What are your signature strengths?

What are your greatest strengths, and how can you make the most of them?

Are you socially intelligent? A critical thinker? Are you someone who perseveres?  Do you bring people together?  How do you regard honesty, fairness, spirituality and love?

The VIA Institute on Character has created a list of 24 signature strengths, grouped into six categories called “virtues” -- the Virtue of Wisdom, of Courage, of Humanity, of Justice, of Temperance and of Transcendence (see below for details). And the Institute’s primary goal is simple: to help you create the best life possible by understanding, and accessing, your greatest strengths.  They offer a fascinating (and free) online survey (www.viacharacter.org), which has been taken by more than 1.3 million people worldwide.  The survey is currently offered in 17 languages.

Explains the Institute: “We aim to fill the world with greater virtue – more wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance and transcendence.” If you take the survey, it will reveal your top five, then share specific recommendations on how best to implement those in your life.

Writing for www.psychcentral.com earlier this year, author and psychologist Ryan Niemiec pointed out that “It’s all too common for people to underuse their strengths.”  One of Niemiec’s examples was particularly powerful. Said Niemiec:

“Janet discovered her highest strength is prudence. Prudence gets a bad rap. It is often lumped with being a ‘prude’ or someone who doesn’t have fun. In reality, prudence can be seen as ‘cautious wisdom,’ thinking before one speaks, and being careful about one’s choices.

“All her life, Janet had beaten herself up for not being enough of a risk-taker, not living life fully, and always holding back when new situations arose. But, when viewed as her signature strength, it turns out prudence has served her well. Janet is a successful businesswoman and project manager and sees how this naturally-occurring prudence strength has helped her become who she is today. She is conscientious, goal-oriented, and is well-organized – all common characteristics of a prudent person.

“Janet realized that she actually had been living life fully and did take risks, but her approach was to give pause to reflect a bit before taking action. Seeing this, her appreciation for herself deepened.”

Below are the Institute's 24 signature strengths:

The Virtue of Wisdom
· Creativity: original, adaptive, ingenuity
· Curiosity: interest, novelty-seeking, exploration, openness to experience
· Judgment: critical thinking, thinking things through, open-minded
· Love of Learning: mastering new skills & topics, systematically adding to knowledge
· Perspective: wisdom, providing wise counsel, taking the big picture view

The Virtue of Courage
· Bravery: valor, not shrinking from fear, speaking up for what’s right
· Perseverance: persistence, industry, finishing what one starts
· Honesty: authenticity, integrity
· Zest: vitality, enthusiasm, vigor, energy, feeling alive and activated

The Virtue of Humanity
· Love: both loving and being loved, valuing close relations with others
· Kindness: generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruism, “niceness”
· Social Intelligence: aware of the motives/feelings of oneself & others

The Virtue of Justice
· Teamwork: citizenship, social responsibility, loyalty
· Fairness: just, not letting feelings bias decisions about others
· Leadership: organizing group activities, encouraging a group to get things done

The Virtue of Temperance· Forgiveness: mercy, accepting others’ shortcomings, giving people a second chance
· Humility: modesty, letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves
· Prudence: careful, cautious, not taking undue risks
· Self-Regulation: self-control, disciplined, managing impulses & emotions

The Virtue of Transcendence· Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence: awe, wonder, elevation
· Gratitude: thankful for the good, expressing thanks, feeling blessed
· Hope: optimism, future-mindedness, future orientation
· Humor: playfulness, bringing smiles to others, lighthearted
· Spirituality: religiousness, faith, purpose, meaning

How long do you think you’ll live? (it’s not just an idle inquiry)

Research out of Queen’s University in Canada maintains that major life decisions – e.g., marriage, divorce, having children, pursuing educational degrees – may be subconsciously guided by perceived mortality, that is, how long you think that you’re going to live.  For decades it’s been known that perceived mortality is a strong predictor of actual mortality, but the Queen’s University research now indicates that it may influence much more.

Lead researcher Daniel Krupp, as quoted in the Global News, explained: “I found precisely what I was looking for: as life expectancy increased, people married and began reproducing later.  They were also more likely to divorce or have an abortion, and they invested more in their own education.” In the study, Krupp, a research psychologist and biologist by training, controlled for measures of affluence and income. And he found no statistical difference between men’s and women’s decisions.

Krupp’s research speaks to a branch of evolutionary theory known as “life history theory” which predicts behavior based on age.  In a piece written for psychcentral.com, Rick Nauert explained: “This theory has been used to explain animal behaviors that schedule key events to produce the largest possible number of surviving offspring (for example the famous run of the Pacific salmon).” When applied to humans, the theory suggests that those who anticipate living longer delay milestones such as marriage and having babies, and instead invest more time in school. Those who believed their lives are shorter may be less likely to divorce since there’s limited time to find a new partner.

So if our subconscious is influencing our decisions, what factors do we consider? Some prominent questions include: how healthy are we? Do we have a risky job? Are my parents or grandparents still alive? Is there a history of disease in the family?

And the larger question: are these innate, subconscious signals?

Said Krupp: “It is possible that an increase in life expectancy will lead to a continued increase in the ages of marriage and reproduction . . . however it is also possible that these effects will weaken beyond a certain point,” Krupp said.

#

Women vs. Men – Part II: Cooperation, Self-Esteem and the “L” word

Women vs. Men – who’s more cooperative?  Who’s happier to hear the words “I love you?” Who has more self-esteem in youth and early adulthood?  And who’s more motivated by cute baby faces? You may be surprised by the latest research results.  Let’s start with love.     

“I Love You”

Who’s quicker to say those three magic words?  It’s the guys, not the gals, according to Penn State psychologist Marissa Harrison who recently studied the matter.  According to a write up in The Telegraph, the study suggests that “women tend to be more pragmatic about love than society tends to believe, perhaps not always rushing fool-heartedly into a relationship.”

Harrison, summarizing her findings, said that “Men reported falling in love sooner and three times as many men as women said 'I love you' first to their partners.” She pointed out: “It can be argued that men's falling in love and exclaiming this love first may be a by-product of them equating love with sexual desire.” Added Harrison: “But research shows passionate love and sexual desire are distinctly different mechanisms.”

Cooperation – are women more cooperative than men? 

The answer is no, according to a major study published last year by the American Psychological Assn. which found that men are equally cooperative, “particularly in situations involving a dilemma that pits the interests of an individual against the interests of a group,” according to an APA report.  Explained lead researcher Daniel Balliet, PhD, of the VU University Amsterdam: “The argument is that throughout human evolutionary history, male coalitions have been an effective strategy for men to acquire resources, such as food and property. Both hunting and warfare are social dilemmas in that they firmly pit individual and group interests against each other. Yet, if everyone acts upon their immediate self-interest, then no food will be provided, and wars will be lost. To overcome such social dilemmas requires strategies to cooperate with each other.”

Additional study results:

• Women seem to reach mutual decisions more readily when interacting with the opposite sex.
• Men cooperate better with other men than women cooperate with each other.

Baby Faces

Who’s more motivated by cute baby faces, men or women?  Sorry Grandma, you’re not alone.  Researchers from the University of Oxford, led by Morten Kringelbach and Christine Parsons, report that men are as motivated by baby faces as women.  Christian Jarrett, in her study review for the British Psychological Society, pointed out that co-author Kringelback “is the same researcher who a few years ago showed that looking at baby faces, as opposed to adult faces, is associated with a distinct pattern of brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex - a kind of neural ‘cuteness response’.”

Additional findings: 

·         Conforming to cultural stereotypes, women rated babies as more attractive than men (though there was no gender difference in evaluating adult faces);

·         Not surprisingly, “cuter” infants (those whose features included a large rounded forehead, large low-set eyes, a short and narrow nose and a small chin) were rated as more friendly, cheerful and likeable and thus, more “adoptable.”

Self-Esteem in Youth & Early Adulthood
Do young men have more self-esteem than young women?  Apparently not, according to researchers from the University of Basel in Switzerland who drew on 16 years of data to arrive at their conclusions.  Self-esteem increases during adolescence, then slows in young adulthood, according to the researchers, but there’s no statistical difference between males and females. Said lead author Ruth Yasemin Erol, MSc, as quoted in Science News last year: “We tested for factors that we thought would have an impact on how self-esteem develops," Erol said. "Understanding the trajectory of self-esteem is important to pinpointing and timing interventions that could improve people's self-esteem."

Some of their major findings, as reported in Science News:

·         In adolescence, Hispanics had lower self-esteem than black or non-Hispanic whites, but Hispanics’ self-esteem increased more strongly so that by age 30, they had higher self-esteem than whites.

·         Blacks have higher self-esteem than whites in both adolescence and young adulthood, a differential that held through age 30.  

 One major conclusion, according to Erol: “. . . parents, teachers and counselors may overlook self-esteem problems in male adolescents and young men because of the widespread belief that men have higher self-esteem than women have."

Are people who read fiction helping build a stronger society?

The research is in, and it all flows in the same direction: fictional stories – from novels to movies to theatre to TV shows – form the rock bed of a moral society.  Fiction teaches us to be more empathetic, more understanding, more moral. Fictional stories help us adhere to a just society and, as some would argue, help make societies work.  So the next time you curl up with a good book, know that you’re also making the world a better place.

The debate has raged for decades – what role do fictional stories tell?  Is TV, as the head of the FCC once remarked, truly “a vast wasteland” which corrodes society’s values? 

Author Jonathan Gottschall, in his stirring new book “The Storytelling Animal” says no – fiction serves a clear and definable role. It forces us to think about right and wrong, evil and just behavior.  In short: fiction is good for you.  Gottschall writes: 

“. . . research consistently shows that fiction does mold us. The more deeply we are cast under a story’s spell, the more potent its influence. In fact, fiction seems to be more effective at changing beliefs than nonfiction, which is designed to persuade through argument and evidence. Studies show that when we read nonfiction, we read with our shields up. We are critical and skeptical. But when we are absorbed in a story, we drop our intellectual guard. We are moved emotionally, and this seems to make us rubbery and easy to shape.”

Gottschall acknowledges that fiction has its downsides. He writes:

“. . . those who are concerned about the messages in fiction — whether they are conservative or progressive — have a point. Fiction is dangerous because it has the power to modify the principles of individuals and whole societies. But fiction is doing something that all political factions should be able to get behind. Beyond the local battles of the culture wars, virtually all storytelling, regardless of genre, increases society’s fund of empathy and reinforces an ethic of decency that is deeper than politics.”

Eric Liebetrau, reviewing Gottschall’s work in a piece for The Boston Globe, affirms the power of fiction, saying: “Contrary to conventional wisdom, fiction is not just a method for escaping harsh reality.” Quoting Gottschall, Liebetrau points out that fiction serves as a “powerful and ancient virtual reality technology that simulates the big dilemmas of human life.”

Gottschall’s final word:

“Fiction is often treated like a mere frill in human life, if not something worse. But the emerging science of story suggests that fiction is good for more than kicks. By enhancing empathy, fiction reduces social friction. At the same time, story exerts a kind of magnetic force, drawing us together around common values. In other words, most fiction, even the trashy stuff, appears to be in the public interest after all.”

Afterword: Gottschall’s analysis, explains Liebetrau, embraces “a host of different disciplines, including classic literature, psychology, social sciences, biology, neurology, religion, and evolutionary studies.” And Liebetrau adds that the author offers some “modest suggestions.”  For example:
• “Allow yourself to daydream. Daydreams are our own little stories. . . . ”
• “If you are a doubter, try to be more tolerant of the myths . . . . that help tie culture together. . . . ”
• “Read fiction . . . . it will make you more empathic and better able to navigate life’s dilemmas.”

Are you a perfectionist?

If so, we have some good news for you.  Two new books highlight the benefits of perfectionism and offer ways to harness its power. The first, called “The Perfectionist’s Handbook,” was authored by self-proclaimed perfectionist Jeff Szymanski who reviewed 20 years of research to frame his thesis.  The second, “Better By Mistake,” shares the healthiest sides of perfectionism.    

In the marketplace, as well as the kitchen table, perfectionism tends to take a bad rap.  Margarita Tartakovsky, associate editor at Psych Central (psychcentral.com), in reviewing Szymanski’s book, acknowledges that perfectionism can lead to anxiety, stress and paralysis.  But Tartakovsky, quoting Szymanski, says that “the problem with perfectionism isn’t in wanting things to be perfect, it’s in what we do with that desire.” Quoting Szymanski:

“. . . Research on perfectionism has found that striving to achieve personal standards (your intention) isn’t where the problem occurs. Instead, people run into trouble when they become preoccupied with making mistakes and doubting themselves excessively. These ineffective strategies are, in fact, what get in the way of reaching our desired outcomes.”

Tartakovsky explains: “Instead of eliminating your perfectionism, Szymanski helps you determine a way to use it so it actually works for you.”

Author Alina Tugend, in “Better By Mistake,” strongly supports the notion that there’s such a thing as healthy perfectionism.  Psych Central associate editor Therese Borchard both reviewed Tugend’s work and shared some of her own perfectionist tendencies.  In her blog for psychcentral.com, Borchard said: “Although perfectionism undoubtedly brings me suffering and pain, I’ve come to appreciate the snobby part of my personality because it also bears gifts, especially over time.”

Borchard defines adaptive perfectionists as those “who have perfectionist tendencies without having those tendencies rule, or ruin, their lives.”  Conversely, maladaptive perfectionists “need to be the best at everything, and if they make a mistake, it’s a crisis. . . . They have to hit all their marks all the time. Their need for perfectionism can sabotage their own success.”

If you’re a perfectionist, don’t fight it.  Instead, turn to Szymanski and Tugend for pathways to success.

-------------

Afterword, on the drawbacks to perfectionism, from psychologist Mel Schwartz:

“In our culture we move relentlessly toward greater emphasis on achievement and goal attainment. We ask our children what their grade was, not what they learned. We tend to measure our lives in terms of success and achievement and lose perspective on what it may mean to live well. This ruptures any sense of balance in our lives. We seem to lose the capacity for wonder and awe. Could you imagine looking at a magnificent rainbow and complaining that the width of one color was imperfect because it was narrower than the other colors? Not only would that be ridiculous, we’d also be ruining the splendor of the moment. And yet that is exactly what we do when we judge ourselves for our imperfections. We forget that as humans we’re part of nature, as well. As such, we would benefit if we came into acceptance of the natural flow of life, which by the way, happens to be imperfect.”

We know how intelligent you are, but how curious are you?

Think about life’s most eminent skills.  Chances are, curiosity won’t make your top 10, but new research out of Europe maintains that curiosity is a critical personality trait, and not just in the classroom, in the workplace as well.  And Jonathan Mugan (author of “The Curiosity Cycle”) would quite agree, maintaining that as technology advances, human beings must strive to improve the most unique of human qualities: curiosity and creativity.

Let’s first step inside the classroom.  For decades, just two personality traits have been linked to academic achievement – intelligence and conscientiousness.  But research published last fall out of the University of Edinburgh has added a third: curiosity.  The research revealed that curiosity and conscientiousness (that is, the inclination to go to class and do your homework), when combined, have as significant an effect on performance as intelligence.  The study’s authors conclude: “Our results highlight that a ‘hungry mind’ is a core determinant of individual differences in academic achievement.” So it’s no surprise that lead author Sophie von Stumm encourages teachers to “inspire curiosity” in their students, “to make them engaged and independent learners.”

Stumm also draws a tie-line to the working world.  In an article published by the Association of Psychological Science, Stumm explained: "It's easy to hire someone who has the done the job before and hence, knows how to work the role. . . . But it's far more interesting to identify those people who have the greatest potential for development, i.e. the curious ones."

Now back to Mugan, whose new book “The Curiosity Cycle” seeks to highlight both the role and importance of curiosity. Mugan’s background is in psychology and computer science and he offered these insights in a Q&A interview with singularity.com:

• What robots can’t do (yet) – Said Mugan: “We humans have brawn, brains, and dexterity. In the workplace, machines first replaced our brawn. They then started to replace the primitive aspects of our thinking ability such as number crunching. We have highly precise manufacturing and surgical robots, but we still don’t have affordable robots that can manipulate objects in unstructured environments. This leaves us with the creativity needed for the arts, sciences, and high-level strategic decisions, and the dexterous ability needed for tasks like hairstyling.”
• Skills we should de-emphasize – Mugan explained: “With the steady improvement in computer intelligence, some skills such as memorization should be de-emphasized, while others such as creativity are becoming more important. With smart computers like Watson being able to answer arbitrary questions of fact, the asking of insightful questions becomes more important.”
• Socks and shoes (and why it takes kids so long to put them on) – In the Q&A interview, Mugan quickly stepped through the evolution of cognitive development.  His synthesis: “In the mid-20th century, Jean Piaget proposed a now-famous theory of cognitive development whereby children constructed new knowledge from previous knowledge, and their development progressed in stages. More recently, Leslie Cohen proposed an information processing theory of cognitive development in which children are endowed with a domain-general information processing system that they use to bootstrap knowledge. Jean Mandler refers to this information processing that children do to construct knowledge as ‘perceptual meaning analysis.’ Developmental psychologists have also described learning as a process of active exploration. Eleanor Gibson proposed that human children are endowed with systems to allow them to explore and learn about the world. She emphasized that it was this exploration that enabled cognitive development. Alison Gopnik stresses that children explore to learn new things while adults are more rigid and exploit previous knowledge. Presumably, this is why it takes young children so incredibly long to put on their socks and shoes.”

So how does one become more curious?  Perhaps by adopting the role of explorer, of a person who consistently examines, investigates and explores.  In short, we need only ask one question:  Why?

Want to be happier? Then just change this one thing . . .

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life . . . change your personality.  That’s the bottom line thesis from a study published by psychologists from England and Australia. Their argument, in brief:

1. Personality is the single largest predictor of life satisfaction.  That is, of all the possible factors which influence our enjoyment of life, personality is the clear #1 (over and above income, marital status, job, possessions, etc.). 
2. So if you want to enjoy life more (think well-being, happiness), your next move might be to re-orient your personality, even before you head to monster.com, eHarmony or your local car dealer.  Explains lead study author Dr. Chris Boyce, from the University of Manchester’s School of Psychological Sciences: "We found that our personalities can and do change over time – something that was considered improbable until now – and that these personality changes are strongly related to changes in our well-being. Compared with external factors, such as a pay raise, getting married or finding employment, personality change is just as likely and contributes much more to improvements in our personal well being."

For decades, the prevailing view in both psychology and economics has been that personality is fixed. The study authors explain: “The traditional perspective in psychology is that personality is relatively enduring and stable – essentially personality has been thought of as fixed, particularly after the age of 30, where it has been said to be ‘set like plaster’ (Costa & McCrae, 1980, 1988). Any apparent change across time was attributed to measurement error.”  But research over the last decade has started change that view, with researchers claiming that personality is quite malleable and should be now considered more like “soft plaster.”

The implications, of course, are far ranging.   Consider two: 

1. Public policy.  British Prime Minister David Cameron has suggested that a measure of a nation’s ‘happiness’ may be a better indicator of national performance that GDP (Gross Domestic Product) alone.  And he is moving forward on an unprecedented project (that he first proposed in 2010) to explore how happy his nation is. His national survey will touch on unemployment, family, education and crime, but will also, according to a news report in The Sun, pose these four subjective questions:  1. how happy did you feel yesterday ?  2. how anxious did you feel yesterday?  3. how satisfied are you with your life nowadays; and  4. to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?

Traditionally, the study authors explain, public policy has focused on economic factors, “such as increasing income or reducing unemployment, which are believed to be important ways in which an individual might obtain higher well-being.  However, our data suggests that a better way to understand how we might improve our well-being could be to focus on who we are and how we relate to the world around us.”  For example, changes in personality may lead to greater community involvement and an increase in the “willingness of individuals to work together to form mutually beneficial solutions,” according to the study authors.

2. Personality intervention.  The key, of course, is figuring out which personality characteristics to build, and which to shed.  And the key will be to learn more where we stand on the Big Five personality characteristics, which are: agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, extroversion (sociability, assertiveness)and neuroticism (e.g., the tendency to respond with negative emotions to threatening situations, frustration and loss). 
And if we begin to re-shape our personalities, how might we (and society) benefit?   
     -- Agreeableness . . . helps predicts better quality relationships;
     -- Conscientiousness  . . . is linked to achievement;
     -- Openness . . . is linked to intelligence and artistic talents; and
     -- Positive affect (more extroversion, less neuroticism) . . . helps individuals deal with stress.

 

Positive affect.  Hmmm.  I’ve always wanted to be better at dealing with stress. 

The study was conducted by Christopher Boyce and Alex Wood from the University of Manchester, UK, and Nattavudh Powdthavee from the London School of Economic and the University of Melbourne. They used a large data set of 7,500 individuals from Australia who answered questions on life satisfaction and personality, at two points in time.