Strength-based interventions

Abstract

Positive psychology has revived psychology’s abandoned interest in the study of morally positively valued traits (the so-called character strengths) and virtues. We review literature generated on strength-based approaches and focus on applications in the so-called positive psychology interventions. There seems to be great potential in this approach for research in the field of giftedness and, of course, also when practically working with gifted children and adolescents. We highlight some ideas for future research directions.

Keywords

Character strengths positive psychology positive psychology intervention

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)

We argue that strength-based approaches have a potential in preventing such dangers from occurring. For example, Peterson and Seligman (2004) posit that signature strengths are pursued for their own sake (i.e. intrinsically motivated); they are also associated with a steep learning curve regarding topics associated with the strengths. Hence, using signature strengths may not only be a path toward well-being but also help gifted children and adolescents to stay intrinsically motivated over a longer period of time. Also, the identification and usage of one’s own strengths may contribute to the impression of having a “normal childhood” in the sense of experiencing authenticity (a strength in itself), and of being true to one’s own personality traits—be it for the pursuit of one’s talents, or in a broader sense when being oneself. Knowledge about and use of one’s own signature strengths should also enable personal growth but further contribute to the experience of positive emotions (when using these strengths). The latter have been found to broaden the action and thought repertoire but also to facilitate building up more resources (personal, physical, and/or social; see Fredrickson, 2001). With respect to Winner’s fourth danger, one might argue that strength-based approaches may also be helpful to use resources developed as a child or an adolescent in later life and may also be seen as a resource that can be used for joint personal development throughout one’s life. We do not propose strength-based approaches as a one fits it all strategy to all dangers listed by Winner or to other problems that the gifted may face, but rather we suggest that these approaches could be a contributor to their well-being and, more generally speaking, contribute to the mastery of tasks in everyday life as well as for coping with educational and professional challenges.

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.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The preparation of this article has been facilitated by research grants of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; 100014_132512 and 100014_149772) awarded to RTP. The authors are grateful to Dr Frank A Rodden for proofreading the manuscript.

References

Avey

Luthans

Hannah

. (2012) Impact of employees’ character strengths of wisdom on stress and creative performance. Human Resource Management Journal 22: 165–181. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00157.x.

Berk

(2005) Infants, Children, and Adolescents. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brdar

Anić

Rijavec

(2011) Character strengths and well-being: are there gender differences? In: Brdar

(ed) The Human Pursuit of Well-being: A Cultural Approach. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 145–156. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1375-8_13

Buschor

Proyer

Ruch

(2013) Self- and peer-rated character strengths: how do they relate to satisfaction with life and orientations to happiness? Journal of Positive Psychology 8: 116–127.

Diessner

Rust

Solom

. (2006) Beauty and hope: a moral beauty intervention. Journal of Moral Education 35: 301–317. DOI: 10.1080/03057240600874430.

Emmons

McCullough

(2003) Counting blessings versus burdens: an experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84: 377–389. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377

Felder

Brent

(1994) Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED377038.

Frankl

(1959) Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Fredrickson

(2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56: 218–226. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.

10.

Fuchs

Hamlett

. (1998) High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal 35: 227–267. DOI: 10.3102/00028312035002227.

11.

Furlong

Gilman

Huebner

. (eds) (2009) Strengths of character in schools. In Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 65–76.

12.

Gander

Proyer

Ruch

. (2012) The good character at work: an initial study on the contribution of character strengths in identifying healthy and unhealthy work-related behavior and experience patterns. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 85: 895–904. DOI: 10.1007/s00420-012-0736-x

13.

Gander

Proyer

Ruch

. (2013) Strength-based positive interventions: further evidence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies 14: 1241–1259. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-012-9380-0.

14.

Gillham

Abenavoli

Brunwasser

. (2013) Resilience education. In: David

Boniwell

Ayers

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 609–630.

15.

Gillham

Adams-Deutsch

Werner

. (2011) Character strengths predict subjective well-being during adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology 6: 31–44. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2010.536773.

16.

Hänze

Berger

(2007) Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: an experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction 17: 29–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004.

17.

Hardman

Drew

Egan

(2005) Human Exceptionality: Society, School, and Family. Belmont: Wadsworth.

18.

Harzer

Ruch

(2012) When the job is a calling: the role of applying one’s signature strengths at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology 7: 362–371. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2012.702784.

19.

Huebner

Gilman

Reschly

. (2009) Positive schools. In: Lopez

Snyder

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 561–568.

20.

Huebner

Hills

(2011) Does the positive psychology movement have legs for children in schools? The Journal of Positive Psychology 6: 88–94. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2010.536778.

21.

Jahoda

(1958) Current Concepts of Positive Mental Health. Vol. xxi. New York: Basic Books.

22.

Khumalo

Wissing

Temane

(2008) Exploring the validity of the values-in-action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in an African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa 18: 133–142. DOI: 10.1080/14330237.2008.10820180.

23.

Linkins

Niemiec

Gillham

. (2015) Through the lens of strength: a framework for educating the heart. The Journal of Positive Psychology 10: 64–68. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2014.888581.

24.

Littman-Ovadia

Steger

(2010) Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and employees: toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology 5: 419–430. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2010.516765.

25.

Lounsbury

Fisher

Levy

. (2009) An investigation of character strengths in relation to the academic success of college students. Individual Differences Research 7: 52–69.

26.

Lubinski

Benbow

(2000) States of excellence. American Psychologist 55: 137–150. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.137.

27.

Lyubomirsky

King

Diener

(2005) The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin 131: 803–855. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803.

28.

Magyar-Moe

(2009) Therapist’s Guide to Positive Psychological Interventions. Burlington: Academic Press.

29.

Martínez-Martí

Ruch

(2014) Character strengths and well-being across the life span: data from a representative sample of German-speaking adults living in Switzerland. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1253. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01253.

30.

Maslow

(1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand.

31.

Mitchell

Stanimirovic

Klein

. (2009) A randomised controlled trial of a self-guided internet intervention promoting well-being. Computers in Human Behavior 25: 749–760. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.003.

32.

Mongrain

Anselmo-Matthews

(2012) Do positive psychology exercises work? A replication of Seligman et al. (2005). Journal of Clinical Psychology 68: 382–389. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.21839.

33.

Otake

Shimai

Tanaka-Matsumi

. (2006) Happy people become happier through kindness: a counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies 7: 361–375. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z.

34.

Park

Peterson

(2006) Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents: the development and validation of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth. Journal of Adolescence 29: 891–909. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.011.

35.

Park

Peterson

(2008) Positive psychology and character strengths: application to strengths-based school counseling. Professional School Counseling 12: 85–92.

36.

Park

Peterson

(2009) Strengths of character in schools. In: Gilman

Huebner

Furlong

(eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. New York: Routledge, pp. 65–76.

37.

Parks

Schueller

(ed.) (2014) The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Positive Psychological Interventions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

38.

Park

Peterson

Seligman

MEP

(2004) Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23: 603–619. DOI: 10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748.

39.

Peterson

(2006) A Primer in Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

40.

Peterson

Seligman

MEP

(2004) Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41.

Peterson

Park

Seligman

(2005) Assessment of character strengths. In: Koocher

Norcross

Hill

III SS

(eds) Psychologists’ Desk Reference, 2nd ed., Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–98.

42.

Peterson

Ruch

Beermann

. (2007) Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology 2: 149–156. DOI: 10.1080/17439760701228938.

43.

Pfeiffer

(ed.) (2008) Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational Theory, Research, and Best Practices. Vol. viii. New York: Springer.

44.

Proyer

Gander

Ruch

(2015) Character strengths and intelligence. Unpublished data set. Switzerland: University of Zurich.

45.

Proyer

Gander

Wellenzohn

. (2013) What good are character strengths beyond subjective well-being? The contribution of the good character on self-reported health-oriented behavior, physical fitness, and the subjective health status. Journal of Positive Psychology 8: 222–232.

46.

Proyer

Gander

Wellenzohn

. (2015) Strengths-based positive psychology interventions: a randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term effects for a signature strengths- vs. a lesser strengths-intervention. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 456. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00456.

47.

Proyer

Gander

Wellenzohn

. (2016) Addressing the role of personality, ability, and positive and negative affect in positive psychology interventions: findings from a randomized intervention based on the authentic happiness theory and extensions. The Journal of Positive Psychology . Epub ahead of print 18 February 2016. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137622.

48.

Proyer

Wellenzohn

Gander

. (2015) Toward a better understanding of what makes positive psychology interventions work: predicting happiness and depression from the person × intervention fit in a follow-up after 3.5 years. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 7: 108–128. DOI: 10.1111/aphw.12039.

49.

Proyer

Ruch

Buschor

(2013) Testing strengths-based interventions: a preliminary study on the effectiveness of a program targeting curiosity, gratitude, hope, humor, and zest for enhancing life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies 14: 275–292. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-012-9331-9.

50.

Renzulli

(2002) Emerging conceptions of giftedness: building a bridge to the new century. Exceptionality 10: 67–75. DOI: 10.1207/S15327035EX1002_2.

51.

Renzulli

(2012) Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: a four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly 56: 150–159. DOI: 10.1177/0016986212444901.

52.

Rogers

(1963) The concept of the fully functioning person. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice 1: 17–26. DOI: 10.1037/h0088567.

53.

Rost

(ed) (2000) Hochbegabte und Hochleistende Jugendliche. Neue Ergebnisse Aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Gifted and High Achieving Adolescents: New Results from the Marburg Giftedness Project]. Münster: Waxmann.

54.

Ruch

Platt

Hofmann

(2015) The character strengths of class clowns. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1075. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01075.

55.

Ruch

Proyer

Harzer

. (2010) Values in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS): adaptation and validation of the German version and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual Differences 31: 138–149. DOI: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000022.

56.

Ruch

Weber

Park

. (2014) Character strengths in children and adolescents: reliability and initial validity of the German values in action inventory of strengths for youth (German VIA-Youth). European Journal of Psychological Assessment 30: 57–64. DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000169.

57.

Ryan

Deci

(2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

58.

Salmela

Uusiautti

(2015) A positive psychological viewpoint for success at school – 10 characteristic strengths of the Finnish high-achieving students. High Ability Studies 26: 117–137. DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2015.1019607.

59.

Samson

Antonelli

(2013) Humor as character strength and its relation to life satisfaction and happiness in Autism spectrum disorders. Humor 26: 477–491. DOI: 10.1515/humor-2013-0031.

60.

Seligman

MEP

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000) Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist 55: 5–14. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.

61.

Seligman

MEP

Ernst

Gillham

. (2009) Positive education: positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education 35: 293–311. DOI: 10.1080/03054980902934563.

62.

Seligman

MEP

Steen

Park

. (2005) Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist 60: 410–421. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410.

63.

Sheldon

Lyubomirsky

(2006) Achieving sustainable gains in happiness: change your actions, not your circumstances. Journal of Happiness Studies 7: 55–86. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-005-0868-8.

64.

Shoshani

Slone

(2013) Middle school transition from the strengths perspective: young adolescents’ character strengths, subjective well-being, and school adjustment. Journal of Happiness Studies 14: 1163–1181. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-012-9374-y.

65.

Sin

Lyubomirsky

(2009) Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: a practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology 65: 467–487. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20593.

66.

Sternberg

(1997) Successful Intelligence. New York: Plume.

67.

Storch

Roth

Coles

. (2004) The measurement and impact of childhood teasing in a sample of young adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 18: 681–694. DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.09.003.

68.

Terman

(1925) Genetic Studies of Genius. Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children. Palo Alto: Stanford Univ. Press.

69.

Terman

(1939) The gifted student and his academic environment. School & Society 49: 65–73.

70.

Terman

Oden

(1947) The Gifted Child Grows Up: Twenty-five Years’ Follow-up of a Superior Group. Vol. xiv. Palo Alto: Stanford Univ. Press.

71.

Terman

Oden

(1959) The Gifted Group at Mid-life: Thirty-five Years’ Follow-up of the Superior Child. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

72.

Wagner

Ruch

(2015) Good character at school: positive classroom behavior mediates the link between character strengths and school achievement. Personality and Social Psychology 6: 610. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00610.

73.

Weber

Ruch

(2012) The role of a good character in 12-year-old school children: Do character strengths matter in the classroom? Child Indicators Research 5: 317–334. DOI: 10.1007/s12187-011-9128-0.

74.

Weber

Wagner

Ruch

(2016) Positive feelings at school: on the relationships between students’ character strengths, school-related affect, and school functioning. Journal of Happiness Studies 17: 341–355. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-014-9597-1.

75.

Winner

(2000) The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist 55: 159–169. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.159.