J Happiness Stud

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9990-2

RESEARCH PAPER

The Impact of Signature Character Strengths

Interventions: A Meta‑analysis

Nicola S. Schutte1   · John M. Malouff1

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract  This meta-analysis investigated the impact of interventions focused on using

signature character strengths. The meta-analysis consolidated results of studies exam-
ining the effect of signature character  strength interventions compared to control condi-
tions. Twenty-nine effect sizes reported in fourteen articles allowed examination of sev-
eral types of outcomes. Across nine studies investigating the impact of these interventions
on increases in positive affect or happiness, signature character strength interventions had
a significant impact, with a weighted Hedges’ g of 0.32. Across seven studies, interven-
tions had a significant impact on decreases in depression, with a weighted Hedges’ g of
0.21. Across seven study samples, signature strengths had a significant impact on increas-
ing life satisfaction, with a weighted Hedges’ g of 0.42. Only a small number of studies
investigated other outcomes, resulting in low meta-analytic power for effect sizes for these
outcomes. Of note is a significant effect size of Hedges’ g of 0.55 for increase in use of
signature character strengths, based on just two studies, which suggests that signature char-
acter strength interventions do impact strengths as intended. The promising effects shown
in existing studies indicate that signature strength interventions have the potential to con-
tribute to beneficial outcomes in various areas of life and that more research on the impact
of signature character strength interventions is warranted.

Keywords  Character strengths · Depression · Happiness · Intervention · Meta-analysis ·

Positive affect · Signature strengths · Training

* Nicola S. Schutte
nschutte@une.edu.au
1
University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia

13
 N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff

1 Introduction

Positive psychology involves focusing on positive aspects of humans (Seligman et  al.
2005), such as their psychological strengths. Psychological strengths can include positive
characteristics such as cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, emotional stability,
and conscientiousness (Dubreuil et  al. 2016). A broad definition of strengths, involving
identification of talent, which is integrated into the view of the self, is associated with
strong employee performance and engagement as shown by Gallup Organization research
(Clifton and Harter 2003). Ghielen et  al. (2017) reviewed studies published in the years
2011–2016 that examined the effects of interventions aimed at increasing strengths in the
broad sense, focusing on best possible self and other positive psychology interventions,
and noted significant effects on such outcomes as well-being and work engagement.
Character strengths are a specific type of strengths that are central to the field of posi-
tive psychology (Seligman et al. 2005). These strengths were identified through a search
for strengths that may be somewhat universal across time and cultures (Dahlsgaard et al.
2005). Peterson and Seligman (2004) classified 24 character strengths, divided into catego-
ries of wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance and transcendence. For example,
the character strengths of creativity and of love of learning fall into the category of wis-
dom, perseverance and honesty into the category of courage, kindness and social intel-
ligence into the category of humanity, fairness and leadership into the category of justice,
forgiveness and self-regulation into the category of temperance, and gratitude and hope
into the category of transcendence. These strengths are relatively durable individual attrib-
utes. Cross cultural research suggests that the presence of character strengths is indeed
somewhat universal (Park et  al. 2006). However, the level of various character strengths
differs among individuals (Peterson and Seligman 2004).
The character strengths model has been applied in various setting, such as in schools
(Linkins et  al. 2015) and with different populations, such as individuals with disabilities
(Niemiec et al. 2017). The value of using specific character strengths may depends on the
situation (Dubreuil et al. 2016; Harzer and Ruch 2013; van Woerkom et al. 2016).
Core features of the model of character strengths include that individuals can reflect
on them, integrate them into their plans, and act on them, thereby producing positive out-
comes (Park et al. 2004). Optimal performance can result from use of strengths (Peterson
and Seligman 2004). Additionally, use of strengths may lead to positive affect and posi-
tive self-perception (Littman-Ovadia et al. 2014; Meyers et al. 2015; Peterson and Selig-
man 2004), as well as a greater sense of meaning (Littman-Ovadia and Niemiec (2016).
Increases in positivity are a foundation for the building of resources and well-being (Fre-
drickson and Losada 2005). It may be possible to help individuals increase use of their
character strengths through identifying important individual strengths and encouraging
their use (Biswas-Diener et al. 2011).
The strengths most prominent in an individual have been termed signature strengths
(Peterson and Seligman 2004). Seligman (2002) outlined the potential value of identify-
ing and using signature strengths. Identifying and using signature character strengths are
important foundations for flourishing in life (Jayawickreme et al. 2012; Kobau et al. 2011).
Individuals vary in the extent to which they use their signature strengths. There are theo-
retical grounds for expecting interventions aimed at helping individuals identify and use
signature strengths to have beneficial effects. Use of signature strengths may be intrinsi-
cally motivating and satisfying and allow individuals to achieve optimal functioning (Mey-
ers and van Woerkom 2017). Greater use of signature strengths is associated with a variety

13
The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions:…

of good outcomes. For example, greater signature-strengths use is associated with more
subjective well-being, higher self-esteem, and greater self-efficacy (Proctor et  al. 2011a;
Proyer et al. 2013), more progress in reaching goals (Linley et al. 2010), better work per-
formance, better citizenship behavior, more work satisfaction, less counterproductive work
behavior (Littman-Ovadia et al. 2017), and better academic performance (Lounsbury et al.
2009). Studies of signature strengths have examined benefits of using strengths in differ-
ent populations, such as employees and students, as well as members of the general com-
munity (Littman-Ovadia et al. 2017; Lounsbury et al. 2009; Proctor et al. 2011a, b). The
research foci of studies have varied, with some studies examining the association of charac-
ter strengths with various outcomes (e.g., Proctor et al. 2011a, b) and other studies examin-
ing the impact of interventions intended to increase character strengths (e.g., Gander et al.
2013; Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews 2012; Seligman et al. 2005).
A number of studies have investigated the effect of interventions intended to make
participants aware of their signature character strengths and to encourage them to use
these strengths in their daily lives. These interventions have been based on the character-
strengths-use program developed by Seligman et  al. (2005). This intervention involves
(1) individuals completing a self-report measure of character strengths, (2) providing the
individuals with feedback on their signature strengths, and (3) asking them to use these
strengths for at least a week in their daily lives. Quinlan et al. (2012) reviewed the eight
existing experimental studies at the time, concluded that they led to positive benefits in
increasing well-being, proposed that more investigation is required to identify the effects of
character strength interventions, and suggested that more information regarding contextual
factors is needed to identify features that may enhance the effectiveness of strength-based
interventions.
Studies of the effects of interventions aimed at identifying and increasing the use of sig-
nature character strengths have examined a number of outcomes that may result from such
interventions, including increases in positive affect or happiness, decreases in symptoms of
depression, increases in life satisfaction, decreases in negative affect, and increases in use
of character strengths (e.g., Duan and Bu 2017).
Some intervention studies tested only for short-term effects (e.g., Gander et al. 2013),
while others examined long-term effects (e.g., Seligman et al. 2005). Studies have also used
different methodologies, such as random assignment to intervention and control conditions
(e.g., Forest et al. 2012) or no random assignment (e.g., Mitchell et al. 2009), as well as
different types of control conditions, such as wait-list control conditions (e.g., Harzer and
Ruch 2012) or active control conditions (e.g., Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews 2012).
Studies have differed in the length of interventions offered to participants, with interven-
tion as short as 1 week (e.g., Proyer et al. 2015) or as long as half a year (Proctor et al.
2011a, b). Further, studies have varied in the nature of participants recruited for the inter-
vention, with some studies including community samples (e.g., Waters and Sun 2017) and
others including students (e.g., Rust et al. 2009). The study samples naturally have varied
in age and gender composition.
A meta-analytic examination of interventions aimed at increasing use of signature char-
acter strengths has the potential to address the question of whether across such studies
conducted so far there is a beneficial effect on different types of outcomes. Such a meta-
analysis adds to the review by Ghielen et al. (2017) by focusing specifically on signature
strength interventions, rather than strengths in general, and by providing quantitative infor-
mation regarding the overall weighted effect size for the impact of such interventions and
the interaction of possible moderating variables with effect sizes. Thus, the purpose of
the present meta-analysis was to consolidate statistically findings regarding the impact of

13
 N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff

strength-based interventions on different types of outcomes. This meta-analytic informa-

tion is important because it could (1) provide the best test so far of the worth of the model
that use of signature character strengths helps individuals thrive, (2) guide future research,
and (3) guide applied efforts to help individuals thrive.
Because there may be different factors influencing the impact on different outcomes of
interventions aimed at increasing the use of signature character strengths, the meta-analysis
examined separately each type of outcome for which at least two effect sizes were reported
across studies. These outcomes involved (1) happiness or positive affect, (2) life satisfac-
tion, (3) flourishing (similar to psychological well-being), (4) negative affect, (5) depres-
sion, and (6) use of character strengths. Happiness can be conceptualized as a favorable
evaluation of one’s emotional reaction to important realms of life, positive affect consists
of markers of positive emotion states, and life satisfaction is a favorable global evaluation
of one’s life (Shepherd et al. 2015). Even though positive affect and happiness may have
somewhat different features, the constructs overlap substantially (Diener 2000; Lyubomir-
sky et al. 2005), so we grouped effect sizes for positive affect and happiness into one out-
come category. Even though the constructs overlap, positive affect may represent a nar-
rower and less sustainable aspect of happiness in general. Additionally, high positive affect,
high life satisfaction, and low negative affect may be grouped together to describe a larger
category of subjective well-being (Diener 2000). Thus, the outcome categories include
some overlapping yet distinct concepts.
The present meta-analytic investigation consolidated results of studies investigating the
effect of signature strength interventions through comparison of participants in interven-
tion and control conditions. Pre-post within-group studies of character-strengths interven-
tions (e.g., Dubreuil et al. 2016) are informative, but they do not isolate the effects of train-
ing from changes that occur over time without training.
We examined every commonly reported variable that might moderate the effect size of
the interventions. Possible categorical moderators included (1) whether the study randomly
assigned participants to conditions or used some other method of creating equivalent
groups and (2) whether the comparison condition was an active placebo treatment or not.
Studies of interventions aimed at increasing use of signature character strengths have
examined the impact on interventions over varying periods of time, ranging from immedi-
ately after the intervention to 6 months later. The present meta-analytic investigation exam-
ined the moderating effect of time with a view to identifying possible long-term effects.
When a study reported after-intervention effects for multiple time points, we used the effect
size for the longest follow-up time period. Using only one follow-up time period when
multiple follow-up time effect sizes are provided rather than coding effect sizes for all time
periods avoids undue meta-analytic weighting of the responses of one set of participants.
The meta-analysis tested five hypotheses:

1. Signature-strength based interventions would show a significant impact on increases

in positive affect or happiness, decreases in symptoms of depression, increases in life
satisfaction, decreases in negative affect, increases in flourishing, and increases in use
of character strengths. This hypothesis was based on the premise that identification and
use of strengths is a basis for flourishing (Seligman 2002).
2. Studies using random assignment to conditions would report lower effect sizes than
those not using random assignment. This hypothesis was based on the premise that
studies not using random assignment may have more confounding factors that lead to
higher effect sizes.

13
The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions:…

3. Studies comparing participants in strengths-intervention conditions to participants in

waitlist or life as usual conditions would report higher effect sizes than studies using
active comparison conditions. This hypothesis was based on the premise that active
comparison conditions may have placebo and other elements that also lead to improved
outcomes and thus result in smaller effect sizes.
4. Effect sizes reported after a longer elapsed time period after an intervention would be
smaller than effect sizes reported for time periods closer to the intervention. This hypoth-
esis was based on the premise that the impact of interventions may fade over time.
5. Studies using longer interventions would report stronger effect sizes. This hypothesis
was based on the premise that more intensive training and more practice may lead to
improved outcomes.

To obtain as much information as possible about the studies, the meta-analysis also
explored whether mean age of samples, proportion of women in samples, and study attri-
tion rate moderated effect sizes for outcomes. There were no specific hypotheses regarding
these factors.

2 Method

The inclusion criteria for studies were that they (1) used a signature-strength based inter-
vention involving identification and use of strengths, (2) did not combine substantial ele-
ments of other intervention strategies, which might impact outcomes, with the signature
strengths intervention, (3) compared this intervention to a control condition, (4) provided
sufficient statistical results to allow the calculation of an effect size suitable for meta-
analysis, and (5) reported an outcome of a type included in at least one other study eligi-
ble for inclusion. We searched the databases Embase, Cochrane, Clinical Key, CINAHL
Complete, Pubmed, Psyc INFO, PNAS, and Google Scholar using the terms (1) character
strengths or signature strengths and (2) intervention or program, or trial, or training, or
exercise. We also searched the reference lists of included articles and the review article of
Ghielen et al. (2017) for possible other studies for inclusion. Figure 1 shows the search pro-
cess and the number of resulting studies and effect sizes.
Some intervention studies (e.g., Koydemir and Sun-Selışık 2016; Littman-Ovadia
et  al. 2014) examined the effect of adding additional elements, such as training in regu-
lating emotions and communication skills to identification and use of signature strengths.
We excluded these studies because the added elements make it impossible to evaluate the
effects of the effort to increase the use of signature character strengths.
Two raters independently coded the studies for the effect size for outcomes at the long-
est follow-up period, the length of the intervention, the length of the follow-up measure-
ment, whether random assignment to conditions was used, the nature of the comparison
condition (waitlist/life as usual control, or active, which included interventions intended to
have benefits as well as placebo conditions), the mean age of participants in the study, the
percentage of females in the study, and whether participants were community members or
students. When outcomes were assessed at multiple times after the intervention, the long-
est post time period effect size was coded to allow examination of the impact of passage of
time. Inter-rater agreement for coding was 97%. The ratings on which there was not initial
agreement were discussed and consensus was reached on the final rating.

13
 N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff

Addional records idenfied

Records idenfied through
Idenficaon

through reference lists

database searching (n = 9) numbers now reflect
(n = 2431) addional arcles, except in last

Records aer duplicates removed

(n =2440)
Screening

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 2440) (n =2418)

Full-text arcles excluded,

Full-text arcles assessed with reasons: did not
Eligibility

for eligibility assess criterion outcome

(n = 22 ) for which there was more
than one effect size across
studies, other substanal
intervenon elements as
Effect sizes included in well as character strength
quantave synthesis focus, only pre to post
(meta-analysis) data, not enough
(n =14 arcles reporng informaon to calculate
Included

studies with a total of 29 effect size to compare

effect sizes) groups.
(n =8)

Fig. 1  PRISMA chart showing the search process

The search and coding process resulted in fourteen articles reporting results allow-
ing coding of twenty-nine effect sizes. Positive affect and happiness effect sizes were
coded as one outcome category, which contained nine effect sizes. Even though positive
affect and happiness are distinct concepts, operationalization of the measurement of the
concepts through scales shows overlap. For example, Shepherd et al. (2015) found that
the Authentic Happiness Inventory (used by Gander et al. (2013), as well as other stud-
ies included in the meta-analysis) is correlated with the PANAS positive affect scale
(used by Meyers and van Woerkom (2017), as well as other studies included in the
meta-analysis) at 0.82, and lower, though significant, correlations with life satisfaction
at 0.76 and negative affect at −  0.48. The outcome category of depression had seven
effect sizes. The outcome of life satisfaction had seven effect sizes. The outcomes of use
of strengths, flourishing, and negative affect each had just two effect sizes.
Most studies reported pre and post means and standard deviations for the interven-
tion group and the control group, and these were converted to Hedges’ g. Likewise,
reported statistical results such as F were converted to g. Table 1 shows the characteris-
tics of included studies.

13
 Table 1  Characteristics of included studies
Authors (year/study) N Mean age Female %a Type of participant Int. Assess. Designd Control ­groupe ESf
­lengthb ­periodc
(weeks) (weeks)

Duan and Bu (2017)g—depression 38 18 58 Student 1 1 Random LAS 0.53

Duan and Bu (2017)—strength use 38 18 58 Student 1 1 Random LAS 0.48
Duan and Bu (2017)—flourish 38 18 58 Student 1 1 Random LAS 0.60
Duan et al. (2014)h sample 1—life satisfaction 136 20 72 Student 8 18 Compare active 0.49
Duan et al. (2014) sample 2—life satisfaction 149 20 64 Student 8 18 Compare active 0.63
Forest et al. (2012)i—strength use 222 22 62 Employee 2 10 Compare LAS 0.57
Gander et al. (2013)j—positive affect (happiness) 136 45 84 Community 1 25 Random active 0.29
Gander et al. (2013)—depression 136 45 84 Community 1 25 Random active 0.33
Harzer and Ruch (2012)k—life satisfaction 109 42 45 Employee 4 28 Random active 1.23
Meyers and van Woerkom (2017)l—positive affect (PANAS) 142 42 72 Employee 4 4 Compare LAS 0.03
Meyers and van Woerkom (2017)—life satisfaction 142 42 72 Employee 4 4 Compare LAS 0.15
Mitchell et al. (2009)m—flourish 102 37 83 Community 3 15 Random active 0.27
The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions:…

Mitchell et al. (2009)—life satisfaction 102 37 83 Community 3 15 Random active 0.05

Mitchell et al. (2009)—positive affect (PANAS) 102 37 83 Community 3 15 Random active 0.01
Mitchell et al. (2009)—depression 102 37 83 Community 3 15 Random active 0.19
Mitchell et al. (2009)—negative affect (PANAS) 102 37 83 Community 3 15 Random active 2.97
Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews (2012)n—positive affect 155 33 83 Community 1 25 Random active 0.27
(happiness)
Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews (2012)—depression 155 33 83 Community 1 25 Random active 0.17
Proyer et al. (2015)o—positive affect (happiness) 256 46 84 Community 1 25 Random active 0.09
Proyer et al. (2015)—depression 256 46 84 Community 1 25 Random active 0.02
Proctor et al. (2011a, b)p—life satisfaction 319 13 53 Student 26 26 Compare LAS 0.18
Proctor et al. (2011a, b)—positive affect (PANAS) 319 13 53 Student 26 26 Compare LAS 0.13
Proctor et al. (2011a, b)—negative affect (PANAS) 319 13 53 Student 26 26 Compare LAS 0.09

13

Table 1  (continued)
Authors (year/study) N Mean age Female %a Type of participant Int. Assess. Designd Control ­groupe ESf
­lengthb ­periodc

13
(weeks) (weeks)

Rust et al. (2009)q—life satisfaction 67 25 72 Student 12 12 Compare active 0.37

Seligman et al. (2005)r—positive affect (happiness) 138 45 58 Community 1 27 Random active 0.72
Seligman et al. (2005)—depression 136 45 58 Community 1 27 Random active 0.37
Senf and Liau (2013)s—positive affect (happiness) 80 20 76 Students 1 5 Random LAS 0.49
Senf and Liau (2013)—depression 80 20 76 Students 1 5 Random LAS 0.31
Waters and Sun (2017)t—positive affect (re children) 125 46 65 Community 3 3 Compare LAS 0.95
a
 The percentage of females in the sample
b
 Length of intervention
c
 Time at which effect size measurement was taken, from start of intervention to this time
d
 Random assignment of participants to condition or use of a comparison group to which participants were not randomly assigned
e
 Nature of control group, LAS = life as usual, active = interventions intended to have benefits and placebo conditions
f
 Effect size in the metric of Hedges’ g
g
 Duan and Bu (2017), participants from China, 27% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
h
 Duan et al. (2014), participants from China, 26% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
i
 Forest et al. (2012), participants from Canada, 56% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
j
 Gander et al. (2013), participants from Switzerland, 74% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
k
 Harzer and Ruch (2012), participants German speaking, 45% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
l
 Meyers and van Woerkom (2017), participants Dutch, included strengths such as talents as well as signature strengths, 19% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect
size was recorded
m
 Mitchell et al. (2009), participants from Australia, 83% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded but analysis was based on intention to treat
n
 Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews (2012), participants from Canada, effect size for early memories placebo comparison group, 76% attrition to longest follow-up time at
which effect size was recorded
p
 Proctor et al. (2011a, b), participants from Great Britain, intervention included practice of general strengths as well as identified strengths, 30% attrition to longest follow-up
time at which effect size was recorded
N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff
 Table 1  (continued)
o
 Proyer et al. (2015), participants from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, 47% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
q
 Rust et al. (2009), participants from USA, 18% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
r
 Seligman et al. (2005), participants from USA, 29% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
s
 Senf and Liau (2013), participants from Malaysia, 5% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
t
 Waters and Sun (2017), participants from Australia, 9% attrition to longest follow-up time at which effect size was recorded
The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions:…

13
 N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff

Study name Statistics for each study Hedges's g and 95% CI

Hedges's Standard Lower Upper
g error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value
0.288 Gander et al., 2013 - positive affect (happiness) 0.172 0.030 -0.048 0.625 1.678 0.093
0.034 Meyers & Woerkom, 2017 - positive affect (PANAS) 0.167 0.028 -0.293 0.362 0.205 0.837
0.008 Mitchell et al., 2009 - positive affect (PANAS) 0.197 0.039 -0.378 0.393 0.039 0.969
0.256 Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012 - positve affect (happiness) 0.161 0.026 -0.059 0.571 1.593 0.111
0.086 Proyer et al., 2015 - positive affect (happiness) 0.125 0.016 -0.159 0.331 0.688 0.492
0.134 Proctor et al., 2011 - positive affect (PANAS) 0.120 0.014 -0.101 0.370 1.117 0.264
0.722 Seligman et al., 2005 - positive affect 0.176 0.031 0.377 1.067 4.101 0.000
0.492 Senf & Liau., 2013 -positive affect (happiness) 0.225 0.051 0.052 0.933 2.190 0.029
0.949 Waters & Sun, 2017 - positive affect (in relation to children 0.188 0.035 0.581 1.318 5.052 0.000
0.316 0.102 0.010 0.115 0.517 3.084 0.002
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

Fig. 2  Forest plot for positive affect/happiness outcomes

Study name Statistics for each study Hedges's g and 95% CI

Hedges's Standard Lower Upper
g error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value
0.594 Duan & Bu, 2017 - depression 0.325 0.106 -0.043 1.231 1.829 0.067
0.332 Gander et al., 2013 - depression 0.172 0.030 -0.006 0.669 1.926 0.054
0.193 Mitchell et al., 2009 - depression 0.197 0.039 -0.194 0.579 0.976 0.329
0.165 Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012 - depression 0.158 0.025 -0.145 0.476 1.044 0.296
0.022 Proyer et at. 2015 - depression 0.125 0.016 -0.222 0.267 0.180 0.857
0.370 Seligman et al., 2005 - depression 0.173 0.030 0.031 0.709 2.136 0.033
0.307 Senf & Liau., 2013 - depression 0.223 0.050 -0.130 0.743 1.376 0.169
0.213 0.066 0.004 0.083 0.344 3.211 0.001

-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

Fig. 3  Forest plot for depression outcomes

Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.3 (CMA; Borenstein et  al. 2014) calculated
the overall weighted effect sizes for the outcome categories and examined potential mod-
erators of the overall effect sizes for categories with an adequate number of effect sizes
for moderator analyses. According to Borenstein et  al. (2009), a random effects model
should be used when one cannot assume that the true effect will remain stable across stud-
ies. Because the sample populations differed and the effect sizes were expected to vary, we
used a random effects model.

3 Results

To test the hypothesis that signature-strength based interventions would show a signifi-
cant impact on increases in positive affect or happiness, decreases in symptoms of depres-
sion, increases in life satisfaction, decreases in negative affect, increases in flourishing, and
increases in use of strengths, we calculated a weighted mean effect size for each type of
outcome. Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the forest plots for the outcome categories of positive
affect/happiness, depression and life satisfaction, for which there were the most effect sizes.

3.1 Positive Affect or Happiness

Across nine studies, signature character-strength interventions had a significant positive

impact on positive affect or happiness, g = 0.32 (SE = 0.10, 95% CI [0.12, 0.51], p = .002).
Heterogeneity statistics showed a significant Q-Statistic (Q = 27.86, p = .001) and a high
I2 index (I2  =71.29). These results indicate heterogeneity, with the effect sizes across
studies varying somewhat. The I2 index indicates that approximately 71% of the disper-
sion of effect sizes was due to true differences among effects, rather than sampling error.

13
The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions:…

Study name Statistics for each study Hedges's g and 95% CI

Hedges's Standard Lower Upper

g error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value
0.448 Duan et al., (2014) - life satisfaction 0.194 0.037 0.069 0.828 2.317 0.020
0.633 Duan et al. (2014) - life satisfaction 0.192 0.037 0.256 1.010 3.293 0.001
1.227 Harzer & Ruch, 2016 - life satisfaction 0.208 0.043 0.820 1.634 5.911 0.000
0.115 Meyers & Woerkom, 207 - life satisfaction 0.167 0.028 -0.212 0.443 0.690 0.490
0.052 Mitchell et al., 2009 - life satisfaction 0.197 0.039 -0.334 0.438 0.263 0.792
0.182 Proctor et al. 2011 - life satisfaction 0.120 0.014 -0.054 0.418 1.513 0.130
0.367 Rust et al., 2009 - life satisfaction 0.244 0.059 -0.111 0.845 1.506 0.132
0.420 0.145 0.021 0.137 0.704 2.904 0.004

-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

Fig. 4  Forest plot for life satisfaction outcomes

These results indicate that across studies effect sizes varied adequately to allow moderator
analyses.
A classic fail-safe N test and Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) trim and fill procedure with
funnel plot tested publication bias. The fail-safe N of 64 indicated that 64 studies finding
no significant impact on strength based interventions on positive affect or happiness would
be needed to bring the meta-analytic effect size to a non-significant result. The funnel plot
was symmetrical, and Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill indicated that no samples needed
be trimmed.

3.2 Moderator Analyses

3.2.1 Meta‑regression Analyses

Method of moments meta-regression assessed the association between effect size for posi-
tive affect or happiness and the following continuous variables: duration of the interven-
tion, number of weeks between the start of intervention and final between-groups assess-
ment, mean age of samples, and percentage of females in samples. Method of moments
meta-regression provides information regarding how study-level continuous variables are
associated with differences in effect sizes across studies. None of the continuous modera-
tors significantly influenced the effect size of the impact of the intervention across studies.
The meta-regression showed no significant effects. The association between the duration
of the intervention and effect size had a slope of − 0.04, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [− 0.13, 0.06],
p = .45. The association between the number of weeks between the start of the intervention and
final assessment with effect size had a slope of − 0.01, SE = 0.011, 95% CI [− 0.03, 0.013],
p  =  .49. The association between mean age of samples and effect size had a slope of 0.01,
SE = 0.001, 95% CI [− 0.01, 0.02], p = .53. The association between percentage of females in
samples and effect size had a slope of − 0.01, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [− 0.03, 0.01], p = .26.

3.2.2 Categorical Moderator Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of the categorical moderator analyses for whether the study used
random assignment and the nature of the comparison group. The categorical moderator
analyses showed no significant difference between categories comprising the moderators.

13
 N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff

Table 2  Categorical moderator Category g 95% CI Z p k

analyses for positive affect/
happiness Assignment to condition, Q(1) = 0.05, p = .82
Not random 0.36 − 0.15, 0.87 1.39 .16 3
Random 0.30 0.087, 0.51 2.26 .005 6
Type of comparison group, Q(1) = 0.26, p = .61
Active 0.27 0.04, 0.50 2.26 .02 5
Waitlist 0.39 − 0.01, 0.79 1.91 .06 4

g = Point estimate of the effect size (Hedges’ g); CI = the 95% lower
and upper limits of d; Z  =  z test for g; k  =  the number of outcomes
associated with the d value; Q = test statistic determining whether the
effect varies significantly between the subcategories of the moderator
variable (random effects model used)

3.3 Depression

Across seven studies, signature character-strength interventions had a significant impact

on decreases in depression, g = 0.21 (SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.08, 0.34], p = .001). Het-
erogeneity statistics did not show a significant Q-Statistic (5.27, p  =  .51) and found a
low I2 index (I2 = 0). These results indicate that across studies effect sizes did not vary
enough to justify moderator analyses.
A classic fail-safe N test and Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill procedure with fun-
nel plot tested publication bias. The fail-safe N of 17 indicated that 17 studies finding
no significant impact of strengths based interventions on depression would be needed
to bring the meta-analytic effect size to a non-significant result. The funnel plot was
symmetrical, and Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill indicated that no results need be
trimmed.

3.4 Life Satisfaction

Across seven samples, signature character-strength interventions had a significant

impact on life satisfaction g = 0.42 (SE = 0.15, 95% CI [0.14, 0.71], p = .004). Hetero-
geneity statistics showed a significant Q-Statistic (26.49, p = .0001) and an I2 index of
77.35. These results indicate that across studies effect sizes varied adequately to allow
moderator analyses.
A classic fail-safe N test and Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) trim and fill procedure
with funnel plot tested publication bias. The fail-safe N of 56 indicated that 56 studies
finding no significant impact on strength based interventions on life satisfaction would
be needed to bring the meta-analytic effect size to a non-significant result. The funnel
plot was asymmetrical, and Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill suggested that one sample
should be trimmed; after trimming g was 0.37.

13
The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions:…

3.5 Moderator Analyses

3.5.1 Meta‑regression Analyses

Method of moments meta-regression assessed the association between effect size for life
satisfaction and the following continuous variables: duration of the intervention, num-
ber of weeks between the start of intervention and final between-groups assessment,
mean age of samples, and percentage of females in samples.
All the meta-regressions were nonsignificant. The association between the duration
of the intervention and effect size had a slope of −  0.01, SE  =  0.02, 95% CI [−  0.05,
0.03], p = .56. The association between the number of weeks between the start of the
intervention and final assessment with effect size had a slope of 0.02, SE = 0.02, 95%
CI [− 0.01, 0.07], p = .15. The association between mean age of samples and effect size
had a slope of 0.01, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [− 0.02, 0.04], p = .66. The association between
percentage of females in samples and effect size had a slope of − 0.02, SE = 0.01, 95%
CI [− 0.04, 0.08], p = .08.

3.5.2 Categorical Moderator Analyses

Table  3 shows the results of the categorical moderator analyses for whether the study
used random assignment and the nature of the comparison group. The categorical mod-
erator analyses showed no significant difference between categories comprising the
moderators.

3.6 Negative Affect

Across two studies, signature character-strength interventions did not have a significant
impact on negative affect, g = 1.53 (SE = 1.45, 95% CI [-1.32, 4.38, p = .29). Heteroge-
neity statistics showed a significant Q-Statistic (Q = 86.26, p = .0001) and an I2 index
of 98.84. As there were only two effect sizes in this outcome category and the overall
effect was nonsignificant, moderator analyses were not appropriate and testing for publi-
cation bias was not possible.

Table 3  Categorical moderator Category g 95% CI Z p k

analyses for life satisfaction
Assignment to condition, Q(1) = 0.29, p = .59
Not random 0.32 0.013, 0.50 3.34 .001 5
Random 0.64 − 0.51, 1.79 1.08 .27 2
Type of comparison group, Q(1) = 2.45, p = .12
Active 0.12 0.12, 1.05 2.47 .01 4
Waitlist 0.19 0.01, 0.37 2.07 .04 3

g = Point estimate of the effect size (Hedges’ g); CI = the 95% lower
and upper limits of d; Z  =  z test for g; k  =  the number of outcomes
associated with the d value; Q = test statistic determining whether the
effect varies significantly between the subcategories of the moderator
variable (random effects model used)

13
 N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff

3.7 Flourishing

Across two studies, signature character-strength interventions had a significant positive

impact on flourishing, g = 0.36 (SE = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.69], p = .03). Heterogene-
ity statistics showed a non-significant Q-Statistic (Q = 0.76, p = .38) and an I2 index of
0. With only two studies, testing for publication bias was not possible and moderator
analyses were not appropriate.

3.8 Use of Strengths

Across two studies, signature character-strength interventions had a significant impact

on increases in use of strengths, g = 0.55 (SE = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.87], p = .001).
Heterogeneity statistics showed a non-significant Q-Statistic (Q = 0.05, p = .82) and an
I2 index of 0. Testing for publication bias was not possible, and moderator analyses were
not appropriate.

4 Discussion

This meta-analytic investigation statistically consolidated results of studies investigat-

ing the effect of signature character strength interventions. Twenty-nine effect sizes
reported in fourteen articles, some reporting on multiple samples, allowed examina-
tion of the impact of signature strength interventions compared to control conditions
for several types of outcomes. Across nine studies investigating the impact of signature
strength interventions on positive affect or happiness, the interventions had a significant
impact, with a weighted Hedges’ g of 0.32. Across seven studies investigating decreases
in depression, signature strength interventions had a significant impact on decreases in
depression, with a weighted Hedges’ g of 0.21. Across seven samples examining life
satisfaction, signature strength interventions had a significant effect, with a weighted
Hedges’ g of 0.42. Across two studies examining flourishing, signature-strength inter-
ventions had a significant impact on increases in flourishing, with a weighted Hedges’ g
of 0.36. Across two studies investigating the effect of interventions on level of signature
strengths, the interventions had a significant impact on increases in level of strengths,
with a weighted Hedges’ g of 0.55. Across two studies examining negative affect, inter-
ventions did not have a significant impact.
By focusing on studies that aimed to increase use of signature character strengths, the
meta-analysis produced results specific enough to help guide researchers in planning future
research and to aid professionals in helping clients thrive. By combining statistically the
results of many studies, done by different researchers and using different samples, using
a total of hundreds of participants, the meta-analysis produced results more likely to be
meaningful and generalizable than any one study.
According to Jackson and Turner (2017), five or more effect sizes are needed to achieve
reasonable power in random effects meta-analyses. The outcomes of happiness, depression,
and life satisfaction reached this criterion in the present meta-analysis. Happiness, depres-
sion, and life satisfaction all showed significant effects from the intervention. The other
types of outcomes examined, including negative affect, flourishing, and use of signature
character strengths, did not have at least five outcomes, and the meta-analytic effects sizes

13
The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions:…

for these outcomes should be interpreted as preliminary. Overall, the broad scope of the
outcome measures with significant meta-analytic effects is noteworthy.
These results suggest that signature strength interventions have beneficial effects with
regard to positive aspects of life such as positive affect and life satisfaction, as well as with
regard to depression. That finding supports Seligman’s (2002) model in which identifying
and using signature character strengths are important foundations for flourishing in life.
Because the studies included in the meta-analysis used experimental methods, the results
provide important support for causal elements of the model. The results specifically sup-
port applied applications of the model to increase well-being.
Signature character strength interventions seem to have the potential to increase well-
being, as indicated by increases in positive affect or happiness and life satisfaction and
decreases in depression. The studies included in the meta-analysis compared participants in
intervention conditions to control conditions and thus provide some information regarding
causality. The results relating to the impact of signature strength interventions suggest a
causal role for strengths impacting well-being. These results complement findings regard-
ing the correlation of strengths with well-being (e.g., Proctor et al. 2011a, b).
The results relating to the significant increase in use of signature strengths are inform-
ative for several reasons. A high level of signature strengths use has correlates such as
progress in reaching goals (Linley et al. 2010), better work performance, (Littman-Ovadia
et  al. 2017), and better academic performance (Lounsbury et  al. 2009). Further, the sig-
nificant increase in signature strengths in intervention conditions compared to control con-
ditions can be viewed as a manipulation check of signature strength interventions as one
would expect these interventions to specifically impact level of signature strengths as part
of producing other benefits.
The present results add important information to the review by Ghielen et al. (2017) of
strength interventions in the broad sense. The meta-analysis includes many more between-
groups studies of interventions aimed at increasing signature character strengths (14 com-
pared to 7), covers all relevant studies of that sort rather than focusing on a span of 6 years,
focuses only on interventions aimed at increasing signature character strengths, provides
statistical analyses of the aggregated studies for specific types of outcomes, and provides
moderator results. The statistical analyses allow prediction of likely effects sizes in future
applications of signature character strengths interventions in practice and in research.
Only the outcome categories of positive affect or happiness and life satisfaction had
enough studies, an overall significant effect size, and adequate heterogeneity to allow mod-
erator analyses. Neither continuous moderators, such as mean age of participants in studies
or percent of women in studies, nor categorical moderators, such as random assignment to
conditions, showed significant moderating effects.
Many of the studies included in the meta-analyses had long-term follow-ups. The
researchers deserve credit for this valuable methodological attribute. However, the attrition
rate was quite high, reaching over 70% in some studies. Using intention to treat analysis, as
done by Mitchell et al. (2009), helps to some extent in such cases.

4.1 Implications

The main implication of the results is that interventions aimed at increasing use of signa-
ture character strengths can be useful in increasing positive affect and life satisfaction and
decreasing depression. A second implication is that the model of use of signature character
strengths leading to flourishing is worthy of further research.

13
 N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff

5 Limitations

Some cautions relating to interpreting the results of the meta-analysis follow. Analyses for
most outcome categories were based on few effect sizes and consequently had low power
to detect significant effects. As further studies examining the impact of signature strength
interventions are done, the overall effect sizes for different outcome categories may change,
and effect sizes found to be significant across studies to date may no longer be significant
or effect sizes not found to be significant may become significant as more studies are con-
ducted. The small number of effect sizes also made it difficult to detect moderating effects
of intervention parameters, such as the length of the intervention. As more studies of
strength-based interventions are conducted, it may be possible to identify such moderators.

6 Future Research

The initial promising results found from consolidating results of studies of the impact of
signature strength interventions suggest that more research in this area would be beneficial.
Such research might seek to replicate results regarding the impact of signature strength
interventions with a variety of populations. Research with participants from different
cultures would shed further light on the generalizability of impact of signature character
strength interventions. Research with participants facing challenges, such as illness or loss,
would provide information to those assisting individuals in challenging circumstances.
Research focusing on the impact of signature character strength interventions on a variety
of outcomes, such as work-related outcomes or health-related behavior outcomes, would
have both theoretical and practical value. More research systematically varying facets of
signature character strength interventions, such as the length of interventions and spe-
cific aspects of delivery of the intervention, would assist in identifying optimally benefi-
cial intervention delivery conditions. Future research might investigate the most effective
ways of assessing outcomes such as positive affect and depression in the context of signa-
ture character strength interventions. Finally, future research could explore mediators of
effect size. Do the interventions work by changing thoughts or behaviors? Which thoughts?
Which behaviors?
Using random assignment to condition would help future studies demonstrate causation.
Assessing use of character strengths, as well as assessing the primary goals of the interven-
tion, would help evaluate the mechanisms of changes. Using at least one comparison group
that involves positive thinking of some sort could also help researchers elucidate casual
mechanisms. For the most useful assessment of duration of effects, it would be helpful to
retain most participants through the final assessment.
In conclusion, the results of the meta-analysis suggest that overall signature strength
interventions can have a beneficial impact. The promising effects shown in existing studies
indicate that more research in this area is warranted.

13
The Impact of Signature Character Strengths Interventions:…

References

Note: References for studies included in the meta analysis are marked with*.

Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength devel-
opment and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 106–118.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester:
Wiley.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 3)
[computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. In A. K. S. Cameron, B. J. E. Dutton, & C. R. E.
Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 111–121). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human
strengths across culture and history. Review of general psychology, 9, 203–213.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Ameri‑
can Psychologist, 55, 34.
*Duan, W., & Bu, H. (2017). Randomized trial investigating a single-session character-strength-based cognitive
intervention on freshman’s adaptability. Research on Social Work Practice. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10497​
31517​69952​5.
*Duan, W., Ho, S. M., Tang, X., Li, T., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Character strength-based intervention to promote
satisfaction with life in the Chinese university context. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1347–1361.
Dubreuil, P., Forest, J., Gillet, N., Fernet, C., Thibault-Landry, A., Crevier-Braud, L., et al. (2016). Facilitat-
ing well-being and performance through the development of strengths at work: Results from an inter-
vention program. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4104​
2-016-0001-8
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for
publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.
*Forest, J., Mageau, G. A., Crevier-Braud, L., Bergeron, É., Dubreuil, P., & Lavigne, G. L. (2012). Harmonious
passion as an explanation of the relation between signature strengths’ use and well-being at work: Test of
an intervention program. Human Relations, 65, 1233–1252.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing.
American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.
*Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strength-based positive interventions: Further evi-
dence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies,
14, 1241–1259.
Ghielen, S. T. S., van Woerkom, M., & Christina Meyers, M. (2017). Promoting positive outcomes
through strengths interventions: A literature review. The Journal of Positive Psychology. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/17439​760.2017.13651​64.
*Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2012). When the job is a calling: The role of applying one’s signature strengths at
work. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 362–371.
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive experiences at
work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 965–983.
Jackson, D., & Turner, R. (2017). Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Meth‑
ods. http://onlin​elibr​ary.wiley​.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1240/pdf.
Jayawickreme, E., Forgeard, M. J., & Seligman, M. E. (2012). The engine of well-being. Review of General
Psychology, 16, 327–342.
Kobau, R., Seligman, M. E., Peterson, C., Diener, E., Zack, M. M., Chapman, D., et al. (2011). Mental health
promotion in public health: Perspectives and strategies from positive psychology. American Journal of
Public Health, 101, e1–e9.
Koydemir, S., & Sun-Selışık, Z. E. (2016). Well-being on campus: Testing the effectiveness of an online
strengths-based intervention for first year college students. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling,
44, 434–446.
Linkins, M., Niemiec, R. M., Gillham, J., & Mayerson, D. (2015). Through the lens of strength: A framework
for educating the heart. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 64–68.
Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit of
goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for coaching psycholo-
gists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5, 6–15.

13
 N. S. Schutte, J. M. Malouff

Littman-Ovadia, H., Lavy, S., & Boiman-Meshita, M. (2017). When theory and research collide: Examining
correlates of signature strengths use at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 527–548.
Littman-Ovadia, H., Lazar-Butbul, V., & Benjamin, B. A. (2014). Strengths-based career counseling: Overview
and initial evaluation. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 403–419.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Niemiec, R. M. (2016). Character strengths and mindfulness as core pathways to mean-
ing in life. In P. Russo-Netzer, S. E. Schulenberg, & A. Batthyany (Eds.), Clinical perspectives on meaning
(pp. 383–405). Cham: Springer.
Lounsbury, J. W., Fisher, L. A., Levy, J. J., & Welsh, D. P. (2009). An investigation of character strengths in
relation to the academic success of college students. Individual Differences Research, 7, 52–69.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to
success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
*Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2017). Effects of a strengths intervention on general and work-related
well-being: The mediating role of positive affect. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 671–689.
Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., de Reuver, R. S., Bakk, Z., & Oberski, D. L. (2015). Enhancing psycho-
logical capital and personal growth initiative: Working on strengths or deficiencies. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 62, 50.
*Mitchell, J., Stanimirovic, R., Klein, B., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2009). A randomised controlled trial of a self-
guided internet intervention promoting well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 749–760.
*Mongrain, M., & Anselmo-Matthews, T. (2012). Do positive psychology exercises work? A replication of
Seligman et al. (2005). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 382–389.
Niemiec, R. M., Shogren, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2017). Character strengths and intellectual and devel-
opmental disability: A strengths-based approach from positive psychology. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 13–25.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US
states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118–129.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011a). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related
quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 153–169.
*Proctor, C., Tsukayama, E., Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Eades, J. F., & Linley, P. A. (2011b). Strengths gym: The
impact of a character strengths-based intervention on the life satisfaction and well-being of adolescents.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 377–388.
Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2013). What good are character strengths beyond subjec-
tive well-being? The contribution of the good character on self-reported health-oriented behavior, physical
fitness, and the subjective health status. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 222–232.
*Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2015). Strengths-based positive psychology interven-
tions: a randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term effects for a signature strengths-vs. a
lesser strengths-intervention. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 456. https​://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg​.2015.00456​.
Quinlan, D., Swain, N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2012). Character strengths interventions: Building on what we
know for improved outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 1145–1163.
*Rust, T., Diessner, R., & Reade, L. (2009). Strengths only or strengths and relative weaknesses? A preliminary
study. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 465–476.
Seligman, 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., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical vali-
dation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.
*Senf, K., & Liau, A. K. (2013). The effects of positive interventions on happiness and depressive symptoms,
with an examination of personality as a moderator. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 591–612.
Shepherd, J., Oliver, M., & Schofield, G. (2015). Convergent validity and test–retest reliability of the authentic
happiness inventory in working adults. Social Indicators Research, 124, 1049–1058.
van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. B., & Nishii, L. H. (2016). Accumulative job demands and support for strength
use: Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101, 141.
*Waters, L., & Sun, J. (2017). Can a brief strength-based parenting intervention boost self-efficacy and posi-
tive emotions in parents? International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 1, 1–16. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s4104​2-017-0007-x.

13