Journal of College and Character

ISSN: 2194-587X (Print) 1940-1639 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujcc20

Character Strengths: Research and Practice

Nansook Park & Christopher Peterson

To cite this article: Nansook Park & Christopher Peterson (2009) Character Strengths: Research
and Practice, Journal of College and Character, 10:4, , DOI: 10.2202/1940-1639.1042

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1042

© 2009 The Authors

Published online: 01 Apr 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21700

View related articles

Citing articles: 73 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujcc20
Featured Articles

Journal of College & Character VOLUME X, NO. 4, April 2009

Character Strengths: Research and Practice

Nansook Park, University of Rhode Island

Christopher Peterson, University of Michigan1
______________________________________________________________________________
Abstract

Character strengths are the foundation of optimal life-long development and thriving. Good
character is not a singular thing but rather plural—a family of positive traits shown in one’s
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. This paper provides an overview of the Values in Action (VIA)
project, which classifies and measures 24 widely-recognized and valued strengths. Research
shows that character strengths are linked to important aspects of individual and social well-being,
although different strengths predict different outcomes. This paper discusses ways to recognize
and cultivate character strengths, within the context of a strengths-based approach to education
and personal development. Character matters, and cultivating its components should be an
important goal for all.
______________________________________________________________________________

W hat is the good of a person, and how can we encourage good character in young people?
Despite the importance of good character, scholars largely neglected this topic throughout
most of the 20th century. Positive psychology has refocused scientific attention on character,
identifying it as key to understanding the psychological good life (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,
2000). Positive psychology further emphasizes building a fulfilling life by identifying individual
strengths of character and fostering them (Peterson, 2006; Peterson & Park, 2003).
Good character is what we look for in leaders, what we look for in teachers and students,
what we look for in colleagues at work, what parents look for in their children, and what friends
look for in each other. Good character is not the absence of deficits and problems but rather a
well-developed family of positive traits.
Character strengths are those aspects of personality that are morally valued. As Baumrind
(1998) noted, “It takes virtuous character to will the good, and competence to do good well” (p.
13). Many higher education and social programs today focus on helping young people acquire
academic skills and abilities such as thinking critically. These help young people achieve their
life goals, and of course are important. Nonetheless, without good character, individuals may lack
the desire to do the right thing.
Character strengths, when exercised, not only prevent undesirable life outcomes (Botvin,
Baker, Dusenbury, Botvin, & Diaz, 1995) but are important in their own right as markers and
indeed causes of healthy life-long development (Colby & Damon, 1992; Weissberg & Greenberg,
1997). Growing evidence shows that specific strengths of character—for example, hope,

1
This paper is based on a keynote address delivered February 6, 2009, at the 19th Annual Institute on
College Student Values (Florida State University, Tallahassee). Nansook Park is in the Department of
Psychology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881-0808, USA; npark@uri.edu. Christopher
Peterson is in the Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043, USA;
chrispet@umich.edu. We welcome collaboration with schools, colleges, and youth programs. Those
interested in collaborative research or program developments on character strengths should contact
Christopher Peterson.

_____________________________________________________________________________
2 Journal of College and Character VOLUME X, NO 4, April 2009

kindness, social intelligence, self-control, and perspective—buffer against the negative effects of
stress and trauma, preventing or limiting problems in their wake. In addition, character strengths
help young people to thrive and are associated with desired outcomes like school success,
leadership, tolerance and valuing of diversity, ability to delay gratification, kindness, and altruism
(see Park, 2004a, for a review.)

The Values in Action (VIA) Project

F or the past several years, from the perspective of positive psychology (Peterson, 2006), we
have been involved in a project that addresses important strengths of character and how to
measure them (Park & Peterson, 2006b; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Our project—the Values in
Action (VIA) Classification of Strengths—focuses on what is right about people and more
specifically about the strengths of character that contribute to optimal development across the
lifespan. We first identified components of good character and then devised ways to assess them.
The project provides a starting point for the systematic scientific study of good character. The
VIA Classification consists of 24 widely-valued character strengths, organized under six broad
virtues (see Table 1).

Table 1
VIA Classification of Strengths

1. wisdom and knowledge.

• creativity: thinking of novel and productive ways to do things
• curiosity: taking an interest in all of ongoing experience
• open-mindedness: thinking things through and examining them from all sides
• love of learning: mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge
• perspective: being able to provide wise counsel to others
2. courage
• honesty: speaking the truth and presenting oneself in a genuine way
• bravery: not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain
• persistence: finishing what one starts
• zest: approaching life with excitement and energy
3. humanity
• kindness: doing favors and good deeds for others
• love: valuing close relations with others
• social intelligence: being aware of the motives and feelings of self and others
4. justice
• fairness: treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and justice
• leadership: organizing group activities and seeing that they happen
• teamwork: working well as member of a group or team
5. temperance
• forgiveness: forgiving those who have done wrong
• modesty: letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves
• prudence: being careful about one’s choices; not saying or doing things that
might later be regretted
• self-regulation: Regulating what one feels and does

______________________________________________________________________________
 Character Strengths 3

6. transcendence
• appreciation of beauty and excellence: noticing and appreciating beauty,
excellence, and/or skilled performance in all domains of life
• gratitude: being aware of and thankful for the good things that happen
• hope: expecting the best and working to achieve it
• humor: liking to laugh and joke; bringing smiles to other people
• religiousness: having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of
life

We have previously described the process by which the strengths were identified and
classified under six broad virtue categories, as well as the process by which we created and
validated measures for children, youth, and adults (Park & Peterson, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c;
Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In our judgment, the most general contribution of the VIA project is
to provide a legitimized vocabulary for psychologically-informed discussion of the personal
qualities of individuals that make them worthy of moral praise.
An important assumption inherent in the VIA Classification is that character is plural
rather than singular. Accordingly, character must be measured in ways that do justice to its
breadth and complexity. Our project approaches character as a family of positive characteristics
shown in feelings, thoughts, and actions, each of which exists in degrees—i.e., along a
continuum. In everyday conversation, we may speak casually of character as something that a
person has or does not have, but the components of character, the specific strengths included in
Table 1, are distinguishable and furthermore exist in degrees. Someone may be high on one
strength yet low on another and average on yet a third, which means that people’s moral character
is most sensibly described in terms of profiles of greater and lesser strengths (Walker & Pitts,
1998).
As we use the terms, virtues are the core characteristics valued by moral philosophers and
religious thinkers: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence.
Character strengths are the more specific psychological processes or mechanisms that define the
virtues. To convey the multidimensionality of good character, we refer to its components as
character strengths. Accordingly, we need to be cautious about searching for single indicators of
good character. There is no reason for educators and professionals to refrain from assessing a
single component of good character—like kindness or hope or teamwork—but it would be a
mistake to then treat this single component assessed in a particular way as the whole of good
character. Individuals might be very kind or very hopeful but lack other components of good
character. They can of course be described as kind or hopeful, but simply that. To repeat: Good
character is best captured by a profile of its components.
The VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) is a self-report survey suitable for adults ages 18
or older that comprehensively assesses the 24 character strengths. The VIA-IS can be completed
in a single session, typically taking about 45-minutes. For children and youth aged 10-17, the VIA
Inventory of Strengths for Youth (VIA-Youth). is suitable. Both of these surveys are available
online at no cost (www.authentichappiness.org or www.viastrengths.org). Once individuals
register on the website and complete the survey, feedback is given about their top strengths, what
are called signature strengths. Identifying signature strengths and then using them in everyday
life may provide a route to a psychological fulfillment (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).
Here are a few caveats to keep in mind. Positive traits not included among a respondent’s
signature strengths are not necessarily weaknesses but rather lesser strengths in comparison to the
others. Furthermore, the order of top strengths (e.g., among one’s top 5 strengths) should not be
interpreted in a rigid way because there are typically no meaningful differences in their
magnitudes.

______________________________________________________________________________
4 Journal of College and Character VOLUME X, NO 4, April 2009

Research Findings and Implications

E mpirical evidence concerning the correlates and outcomes of the character strengths is
accumulating. It is already clear that while all strengths of character contribute to fulfillment,
certain character strengths are more robustly linked to well-being and flourishing of young people
than are others (Park & Peterson, 2006c).
For example, the strengths of character consistently related to life satisfaction—an
important indicator of personal well-being—are gratitude, hope, zest, curiosity, and most
importantly, love, defined as the ability to sustain reciprocated close relationships with other
people (Park & Peterson, 2006c; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004). So, for a psychologically
good life, individuals need to cultivate in particular these strengths.
These findings have important implications for educators, parents, mental health
professionals, and policy makers who concern themselves with the promotion of positive
development among young people. First, schools and youth programs should start to measure
young people’s assets, like the VIA character strengths, as much as they measure deficits and
shortcomings. The tracking of problems and weaknesses has a long lineage within education and
mental health, whereas measures of positive development such as character strengths are neither
as numerous nor as well developed (Park & Peterson, 2005). By and large, schools, youth
programs, and societies do not monitor positive development and outcomes, despite the
proliferation of character education programs.
One measures what one values, and one values what one measures. If society really cares
about good character among young people, we should be assessing strengths and paying attention
to how they develop. Educators and parents are already busy measuring young people’s academic
abilities and monitoring the progress of learning. We hope that someday schools will also assess
the character strengths of students and just as diligently record the progress of their development.
Second, educators and policy makers should pay attention to particular character
strengths. Research consistently shows that strengths of the “heart” like love and gratitude, those
that connect people together, are more strongly associated with well-being than are strengths of
the “head” that are necessarily individual in nature—e.g., creativity, critical thinking, and
appreciation of beauty and excellence (Park & Peterson, 2008; Park, Peterson, & Seligman,
2004). Formal education has long stressed the latter strengths, but if an additional goal of
education and youth programs is to encourage a psychologically healthy life, the research results
suggest that the former strengths deserve equal attention.
We have found that students’ academic achievement is influenced by a set of character
strengths. Among middle-school students, the character strengths of perseverance, love, gratitude,
hope, and perspective predict academic achievement. Similar results are found as well among
college students. Learning occurs not just within people but among them, and character strengths
can facilitate the process.
Furthermore, the strengths of bravery and appreciation of beauty play a role in successful
recovery from illness and spirituality/religiousness is associated with a life of meaning and
purpose. In a longitudinal study, we have found effective teachers—judged by the gains of their
students on standardized tests—are socially intelligent and show zest and humor.
Taken together, these findings imply that the encouragement of particular character
strengths would not only make young people happier, healthier, and more socially connected but
also help them do better at school and to be more productive at their eventual work. Attention to
young people’s character is not a luxury for our society but a necessity, and it requires no tradeoff
with traditional academic goals.
Third, the VIA classification provides a useful vocabulary for people to talk about
character strengths in an appropriately nuanced way (Park, 2004a; Park & Peterson, 2008).

______________________________________________________________________________
 Character Strengths 5

Simply saying that someone has good character (or not) does not lead to anywhere useful. In
contrast, using the strengths concepts and measures associated with VIA classification, people
can describe the profile of strengths that characterize each individual. The VIA measures allow
comparison of character strengths across individuals but also within individuals. That is, they can
be scored ipsatively (e.g., rank ordered for an individual)—to identify one’s signature strengths
relative to his or her other strengths of character. We believe that everybody has signature
strengths regardless of where he or she may stand compared to others.
Such a strength-based approach would be particularly useful for working with students
having a history of disability, poor achievement, and other troubles. When we compare these
individuals to the norm, as often we do, it may be difficult to find anything at which they are
good. However, by considering the profile of the 24 VIA strengths within an individual, we can
identify those strengths that are most salient for that person. And then, educators, parents and
professionals can help young people to use these strengths in their lives, in and out of school.
A strengths-based approach can be used with young people at any level and of any
ability. Because signature strengths are the ones people already possess, it is often easier and
more satisfying to work with and on these strengths. Once young people build their confidence by
using and developing their signature strengths, they can be taught how to use these strengths to
work on their less-developed strengths. It can be frustrating and difficult to work only on
weaknesses and problems. Young people may give up or become defensive or indifferent about
their problems. However, if discussions and interventions start with the strengths of young
people—things at which they are already proficient—rapport can be built, and motivation thereby
increased. The net effect of a strengths-based approach should be enhanced success of any and all
interventions.
The exercise of signature strengths is particularly fulfilling. Consider a study we did with
adults who completed a VIA survey and identified their top strengths, who were then asked to use
these strengths for a week in novel ways (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Relative to a
comparison group without this instruction, these individuals increased their happiness and also
decreased their depression at six months follow-up. These changes were evident if research
participants continued to use their strengths in new ways. Finding novel ways to use strengths
every day is critical and reflects the importance of ongoing personal effort in producing a
flourishing life.

Cultivation of Character Strengths

T hroughout the duration of this project, we have been interested in how strengths of character
in the VIA Classification develop and change, although our first order of business was to
establish the groundwork—the classification and the measures (Park & Peterson, 2009). Our
interest stemmed from practical and theoretical concerns. Given the desirable consequences of
character strengths, there is good reason to ask how they can be strengthened among those who
possess them or created from scratch among those who lack them. And we have long agreed with
Kurt Lewin’s (1947) adage that the best way to understand a phenomenon—in this case good
character—is to try and change it.
It is clear from our research that character strengths among youth and among adults are
relatively stable across time, a finding in keeping with our view of them as trait-like. We have
also learned that character strengths show interpretable developmental trajectories. For example,
the least common strengths among young children and adolescents are those that require
cognitive maturation: e.g., appreciation of beauty and excellence, forgiveness, modesty, and
open-mindedness (Park & Peterson, 2006a, 2006c; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2006).
This work is in its infancy, but we have so far learned that character strengths are

______________________________________________________________________________
6 Journal of College and Character VOLUME X, NO 4, April 2009

influenced by nurture and nature. Indeed, a variety of influences contribute to development of

good character—genes, family, schools, peers, and communities. Not surprisingly, the character
strengths of parents and children tend to converge, especially between fathers and sons and
between mothers and daughters. In a twin study that compared similarities in the VIA strengths in
identical versus fraternal twins, it was found that each of the strengths is moderately heritable, as
are many individual differences (Steger, Hicks, Kashdan, Krueger, & Bouchard, 2007). The study
additionally showed that shared family environment influenced some of the strengths (e.g., love
of learning), an unusual result in this type of research, which rarely finds any influence of
growing up in a given family after common genetics are controlled (Dunn & Plomin, 1992).
Perhaps family influence is more relevant for positive characteristics than for the negative
characteristics typically on focus in twin studies. For virtually all of the VIA strengths, nonshared
family environment (e.g., peers and teachers) proved the most important influence.
Dramatic events can increase character strengths. For example, in the six months after the
9/11 attacks, the character strengths of faith (religiousness), hope, and love were elevated among
US respondents but not among European respondents (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). Successful
recovery from physical illness is associated with increases in the strengths of bravery, kindness,
and humor, whereas successful recovery from psychological disorder is associated with modest
increases in the strengths of appreciation of beauty and love of learning (Peterson, Park, &
Seligman, 2006). And exposure to trauma results in increases in the character strengths of
religiousness, gratitude, kindness, hope, and bravery—precisely the components of post-traumatic
growth (Peterson, Park, Pole, D’Andrea, & Seligman, 2008).
None of these studies had a fine-grained design, and we do not know the process by
which strengths of character develop. The VIA Classification is intentionally descriptive and not
based on any given theory. However, we have some ideas about how character strengths are
created, increased, sustained, and displayed.
We believe that character strengths are habits, evident in thoughts, feelings, and actions
(cf. Aristotle, 350 BCE/2000). They are certainly not latent entities. No one is a “good kid deep
down at heart” unless he or she shows good character in ways that can be seen.
When we say that character strengths are trait-like, we mean only that the habits to which
they refer are relatively stable across time and relatively general across situations. No further
meaning should be inferred, and the fact that character strengths as we have measured them are
moderately heritable does not mean that they are immutable or singular things (Peterson, 2006).
According to Aristotle, virtues (character strengths) can be taught and acquired only by practice.
Aquinas similarly argued that a virtue is a habit that people develop only by choosing the good
and consistently acting in accord. Other scholars have made the same point that character must be
developed by doing and not just by thinking or talking about it (e.g., Maudsley, 1898). These
various notions about virtue imply that character can be cultivated by good parenting, schooling,
and socialization and that it becomes instantiated through habitual action.
Positive role models are also important for the development of good character (Bandura,
1977; Sprafkin, Liebert, & Poulos 1975). Adults in young people’s lives may play important roles
as character mentors. Indeed, we are all role models, for better or for worse, and we need to act in
ways worthy of emulation. Remember the saying: “Children may not listen to their parents, but
they never fail to imitate them.” If adults value and want to teach young people good character,
they should start by showing them how through their own actions. We visited a private high
school a few years ago and were impressed that the “no makeup” policy for students was
followed as well by their teachers, even though it was not in any teacher manual, simply because
it gave teachers the moral authority and credibility to enforce the rules. Finally, we assume that
the situation matters not only for acquiring character strengths but also for using them. It is
obviously easier to display certain character strengths in some settings than in others.

______________________________________________________________________________
 Character Strengths 7

Character development programs need to teach specific activities of strengths and

encourage young people to keep using them in their daily lives (Park & Peterson, 2008, 2009).
Saying “do your best” or “be the best that you can be” is not a good way to cultivate good
character. Young people need to be instructed to choose the target strengths on which they want
to focus, to set specific and measurable goals, and to devise concrete action plans to achieve these
goals. For example, if kindness is the chosen target strength, saying hello to at least one new
person each day at school provides an effective goal and action plan. Continuous monitoring and
journaling of progress are critical. In short, one must make a measurable life style change.
An individualized program for cultivating character based on an individual’s character
strength profile may be more effective than a general—one size fits all—program for everyone.
Chanting slogans or putting up banners or holding monthly school assemblies will not be as
effective as an individualized program for each young person that encourages him or her to
behave in different ways.
Change does not occur in a vacuum, and a first step in cultivating strengths of character is
to legitimize a strengths vocabulary in whatever settings people happen to be. Here the VIA
Project can be helpful by providing the words with which we can describe our own strengths and
those of others, whether they be strengths that already exist or strengths that we want to build.
Then one needs to start using these words often enough so that they do not sound awkward or
quaint.
Here is one example of a strength-based approach that can be easily adopted in the
classrooms. Over the years in our college classes, we have begun with what we call serious
introductions, which introduce a strengths vocabulary and underscore its importance. Most
college seminars begin by the students introducing themselves like this: “My name is Jennifer. I
am a sophomore studying psychology because my first-year science courses for premed destroyed
me and ruined by grade point average. I grew up in Newark, New Jersey. I am taking this
particular course because it fits my schedule.” The instructor may say something similar, if
typically less frank.
Introductions like these are familiar to all college students. But we instead ask our
students to tell a story about an event in their lives that showed them at their very best, not in
terms of an athletic or academic achievement, but as a moral being. We preface this request by a
small sermon on modesty, a virtue in many circumstances but not if it gets in the way of the truth.
In a class of twenty students, these serious introductions can take several hours and may
even stretch over a few class periods, but it is always time well spent. These introductions frame
how we all think about one another for the rest of the semester and thereafter. With apologies to
any readers from the Garden State, it is better to know that Jennifer once went against the social
currents to befriend an ostracized classmate during high school than to know that she grew up in
New Jersey and was a failure as a chemistry student.
We have learned that we need to tell students about appreciative listening, how to listen
carefully to what is said and then to respond in a way that builds on what has been conveyed as
opposed to disagreeing with it, dismissing it, or ignoring it out of discomfort. Positive psychology
as we teach it has become a course in rhetoric—not just reading and writing but also peaking and
listening (Seligman, 2004).
Something powerful occurs during these serious introductions. During most of the
introductions, one or more of the listeners is moved to quiet tears. With or without tears, strong
bonds are created. Talking about strengths is heady stuff.

______________________________________________________________________________
8 Journal of College and Character VOLUME X, NO 4, April 2009

Conclusions

O ur research shows that character strengths and virtues have important consequences for an
individual. They are also critical for the well-being of an entire society. No one will live his
or her life without challenges and setbacks, but to the degree that young people have greater life
satisfaction, character strengths, and social support, they will experience fewer psychological or
physical problems in the wake of inevitable difficulties (Park, 2004b; Peterson, Park, &
Seligman, 2006).
Research on character strengths goes beyond a focus on problems and their absence to
address healthy development. The VIA project illustrates the premise of positive psychology that
attention to good character—what a person does well—sheds light on what makes life worth
living.
All young people want to do well and to live a happy and fulfilled life. These goals are
fundamental human desires and rights. But too frequently, young people do not know how to find
happiness and meaning in the right activities and in the right way. Perhaps the identification of
character strengths is a good place to start. Everyone has strengths. Strengths need to be
recognized, celebrated, strengthened, and used.
Some two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson (1819) wrote that happiness is the aim of life,
but virtue is the foundation of happiness. In his 2009 inaugural address, Barack Obama reminded
everyone that virtue is still the foundation of a flourishing nation. He reminded us all that virtues
can help us survive and indeed thrive as individuals and as a society. Virtues do not belong in
dusty books or the even dustier discourse among scholars. Virtues belong in our everyday life,
where they can matter so much. Character matters, then and now and in the future. Cultivating its
components should be an important goal for all: parents, educators, students, and citizens.

______________________________________________________________________________
 Character Strengths 9

References

Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press. [originally written ~350 BCE]
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baumrind, D. (1998). Reflections on character and competence. In A. Colby, J. James, & D. Hart
(Eds.), Competence and character through life (pp. 1-28). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E. M., & Diaz, T. (1995). Long-term follow-up
results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1106-1112.
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New
York: Free Press..
Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1992). Separate lives: Why siblings are so different. New York: Basic
Books.
Jefferson, T. (1819, October 31). Letter to William Short. In M. D. Peterson (Ed.) (1994).
Thomas Jefferson: Writings (pp. 1430-1433), New York: Library of America.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: I. Concept, method, and reality in social science;
Social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.
Maudsley, H. (1898). Responsibility in mental disease. New York: Appleton and Company.
Park, N. (2004). Character strengths and positive youth development. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 40-54. (a)
Park, N. (2004). The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 25-39. (b)
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). The Values in Action Inventory of Character Strengths for
Youth. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish?
Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 13-23). New
York: Springer.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Character strengths and happiness among young children:
Content analysis of parental descriptions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 323-341. (a)
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Methodological issues in positive psychology and the assessment
of character strengths. In A. D. Ong & M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook of methods in
positive psychology (pp. 292-305. New York: Oxford University Press. (b)
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (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, 891-905. (c)
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2008). Positive psychology and character strengths: Application to
strengths-based school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 12, 85-92.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). The cultivation of character strengths. In M. Ferrari & G.
Potworowski (Eds.), Teaching for wisdom (pp. 57-75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603-619.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and
the fifty US states. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118-129.
Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2003). Positive psychology as the evenhanded positive psychologist
views it. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 141-146.
Peterson, C., Park, N., Pole, N., D’Andrea, W., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2008). Strengths of
character and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 214-217.

______________________________________________________________________________
10 Journal of College and Character VOLUME X, NO 4, April 2009

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman (2006). Greater strengths of character and recovery from
illness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 17-26.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Character strengths before and after September 11.
Psychological Science, 14, 381-384.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. New York: Oxford University Press/Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Sprafkin, J. H., Liebert, R. M., & Poulos, R. W. (1975). Effects of a prosocial televised example
on children’s helping. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 119-126.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Can happiness be taught? Dædalus, 133(2), 80-87.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress:
Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410-421.
Steger, M. F., Hicks, B., Kashdan, T. B., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2007). Genetic
and environmental influences on the positive traits of the Values in Action classification,
and biometric covariance with normal personality. Journal of Research in Personality,
41, 524-539.
Walker, L. J., & Pitts, R. C. (1998). Naturalistic conceptions of moral maturity. Developmental
Psychology, 34, 403-419.
Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1997). School and community competence-enhancement
and prevention programs. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 877-
954). New York: Wiley.

______________________________________________________________________________