ارزش ها در مقیاس عمل و پنج عامل بزرگ: یکی از نشانه های تجربی ساختار

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.

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 and 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. Table 1. Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) classification of character strengths and virtues Virtue Character strengths Wisdom and Knowledge Creativity Curiosity Open-mindedness Love of Learning Perspective Courage Bravery Persistence Integrity Vitality Humanity Love Kindness Social Intelligence Justice Citizenship Fairness Leadership Temperance Forgiveness and Mercy Humility/Modesty Prudence Self-control Transcendence Appreciation of Beauty Gratitude Hope Humour Spirituality Adapted from Table 1.1 in Peterson and Seligman (2004), pp 29–30. Table options 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 and 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 and 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). Table 2. Factors found in the virtues in action scale and their correlates Character strengths contained within the factor Name given to factor Reflected virtue Theoretical FFM correlate Fairness, Humility, Mercy, Prudence Strengths of restraint Temperance Conscientiousness Creativity, Curiosity, Love of Learning, Appreciation of Beauty Intellectual strengths Wisdom and Knowledge Openness Kindness, Love, Leadership, Teamwork, Playfulness Interpersonal strengths Humanity and Justice Agreeableness Bravery, Hope, Self-control, Zest Emotional strengths Courage Opposite of Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) Gratitude, Spirituality Theological strengths Transcendence No FFM correlate Constructed from information found in Peterson and Seligman (2004), pp. 632–633. Table options 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.