Character Strengths & Cognitive Vulnerabilities - Huta & Hawley (2010)

8/17/2019 Character Strengths & Cognitive Vulnerabilities - Huta & Hawley (2010)

1/23

R E S E A R C H PA P E R

Psychological Strengths and Cognitive Vulnerabilities:Are They Two Ends of the Same Continuum or Do TheyHave Independent Relationships with Well-beingand Ill-being?

Veronika Huta Lance Hawley

Published online: 23 October 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Research programs examining psychological strengths and vulnerabilities haveremained largely separate, making it difcult to determine the relative contributions of strengths and vulnerabilities to well-being. Two studies (241 normals, 54 depressed out-patients) compared certain psychological strengths (Transcendence subscales, Values InAction Inventory of Strengths) and cognitive vulnerabilities (Dysfunctional AttitudesScale). In multiple regression, strengths usually related more to positive well-being—life

satisfaction, positive affect, vitality, meaning, elevating experience—though vulnerabili-ties also related to the rst three variables; vulnerabilities related more to illbeing—negative affect, depression—though hope, humor, enthusiasm, and forgiveness sometimesalso showed relationships. Pre-treatment strengths (hope, spirituality, appreciation of beauty and excellence) predicted post-treatment recovery from depression; cognitivevulnerabilities did not. Strengths and vulnerabilities sometimes interacted, with strengthsweakening the relationship between vulnerabilities and well-being. Our ndings indicatethat strengths and vulnerabilities are not mere opposites (correlating at most moderately)and deserve study as distinct contributors to well-being.

Keywords Strength of character Dysfunctional attitude Predisposition Well-being Major depression Recovery

Recently, there has been tremendous growth in research on character strengths and theirrole in personal well-being—variables such as hope, gratitude, and spirituality have beenassociated with a variety of well-being outcomes (e.g., Emmons et al. 1998 ; Emmons and

V. Huta ( & )School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier Street, Ottawa,ON, Canada K1N 6N5e-mail: [email protected]

L. HawleyClarke Division, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College Street, Toronto,ON, Canada M5T 1R8

1 3

J Happiness Stud (2010) 11:71–93DOI 10.1007/s10902-008-9123-4


2/23

McCullough 2003 ; Park et al. 2004 ; Peterson 2006 ; Peterson et al. 2007 ; Scheier et al.2001 ; Snyder 2000 ). At the same time, there is a vast and long-standing literature onindividual differences in cognitive vulnerabilities—variables such as perfectionism/self-criticism and excessive need for approval are well known to foster psychological ill-being

(e.g., Antony et al. 1998 ; Blatt 2004 ; Blatt et al. 1995 ; Blatt and Zuroff 1992 ; Brown andBeck 2002 ; Hawley et al. 2006 ; Zuroff et al. 2004 ). To date, these two bodies of literaturehave remained largely separate. It is therefore unclear how psychological strengths andcognitive vulnerabilities relate to each other, and what their independent relationships arewith positive well-being and ill-being. The purpose of the present article was to addressthese two questions.

A review of the existing literature suggests what pattern of results might be expected.Previous research examining cognitive vulnerabilities has largely focused on negativeoutcomes, such as negative affect and depression (Beck et al. 1983 ; Flett and Hewitt 2002 ;Scher et al. 2005 ). In contrast, the majority of research on character strengths has focusedon positive well-being such as life satisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem (Petersonand Seligman 2004 ), though there has been some work on their links with ill-being (seereview below). If we assume that these two literatures were guided by clinical experienceand by other expert observation, then we would expect that vulnerabilities will indeedrelate mainly to ill-being, while strengths will primarily relate to positive well-being. Also,a number of studies have examined neuroticism and extraversion simultaneously in rela-tion to well-being. The operationalization of these traits includes characteristics that arestrengths and vulnerabilities, such as activity/enthusiasm as a facet of extraversion, andself-consciousness/self-criticism as a facet of neuroticism. Studies comparing neuroticism

and extraversion have often found that neuroticism was more related to ill-being, whileextraversion was more related to positive well-being (e.g., Costa and McCrae 1980 ;McCrae and Costa 1991 ). Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the psychologicaland brain mechanisms underlying positive affect and negative affect are to some degreedistinct (Davidson and Irwin 1999 ; Davidson et al. 2000 ; Diener and Emmons 1984 ;Diener and Iran-Nejad 1986 ; Elliot and Thrash 2002 ; Watson and Tellegen 1985 ). Thislends further support to the idea that positive and negative well-being may have differentcorrelates, and raises the possibility that strengths primarily interact with the mechanismsinvolving positive experiences, while vulnerabilities primarily interact with negativeexperiences.

Based on these considerations, we had the following predictions for the studies pre-sented here: (1) strengths and vulnerabilities will not correlate strongly enough to suggestthat they are simply opposite ends of the same continuum; (2) strengths will more con-sistently and more strongly have independent relationships with positive well-being thanwill vulnerabilities; (3) vulnerabilities will more consistently and more strongly haveindependent relationships with ill-being than will strengths.

There were two additional topics we wished to investigate in this research. First, one of our samples consisted of clinically depressed outpatients whom we assessed before andafter they received a standardized cognitive behavior therapy intervention. We were

therefore in a position to study the power of pre-treatment strengths and vulnerabilities topredict post-treatment reduction of depression symptoms. Quite a few studies haveexamined the inuence of pre-treatment cognitive vulnerabilities or changes in cognitivevulnerabilities early in treatment on the level of symptoms later in treatment or at the endof treatment—the majority have found a signicant effect (Blatt et al. 1995 , 1998 ;DeRubeis et al. 1990 ; Hamilton and Dobson 2002 ; Hawley et al. 2006 ; Shahar et al. 2003 ),although a few have found no effect (Jarrett et al. 2007 ; Kwon and Oei 2003 ; Otto et al.

72 V. Huta, L. Hawley

1 3


3/23

2007 ). We therefore hypothesized that pre-treatment vulnerabilities would predict degreeof depression recovery at post-treatment. We also expected strengths to play a predictiverole—while we expected strengths to relate less to initial depression severity than vul-nerabilities would, we thought that strengths may play some role in depression recovery, to

the degree that recovery represents active movement towards positive well-being.Although little research has examined the impact of strengths on depression reduction in atherapy setting, several studies have shown that: character strengths predict a decrease indepression symptoms over time (Braam et al. 1997 , 2004 ; Nezu et al. 1988 ; Orcutt 2006 );interventions aimed at promoting strengths can signicantly reduce depression symptoms(Cheavens et al. 2006 ; Gillham 2000 ; Reed and Enright 2006 ; Seligman et al. 2005 , 2006 );and strengths can reduce the toll of mental illness on life satisfaction ( Peterson et al. 2006 ).Thus, we expected both pre-treatment vulnerabilities and strengths to predict post-treat-ment depression improvement, though we did not have a prediction about the relativemagnitudes of these inuences.

The nal topic we wished to address concerned the interaction of strengths andvulnerabilities when predicting well-being. Little work has specically focused on thisquestion. Strengths and vulnerabilities might interact in different ways: (1) vulnerabilitiesmay undermine the benets of strengths, such that strengths have weaker links with well-being among highly vulnerable individuals; (2) alternatively, strengths may be especiallyimportant in cases of high vulnerability, such that strengths have stronger links with well-being among highly vulnerable individuals. We planned to test these competing hypothesesin our studies.

Psychological strengths were assessed using the transcendence scales of the Values in

Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) (Peterson and Seligman 2001 , 2004 ), which is themost comprehensive cross-culturally validated measure of psychological strengths. TheVIA-IS measures a total of 24 psychological strengths and virtues. However, in one of thepopulations we planned to study, a clinically depressed sample, we could not assess all 24VIA-IS strengths due to time constraints. We therefore focused on a subset of strengthsthroughout this article—the subset that Seligman ( 2002 ) identied as representing acapacity for transcendence, i.e., having a broader perspective beyond immediate concerns.The transcendence strengths are hope, enthusiasm, humor, gratitude, appreciation of beautyand excellence, spirituality, and forgiveness. We chose the transcendence group because itincludes the majority of strengths most related to positive well-being in past research,including hope, enthusiasm, gratitude, and spirituality (Park et al. 2004 ; Peterson et al.2007 ; Peterson 2006 ). In addition, more often than any other cluster of VIA-IS strengths,the strengths in the transcendence cluster have been linked with depression and negativeaffect (see review below). We might also expect a relationship between transcendence andill-being from a conceptual standpoint—negative affect and depression are related to anarrow and rigid attentional focus, which is the opposite of a transcendent perspective(Compton 2000 ; Ingram 1990 ; Nolen-Hoeksema 2000 ; Seligman 1990 ).

We assessed psychological vulnerabilities using the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale(DAS) (Weissman and Beck 1978 ), the most widely used measure of cognitive vulnera-

bility, which has been studied in relation to a variety of mental disorders, most often majordepression (e.g., Brown and Beck 2002 ; DeRubeis et al. 1990 ; Golden et al. 2006 ; Rector2004 ; Wright et al. 2005 ; Zuroff et al. 1999 . The DAS measures individual differences invarious dysfunctional tendencies, including perfectionism and excessive need for approvalfrom others (Cane et al. 1986 ; Imber et al. 1990 ).

We tested our hypotheses in two populations, using several different well-being vari-ables. In our rst study, we investigated psychologically healthy individuals to compare

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities 73

1 3


4/23

strengths and vulnerabilities in relation to several positive well-being measures, as well asnegative affect and depression. The positive outcomes included those most commonlystudied—life satisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem. They also included several otheroutcomes, in the interest of assessing well-being more broadly: vitality, a positive feeling

of aliveness and energy (Ryan and Frederick 1997 ); a sense of meaning as a well-beingoutcome (Huta and Ryan 2008 ); and elevating experience , which includes awe, moralelevation and inspiration, and a sense of connection with a greater whole (Huta and Ryan2008 ). All three of these additional well-being variables have proven to be distinct frommore routinely assessed concepts, and have contributed important information about thewell-being benets of various individual differences (Huta and Ryan 2008 ; Huta andGrouzet 2008 ; McGregor and Little 1998 ; Nix et al. 1999 ; Prosnick 1997 ; Ryan andFrederick 1997 ). In our second study, we expanded our analysis of negative outcomes byfollowing clinically depressed clients and measuring their depression severity both beforeand after they received therapy.

In addition to testing our general hypotheses about strengths, vulnerabilities, and well-being, the present research permitted us to address several specic gaps in the literature,regarding zero-order correlations between certain well-being variables and certainstrengths or vulnerabilities. While the transcendence strengths have been related to lifesatisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem (Peterson and Seligman 2004 ), less is knownabout their links with vitality, meaning, and elevating experience, though a few of theselinks have been established. Vitality is related to enthusiasm (Peterson and Seligman2004 ), meaning has often been linked with spirituality (e.g., Park 2006 ; Steger and Frazier2005 ; Wong 1998 ), and aspects of elevating experience have been related to both spiri-

tuality (Emmons 2000 ; Keltner and Haidt 2003 ; Underwood and Teresi 2002 ; Seidlitzet al. 2002 ) and appreciation of beauty and excellence (Haidt 2000 , 2003 ; Keltner andHaidt 2003 ; Peterson and Seligman 2004 ). However, little is known about the remaininglinks between the transcendence strengths and vitality, meaning, and elevating experience.

Depression and negative affect have been linked with most of the transcendencestrengths, though little work has addressed their links with appreciation of beauty andexcellence. Depression and negative affect have clearly shown negative links with hope/ optimism (e.g., Abramson et al. 1989 ; Chang 2001 ; Chang and DeSimone 2001 ; Cheavenset al. 2006 ; Gillham 2000 ), spirituality (e.g., Baetz et al. 2002 ; Braam et al. 2004 ; Kendleret al. 2003 ; Modi et al. 2006 ; Park et al. 1990 ; Smith et al. 2003 ), forgiveness (e.g.,Brown 2003 ; Lawler-Row and Piferi 2006 ; Orcutt 2006 ; Reed and Enright 2006 ;Thompson et al. 2005 ), and humor (e.g., Kuiper et al. 2004 ; Martin et al. 2003 ; Nezu et al.1988 ; Thorson et al. 1997 ). A number of studies have shown negative links of depressionand negative affect with gratitude (McCullough et al. 2002 ; Seligman et al. 2005 , 2006 ;Wood et al. 2007 ). Also, though little research has explicitly studied the correlations of depression and negative affect with enthusiasm, the related concept of low interest andpleasure in life is a diagnostic symptom of depression (Diagnostic and Statistical Manualof Mental Disorders, DSM-IV-TR).

Perfectionism, need for approval, and dysfunctional attitudes in general have clearly

been linked to depression and negative affect, but less is known about their relationshipwith certain forms of positive well-being. These vulnerabilities have often been linked withlow self-esteem (e.g., Ashby and Rice 2002 ; Flett and Hewitt 2002 ; Grzegorek et al. 2004 ;Rice et al. 1998 ; Stumpf and Parker 2000 ). In addition, a number of studies have shownlinks with low positive affect (Besser et al. 2004 ; Dunkley et al. 2003 , 2006 ; Frost et al.1993 ; Kobori and Tanno 2005 ; Molnar et al. 2006 ; Saboonchi and Lundh 2003 ) and lowlife satisfaction (Chang 2000 ; Gilman and Ashby 2003 ; Gilman et al. 2005 ; Rice and


1 3


5/23

Ashby 2007 ). However, no research has been conducted on the relationship of dysfunc-tional attitudes with vitality, meaning, or any of the aspects of elevating experience. Insum, our research was an opportunity to more fully address the links between strengths,vulnerabilities, and different forms of well-being.

1 Study 1: Strengths versus Vulnerabilities in a Normal Sample

Our rst study was conducted in a non-depressed sample and focused on a variety of positive well-being variables as well as on negative affect and depression.

1.1 Method

1.1.1 Participants

Participants were 241 undergraduates at a private university in the northeast U.S. Theirmean age was 19.61 years (SD = 1.45); 66% were female; and 66% were White, with17% Asian, 6% Hispanic, 5% Black, 3% East Indian/Pakistani, 1% Middle Eastern, and1% of mixed ethnic origin.

1.1.2 Procedure

Participants completed the study as a 30-min web-based survey. The survey was one of many studies that participants could choose from on a standardized web-based system, toobtain credit in psychology courses.

1.1.3 Measures

1.1.3.1 Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS); Peterson and Seligman2001 ) This measure was developed to assess psychological strengths that are valuedacross different cultures. Each strength is represented by a 10-item scale. We assessed theseven transcendence strengths: enthusiasm (Cronbach’s alpha a = .83 in the present

study), hope (a =

.84), humor (a =

.87), gratitude (a =

.84), appreciation of beauty andexcellence ( a = .85), spirituality ( a = .88), and forgiveness ( a = .87). Participants areasked to describe ‘‘what you are like.’’ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from‘‘very much unlike me’’ to ‘‘very much like me.’’

1.1.3.2 Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS; Weissman and Beck 1978 ) This scale wasoriginally developed to assess cognitive vulnerabilities that predispose people to depres-sion and has since been used in research on depression and many other disorders. Form Aof the DAS was used in this research, which has 40 items and has demonstrated goodpsychometric properties (Dobson and Breiter 1983 ; Weissman and Beck 1978 ). There aretwo subscales that researchers often employ, originally derived by principal componentsanalysis with Varimax rotation: a 15-item subscale measuring perfectionism (a tendency toengage in an overly harsh, self-critical style when failing to meet self-imposed standards),and an 11-item subscale measuring need for approval (a tendency to place excessiveimportance on other peoples’ judgments) (Imber et al. 1990 ). In the current research, thefull 40-item DAS Total scale as well as the perfectionism and need for approval subscales


1 3


6/23

were employed. The items were scored on a 7-point scale from ‘‘totally disagree’’ to‘‘totally agree.’’ In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the DAS Total was .93, forperfectionism was .91, and for need for approval was .80.

1.1.3.3 Beck Depression Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996 ) This is themost widely used measure of depression severity. It is a self-report questionnaire con-sisting of 21 multiple-choice questions about key depression symptoms such as sadness,pessimism, and loss of pleasure, rated from 0 (absence of symptom) to 3 (severe mani-festation of symptom). We used 20 of the items, omitting one item inquiring about suicidalideation, because this research was conducted in a non-clinical setting and there was notadequate clinical support to deal with reports of suicidality. Participants indicated how theyfelt during the past month. The BDI-II has very good psychometric properties (e.g., Beck et al. 1996 ; Steer et al. 1997 ). The alpha for the 20 items in the present study was .89.

1.1.3.4 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al. 1985 ) This 5-item scale mea-sures global satisfaction with one’s life. Sample items are: ‘‘I am satised with my life’’and ‘‘in most ways, my life is close to my ideal.’’ The scale is rated from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The alpha was .87.

1.1.3.5 Positive Affect and Negative Affect (Diener and Emmons 1984 ) These wereassessed by a commonly used set of nine items. Positive affect was assessed with ‘‘happy,’’‘‘joyful,’’ ‘‘pleased,’’ and ‘‘enjoyment/fun;’’ negative affect items was assessed with‘‘unhappy,’’ ‘‘depressed,’’ ‘‘worried/anxious,’’ ‘‘angry/hostile,’’ and ‘‘frustrated.’’ For these

and all remaining well-being items below, participants were asked to report ‘‘how youtypically feel.’’ The items were rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Alphas were .86for positive affect and .82 for negative affect.

1.1.3.6 Self-Esteem (Robins et al. 2001 ) This was assessed using a well-validated single-item measure that reads ‘‘I have high self-esteem,’’ rated from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (verymuch true).

1.1.3.7 Subjective Vitality Scale (Bostic et al. 2000 ) This was assessed using the 6-item

version of the trait Subjective Vitality Scale from Bostic et al. ( 2000 ), which omits oneitem from the scale originally developed by Ryan and Frederick ( 1997 ). The Bostic et al.(2000 ) version correlates .98 with the original scale and produces a better-tting model.Sample items are: ‘‘I have energy and spirit,’’ and ‘‘I feel energized.’’ The items are ratedfrom 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very much true). The alpha was .92.

1.1.3.8 Meaning (Huta and Grouzet 2008 ) This concept was assessed as a well-beingoutcome state rather than a way of life (e.g., having a framework for interpreting events,having a purpose) (Huta and Ryan 2008 ). It was assessed using a 12-item scale by Huta andGrouzet ( 2008 ) which consists of three facets: how meaningful one feels that one’s

activities and experiences have been, how valuable one feels they have been, and howbroad one feels that their implications have been. The items are ‘‘meaningful,’’ ‘‘full of signicance,’’ ‘‘making a lot of sense to me,’’ ‘‘I could see how they all added up,’’‘‘valuable,’’ ‘‘precious,’’ ‘‘something I could treasure,’’ ‘‘dear to me,’’ ‘‘playing animportant role in some broader picture,’’ ‘‘contributing to various aspects of myself,’’ ‘‘Icould see where they t into the bigger picture,’’ and ‘‘they contributed to my community


1 3


7/23

or the broader world.’’ The items are rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Huta andGrouzet ( 2008 ) showed that all 12 items load onto a single factor that is distinct fromfactors representing other forms of well-being, including positive affect, negative affect,life satisfaction, self-esteem, vitality, and elevating experience. The alpha in the present

study was .95.

1.1.3.9 Elevating Experience (Huta and Grouzet 2008 ) This concept—which includesfeelings of awe, inspiration and moral elevation, and connection with a greater whole—was proposed by Huta and Ryan ( 2008 ) as an important form of well-being that providesvaluable information about the benets of certain individual differences. We used the 12-item version from Huta and Grouzet ( 2008 ), who showed that the items load onto a singlefactor that is distinct from factors representing other forms of well-being, includingpositive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, self-esteem, vitality, and meaning. Theitems are ‘‘in awe,’’ ‘‘in wonder,’’ ‘‘deeply appreciating,’’ ‘‘profoundly touched by expe-riences,’’ ‘‘emotionally moved,’’ ‘‘inspired,’’ ‘‘enriched,’’ ‘‘spiritually uplifted,’’ ‘‘part of some greater entity,’’ ‘‘part of something greater than myself,’’ ‘‘connected with a greaterwhole,’’ and ‘‘like I was in the presence of something grand.’’ They are rated from 1 (not atall) to 7 (extremely). The alpha in the present study was .91.

1.2 Results and Discussion

Of the 33 analyses examining links between the demographic variables and the DASsubscales, the DAS Total score, the seven transcendence scales, and their composite, 28

(85%) were non-signicant. The exceptions were as follows: age was negatively related tohumor ( r = - .14, p \ .05); females reported higher gratitude than males ( t = 2.01, p \ .05); and Whites reported higher humor ( t = 2.63, p \ .01), lower spirituality(t = 3.36, p \ .01), and lower perfectionism ( t = 2.26, p \ .05) than Non-Whites.

The left half of Table 1 shows the Study 1 zero-order correlations between the two DASsubscales, the DAS total score which served as a proxy for ‘‘vulnerabilities in general,’’ theseven VIA-IS transcendence scales, and a composite of the transcendence scales which

Table 1 Zero-order correlations of strengths and vulnerabilities

Study 1—normal sample Study 2—depressed sample

Perfectionism Needapproval

DAStotal

Perfectionism Needapproval

DAStotal

Hope - .38** - .26** - .37** - .14 - .06 - .13

Enthusiasm - .34** - .27** - .37** - .08 - .12 - .12

Humor - .37** - .23** - .39** - .06 - .08 - .13

Gratitude - .36** - .16* - .37** - .09 .02 - .03

Apprec. Beauty & Excell. - .22** - .12 - .24** - .09 - .19 - .10

Spirituality - .24** - .03 - .19** - .30* - .17 - .22

Forgiveness - .31** - .15* - .28** - .26 - .22 - .20

Transcendencecomposite

- .43** - .23** - .42** - .22 - .17 - .20

Note : Need approval = Need for approval; Apprec. Beauty & Excell. = Appreciation of beauty andexcellence

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01


1 3


8/23

served as a proxy for ‘‘strengths in general’’ and which was computed by taking the meanof the seven transcendence scales. A total of 22 of the 24 correlations were signicantlynegative, indicating some shared variance between strengths and vulnerabilities—vulner-abilities may undermine or limit the development of strengths to some extent, or strengths

may provide some resilience against vulnerabilities. However, the correlations were atmost moderate, ranging from - .03 to - .43. Thus, the correlations were not strong enoughto suggest that any of the strengths are simply the opposite of certain vulnerabilities. Thisprovided one form of evidence for the distinctiveness of strengths and vulnerabilities.Furthermore, an exploratory principal components analysis of the seven transcendencescales and the perfectionism and need for approval scales showed that two factors hadeigenvalues of 1 or greater, and together accounted for 62% of the variance. The solutionwas Varimax rotated and the seven strength scales and the two vulnerability scales sep-arated cleanly onto the two factors.

Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations between the strengths and the well-being andill-being variables. All of the transcendence strengths correlated with each positive well-being variable. Thus, we replicated past research showing their links with life satisfaction,positive affect, and self-esteem, as well as the links between vitality and enthusiasm,between meaning and spirituality, and between elevating experience and both spiritualityand appreciation of beauty and excellence. In addition, our data revealed that vitality,meaning, and elevating experience related to all of the other transcendence strengths.

In Table 2, the strengths of hope, enthusiasm, humor, gratitude, and forgiveness relatednegatively to both negative affect and depression, replicating past research showing theirlinks with ill-being. The one result that differed from past research was the absence of a

relationship between ill-being and spirituality. We are unsure why this was a null result.Perhaps it occurred because of the particular constellation of items on the VIA-IS spiri-tuality scale—past ndings have varied depending on the elements of spiritualitymeasured, such as public versus private spirituality (Baetz et al. 2002 , 2004 ; Bosworthet al. 2003 ; Braam et al. 2004 ). Past studies have not examined a link between ill-beingand appreciation of beauty and excellence—our nding suggests that the two constructs areunrelated.

Table 2 also shows the zero-order correlations between vulnerabilities and well-being.DAS vulnerabilities correlated positively with both measures of ill-being, as in pastresearch. The vulnerabilities also had signicant negative relationships with each measureof positive well-being. Past studies have already shown that vulnerabilities relate to lifesatisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem. However, little research has studied their linkswith vitality, meaning, or elevating experience—our ndings show that vulnerabilitiesrelate to these well-being states as well.

The ndings in Table 3 address our general hypotheses about the relative roles of strengths and vulnerabilities in well-being. The rst eight rows show the partial correla-tions of strengths with well-being when controlling for the DAS total score. These partialcorrelations are estimates of how much strengths relate to well-being beyond the role of vulnerabilities. About 43 of the 48 links between positive well-being and strengths

remained signicant, though appreciation of beauty and excellence and spirituality ceasedto relate to life satisfaction or self-esteem, and forgiveness ceased to relate to life satis-faction. Thus, strengths usually had relationships with positive well-being that extendedover and above the relationship that vulnerabilities had with positive well-being. Thissupported our expectation that strengths would have a unique relationship with positiveoutcomes that cannot be reduced to the role of vulnerabilities. Four well-being variablesconsistently had unique links with all of the transcendence strengths—positive affect,


1 3


9/23

T a

b l e 2

Z e r o - o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f w e l l - b e i n g v a r i a b l e s w i t h s t r e n g t h s a n d v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s

S t u d y 1 — N o r m a l s a m p l e

S t u d y 2 —

D e p r . S a m p l e

L i f e S a t .

P o s . A f f

.

S - e s t e e m

V i t a l i t y

M e a n i n g

E l e v a t i n g

N e g . A f f

.

B D I - I I

B D I - I I

H o p e

. 4 7 * *

. 5 0 * *

. 5 2 * *

. 5 1 * *

. 4 8 * *

. 4 7 * *

- . 3 3 * *

- . 3

7 * *

- . 2

4

E n t h u s i a s m

. 4 9 * *

. 5 7 * *

. 4 9 * *

. 7 1 * *

. 5 5 * *

. 5 4 * *

- . 3 1 * *

- . 4

0 * *

- . 2

0

H u m o r

. 3 8 * *

. 5 4 * *

. 4 0 * *

. 5 3 * *

. 3 5 * *

. 3 3 * *

- . 3 4 * *

- . 3

5 * *

- . 1

9

G r a t i t u d e

. 4 1 * *

. 4 3 * *

. 3 7 * *

. 4 8 * *

. 4 6 * *

. 5 4 * *

- . 2 3 * *

- . 2

4 * *

- . 1

2

A p p r e c . B e a u t y & E x c e l l .

. 1 9 * *

. 2 6 * *

. 2 1 * *

. 3 7 * *

. 3 0 * *

. 4 8 * *

- . 1 0

- . 1

1

- . 0

1

S p i r i t u a l i t y

. 2 0 * *

. 2 7 * *

. 1 5 *

. 3 7 * *

. 2 9 * *

. 5 3 * *

- . 1 2

- . 0

9

- . 1

6

F o r g i v e n e s s

. 2 0 * *

. 3 3 * *

. 2 9 * *

. 3 3 * *

. 2 4 * *

. 2 9 * *

- . 2 6 * *

- . 1

9 * *

- . 1

9

T r a n s c e n d e n c e c o m p o s i t e

. 4 4 * *

. 5 5 * *

. 4 5 * *

. 6 3 * *

. 5 0 * *

. 6 2 * *

- . 3 3 * *

- . 3

3 * *

- . 2

4

P e r f e c t i o n i s m

- . 2

8 * *

- . 3

5 * *

- . 3

1 * *

- . 2

9 * *

- . 1

8 * *

- . 1

8 * *

. 4 6 * *

. 4 8 * *

. 4 0 * *

N e e d f o r a p p r o v a l

- . 2

8 * *

- . 2

4 * *

- . 3

3 * *

- . 2

8 * *

- . 1

9 * *

- . 1

6 *

. 3 5 * *

. 2 1 * *

. 3 0 *

D A S t o t a l

- . 3

3 * *

- . 3

7 * *

- . 3

9 * *

- . 3

2 * *

- . 2

5 * *

- . 2

3 * *

. 4 6 * *

. 4 3 * *

. 4 6 * *

N o t e : L i f e S a t . =

L i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n ; P o s . A f f

. = P o s i t i v e a f f e c t ; S - e s t e e m =

S e l f - e s t e e m ; E l e v a t i n g =

E l e v a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e ; N e g . A

f f . =

N e g a t i v e a f f e c t ; B D I - I I

=

B e c k

D e p r e s s i o n I n v e n t o r y

I I m e a s u r e o f d e p r e s s i o n ; A p p r e c . B

e a u t y & E x c e l l .

=

A p p r e c i a t i o n o f b e a u t y a n d e x c e l l e n c e ; S t u d y 2 — D e p r . S a m p l e =

S t u d y 2 — d e p r e s s e d s a m p l e

* p \

. 0 5 ; * * p \ . 0

1


1 3


10/23

T a

b l e 3

P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s o f w e l l - b e i n g v a r i a b l e s w i t h s t r e n g t h s ( c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e D

A S t o t a l ) a n d v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s ( c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e c o m p o s i t e )

S t u d y 1 — N o r m a l s a m p l e

S t u d y 2 —

D e p r . S a m p l e

L i f e S a t .

P o s . A f f

.

S - e s t e e m

V i t a l i t y

M e a n i n g

E l e v a t i n g

N e g . A

f f .

B D I - I I

B D I - I I

H o p e

. 3 7 * *

. 4 2 * *

. 4 1 * *

. 4 3 * *

. 4 2 * *

. 4 3 * *

- . 1 3

- . 2

5 * *

- . 1

5

E n t h u s i a s m

. 3 8 * *

. 4 7 * *

. 3 8 * *

. 6 6 * *

. 5 0 * *

. 5 1 * *

- . 1 2

- . 3

1 * *

- . 0

9

H u m o r

. 3 1 * *

. 4 7 * *

. 3 1 * *

. 4 8 * *

. 2 8 * *

. 2 5 * *

- . 1 8 *

- . 2

3 * *

- . 0

9

G r a t i t u d e

. 3 0 * *

. 3 0 * *

. 2 3 * *

. 3 8 * *

. 3 8 * *

. 4 8 * *

- . 0 1

- . 1

0

- . 0

9

A p p r e c . B e a u t y & E x c e l l .

. 1 0

. 1 8 * *

. 1 1

. 3 1 * *

. 2 6 * *

. 4 5 * *

. 0 9

- . 0

2

. 1 2

S p i r i t u a l i t y

. 1 2

. 1 8 * *

. 0 6

. 3 1 * *

. 2 3 * *

. 5 1 * *

. 0 0

- . 0

1

- . 0

6

F o r g i v e n e s s

. 1 2

. 2 3 * *

. 2 0 * *

. 2 9 * *

. 1 6 *

. 2 5 * *

- . 1 7 *

- . 0

9

- . 0

6

T r a n s c e n d e n c e c o m p o s i t e

. 3 3 * *

. 4 4 * *

. 3 2 * *

. 5 6 * *

. 4 4 * *

. 5 9 * *

- . 0 9

- . 1

9 * *

- . 1

0

P e r f e c t i o n i s m

- . 1

9 * *

- . 2

1 * *

- . 1

9 * *

- . 0

4

- . 0

7

. 0 9

. 4 1 * *

. 4 0 * *

. 4 6 * *

N e e d f o r a p p r o v a l

- . 2

5 * *

- . 1

3

- . 2

6 * *

- . 1

4

- . 1

6 *

- . 0

6

. 2 9 * *

. 1 3

. 3 3 *

D A S t o t a l

- . 2

6 * *

- . 2

2 * *

- . 2

6 * *

- . 0

9

- . 1

4 *

. 0 4

. 4 0 * *

. 3 4 * *

. 5 1 * *

N o t e : L i f e S a t . =

L i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n ; P o s . A f f

. = P o s i t i v e a f f e c t ; S - e s t e e m =

S e l f - e s t e e m ; E l e v a t i n g =

E l e v a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e ; N e g . A

f f . =

N e g a t i v e a f f e c t ; B D I - I I

=

B e c k

D e p r e s s i o n I n v e n t o r y I I m e a s u r e o f d e p r e s s i o n ; A p p r e c . B

e a u t y & E x c e l l .

=

A p p r e c i a t i o n o f b e a u t y a n d e x c e l l e n c e ; S t u d y 2 — D e p r . S a m p l e =

S t u d y 2 — d e p r e s s e d s a m p l e

* p \

. 0 5 ; * * p \ . 0

1


1 3


11/23

vitality, meaning, and elevating experience. The links with elevating experience wereespecially strong. Thus, the less commonly studied outcomes—vitality, meaning, andelevating experience—proved to be important markers of psychological strengths andvirtues.

While the strengths retained most of their links with positive well-being when con-trolling for vulnerabilities, exactly half of their correlations with ill-being ceased to besignicant. More specically, gratitude, appreciation of beauty and excellence, and spir-ituality did not relate to the ill-being variables beyond vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, severalstrengths did show unique relationships with at least one of the ill-being measures—hope,enthusiasm, and humor related to depression, and humor and forgiveness related to neg-ative affect. While each of these strengths have shown zero-order correlations with distressin past research, our ndings demonstrate that they retain these links even when controllingfor well-known vulnerabilities. These results strengthen the argument that certain strengthswarrant attention in the distress literature, and that an exclusive focus on vulnerabilitieswould be incomplete.

The last three rows of Table 3 show the partial correlations of DAS vulnerabilities withwell-being when controlling for the transcendence composite. These partial correlationsare estimates of how much vulnerabilities relate to well-being beyond the role of strengths.While ve of the six links with ill-being remained signicant, eight of the 18 links withpositive well-being ceased to be signicant. Thus, we found support for our predictions thatstrengths would have more consistent unique relationships with positive well-being, whilevulnerabilities would have more consistent unique relationships with ill-being. Vulnera-bilities no longer had unique relationships with vitality or elevating experience, though

they did show some unique relationships with life satisfaction, positive affect, self-esteem,and meaning. This raised the possibility that vulnerabilities may undermine some positiveoutcomes and are worthy of study in the positive well-being literature, where they areusually ignored. Our nding that need for approval did not show a unique relationship withone of the ill-being variables, depression, was unexpected. Our pattern of ndings did,however, parallel most past research in the sense that perfectionism was the vulnerabilitythat related more strongly to distress (e.g., Blatt et al. 1995 , 1998 ).

To compare the unique contributions of strengths and vulnerabilities numerically, weconducted multiple regressions with the transcendence composite and the DAS total as theindependent variables and each well-being variable as the dependent variable, with allvariables standardized. We then used a t -test to compared the regression coefcients for thetranscendence composite and the DAS total, dropping negative signs so that only themagnitudes of the coefcients were compared. The formula used to compare the coef-cients for variables A and B was as follows:

t ¼Coefficient A Coefficient B ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

Variance Coefficient A þ Variance Coefficient B 2Co var iance Coefficients ABp

Compared to the DAS total, the transcendence composite had signicantly greater uniquerelationships with all of the positive well-being variables except self-esteem: life satis-

faction ( t = 2.66, p \ .01), positive affect ( t = 4.38, p \ .01), self-esteem ( t = 1.94, p [ .05), vitality ( t = 8.52, p \ .01), meaning ( t = 7.31, p \ 01), and elevating experi-ence ( t = 9.20, p \ .01). Compared to the transcendence composite, The DAS total hadsignicantly greater unique relationships with both ill-being variables: negative affect(t = 3.76, p \ .01), and depression ( t = 2.47, p \ .05). This supported our prediction that


1 3


12/23

strengths would have greater unique relationships with positive outcomes, while vulner-abilities would have greater unique relationships with negative outcomes.

Finally, we tested whether strengths and vulnerabilities interact when predicting well-being. The DAS total score was again used as an estimate of ‘‘vulnerabilities in general’’

and the transcendence composite was used as an estimate of ‘‘strengths in general.’’Multiple regressions were conducted, where each well-being variable standardized wasregressed on the DAS total standardized, the transcendence composite standardized, andthe product of the DAS total standardized and the transcendence composite standardized.The interaction term was signicant in the case of self-esteem (unstandardized B = .14, p \ .05), meaning ( B = .12, p \ .05), and depression ( B = - .19, p \ .01), but not in thecase of life satisfaction ( B = .00, p [ .05), positive affect ( B = .08, p [ .05), vitality(B = .05, p [ .05), elevating experience ( B = .01, p [ .05), or negative affect ( B = - .04, p [ .05).

To further investigate the interactions that were signicant, we used a median split onthe transcendence composite to divide the sample into two groups, and then regressed eachwell-being variable standardized on the DAS total score standardized. We report the resultsseparately for the positive well-being variables (self-esteem and meaning) and the ill-beingvariable (depression), as the patterns of results were slightly different. Among participantswho were low on the transcendence composite, DAS vulnerabilities had a signicantnegative impact on self-esteem ( B = - .52, p \ .01) and meaning ( B = - .30, p \ .01).However, among those who were high on transcendence strengths, DAS vulnerabilities hadno impact on self-esteem ( B = - .11, p [ .05) or meaning ( B = .05, p [ .05). Thus, forthese positive outcomes, strengths and vulnerabilities interacted such that a high degree of

character strengths eliminated the negative impact of vulnerabilities. Conversely, a highdegree of vulnerability did not entirely undermine the benecial effects of strengths—infact, strengths showed their greatest benet among those who were high on vulnerability.We found this when we regressed the well-being variables standardized on the transcen-dence composite standardized: strengths signicantly predicted self-esteem and meaningboth when the individual was below the median on the DAS total ( B = .23, p \ .01, andB = .36, p \ .01, respectively) and above the median ( B = .54, p \ .01, and B = .63, p \ .01, respectively), and the effects were particularly strong for individuals who werehigh on vulnerabilities.

Parallel analyses were carried out for the negative outcome of depression. DAS vul-nerabilities had an impact whether people were low on strengths ( B = .62, p \ .01) orhigh on strengths ( B = .20, p \ .05), though high strengths did weaken the link betweenvulnerabilities and depression to some degree. Transcendence strengths only predictedreduced depression when vulnerabilities were high ( B = - .42, p \ .01), but not whenvulnerabilities were low ( B = - .03, p [ .05).

Overall, our ndings demonstrate that strengths and vulnerabilities do in some casesinteract. A high degree of strengths eliminated the relationship between vulnerabilities andthe positive outcomes of self-esteem and meaning. High strengths also reduced the link between vulnerability and depression, but did not eliminate it, reinforcing the conclusion

that vulnerabilities play a key role in ill-being. On the other hand, a high degree of vulnerability did not undermine the relationship between strengths and self-esteem,meaning, or depression. On the contrary, it was in the case of high vulnerability thatstrengths had their greatest relationship with well-being. Though the ndings were cor-relational, they suggest that strengths may immunize people against the detrimental effectsof vulnerabilities, especially when it comes to positive outcomes, while vulnerabilities do


1 3


13/23

not undermine the benets of strengths. In fact, strengths may be all the more important forhighly vulnerable individuals.

2 Study 2: Strengths versus Vulnerabilities in a Clinically Depressed Sample

While Study 1 examined a healthy population and a variety of positive well-being vari-ables, our second study focused on a clinically depressed population and provided a moredetailed analysis of ill-being. We assessed clients’ depression severity, DAS vulnerabili-ties, and VIA-IS transcendence strengths both before and after therapy. Thus, we couldconduct correlational analyses with pre-treatment depression severity as well as longitu-dinal analyses to predict post-treatment depression reduction.

2.1 Method

2.1.1 Participants

Participants were adult outpatients at the Allan Memorial Hospital in Montreal, Canadawho attended group cognitive behavioral therapy for major depression. Following referralby a physician, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-IV; First et al. 1996 )was administered to clients by trained clinical psychology doctoral students, and a diag-nosis was assigned. Clients were excluded from the group therapy if they had ever met a

SCID-IV diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Schizophrenia, orSubstance Abuse Disorder. All clients consented to participate in research at the beginningof their assessment. Of the 76 clients participating in the group therapy, 54 were includedin our analyses because they met the following criteria: (a) their intake score on the BDI-IIwas at least 14, the cut-off used to indicate at least mild depression (Beck et al. 1996 ); (b)Major Depressive Disorder was their primary diagnosis; and c) they received and com-pleted the questionnaires we planned to analyze. Of the 54 participants, 66% were female,their mean age was 46.40 years (SD = 12.44); and their mean score on the BDI-II was inthe moderate to severe range (28.53, SD = 8.23).

The cognitive-behavioral group treatment was based on the standardized ‘‘Mind OverMood’’ protocol (Greenberger and Padesky 1995 ) involving weekly sessions of 2 h each.Treatment consisted of psychoeducation regarding the nature of depression, behavioralactivation (e.g., engaging in pleasant events), cognitive restructuring, behavioral experi-ments and action plans, as well as core belief work (e.g., identifying and challengingentrenched patterns of depressive thinking). These activities were practiced both duringtherapy sessions and as homework exercises between sessions. There were four to sevenclients per therapy group and different therapists lead different groups. Data were collectedover 4 years in a total of 12 therapy groups.

2.1.2 Procedure

Prior to the rst therapy session and again at termination, clients completed the followingbattery of questionnaires.


1 3


14/23

2.1.3 Measures

2.1.3.1 Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson and Seligman2001 ) We administered the seven transcendence scales of the VIA-IS as in Study 1.

2.1.3.2 Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS; Weissman and Beck 1978 ) This measurewas the same as in Study 1.

2.1.3.3 Beck Depression Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996 ) Thismeasure was the same as in Study 1, except that clients completed all 21 items, includingthe one inquiring about suicidal ideation, and they indicated how they felt during ‘‘the past2 weeks, including today’’ rather than during the past month.

2.2 Results and Discussion

The right half of Table 1 shows the Study 2 pre-treatment zero-order correlations betweenthe DAS subscales, the DAS total score, the VIA-IS scales, and the transcendence com-posite. While all but two of the correlations in Study 2 appeared smaller than thecorresponding correlations in Study 1, t -tests showed that these differences were not sta-tistically signicant, with the exception of the correlations between humor andperfectionism ( z = 2.13, p \ .05) and between gratitude and the DAS total ( z = 2.32, p \ .05). Thus, future research will be needed to determine whether correlations betweenstrengths and vulnerabilities differ in magnitude across different populations. Nevertheless,

the main hypothesis of interest here was supported: the correlations in Study 2 ranged from.02 to - .30, providing further evidence that strengths and vulnerabilities are distinct andcannot be considered opposite ends of a single dimension.

The last column of Table 2 shows the Study 2 pre-treatment zero-order correlations of depression with VIA-IS strengths and DAS vulnerabilities. None of the correlations withstrengths were signicant. This differed from our ndings in Study 1, where depressioncorrelated with hope, enthusiasm, humor, gratitude, and forgiveness. However, t -testscomparing corresponding correlations in the two studies showed that none of them differedsignicantly. Also, the magnitudes of most of the correlations in Study 2 were greatenough that they may have reached signicance with a larger sample size. Thus, perhapsthe non-signicance of the correlations between depression and strengths was a matter of sample size. The Study 2 correlations between depression and vulnerabilities were allsignicant, as in Study 1, and t -tests showed that none of the corresponding correlations inthe two studies differed signicantly. This replicated many past ndings that DAS vul-nerabilities are related to the severity of major depression.

The last column of Table 3 shows the Study 2 pre-treatment partial correlations of depression with strengths when controlling for the DAS total score (rst eight rows), andwith vulnerabilities when controlling for the transcendence composite (last three rows).None of the strengths showed a unique relationship with depression. This differed from

Study 1, where hope, enthusiasm, and humor did show unique relationships. Althought -tests indicated that none of the partial correlations with strengths differed from thecorresponding ones in Study 1, the magnitudes of these partial correlations in Study 2 werequite small. This raised the possibility that strengths play a weaker role in clinicallysignicant depression than they do in milder depression symptoms—further research willbe needed to address this possibility with greater certainty. The vulnerability measures did


1 3


15/23

show unique relationships with depression, and t -tests showed that the partial correlationsdid not differ from the corresponding ones in Study 1. This reinforced past ndings on thelink between vulnerabilities and distress, showing that this link exists even when con-trolling for several important strengths. In addition, the overall pattern of results in the last

column of Table 3 supported our prediction that vulnerabilities would have more consis-tent unique relationships with ill-being than would strengths.

To compare the unique contributions of strengths and vulnerabilities numerically, weconducted a multiple regression with the transcendence composite and the DAS total as theindependent variables and depression as the dependent variable, with all variables stan-dardized. We then computed a t -test to compare the magnitudes of the regressioncoefcients for the transcendence composite and the DAS total, as in Study 1. The DAStotal had a signicantly greater unique relationship with depression than did the tran-scendence composite ( t = 2.39, p \ .05), supporting our prediction that distress wouldhave a stronger unique relationship with vulnerabilities than with strengths.

We also tested whether strengths and vulnerabilities interacted when predictingdepression. We regressed pre-treatment depression standardized on the pre-treatment DAStotal standardized, the pre-treatment transcendence composite standardized, and theproduct of the pre-treatment DAS total standardized and the pre-treatment transcendencecomposite standardized. The interaction term was not signicant ( B = .21, p [ .05). Thisdiffered from Study 1, where strengths and vulnerabilities did interact to predict depres-sion. The interaction analysis in Study 2, like the partial correlations, raises the possibilitythat strengths may play less of a role in clinically severe depression than they do in milderdepression symptoms (compared to the mean BDI-II score of 28.53 in Study 2, which fell

in the moderate to severe depression range, the mean BDI score in Study 1 was only 9.79,in the non-depressed range).In our nal set of analyses, we tested whether strengths and vulnerabilities could be

used to predict degree of recovery from depression. In these analyses, we included onlyparticipants who completed an adequate number of therapy sessions, so that they could beviewed as having truly participated in an effort at recovery. We considered clients whocompleted at least eight of the 12 sessions as treatment completers. There were 38completers in total.

A number of signicant ndings emerged. The rst column of Table 4 shows the partialcorrelations of post-treatment depression with pre-treatment strengths when controlling forpre-treatment depression. This approach permitted an assessment of depression improve-ment, regardless of initial depression severity. The strengths of hope, appreciation of beauty and excellence, and spirituality, as well as the transcendence composite, predicted areduction in depression symptoms. In contrast, none of the vulnerability measures pre-dicted a reduction in depression. The latter result differed from the majority of past studieswhich did nd that initial vulnerabilities predicted later treatment outcome. Past resultshave not been unequivocal, however: several studies found no relationship between pre-treatment dysfunctional attitudes and depression reduction, and researchers have generallyfound that vulnerabilities are better at predicting initial depression symptoms than degree

of recovery (Barnett and Gotlib 1988 ; Jarrett et al. 2007 ; Kwon and Oei 2003 ; Otto et al.2007 ). Our results t with this general pattern.The middle column of Table 4 shows the contribution of pre-treatment strengths to

depression improvement beyond the role played by pre-treatment vulnerabilities. Hope,appreciation of beauty and excellence, spirituality, and the transcendence composite stillshowed signicant effects. This contributed important new evidence that pre-existingstrengths can inuence the success of cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression. It also


1 3


16/23

provided data to support recent arguments that therapy should help clients to actively useand develop their strengths (Karwoski et al. 2006 ; Linley and Joseph 2004 ; Seligman et al.2006 ). Interestingly, one of the two past studies which used spirituality to predictdepression change (Braam et al. 1997 ) found that spirituality predicted depressionreduction in those who were depressed to begin with, but did not predict depression onsetin those who were non-depressed to begin with—this paralleled our ndings to somedegree.

Finally, the last column of Table 4 shows that pre-treatment vulnerabilities made nocontribution to the improvement of depression symptoms beyond the role of pre-treatment

strengths. Overall, therefore, while initial depression severity was more tied to vulnera-bilities, a reduction in depression was related to strengths.

3 General Discussion

The purpose of our research was to investigate the relationship between psychologicalstrengths and vulnerabilities and to study the relative roles they play in well-being. Wetherefore employed two leading measures in the strengths and vulnerabilities literatures—the transcendence scales of the Values In Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) and theDysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS). In both a normal sample and a clinically depressedsample, the correlations between the strengths and vulnerabilities on these measures wereat most moderate. Thus, these strengths and vulnerabilities did not appear to be mereopposites. This nding is especially important for the relatively new eld of positivepsychology, showing that its contributions are not redundant with the well-establishedliterature on maladaptive characteristics.

Table 4 Predicting degree of depression recovery: partial correlations of pre-treatment strengths andvulnerabilities with post-treatment depression in a clinically depressed sample

Post-treatment BDI-II

Controlling Pre-tx.BDI-II

Controlling Pre-tx.BDI-II and Pre-tx.DAS Total

Controlling Pre-tx.BDI-II and Pre-tx.Transcend. Comp.

Pre-tx. Hope - .43* - .46**

Pre-tx. Enthusiasm - .25 - .26

Pre-tx. Humor - .20 - .22

Pre-tx. Gratitude - .23 - .23

Pre-tx. Apprec. Beauty & Excell. - .37* - .37*

Pre-tx. Spirituality - .42* - .43*

Pre-tx. Forgiveness - .09 - .08

Pre-tx. Transcendence Composite - .41* - .42*

Pre-tx. Perfectionism .05 .13

Pre-tx. Need for Approval .01 .08

Pre-tx. DAS Total .02 .09

Note : Pre-tx. = Pre-treatment; Apprec. Beauty & Excell. = Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence;Transcend. Comp. = Transcendence Composite

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01


1 3


17/23

Zero-order correlations of strengths and vulnerabilities with the well-being variablesaddressed a number of gaps in the literature. We found that vitality, meaning, and elevatingexperience were related to all seven transcendence strengths, as well as to each of themeasures of cognitive vulnerability.

The partial correlations revealed the relative contributions of strengths and vulnera-bilities to well-being. Generally, as we had predicted, the strengths had stronger and moreconsistent unique relationships with positive well-being, while the vulnerabilities hadstronger and more consistent unique relationships with ill-being. This suggests that,compared to vulnerabilities, strengths may more directly interact with the mechanismsimplicated in positive emotions, while vulnerabilities more directly interact with mecha-nisms involved in negative emotions. The two psychological and neurological systems thathave been identied as underlying positive affect/approach motivation versus negativeaffect/avoidance motivation (e.g., Davidson and Irwin 1999 ; Diener and Emmons 1984 ;Elliot and Thrash 2002 ) may each be part of even broader complexes: a strengths/positiveaffect/approach motivation complex, and a vulnerabilities/negative affect/avoidancemotivation complex. Further psychological and neurological research will be needed tomore fully test this hypothesis.

A more specic examination of the partial correlations revealed that, in many cases,strengths and vulnerabilities both had unique relationships with well-being. The vulnera-bilities sometimes made incremental contributions to life satisfaction, positive affect, self-esteem, and meaning, while the strengths—namely hope, enthusiasm, humor, and for-giveness—sometimes made incremental contributions to negative affect and depressionsymptoms. This suggests that the division which exists between the literatures on positive

well-being and ill-being is not warranted. While strengths may play the primary role inpositive well-being, research on vulnerabilities can make a valuable contribution; simi-larly, though vulnerabilities play a key role in ill-being, research on strengths is alsoinformative. It is noteworthy, though, that two well-being variables in our data showedunique relationships only with strengths, not vulnerabilities: vitality and elevating expe-rience. The fact that these well-being states distinguished so clearly between strengths andvulnerabilities contributes evidence for their usefulness in well-being research.

We also found some interactions between strengths and vulnerabilities, providing fur-ther evidence that the combined study of strengths and vulnerabilities is important. Therewas an interaction for two positive outcomes—self-esteem and meaning—such that vul-nerabilities ceased to relate to these outcomes in individuals with high transcendencestrengths, and strengths were especially related to these outcomes in individuals with highDAS vulnerabilities. There was also an interaction for the negative outcome of depression,though only in the non-depressed sample. Thus, at least for milder depression symptoms,we found that the relationship between vulnerabilities and depression was reduced, thoughnot eliminated, among people with high strengths; also, the negative relationship betweenstrengths and depression was increased among people with high vulnerabilities. Overall,these ndings suggest that strengths may buffer people from the detrimental effects of vulnerabilities, but vulnerabilities do not undermine the benecial effects of strengths. On

the contrary, strengths may be especially benecial among individuals who are highlyvulnerable.Finally, we think that our most striking and revealing nding was the predictive role

that strengths played in the improvement of depression symptoms. Three strengths inparticular promoted recovery beyond the role played by vulnerabilities: hope, appreciationof beauty and excellence, and spirituality. Our result suggests that strengths may play asubstantial role in movement towards recovery. If our nding is replicated in future


1 3


18/23


19/23

Barnett, P. A., & Gotlib, I. H. (1988). Psychosocial functioning and depression: Distinguishing amongantecedents, concomitants, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 104 , 97–126.

Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., & Harrison, R. (1983). Cognitions, attitudes and personality dimensions indepression. British Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1 , 1–16.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. F. (1996a). Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories -

IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67 , 588–597.Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996b). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II . SanAntonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2004). Perfectionism, cognition, and affect in response to per-formance failure vs. success. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 22 ,301–328.

Blatt, S. J. (2004). Experiences of depression: Theoretical, clinical, and research perspectives . Washington,DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

Blatt, S. J., Quinlan, D. M., Pilkonis, P. A., & Shea, M. T. (1995). Impact of perfectionism and need forapproval on the brief treatment of depression: The National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program revisited. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,63 , 125–132.

Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (1992). Interpersonal relatedness and self-denition: Two prototypes fordepression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12 , 527–562.

Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., Bondi, C. M., Sanislow, C. A., I. I. I., & Pilkonis, P. (1998). When and howperfectionism impedes the brief treatment of depression: Further analyses of the NIMH TDCRP. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64 , 162–171.

Bostic, T. J., Rubio, D. M., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the subjective vitality scale using structuralequation modeling. Social Indicators Research, 52 , 313–324.

Bosworth, H. B., Park, K., McQuoid, D. R., Hays, J. C., & Steffens, D. C. (2003). The impact of religiouspractice and religious coping on geriatric depression. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18 ,905–914.

Braam, A. W., Beekman, A. T. F., Deeg, D. J. H., Smit, J. H., & Van Tilburg, W. (1997). Religiosity as aprotective or prognostic factor of depression in later life: Results from a community survey in the

Netherlands. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 96 , 199–205.Braam, A. W., Hein, E., Deeg, D. J. H., Twisk, J. W. R., Beekman, A. T. F., & Van Tilburg, W. (2004).

Religious involvement and 6-year course of depressive symptoms in older Dutch citizens: Results fromthe longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. Journal of Aging and Health, 16 , 467–489.

Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity andlinks with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 , 759–771.

Brown, G. P., & Beck, A. T. (2002). Dysfunctional attitudes, perfectionism, and models of vulnerability todepression. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewlitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp.231–251). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cane, D. B., Olinger, L. J., Gotlib, I. H., & Kuiper, N. A. (1986). Factor structure of the DysfunctionalAttitude Scale in a student population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42 , 307–309.

Chang, E. C. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of positive and negative psychological outcomes:Examining a mediation model in younger and older adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47 ,18–26.

Chang, E. C. (Ed.). (2001). Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice .Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

Chang, E. C., & DeSimone, S. L. (2001). The inuence of hope on appraisals, coping, and dysphoria: A testof hope theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20 , 117–129.

Cheavens, J. S., Feldman, D. B., Gum, A., Michael, S. T., & Snyder, C. R. (2006). Hope therapy in acommunity sample: A pilot investigation. Social Indicators Research, 77 , 61–78.

Compton, R. J. (2000). Ability to disengage attention predicts negative affect. Cognition and Emotion, 14 ,401–415.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Inuence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being:Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 , 668–678.

Davidson, R. J., & Irwin, W. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style. Trends inCognitive Sciences, 3 , 11–21.

Davidson, R. J., Jackson, D. C., & Kalin, N. H. (2000). Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation:Perspectives from affective neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 126 , 890–909.

DeRubeis, R. J., Evans, M. D., Hollon, S. D., Garvey, M. J., Grove, W. M., & Tuason, V. B. (1990). Howdoes cognitive therapy work? Cognitive change and symptom change in cognitive therapy and phar-macotherapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58 , 862–869.


1 3


20/23

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 , 1105–1117.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grifn, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 , 71–75.

Diener, E., & Iran-Nejad, A. (1986). The relationship in experience between various types of affect. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 , 1031–1038.Dobson, K. S., & Breiter, H. J. (1983). Cognitive assessment of depression: Reliability and validity of threemeasures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92 , 107–109.

Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect:Dispositional and situational inuences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 84 , 234–252.

Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2006). Specic perfectionism components versus self-criticism in predicting maladjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 40 , 665–676.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach andavoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 804–818.

Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psychology of ultimateconcern. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10 , 3–26.

Emmons, R. A., Cheung, C., & Tehrani, K. (1998). Assessing spirituality through personal goals: Impli-cations for research on religion and subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 45 , 391–422.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimentalinvestigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 84 , 377–389.

First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. (1996). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Clinician Version (SCID-CV) . Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.). (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment . Washington,DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of twomeasures of perfection. Personality and Individual Differences, 14 , 119–126.

Gillham, J. E. (Ed.). (2000). The science of optimism and hope: Research essays in honor of Martin E. P.

Seligman . West Conshohocken, PA, USA: Templeton Foundation Press.Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2003). A rst study of perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction

among adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23 , 218–235.Gilman, R., Ashby, J. S., Sverko, D., Florell, D., & Varjas, K. (2005). The relationship between perfec-

tionism and multidimensional life satisfaction among Croatian and American youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 , 155–166.

Golden, A., Dalgleish, T., & Spinks, H. (2006). Dysfunctional attitudes in seasonal affective disorder. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44 , 1159–1164.

Greenberger, D., & Padesky, C. A. (1995). Mind over mood: A cognitive therapy treatment manual for clients . New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.

Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. G. (2004). Self-criticism, dependency, self-esteem,and grade point average satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51 , 192–200.

Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention and Treatment, 3 . ISSN: 1522-3736Haidt, J. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.),

Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289). Washington, DC, USA:American Psychological Association.

Hamilton, K. E., & Dobson, K. S. (2002). Cognitive therapy of depression: Pretreatment patient predictorsof outcome. Clinical Psychology Review, 22 , 875–894.

Hawley, L. L., Moon-Ho, R. H., Zuroff, D. C., & Blatt, S. J. (2006). The relationship of perfectionism,depression, and therapeutic alliance during treatment for depression: Latent difference score analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74 , 930–942.

Huta. V. M., & Grouzet, F. (2008). Well-being predictors of eudaimonia and hedonia: A longitudinal study.Unpublished manuscript.

Huta, V. M., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Pursuing pleasure versus virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benets of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Imber, S. D., Pilkonis, P. A., Sotsky, S. M., Elkin, I., Watkins, J. T., Collins, J. F., et al. (1990). Mode-specic effects among three treatments for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,58 , 352–359.

Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and a conceptual model.Psychological Bulletin, 107 , 156–176.


1 3


21/23

Jarrett, R. B., Vittengl, J. R., Doyle, K., & Clark, L. (2007). Changes in cognitive content during andfollowing cognitive therapy for recurrent depression: Substantial and enduring, but not predictive of change in depressive symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75 , 432–446.

Karwoski, L., Garratt, G. M., & Ilardi, S. S. (2006). On the integration of cognitive-behavioral therapy fordepression and positive psychology. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20 , 159–170.

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17 , 297–314.Kendler, K. S., Liu, X., Gardner, C. O., McCullough, M. E., Larson, D., & Prescott, C. A. (2003).

Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and substance use disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160 , 496–503.

Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 1–11.

Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2005). Self-Oriented perfectionism and its relationship to positive and negativeaffect: The mediation of positive and negative perfectionism cognitions. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29 , 555–567.

Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor is not always the best medicine: Speciccomponents of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor

Research, 17 , 135–168.Kwon, S., & Oei, T. P. S. (2003). Cognitive change processes in a group cognitive behavior therapy of

depression. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 34 , 73–85.Lawler-Row, K. A., & Piferi, R. L. (2006). The forgiving personality: Describing a life well lived?

Personality and Individual Differences, 41 , 1009–1020.Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive psychology in practice . Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and

Sons Inc.Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of

humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37 , 48–75.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full ve-factor model and well-being.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 , 227–232.

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual andempirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 112–127.

McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and beingyourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 , 494–512.

Modi, M., DeVellis, R. F., Blazer, D. G., DeVellis, B. M., Panter, A. T., & Jordan, J. M. (2006).Spirituality and depressive symptoms in a racially diverse US sample of community-dwelling adults. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194 , 975–977.

Molnar, D. S., Reker, D. L., Culp, N. A., Sadava, S. W., & DeCourville, N. H. (2006). A mediated model of perfectionism, affect, and physical health. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 , 482–500.

Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., & Blissett, S. E. (1988). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation betweenstressful events and psychological distress: A prospective analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 54 , 520–525.

Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: Theeffects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 35 , 266–284.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed anxiety/depressivesymptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109 , 504–511.

Orcutt, H. K. (2006). The prospective relationship of interpersonal forgiveness and psychological distresssymptoms among college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53 , 350–361.

Otto, M. W., Teachman, B. A., Cohen, L. S., Soares, C. N., Vitonis, A. F., & Harlow, B. L. (2007).Dysfunctional attitudes and episodes of major depression: Predictive validity and temporal stability innever-depressed, depressed, and recovered women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116 , 475–483.

Park, C. (2006). Exploring relations among religiousness, meaning, and adjustment to lifetime and currentstressful encounters in later life. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 19 , 33–45.

Park, C., Cohen, L. H., & Herb, L. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness and religious coping as life stressmoderators for Catholics versus Protestants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 ,562–574.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Socialand Clinical Psychology, 23 , 603–619.

Peterson, C. (Ed.). (2006). Strengths of character and happiness (Special issue). Journal of HappinessStudies, 7 (3), 289–291.


1 3


22/23

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Greater strengths of character and recovery fromillness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1 , 17–26.

Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beerman, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). Strengths of character,orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2 , 149–156.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS).

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classication .Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Prosnick, K. P. (1997). A factor analytic study of transuence. Gestalt Review, 1 , 365–369.Rector, N. A. (2004). Dysfunctional attitudes and symptom expression in schizophrenia: Differential

associations with paranoid delusions and negative symptoms. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 18 ,163–173.

Reed, G. L., & Enright, R. D. (2006). The effects of forgiveness therapy on depression, anxiety, andposttraumatic stress for women after spousal emotional abuse. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 74 , 920–929.

Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efcient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 54 , 72–85.

Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and

depression: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45 , 304–314.Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct

validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 27 , 151–161.

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamicreection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65 , 529–565.

Saboonchi, F., & Lundh, L. (2003). Perfectionism, anger, somatic health, and positive affect. Personalityand Individual Differences, 35 , 1585–1599.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and psychological well-being. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice(pp. 189–216). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Scher, C. D., Ingram, R. E., & Segal, Z. V. (2005). Cognitive reactivity and vulnerability: Empirical

evaluation of construct activation and cognitive diatheses in unipolar depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 25 , 487–510.

Seidlitz, L., Abernethy, A. D., Duberstein, P. R., Evinger, J. S., Chang, T. H., & Lewis, B. L. (2002).Development of the Spiritual Transcendence Index. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion, 41 ,439–453.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Why is there so much depression today? The waxing of the individual and thewaning of the commons. In R. E. Ingram (Ed.), Contemporary psychological approaches to depres-sion: Theory, research, and treatment . New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness . New York: Free Press.Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61 ,

774–788.Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C.

Character Strengths & Cognitive Vulnerabilities - Huta & Hawley (2010)

Documents

Transcript of Character Strengths & Cognitive Vulnerabilities - Huta & Hawley (2010)