Strength-based interventions

Introduction

This contribution addresses the challenges and possibilities of a strength-based approach in working with gifted children from a positive psychology (PP) perspective. In its broadest sense, PP aims at studying what is best in people and focuses on emotions, traits, and institutions that make our lives most worth living (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). When Martin Seligman was elected as president of the American Psychological Association, he argued that psychology should broaden its focus—again—by strengthening research efforts and evidence-based practice in areas other than mental illnesses and diseases. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) note, “Before World War II, psychology had three distinct missions: curing mental illness, making the lives of all people more productive and fulfilling, and identifying and nurturing high talent” (p. 6). They refer to Terman’s seminal studies on giftedness (1939) as an example of an early PP approach. We will focus on one specific area of research in PP, namely, research on morally positively valued traits (i.e. character strengths).

There are hints on the relevance of PP variables in giftedness at many different levels. For example, gifted students seem to differ from others by higher levels of eagerness to learn and academic self-concepts and lower levels of test anxiety (Rost, 2000). This may provide ground for the assumption that strengths such as a love of learning or curiosity are of particular interest when working with gifted students. However, Rost (2000) demonstrated for German fourth graders that gifted children did not differ from the others in many other aspects, such as being integrated in the class and having many friends. Comparable results were found for social aspects of Finnish A-level students (Salmela and Uusiautti, 2015). They highlighted the importance of their close relationships for sharing and encouragement and kindness and care for others. Terman and colleagues (1925, 1947, 1959) prospectively followed high-IQ students and could further demonstrate that they were more emotionally stable, had fewer emotional difficulties, and were better adjusted when adults. Again, this could be translated into a strengths-based framework. Nevertheless, research also outlined depressive moods as well as emotional and social problems in gifted children (Berk, 2005). They were described as very sensible to other people’s expectations and, therefore, vulnerable when being criticized. Further, they were perceived as less cooperative and stubborn because of being focused and concentrated. Thereby, the highest adjustment problems were observed in students having extraordinary high IQs (180 and beyond; Hardman et al., 2005) or extreme levels of giftedness (Winner, 2000). To help extremely gifted students to overcome or deal with their problems and related troublesome social circumstances, strength-based interventions could be a promising option. For students in general, research has already demonstrated that supporting them to utilize their strengths leads to happiness and well-being along with school satisfaction (Huebner et al., 2009).

PP, virtue, and character

It should be mentioned that PP is a relatively new discipline within psychology but has a comparatively long history. One important earlier contribution has already been mentioned with Terman’s studies but also other work (mainly conducted in the field of Humanistic Psychology) needs to be highlighted. For example, in 1958, Marie Jahoda published a report entitled “Current concepts of positive mental health” to the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health. There she reviews literature on mental health and identifies various criteria for positive mental health (e.g. attitudes of an individual toward his/her own self, growth, development, or self-actualization, autonomy, etc.). One of the most remarkable statements in her book is the notion that “[…] the absence of disease may constitute a necessary, but not a sufficient, criterion for mental health” (p. 15). Thus, the plea for studying the conditions that make the life well worth living (e.g. Maslow, 1968), or studies on the (psychological) meaning in life (e.g. Frankl, 1959), or personal (optimal) development (e.g. Rogers, 1963) is much older than the introduction of the term “positive psychology” as it is being used now, but it surely has regained strength and attention by recent developments.

Three topics are at the center of PP: (a) positive subjective experiences (e.g. happiness or pleasure), (b) positive individual traits (e.g. character strengths or talents), and (c) positive institutions (e.g. families or schools; Peterson, 2006). Over the past years, techniques have been developed for strengthening positive individual traits. Peterson and Seligman (2004) propose a classification system (the Values-in-Action classification) of 24 strengths and 6 virtues. Each strength is assigned to one virtue and the idea is that a virtuous life can be pursued by living the respective strengths; for example, the virtue of wisdom can be achieved through creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, and perspective. Each of the strengths had to fulfill 10 criteria (e.g. it is fulfilling, it is morally valued in its own right, its display does not diminish other people, it should be trait like, etc.) to be included in the classification. The strengths are expected to be universally positively valued and that they provide keys to the “good life.” The Values-in-Action Inventory of Strengths (Peterson et al., 2005) and the Values-in-Action Inventory of Strengths for Youth (VIA-Youth; Park and Peterson, 2006) are the most frequently used instruments for the self-assessment of the 24 strengths.

There are numerous studies that provide support for the notion of a positive relationship between the VIA strengths and various indicators of (subjective) well-being (e.g., Brdar et al., 2011; Buschor et al., 2013; Gander et al., 2012; Khumalo et al., 2008; Martínez-Martí and Ruch, 2014; Park et al., 2004; Peterson et al., 2007; Ruch et al., 2010). However, character strengths seem to contribute not only to different indicators of subjective well-being but also to a broad range of other positive outcomes, such as academic achievement (Lounsbury et al., 2009; Park and Peterson, 2008, 2009); physical well-being (Proyer et al., 2013); job performance, positive experiences at work, seeing one’s work as a calling, positive work-related behaviors (Avey et al., 2012; Gander et al., 2012; Harzer and Ruch, 2012); or meaning, but also a pleasurable and eudaimonically oriented lifestyle (Buschor et al., 2013;Littman-Ovadia and Steger, 2010; Peterson et al., 2007). Research conducted with children and adolescents also points toward a stable relationship of character strengths with subjective well-being (e.g. Gillham et al., 2011; Park and Peterson, 2006; Ruch et al., 2014; see also Furlong et al., 2009). Additionally, character strengths have been related to several positive school-related outcomes, such as school achievement (i.e. grades), positive classroom behavior (Wagner and Ruch, 2012, 2015; Weber et al., 2016), popularity (Park and Peterson, 2006), and social functioning at school (Shoshani and Slone, 2013). These studies support the notion that character strengths play an important role in educational settings in several respects—directly relating not only to academic success but also to supporting factors, such as classroom behavior and social environments.

Character strengths-based interventions

Aside from these mostly correlational approaches, there is also the idea of using the strengths in PP interventions; these are “[…] treatment methods or intentional activities that aim to cultivate positive feelings, behaviors, or cognitions” (Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009: 468). Such approaches are useful in studying causality in the relationship between strengths and well-being. For example, Proyer et al. (2013) were interested in testing the assumption that those strengths that typically correlate best with well-being (i.e. curiosity, gratitude, hope, love, zest, plus humor) should primarily be targeted in strengths-based intervention studies—in comparison to strengths that usually have the comparatively lowest relationships (i.e. appreciation of beauty and excellence, creativity, love of learning, modesty, perspective, plus kindness). In short, findings suggest that a 10-week group intervention focusing on the highly correlated strengths led to an increase in life satisfaction in comparison with a group that underwent trainings for low correlated strengths. However, participants in the latter group also seemed to benefit from the program. An interesting side finding of this study was that those participants benefitted most from the interventions (in both groups) that demonstrated an increase in the strength of self-regulation over the course of the program. The authors have argued that the structure of the program (i.e. regular meetings, “homework” assignments, etc.) might have facilitated the development of self-regulation and, thereby, contributed to the participants’ well-being. Numerous other studies exist that address specific indicators of positive psychological functioning such as the appreciation of beauty (Diessner et al., 2006), gratitude (Emmons and McCullough, 2003; Sheldon and Lyubomirsky, 2006), or kindness (Otake et al., 2006; see also Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). A recent meta-analysis provides strong support for the notion that positive interventions (including interventions that are not explicitly based on strengths) can enhance well-being and reduce depressive symptoms (Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009).

Seligman et al. (2005) and others (e.g. Gander et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2009; Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews, 2012; Proyer et al., 2015) have shown that strengths-based and other interventions could also be successfully conducted in web-based self-administered settings. A well-replicated finding is that identifying one’s signature strengths (i.e. one’s core strengths; see Peterson and Seligman, 2004) and using them in a new way over the course of 1 week is beneficial in the sense of an increase in happiness and amelioration of depressive symptoms. One important aspect is the question of long-term effects and sustainable changes in well-being. Some of the placebo-controlled studies conducted online have demonstrated effects for up to 6 months for 1-week interventions—in fact, this seems rather surprising, given the comparatively short time needed for achieving such effects (e.g. writing down “three good things”/“three blessings” each night for 7 consecutive days). A recent study has also shown that the way people respond to these types of interventions (e.g. liking of the intervention, early reactivity, etc.) predicts a robust portion of the variance in happiness (6%) and depression (9%) after a time span of 3.5 years (after completion of the intervention; Proyer et al., 2015). Overall, it seems as if such PP interventions hold great potential for contributing to people’s well-being.

Character strength-based interventions for the gifted

We argue that this line of research also has the potential for the work with gifted children and adolescents. In her seminal article on the origins and ends of giftedness, Winner (2000) reviews literature on the social and emotional aspects of giftedness. She refers to studies showing that extreme levels of giftedness may be associated, among others, with isolation, nonconformity, or the tendency to hide own abilities in order to become more popular. It is not surprising that “academics” (e.g. being nerdy) is one of the domains covering potential reasons for being teased in Storch et al.’s (2004) Teasing Questionnaire. Hence, one might argue that a strength-based approach in working with the gifted may help them in using their strengths more efficiently—in general and at school in particular. Winner (2000) argues that “We need to intervene for the happiness and mental health of gifted students” (p. 166), and it seems as if strength-based approaches may be promising. It is further argued that programs that help gifted children and adolescents to foster and cultivate their strengths can be a psychological resource, but may also provide a challenge for them, appropriate to their desire for learning. Furthermore, strength-based approaches have a potential to increase the experience of positive emotions—a key contributor to well-being (e.g. Fredrickson, 2001). Overall, tailoring interventions not only to the relative weaknesses but also to the strengths of the gifted seems important.

To the best of the knowledge of the authors there is no study published thus far on whether specific strengths are more pronounced among the gifted in comparison with those that are not gifted. Earlier studies have shown that it was possible to identify group-specific profiles (e.g. for people with different work habits, Gander et al., 2012; for people with Asperger’s syndrome, Samson and Antonelli, 2013; or for class clowns, Ruch et al., 2015). Furthermore, there are first hints that certain strengths of wisdom, such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and love of learning, are positively related to intelligence, whereas certain strengths of temperance (i.e. modesty and self-regulation) and transcendence (i.e. spirituality, gratitude, and appreciation of beauty and excellence) demonstrate negative relations to intelligence (Proyer et al., 2015). Although these relationships are usually small (in terms of effect sizes), it would be interesting to see whether there are differences in the strengths profiles between those gifted and those nongifted as well—and whether such differences are limited to strengths assigned to a specific virtue (e.g. wisdom) or are of broader nature. This would also help tailoring programs better to the needs of those particularly gifted. Although there are no studies on the effectiveness of PP interventions among the gifted, a recent study has suggested that interventions administered in group settings are more effective for those with higher abilities (Proyer et al., 2016). Thus, they may be particularly appealing to gifted students.

It should be noted that such an account would not violate the idea of individual differences among the gifted. Also, information about the dissimilarity of a student’s profile with the profile of his/her peers would be of interest. In comparison with traditional methods of direct instruction, cooperative learning facilitates positive attitudes toward peers, school, and oneself in students in general, it fosters building positive and supportive relationships, decreases levels of stress and anxiety, and further helps students to be empathetic by being able to take other peoples’ perspectives (Felder and Brent, 1994; for some caveats in this line of research see Fuchs and colleagues, 1998). Additionally, it was shown that cooperative learning strategies, such as the jigsaw puzzle (Hänze and Berger, 2007), might have a potential for facilitating strengths. Cooperative learning strategies foster students’ needs for competence, autonomy, and social relatedness as posited by self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Within this framework, context factors supporting those basic needs facilitate the natural process of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. Therefore, educational programs for teachers that help them to create context factors contributing to the development of those strengths in gifted students may be beneficial. This also fits a basic plea for research in PP, namely, that there is still a need to translate research to practice to replace the problem-solving approach and to strengthen the idea of optimal functioning for all children in teachers and other school-related professionals (Huebner and Hills, 2011).

Challenges and possibilities in interventions for the gifted

Winner (2000) lists four dangers that gifted students have to face, namely:

(1.) The danger of pushing so hard that the intrinsic motivation and rage to master these children start out with become a craving for the extrinsic rewards of fame. (2.) The danger of pushing so hard that these children later feel they missed out on having a normal childhood. (3.) The danger of freezing a prodigy into a safe, technically perfect but noninnovative way of performing because this is what he or she has been rewarded for doing so well. (4.) The danger of the psychological wound caused by the fall from being a famous prodigy who can perform perfectly to a forgotten adult who can do no more than perform perfectly.” (p. 166)

Paragons of character

Many authors (e.g. Lubinski and Benbow, 2000) have argued that an individual differences approach when thinking about giftedness in terms of academic and nonacademic attributes is important. We argue that strengths should not only be seen as additional variables that might positively contribute to the development of giftedness (e.g., by facilitating learning or enabling creative productivity; Renzulli, 2012), but that there might also be paragons and highly gifted individuals with respect to character strengths. In fact, one of the criteria that a trait had to fulfill to be included in the VIA classification was the existence of paragons of the respective strength (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). In a similar vein, it has been argued for other areas of giftedness (e.g. Pfeiffer, 2008; Renzulli, 2002; Sternberg, 1997) that those excelling in one or more strengths should show their giftedness with no or minimal training of the respective strength(s)—yet their (signature) strengths may help them to keep (intrinsically) motivated to pursue their particular set of strengths. We might think of people who excel in their use of strengths by being exceptional leaders (e.g. leadership, teamwork, fairness), or who excel academically (e.g. by nurturing their curiosity, creativity, or love of learning), or who would be recognized for their humanistic engagement (e.g. kindness, love, or social intelligence). The question arises on how the strengths of these people can be nurtured and supported—and what could be expected from such interventions. Programs such as the ones mentioned but also single authors (e.g. Magyar-Moe, 2009; Parks and Schueller, 2014; Peterson, 2006) point to interventions for cultivating each of the strengths put forward by Peterson and Seligman (2004). Linkins and colleagues (2015) argue that traditional character education programs focus on a narrow subset of strengths (and virtues only), and note that “[…] the purpose of character education is not to enforce or impose, but rather to reveal, elicit, and nurture existing strengths” (p. 65). The Positive Psychology for Youth Program (e.g., Gillham et al., 2013; Seligman et al., 2009; see also Linkins et al., 2015; Park and Peterson, 2009) seems to encompass such a broader approach. It has also been argued that fostering strengths contributes to well-being not only when focusing on one’s signature strengths but also when focusing on one’s lesser strengths—depending on the overall virtuousness as a moderator of the effects (Proyer et al., 2015). Hence, there are programs that may be used for supporting children, adolescents, and also adults in their development of strengths—not only for their personal benefit (e.g. well-being, flourishing, personal growth, their “social capital”) but also presumably for the good of a broader group of people (e.g. other pupils in the classroom, work colleagues, friends, partners), or even larger entities (e.g. schools, families, companies, communities).

Suggestions for practice

Of course, the question emerges on how these ideas could be translated into practice. We propose a sequential strategy in four steps. In step 1 (knowing one’s strengths), all children in a class should get to know their own strengths; this means completing subjective measures for character strengths or conducting structured interviews for identifying the strengths profile and the signature strengths. Step 2 (sharing common experiences) should help the pupils and teachers to find a common language and increase the awareness of the strengths of everyone involved. Step 3 (implementation of interventions) might entail interventions aimed at the signature strengths of each individual (for further strengthening the strengths, increasing well-being and ameliorating depressive symptoms, and becoming more true to one’s inner self), and/or addressing strengths that are particularly relevant in the classroom (see Wagner and Ruch, 2015; Weber and Ruch, 2012; Weber et al., 2016). Finally, step 4 (evaluation) might consist of feedback circles that help evaluating the usefulness of these interventions and the strength-based approach in general.

Work of the Zurich-based group (e.g. Ruch et al., 2015; Wagner and Ruch, 2015; Weber and Ruch, 2012; Weber et al., 2016) has shown that character strengths play a role in school, for example, when identifying positive classroom behaviors or strengths that are of particular importance in school—for both academic success and personal and social development. Taken together with research generated in other groups and work that has been done on strength-based interventions, the notion of considering character strengths in working with the gifted seems a promising approach for future research and practice.

Of course, this can only be seen as a rough proposal, and a thorough investigation of the strength profile of gifted children and adolescents would be a first step in narrowing down particular interventions tailored to their needs. We see a great potential in supplementing the existing programs with a strengths-based approach, and we hope that this proposal serves to increase interest in researchers and practitioners in the field. Given that PP is a comparatively young discipline within psychology, preliminary results seem promising and encourage further work in this field.