Values in action scale and the Big 5: An empirical indication of structure

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.10.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Within this study we used self-report measures completed by 123 undergraduate students from an Australian university to investigate the validity of Peterson and Seligman’s [Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York: Oxford.] classification system of 24 character strengths and six virtues. We also looked at how the 24 character strengths relate to the Five Factor Model of personality and to a measure of social desirability. Using a second order factor analysis of the 24 character strengths, we found that these 24 character strengths did not produce a factor structure consistent with the six higher order virtues as proposed by Peterson and Seligman [Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York: Oxford.]. Instead, the 24 character strengths were well represented by both a one and four factor solution. Patterns of significant relationships between each of the 24 character strengths, the one and four factor solutions and the Five Factor Model of personality were found. The results have implications for [Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York: Oxford.] classification.

Introduction

The field of positive psychology has the goal of helping people achieve an above normal or optimal level of functioning, leading to a happier existence (Gable and Haidt, 2005, Wallis, 2005). Wallis (2005) suggests that this is because much of psychological practice and theory has focused on helping people to recover from a diminished level of functioning, and has largely neglected helping people achieve a higher level of functioning.

Two of the main proponents of positive psychology are Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000), who see positive psychology encompassing subjective experience, individual traits, and societal interactions. With regard to the area of individual differences, Peterson and Seligman (2004) have developed a hierarchy of positive psychological character strengths. The hierarchy consists of 24 specific character strengths that are seen as the psychological ingredients that make up six “virtues”. These virtues are situated at a higher level of abstraction than character strengths, and are likened to constructs proposed by philosophers and religious figures over many centuries. These six virtues and their associated character strengths are displayed in Table 1.

Peterson and Seligman (2004) analysed different religious, cultural and legal texts from around the world in an attempt to achieve a universal classification for character strengths, and only included character strengths and virtues that were found to be ubiquitous (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005).

To measure and assess the 24 character strengths, Peterson and Seligman (2004) also developed the Virtues In Action Scale (VIA). The VIA is a self-assessment measure of character strength requiring respondents to rate how likely they are to participate in certain behaviours that are representative of the different character strengths. It is important to note that the scale does not directly measure the six virtues they describe; these are only linked conceptually to the character strengths by Peterson and Seligman (2004).

In addition to developing their classification system, Peterson and Seligman (2004) have also suggested how their classification of character strengths and virtues is related to, but distinct from, already established theories of values. For example, Peterson and Seligman (2004) see their classification of character strengths and virtues as being related to Maslow’s (1973) idea of self-actualised individuals, the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality (McCrae and John, 1992, Costa and McCrae, 1994), Cawley’s virtue factors (Cawley, Martin, & Johnson, 2000), Buss’ evolutionary ideas about what is attractive in a mate [i.e. what character traits are essential for survival and propagation, (Botwin et al., 1997, Shackelford et al., 2005)], and Schwartz’s (1992) Universal Values.

Some research into establishing the validity of these claims has begun. Haslam, Bain, and Neal (2004) found that both Schwartz’s (1992) Universal Values and the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality were conceptually linked to the 24 character strengths. However, as these constructs were defined and subsequently measured by only one or two terms that were ranked and grouped together by participants on the basis of conceptual likeness, more thorough research is needed before we can draw any firm conclusions.

Peterson and Seligman (2004) acknowledge that there are some clear correspondences between their classification and the FFM. For example, Neuroticism could be seen as the conceptual opposite of Hope, and Extroversion could be a key to Leadership (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). They also show how their classification system as a whole corresponds to the FFM, by conceptually equating a factor analysis of their 24 character strengths to the five factors, although the FFM does not account for all of their classification (see Table 2).

It is important to note that Peterson and Seligman (2004) did not empirically correlate their value strength factors with the five factors of the FFM but only make these links conceptually. They also acknowledge that the five factors found in their factor analysis of the VIA do not exactly reflect their hypothesized hierarchical classification of the six virtues. Moreover, it is also interesting to note that only 19 of the 24 character strengths are reported, raising the question of where the other five would load. This ambiguity brings into doubt both the hierarchical link between the 24 character strengths and six virtues and the conceptual links between the FFM and the character strengths. The proposed relationships are further brought into doubt when one reviews other research into character strengths and the FFM. This research suggests that some of the character strengths are related to combinations of FFM traits and not individual traits. For instance, creative people have been shown to be high in Openness (O) and low in Agreeableness [A (King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996)]; honest and humble people have been found to be high in Agreeableness (Ashton & Lee, 2005) and also high in Conscientiousness [C (Paunonen, 2003)]; Brose, Rye, Lutz-Zois, and Ross (2005) found forgiveness to be both negatively correlated with Neuroticism (N) and positively correlated with Agreeableness and sometimes Extroversion (E). Also, a meta-analysis of a number of different studies by Suroglou (2000) found that religiosity was related to high A, C and (to some extent) E.

Although most of the theoretical correlates predicted by Peterson and Seligman (2004) are reflected in this research, there are often multiple predictors present as shown in the studies above. Our research pursues this idea by investigating which combinations of FFM traits, rather than a single trait, are best related to each of the 24 character strengths found within Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) classification.

In consideration of the factor analysis carried out by Peterson and Seligman (2004) it is important to reiterate that their results did not support their theory of particular combinations of character strengths as being represented as the higher order virtues. Consequently, this issue is also examined, with the expectation that a factor analysis of the 24 character strengths will not produce the six virtues proposed by Peterson and Seligman (2004).

A further area of interest we considered was whether the VIA is effected by social desirability. Peterson and Seligman (2004) state that the 24 character strengths are socially desirable constructs themselves and as a result the VIA should not be affected by social desirability. We take this to mean that the VIA will not be affected by individual differences in socially desirable responding. Although this may be true, the opposing argument could also be made: as the 24 character strengths are socially desirable constructs, the VIA will be highly affected by social desirability.

To summarise, the aim of this study is to further the understanding of Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) classification of 24 character strengths by examining the relationships between the character strengths themselves and their relationship to the Five Factor Model of personality. To achieve this, the 24 character strengths are first factor analysed with the expectation that the extracted factors will not neatly represent the six virtues proposed by Peterson and Seligman (2004). The 24 character strengths will then be compared to the FFM in order to investigate the relationships between them. It is hypothesized that there will not be a one-to-one relationship between for the majority of the character strengths and the FFM personality traits. Rather it is expected that most of the character strengths will show relationships to more than one of the FFM constructs. Following Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) view, we expect that the VIA will not be influenced by socially desirable responding.

Section snippets

Participants

The participants for this study were 123 first year psychology students enrolled in an Australian university. There were 28 males and 86 females, with 9 participants not indicating their gender. Ages ranged from 18 to 57 years, with a mean of 21.51 years and a standard deviation of 6.57 years. All participants volunteered to take part in the study and were given course credit for doing so.

Materials

The materials used were question booklets containing a battery of ten psychometric tests and answer

Results

Each questionnaire was first assessed for missing data; 18 item non-responses from the VIA scale and 17 from the FFM scale were replaced with the middle response of their corresponding Likert scale. Two VIA respondents and one FFM scale respondent were removed for not responding correctly. Each measure was scored and descriptive statistics and histograms were generated. These were then inspected for normality and were all found to be within acceptable limits. T-tests were calculated between

Discussion

As hypothesised, the results of a second order Principal Components factor analysis of the 24 character strengths were not consistent with Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) theory of how they relate to the six virtues. For their theory to have been supported the 24 character strengths needed to have produced a clean six component solution, whereas only five components with eigenvalues greater than one were found. At first glance the five component solution appears to be similar to the five factor

References (24)

  • S.L. Gable et al.

    What (and why) is positive psychology?

    General Review of Psychology

    (2005)
  • L.R. Goldberg

    A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models

  • Cited by (118)

    • Merging the Self-Determination Theory and the Broaden and Build Theory through the nexus of positive affect: A macro theory of positive functioning

      2023, New Ideas in Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Emotional intelligence consists of abilities related to perceiving, understanding and managing the emotions of oneself and others (Bhullar et al., 2020). Character strengths relate to features of personality that are morally valued and have been demonstrated to act as buffers against mental illness; these strengths include courage, humanity, temperance, wisdom, and justice (Macdonald et al., 2008; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Self-compassion entails treating oneself with kindness and acceptance of oneself and one's life (Neff, 2011).

    • There is virtue in mindfulness: The relationship between the mindfulness manifold, virtues, and eudemonic wellbeing

      2021, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Neuroticism was a consistent negative predictor; extraversion and openness were additional positive predictors for inquisitiveness; agreeableness and being female were additional predictors for caring; conscientiousness was an additional predictor for the virtue of self-control. These relationships are in line with previous findings: Macdonald et al. (2008) found negative correlations between their own set of virtue factors and neuroticism (not always significant, however); extraversion and openness correlated positively with their ‘intellect’ factor (akin to inquisitiveness); agreeableness correlated positively with ‘niceness’ (akin to caring); and conscientiousness with ‘conscientiousness’ (akin to self-control). Looked at under this light, virtues can be considered a specific configuration or constellation of personality traits.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text