Definitional ambiguities in character strengths: A comparative analysis with personality and other psychobiological attributes

IF 2.6 2区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Research in Personality Pub Date : 2024-02-03 DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104469

Alexander G. Stahlmann , Gian Carlo Arbenz , Willibald Ruch

{"title":"Definitional ambiguities in character strengths: A comparative analysis with personality and other psychobiological attributes","authors":"Alexander G. Stahlmann , Gian Carlo Arbenz , Willibald Ruch","doi":"10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Character strengths lack a consensual definition, creating ambiguity in psychological research. This exploratory study tests whether previously discussed ideas about character strengths’ shared qualities (e.g., <em>fulfilling, morally valued, traitlike</em>) distinguish them from related concepts, such as the Big Five. Ten laypersons rated 12 of these “criteria” across 80 character strengths adjectives and 170 that pertained to the Big Five, emotions, anatomy, and bodily states. Results indicate that one or two criteria suffice to define character strengths with about 74% accuracy. However, these criteria could not distinguish character strengths from the Big Five, suggesting they may belong to the same conceptual category. We recommend adopting one of five working definitions based on these findings when introducing character strengths in future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Personality","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 104469"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656624000175/pdfft?md5=1bd353ad6049b6f88effc8156144eee5&pid=1-s2.0-S0092656624000175-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Personality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656624000175","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Character strengths lack a consensual definition, creating ambiguity in psychological research. This exploratory study tests whether previously discussed ideas about character strengths’ shared qualities (e.g., fulfilling, morally valued, traitlike) distinguish them from related concepts, such as the Big Five. Ten laypersons rated 12 of these “criteria” across 80 character strengths adjectives and 170 that pertained to the Big Five, emotions, anatomy, and bodily states. Results indicate that one or two criteria suffice to define character strengths with about 74% accuracy. However, these criteria could not distinguish character strengths from the Big Five, suggesting they may belong to the same conceptual category. We recommend adopting one of five working definitions based on these findings when introducing character strengths in future research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

性格优势定义的模糊性：与人格和其他心理生物学属性的比较分析

性格优势缺乏一致的定义，给心理学研究带来了模糊性。这项探索性研究检验了之前讨论过的关于性格优势共同品质的观点（如满足感、道德价值、特质）是否将性格优势与五大性格优势等相关概念区分开来。十位非专业人士对 80 个性格优势形容词中的 12 个 "标准 "和 170 个与五大性格优势、情绪、解剖学和身体状态相关的形容词进行了评分。结果表明，一到两个标准就足以定义性格优势，准确率约为 74%。然而，这些标准并不能将性格优势与五大性格优势区分开来，这表明它们可能属于同一概念范畴。我们建议在未来的研究中引入性格优势时，根据这些发现采用五个工作定义中的一个。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Research in Personality PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

6.10%

发文量

102

审稿时长

67 days

期刊介绍： Emphasizing experimental and descriptive research, the Journal of Research in Personality presents articles that examine important issues in the field of personality and in related fields basic to the understanding of personality. The subject matter includes treatments of genetic, physiological, motivational, learning, perceptual, cognitive, and social processes of both normal and abnormal kinds in human and animal subjects. Features: • Papers that present integrated sets of studies that address significant theoretical issues relating to personality. • Theoretical papers and critical reviews of current experimental and methodological interest. • Single, well-designed studies of an innovative nature. • Brief reports, including replication or null result studies of previously reported findings, or a well-designed studies addressing questions of limited scope.