This article was downloaded by: [University of Pennsylvania]On: 30 July 2012, At: 18:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated tofurthering research and promoting good practicePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20

A dynamic approach to psychological strengthdevelopment and interventionRobert Biswas-Diener a , Todd B. Kashdan b & Gurpal Minhas aa Centre of Applied Positive Psychology, The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road,Coventry CV4 7EZ, UKb Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA

Version of record first published: 05 Apr 2011

To cite this article: Robert Biswas-Diener, Todd B. Kashdan & Gurpal Minhas (2011): A dynamic approach to psychologicalstrength development and intervention, The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promotinggood practice, 6:2, 106-118

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.545429

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Journal of Positive PsychologyVol. 6, No. 2, March 2011, 106–118

A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention

Robert Biswas-Dienera*, Todd B. Kashdanb and Gurpal Minhasa

aCentre of Applied Positive Psychology, The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK;bDepartment of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA

(Received 21 May 2010; final version received 30 September 2010)

Many practitioners working with clients from a strengths perspective largely rely on ad hoc interventions andemploy a simplistic ‘identify and use’ approach. In this article, we suggest that clients can extract greater benefitswhen practitioners adopt more sophisticated approaches to strengths intervention. We introduce an alternativeapproach that we call ‘strengths development’. This approach is distinguished by the view that strengths are notfixed traits across settings and time (the dominant, contemporary approach to personality). Instead, we adoptdynamic, within-person approaches from personality science to research, assessment, and interventions onstrengths. Specifically, strengths are highly contextual phenomena that emerge in distinctive patterns alongsideparticular goals, interests, values, and situational factors. Strengths are potentials for excellence that can becultivated through enhanced awareness, accessibility, and effort. Finally, we outline potential psychological risksassociated with the strengths perspective that are worthy of explicit discussion with clients.

Keywords: strengths; personality; values; intervention; positive psychology

Introduction

Professional attention to the topic of strengths hasincreased dramatically in recent years. This upswing inscholarly publication on the subject, as well as thecreation of strengths assessments and interventions,coincides with the growth of the positive psychologymovement. As increasing numbers of researchers andpractitioners shift to a focus on positive topics thepromise of identifying and using personal strengths isbecoming increasingly attractive. Scholarly volumes onstrengths (e.g., Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Peterson& Seligman, 2004) as well as popular books(e.g., Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Fox, 2008; Linley,2008; Linley, Willars, & Biswas-Diener, 2010) are beingpublished at rapid rates. Ideally, the research andtheory on strengths can be used by practitioners tocreate positive psychology interventions in a widerange of contexts including educational, therapeutic,coaching, and organizational (Biswas-Diener, 2009).

Research on ‘positive psychotherapy’ suggests thatattention to strengths is beneficial within the thera-peutic milieu – with greater client outcomes thanseveral other highly touted interventions (Seligman,Rashid, & Parks, 2006). In clinical research byFluckiger and Grosse Holtforth (2008), priming clientstrengths was found to be associated with enhancedtherapeutic bonding, client mastery experiences, and

decreased symptoms. Research within the educationalcontext suggests that strengths-based curricula areassociated with increased intrinsic motivation andeffort in both secondary and post-secondary schools(Louis, 2009). Bowers and Lopez (2010) presentevidence that the students who are most skilled atcapitalizing upon their strengths within educationalsettings are better at mobilizing social support andbuilding upon past successes. Perhaps, the largest areaof scientific attention on strengths has been within theorganizational context. The recently published OxfordHandbook of Positive Psychology at Work (Linley,Harrington, & Garcea, 2009) includes three chapterswith titles explicitly addressing strengths, and addi-tional chapters that address specific strengths, such asauthenticity or the capacity for cooperation. In a studyof Americans included in one of these chapters,Peterson, Stephens, Park, Lee, and Seligman (2009)provide initial evidence that strengths are associatedwith work satisfaction. Similarly, Harter, Schmidt, andHayes (2002) found that people who regularly use theirstrengths are more engaged at work. Similarly, in astudy of managers in the United Kingdom, researchersfound that when managers emphasized performancestrengths, performance increased by 36.4%; whenmanagers emphasized performance weaknesses, per-formance decreased by 26.8% (Corporate Leadership

*Corresponding author. Email: robertbd@cappeu.com

ISSN 1743–9760 print/ISSN 1743–9779 online

! 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/17439760.2010.545429http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

Council, 2002). Likewise, research conducted byStefanyszyn (2007) found that employee turnover fellwith working employees using their strengths moreregularly.

Indeed, research appears to confirm that strengthsare associated with a wide range of desirable psycho-logical and behavioral outcomes. In research onindividuals, Govindji and Linley (2007) found thatpeople who used strengths more frequently experiencedgreater subjective and psychological well-being.Follow-up research by Proctor, Maltby, and Linley(2009) replicated these findings. Longitudinal researchby Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan, and Hurling(2011) confirmed that people who use their strengthsexperience less stress and similar research by Linley,Nielsen, Wood, Gillett, and Biswas-Diener (2010)found that people who use their strengths were morelikely to achieve their goals. In a randomized clinicaltrial with comparison treatments and a wait-listcontrol condition, Seligman, Steen, Park, andPeterson (2005) found that people who identify anduse their strengths experienced higher levels of happi-ness and lower depression levels, even as much as6 months after the intervention was concluded. Theseresults were replicated in a small sample of universityadministrators in a study by Minhas (2010) who foundthat people who actively developed their strengthsexperienced increased well-being and elevated levels ofself-esteem. Taken together, the research on individual,clinical, educational, and organizational outcomessuggests that psychological strengths are more than apassing fad; strengths identification, use, and develop-ment are potentially important tools in personal andorganizational development.

Although there is a mounting case for the benefitsof attention to strengths, there is currently littleagreement on how best to use theory, research, andassessment tools related to psychological strengths.There are, of course, many studies published onspecific strengths such as courage, hope, and creativity.It is beyond the scope of this article to providean exhaustive discussion of research on the variety ofspecific strengths in existence. We therefore confineour attention, in this article, to research and theoryrelated to strengths in general. Many practitionerswork with strengths on an ad hoc basis, creating theirown interventions as deemed appropriate in theirpractice. While this ad hoc approach is consistentwith the typical behavior of practitioners in the field(Baker, McFall, & Shoham, 2008; Treiweiler &Stricker, 1998), this approach tends to be divorcedfrom the scientific centrality of positive psychology.Ironically, practitioners and consultants who identifythemselves as aligned with positive psychology markettheir applied work as distinct from competitorsbecause there is an inherent level of scientific qualitycontrol that is missing from other allied health

professionals and coaching practices. Specifically,positive psychology interventions are derived fromscientific theories and empirically supported.1

There are natural problems in aligning research andpractice. Often, practice ‘outpaces’ research in thatpractitioners find locally appropriate modificationsof interventions that are not directly suggestedby research. On the other hand, some practitionersdo not keep abreast of the latest research findings andadjust their practice accordingly. This chasm betweenwhat is researched, what is marketed, and what ispracticed suggests avenues for improvement. Thisarticle aims to provide a theoretical overview of thetopic of strengths and to suggest new ways forpractitioners from a wide range of disciplines to workwith their clients to develop strengths.

Current state of strengths intervention

Formal guidelines and standards for practicing froma strengths-perspective can help positive psychologybecome more firmly established as an applied as well asa basic science. The presence of efficacious strengthsinterventions (Minhas, 2010; Seligman et al., 2005;Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009) are merely a starting point.As McFall (1991) states in his manifesto, psychologicalservices should not be administered to the public(except under strict experimental control) unlessservices and claimed benefits are described in detail,and any claimed benefits are the result of empiri-cal investigation. There is one important caveat –practitioners can conduct novel interventions, based ona strong theoretical rationale, as long as adequate dataare collected to test the effectiveness of these deviationsfrom the literature. Practitioners should be careful tocollect data in a way to minimize their own biases suchas change aversion, loss aversion, and attempts to‘prove’ the intervention worked (rather than remainingopen and receptive to the actual findings).Importantly, practitioners should minimize experi-menter effects where subtle cues and the behaviorand presence of the practitioner alter client responses.To handle this, data from clients should be collectedin a manner such that clients can respond honestly(e.g., anonymous web-based surveys with answerscollected and compiled from disinterested thirdparties). All data should be shared with the fieldto be evaluated for quality control and synthesizedto inform existing theory and intervention. Workby practitioners in the field is an untapped resourcefor innovative developments and these guidelinesprovide an initial step for building a two-way stream.

Currently, the quality control of applied positivepsychology is left largely to the discretion of practi-tioners and consultants who are often on the‘frontlines’ of the service marketplace. We do not

The Journal of Positive Psychology 107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

believe it is controversial to claim that many lack therequisite skills to critically evaluate the existing bodyof evidence and/or collect data on services renderedto validate potential benefits. By the same token, wedo not believe it is controversial to suggest thatresponsible practitioners will sometimes make smallmodifications to existing interventions to make themmore locally appropriate and effective. Lyubomirsky,Dickerhoof, Boehm, and Sheldon (2010) suggest thatself-selection, effort, and other person-related factorsmay affect the effectiveness of positive psychologyinterventions. To the extent that this is true, practi-tioners act as local scientists testing and extending theeffectiveness of interventions with new groups and innew contexts. Thus, it is probable that researchprovides the evidence that a specific technique mightwork within given parameters and practitioners mustmake expert judgments about the boundaries oflocal revision. Researchers and practitioners workin tandem, then, to provide validation for positivepsychology interventions. Moreover, practitioners –whether they are school teachers, therapists, or coaches– bear an extra burden of responsibility to translateresearch and theory into responsible practice.To reiterate, we believe responsible practice can beenhanced by the proper collection of data to evaluatewhat works and what does not, and to share these datafor the larger community of practitioners and scientiststo learn from the trial-and-error, self-correcting natureof scientifically informed practice.

To better understand the current practices associ-ated with the positive psychological topic of strengths,an informal survey of people interested in positivepsychology was conducted in Spring of 2010. In thissurvey, we requested practitioners who are members ofthe American Psychological Association – Friends ofPositive Psychology Internet listserv to respond toquestions about which strengths assessments theycommonly use and what types of interventions theyemploy with clients. Of the 20 people who responded –all of whom were therapists and/or coaches – nearly allreported the same pattern of intervention. Practitioners– whether they are coaches or therapists – tend toemploy a formal strengths assessment to identify clientstrengths and then discuss ways clients can use thesestrengths for increased success. Although these variousstrengths assessments purport to measure slightlydifferent concepts such as character or talents, webelieve there is enough conceptual similarity amongthem (and they are treated by practitioners as concep-tually similar) that we discuss them all as generalmeasures of strengths. It is interesting that 33% ofrespondents spontaneously specifically mentionedusing a ‘strengths approach’ early in the relationshipwith a client (i.e., within the first three sessions). Theseresults suggest that strengths assessments are used to‘set the stage’ for a positive focus. The vast majority

(18 of 20) of respondents used what we call the‘identify and use’ approach to strengths intervention(Biswas-Diener, 2010). Admittedly, this short surveydoes not represent careful research with a large,representative sample and should not be viewed asconclusive. As pilot research, however, it suggestspossible consistency in the way that those trained in orfamiliar with positive psychology practice strengths-based interventions.

In the ‘identify and use’ approach practitionerswork with clients to first label personal strengths andthen open a discussion to how they might use thesestrengths to address existing problems or amplifypositive functioning. This is a straightforward andlogical approach to intervention, and emphasizes theimportance of self-awareness. The appeal of thisapproach is that it ‘uncovers’ an aspect of the clientthat he or she may be overlooking that if acknowl-edged and integrated into the sense of self andemployed more frequently in daily life, might lead togreater personal success (for related ideas, seeDunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004). One commonaspect of the ‘identify and use’ approach tostrengths assessment is the implicit view that strengthscan and should be used ‘more than they currently are’.There is evidence that this approach is warranted.Results from studies show that only about one-third ofpeople can identify their own strengths (Hill, 2001) andthat only 17% of people say they use their strengths‘most of the time’ each day (Buckingham, 2007).Further, the mere identification of strengths has beenassociated with benefits, such as increased happinessand decreased rates of depression (Seligman et al.,2005). Some of the most vocal advocates of strengthshave argued for the importance of identifying strengths(Buckingham, 2007; Linley & Burns, 2010).

We believe that, while the ‘identify and use’approach can be an effective, straightforward strategy,more nuanced and theoretically driven approaches tostrengths development are called for in therapy,coaching, and other contexts. The current state ofstrengths theory, assessment, and research has mademore sophisticated interventions possible thanreflected in typical ‘identify and use’ approaches.We believe that the widespread adoption of newerapproaches will ultimately lead to better client serviceand reflect well on the field of positive psychology.In particular, we advocate the use of ‘strengthsdevelopment’ rather than ‘identify and use’approaches. The strengths development approachis distinguished by the assumption that strengthsinterventions are not primarily about the use ofstrengths for performance (as in, ‘how could you usethis strength more?’ or ‘where do you see opportunitiesto use this strength?’) but should be primarily aboutdeveloping strengths (as in, ‘how might you knowwhen you should use this strength more and when you

108 R. Biswas-Diener et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

should use it less’ or ‘what is the impact of yourstrengths use on others and how does that feedbacksuggest you might better use your strength?’). The‘identify and use’ approach assumes competencyand focuses on employing strengths in the pursuitof personal achievement while the developmentapproach emphasizes building strengths competency(see Figure 1). Admittedly, these two approaches bearsome passing similarity to one another. For thisreason, we will spend the rest of the article articulatingthe differences between them.

Are strengths personality?

Among the most important characteristics distinguish-ing the strengths development approach and thetraditional identify and use approach is the issue ofhow strengths are construed. Many lay people think ofstrengths as ‘behaviors at which we excel’. Thiscommonsense view is largely shared by scholars inthe field of strengths psychology. A number ofacademic definitions of strengths exist:

. A capacity for feeling, thinking, and behavingin a way that allows optimal functioning in thepursuit of valued outcomes (Linley &Harrington, 2007).

. A combination of talents (naturally recurringpatterns of thoughts, feeling and behavior),knowledge (facts and lessons learned), andskills (the steps of an activity) (Buckingham &Clifton, 2001).

. The psychological ingredients – processes ormechanisms – that define morally valuedvirtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

While these definitions differ from one another all havetheir roots in classic trait personality theory. To someextent, the major voices in strengths psychology allthink of strengths as having a genetic and/or evolu-tionary aspect which ‘naturally’ makes people good at

certain types of performances that in turn, lead topredictable individual differences. Linley (2008), forexample, endorses an evolutionary perspective inwhich environmental circumstances, over time, shapestrengths. Buckingham and Clifton (2001) emphasizethe role of natural synaptic connections in the mani-festations of talent, which they consider to be anintegral aspect of strengths. Clifton and Harter (2003)acknowledge the role of personality theory as afoundation of their approach to strengths, ‘The find-ings of high genetic composition may hint that howpeople most efficiently grow and develop is dynami-cally related to who they are to begin with . . . . Peoplecan change the changeable (satisfaction, subjectivewell-being, engagement, performance, etc.), but mostefficiently through who they are to begin with (theirinherent talents)’ (p. 120). These understandings ofstrengths are consistent with research on the topic.Steger, Hicks, Kashdan, Krueger, and Bouchard(2007) employed a sample of twins to examine thecontribution of genetic factors on the 24 VIA strengthsand found a consistent pattern of genetic contribution,with medium to large effects in many cases. Similarly,in a sample of several hundred adult communitymembers, Linley (2010) found strong correlationsbetween strengths and ‘Big 5’ personality factorswhich, themselves, are understood to be stronglydetermined by genetic contributions. The answer towhether strengths are merely a facet of personality is asubject of more than idle academic interest; it speaksdirectly to interventions in that it addresses the degreeto which strengths can be learned and developed.

Trait theorists distinguish between two aspects ofbehavioral consistency. Longitudinal stability reflectshow people high on a personality trait at one point intime are high at another point in time. Cross-situationalconsistency reflects how people high on trait in somesituations are high on that trait in other situations.The most widely used approach to personality, the BigFive, is focused on the statistical, structural differencesacross people (John & Srivastava, 1999). This approach

Figure 1. Strengths regulation.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

is useful to describe and classify people but less usefulfor modeling people’s motivation, behavior, and reac-tions in their everyday environment. With the use ofrepeated assessments across time and various situations,researchers have raised questions about cross-situa-tional consistency as the fundamental basis of apersonality trait (Cervone, 2005; Cervone & Shoda,1999; Fleeson, 2001, 2004;Mischel, Shoda, &Mendoza-Denton, 2002). Within-person variability in personalitytraits such as extraversion and agreeableness acrossoccasions has been shown to be as large as thevariability in emotions from one moment to the next(Fleeson, 2004). For modern researchers (Cervone,2005), variability in behavior across situations is not asource of information to ignore and not something onthe periphery of someone’s personality. Instead, behav-iors that are contingent on particular life circumstances(and not others) are a critical part of the structure ofpersonality.

With the use of global strength terminology peoplecan be classified (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and thisact of enhanced self-knowledge offers psychologicalbenefits (at least in the short-term). In this article,however, we argue that this descriptive approachhas limited applications for improving people’s qualityof life. People can adjust their behavior to obtain thebest possible outcome in a given situation and canlearn to construct lives where strengths are more readilyused. This includes using strengths to makeregular effort toward goals that are aligned with aperson’s central values (e.g., Hayes, Luoma, Bond,Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). Instead of focusing onstrengths as internal capacities that exist across timeand situations (contemporary trait approach), weadopt a dynamic, within-person approach to person-ality. Instead of searching for behaviors that elicitstrong performance and vitality across time andsituations, we can search for interactions betweenpeople and their environment. Such behaviors can bedefined as a strength-based structure within someone’spersonality. For instance, the strength termed couragecan be represented in terms of a goal of standing up forother people that fail to adequately protect themselves,the situations that alter the likelihood this goal will beachieved (e.g., being alone while witnessing someonebeing bullied or being in a large crowd), and beliefsthat when activated alter the likelihood that this goalwill be achieved (e.g., feeling uncomfortable being thecenter of social attention).

To truly understand the overt expression ofstrengths, context must be taken into consideration.Some people will showcase behaviors that vary inpredictable ways that distinctively characterize theindividual. If we only defined strengths as existingacross time and settings, we would fail to capturestrengths that are only displayed in response toa smaller network of situational contingencies.

Conventional between-person approaches for describ-ing the strengths of individuals, across time andsettings, leads to an unnecessary, high probability offalse negatives. Potential interventions would be lesspronounced. This is because the recognition of fewerstrengths, in turn, offers fewer opportunities to aidpeople in making strengths more accessible and findingnew situations to use strengths (Seligman et al., 2005).We are not offering a new theory of personality;instead, we are adapting modern theories to research,assessment, and interventions with strengths.

Two of the most prominent voices in positivepsychology – Peterson and Seligman (2004) – explicitlyadopt a personality driven understanding of strengths.They also directly acknowledge the possibility thatstrengths are influenced by environmental factors andtherefore, malleable:

The stance we take toward character is in the spirit ofpersonality psychology, and specifically that of traittheory, but not the caricature of trait theory held up asa straw man and then criticized by social learningtheorists in the 1970s. We instead rely on the new psy-chology of traits that recognizes individual differencesthat are stable and general but also shaped by theindividual’s setting and thus capable of change. (p. 10)

The degree and the pace of change suggested byPeterson, Seligman, and other psychologists interestedin strengths, remain unclear. It is uncertain, forinstance, whether change means ‘becoming even better’(proficiency), ‘using the strength more’ (frequency) or‘knowing when to use a strength, and in what amount’(regulation). And herein lays the crux of the problem:currently, relatively few practitioners are taking atheoretically integrated approach to strengths devel-opment, in part because strengths development runscounter to the very personality theory in which anunderstanding of strengths is grounded. We suggestthat proficiency, frequency, and regulation make animportant, but perhaps not comprehensive, list of waysthat people can develop their strengths. The ‘identifyand use’ approach to strengths is more aligned toclassic personality psychology in which strengths areviewed as relatively immutable traits. There is reasonpeople focus on the identification of strengths –Seligman et al. (2005) present evidence that merelylabeling strengths can lead to tonic psychologicaleffects. These effects are limited to happiness anddepression, however, and do not speak to motivation,effort, interpersonal effectiveness or other aspects ofpersonal performance or flourishing. The ‘strengthsdevelopment’ approach, on the other hand, viewsstrengths as personal capacities or potentials that mustbe cultivated through effort to be applied mosteffectively.

Practitioners focusing on strengths sometimesappear to overlook an existing literature that suggeststhat the labeling of strengths has potential downsides.

110 R. Biswas-Diener et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

Most notably, labeling strengths has the potential tolead people to underperform (see Dweck, 2006;Mueller & Dweck, 1998, for general overview). Ifpeople believe that their newly labeled sense of self is astable entity, they are unlikely to invest effort indeveloping strengths and uncovering new opportuni-ties to use them (Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan,1999; Smiley & Dweck, 1994). We believe that this isone of the reasons that people often direct efforttoward working on personal weaknesses rather thanstrengths: they believe that there is ‘more room forgrowth’ in areas of weakness. For a person with anunderstanding of strengths as stable traits, uncoveringstrengths can be a source of initial intrigue followed bya period of stagnation. This is mirrored in somepractices wherein the initial excitement of a strengthsfocus is replaced by an uncertainty regarding whatmore ‘can be done with strengths’. Strengths labelingwithout an explicit growth mindset may lead toiatrogenic effects. The potential risks of a stableentity mindset in a strengths-based interventionshould be described clearly and the exact nature ofhow this will be handled must be made explicit toclients (McFall, 1991).

The question of the relation between strengths andpersonality is important primarily because lay percep-tion of personality in general – and client perception ofthe stability of strengths in particular – bear directly onhow strengths interventions should be introduced, howthey will be received, and how effective they might be.Strengths-related interventions can be grouped underwhat Dweck (2008) calls ‘self-theories interventions’or those that are intended to help a person grow byseeing core aspects of the self as capable of develop-ment. This suggests that practitioners should consideradopting intervention approaches that speak less tothe ‘use’ of strengths and more to the ‘development’of strengths. Admittedly, Dweck’s research is notfocused explicitly on strengths but is directed towardtheories concerning the self and attributes of the selfsuch as intelligence. Although she does not explicitlydraw conclusions related to strengths, her research onself-theories is applicable to strengths to the extent thatthe latter can easily be construed from a growth orfixed mindset.

Do strengths exist in isolation?

Another important distinction between the ‘identifyand use’ and ‘strengths development’ approaches is theisolationist versus context-sensitive nature of strengthsinterventions. Many practitioners who adoptthe ‘identify and use’ approach rely on strengthsassessments to label an individual’s strengths andthese strengths are often viewed either in isolation(as in ‘I see from your test results that you are a curious

person’) or within artificial boundaries (as in ‘Tell meabout your ‘top five’ strengths’). The implicit assump-tion here is that strengths exist in isolation, divorcedfrom intrapsychic and social factors. Most modernpersonality theorists recognize that social situationshave an impact on individual behaviors (for review, seeMischel & Shoda, 1998), and Peterson and Seligman(2004) explicitly make this case for strengths. In thisvein, the strengths development approach assumes thatstrengths are heavily influenced by situations and thatit is contextual, and not personality, factors thatdetermine the appropriateness of strengths use.Indeed, the optimal amounts of proficiency, frequency,and regulation of strengths can be best determined bysituational factors rather and their synergy withindividual strengths (e.g., Kashdan, McKnight,Fincham, & Rose, in press). For example, as a person’srole changes at work he or she may need to change thespecific strengths used or the amount in which they areused (including the possibility of using a strength lessrather than more). Schwartz and Sharpe (2005) arguethat wisdom is a meta-strength in that it is vital for theappropriate use of other strengths. To work moreeffectively with clients, then, practitioners might shiftfrom a ‘use it more’ mentality (or even a general ‘use itdifferently’ mentality) and adopt the competencyapproach of regulating strengths by using ‘them inproportion to situational demands’ (Linley, 2008).

It is important for practitioners to have a solidunderstanding of personality theory, cultural and situ-ational influences, and related factors that mightincrease the effectiveness of strengths interventions.There are other intra- and interpersonal factors thatimpact strengths effectiveness and suggest that strengthsshould not be viewed as an isolated phenomenon. Wepresent an initial but, perhaps, incomplete list here:

(1) Strengths tilt

Although most strengths theorists ground their workin the foundation of personality theory most, if not all,also acknowledge the role of positive emotion as ahallmark feature of strengths (Buckingham & Clifton,2001; Linley et al., 2010). Indeed, the emotional aspectof strengths use appears to be an important motivatorfor individuals as they continue the process ofstrengths experimentation and development.There is an increasing understanding that strengthsmay interact with interests and passions in a variety ofways. Morris and Garrett (2009) suggest that strengthsuse leads directly to more passionate work. In addition,Peterson, Park, Hall, and Seligman (2009) found thatzest was strongly associated with workplace outcomessuch as job satisfaction. These recent findingsare reminiscent of the research on the ways thattalent and interests affect professional outcomes.Consider a series of studies by researcher Lubinski

The Journal of Positive Psychology 111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

and Benbow (2006), Lubinski, Benbow, Webb, andBleske-Rechek (2006). In one study, the researchersexamined the work preferences of intellectually tal-ented students and then again years later when theresearch participants were 35 years old. The research-ers found dramatic shifts in work preferences over theyears. For example, the young men in the study wereprincipally concerned with their education and ‘findinga niche’ but, at follow-up, they were more concernedwith ‘making their mark’. At work, a leaning towardfriendships, satisfaction, and enjoyment was graduallyreplaced with an emphasis on leadership opportunitiesand merit-based pay. This directly suggests that boththe identification and intervention with strengths maybe modified to fit individual values as individualsgrow older.

There were interesting differences with the talentedwomen in the 35-year study. Although they were just aslikely as men, on follow-up, to have tenure trackresearch positions at universities they were also ninetimes more likely to be homemakers. Moreover, whileall the young people in the study thought a flexiblework schedule and fewer hours were important, the35-year-old women who were mothers thought thesefacets of work were even more important than theirpeers at follow-up. Thus, talents (or strengths) are notenough in themselves, they interact with a person’sinterests and values (Kashdan & McKnight, 2009;McKnight & Kashdan, 2009). This is why, forinstance, one person might have the strength ofcourage manifesting and being used in very differentways than another person (e.g. an emergency roomdoctor versus a whistleblower).

The idea that interests influence how strengthsmanifest is even more clearly seen in a second study.Here, the Lubinski team looked at the work perfor-mance among hundreds of profoundly gifted people;children who, by the age of 13, were identified as beingin the top 1% on standardized tests of intellectualability. Upon follow-up 20 years later, the researchersfound that it was not basic intellectual ability(strengths or talents) that predicted specific achieve-ments later in life but, rather, it was ‘intellectual tilt’.The researchers identified ‘tilt’ by subtracting verbalscores from mathematical scores, effectively pinpoint-ing whether the 13-year olds leaned more towardhumanities or quantitative reasoning. The researchersfound this tilt could predict not whether the individualwas successful but the type of success he or she had.

Taken together, these studies provide evidence thatpeople’s natural leanings and interests interact withtheir basic strengths to move them forward in onespecific direction and away from others. Regardless ofwhether these leanings are the product of genetics,socialization, or individual preferences; they stronglyinfluence how a person chooses to manifest her talents.Thus, strengths should not be viewed in isolation but

should be paired with interests to get a better under-standing of how strengths are likely to best optimallyemployed by each individual client. Although theMyers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) is often pairedwith an interest measure such as the Holland InterestInventory (Holland, 1996) to create an in-depth report,this is rarely done with strengths assessments. To workwith individual clients on the idea of strengths tilt, askquestions that highlight the importance of personalvalues. These might include questions as basic as ‘Howmight you use this strength to live your values?’ or ascomplicated as ‘How does this strength manifest in youin a way that it does not manifest in others?’ or ‘Whatchoices have you made around using this strength, andwhat prompted you to make those specific decisions?’

(2) Strength constellations

We feel that the single greatest area of improvement instrengths intervention is to formally increase ourcollective understanding of strengths constellations.By ‘strengths constellations’, we mean the uniqueprofiles of strengths from person to person.Currently, many practitioners focus – somewhatarbitrarily – on their client’s ‘top 5 strengths’, mostoften meaning those that the client most heavilyendorses on a strengths measure. We feel there ismuch to be gained by looking at specific pairings orgroupings of strengths. The science of psychology isreplete with examples in which researchers have foundit advantageous to examine concepts in tandem ratherthan in isolation. Take the construct of ‘subjective well-being’ (Diener, 1984) for example. Subjective well-being consists of specific components (life satisfactionand positive and negative affect).While it is instructiveto assess each of these individually, it is more sophis-ticated to understand how each of these affects theothers (Schimmack, 2008). In some cases, attention tothe interplay between subjective well-being compo-nents has led to new insights, such as the finding thatglobal life satisfaction is not merely the aggregate ofspecific domain satisfaction but is, instead, affected bycultural norms (Diener, Scollon, Oishi, Dzokoto, &Suh, 2000). In the clinical setting, the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory – II (MMPI-2) is usefulnot simply because it can measure somatization,depression, paranoia, and other clinical symptoms,but because it creates distinctive profiles based on therelative relationship among these different symptoms.Similarly, the usefulness of the MBTI in organizationalsettings rests, in part, on its ability to distinguishdifferent ‘types’ (e.g., an extroverted personality typethat is coupled with a leaning toward ‘thinking’ isdifferent than an extroverted personality type coupledwith a leaning toward ‘feeling’). We feel the merits ofexamining the interactions between intrapersonal fac-tors and processes can best be seen in personality

112 R. Biswas-Diener et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

theory. Cervone (2005) suggests that, historically,theorists have tried to understand intra individualpersonality architecture by dividing their topicof interest into distinct parts. As an improvement onthis approach, Cervone condones the development ofmulti-factor and context-sensitive understandingof behavior, such that it might be explained by thewhole person, rather than the person’s parts.

In our own work, we have seen interesting exam-ples of this, especially where two strengths seem to becontradictory. For example, one of us (RBD) recentlyworked with a client who had the strengths of‘spotlight’ and ‘humility’. Spotlight is the ability tothrive as the center of attention, to be able to holdother people’s interest and focus, and to perform wellunder the scrutiny of others. Humility is activelyavoiding arrogance by sharing credit for personalsuccesses and appreciating those who act in a supportcapacity. At first look, these two strengths are contra-dictory. How can someone be humble but also love tobe the center of attention? What we often find withindividuals with this combination is that they getenergy from speaking up on behalf of others. In a teamsetting, for instance, they are happy to speak on behalfof the group. Individuals with this particular combi-nation of strengths make good spokespeople for acause they believe in. We feel this provides anadditional layer of sophistication to that of examiningstrengths in isolation. There is a definite need for moreresearch on strengths constellations. Currently, weknow very little about how specific strengths interactwith one another or manifest in real world circum-stances. Practitioners are in a uniquely well-suitedposition to gather some of this information.We advocate both more research and increased sharingof insights related to strengths constellations.

(3) Strengths blindness

People tend to value their own area of strength and –to some extent – disparage their areas of weakness.So aligned are the concepts of strengths and values thatthe VIA approach to strengths explicitly acknowledgesthe link by calling itself ‘Values in Action’ (Peterson &Seligman, 2004). Interestingly, because there is somuch conceptual overlap between strengths andvalues, people might not be aware of their strengths.For instance, in a recent qualitative study of 50 highlycourageous people, one of us (Biswas-Diener, in press)found that people are often ‘blind’ to a personalstrength because they view it as ‘ordinary’ rather than‘extraordinary’. This does not appear to be a matter ofhumility or socially desirable self-presentation butrepresents a true psychological blind spot. Evidencefor this rests, in part, in the fact that many of theinterviewees were obviously high in self-confidence andspoke openly about their feats, such as obtaining

World Records or skiing to the South Pole.In addition, many of the respondents in this studyreported genuine surprise to learn that other peoplemight act in non-courageous ways if faced with similarsituations. A similar understanding of courage isillustrated in this interview quote:

I never thought of myself as courageous. I always justdid what needed to be done. I thought I acted in exactlythe same way as other people. I never thought it wasanything special until other people started compliment-ing me. Only then did I realize I was different.

There are several possible reasons why people mightbe susceptible to psychological blind spots regardingtheir own strengths. First, people are prone to falseconsensus biases (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977) wherethey are likely to overestimate the similarity of theactions and thoughts of others to their own. This couldlead to a situation in which individuals habituallyoverlook the uniqueness of their own strengths.A second possibility lies in the fact that strengths areoften interwoven with personal values and therefore,more apt to be viewed as ‘the right thing to do’ ratherthan a unique behavior pattern. Third, research oncomparisons biases suggest the possibility that, to theextent that individuals occasionally underestimate theirown prowess (below-average-effect), especially ininstances where tasks are perceived as difficult(Kruger, 1999). To the extent that ‘strengths blindness’occurs it would be helpful to know where we mightexpect strengths blindness and to better understand itsconsequences. To use the 24 VIA strengths as anexample, it might be interesting to learn that people tendnot to be blind to strengths such as humor andspirituality but are more typically blind to the strengthssuch as kindness, curiosity, and bravery. Understandingareas where strengths blindness is more common wouldenable us to better work with clients by creatinginterventions that were appropriate to their level ofinsight and readiness for change. Indeed, identifyingpersonal blind spots is central to individualized coach-ing and psychotherapy. Currently, we know little aboutwhere clients have natural insights and natural blindspots related to their own strengths. Once again, we feelthat practitioners are in a good position to help collectand disseminate this type of information.

(4) Strengths sensitivity

We notice that very few people, ourselves included,talk much about any potential downsides of a strengthsfocus. Scholars tend to emphasize the benefits of astrengths focus, in part, because this is what the resultsof research suggest (e.g., Govindji & Linley, 2007;Seligman et al., 2005; Stefanyszyn, 2007; Wood et al.,2011). Despite the potential benefits of a strengthsapproach we have noticed that, occasionally, clientsfeel disappointed, disengaged, or otherwise distressed

The Journal of Positive Psychology 113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

as a result of strengths use. This is particularly truewhen people experience failures or setbacks – as theyinevitably will – when working in areas of strength.There is reason to believe that people who adopt astrengths approach to goal pursuit will be moreconfident and optimistic of success (Proctor et al.,2009). Thus, when failure occurs, people who morestrongly anticipate success may be more disappointedor self-punitive relative to those whose optimism ismore cautious. This is a case where an emphasis onstrengths may make people psychologically morevulnerable to failure than they might otherwise be.

This dovetails with a wider body of research –discussed above – on performance and its relation toperceptions of trait-stability by Dweck and colleagues(Grant &Dweck, 2003;Mueller &Dweck, 1998). It maybe that people are more vulnerable to failures associatedwith the use of strengths than they are with failuresassociated with the use of weaknesses. Past researchsuggests that people are susceptible to a wide range ofstrong reactions based on feedback, and that thesereactions are larger for personality feedback than forintellectual feedback (Snyder & Cowles, 1979).Furthermore, negative feedback that results from theinterpretation of personality inventory scores canundermine future performance (Cianci, Klein, &Seijts, 2010). The study by Cianci et al. (2010) isparticularly worth noting because of its potentialimplications for sensitivity related to strengths-basedperformance. Cianci et al. (2010) examined learninggoals – those focused on gaining competence – andperformance goals – those that emphasize achievement.These concepts are very similar to the growth and fixedmindsets described by Grant and Dweck (2003). TheCianci research team found that after receiving negativefeedback people with learning goals appeared toperform better than those with achievement goals.

It could be that failure in an area of perceivedstrength is associated with psychological costs.Currently, little is known about how people reactwhen they fail or are criticized in an area of strength, aswill inevitably happen. Anecdotal evidence with ourown clients suggests that people to tend to be exces-sively hard on themselves when failure or criticismoccurs around a strength. Additional research andsharing of practical experience are needed to betterunderstand this phenomenon (see McFall, 1991 forrole of front-line practitioners in collecting data) andto create interventions that might effectively addressmeta-cognitions concerning strengths.

(5) The social costs of strengths

Similar to personality characteristics, strengths areoften treated as intrapersonal phenomena. We offerno argument against this position but add to it the oftenoverlooked fact that the use of strengths often has social

consequences. For example, a person high in creativitymay be viewed by others as clever or they may becriticized as being non-conformist.Whether a particularstrength is perceived as a positive or a negative byobservers is less important than being aware thatstrengths can alter or be altered by the social world.One way strengths interventionists can help people todevelop strengths is by focusing on awareness of thesocial impact of strength use in order to minimizepotential social costs and maximize social gains.

There are several possible social costs associatedwith strengths use. First, because strengths are closelyaligned with values (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), it ispossible that people will not value the strengths ofothers if they are different from their own. Suchreactions may be a matter of predictable social biasessuch as those related to in-group favoritism as much asthey are a matter of personal opinion. Someone low inforgiveness, for example, may interpret forgivingbehaviors as a sign of weakness in others. Anotherpotential social problem related to strengths use lies inegocentric biases (Dunning et al., 2004). People tend tooverestimate their own strengths and contributions togroup endeavors while underestimating the strengthsand contributions of others (Kruger, Windschitl,Burrus, Fessel, & Chambers, 2008). Kruger et al.offer evidence that such biases are particularly associ-ated with areas of competence, such as strengths.This could lead to potential discord in romanticrelationships, work teams and other groups. Thus, an‘outside-in’ view of strengths may be one interventionapproach that challenging clients to enhance self-knowledge, overcome natural cognitive biases, andpromote superior social functioning.

The ideas presented here – strengths tilt, strengthsconstellations, strengths blindness, strengths sensitivity,and the social costs of strengths – are the direct productsof the ‘strengths development’ mindset. The strengthsdevelopment approach views strengthswithin a complexweb of situational, social, and intrapsychic factors thatlead to unique real-world behavior patterns rangingfrom unrealized potential to optimal outcomes. It isbecause of this contextual understanding of strengthsthat development is possible at all. Rather than seeingstrengths as isolated traits, we urge practitioners toworkfrom a position of client growth. From this perspective,personal effectiveness is a matter of recognizing andbeing more aware of the bi-directional relationshipsbetween central personal values and strengths, and theinformation dictated by a situation for what strengthsshould be deployed and to what degree.

Conclusion

Practical work with strengths is a core component ofpositive psychology and offers a potentially powerful

114 R. Biswas-Diener et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

avenue for increasing performance and affecting socialchange (Linley & Garcea, 2011). Despite the rapidgains made in the psychological study of strengths,there remain few formal guidelines for practice, andthere is a sense of disconnect between the research onstrengths and the practice based on this research.Although there are undoubtedly clever clinicians,educators, and coaches using strengths in novel andpowerful ways, anecdotal evidence suggests that mostemploy rudimentary approaches to strengths basedintervention. Although the so-called ‘identify and use’approach to strengths is logical and effective, wepresent an alternative approach called ‘strengthsdevelopment’. This approach helps us to identifymore nuanced aspects of strengths use such as theways that we are tempted – often to our own detriment– to simply use strengths more, regardless of what iswise. Specifically, we believe that strengths can bedeveloped in an on-going manner by attending to theproficiency, frequency, and regulation of use.We encourage practitioners to develop a growthmindset around strengths and to help their clientsadopt the same mindset.

We also believe that strengths should be viewed asbeing highly contextual rather than isolated in nature.We argue that positive psychology practitioners –whether coaches, educators, or therapists – can expandupon the identify and use approach in ways that willmake interventions more sophisticated and effective,and reduce the potential for harm. We offer severalguiding principles for strengths assessment andintervention:

(1) The situation provides important informationabout which strengths should be used and inwhat capacity/degree. Thus, increasing compe-tency can be developed through awarenessof the impact of situational factors and thewise application of strengths in response tothese.

(2) A client’s understanding of the growth-orientednature of strengths can affect their success inusing them. Lay views of the extent to whichstrengths are fixed or can be developed haveimplications for how they are introduced toclients and, possibly, the effectiveness ofstrengths interventions.

(3) Personal interests and values often interact withstrengths to affect performance.

(4) There may be utility in taking a multi-dimensional approach to intrapersonalphenomena as they affect strengths. Self-definedinterests and values, to name two such phenom-ena, influence people’s awareness of their ownstrengths and how strengths are manifested.

(5) Practitioners should steer away from viewing atstrengths in arbitrary formats such as looking

at the ‘top 5’ or ‘bottom 5’ strengths on a list andmove toward addressing strengths in tandemand in constellation. More research is needed todetermine how two or more strengths mightmanifest together in unique or emergent ways.

(6) Potential negative side effects might outweighbenefits for a particular person confrontingparticular life circumstances. Strengths worksimply should not be treated as appropriate foreveryone in every circumstance. In fact, atten-tion to strengths might be associated withpsychological vulnerabilities such as decreasedmotivation or a perceived threat to a coherentunderstanding of one’s own identity.

The current state of strengths research and practiceis largely a patchwork of studies from the fields ofmanagement, sports, coaching, and social and clinicalpsychology. Because of this, it can be difficult forpractitioners to be kept abreast of important develop-ments, new theories, and assessments, and be exposedto new intervention techniques. Although we make anattempt to address this problem in this article werealize that a single piece of scholarly writing cannot,in itself, be sufficient as a solution. We call uponpractitioners and the institutions of positive psychol-ogy, including (but not limited to) journal editorsand leaders of professional organizations, to createplatforms for research on strengths to be widelydisseminated. In addition, practitioners and institu-tions need to advocate specific, concrete standards forpractice. We also recognize that more research isneeded to guide practitioners as they work with clients.In particular, we see a need for research on strengthsconstellations to better understand how personalqualities operate in synergy to alter psychological andphysical well-being. Finally, we have limited ourdiscussion primarily to interventions at the individuallevel. There are other possible levels of interventionincluding small group, organization and communitylevels, although these fall beyond our ability to addressin this article. Major advances in basic and appliedknowledge will arise from the integration of thesevarious levels of strengths intervention.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend an extra special note of thanks toRyan Niemiec and to Shane Lopez for their comments on anearly draft of this article. The second author (TBK)was supported by National Institute of Mental Healthgrant MH-73937.

Note

1. In this article, we confine our discussion to strengthsinterventions that explicitly address strengths as trait-like personal attributes. Although there are differing

The Journal of Positive Psychology 115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

classifications of strengths (e.g. VIA, Strengths Finder,Realise2) they share in common a primary concern withlabeling specific named trait-like strengths. There areother intervention techniques such as appreciativeinquiry (AI; Cooperrider, Whitney, Stavros, & Fry,2008) and solutions focus therapy (SFT; Berg & Szabo,2005) that are positive in nature. These do not, however,represent ‘strengths interventions,’ as we understandthem because they are concerned with a far broaderunderstanding of personal and group resources. It is truethat AI or SFT practitioners might label individualstrengths but they might just as easily work withconcepts such as financial wealth or time affluence asresources that can be leveraged toward achieving goals.It is here that we make the distinction between AI, SFT(and related intervention modalities) as being primarily‘resource focused’ rather than specifically ‘strengthsfocused’. The strengths interventions referred to in thismanuscript represent a narrower set of interventionsconcerned exclusively with working with trait-likepersonal attributes. To the extent that practitioners ofAI, SFT, and similar interventions specifically addressstrengths than the comments made in this manuscriptwould be just as relevant.

References

Aspinwall, L., & Staudinger, U.M. (2003). A psychologyof human strengths: Fundamental questions and futuredirections for positive psychology. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Baker, T.B., McFall, R.M., & Shoham, V. (2008). Currentstatus and future prospects of clinical psychology: Towarda scientifically principled approach to mental and beha-vioral health care. Psychological Science in the PublicInterest, 9, 67–103.

Berg, I.K., & Szabo, P. (2005). Brief coaching for lastingsolutions. New York: W.W. Norton.

Biswas-Diener, R. (2009). Personal coaching as a positiveintervention. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 544–553.

Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). A positive way of addressingnegatives: Using strengths-based Interventions in coachingand therapy. In G. Burns (Ed.), Happiness, healing andenhancement: Your casebook collection for applying positivepsychology in therapy (pp. 291–302). Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons.

Biswas-Diener, R. (in press). Courage. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Bowers, K.M., & Lopez, S. (2010). Capitalizing onpersonal strengths in college. Journal of College andCharacter, 11, 1–11.

Buckingham, M. (2007). Go put your strengths to work:6 powerful steps to achieve outstanding performance.New York: Free Press.

Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. (2001). Now discover yourstrengths. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster AdultPublishing Group.

Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within personstructures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,423–452.

Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Beyond traits in the studyof personality coherence. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 8, 27–32.

Cianci, A., Klein, H., & Seijts, G.H. (2010). The effect ofnegative feedback on tension and subsequent performance:The main and interaction effects of goal content andconscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,618–630.

Clifton, D., & Harter, J.K. (2003). Investing in strengths.In K. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positiveorganizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline.San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.

Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D., Stavros, J.M., & Fry, R.(2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leader ofchange. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Corporate Leadership Council. (2002). Performance manage-ment survey. Washington, DC: Author.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. PsychologicalBulletin, 95, 542–575.

Diener, E., Scollon, C.K.N., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Suh,E.M. (2000). Positivity and the construction of lifesatisfaction judgments: Global happiness is not thesum of its parts. Journal of Happiness Studies: AnInterdisciplinary Periodical on Subjective Well-Being, 1,159–176.

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and theworkplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5,69–106.

Dweck, C. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role ofbeliefs in personality and change. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 17, 391–394.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success.New York, NY: Ballentine Books.

Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distribu-tions of states. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 80, 1011–1027.

Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity ofwithin-person variability. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 13, 83–87.

Fluckiger, C., & Grosse Holforth, M. (2008). Focusingthe therapist’s attention on the patient’s strengths:A preliminary study to foster a mechanism of change inoutpatient psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology,64, 876–890.

Fox, J. (2008). Your child’s strengths: Discover them, developthem, use them. New York, NY: Penguin.

Govindji, R., & Linley, A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications For strengthscoaching and coaching psychologists. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 2, 143–153.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C.S. (2003). Clarifying achievementgoals and their impact. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 85, 541–553.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.

Hayes, S.C., Luoma, J.B., Bond, F.W.,Masuda,A., &Lillis, J.

(2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model,

processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy,

44, 1–25.

116 R. Biswas-Diener et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

Hill, J. (2001). How well do we know our strengths? Paperpresented at the British Psychological Society CentenaryConference, Glasgow, Scotland.

Holland, J.L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology:What we have learned and some new directions. AmericanPsychologist, 51, 397–406.

Hong, Y.Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C.S., Lin, D., & Wan, W.(1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping:A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 77, 588–599.

John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Fivetrait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoreticalperspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbookof personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138).New York: Guilford.

Kashdan, T.B., & McKnight, P.E. (2009). Origins of purposein life: Refining our understanding of a life well lived.Psychological Topics, 18, 303–316.

Kashdan, T.B., McKnight, P.E., Fincham, F.D., & Rose, P.(in press). When curiosity breeds intimacy: Takingadvantage of intimacy opportunities and transformingboring conversations. Journal of Personality.

Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The ‘‘below-average effect’’ and the nature of comparative abilityjudgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 221–232.

Kruger, J., Windschitl, P.D., Burrus, J., Fessel, F., &Chambers, J. (2008). The rational side of egocentrism insocial comparisons. Journal of Experimental socialPsychology, 44, 220–232.

Linley, A. (2008). Average to Aþ: Realizing strengths inyourself and others. Coventry, UK: CAPP Press.

Linley, P.A. (2010). Realise2: technical Report. Coventry,UK: CAPP Press.

Linley, P.A., & Burns, G.W. (2010). Strengthspotting.In G.W. Burns (Ed.), Happiness, healing, enhancement:Your casebook collection for applying positive psychol-ogy in therapy (pp. 3–14). Hoboken, NJ: John Wileyand Sons.

Linley, P.A., & Garcea, N. (2011). Creating positive socialchange through building positive organizations: Fourlevels of intervention. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positivepsychology as a mechanism for social change. Utrecht, TheNetherlands: Springer.

Linley, P.A., & Harrington, S. (2007). Playing to yourstrengths. The Psychologist, 19, 85–89.

Linley, P.A., Harrington, S., & Garcea, N. (2009). Oxfordhandbook of positive psychology and work. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Linley, P.A., Nielsen, K.M., Wood, A.M., Gillett, R., &Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signature strengths inpursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfac-tion, and well-being, and implications for coachingpsychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review,5, 6–15.

Linley, A., Willars, J., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Thestrengths book: What you can do, love to do, and find it hardto do – and why it matters. Coventry, UK: CAPP Press.

Louis, M.C. (2009). A summary and critique of existingstrengths-based educational research Utilizing the CliftonStrengths Finder. Internal paper, The Gallup Organization.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (2006). Study of mathemati-cally precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering ante-cedents for the development of math-science expertise.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C.P., Webb, R.M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capitalover two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194–199.

Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J., & Sheldon, K.(2010; submitted). Becoming happier takes both a will anda proper way: An experimental longitudinal interventionto boost well-being.

McFall, R.M. (1991). Manifesto for a science of clinicalpsychology. The Clinical Psychologist, 44, 75–88.

McKnight, P.E., & Kashdan, T.B. (2009). Purpose in life as asystem that creates and sustains health and well-being:An integrative, testable theory. Review of GeneralPsychology, 13, 242–251.

Minhas, G. (2010). Developing realised and unrealisedstrengths: Implications for engagement, self-esteem, lifesatisfaction and well-being. Assessment and DevelopmentMatters, 2, 12–16.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processingdynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review ofPsychology, 49, 229–258.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2002).Situation-behavior profiles as a locus of consistency inpersonality. Current Directions in Psychological Science,11, 50–54.

Morris, D., & Garrett, J. (2009). Strengths: Your leadingedge. In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.),Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work(pp. 95–106). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mueller, C.M., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Intelligence praise canundermine motivation and performance. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52.

Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2009).Zest and work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,161–172.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengthsand virtues a handbook and classification. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association Press and OxfordUniversity Press.

Peterson, C., Stephens, J.P., Park, N., Lee, F., & Seligman,M.E.P. (2009). Strengths of character and work.In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.),Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work(pp. 221–234). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P.A (2009). Strengths useas a predictor of well-being and health-related quality oflife. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 583–630.

Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The falseconsensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perceptionand attribution processes. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 13, 279–301.

Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being.In M. Eid & R.J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjectivewell-being (pp. 97–123). New York: Guilford Press.

Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2005). Practical wisdom:Aristotle meets positive psychology. Journal of HappinessStudies, 7, 377–395.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2

Seligman, M., Rashid, T., & Parks, A.C. (2006). Positivepsychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61, 774–788.

Seligman, M., Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005).Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation ofinterventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.

Sin, N.L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-beingand alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychol-ogy interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487.

Smiley, P.A., & Dweck, C.S. (1994). Individual differences inachievement goals among young children. ChildDevelopment, 65, 1723–1743.

Snyder, C.R., & Cowles, C. (1979). Impact of positive andnegative feedback based on personality and intellectualassessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,47, 207–209.

Stefanyszyn, K. (2007). Norwich Union changes focus fromcompetencies to strengths. Strategic Human ResourcesReview, 7, 10–11.

Steger, M.F., Hicks, B.M., Kashdan, T.B., Krueger, R.F., &Bouchard, T.J. Jr (2007). Genetic and environmentalinfluences on the positive traits of the Values in Actionclassification, and biometric covariance with normalpersonality. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 524–539.

Treiweiler, S.J., & Stricker, G. (1998). The scientific practiceof professional psychology. New York: Plenum.

Wood, A.M., Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T.B., &Hurling, R. (2011). Using psychological strengths leads toless stress and greater self-esteem, vitality, and positiveaffect: Longitudinal examination of the strengths usequestionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50,15–19.

118 R. Biswas-Diener et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia]

at 1

8:23

30

July

201

2