were frequently endorsed signature strengths of youth-
averaged across items, yielding 24 scores for each leaders were spirituality (reported by 75% of the
participant, reflecting their ratings of each of the sample), and gratitude (reported by 39%). Other
24 strengths. In addition, following previous signature strengths frequently mentioned by
studies (e.g., Park et al., 2004), we also computed youth-leaders were kindness, love, and love of
ipsative rankings of the strengths for each indi- learning (reported by 32%, 27%, and 21% of the
vidual. Each individual’s strengths were ranked sample, respectively).
according to their endorsement level. Scales of After checking, for each sample, the percent-
strengths that yielded higher average scores were age of participants who endorsed each strength
ranked higher than those yielding lower scores, as one of their five signature strengths (i.e., top-
resulting in a specific ranking order of strengths ranked strengths), we conducted chi-square
to each participant. In each of these individual tests to reveal group differences in these per-
lists, the five strengths that received his or her centages (Table 2). These non-parametric tests
highest ratings (i.e., the five most highly ranked assess the significance of differences between
strengths) were considered to be the ‘top-ranked’ expected proportions of participants endors-
or ‘signature strengths’, and the five strengths that ing the strengths in one sample (based on their
received the lowest ratings were considered to be proportions in the other sample) with the actual
the ‘bottom-ranked’ strengths (these procedure proportions in the sample. Again, because 24
was also used by Park et al., 2004). comparisons were made, we used a conservative
We conducted 24 independent samples α (p < 0.001) following Bonferroni’s correction,
t-tests to examine mean differences between to avoid inflated Type I error. The chi-square
the samples in participants’ ratings (i.e., mere tests revealed significant differences between the
scores) of the 24 strengths. To avoid infla- samples in four strengths. As expected, a larger
tion of Type I error due to the large number percentage of investigators endorsed honesty
of comparisons, we used a conservative signifi- (46%) and self-regulation (14%) as their signa-
cant level (p < 0.001) following Bonferroni’s ture strengths, compared with youth-leaders
correction. Significant differences between the (18% and 0 for honesty and self-regulation,
samples were found in one-third of the strengths respectively). On the other hand, as expected,
(8 out of 24; see Table 1). Investigators’ ratings the large percentage of youth-leaders who rated
of six strengths were higher than youth-lead- spirituality (75%) and gratitude (39%) as one of
ers’ ratings: social intelligence, persistence, their signature strengths was not replicated in
honesty, self-regulation, modesty, and humour. the investigators’ sample (in which spirituality

304 HSR Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 © eContent Management Pty Ltd
 TABLE 1: STRENGTHS’ RATINGS MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITIES, AND CORRELATIONS WITH WELL-BEING
Strengths Internal Means and SD T test – Diff in means Correlation with MHI and p values Diff in cor. (Z)
Rel. t values and their and p values
Lead. Inv. significance Lead. Inv.

Creativity 0.88 3.61 (0.62) 3.84 (0.59) −2.68** 0.30 (0.003)** 0.16 (0.12) 1.02 (0.15)
Curiosity 0.75 3.82 (0.55) 3.86 (0.43) −0.658 0.39 (0.000)*** 0.30 (0.002)** 0.71 (0.24)
Perspective 0.79 3.85 (0.44) 3.99 (0.45) −2.31* 0.36 (0.000)*** 0.33 (0.001)*** 0.24 (0.41)

© eContent Management Pty Ltd

Judgment 0.80 3.85 (0.46) 3.96 (0.46) −1.65 0.21 (0.042)* 0.26 (0.009)** −0.37 (0.36)*
Love of learning 0.73 3.64 (0.74) 3.62 (0.56) 0.171 0.27 (0.008)** 0.03 (0.79) 1.71 (0.04)*
Persistence 0.85 3.75 (0.54) 4.00 (0.52) −3.38*** 0.42 (0.000)*** 0.36 (0.000)*** 0.49 (0.31)
Bravery 0.71 3.78 (0.45) 3.88 (0.48) −1.50 0.46 (0.000)*** 0.36 (0.000)*** 0.83 (0.20)
Honesty 0.71 3.92 (0.35) 4.20 (0.46) −4.74*** 0.35 (0.000)*** 0.40 (0.000)*** −0.40 (0.34)
Zest 0.67 3.69 (0.46) 3.84 (0.49) −2.20* 0.57 (0.000)*** 0.39 (0.000)*** 1.63 (0.05)*
Social intelligence 0.78 3.75 (0.44) 3.98 (0.46) −3.56*** 0.50 (0.000)*** 0.30 (0.003)** 1.66 (0.05)*
Kindness 0.74 3.96 (0.44) 4.00 (0.47) −0.68 0.30 (0.003)** 0.15 (0.14) 1.09 (0.14)
Love 0.72 3.95 (0.43) 4.00 (0.45) −0.83 0.48 (0.000)*** 0.28 (0.005)** 1.63 (0.05)*
Leadership 0.73 3.91 (0.39) 3.92 (0.55) −0.14 0.45 (0.000)*** 0.39 (0.000)*** 0.50 (0.31)
Fairness 0.74 3.85 (0.45) 3.92 (0.51) −1.12 0.39 (0.000)*** 0.27 (0.006)** 0.93 (0.18)
Teamwork 0.75 3.83 (0.42) 3.88 (0.48) −0.77 0.37 (0.000)*** 0.37 (0.000)*** 0.00 (0.50)
Forgiveness 0.66 3.65 (0.44) 3.69 (0.53) −0.52 0.33 (0.001)** 0.25 (0.01)* 0.60 (0.27)
Self-regulation 0.61 4.25 (0.46) 4.63 (0.50) −6.54*** 0.33 (0.001)** 0.41 (0.000)*** −0.64 (0.26)
Prudence 0.70 3.54 (0.45) 3.75 (0.52) −3.10** 0.12 (0.225) 0.36 (0.000)*** −1.77 (0.04)*
Modesty 0.75 3.37 (0.49) 3.70 (0.49) −4.80*** 0.23 (0.024)* 0.19 (0.054) 0.29 (0.39)
Spirituality 0.87 4.36 (0.39) 3.56 (0.80) 9.04*** 0.35 (0.001)** 0.10 (0.308) 1.83 (0.03)*
Appreciation of beauty 0.81 3.69 (0.57) 3.48 (0.61) 2.53** 0.20 (0.052) 0.11 (0.272) 0.64 (0.26)
Hope 0.77 3.68 (0.46) 3.90 (0.51) −3.10** 0.58 (0.000)*** 0.34 (0.000)*** 2.13 (0.02)*
Gratitude 0.80 4.08 (0.44) 3.84 (0.57) 3.39*** 0.39 (0.000)*** 0.24 (0.015)* 1.15 (0.13)

Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012

Humour 0.78 3.62 (0.52) 3.92 (0.47) −4.29*** 0.40 (0.000)** 0.29 (0.004)** 0.86 (0.19)
Well-being 0.93 3.68 (0.55) 4.07 (1.17) 3.01**
Differential ratings and associations of character strengths with well-being

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; Rel. = Reliabilities. The strengths with the highest associations with well-being in each sample are marked in bold.

HSR
HSR

305
HSR Hadassah Littman-Ovadia and Shiri Lavy

TABLE 2: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO SAMPLES IN PERCENTAGES OF DOMINANT AND LOWEST STRENGTHS
Strengths Dominant strengths Pearson Lowest strengths Pearson
(percentage of the sample)*** Chi-square (percentage of the sample)*** Chi-square
(lead./inv.) (lead. /inv.)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2
Lead. Inv. Lead. Inv.

Creativity 12 17 1.01 34 20 4.97*

Curiosity 17 16 0.04 13 15 0.17
Perspective 16 20 0.54 10 3 4.03*
Judgment 17 16 0.4 7 4 0.87
Love of learning 21 17 0.52 42 44 0.08
Persistence 14 24 3.35 18 7 5.53*
Bravery 11 14 0.41 13 13 00.00
Honesty 18 46 18.02*** 4 1 1.85
Zest 8 12 0.89 14 14 00.00
Social intelligence 7 18 5.53* 15 8 2.41
Kindness 32 20 3.73* 7 4 0.87
Love 27 21 0.99 4 5 0.12
Leadership 18 15 0.33 4 11 3.53
Fairness 18 22 0.50 8 14 1.84
Teamwork 16 14 0.16 9 13 0.82
Forgiveness 7 7 0.00 23 28 0.66
Self-regulation 0 14 15.04*** 48 24 12.50***
Prudence 6 9 0.65 36 30 0.81
Modesty 5 9 1.23 52 28 12.00***
Spirituality 75 21 56.32*** 1 52 66.77***
Appreciation of 17 5 7.50** 27 51 11.75***
beauty
Hope 6 14 3.56 22 4 14.32***
Gratitude 39 14 16.04*** 1 22 21.67***
Humour 12 20 2.38 32 10 14.59***
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Note that each participant can have up to five dominant and lowest strengths. The most
frequently reported dominant and lowest strengths in each sample are marked in bold.

and gratitude were the signature strengths of both samples (by 44% of the investigators, and
21% and 14% of the sample, respectively). 42% of the youth-leaders).
We also examined group differences in par- Again, 24 chi-square tests were conducted
ticipants’ bottom-ranked strengths (their five to examine differences between the samples in
lowest-rated strengths; see Table 2), using a the percentages of bottom-ranked strengths,
similar statistical procedure. For more than using a conservative α (p < 0.001; Table 2).
one-half of the investigators, spirituality and The chi-square tests revealed significant differ-
appreciation of beauty were among the five ences between the samples in seven strengths:
lowest-rated strengths (rated lowest for 52% and More investigators had spirituality, appreciation
51% of investigators, respectively). On the other of beauty, and gratitude as their bottom-ranked
hand, about one-half of the youth-leaders rated strengths, compared with youth-leaders. More
modesty (52%) and self-regulation (48%) among youth-leaders had self-regulation, modesty,
their five least endorsed (or ‘bottom-ranked’) humour, and hope among their bottom-ranked
strengths. Love of learning was also rated low in strengths, compared with investigators.

306 HSR Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 © eContent Management Pty Ltd
 Differential ratings and associations of character strengths with well-being HSR
Differences in associations between signature-strength for 75% of the youth-leaders)
strengths and well-being is not included in this list.
In the current study, MHI internal reliability The strengths that were most highly correlated
was highly satisfactory (Cronbach’s α = 0.93), with well-being in the investigators sample were:
and consistent with the internal reliability self-regulation (r = 0.41, p < 0.001), honesty
(Cronbach’s α = 0.94) reported both by the (r = 0.40, p < 0.001), zest and leadership (r = 0.39,
questionnaire’s authors, and by Florian and p < 0.001), and teamwork (r = 0.37, p < 0.001).
Drori (1990). Interestingly, honesty, the most frequent signa-
To examine group differences in associations ture strengths among investigators (mentioned as
between strength endorsement and well-being, one by 46% of the sample) had the second highest
we first calculated Pearson correlations between correlation with well-being. As far as we know,
participants’ strength ratings and well-being for this strength was not very highly associated with
participants in each sample (Table 1).1 well-being in previous studies (e.g., Park et al.,
Most strengths were highly correlated with 2004). None of the strengths frequently rated by
well-being. However, in the investigator investigators as their lower strengths are in the
sample, love of learning, creativity, kindness, above list (of strengths most highly correlated
appreciation of beauty, spirituality, and mod- with well-being), and only one of the strengths
esty were not correlated with well-being; and found to be highly correlated with well-being in
in the youth-leader sample, only prudence and other samples is included in that list: zest.
appreciation of beauty were not correlated with The strengths that were most highly cor-
well-being. Interestingly, some of the correla- related with well-being in the youth-leaders
tions with well-being were very high, especially sample were: hope (r = 0.58, p < 0.001), zest
in the youth-leaders’ sample (e.g., r = 0.58 and (r = 0.57, p < 0.001), social intelligence (r = 0.50,
0.57 for hope and zest, respectively). p < 0.001), love (r = 0.48, p < 0.001) and bravery
When using a more conservative α (r = 0.46, p < 0.001). Only one of these strengths
(p < 0.001) following Bonferroni’s correc- (love) was one of the most frequently mentioned
tion, only 10 strengths significantly correlated signature strengths in this sample (rated as signa-
with well-being in the investigators sample: ture strength by 27% of the youth-leaders). The
perspective, persistence, bravery, honesty, zest, above list does not include any of the strengths
leadership, teamwork, self regulation, prudence frequently rated by youth-leaders as their lower
and hope. When this criterion was used for the strengths, but does include three of the strengths
youth-leader sample, only 13 strengths signifi- found to be highly correlated with well-being in
cantly correlated with well-being: curiosity, other samples: hope, zest (also found to be highly
perspective, persistence, bravery, honesty, zest, correlated with well-being in the investigators
social intelligence, love, leadership, fairness, sample) and love (which was also a common sig-
teamwork, hope and gratitude (see Table 1). nature strength in this sample).
Interestingly, spirituality (which was rated as a In addition, we examined group differences
in strengths’ correlations with well-being, using
Fisher’s z transformation (e.g., Hosteling, 1953;
1
Notably, a t-test comparing the average well-being ratings see Table 1). One of the uses of this transformation
of the two samples revealed that investigators generally procedure is to provide confidence intervals for
rated their well-being higher than did youth-leaders. This differences between correlations. Using this pro-
difference corresponds with previous findings linking cedure, significant differences in the correlations
older age with higher reported well-being, but in these
of well-being with seven strengths were revealed.
specific two samples it may be related to additional
factors (e.g. occupation, gender). The results presented
Most of these differences were due to higher
here concerning the associations between endorsement of strengths correlations with well being in the youth-
strengths and well-being should be considered in light of leaders sample, compared with the investigators
this group difference in well-being ratings. sample: love of learning, zest, social intelligence,

© eContent Management Pty Ltd Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 HSR 307
HSR Hadassah Littman-Ovadia and Shiri Lavy

love, spirituality and hope were more highly corre- rankings strengths as most as dominant (sig-
lated with well being in the youth-leaders sample. nature-strengths; significant differences were
Only prudence was more highly correlated with revealed in four strengths and in the most fre-
well-being in the investigators sample. quent dominant strengths), and in the frequency
of bottom-ranked strengths (significant differ-
DISCUSSION ences were revealed in seven strengths, and in
Subjective well-being is usually not mentioned in the most frequent bottom-ranked strengths).
sociological textbooks and journals. Veenhoven These findings suggest that demographic
(2008) suggests that this deficiency results from characteristics (i.e., gender, occupation, religios-
sociologists’ focus on people’s behavior rather ity and age) affect differential strength endorse-
than on their internal feelings and thoughts, and ment, as hypothesised. Furthermore, the distinct
because sociologists are more interested in col- patterns of strength endorsement were related
lectivities rather than in individual-level con- to each community’s characteristics, as hypoth-
cepts. They also focus (as most psychologist and esised. Spirituality and gratitude were the most
researchers from other disciplines) on negative frequently mentioned signature strengths among
phenomena, reflected in social problems and youth-leaders, ranked as one of the five most
‘ill-being’ rather than on positive phenomena dominant strengths for 75% and 39% of the sam-
and well-being. However, Veenhoven (2008) ple (respectively). They were rated and ranked
argued that the subject of subjective well-being is significantly lower by investigators (these results
a condition of society and a determinant of social were consistent across the various analyses), sug-
behavior and not merely a mental state, and thus gesting that these transcendence strengths are
should not be left to psychologists. Being both more common among youth-leaders, probably
an outcome of social systems and a factor in their due to the religious and ideological environ-
functioning, subjective well-being belongs to the ment in which they were raised and in which
core business of sociology (Veenhoven, 2008). they currently perform their national service.
In the current study, we adopted Veenhoven’s On the other hand, honesty was the most
(2008) suggestions and examined community- frequently mentioned signature strength among
related effects on subjective well-being and a spe- investigators, ranked as one of the most domi-
cific set of its antecedents, which are known to nant strengths for 46% of the sample. It was rated
be related to social norms and values: character and ranked significantly lower by youth-leaders,
strengths. The present study supports arguments and also by participants from previous stud-
for the effects of sociological factors on well- ies (e.g., Park et al., 2004), suggesting that, as
being and its antecedents, and corresponds with hypothesised, honesty is more highly endorsed by
the previous findings supporting these arguments secular male investigators, perhaps because of its
(presented above, in the background section), as great relevance to their work. As hypothesised,
it provides initial evidence for group differences self-constraint strength (self regulation and per-
in character strengths and their associations with sistence) which are also related to investigators’
well-being. Respondents in two community- occupation, were also more highly endorsed by
samples differing in gender, occupation, religiosity investigators compared with youth-leaders, and
and age, showed different mean ratings of char- the differences in self-regulation were consis-
acter strengths, different frequently mentioned tent across the various analyses. However, these
signature strengths, and distinct patterns of associa- self-constraint strengths were not very prevalent
tions between character strengths and well-being. as signature strengths of investigators, suggesting
that they do not reflect most central values of
Strengths ratings their community. These results correspond with
The two groups differed significantly on ratings findings of previous studies showing that men’s
of eight strengths. In terms of ipsative ratings, self-regulation ratings were higher than women’s
the two groups differed in the frequency of (Biswas-Diener, 2006), and may reflect broader

308 HSR Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 © eContent Management Pty Ltd
 Differential ratings and associations of character strengths with well-being HSR
gender differences in social and moral understand- Thus, it generally seems like the endorsement of
ing, such as those described by Gilligan (1977). certain strengths which are highly desired/val-
ued in a certain community is related to higher
Differences in associations between well-being of its members. This is an important
strengths and well-being finding that should be considered in develop-
As expected, the two samples in our study dif- ment and application of community and personal
fered significantly in the associations of seven interventions aimed to promote individuals’
strengths with well-being. Six of these differ- and communities well being. It emphasizes the
ences were due to greater correlations with well- importance of matching the intervention plan to
being in the youth leader sample. Thus, although the social context of the individuals.
youth-leaders generally rated strengths and well- However, the above mentioned is true only for
being lower than investigators (and the variance some of the desired/valued strengths, and not for
of well-being was smaller in the youth-leader all of them. Spirituality, for example, which seems
sample), strengths had greater associations with to be valued and desired by the youth-leaders and
well-being in that sample, suggesting that for the was ranked as a signature strengths for 75% of their
older, secular investigators, well-being (which is sample, was not very highly associated with the
higher overall) may be more affected by other, well-being of the youth-leaders. In fact, when
external and internal factors (e.g., Bronk, Hill, the conservative α criteria was applied, spiritual-
Lapsley, Talib, & Finch, 2009; Daig, Herschbach, ity’s association with well-being was insignifi-
Lehmann, Knoll, & Decker, 2009). cant. Thus, endorsement of strengths which are
The strengths that were most highly associ- very prevalent in a certain community (perhaps
ated with well-being in the investigators sample ‘too prevalent’) may in fact have smaller effects
were self-regulation, honesty, zest, leadership, on the community members’ well-being. In
and teamwork. The strengths that were most Veenhoven’s (2008) discussion about ‘well-being
highly correlated with well-being in the youth- as surpassing the Joneses’, there is an exemplary
leaders sample were hope, zest, social intelli- case of ‘relative deprivation’ in which, ironically,
gence, love, and bravery. In both samples, one the satisfaction with the promotion aspect of army
of the strengths on the list was one of the most life appeared to be higher in units where promo-
frequently-mentioned signature strength in the tion chances were low (i.e., the military police),
sample (honesty for the investigators, love for than in units where promotion chances were high
the youth-leaders). Each list also includes at least (i.e., the Air Force). Veenhoven (2008) explained
one strength which was not ranked extremely this phenomenon in terms of social comparison.
high by the participants in the sample, but was Because promotion was more common in the
consistently found to be highly related to well Air Force, Air Force personnel more often felt
being in previous studies (zest for the investiga- entitled to promotion. In this view, well-being
tors; zest, hope and love for the youth-leaders). is highly influenced by the individual’s subjective
The lists do not include any strength that was appraisal of his/her situation, compared with other
frequently ranked as the lowest (bottom-ranked). group members.
These results suggest that the associations of Our findings correspond also with Peterson
strengths with well-being may be more complex et al.’s (2010) findings that scoring higher on
than previously hypothesised (e.g., by Seligman, a strength which is less typical for people in a
2002): The highest associations with well-being certain occupation is related to higher work
appear to reflect both general characteristics of satisfaction. This finding shows how difficult it
strengths that presumingly promote well-being is to draw broad conclusions about associations
(e.g., zest) but also specific community charac- between strengths and well-being, suggesting
teristics and values. In turn, these characteristics that deeper examination of the associations in
and values are also reflected in the most common various communities should be conducted to
signature strengths in that specific community. further our understanding of these associations.

© eContent Management Pty Ltd Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 HSR 309
HSR Hadassah Littman-Ovadia and Shiri Lavy

Interesting differences emerge when compar- well-being ratings and overall lower associations
ing this study’s results to findings of a larger study with strengths suggest that for the youth-leaders,
of adults in the United States and in Switzerland strengths’ endorsement plays a more important
(Beermann et al., 2007), in which almost all the role in developing and sustaining well-being
strengths that were highly associated with life than for the investigators.
satisfaction were similar in both cultures, and
were associated with orientation to pleasure, Summary, limitations and suggested
to engagement, and to meaning, implying that future studies
the most fulfilling character strengths are those This preliminary study revealed interesting dif-
that make possible a full life. In both samples ferences between two specific groups in endorse-
in this 2007 study, the character strengths most ment of strengths and in their associations with
strongly linked to life satisfaction included love, well-being, suggesting universal attributes of
hope, curiosity, and vitality (note that three of strengths, but also revealing community-specific
these strengths were also most highly correlated characteristics of strengths and their links to
with well-being in our youth-leader sample). well-being. This study was the first to compare
However, they also found that gratitude was two distinct and relatively homogenous samples,
among the most robust predictors of life satisfac- differing in a few variables. The choice of the
tion in the United States sample, whereas per- two distinct groups made it possible to uncover
sistence was among the most robust predictors the effects of sociological factors on strengths
in the Swiss sample (Beermann et al., 2007). In endorsement and its associations with well-
our smaller and more homogenous samples (in being, effects which were neglected in most pre-
terms of age, religiosity, and occupation), we vious studies. However, this choice of research
found stronger between-sample differences in populations also makes it impossible to attribute
strengths’ associations with well-being. group-differences to a specific demographic
This may suggest that more specific popula- or sociological variable. Replication in other
tions should be checked, in order to reveal more homogenous samples is warranted, to strengthen
of the existing differences in strengths’ asso- the external validity of the findings.
ciations with well-being. Moreover, subsequent Another limitation of the study is that it only
research should explore the predictive value of assessed correlations between strengths and well-
specific strengths to well-being in specific popula- being, while the source of these associations
tions with certain characteristics, and deepen our remains unknown. Other limitations are that
understanding of sociological and other contex- the measures used in this study suffer from the
tual influences on strengths’ endorsement and its interpretative issues of self-report approaches,
effects on individuals’ mental health. As the cur- and that all variables were measured at the same
rent study suggests, higher endorsement of certain time and raise the issue of interactive effects
strengths may have differential effects in different (Goodwin, 2010) as completion of one scale
communities, and what can be very beneficial may have affected the completion of the other.
for members of one community may have little Future studies should take into consideration
effect on the well-being of members of another, more sources of one’s character strengths (e.g.,
depending on the communities’ values and its peer, parent, boss or significant-other relation-
members’ predominant/prevalent strengths. ships to the individual) and a larger variety of
When considering the group differences in outcomes related to strengths endorsement (e.g.,
associations with well being, investigators’ over- additional measures of well-being, work per-
all higher well-being ratings should be remem- formance, social networking, and physical and
bered. These higher ratings may be related to mental health). We also recommend performing
their older age, but in the specific samples exam- longitudinal studies, where character strengths
ined here it may also be related to other factors and the hypothesised related consequents are
(e.g., occupation, gender). The higher overall measured at different points in time.

310 HSR Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 © eContent Management Pty Ltd
 Differential ratings and associations of character strengths with well-being HSR
REFERENCES Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and (2005). Positive psychology in clinical practice. Annual
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 629–651.
Prentice-Hall. Florian, V., & Drori, Y. (1990). Mental Health Index
Bar-Lev, M. (1989). Bnei Akiva – A religious- (MHI): Psychometric features and normative data among
pioneering youth movement. In M. Naor (ed.), the Israeli population (Hebrew). Psychology, 2, 26–35.
Youth movements 1920-1960: Sources, summaries, Fuller-Jonap, F., & Haley, W. E. (1995). Mental and physi-
chosen events and relevant material Yad Yitzchak Ben-Zvi cal health of male caregivers of a spouse with Alzheimer’s
(Hebrew; pp. 75–91). Jerusalem, Israel: Department disease. Journal of Aging and Health, 7(1), 99–118.
of Education and Guidance. Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s con-
Bar-Lev, M. (1991). Attempts for nationalization and de- ceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational
legitimization in the religious youth group of Bnei- Review, 47, 481–517.
Akiva 1949–1963. In R. Shapira, & A. Kasher (Eds.), Goodwin, C.J. (2010). Research in psychology: Methods and
Sparks: Historical, philosophical and social aspects of educa- design (6th ed.). Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons,
tion (Hebrew). Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University. Inc. Segal, L. (1990) Slowmotion Changing Masculinities,
Bar-Lev, M., Cohen, I., & Rosner, S. (1987). 50 years Changing Men, London, Virago Press Limited.
of Bnei Akiva in Israel (Hebrew). Tel-Aviv, Israel: Hargrave, G. E., & Hiatt, D. (1989). Use of the California
Bnei Akiva. psychological inventory in low enforcement officer
Beermann, U., Park, N., Peterson, C., Ruch, W., & selection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(2), 267–277.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). Strengths of character, Hinojosa, R. (2010). Doing hegemony: Military, men,
orientations to happiness and life satisfaction. The and constructing a hegemonic masculinity. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 149–156. Journal of Men’s Studies, 18(2), 179–194.
Behm-Morawitz, E., & Mastro, D. (2009). The effects Hosteling, H. (1953). New light on the correlation
of the sexualization of female video game characters coefficient and its transforms. Journal of the Royal
on gender stereotyping and female self-concept. Sex Statistical Society, 15, 193–225.
Roles, 61, 808–823. Izraeli, D., Friedman, A., & Sharift, R. (1994). Entrapped
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive women (Hebrew). Kibbutz, Isreal: Kibbutz Meuchad.
account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. Lavy, S., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2011). All you need
Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). From the equator to the is love? Strengths mediate the negative association
North Pole: A study of character strengths. Journal of between attachment orientations and life satisfaction.
Happiness Studies, 7, 293–310. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1050–1055.
Bronk, K. C., Hill, P. L., Lapsley, D. K., Talib, T. L., Littman-Ovadia, H., & Lavy, S. (2012). Character
& Finch, H. (2009). Purpose, hope, and life satisfac- strengths in Israel: Hebrew adaptation of the
tion in three age groups. Journal of Positive Psychology, VIA inventory of strengths. European Journal of
4, 500–510. Psychological Assessment, 28(1), 41–50.
Chesler, M. A., & Parry, C. (2001). Gender roles and/ Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, F. M. (2010). Character
or styles in crisis: An integrative analysis of the expe- strengths and well-being among volunteers and
riences of fathers of children with cancer. Qualitative employees: Towards an integrative model. Journal of
Health Research, 11(3), 363–384. Positive Psychology, 5, 419–430.
Daig, I., Herschbach, P., Lehmann, A., Knoll, N., & Martin, C. L., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories
Decker, O. (2009). Gender and age differences in about sex and race differences. Personality and Social
domain-specific life satisfaction and the impact of Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 45–57.
depressive and anxiety symptoms: A general popula- Maryanski, A., & Turner, J. H. (1992). The social cage:
tion survey from Germany. Quality of Life Research: An Human nature and the evolution of society. Palo Alto,
International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, CA: Stanford University Press.
Care and Rehabilitation, 18, 669–678. Mischel, W. (1966). A social learning view of sex dif-
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really ferences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (ed.), The
know what makes us happy? A review of the economic development of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford
literature on the factors associated with subjective well- University Press.
being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94–122. Nicholson, J. (1993). Men and women: How different
Donaldson, D. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? are they? (2nd Ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford
Theory and Society, 22, 643–657. University Press.

© eContent Management Pty Ltd Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 HSR 311
HSR Hadassah Littman-Ovadia and Shiri Lavy

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2008). The cultivation of environmental influences on the positive traits of
character strengths. In M. Ferrari, & G. Poworowski the Values in Action classification, and biomet-
(Eds.), Teaching for wisdom: Cross-cultural perspectives on ric covariance with normal personality. Journal of
fostering wisdom (pp. 57–75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Research in Personality, 41, 524–539.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Soulliere, D. M. (2006). Wrestling with masculinity:
Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Messages about Manhood in the WWE. Sex Roles,
Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619. 55, 1–11.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Veenhoven, R. (2004). Happiness as a public policy aim;
Character strengths in 54 nations and all 50 US The greatest happiness principle. In P. A. Linley & S.
states. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118–129. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 658–678).
Perry, D. G., & Bussey, K. (1984). Social development. New York, NY: Wiley.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Veenhoven, R. (2005). Is life getting better? How
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character long and happy do people live in modern society?
strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification European Psychologist, 10, 330–343.
American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Veenhoven, R. (2006a). Rising happiness in nations
Oxford University Press. 1946-2004: A reply to Easterlin. Social Indicators
Peterson, C., Stephens, J. P., Park, N., Lee, F., & Seligman, Research, 19, 421–436.
M. E. P. (2010). Strengths of character at work. In P. Veenhoven, R. (2006b). World database of happiness:
A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford Correlational findings. Retrieved from www.world-
handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 221–231). databaseof happiness.eur.nl/hap_cor/cor_fp.htm
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Veenhoven, R. (2008). Sociological theories of subjec-
Risman, B. J. (1987). Intimate relationships from a tive well-being. In M. Eid, & R. Larson (Eds.), The
microstructural perspective: Men who mother. science of subjective well-being: A tribute to Ed Diener
Gender & Society, 1(1), 6–32. (pp. 44–61). New York, NY: Guilford.
Ruch, W., Furrer, G., & Huwyler, D. (2004, Veenhoven, R. (2009). World database of happiness, con-
September–October). Character strengths of executives tinuous register of scientific research on subjective enjoyment
and employees. A poster presented at The International of life. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Retrieved
Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC. form http:// www.worlddatabaseof happiness.eur.nl
Sanderson, S. K. (1995). Social transformations. London, Veenhoven, R. (2011). Greater happiness for a greater
England: Blackwell. number: Is that possible? If so, how? In K. M.
Sasson-Levy, O. (2006). Identities in uniform: Masculinity Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.),
and femininities in the Israeli Military (Eshkolot Series). Designing positive psychology:Taking stock and moving
Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press. forward (pp. 396–409). New York, NY: Oxford
Schoenberg, B. M. (1993). Growing up male: The psychol- University Press.
ogy of masculinity. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Veit, C., & Ware, J. (1983). The structure of psycho-
Segal, L. (1990). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changing logical distress and well-being in the general popula-
men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. tions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51,
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York, 730–742.
NY: Free Press. Ye-Rang, K. (2005). Fathers of offspring with severe mental
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. illness: Key factors related to fathers’ participation in
(2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical valida- caregiving (Doctoral dissertation). The University of
tion of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. Texas, Austin, TX (UMI No. 3174495).
Steger, M. F., Hicks, B. M., Kashdan, T. B., Krueger,
R. F., & Bouchard, T. J. (2007). Genetic and Received 17 February 2011 Accepted 04 November 2011

N O W AVA I L A B L E
SUBSTANCE USE AND MENTAL HEALTH
A special issue of Advances in Mental Health – Volume 11 Issue 1 – ISBN 978-1-921729-78-2 – October 2012
Guest Editors: Masood Zangeneh (Factor-Inwentash, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, ON, Canada)
and Christine Wekerle (Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada)
http://amh.e-contentmanagement.com/archives/vol/11/issue/1/marketing/
www.e-contentmanagement.com

312 HSR Volume 21, Issue 3, September 2012 © eContent Management Pty Ltd

View publication stats