Are character strength-based positive interventions effective for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes? A meta-analytic review

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Justine Bates-Krakoff, Allison Parente, Robert McGrath, Tayyab Rashid, Ryan M. Niemiec
{"title":"Are character strength-based positive interventions effective for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes? A meta-analytic review","authors":"Justine Bates-Krakoff, Allison Parente, Robert McGrath, Tayyab Rashid, Ryan M. Niemiec","doi":"10.5502/ijw.v12i3.2111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on strengths-based positive interventions (SBPIs) has often supported their effectiveness, but these studies overwhelmingly focus on experiential outcomes such as affect and subjective well-being. Much less is known about their effectiveness for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes. The current article provides a lexicon to clarify distinctions between various types of positive interventions. This is followed by a meta-analysis of studies examining behavioral outcomes from SBPIs. Multiple databases were searched through October 2020. Out of 418 studies evaluating what could be considered SBPIs, only 48 analyses across 29 articles examined group differences in a behavioral outcome. Random-effects meta-analysis of post-test data revealed a small to medium, statistically significant effect, Hedges’ g= 0.32. Evidence was insufficient to suggest small-study or methodological bias. SBPIs seemed effective for eliciting behavioral change relative to control conditions consistent with prior meta-analyses. However, the available data are too limited to support SBPIs as an alternative to traditional approaches that focus on direct symptom reduction.","PeriodicalId":36390,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Wellbeing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Wellbeing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v12i3.2111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research on strengths-based positive interventions (SBPIs) has often supported their effectiveness, but these studies overwhelmingly focus on experiential outcomes such as affect and subjective well-being. Much less is known about their effectiveness for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes. The current article provides a lexicon to clarify distinctions between various types of positive interventions. This is followed by a meta-analysis of studies examining behavioral outcomes from SBPIs. Multiple databases were searched through October 2020. Out of 418 studies evaluating what could be considered SBPIs, only 48 analyses across 29 articles examined group differences in a behavioral outcome. Random-effects meta-analysis of post-test data revealed a small to medium, statistically significant effect, Hedges’ g= 0.32. Evidence was insufficient to suggest small-study or methodological bias. SBPIs seemed effective for eliciting behavioral change relative to control conditions consistent with prior meta-analyses. However, the available data are too limited to support SBPIs as an alternative to traditional approaches that focus on direct symptom reduction.
基于性格力量的积极干预措施对引发积极的行为结果有效吗?元分析综述
对基于优势的积极干预(SBPIs)的研究通常支持其有效性,但这些研究绝大多数关注于体验结果,如情感和主观幸福感。人们对它们在引发积极行为结果方面的有效性知之甚少。本文提供了一个词汇来澄清各种类型的积极干预之间的区别。随后进行了一项荟萃分析,研究了sbpi的行为结果。在2020年10月之前对多个数据库进行了搜索。在418项评估sbpi的研究中,29篇文章中只有48项分析研究了行为结果的群体差异。后验数据的随机效应荟萃分析显示了小到中等的统计学显著效应,赫奇斯的g= 0.32。没有足够的证据表明存在小规模研究或方法学偏差。与先前的荟萃分析一致,sbpi在诱导相对于对照条件的行为改变方面似乎有效。然而,现有的数据太有限,无法支持将sbpi作为传统方法的替代方案,传统方法侧重于直接减轻症状。
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
International Journal of Wellbeing
International Journal of Wellbeing Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信